Talk:Yuan dynasty/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Yuan dynasty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Intermarriage between castes
This entire passage is irrelevant to Mongol rule over China. It is a feeble and chauvanistic writing to show han Chinese male intermarriage with other ethnicities. What does this show other than han Chinese male insecurity?
"Shi Tianze was a Han Chinese who lived in the Jin dynasty. Interethnic marriage between Han and Jurchen became common at this time. His father was Shi Bingzhi (史秉直, Shih Ping-chih). Shi Bingzhi was married to a Jurchen woman (surname Na-ho) and a Han Chinese woman (surname Chang); it is unknown which of them was Shi Tianze's mother.[30] Shi Tianze was married to two Jurchen women, a Han Chinese woman, and a Korean woman, and his son Shi Gang was born to one of his Jurchen wives.[31] The surnames of his Jurchen wives were Mo-nien and Na-ho; the surname of his Korean wife was Li; and the surname of his Han Chinese wife was Shi.[30] Shi Tianze defected to Mongol forces upon their invasion of the Jin dynasty. His son Shi Gang married a Kerait woman; the Kerait were Mongolified Turkic people and were considered part of the "Mongol nation".[31][32]" has very little to do with the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty. it is a Chinese ethnocentric and chauvinistic addition highlighting marriage of non-han women with han Chinese that has nothing to do with the history of the article. PLEASE ERASE this passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.18.158 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There seems to have been no rules on intermarriage between the Semu caste and the Chinese, because these sources I found mention Chinese males marrying women from the Semu caste and even Mongols like the Kerait tribe during Yuan rule, and it made no mention about laws for marriage. (In most soceities with castes, men from lower castes are not allowed to marry women from upper castes) if someone can find laws on this or if these were exceptions then they should post their references here.
Shi Gang (1237-1315) was from a prominent Han family during the Yuan dynasty.
His father was Han, his mother was Jurchen and his wife was a Kerait. His father also had Korean and Han wives as well.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nCIPD1V39QkC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 204
Meng Fanfeng iS^ll# "A study of the Yuan painter Shi Gang's epitaph" Tnttfc&SfettiE&Bi, WW, 1997:7, pp 71-74 ^ Discovered in the northern area of Shijiazhuang city, ... The epitaph reveals that Shi Gang's life spanned the years 1237 to 1315.
His father Shi Tianze
Shi Tianzi and his Jurchen, Korean, and Han wives.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kG45gi7E3hsC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false
Other information about Shi
http://books.google.com/books?id=Pg8EGvilcLsC&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 200
Page 33
Of Meng-ku Pa-erh's seven sons, one was appointed to the office of Sung-chou ta -lu-hua-ch'ih/3 One of Meng-ku Pa-erh's six daughters married a son of the influential Shih T'ien-tse (1202-1275), a member of a Chinese clan that was recruited ...
Page 58
Page 208
Page 46
Page 52
Page 115
Page 86
Page 1483
Page 1483
Koko Temur (Wang Baobao) had a Chinese father and a Turkic mother (probably a Buddhist Uighur) and she most definitely belonged to Semu class and came from a pro-Mongol family, being the sister of Chagan Temür. Koko was elevated to the status of a Mongol for his loyalty in fighting against Chinese rebels. The Ming dynasty Hongwu Emperor married Koko Temur's sister to his own brother Zhu Shuang after capturing her.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SQWW7QgUH4gC&pg=PA522#v=onepage&q&f=false
04:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Yuan dynasty. 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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160112114820/https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/ to https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/node/44
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091202081843/http://www.grandhistorian.com:80/chinesesiegewarfare/index-english12122007.html to http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/index-english12122007.html
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Yuan Dynasty 1294.png
repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:7800:A4A6:FC00:3867:C4CB:D266:E689 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- @2403:7800:A4A6:FC00:3867:C4CB:D266:E689: I have started a discussion, and leave an edit summary just want you come here to discuss. but you still revert my edit again and again and without any discussion; more ridiculous is, you slandered me "repeated vandalism"! you very impolite, rude and stubborn, you are the real vandalism. if you continue your action, I will report it to meta wiki.--122.90.89.103 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please, see the #Goryeo is only vassal of Yuan (not a part of), it is adopted by Chinese scholars. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Editors should stop clowning around and show some standards. If Goryeo isn't shown as part of the Yuan, then neither should the Kingdom of Qocho. Either show everything consistently or remove all the maps.Rajmaan (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Qocho ceased to be independent in 1335. The map on the article depicts the situation in 1345. Let's turn this around: what do you want to see in a theoretical map of the Yuan, and how should we make that happen? _dk (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Editors should stop clowning around and show some standards. If Goryeo isn't shown as part of the Yuan, then neither should the Kingdom of Qocho. Either show everything consistently or remove all the maps.Rajmaan (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- There was a surviving remnant of Qocho 察合台汗國回鶻亦都護 which came under the Chagatai Khanate until the Chagatais converted to Islam and destroyed Qocho during the Ming dynasty. The Duan family of the Kingdom of Dali were Maharajahs in Yunnan at Dali during the Yuan dynasty. Yunnan needs to be marked on a map of administrative divisions. Qocho and Duan both had the previous royal families holding titles under the Yuan. See File:Yuan Dynasty Administrative division.jpg Modifications need to be made since Qocho isn't properly labelled on it.Rajmaan (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Intermarriage between Mongols and Han were not illegal during Yuan dynasty
“諸色人同類自相婚姻者，各從本俗法；遞相婚姻者以男為主，蒙古人不在此限。”-- Kublai Khan
Elizabeth Endicott-West,"Mongolian Rule in China: Local Administration in the Yuan Dynasty", p123
— Preceding unsigned comment added by No1lovesu (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Tongloss
This editor has been involved in a slow motion edit war over extensive passages. Several editors have attempted to engage in discussion but with little success. When they do respond, they place comments in random spots on the talk page where they are difficult to find and so do not generate a response. See for example here, placed such that it looks like it is part of another user's comments from last year. Possibly a competency issue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted two edits because I got the impression that the edits were vandalism. Upon closer examination, that may not be the case, and I apologize to Tongloss. On the other hand, the paragraphs that Tongolss is removing do seem at first glance to be relevant to the topic. I'm not an expert, of course, but if the sources verify that Koreans were a relevant part of the history of this dynasty, this article should reflect that. Mz7 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Laszlo Panaflex. Han Chinese males are insecure about the history of the Yuan Dynasty because it was a time of Mongolian domination of China. Mongolians and Koreans (along with distant relations with Turks and Hungarians) are related to each other, so these Chinese wiki trolls are misconstruing Mongolian history and adding anything these trolls can to insult Korean history. At the very least, the passages I am removing or editing are relevant to the topic of the Mongolian Dynasty in China. Han Chinese marriage to women of different ethnicities misrepresents this time period of Mongolian imperial rule by making it seem like the han Chinese were ruling that time period, when in actuality they were servants to their Mongolian overlords. It gives an exact opposite impression to what actually transpired in history. Thank you for your apology, and I very much appreciate your attention to the propaganda being transmitted by Chinese wiki trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongolss (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I did not apologize to you; Mz7 did. You continue to remove content without first allowing discussion, and it is becoming increasingly disruptive. Your reasoning above appears highly POV, and does not seem to support what you are removing. As an example, one of the statements you remove is, "Massive numbers of Korean boy eunuchs, Korean girl concubines, falcons, ginseng, grain, cloth, silver, and gold were sent as tribute to the Mongol Yuan dynasty." This doesn't mention Han Chinese and hardly leaves the impression you claim. Please gain consensus of other editors before removing sourced content. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- This article has some odd material and emphasis that one wouldn't see in most books on this dynasty:
- the middle two paragraphs of the Background section, focussing on ethnicity
- the last paragraph of Founding the dynasty, about descendents of Confucius
- the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Military conquests and campaigns section, again focussing on ethnicity
- the last paragraph of the Impact section, on Ilkhanids
- the whole Imperial Harem section, focussing on Koreans
- the focus on Islam in the Religion section (the summary in the Social classes section would have been adequate)
- the last four paragraphs of the Social classes section, again focussing on ethnicity
- All of this material is referenced, but typically very poorly, to disparate Google books snippets, often passing mentions in books on other subjects. A particularly egregious example is a passage on Korean eunuchs and concubines in the Yuan with one of its citations to Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations.
- One would expect any account of the Yuan to deal with the ethnic makeup of the empire and the relations between the groups, but to do it in one place (say the Social classes section), not all the way through the article, where the intrusions disrupt the narrative. One would not expect the descendents of Confucius material at all.
- In summary, I would remove all the material deleted by Tongolss, and more, to focus the article on the Yuan rather than these ancillary topics. Kanguole 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- This article has some odd material and emphasis that one wouldn't see in most books on this dynasty:
- I'm not opposed per se to removal of the content or refocusing the article. I am urging a discussion of the issues rather than the slow motion edit war that has been going on for weeks now, involving numerous editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Tongolss: Please do not claim my support for your edits, as you did here, when you still refuse to discuss your edits here. Long explanations in edit summaries do not substitute for addressing the issue here and finding consensus, as Wikipedia standards require. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
For that IP who keep editing unreliable source and content
Read these:
and this:
In the process of the Mongols invasion of China proper, many Han Chinese were enslaved by the Mongols rulers.[1] According to Japanese historian Sugiyama Masaaki (杉山正明) and Funada Yoshiyuki (舩田善之), there were also certain number of Mongolian slaves owned by Han Chinese during Yuan. Moreover, there is no evidence that Han Chinese, who were considered people of the bottom of Yuan society by some research, were suffered a particularly cruel abuse.[2][3]
--No1lovesu (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rodriguez, Junius P. (1997). The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery. ABC-CLIO. p. 146. ISBN 9780874368857. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
- ^ Sugiyama Masaaki(杉山正明), "忽必烈的挑战 (Large turn of world history by the challenge of Mongolia Kublai Khan)", 社会科学文献出版社, 2013, p44-46
- ^ Funada Yoshiyuki, "The Image of the Semu People: Mongols, Chinese, Southerners, and Various Other Peoples under the Mongol Empire", Historical and Philological Studies of China's Western Regions, p199-221, 2014(04)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Yuan dynasty. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053840/http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9910seminar/download/all/B10.pdf to http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9910seminar/download/all/B10.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913134503/http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9910seminar/download/en/B10.pdf to http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9910seminar/download/en/B10.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161006175402/http://aas2.asian-studies.org/absts/1995abst/china/csess45.htm to http://aas2.asian-studies.org/absts/1995abst/china/csess45.htm
- Added archive https://archive.is/20150204113943/http://www.qz.gov.cn/English/Recent/201405/t20140519_278510.htm to http://www.qz.gov.cn/English/Recent/201405/t20140519_278510.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130712160429/http://archive/ to http://archive/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910171150/http://www.birminghammuseumstore.org/bmapu.html to http://www.birminghammuseumstore.org/bmapu.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217112014/http://islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf to http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217112014/http://islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf to http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia/China/China_integration%20of%20religious%20minority.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 05:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Sexist and pro-Chinese
the tone of the passages being edited are SEXIST and PRO-CHINESE chauvanistic and racist. Do you want non-chinese asians to resent and hate chinese people? at least remove these passages until more impartial passages can replace them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montalk123 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the earlier suggestions and observations which have not been addressed as of yet in this page (among many pages with similar pro-Chinese trolling revisionist content) Montalk123 (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't endorse the section heading, but I wrote more than a year ago:
- This article has some odd material and emphasis that one wouldn't see in most books on this dynasty:
- the middle two paragraphs of the Background section, focussing on ethnicity
- the last paragraph of Founding the dynasty, about descendents of Confucius
- the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Military conquests and campaigns section, again focussing on ethnicity
- the last paragraph of the Impact section, on Ilkhanids
- the whole Imperial Harem section, focussing on Koreans
- the focus on Islam in the Religion section (the summary in the Social classes section would have been adequate)
- the last four paragraphs of the Social classes section, again focussing on ethnicity
- All of this material is referenced, but typically very poorly, to disparate Google books snippets, often passing mentions in books on other subjects. A particularly egregious example is a passage on Korean eunuchs and concubines in the Yuan with one of its citations to Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations.
- One would expect any account of the Yuan to deal with the ethnic makeup of the empire and the relations between the groups, but to do it in one place (say the Social classes section), not all the way through the article, where the intrusions disrupt the narrative. One would not expect the descendents of Confucius material at all.
- This article has some odd material and emphasis that one wouldn't see in most books on this dynasty:
- No-one has addressed these issues in the interim, and yet the problematic material has remained by inertia, with attempts to remove it reverted. If anyone sees merit in this material, please point it out. Otherwise, I propose that it be deleted. Kanguole 10:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the rest of your bullets, but the last para of founding the dynasty about descendants of Confucius, as well as the imperial harem section and a couple other bits focusing on Koreans were all added without discussion by an editor who has since been banned. Would anyone object to me removing that content, considering it sticks out like a sore thumb and is not well-referenced or well-integrated into the article? —diff (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
That banned person is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Milktaco
A new person seems to be in agreement with that banned person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Opasney
The person he seems to have a dispute with seems to be in agreement with someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tongolss
Perhaps it would be best to remove the insertions of both parties?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.244.10.43 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Sections on controversial topics
The section I originally replied to had an inflammatory title, so I wanted to start a fresh section instead. As people might have noticed, there have been a couple of edit wars in the last year or two over a few sections that seem to attract a great deal of controversy. The problem as I see it is that at any given time, the content of the article puts undue weight on these controversial topics, and covers them in a non-neutral fashion. This attracts angry novice editors who then, without discussion, immediately replace that content with an argumentative alternative which is no better than what was there previously.
I have yet to see any version of the article to even attempt a good faith, encyclopedic treatment of the "Imperial harem" section. The topic is obviously incendiary for a number of reasons, and if we lack the evenhandedness and intellectual rigor to write well about it, we might as well remove it entirely. Any attempt to cover it can only reduce, not increase, the overall quality of the article. Only by removing it can there be a stable consensus on the remaining content, and everybody can cool off because there's one less thing to argue over. It's the least crappy solution.
Now, I'm sure someone will object to removing the imperial harem section, but it's my hope that it will at least be less controversial than having another heated debate about the contents of said section.
Thoughts? —diff (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- As you note, the "Imperial harem" section and similar parts represent undue weight for a broad article like this, which should be a survey of the whole dynasty. One would not normally find such a section even in longer surveys of the dynasty, such as in the Cambridge History of China or the Harvard History of Imperial China. They might have occasional references to the harem in connection with palace intrigues, rather than the peculiar focus on enslavement of Koreans seen here. That is sufficient reason for removal. Kanguole 10:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Missing information in Name section
The Name section has a good discussion of the various names of the dynasty, but never tells us what Yuan actually means. Kublai Khan couldn't have coined the word Yuan. It must have had some prior meaning. The article on the Chinese currency says that Yuan means something round, like a coin. I want to see an explanation of why Kublai Khan chose this word and what it was understood to mean. (I'm assuming here that the currency and the Mongol dynasty share the same name. But they might be two different words with the same english transliteration, which happens a lot with Chinese.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Adding a picture of the Cloud Platform
Hi there. I think that a picture of the Cloud Platform at Juyong Pass, a stunning Yuan arhcitectural feature and/or of its details (File:Deva King of the East.jpg) should be added to this article. What do you think?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Etymology
I got through the entire "Name" section without learning what the word Yuan means. It would be helpful to add this. Then I went to the article about the Yuan currency, which defined the term as "round," or a round coin. If that's what Kublai Khan meant when he gave the dynasty its name, the article should say so. If he meant something else, I'd like to know. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Society of Yuan dynasty
Rare Mongol warriors (possibly Vajrayana Buddhist) had gathered around "Kublai Khan".
These warriors secured the East Asian womenfolk.
They earned their victory along the "Silk Roads".
They built "Xanadu".
And eventually welcomed the foreigners known as ("Semu"). ~~\\\\22:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)~\ 137.59.221.36 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources removed by User:Gardenkur
Hello everyone. I just improved the article by adding three reliable sources to remove a bsn template 1, however, user User:Gardenkur undid my edit, claiming that the reliable sources are not reliable 2. Can someone else look at the sources as well as at the operate of User:Gardenkur? Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding and they made a mistake?--93.71.139.50 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Gardenkur am I right assuming you are not willing to discuss the matter, considering the time when I pinned you 1 and the time of your last edits 2? Should I seek resolution of the dispute elsewhere? Thanks--93.71.139.50 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
"Yuan dynasty/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yuan dynasty/Archive 1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Yuan dynasty/Archive 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Social class POVPUSH and OR
Recently User:Sumaiyahle has been making POVPUSH WP:OR changes in the Social classes section of the article regarding the placement of Koreans and Han Chinese in the Yuan dynasty social hierarchy. This includes deletion and alteration of content, some cited some not, containing info on Koreans and Han Chinese. The POVPUSH is to downplay the placement of Koreans under the the "Han" category in Yuan class hierarchy, either by deletion or emphasis on royal intermarriages between Mongol and Goryeo royalty. See [1] and [2] where Koreans were removed from the class categories and the ranking of Goryeo (cited) beneath the Uyghurs was removed. Their third POVPUSH attempt changed the definition of Han (class category) erroneously to imply it was two separate characters and the categorization of Koreans under it as a possibility rather than definite, both of which are original research, while emphasizing the lower class status of Han Chinese.
On a general note, pushes for the depiction of an autonomous or sovereign Korea (Goryeo) under Yuan rule such as in this instance or here seem overplayed. Regardless of royal intermarriage, Goryeo kings were appointed to their post, regularly dethroned, and even held captive by the Yuan Mongol rulers in the Yuan capital (Chunghye of Goryeo). A Yuan office for supervising and projecting Yuan political control over Goryeo, including stationing Mongol and non-Mongols such as Han and Jurchen officials, existed throughout the history of Goryeo under Mongol rule. Areas of northern Korea were exempt from Goryeo control. Goryeo was not a sovereign or autonomous state in most definitions of those words during the Yuan era.
Sumaiyahle has notable similarities to User:Tongolss edit history (IP) back in 2017. Both edited the to-do-list of this article with the same POV. What's interesting is that User:Rajmaan, a sock of User:Milktaco, also made a similar section on the topic back in 2014, and as far as I can tell, was the first one to do so. Milktaco is generally known for focusing on topics such as interracial marriage, sexual slavery, atrocities (especially related to sex), Islam, Muslims, but with a pro-Chinese slanted bias. This seems like a notable exception, and Milktaco appears to have gone to some lengths to obscure their history by renaming their Rajmaan account numerous times and creating countless sock accounts, so it would not surprise me if they made some opposition accounts focusing on contrary material to give off the appearance of being unrelated. The choice of name, Sumaiyahle, which is Arabic in origin, also seems odd for a one purpose account focused solely on the Yuan dynasty, Koreans, and Chinese. The above reasons led me to believe they might have been a sock of Rajmaan so I made a SPI report which resulted in an Unrelated result. Qiushufang (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I've realized that it was User:Tongolss who made the misleading first few sentences in the section created by Rajmaan several years after the fact [3], which makes the above theory completely bunk. Rajmaan, Tongolss and possibly their new account seem consistent with their biases. Sorry for the trouble. Qiushufang (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
On the subject of socks, confirmed Milktaco socks User:Solniun and User:Baternik's additions ([4] [5]) are still in the body. I don't have any particular opinions on the content but the section is a bit bloated, so either deletion or sectioning off could improve the article. Qiushufang (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Recently User:Qiushufang is making baseless accusations as outlined below and rightly described as "bunk". Defending a revisionist biased history to this article seems out of place with the intentions and mission of wikipedia in promoting a balanced consensus on historical facts. In addition, the changes described are in-line with the references made by other authors which were erroneously left out, such as the social hierarchy described within the article referenced by a previous author which was not included in the Yuan page, which gives a fuller, more accurate portrayal of social classes. Disambiguation of the term "Han" people is well within the parameters of this article, especially as there is a concerted effort to erase the history and cultures of non-Han people within the CCP of mainland China currently.
- Koryo (Korea) was different in realtionship to the Mongolian Empire than the conquered areas of China in that the royal family was incorporated into the Mongolian House through marriage while China was not. This afforded autonomy to the Korean state that was wholly different than the outright conquered kingdoms in China. I believe that User: Qiushufang needs to be reviewed for baseless claims and biased editing in addition to inappropriate comments about the "Arabic" origins of usernames.
Sumaiyahle (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please put comments at the bottom of a section with indentation as I have done for you. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect a new user whose behavior completely matches that of another user such as section blanking, one purpose povpush of a certain issue, to-do-list editing (odd for a new user), introducing WP:OR, and specific deletion and omission of sourced content. All of which would cause concern and reversion to begin with. The "disambiguation" of the term "Han" is the least of the problems here. Qiushufang (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- There are significant inconsistencies are Han-chinese revisionist biases in this article which you are promoting with your slanted editing and revisions . A glaring case in point is the failure to distinguish different Asian nations with international relations with the Mongolian Empire and rather trying to equate neighboring states and peoples as "Han" chinese, which is glaringly wrong, politically motivated, and racist.
- Ad hominem attacks are also inappropriate as a wikipedia user. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Sumaiyahle (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please put comments at the bottom of a section with indentation as I have done for you. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect a new user whose behavior completely matches that of another user such as section blanking, one purpose povpush of a certain issue, to-do-list editing (odd for a new user), introducing WP:OR, and specific deletion and omission of sourced content. All of which would cause concern and reversion to begin with. The "disambiguation" of the term "Han" is the least of the problems here. Qiushufang (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Pointing out WP:OR content not backed up by sources as you have added is not revisionist bias. Please see WP:RGW. Qiushufang (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Factual errors and historical bias
In a discussion of Mongolian imperial rule over chinese states, erroneous comments in this article that are inconsistent with outside academic sources (including those cited here by other wiki contributors) need to be scrubbed.
For example in the actual passage: Mote, Frederick W. (2003). Imperial China 900–1800. Harvard University Press. pp. 490–. ISBN 978-0-674-01212-7,
originally it stated "... the Han, a word usually meaning the ethnic Chinese but in Yuan usage designating the population of the conquered Jin territories of North China and Manchuria, thereby including not only the Chinese who lived there but also the rather substantial numbers of Khitans and Jurchens, even Koreans. Finally, at the bottom of the privilege ladder were the Chinese inhabitants of the Southern Song territories conquered after 1273;; they were called the Nanren, or “southerners.” They of course were by far the largest element...".
The wikipedia article had initially and erroneously had not had the disambiguation of the word "Han" as Frederick Mote had outlined in the referenced article (reference citation #170).
Also the problematic wikipedia article highlighted Koreans in relation to "the Kingdom of Qocho" in the "Social Classes" section. Talking at length and pointedly about other ethnic groups outside of China in a section on the chinese dynasty ruled by the Mongols is Han-chinese biased. Also, even by the problematic logic of the unsubstantiated claims within the current version of this wikipedia article, the Han-chinese inhabitants of the Song Dynasty should be "ranked last" and "at the bottom of the privilege ladder", and not any other group. This needs to be corrected by the editors who are not Han-chinese biased revisionists.
- Commenting on unrelated non-chinese peoples and states in an article dedicated to the Yuan dynasty is out of place.
- Koryo (Korea) and other non-Han chinese peoples and states should not be lumped into the same category as the wholly subjugated states of china which had no foreign relations with the Mongol court (they did not retain their royal members to interact with the Mongol court as other nations did)
- There is a dishonest and concerted effort to elevate the image of Han-chinese people at the expense of neighboring Asian groups, inconsistent both with historical fact and even the sources cited here which speaks to both academic inconsistency and CCP chinese style historical chauvanist revisionism.
References on CCP Han-chinese revisionist examples: 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297887287_China's_northeast_project_and_South_Korean-Chinese_relations 2. https://www.nbr.org/publication/chinas-quest-for-influence-in-northeast-asia-the-korean-peninsula-japan-and-the-east-china-sea/
Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I urge you to see WP:RGW and WP:OR as I answered above. Qiushufang (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have clarified the passage surrounding the Uyghurs and ranking. Made it clear that the Korean king was ranked last among the Uyghurs, Karluks, and Koreans rather than overall. As for the Han Chinese being ranked last I do not see any source info on that. The sources I have seen say that they were split in two, with the southern Chinese "Manzi" being the lowest class while Northern Chinese were grouped along with the other northerners including Khitans, Jurchens, and Koreans. Qiushufang (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I urge you to adhere to international standards of looking at chinese history. See reference from Frederick Mote on classification of Han chinese, southerners in particular, in being ranked last overall among all peoples. It is a direct cited quote. Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is already reflected in the article. Chinese Southerners are already their own category and are ranked last as noted in the article. The disambiguation of Han was kept and its different usage in the Yuan dynasty is also mentioned. I'm not sure what you are referring to that you want changed. Qiushufang (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I rearranged the passage since the flow is stilted in talking about different social groups in mixed order, since the Han-chinese of the Song dynasty were to be placed last. Also the word "rebuked" is strange and out of place in description and needlessly emotional in tone in describing foreign states neighboring China. Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've partially reverted your edit because the citation needs to be attached to the content, which was removed, and also because the two paragraphs are obviously talking about different situations. Neither the Han Chinese or situation with the other kingdoms were mentioned in conjunction to each other other than who surrendered first. The comparison was not between Chinese or Korean. Qiushufang (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wondered why there was a refbomb eight footnotes across citing a single claim in that paragraph! Guess I'll have to verify them or whatever. Any way we can narrow down this dispute to like three or four authoritative sources that deal with it in depth? Folly Mox (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the subject of contention, that Koreans were considered part of the "Han" class or equal to it during the Yuan dynasty, is not very controversial except outside of perhaps a few dedicated individuals. All the sources say nearly identical things. I assume somebody added all these references to "combat" the opposition. Qiushufang (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- All right I got distracted by other bits of the article but I'll see if I can't winnow the refbomb to a reasonable subset, or at least bundle them into a single footnote so it doesn't look so ridiculous.The sourcing on this article.... I've removed some extremely silly things. Hope I can get it all buttoned up in the next few hours. Folly Mox (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there are too many different sources, and too many cited incorrectly. We're probably down to two or three elementary level textbooks, and I think I got all the circular references and things that were completely irrelevant. I was not able to finish today, but the article is in a significantly better state than it was yesterday. Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Folly Mox, it is improved based on your editing. But there is more substantiation and more editing to be done that isn't biased and polluted with ethnic bias. Sumaiyahle (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there are too many different sources, and too many cited incorrectly. We're probably down to two or three elementary level textbooks, and I think I got all the circular references and things that were completely irrelevant. I was not able to finish today, but the article is in a significantly better state than it was yesterday. Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- All right I got distracted by other bits of the article but I'll see if I can't winnow the refbomb to a reasonable subset, or at least bundle them into a single footnote so it doesn't look so ridiculous.The sourcing on this article.... I've removed some extremely silly things. Hope I can get it all buttoned up in the next few hours. Folly Mox (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the subject of contention, that Koreans were considered part of the "Han" class or equal to it during the Yuan dynasty, is not very controversial except outside of perhaps a few dedicated individuals. All the sources say nearly identical things. I assume somebody added all these references to "combat" the opposition. Qiushufang (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wondered why there was a refbomb eight footnotes across citing a single claim in that paragraph! Guess I'll have to verify them or whatever. Any way we can narrow down this dispute to like three or four authoritative sources that deal with it in depth? Folly Mox (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've partially reverted your edit because the citation needs to be attached to the content, which was removed, and also because the two paragraphs are obviously talking about different situations. Neither the Han Chinese or situation with the other kingdoms were mentioned in conjunction to each other other than who surrendered first. The comparison was not between Chinese or Korean. Qiushufang (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I rearranged the passage since the flow is stilted in talking about different social groups in mixed order, since the Han-chinese of the Song dynasty were to be placed last. Also the word "rebuked" is strange and out of place in description and needlessly emotional in tone in describing foreign states neighboring China. Sumaiyahle (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is already reflected in the article. Chinese Southerners are already their own category and are ranked last as noted in the article. The disambiguation of Han was kept and its different usage in the Yuan dynasty is also mentioned. I'm not sure what you are referring to that you want changed. Qiushufang (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently User:Qiushufang admitted to authoring the POVPUSH WP:OR changes in the "Social classes" section and the Han-chinese revisionist bias evident in the passage. Qiushufang inappropriately commenting and theorizing about motivations based on the "Arabic" nature of my username and his multiple reversions to Han-chinese revisionist historical stance is reprehensible and considered edit warring and will be reported. Sumaiyahle (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Unsure what you mean by OR/POVPUSH changes again. If you mean the above comment on the citation bomb, I said somebody did that, not that I did. Diff links might clarify your point. Here are all the times I've edited this article. If you would like to report me, you can do so here and here. Like I said Qiushufang (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)