Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 16:25, 21 December 2024

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion will not reach consensus no matter how much longer it is left to run. There is evidence of canvassing, but even if I ignored that, the discussion below gives no clear result for deletion or retention. I suggest that the article appears (from the discussion) to require a bit of cleaning up - try this ovr the next few months, and if there are still issues worthy of a deletion discussion, open a new one at that time. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia during Tang rule

Mongolia during Tang rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Content fork.

No real sources unless you count primary ones, or "Smith, p. 4711" or "Cambridge History of China, vol. 11" without page number. Some rather strange claims (like Chinese conquered the Russian steppe), a somewhat unclear reference to the Khitan people who were far from dominating in the area at the time - and whose exact ethnic affiliations are not really as clear as that strange reference seems to imply - and a lot of stuff that has no obvious relation to Mongolia at all. Most of the content for this article has been removed from Han Chinese a while ago (like here by myself or here by someone else). Valid content - for several decades in the 7th century, the Göktürks were subjects of the Tang dynasty - is treated much better in Tang Dynasty#Turkish and Western regions, Protectorate General to Pacify the North, History of Mongolia#Turkic_Period and Göktürks. Yaan (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Turn into redirect to History of Mongolia#Turkic_Period. This seems more appropriate than the others, even if just because of the word "Mongolia" being contained in the article title. Yaan (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

please note that all "delete" votes on this page are the result of canvssing by User:G Purevdorj, evidence is at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This non-signed user vandalized my talk page with the non-sense content with the offensive remarks, i.e. "GenuineMongol, you got owned", before G.Purevdorj notified me of the existence of such article. Are there any alive administrators out there to stop this vandal spitting all over the Mongolian related pages? See Talk:Mongolia. I removed the same remark from my talk page. See the history of my talk page. I am all for the deletion of the article. --GenuineMongol (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete _{Gantuya eng had earlier (while the text is now below) already given the same vote, so this one isn't valid. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)}: That non-signed user has been vandalising Misplaced Pages since mid-December. Some editors call his behaviour "Chinese Chauvinism", but to me his behaviour seems to be even worse and very unhealthy. Sorry if it sounds like personal attack, but his behaviour reminds me a pathological condition rather than any form of an extreme political stream. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is an important subject, and the article should be improved apon. -download | sign! 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Important topic in the history of a country. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The content reflects traditional Chinese history conceptions, not a picture of history as could be reached by using sources not intended for tradition. I don't see any way to mend it as the topic is inherently biased and, as Yaan pointed out, you cannot really speak of an effective Chinese rule. Why not write an article about pre-Heian Japan under Chinese rule? Nominally, they were in some sense, but no one would think of writing such nonsense. This article is pure Chinese chauvinism and deserves to be deleted. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WRONG-accordinig to WHITE MAN Kenneth Scott Latouretter Han chinese emperor Tang taizong owned the gokturks and khitans, and was crowned khagan of the gokturks and since gokturk territory controlled mongolia, he owned mongolia. last time i checked, he wasnt chinese. Kenneth Scott Latourette has a PHD in oriental studies at yale university, unlike you.

The Chinese and their History and Culture" by Kenneth Scott Latouretter FOURTH REVISED EDITION 56892 Library of Congress card number- 64-17372 Printed by Macmillan ISBN 0-8160-2693-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

note that G Purevdorj has canvassed at least six pro mongolian editors starting from this edit. taking a look at all his next edits, he is trying to hide the blatant POV canvassing by switching into mongol language. all the other people who voted "delete" have a message left by him on their talk pages to hurry here and vote delete. as they all work primarily on mongol related topics and have pro mongol POV, these votes have to be struck out.

You don't make sense on this point. Users working primary on Mongolian-related topics can also considererd to be more knowledgable than editors that don't know what the article is about. And while you point out that Gantuya eng clearly opposed this article from the start and so notifying her (albeit not in this fashion) was very obviously justified, you ALSO argue that her argument should be stuck out because she was rallied! You may notice that it is the Mongolia-related editors that actually address content, while the other editors are just impressed by some references that they cannot assess. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

G purevdorj, read wP:CANVASS on yo ur actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WRONG-accordinig to WHITE MAN Kenneth Scott Latouretter Han chinese emperor Tang taizong owned the gokturks and khitans, and was crowned khagan of the gokturks and since gokturk territory controlled mongolia, he owned mongolia. last time i checked, he wasnt chinese. Kenneth Scott Latourette has a PHD in oriental studies at yale university, unlike you.

The Chinese and their History and Culture" by Kenneth Scott Latouretter FOURTH REVISED EDITION 56892 Library of Congress card number- 64-17372 Printed by Macmillan ISBN 0-8160-2693-9

Gantuya eng correctly pointed out below that this article is trying to ignite hatred between Chinese and Mongolians, and you're obviously quite aware that you're continuing in this vein. You don't need to be Chinese to do so. Eg it would be possible to detail the systematic bias persisting in a sinology originally devoid of ancillary sciences. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lautorette had a PHD inj oriental studies and is not sinocentrist. otherwise he wouldnt have tried to convert them to christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.30 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete 1. Mongolia did not exist when the Tang dynasty shortly invaded the Turkic khanates, so Mongolia could not be subject to the Tang rule. 2. Article Göktürks has mentioned the short invasion. So, there is no need and basis for creating this article. It must be deleted. GenuineMongol (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

physical area of mongolia was ruled by tang dynasty. and latouretter said the khitans were mongols, and he had a PHD in oriental studies at yale university, unlike you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.126 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Doctor Kenneth Skot latourete, who is a PHD unlike me says Khitans and turks were Mongols. It's illiterate. He also say Byzantines are turks? Monkh Naran (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete "Mongolia under Tang?" To me it doesn't sound scientific. There was a short period of Tang occupation during the Turkic Kaganate, and that period has already been described in other articles in a more scientific way. In addition, the author of this "article" is the same person who, under varying IP numbers, persisted inserting veiled vandalism in China and Mongolia related articles intentionally trying to humiliate the histories of these two modern nations and trying to ignite hatred between these two friendly peoples beginning from mid-December. In this light, the "Mongolia under Tang rule" article is also seen as a veiled vandalism. This is also proved by the non-civic and rather unhealthy behaviour of the author in the talk lists of certain members. Gantuya eng (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing Please note that this editor was contacted here Ikip (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note message on article talk page:

Unhealthy behaviour of the "author" of this "article" in the talk page of User:GenuineMongol and other factors justify the AfD nomination of this and as well "article" "Tibet during the Tang Dynasty". These are actually a well-veiled form of vandalism. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't justify an article being deleted, because you don't like the editor. Dream Focus 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

At least for User:Gantuya eng, this AfD appears to be a personal vendetta against another user for "unhealthy behavior". Ikip (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It seems indeed more consistent to refer to the History of Mongolia#Turkic_Period. Inmongolia (talk • contribs) 06:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing Please note that this editor was contacted here Ikip (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

which incidently has a single source written by a MONGOL? obvious unreliable source exposed right away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, i would like everyone to know that all the users who voted "delete" have a message from USer:G Purevdorj, telling them to come here and hurry to vote delete. he then switched into mongol language to the ones who spoke it. not to mention the fact that all users who have voted delete, have edits primarily concerning mongols AND have pro mongol POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.128 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Retain Tang rule over Mongolia (618-755) is valid, should nto be counted as simply "Turkic Period". The Gokturks had very little control over this area after 645.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Who were defeated by Tang? Mongols? Or Turks? Did Mongols exist in that time? Did Khitans, who are claimed by the author of this article to be related to Mongols, dominate the area when Tang invaded? It is risky to vote on a subject you are not familiar with.GenuineMongol (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Latouretter has PHD in oriental studies at yale univesity, and he says the Khitans are mongol. It is also said by liguists that khitan language is a proto mongolic language. Linguist list groups khitan language subgroup as mongolian OWNED

Khitan language and Mongolian language are equal siblings of the same language family and none of them is ancestral to the other. The modern ethnic group of the Daurians are thought to be the genetic descendants of the Khitans. In one of the articles related to the Chinese history I was disappointed to read that the Khitan state is described as one of the Chinese dynasties rather than one of the nomadic empires. Even I expressed my opinion in the talk page of that article. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i provided a source, yet Gantuya eng fails to show one. this means everything she just said was original research.

G_Purevdorj isn't the first initiator of the deletion of this article. I had already expressed my deletion suggestion in the talk page of the article before he wrote me in my personal talk page. He has the right to exchange opinions with other editors and he is always welcome to write in my personal talk page. Gantuya eng (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE- wikipedia policy forbids the kind of activity USer:Gantuya eng said was okay for USer:G Purevdorj to do

• Hold on My first suggestion is to merge into appropriate sections of the History of China/Mongolia/Gokturks series. There really was no such thing as "Mongolia" during the Tang dynasty. It is on that basis that I feel there isn't much to say about "Mongolia during the Tang dynasty". Right now, the article looks like a brag-piece along the lines of "the Chinese conquered Mongolia before there was Mongolia. How amazingly accomplished of them!" If an argument can be made that that article can be populated with more substantial contents, e.g. detailed information of Tang administration of Mongolia, or the relations between the Tang emperor and his (her) various vassals, then the article should be kept. As yet, no such argument has been made out. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion was posted on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_China, WP:Article Rescue Squadron, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Mongolia_work_group. Ikip (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually a mongolian people, the khitan, did live in mongolia at the time, along with the gokturks, tang taizong brought them under tang rule, see the source i put in my other comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.103 (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep Incredibly well researched article, which meets and exceeds all policies and guidelines. Please consider closing for canvassing reasons. I am notifying WP:Canvass of this issue. Ikip (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let us know what are the research findings of the article. Mongolia can't be ruled by Tang, when they did NOT exist AT ALL! Mongolia was founded by Genghis Khan only in 1206. Khitans are not ancestors of Mongolians, but relatives of Mongolians. Please don't let your emotion take over your decision. Please be reasonable and consider the acts of the vandal on my talk page and other Mongolia related articles. --GenuineMongol (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

khitan is a mongolian language keneth scott latourette, PHD in oriental studies at yalu univeerstiy, says khitans were mongolians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep plenty of references, and article looks fine. Reading the comments on the talk page, I'm wondering if it was nominated based on the content of the article, or because of a dislike of the article's creator. Dream Focus 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

*Strong delete: Have you checked those "plenty of references"? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC) _{Why not 3, while you're at it? yandman 09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)}

Classifying editors of Misplaced Pages as "pro mongolian" again indicates the vandalic attempt to ignite hatred between the Mongolian and Chinese people. Then, do you mean that those who are to keep the article are "pro chinese" or "anti mongolian"? Gantuya eng (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I've read the article and arguments and I don't find anything wrong with the article. But perhaps someone more familiar with Chinese and Mongolian history knows better.--Sloane (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• DELETE In my view, the only arguable value in this article is in its title -- see detailed analysis at:

1. Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule#Non-standard citation format

2. Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule#Difficult-to-parse text

3. Talk:Mongolia during Tang rule#References

While I can appreciate the plausible worth of an article about this subject, the blunt fact remains that the draft proposed for deletion is quite unworkable. I attempted to improve it by removing the weak parts -- and in the end, there was no substance remaining. I also attempted to enhance it's coverage by importing verifiable material from Horses in East Asian warfare ... but I don't quite see how that gesture can be construed as a sufficient reason for keeping this article without the investment of more work. --Tenmei (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues with citation format, test, and references are matters to be addressed by WP:Cleanup, not deletion. With respects to User:Tenmei, that he failed does not presume others will not succeed. Schmidt, 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was initially based on this version of the article -- here. No substance, no citations, useless references. The only thing this article had going for it was the subject and title. Was I wrong to try to figure out how to improve it? --Tenmei (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully apprecite your good faith attempts ro bring it into line with standards. Schmidt, 04:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

response to non standard citation format: i actually dont need those sources, because they say the same as the Book written by the yale guy with the PHD. in english, of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

response to diffucent to parse text: i forgot to put the book reference" the chinese and their history and culture" in the right place. it clearly states that the Han chinese emperor Tang taizong of the tang dynasty defeated the gokturks, and khitans, incorporated their territory (including mongolia) into tang dynasty, and was given the title by the gokturks them selves after he defeated them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i actually DO NOT NEED the chinese references, because the book "the chinese and their history and cultre" already says what the chinese references say already, they are extra. there is not issue with the references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Even if "Mongolia" didn't exist back then as a political entity, we can talk about it as a geographic entity, for the purposes of denoting where it is we are talking about. Even if we don't want to use that term, it doesn't mean the content is invalid, only that the terminology being used needs to be changed. This article needs to be improved, its sources cited more clearly, but "need for improvement" is not a valid excuse to delete it. LordAmeth (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as historically notable and send to WP:CLEANUP to address the nom's concerns over cite format, as it is apparent there was a good faith effort to source the article even if the format is incorrect. This can be easily corrected and the article expanded. Schmidt, 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with Mongols before Genghis Khan. Mongolia didn't exist at this time. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

geographical area of mongolia existed at that time, and so did mongol khitan people, they lived in mongolia, see the source i posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The original intentions of the creator might not have been the best, but the article is about a notable topic and it is well-sourced, so I don't see why it should be deleted. Being new, it's not the most informative article at the present, but there is room for expansion and it has done more than prove itself notable. And yes Ikip, this does seem to be a biased AfD. I hope the closing admin will take their !votes with a grain of salt. Themfromspace (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop and regroup

Stop and regroup If I may summarise, it looks like:

• the article when the AfD began was weak and biased;
• G Purevdorj misunderstood (in good faith) policy on 'canvassing';
• the article has since been improved a lot; but
• the article is no longer about what the title says it's about.

I don't see any bias in the AfD itself; I do think that the bias in the original article was problematic in a way that was obvious to Mongolians but not so obvious to non-Mongolians. But given that the article is now very different, I'd like to ask the Mongolians who've !voted if they can answer:

• Is the text of the current article broadly accurate / less biased?
• Would it be acceptable as an article if it were renamed something like "The Tang Dynasty in Mongolia"?
• Or is there some other way to rework the content to remove any bias?

--Zeborah (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to Tenmei's efforts, the bias has lessoned somewhat. While the first version was just chauvinism, the contemporary content of the article might be subject to critique. I've just given some points on the talk page, but without looking up some literature (which I cannot do before the 6th of March), I won't be able to properly assess some parts of the article. But probably some other people of the Mongolia work group will know more about this than I do. Anyway, any title of this article that contains "Mongolia" (maybe besides "... in the area of modern-day Eastern and Central Mongolia") will be unacceptable. You would have to name political or ethnic entities that existed then. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to purevdorj-- The khitans did inhabit mongolia, as noted in latourette's book, and he calls them "khitan mongols" Khitan is also classified as mongolian by linguists, there for, during the tang dynasty, mongolia was then a territory primarily inhabited by Mongols as a linguistic, historical and cultural group, and also under tang control, as even the LOTC source points out, parts of CENTRAL mongolia, which even by greater mongolia terms, would be in modern day outer mongolia. meanwhile, purevdorj has provided zero sources countering these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

These Wiktionary definitions may help us clarify responses to Zeborah's timely and reasonable questions:

• Mongolia; Mongolian
  • Inner Mongolia (Etymology: inner (seen from China) + Mongolia)
  • Outer Mongolia (Etymology: outer (exterior, seen from China) + Mongolia)

*

*Tang Dynasty

In this context, I notice that there is a corollary article -- Mongolia during Qing rule ...?

What needs to be done next? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary is NOT a WP:RS

your "wiktionary" definitions are not sourced, AND other wiki projects are not WP:RS's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This sort of "gaming the system" complaint is unhelpful, counter-productive. Any benefit-of-doubt is devalued by the fact that an anonymous participant's objection is unsigned. Anyone who is well enough acquainted with Misplaced Pages's policies to hazard using WP:RS to discredit the use of Wiktionary in this thread seems demonstrably sloppy at best in "forgetting" to sign his/her contribution. --Tenmei (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

i really dont want to waste my time with the four extra tildes because sinebot does it anyway, and i dont need to think about it. and about gaming the system, its not my fault my ip isnt static. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.158 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

G Purevdorj and Tenmei, thanks for your answers. It looks to me like a bit of a culture clash: to me I see a country's name as referring primarily to the landmass, so it makes sense for me to talk about New Zealand in the tenth century even though there weren't any New Zealanders. Whereas it sounds like G Purevdorj sees "Mongolia" as referring primarily to the people, so it doesn't make sense to talk about Mongolia before the Mongol nation actually formed.

The Mongolia during Qing rule article is different because there really was a Mongolia by that time no matter how one looks at it.

"Central Asia", as suggested on the talkpage, sounds like a reasonable compromise for the Tang article to me. (With appropriate clarification within the article.)

And, anonymous-person, Sinebot is for people who forget to sign or don't know better, not for people who are too lazy to type four characters. It may look like it happens by magic but it still takes resources to do it, and it's just rude to take that for granted. It's also a bit rude to take part without bothering to create a log-in, but that's not what "gaming the system" is about: "gaming the system" means using the letter of policy to advance your argument in a way that detracts from the spirit of policy, which is to work together in good faith to achieve something we can all agree on. So, your defense of Latourette and the term "Mongolia" notwithstanding, do you have any objection to the term "Central Asia"? --Zeborah (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think that Central Asia would make more sense. The current article topic is a bit like "Luxembourg in the Roman Empire". Of course it can make sense in some way, for example if you are writing from a local Luxembourgish perspective, but it is nonetheless a somewhat strange way to look at things in a general encyclopedia. And it would even be ambigous - does it only deal with the country Luxembourg, or also with the Belgish province?

I guess Central Asia would widen the scope of the article. The current article seems to deal primarily with relations between the Tang and the Eastern Turks, maybe the renaming (if there is a renaming) could rather go into that direction. Yaan (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the proposal to use Central Asia instead of Mongolia. --GenuineMongol (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that at this point User:Enerelt has renamed the article as Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty (a redirect is still in place from the old name). --Zeborah (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Nothing in this "canvassing"-thread is altered. It is temporarily "collapsed," which arguably minimizes it as a distraction.

This collapsed format serves a constructive purpose by focusing attention on Zeborah's comments and questions.

Is it possible that a mere format change may help us move towards consensus? --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.