| Revision as of 15:34, 27 February 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Inadequate citation← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:24, 27 February 2009 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Inadequate citationNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| ::] -- 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. | ::] -- 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 |
::*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. | ::*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>65</u>). ''The Chinese: Their History and Culture,'' | ||
| :::* Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (19<u>34</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) | ::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) | |||
Revision as of 18:24, 27 February 2009
 | China Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Central Asia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
AfD
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. 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)
- 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 Genghis Khan. How could a nation, which was not established then, be invaded by someone? Be reasonable. --GenuineMongol (talk) 13:22, 26 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)
- I construed "Mongolia" in the article title to be referencing a region somewhat larger than the ambit of Mongolia's current national borders -- see, e.g, Mongols before Genghis Khan. Was it mistake to have perceived the title in this manner? --Tenmei (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- mongolia refers to a region, not a people. otherwise who created the article "List of Mongolian monarchs", which includes monarchs from times that "mongols didnt exist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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 WP:V. If this material can be modified in a more conventional manner, it might represent a welcome contribution:
In its present shape, this material is inaccessible; and in fact, the citation becomes a meaningless gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 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 ...? --Tenmei (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
References
The following cited references are in Chinese. As I understand it, WP:V 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.
- Bai, Shouyi 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.
- Xue, Zongzheng
(1992). A History of Turks. Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press. ISBN 7-5004-0432-8.
7-5004-0432-8 (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; OCLC 28622013
The Bai Shouyi book is held in the collection of the National Library of Australia, but I did not find a WorldCat reference number which would help me locate somewhere outside the antipodes. This means that even if I were willing to try to use this material in a process of trying to improve Mongolia during Tang rule, 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. --Tenmei (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.193 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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 WP:V, do you see that my point is fair and reasonable?
- "The Khitans and Gokturks were under Chinese rule. The Khitans spoke a mongolic language, Khitan language.<:ref></ref>
- ¶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 WP:V, do you see that my point is fair and reasonable?
- ¶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 Tang Dynasty conquered a large area of the steppes of Central Asia, Mongolia, and Buryatia of Russia, and forced the Gokturks, and the Khitans mongols into submission and acceptance of Chinese rule. The Han Chinese Emperor Tang Taizong was crowned Khagan 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>
- ¶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?
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 Tang Taizong and Khagan 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 Library of Congress (LOC) offers as general information about Tang Dynasty influence in Mongolia -- here. --Tenmei (talk) 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- Protectorate General to Pacify the North, see the sources.
- your LOC page actually says tang retained control over parts of mongolia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.161.11 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- „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. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- G Purevdorj -- 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 - here. I have now added Template:Needs citation 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 162.84.138.103, 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.
- G Purevdorj -- 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.
- 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 POV commentary of
- G Purevdorj -- In the first sentence you picked out above, the introductory phrase was added to mirror Template:History of Mongolia to the right of the page -- "In the period before Gheghis Khan." I now notice that an anonymous editor (97.118.131.47) has just changed the template -- adding Xiongnu and piping Pre-Mongol Empire in lieu of Mongols before Genghis Khan? --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)