Jump to content

Talk:Xueyantuo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation to Bo Yang

[edit]

After some further checking -- are you using a newer version of Bo's version of Zizhi Tongjian than the one that I use? The page citation you gave, in my copy, goes to somewhere in the vol. 50 range, not vol. 46, nor does it support your assertion that the surname was Yishi and not Xue. In any case, though, it's fairly well attested that at least Duomozhi used "Xue." --Nlu (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eiorgiomugini"

My edition of Bo Yang used Yishi (which I cited down below with ISBN), not Xue, and I'm not asserting anythings, is as simple as that. So I'm gonna switch it to Yishi. Also mine is actually the 平装版 from YL. Eiorgiomugini 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The copy I have is the original "magazine" edition. (My vol. 45 was printed in 1988.) I assume Bo changed his mind later. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again. While vol. 45 does use Yishi (even in my copy), vol. 46 and on used "Xue" throughout. (See, e.g., the entries in 638.) Is that the case in your copy as well? If so, that should be addressed. --Nlu (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had just back home, I will made cross-reference with you later, I have two edition, one from YL another from 友谊出版社 written in GB. Eiorgiomugini 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing the sources as much as I could, however there are just too much to be consider to list them all.

  • For Yishibo there are no surname listed for him under p. 11,607 (mentioned 2 times) from vol.45.
  • For Yi'nan, his surname was Yishi under p. 11,607 (1 time), 11,633 (4 times), 11,640 (1 time) from vol. 45, 11,774 (1 time), 11,875 (1 time), 11,876 (7 times), 11,878 (1 time), 11,826 (1 time), 11,839 (1 time), 11,902 (3 times) from vol. 46 and 11,922 (4 time) from vol. 47.
  • For Bazhuo, his surname was Yishi under 11,922 (4 time) from vol. 47.
  • For Duomozhi, his surname was Yishi under 11,945 (2 times) from vol. 47.

For the line 薛延陀所以匍匐稽颡，惟我所欲，不敢骄慢者，以新为君长，杂姓非其种族 from Tongjian vol.197, Bo yang made a literal translation as 乙失夷南所以如此匍匐跪下叩头，隨我們擺佈，不敢驕傲怠慢，只因他新近才被封可汗，其他部落又都不姓乙失，不是一個種族. Edition from GB listed all three khans as Yishi except for Yishibo. Btw, I'm not sure whether 薛咄摩 can be addressed as Duomozi, both two are like 44 years apart, and their titles are different, one "右玉钤卫大将军" (from the vol. 204. you listed) another "右武卫将军" according to Tangshu. Regards. Eiorgiomugini 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that the references to Xue Duomozhi/Duomo were to the same person seems fairly clear from the accounts in the New Book of Tang, vol. 217, part 2.[1], particularly in light of Quan Xiancheng's assertion that both he and Xue were "barbarians." Can you see what is the date that you have on the Yuanliu version that you have? And are the page numbers that you used from the Yuanliu edition? --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All pages addressed are from YL. And it seems fairly clear that Bo yang did asserted Yishi as their surname. I'm actually thinking to leave the surname out of the content since is pretty much controversy as shown from several sources, and it seemed quite unnecessary to address their 'surname' as well. I would suggests you not to waste any time to search for source and refute this petty issue of surname. The dates are all first printed in 1980s. What version are you using? If is not published, is better to follow mine. For Xue Duozhi, Bo yang only explained Quan Xiancheng was koguryo and Xue duozhi as Xueyantuo, nothing implied he was Duomozhi, which was a name shared among other including Turgesh, according to my book in Tujue shi it is actually an official title. For Tanghuiyao, it actually addressing both Xue and Yantuo are two tribes initially, explanations can seen from several published books. Regards. Eiorgiomugini 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edition I have was published, but was published legally as a a magazine to receive preferable postal rates and mail priority within Taiwan, in 1988. Leaving the surname off might be a good idea. --Nlu (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed their name, and created a section for the surname of khans. If you think the references should not be kept, please change it or remove the section. Eiorgiomugini 18:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

[edit]

Whether Xueyantuo and Syr-Tardash are actually the same people is somewhat disputed, and in any case, Xueyantuo is a more attested name and should be used. (Not to mention that it hasn't even been clearly established that the Xueyantuo were Turkic rather than Hunnic.) --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course every nation mentioned in Chinese sources should be named in Chinese, so that a non-Chinese editor could neither pronounce it nor find it in English Wikipedia. Good logic. What is Russia's name in Chinese? --Ghirla-трёп- 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Xueyantuo is a more attested name and should be used", WP:NC guides us to use the name adopted in modern English-language scholarly publications. After comparing this and this, I consider the case closed. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not responding. There's insufficient evidence presented that Xueyantuo and Syr-Tardush were actually the same people. Further, it is not the case that there is a Xueyantuo language that the Xueyantuo should be known it. What language the Xueyantuo people spoke is simply unknown. Therefore, if you're comparing modern references, you need to use the name that is reasonably certain to actually refer to the same people. Further, under WP:NCI, self-identity is preferred, and there is insufficient evidence that the Xueyantuo referred to themselves as Syr-Tardush while they, at least to the Chinese, referred to themselves as Xueyantuo. --Nlu (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you say. Following your logic, I should write a separate article about Syr-Tardush and then we shall stick merge tags to them both? Ok, I will follow your advice. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought: I feel that I made a legitimate point, and your response is hardly civil. Please keep WP:CIV in mind. Further, ethnocentrism, whether Turkocentrism or Sinocentrism, is not WP:NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that my edits are in violation of some guideline, you are welcome to launch an official complaint. I discuss content not personalities, unlike our mutual friend who asked you to defend his edits on this page. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one should asked for consensus before moving this page, claiming something like Xueyantuo is a Chinese name is clearly a mistake. It just shown your arrogance to this subject itself and nothing more. Other than your reason that they were not Chinese, I see no reason for you to move this page seriously. Considering the fact almost all context used Xueyantuo, wouldn't it be more odd than changing the article name to Syr-Tardush, not to mention all these khan titles and names, are you gonna translate them into the Turkic language as well. And even modern English-language scholarly Britannica used Xueyantuo, how ironic. Eiorgiomugini 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Syr-Tardush are called Xueyantuo in publications dealing with China. Since the Britannica mentions them only once, in their article about the Tang dynasty, they are correct to use the name familiar from Chinese sources. Our article is not about China, however, so we should go with the native name, not its Chinese, Russian or Indian transliterations. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how is the article about the Tang dynasty called Xueyantuo instead of Syr-Tardush relevant to this, infact they addressed both, if they're trying to compromise for the Chinese readers, shouldn't they just used Chinese instead. And I dont consider your assumption and personal opinion are even a good argument either to justify an usage in an encyclopedia. Even if it is once, is more than enough, given the fact that the Britannica is a highly reputed encyclopedia. Eiorgiomugini 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:NC guides us" Well, WP:NC said nothing about English-language scholarly publications, but even the term is non-English by nature. That would be something that the guildline shouldn't applied with. "What is Russia's name in Chinese?" Why would a russian name appeared in Chinese sources anyway? Even if they do, I believe it had little to do with the topic here. "After comparing this and this" How ironic, how about comparing this and this, shouldn't the same be said to you?
I have to agree on Nlu that the Xueyantuo did not referred themselves as Syr-Tardush, and neither does the Syr-Tardush from the Turkic inscriptions. Unlike the Syr-Tardush appeared in the tombstones, the Xuayantuo's presence in the Chinese sources was clearly historial figure by nature even at its early age of history, not some myth legend that appeared only in speech within one or two passages. Eiorgiomugini 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are incapable of understanding the difference between Google Search (a repository of original research and wild-eyed speculations having little do with academia) and Google Books (a depository of printed books, mostly peer-reviewed and reflecting modern scholarly attitudes) I see no point in continuing this discission. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are incapable of understanding a reaching consensus before moved this page, you should do a favor on your own and stop embarrassing yourself. All in all, I see no point in discussion with you either. A google search hits result can be as good as google book result, it should not be considers as original research, but good indication of popularly usage on the term. Eiorgiomugini 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to alter our naming conventions if your argument is to be taken seriously. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You'll have to alter our naming conventions if your argument is to be taken seriously" Oh really? I thought you had said is pointless in continuing this discussion by the way? Eiorgiomugini 06:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xueyantuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xueyantuo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

Shouldn't the Protectorate General to Pacify the North be mentioned in this article, if only briefly? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xueyantuo&oldid=1230497593"