| Revision as of 20:42, 27 February 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Re-examining the focus of this article← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:08, 8 December 2024 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,420 edits Assessment: banner shell, Mongols (Mid) (Rater) |
| (415 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WPCHINA}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 19 February 2009 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Mongolia during Tang rule }} |
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|Mongolia=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mongols|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes| |
|
|
* ] <small>(February–May 2009)</small> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
{{Clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==AfD== |
|
== Move == |
|
Unhealhty 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. ] (]) 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
I moved this page from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty to Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia. The title "Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty" can technically refer to all activity in the region during the period of the Tang dynasty, regardless of whether the Tang were involved or not. However, this article is specifically about Tang activities in the region. I don't think this is a contentious move, but if anyone has an issue with it, please say so. ] (]) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
::You can't justify an article being deleted, because you don't like the editor. ]''' 07:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Dream Focus, before making any decision, please study thoroughly all other related articles. Mongolia did NOT exist AT ALL when Tang invaded the area. Mongolia was founded only in 1206 by ]. How could a nation, which was not established then, be invaded by someone? Be reasonable. --] (]) 13:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I construed "Mongolia" in the article title to be referencing a region somewhat larger than the ambit of ]'s current national borders -- see, e.g, ]. Was it mistake to have perceived the title in this manner? --] (]) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::mongolia refers to a region, not a people. otherwise who created the article "]", which includes monarchs from times that "mongols didnt exist"? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Non-standard citation format== |
|
|
I removed the following from the bibliographic reference source citations because the non-standard format makes it impossible for me to evaluate in a manner consistent with ]. If this material can be modified in a more conventional manner, it might represent a welcome contribution: |
|
|
:* '']'', vols. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. |
|
|
In its present shape, this material is inaccessible; and in fact, the citation becomes a meaningless gesture. --] (]) 18:08, 26 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Difficult-to-parse text== |
|
|
With the unhelpful in-line citations removed, the dense text of the two paragraphs of this article seem nearly impossible to parse: |
|
|
:"The geographical area known as Mongolia was under Chinese domination in the 7th to 8th centuries. A Proto Mongolic people, the Khitans were under Chinese rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"The Han Chinese Tang Dynasty conquered a large area of the steppes of Central Asia, Mongolia, and Russia, and forced the Gokturks, and the Khitans and Mongols into submission and acceptance of Chinese rule. The Han Chinese Emperor Tang Taizong was crowned ''Tian Kehan'', or heavenly khagan, after beating the Gokturks and then the Khitan Mongols in Mongolia. It is not certain whether the title also appiled to rest of the Tang emperors, since the term kaghan only refers to males and women had become dominant in the Chinese court after 665 until the year 705. However, we do have two appeal letters from the Turkic hybrid rulers, Ashina Qutluγ Ton Tardu in 727, the Yabgu of Tokharistan, and Yina Tudun Qule in 741, the king of Tashkent, addressing Emperor Xuanzong of Tang as Tian Kehan during the Umayyad expansion. The Chinese were the first sedentary peoples to conquer the steppes of mongolia, central asia, and russia. They were also the first non altaic peoples to do so. Because of this, the Tang Dynasty was the largest Chinese empire in all Chinese history. |
|
|
I've struggled to make out what this material has to do with the presumptive subject, but the only thing this text explains is that a Chinese emperor incorporated a new title into his list of titles -- ''Tian Kehan.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
Since this material represents the substance of the article, I'd have to conclude that it should be deleted. As far as I can tell, the only thing worth salvaging is the title of the article -- but that seems like a very slim reed ...? --] (]) 18:48, 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::the book "the chinese and their history and cultre" says he was crowned khagan and ruled the area, after forcing the gokturks and khitan mongols into submission <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
The following cited references are in Chinese. As I understand it, ] explains that a contributor who posts information from a non-English source must accept the burden of showing that his/her translation of the relevant material is accurate and that the source itself is trustworthy. The tweaked bibliographic source citations are a step in a constructive direction; but without more, all the so-called references to the pages of this specific book are inaccessible, hence meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
|
*] et al (2003). ''A History of Chinese Muslim (Vol.2)'' (Zhongguo Huihui min zu shi / Bai Shouyi zhu bian ; Ma Shouqian, Li Songmao fu zhu bian |
|
|
中国回回民族史 / 白寿彜主编 ; 马寿千, 李松茂副主编 . Beijing (北京市): Zhonghua Book Company (中华书局). ISBN 7-101-02890-X. |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] <strike>(1992). ''A History of Turks''. Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press. ISBN 7-5004-0432-8. |
|
|
7-5004-0432-8</strike> (薛宗正). (1992). ''Turkic peoples'' (突厥史). Beijing: 中国社会科学出版社, 1992 |
|
|
10-ISBN 7-500-40432-8; 13-ISBN 978-7-500-40432-3; |
|
|
|
|
|
The Bai Shouyi book is held in the collection of the ], but I did not find a ] reference number which would help me locate somewhere outside the ]. This means that even if I were willing to try to use this material in a process of trying to improve ], I wouldn't know how to begin to locate the book outside of China or Australia. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Google search engine could not help me locate this book by author, title or IBSN: |
|
|
*Liu, Yitang (1997). ''Studies of Chinese Western Regions''. Taipei: Cheng Chung Book Company. ISBN 957-091119-0. |
|
|
|
|
|
This frustrting exercise was a futile investment. My patience was stretched in an effort to find some usable material from these three books. --] (]) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::i actually DO NOT NEED the chinese sources. the book "the chinese and their history and culture" says tang taizong was crowned khagan. so there is no issue here. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Inadequate citation== |
|
|
The following paragraphs were newly added. Both have problems which can be resolved with better citations. |
|
|
:: ¶1 -- the on-line linguistics citation demonstrates that the Khitan language is a verifiable entity, but it reveals nothing about the Chinese relationships with people speaking this language at some point before Khitan became an extinct language. In the context established by ], do you see that my point is fair and reasonable? |
|
|
:::"The ] and ] were under Chinese rule. The Khitans spoke a mongolic language, ].<:ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ¶2 -- A snippet view of Latouretter's 1934 book can be found online using GoogleBook Search; and without more, we can reasonably assume that it is a valid source. However, without a page number citation, only those who are prepared to trudge through the entire book are able to discover whether it is fairly or unfairly cited. With a page number added to the citation provided, this text can be restored to the article. Does this seem like a fair and reasonable point to make? |
|
|
:::The Han Chinese ] conquered a large area of the steppes of Central Asia, Mongolia, and ] of Russia, and forced the ], and the ] mongols into submission and acceptance of Chinese rule. The Han Chinese Emperor ] was crowned ] of the Gokturks, after beating the Gokturks and then the Khitan Mongols in Mongolia. He ruled the area after he was given that title by the Gokturk nomads he defeated.<:ref>"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</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a further problem with this excerpt -- not questioning whether it is correct or incorrect, not anything to do with whether it is adequately verified by a citation. Assuming that it is correct that this strong Chinese emperor added an additional title to his litany of titles, what does that tell anyone about the Mongolian region during this period? |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this paragraph does explain something about the Chinese emperor's perception of China's western border. No, it doesn't tell much about "Mongolia during Tang rule." As an illustration, please consider the ROC map of contemporary China at the right. I would argue that it does explain something notable about a certain view of China, but it doesn't help me understand much about Mongolia in the first decade of the 21st century. Do you see what I'm trying to explain? Even with an unassailable citation that ] and ] are inextricably linked, this one small piece of information is not the ultimate answer to a host of related questions which are suggested by the title of an article which asserts to present encyclopedia coverage of the subject of Mongolia during Tang rule? |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, please consider what the ] (LOC) offers as general information about Tang Dynasty influence in Mongolia -- . --] (]) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:you dont need a page number, you can look in the back index for "khitan mongols", or section on tang dynasty and it will take you there. its specifically says "then the khitan mongols" made thier submission, i do not have pg right now, because i dont have the book, its in a libarary but there are more sources on tang dynasty article describing this. its specifically says the GOKTURKS GAVE HIM THE TITLE, HE DID NOT GIVE IT TO HIMSELF! he did not claim terrotory that was not under his control |
|
|
|
|
|
::i foudn the article i was looking for- ], see the sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
::your LOC page actually says tang retained control over parts of mongolia... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
* „In the period before Genghis Khan, the geographical area known as Mongolia was under Chinese domination in the 7th to 8th centuries.” |
|
|
|
|
|
There needs to be another delimitation of the area. Mongolia as a geographic term may include Buryatia. One might name several territories of the modern Mongolian state. |
|
|
|
|
|
* In serial wars of expansion, the Chinese confronted the Mongols and the proto-Mongolic Gokturks and Khitans. |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I am aware of, we don’t know of any Mongols (maybe making an exception for the possibly related Khitan) before two or three generations before Chinggis Khan. (Temujin initiated the second Mongolian clan federation, not the first. As for the linguistic point of view, the first confederation is irrelevant.) Anyway, to speak of Mongols before 1100 is necessarily an anachronism. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The Khitan in the eastern Mongolia and southern Manchuria made their submission to the Chinese in 630. |
|
|
|
|
|
This sentence sounds too general. Was there a general conference of submission? What sources did the historian use? But of course, in this case I will have to look up some other literature myself. ] (]) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] -- Your focus on three specific sentence is a consructive. All three are general -- each were measured attempts to pull the dispute away from its "pro-?" and "anti-?" dichotomies. |
|
|
::*Sentences "A" and "B" -- The first two were unsourced sentences from the version of text I first encountered as an AfD - . I have now added ] to each. For me, this is somewhat disingenuous because I am personally satisfied that the substance of these sentences arises within the foundation of the full range of materials which have been cited -- but I'm adding these tags in this instance because they demonstrate a tool and a tactic which might have served you well. |
|
|
::*Sentence "C" -- In an effort to bend-over-backwards to find some common ground with the ], I searched for snippets in the on-line versions of Latourette's book. This fruitless gesture was an example of going above-and-beyond what is reasonable -- but I did try -- in working with a difficult contributor. My intention was to balance my criticism of his/her inaccessible, illusory citations with examples of accessible ones. Please click on the blue links blow so that you can see for yourself what I mean. I specifically focused on the word "submission" in the 1934 snippet because that term was used in 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the now discredited text. |
|
|
:::* Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (19<u>65</u>). ''The Chinese: Their History and Culture,'' |
|
|
:::* Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (19<u>34</u>). ''The Chinese: Their History and Culture,'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your attempt to engage with the specific sentences of the text is revealing. Your thoughtful observations demonstrate a seemly approach to improving the quality of this inadequately named article. This contrasts markedly with the inflexible and strident ] commentary of which is demonstrably counter-productive. --] (]) 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] -- In the first sentence you picked out above, the introductory phrase was added to mirror ] to the right of the page -- "In the period before Gheghis Khan." I now notice that an anonymous editor ) has just changed the template -- adding ] and piping ] in lieu of ]? --] (]) 18:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for the info. I just reverted it. The Xiongnu are already discussed in the article on the period before Chinggis qagan. Whether "before Chinggis" or "Empires" is not so important: the whole article on "Mongols before Chinggis qagan" has an anachronistic title. But chosing a ger over a map was very questionable: the ger is one of the most stable and thus un-historic parts of Mongolian culture. ] (]) 19:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Re-examining the focus of this article== |
|
|
I wonder if a discussion-thread about re-categorizing this article will be helpful? Are the two current categories the best or only way to construe this article: |
|
|
* ]? |
|
|
* ]? |
|
|
How appropriate would be the following -- copied from ]? |
|
|
* ]? |
|
|
* ]? |
|
|
* ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
:The categories from Greater Mongolia are very geographic, not very historic. Maybe some of the categories from ] might be more fitting. ] looks quite appropriate. ] (]) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::In order to consolidate discussion and encourage increased participation, I've re-copied those categories below: |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::* ] |
|
|
::My only personal interest here is in ensuring that the interested decision-makers have sufficient material from which to develop an informed consensus. --] (]) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Re-naming article=== |
|
|
Now that I've noticed ], I just wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary ] were re-named as something like |
|
|
* <strike>]</strike> ---> ] |
|
|
* <strike>]</strike> ---> ] |
|
|
These re-focused article titles do emphasize a Chinese military/government/trading presence in a geographic region. As may become apparent, such titles would create consequences in terms more fully amplified at |
|
|
::::* ], having to do with the manner in which a rational choice problem is presented |
|
|
::::* ], having to do with terminology used in communication theory, sociology, and other disciplines where it relates to the construction and presentation of a fact or issue "framed" from a particular perspective |
|
|
|
|
|
A quite different article would evolve from a different title -- for example, an article which was interested more in the conquered that the conquerors, more in the invaded than than the invader, etc. I don't have any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized? |
|
|
|
|
|
Do these proposed alternatives suggest something more appropriate? something better? I wonder if there might be other relevant category and/or name-change options which have been overlooked? --] (]) 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] seems appropriate to me: if we don't understand "Mongolia" as ], but as consisting of ] and ], the Manchu did rule and control Mongolia, and Mongolia was then a territory primarily inhabited by Mongols as a linguistic, historical and cultural group. The other renaming proposal doesn't look so bad, however, I have problems to perceive a dynasty "in" somewhere. '''Tang Dynasty and Central Asia''' might be more fitting. But I'd like to know the opinions of some other people of the Mongolia work group. I'll post a note to that effect there. ] (]) 20:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The khitans did inhabit mongolia, as noted in latourette's book, and he calls them "khitan mongols" , 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tang Taizong did not give khagan title to himself == |
|
|
|
|
|
tenmei is trying to discredit the original content by claiming tang taizong arrograntly claimed the title "heavenly khagan" title for himself, having no control over mongolia, it says right in Mr. Latourette's book that he was given the title after beating the Gokturks by the gokturks. the "source cannot be verified" excuse is ridiculous, then we half to slash off most of wikipedia's content because no one is checking the sources. if you want to know, its easy to go to the local libaray, or order the book. stop whining that taizong gave gimself the title. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
I moved this page from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty to Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia. The title "Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty" can technically refer to all activity in the region during the period of the Tang dynasty, regardless of whether the Tang were involved or not. However, this article is specifically about Tang activities in the region. I don't think this is a contentious move, but if anyone has an issue with it, please say so. Otebig (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
