Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 2 March 2009 (→Further reading). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Unassessed

Tang dynasty in Inner Asia is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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)

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:

• Zizhi Tongjian, vols. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199.

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>

¶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>

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.

• Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (1965). The Chinese: Their History and Culture, p. 144.
• Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (1934). The Chinese: Their History and Culture, p. 144.

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 162.84.138.103 which is demonstrably counter-productive. --Tenmei (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. G Purevdorj (talk) 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:

• Category:Mongolia?
• Category:Tang Dynasty?

How appropriate would be the following -- copied from Greater Mongolia?

• Category:Geography of Central Asia?
• Category:Divided regions?
• Category:Geography of Mongolia?

The categories from Greater Mongolia are very geographic, not very historic. Maybe some of the categories from Göktürks might be more fitting. Category:Tang Dynasty looks quite appropriate. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In order to consolidate discussion and encourage increased participation, I've re-copied those categories below:

• Category:Horse archer civilizations
• Category:Horse archer empires
• Category:Eurasian nomads
• *
• Category:Historical Turkic states
• Category:Turkic dynasties
• Category:Uyghurs
• Category:Ethnic groups in Asia
• Category:History of Mongolia

My only personal interest here is in ensuring that the interested decision-makers have sufficient material from which to develop an informed consensus. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-naming article

Now that I've noticed Category:Geography of Central Asia, I just wonder if a number of problems might be mitigated if this article and it's corollary Mongolia during Qing rule were re-named as something like

• Mongolia during Tang rule ---> Tang Dynasty in Central Asia
• Mongolia during Qing rule ---> Qing Dynasty in Central Asia

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

A ...? Framing (economics), having to do with the manner in which a rational choice problem is presented ...?

B ...? Framing (social sciences), 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 want to make any guesses about how such articles might be named or categorized, but I do hope that this thread can contribute to the decision-making of those who are more interested in this subject?

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? --Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia during Qing rule seems appropriate to me: if we don't understand "Mongolia" as Greater Mongolia, but as consisting of Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia, 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. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I am not a historian, I am a linguist, so that one is not so hard to answer. First, the ethnologue is not the source of choice. Eg see the old form of the article on Darkhad dialect which I reclassified according to more trustworthy linguistic sources. In our case, it is easy enough. Khitans spoke a language that linguists believe is a sister to Proto-Mongolic (Janhunen 2003: The Mongolic languages: 391-392). So far as language is concerned, Khitans are quite related, but they didn’t speak any kind of “Mongolian”. “Proto-Mongolic” itself was only formed by the (re)unification of Mongols under Chinggis qagan (Janhunen 2003: 2). That does not, however, provide any historic clues as to how the earliest Mongols might have been related to Khitans. As far as I am aware of, there is no known historical link between the earliest Mongols, united by Qabul Khan around 1100 to form a clan federation having that ethnonym (Kämpfe 183-184 in Weiers 1986: Die Mongolen), and the Khitans. So as far as historical studies are concerned, they don’t form a historical group. Using the term as applied in history (which is the customary usage of the term), “Mongol” cannot be extended further backwards than around 1100. G Purevdorj (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

it has been found that the Daur people, a MONGOLIAN people, are descendants of the khitans through DNA testing, the language that they speak, the Daur language, is classified a mongolic language. also read the wikipedia articles on them themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.158 (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr/Ms Anonymous -- Think again. In the context your dubious edit history creates, this assertion appears to be merely disruptive. Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are welcome; but your argumentative comments are not proving to be helpful.

You need to think again about continuing to cause problems instead of working with others in a cooperative effort to improve the quality of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I can and I will. I'll have the book by Tuesday. As it is so important in this discussion, it is of utmost importance what kind of critical apparatus it uses to examine its sources and if its methodology can stand up to modern historiography in this respect. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Kenneth Scott Latourette. --Tenmei (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one page in Latourette's general history of China mentions Tang expansion into the Mongolian plateau; and interestingly, the text is quite explicit:

The armies of Emperor T'ai Tsung "conquered the Eastern (or Northern) Turks (630) and brought their territories within his Empire. He took the title 'Heavenly Khan,' thus designating himself as their ruler. A little later the Western Turks, although then at the height of their power, were badly defeated, and the Uighurs, a Turkish tribe, were detached from them and became study supporters of the T'an in the Gobi. The Khitan, MOngs in Easter Mongolia and Southern Manchuria, made their submission (630)."</Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (1971). The Chinese: Their History and Culture, p. 144.</ref>

The strident and derisive language of of "Mr/Ms Anonymous" is discredited along with the misleading "factoids" which are now shown to be fraud. In other words, the claims made above are false, were known to be false, and the purposeful intention was for Misplaced Pages users to rely mistakenly on the fraudulent disinformation. This is nothing but vandalism of a particularly insidious sort. In harsh terms, this deserves condemnation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ethnic affiliations of the Khitan

Since it seems a point of special concern for one author of this article, I guess it is reasonable to provide an alternative source to Mr. Latourette. Herbert Franke writes in the Cambridge History of China Vol VI, 1994, p.45f, about the pre(Liao-, Y.)dynastic Khitan that "the precise ethnic affiliations of the Khitan and their neighbours are obscure." and that "Contemporary scholars have attempted to solve the problem of Khitan origins on the basis of linguistic evidence, but studies of the Khitan language have not so far supplied any solid evidence. We now syntactically the Khitan language resembled the Altaic languages (all the languages of the northern steppe were closely related), but this still leaves a wide range of choice among the Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic subfamilies of Altaic. What little we know of the basic vocabulary that tends to be least affected from by word borrowings suggests links between Khitan and either Mongolian or Tungusic."

If we follow this interpretation, the Khitan may well have been about as Mongolic as the rulers of the Qing Dynasty. I guess it boils down on whom you trust more, Herbert Franke or PhD Latourette. But maybe that bit about "proto-mongolic" should at least not be presented as undisputed fact, at least unless we find Herbert Franke is missing something.Yaan (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Scott Latourette's PhD dissertation was about the history of religion -- and indeed, his obituary in the New York Times focuses on contributions to the history of Christianity as among his most noteworthy accomplishments. He was a Christian missionary in China for one year; and he did teach in Hunan for two years as part of a Yale-in-China program. However, the fact-of-the-matter is that his writing about China was aimed at general readership. In no sense can it be asserted that Latourette presented himself as a scholar with especially deep roots in researching the Tang era expansion into Central Asia. In short, Latourette remains a credible writer, and his work remains a credible source; however, the positions put forward by "Mr/Ms Anonymous" in earlier version of this article and on this talk page are demonstrably shown to be fraud -- not merely mistaken. --Tenmei (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been moved into Inner Asia, now please delete Mongolia one

I think now is time to delete REDIRECT page with title Mongolia during Tang rule. --GenuineMongol (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The old title remains what it was and should best be entirely deleted. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In my view, there are three questions which are arguably worth asking about:

1. Why or how is "Inner Asia" better than "Central Asia"?

2. Wouldn't the title be better without the article "the"?

3. Why or how is the title better with "Dynasty" than without?

In other words, why not "Inner Asia during Tang period? or "Central Asia during Tang period? --Tenmei (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think either Inner or Central would be fine. --GenuineMongol (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Inner/Central Asia during Tang period" sounds better than the current title.--GenuineMongol (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Central" seems to be a tiny bit more common, but "Inner" would also be fine. But while I'm not a native speaker of English, I'd prefer to have "the". I'm neutral on whether "dynasty" or "period". G Purevdorj (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not every question has a definite answer, and this may be one of those situations where any of the above will serve equally well per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). I'm don't have a specific point to make, but I think I can solve two problems at once by re-naming/converting (or "moving") the redirect at "Mongolia during Tang rule" so that it becomes instead a redirect for "Inner Asia during Tang Dynasty." If, at some future time, a consensus develops to change either or both (a) "Inner Asia" to "Central Asia" ... and/or (b) "Tang Dynasty" to "Tang period," that can be easily handled in due course.

The re-naming/converting/moving was blocked by the system and my alternative two-step plan didn't quite work well enough to achieve the desired result. I'll take it on myself to follow-through with administrator intervention. --Tenmei (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Genial! Both birds with one stone! Yes, I'd greatly appreciate if did something like that. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RfD

Mr/Ms Anonymous intervened with a revert which blocked my attempt to handle this simply. The administrator's suggestion was that I initiate a process at WP:RfD. An administrator at WP:Vandalism construes all edits as content dispute and suggests dispute resolution processes which are demonstrably ineffective in the face of bad faith. --Tenmei (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus here for deleting Mongolia during Tang rule, I will engage the process at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion. Just to make very, very certain that no one can misconstrue my actions, I plan to follow up this post with a message to each editor mentioned in the canvassing section of the AfD. That canvassing will seek feedback comments, suggestions -- and encouragement; and I especially need encouragement in light of today's un-funny developments. --Tenmei (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

that was NOT my fault. had i not reverted you, and then reverted myself, the admin would have looked at your request anyway, and realize it was faulty, as there was no concensus for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.66 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to AfD archived thread

The link to the AfD archived thread may have some value as a defensive tool in the future:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule?

Given the extent to which Mr/Ms Anonymous has seemed to focus on whatever-it-was under the guise of something to do with Tang expansion into Central Asia, there is a liklihood that more such disruptive edits are to be expected ....

Maybe something in this archived discussion will help to mitigate the pointless harm? --Tenmei (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the simple act of collapsing Mr/Ms Anonymous' disruptive claims will be seen as arguably constructive in this situation?

In my view, the following reply to the difficult-to-parse complaint of Mr/Ms Anonymous is able to stand on its own merits; and the reasonable, logical prose reflects well on the person who wrote it. --Tenmei (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't state your intention as clear as this before. Don't you notice that your "China" itself is an anachronistic concept? But back to work: Dagurs didn't exist back then, so they shouldn't be mentioned here. It is often held that the development of Dagur can be explained based on Proto-Mongolic, eg Svantesson et al. 2005: The phonology of Mongolian, while it is NOT a commonly held opinion that this can be done for Khitan. The ethnic affiliation of the Khitan is at best problematic as Yaan's reference has shown. We don't have to explicate them here. If we tried, we would have to try to get the actual situation of research. I think Juha Janhunen has written a book on peoples and thus also on ethnicity in Central Asia, you (or even we) might want to consult it. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Janhunen, Juha (1996): Manchuria - An ethnic history. Helsinki: Finno-Ugric society.
• Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anastasia Karlsson and Vivan Franzen. (2005). The Phonology of Mongolian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-199-26017-6, 13-ISBN 978-0-199-26017-1

Mr/Ms Anonymous offers no WP:V support for what has been shown to be simple vandalism; therefore, engaging with the disruptive trouble-maker serves no productive purpose or goals. It becomes oddly counter-productive. Frustrating, confusing, difficult -- awkward. However, it would be somewhat welcome if I were proven to be too harsh in my dour assessment of this evolving situation. We can always hope for the best, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. --Tenmei (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal:

A. Changing tactics a little bit -- I wonder if it might be helpful for me to suggest that Mr/Ms Anonymous would do well to ponder the first sentence on the page at WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Perhaps this nuanced sentence will suggest a fresh perspective on the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid ... which would seem a more useful topic of further investigation.

B. I wonder what would happen if the only response Mr/Ms Anonymous was able to engender on this talk page were something like this:

Only comments, complaints, questions and arguments which are plainly consistent with WP:V allow for the possibility that each can be studied, parsed and addressed in like manner.

This is a variation on the euphemism "colorful language." --Tenmei (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

map is sourced in the description, the sources say tang took over the gokturks, and the source shows a map of the gokturks, therefore the gokturk khanate is blue. the source show tibet was a vassal of the tang dynasty, and the user who made the map used maps of the Gokturk khaganate and the tibet to make this map. because the source says gokturk was ruled by tang, see the map on the gokturk page, it will show you a picture of the gokturk khaganate. it matches the parts ont he map i inseted. the map of tibet matches the part of tibet on the map i inserted. the sources in the description says what they say, that gokturk khaganate was taken over by tang and that tibet was a vassal state. tenmei can't seem to comprehend this and resorts to WP:V to take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.66 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC) according to a source in here, tang taizong won the title of "great khan" among the turks. this section came from the Tang dynasty aritcle. it is sourced with cambridge, and was partially written and checked by a die hard fanatic for inline citations, and verification User:PericlesofAthens. it says tang ruled over southern mongolia, and militarily defeated the turks before winning the title "great khan" about the invalid tags int he references, see the tang dynasty article for them. Turkish and Western regions Main articles: Protectorate General to Pacify the West and Protectorate General to Pacify the North The Sui and Tang carried out very successful military campaigns against the steppe nomads. Chinese foreign policy to the north and west now had to deal with Turkic nomads, who were becoming the most dominant ethnic group in Central Asia. To handle and avoid any threats posed by the Turks, the Sui government repaired fortifications and received their trade and tribute missions. They sent royal princesses off to marry Turkic clan leaders, a total of four of them in 597, 599, 614, and 617. The Sui stirred trouble and conflict amongst ethnic groups against the Turks. As early as the Sui Dynasty, the Turks had become a major militarized force employed by the Chinese. When the Khitans began raiding northeast China in 605, a Chinese general led 20,000 Turks against them, distributing Khitan livestock and women to the Turks as a reward. On two occasions between 635 to 636, Tang royal princesses were married to Turk mercenaries or generals in Chinese service. Throughout the Tang Dynasty until the end of 755, there were approximately ten Turkic generals serving under the Tang. While most of the Tang army was made of fubing Chinese conscripts, the majority of the troops led by Turkic generals were of non-Chinese origin, campaigning largely in the western frontier where the presence of fubing troops was low. Some "Turkic" troops were nomadisized Han Chinese, a desinicized people. Civil war in China was almost totally diminished by 626, along with the defeat in 628 of the Ordos Chinese warlord Liang Shidu; after these internal conflicts, the Tang began an offensive against the Turks. In the year 630, Tang armies captured areas of the Ordos Desert, modern-day Inner Mongolia province, and southern Mongolia from the Turks. After this military victory, Emperor Taizong won the title of Great Khan amongst the various Turks in the region who pledged their allegiance to him and the Chinese empire (with several thousand Turks traveling into China to live at Chang'an). On June 11, 631, Emperor Taizong also sent envoys to the Xueyantuo bearing gold and silk in order to persuade the release of enslaved Chinese prisoners who were captured during the transition from Sui to Tang from the northern frontier; this embassy succeeded in freeing 80,000 Chinese men and women who were then returned to China. While the Turks were settled in the Ordos region (former territory of the Xiongnu), the Tang government took on the military policy of dominating the central steppe. Like the earlier Han Dynasty, the Tang Dynasty (along with Turkic allies) conquered and subdued Central Asia during the 640s and 650s. During Emperor Taizong's reign alone, large campaigns were launched against not only the Göktürks, but also separate campaigns against the Tuyuhun, the Tufan, the Xiyu states, and the Xueyantuo. The Tang Empire fought with the Tibetan Empire for control of areas in Inner and Central Asia, which was at times settled with marriage alliances such as the marrying of Princess Wencheng (d. 680) to Songtsän Gampo (d. 649). Around 650 AD, Tang forces captured Lhasa, capital of Tibet. There was a long string of conflicts with Tibet over territories in the Tarim Basin between 670–692 and in 763 the Tibetans even captured the capital of China, Chang'an, for fifteen days during the An Shi Rebellion. In fact, it was during this rebellion that the Tang withdrew its western garrisons stationed in what is now Gansu and Qinghai, which the Tibetans then occupied along with the territory of what is now Xinjiang. Hostilities between the Tang and Tibet continued until they signed a formal peace treaty in 821. The terms of this treaty, including the fixed borders between the two countries, are recorded in a bilingual inscription on a stone pillar outside the Jokhang temple in Lhasa. During the Islamic conquest of Persia (633–656), the son of the last ruler of the Sassanid Empire, Prince Pirooz, fled to Tang China. According to the Book of Tang, Pirooz was made the head of a Governorate of Persia in what is now Zaranj, Afghanistan. During this conquest of Persia, the Islamic Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan (r. 644–656) sent an embassy to the Tang court at Chang'an. By the 740s, the Arabs of Khurasan had established a presence in the Ferghana basin and in Sogdiana. At the Battle of Talas in 751, Qarluq mercenaries under the Chinese defected, which forced Tang commander Go Seonji (d. 756, also known as Gao Xianzhi, a general of Goguryeo descent) to retreat. Although the battle itself was not of the greatest significance militarily, this was a pivotal moment in history; it marks the spread of Chinese papermaking into regions west of China, ultimately reaching Europe by the 12th century. Although they had fought at Talas, on June 11, 758, an Abbasid embassy arrived at Chang'an simultaneously with the Uyghur Turks in order to pay tribute. From even further west, a tribute embassy came to the court of Taizong in 643 from the Patriarch of Antioch. ^ Ebrey (1999), 127. Ebrey (2006), 113. Xue, 149–152, 257–264. ^ Cite error: The named reference ebrey 2006 92 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Benn, 2–3. ^ Cui, 655–659. ^ Cite error: The named reference ebrey cambridge 111 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Xue, 788. ^ Twitchett, 125. Liu (2000), 85–95. Gernet, Jacques (1996). A History of Chinese Civilization (Second ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 248. doi:10.2277/0521497817. ISBN 9780521497817. Xue, p. 226–227 Xue, p. 380–386 Benn 2. Xue, p. 222–225 Whitfield, 193. Sen, 24, 30–31. Bell (2000), 28. Beckwith, 146. Stein, 65. Twitchett, 109. Benn, 11. Richardson, 106–143. Schafer, 10 & 25–26. Cite error: The named reference whitfield 47 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Bai, 242–243. Eberhard, 183. Schafer, 26. Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 476.

Semi-protecting article/talk-page

• WP:SEMI

I will seek semi-protection for the version of the current version of this article. As a separate matter, I will seek semi-protection for this talk page as well. This is the lowest level of protection for a Misplaced Pages article; and it stops all edits by anonymous users.

The edit histories of this article and this talk page are troubling and unclear; but the cumulative impression convinces me that this step is justifiable.

The problems here are arguably the work of a PRC-sponsored shill whose intentions are inconsistent with the goals of Misplaced Pages. I had hoped that this problem had something to do with an overly-zealous, misguided teen, but yesterday's compelling admission puts a new face on this problem:

but since some people claim mongols didn't "exist" durign tang dynasty, this can show that mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts WP:NOT WP:! WP:WWIN

This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject. Although anyone can be an editor, Misplaced Pages's community processes and standards do not make it an anarchy, democracy, or bureaucracy. Misplaced Pages is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication.

• Short URL
  w.wiki/4Nw

Misplaced Pages is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Misplaced Pages is practically unlimited, but Misplaced Pages does not aim to contain all knowledge. What to exclude is determined by an online community committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia. These exclusions are summarized as the things that Misplaced Pages is not.

Style and format

Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia

• WP:NOTPAPER

Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Server costs aside, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Misplaced Pages can cover, or the total amount of content.

However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep them accessible (see Misplaced Pages:Article size). Splitting long articles signals a natural growth of a topic (see Misplaced Pages:Summary style). Print encyclopedias can cover most topics only in short, static articles, but Misplaced Pages can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.

Encyclopedic content

• WP:NOTEVERYTHING
• WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC

Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Misplaced Pages is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive.

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary

• WP:NOTDICTIONARY
• WP:DICTIONARY

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Missing dictionary definitions should be contributed there. Misplaced Pages articles are not:

1. Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded, Misplaced Pages is not the place for them. In some cases, however, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the definition of planet.
2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. Articles almost always focus on a single definition or usage of the title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.
3. Usage, slang, or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See § Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal below. For a wiki that is a collection of textbooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Consider transwiki-ing such content there.

Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought

• WP:FORUM

Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the policy on original research, do not use Misplaced Pages for any of the following:

1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Misplaced Pages can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
2. Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word frindle, it is not notable enough to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And Misplaced Pages is certainly not for things made up one day.
3. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTESSAY
   Personal essays that state your feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Misplaced Pages is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Misplaced Pages-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.)
4. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTFORUM
   Discussion forums. Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Misplaced Pages-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Misplaced Pages has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. However, these should be used for questions of reasonable academic interest; Misplaced Pages does not serve as a technical help line or customer support for products or companies that have articles.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion

• WP:SOAPBOX
• WP:PROMOTION
• WP:SOAP
• WP:PROMO

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Misplaced Pages is not for:

1. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTADVOCACY
   Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
2. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTOPINION
   Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Misplaced Pages's sister project Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles.
3. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTSCANDAL
   Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.
5. Shortcuts
   • WP:NOTADVERT
   • WP:NOTPROMO
   Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Misplaced Pages articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Misplaced Pages neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Misplaced Pages to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Misplaced Pages. See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest § Paid editing.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Misplaced Pages: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines).

Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

• WP:LINKFARM
• WP:NOTMIRROR
• WP:NOTREPOSITORY
• WP:NOTGALLERY

Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Misplaced Pages articles are not merely collections of:

1. External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding relevant, useful links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Misplaced Pages:External links for some guidelines.
2. Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists, Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists.
3. Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Misplaced Pages. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Misplaced Pages:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy.
4. Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Misplaced Pages:Images with missing articles or Misplaced Pages:Public domain image resources. Misplaced Pages articles are not a repository of images: image use in Misplaced Pages articles must comply with MOS:IMAGEREL.

Misplaced Pages is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

• WP:NOTBLOG
• WP:NOTWEBHOST
• WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK
• WP:NOTFB

Misplaced Pages is not a social networking service like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Instagram, nor a social-network game. It is not a place to host your own website, blog, wiki, résumé, or cloud. Misplaced Pages pages, including those in user space, are not:

1. Shortcuts
   • WP:NOTCV
   • WP:NOTRESUME
   Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Misplaced Pages. If you want to post your résumé or make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet service provider. The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Misplaced Pages in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. Personal web pages are often speedily deleted under criterion U5. Misplaced Pages articles use formal English and are not written in Internet posting style.
2. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTFILESTORAGE
   File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Misplaced Pages.
3. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTDATING
   Dating services. Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable.
4. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTMEMORIAL
   Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. Misplaced Pages is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)
5. Content for projects unrelated to Misplaced Pages. Do not store material unrelated to Misplaced Pages, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included.

If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even just a single page, many free and commercial sites provide wiki/web hosting (e.g. Fandom and Google Sites). You can also install wiki software on your own server. See the installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this.

You do not own your userpage. It is a part of Misplaced Pages, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion.

Misplaced Pages is not a directory

• WP:NOTDIRECTORY
• WP:NOTCATALOG

Misplaced Pages encompasses many lists of links to articles within Misplaced Pages that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Misplaced Pages functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Misplaced Pages:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Misplaced Pages articles are not:

1. Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information.
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Misplaced Pages also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
3. Shortcut
   • WP:CROSSCAT
   Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
4. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTGENEALOGY
   Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.
5. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTTVGUIDE
   Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
6. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTPRICE
   A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Misplaced Pages is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Misplaced Pages should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

• WP:NOTHOW
• WP:NOTGUIDE
• WP:NOTHOWTO
• WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Misplaced Pages articles should not read like:

1. Instruction manuals and cookbooks: while Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. Wording can easily be modified to avoid advising the reader: Do not give aspirin ... ⇒ The WHO advises against the use of aspirin .... Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
2. Travel guides: an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Misplaced Pages is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Misplaced Pages article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
3. Strategy guides: an article about a video game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG from the Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE. As of a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
4. Internet guides: Misplaced Pages articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples.
5. FAQs: Misplaced Pages articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
6. Textbooks and annotated texts: the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. However, examples intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages articles.
7. Scientific journals: a Misplaced Pages article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Misplaced Pages without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking. Publishing such scientific articles may be more appropriate for WikiJournal in Wikiversity.
8. Case studies: many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" are fitting examples. Writing about "Oak trees in North Carolina" or "Blue trucks", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball

• WP:CRYSTAL
• WP:CRYSTALBALL
• WP:NOTCRYSTAL
• WP:RUMOUR
• WP:RUMOR
• WP:SPECULATION
• WP:FUTURE

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point of view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Arthur (2026)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
4. Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections.
5. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Misplaced Pages includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper

• WP:NOTNEWS

In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Misplaced Pages articles themselves are not:

1. Original reporting. Misplaced Pages should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Misplaced Pages does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Misplaced Pages does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
2. News reports. Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Misplaced Pages is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Misplaced Pages may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
3. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTWHOSWHO
   Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
4. Shortcuts
   • WP:NOTGOSSIP
   • WP:NOTDIARY
   Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
5. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTUPTIME
   Uptime tracking. Services go down all the time. Readers are not expected to check Misplaced Pages articles to verify service outages. For web services, readers have ample automatic options for that purpose. For meatspace services, readers should be reaching out to the people who manage the service. Accordingly, editors should not manually edit service status updates into articles as if the articles are used for that purpose. Major outages may be notable on a case-by-case basis, especially when they have a notable cause, but the vast majority of outages simply are not notable.

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information

• WP:INDISCRIMINATE
• WP:NOTDATABASE
• WP:NOTDB

To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages articles should not be:

1. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTPLOT
   Summary-only descriptions of works. Misplaced Pages treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. For more information regarding summaries, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.
2. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTLYRICS
   Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1930 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Misplaced Pages:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
3. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTSTATS
   Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election were moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Misplaced Pages:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.
4. Shortcut
   • WP:NOTCHANGELOG
   Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead.

Misplaced Pages is not censored

• WP:NOTCENSORED
• WP:WINC
• WP:CENSOR
• WP:UNCENSORED

Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Misplaced Pages is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Misplaced Pages:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages is not a member of those organizations; thus, Misplaced Pages will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.

Community

The above policies are about Misplaced Pages's content. The following relate to Misplaced Pages's governance and processes.

Misplaced Pages is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech

• WP:NOTANARCHY
• WP:NOTFREESPEECH

Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not an unregulated forum for free speech. The fact that Misplaced Pages is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy

• WP:NOTDEMOCRACY

Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Misplaced Pages.

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy

• WP:BUREAUCRACY
• WP:BUREAU
• WP:NOTBURO
• WP:NOTLAW
• WP:BURO

While Misplaced Pages has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

While Misplaced Pages's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.

A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed.

Misplaced Pages is not a laboratory

• WP:NOTLAB
• WP:NOTALAB

Research about Misplaced Pages's content, processes, and the people involved can provide valuable insights and understanding that benefit public knowledge, scholarship, and the Misplaced Pages community, but Misplaced Pages is not a public laboratory. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Misplaced Pages is not typically controversial, since all of Misplaced Pages is open and freely usable. However, research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges. Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Misplaced Pages's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.

Some editors explicitly request not to be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt out of research.

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

• WP:BATTLEGROUND
• WP:BATTLE

Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions is in direct conflict of Misplaced Pages's policies and goals, as well as Misplaced Pages's founding principles. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, you should also avoid advancing your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Misplaced Pages's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

Do not use Misplaced Pages to make legal or other threats against Misplaced Pages, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

Misplaced Pages is not compulsory

• WP:NOTCOMPULSORY
• WP:CHOICE

Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Misplaced Pages at any time.

And finally…

• WP:BADIDEA
• WP:NOTSTUPID

Misplaced Pages is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every "bad" idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page is here because somebody came up with a "bad" idea that had not been anticipated. In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

When you wonder what to do

• WP:WHATISTOBEDONE

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:

1. Modifying the content of an article (normal editing).
2. Turning the page into a redirect, preserving the page history.
3. Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
4. Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not an official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Cleanup § Style of writing—a list of templates that can be used to tag potentially inappropriate content when you can't fix the problem immediately yourself
• wmf:Resolution:Controversial content
• Pages titled "Misplaced Pages is ..." and "Misplaced Pages is not ..."
• Misplaced Pages:Avoiding common mistakes
• Misplaced Pages:Alternative outlets
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
• Misplaced Pages:Here to build an encyclopedia
• Misplaced Pages:Recentism
• Misplaced Pages:Why was the page I created deleted?
• Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not/Outtakes for a more humorous version

Notes

1. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 § Final decision, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004.
2. Misplaced Pages article pages (and various navigational pages: categories, navboxes, disambiguation pages, etc.) are off limits for any advocacy. Talk pages, user pages and essays are venues where you can advocate your opinions provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Misplaced Pages and are not disruptive.
3. The English Misplaced Pages incorporates many images and some text which are considered "fair use" into its free content articles. Other language Wikipedias often do not. See also Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.
4. The how-to restriction does not apply to the project namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Misplaced Pages itself are appropriate, such as Misplaced Pages:How to draw a diagram with Dia.
5. "Former UC President Clark Kerr, a national leader in higher education, dies at 92" (Press release). UC Berkeley. December 2, 2003. Retrieved August 5, 2021.
6. Joseph Michael Reagle, Jr.; Lawrence Lessig (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Misplaced Pages. MIT Press. pp. 90–91. ISBN 9780262014472.
7. See list of academic studies of Misplaced Pages, Research resources at Wikimedia Meta, the Meta research newsletter, and the Wikimedia Foundation research blog.
8. Projects that are "potentially controversial" include, but are not limited to, any project that involves directly changing article content (contributors are expected to have as their primary motivation the betterment of the encyclopedia, without a competing motivation such as research objectives), any project that involves contacting a very large number of editors, and any project that involves asking sensitive questions about their real-life identities.
9. See also Researching Misplaced Pages, Ethically researching Misplaced Pages, as well as the conflict of interest guideline and paid-contribution disclosure policy (if researchers editing Misplaced Pages are being paid under grants to do so, this is paid editing that must be disclosed).
10. If you believe that your legal rights are being violated, you may discuss this with other users involved, take the matter to the appropriate mailing list, contact the Wikimedia Foundation, or in cases of copyright violations, notify us at Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright.

1. This is a large number, and would be written as a 1 followed by 174 zeros

This article is categorically the wrong place to try to contrive factoids for use in 21st century disputes over borders or oil and mineral rights.--Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

• Abramson, Marc S. (2008). Ethnic Identity in Tang China. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. ISBN 978-0-8122-4052-8.
• Cotterell, Arthur. (2007). The Imperial Capitals of China: An Inside View of the Celestial Empire. London: Pimlico. pp. 304 pages. ISBN 9781845950095.
• Chen, Guocan. "Hebei Sanzhen" ("Three Jiedushi of Hebei"). Encyclopedia of China, 1st ed.
• Chen, Zhen. "Jiedushi". Encyclopedia of China, 1st ed.
• de la Vaissière, E. Sogdian Traders. A History. Leiden : Brill, 2005. ISBN 90-04-14252-5
• Schafer, Edward H. (1967). The Vermilion Bird: T’ang Images of the South. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
• The “New T’ang History” (Hsin T’ang-shu) on the History of the Uighurs. Translated and annotated by Colin Mackerras.

References

• Adshead, S.A.M. (2004). T'ang China: The Rise of the East in World History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403934568 (hardback).
• Andrew, Anita N. and John A. Rapp. (2000). Autocracy and China's Rebel Founding Emperors: Comparing Chairman Mao and Ming Taizu. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. ISBN 0847695808.
• Bai, Shouyi (2003). A History of Chinese Muslim (Vol.2). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 7-101-02890-X.
• Beckwith, Christopher I. (1987). The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02469-3 (pbk)
• Benn, Charles. (2002). China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-517665-0.
• Bernhardt, Kathryn. "The Inheritance Right of Daughters: the Song Anomaly?" Modern China (July 1995): 269–309.
• Bowman, John S. (2000). Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Brook, Timothy. (1998). The Confusions of Pleasure: Commerce and Culture in Ming China. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22154-0
• Chen, Yan (2002). Maritime Silk Route and Chinese-Foreign Cultural Exchanges. Beijing: Peking University Press. ISBN 7-301-03029-0.
• Cui, Mingde. (2005). The History of Chinese Heqin. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe. ISBN 7-01-004828-2.
• Du, Wenyu. "Tang Song Jingji Shili Bijiao Yanjiu" ("Comparative Study of Tang and Song Dyansty's Economic Strength"). Researches in Chinese Economic History. 1998.4. ISSN 1002-8005.
• Bowman, John S. (2000). Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Eberhard, Wolfram. (2005). A History of China. New York: Cosimo Inc. ISBN 1596055669.
• Ebrey, Patricia Buckley and Anne Walthall, James B. Palais. (2006). East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-13384-4.
• Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66991-X (paperback).
• Fairbank, John King and Merle Goldman (1992). China: A New History; Second Enlarged Edition (2006). Cambridge: MA; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01828-1
• Gascoigne, Bamber and Christina Gascoigne. (2003). The Dynasties of China: A History. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, an imprint of Avalon Publishing Group, Inc. ISBN 0786712198.
• Gernet, Jacques (1962). Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion, 1250-1276. Translated by H.M. Wright. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-0720-0
• Graff, David Andrew. (2002). Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900. New York, London: Routledge. ISBN 0415239540.
• Graff, David Andrew. (2000). "Dou Jiande's dilemma: Logistics, strategy, and state" in Warfare in Chinese History, 77–105, edited by Hans van de Ven. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004117741.
• Graff, David Andrew. (2008). "Provincial Autonomy and Frontier Defense in Late Tang: The Case of the Lulong Army," in Battlefronts Real and Imagined: War, Border, and Identity in the Chinese Middle Period, 43–58. Edited by Don J. Wyatt. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 9781403960849.
• Guo, Qinghua. "Yingzao Fashi: Twelfth-Century Chinese Building Manual," Architectural History: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain (Volume 41 1998): 1–13.
• Harper, Damian. (2005). China. Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. ISBN 1740596870.
• Hsu, Mei-ling. "Chinese Marine Cartography: Sea Charts of Pre-Modern China," Imago Mundi (Volume 40, 1988): 96–112.
• Hsu, Mei-ling. "The Qin Maps: A Clue to Later Chinese Cartographic Development," Imago Mundi (Volume 45, 1993): 90–100.
• Huters, Theodore. "From Writing to Literature: The Development of Late Qing Theories of Prose," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (June 1987): 51–96.
• Kang, Jae-eun. (2006). The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism. Translated by Suzanne Lee. Paramus: Homa & Sekey Books. ISBN 1931907374.
• Karlgren, Bernhard. (1964). Grammatica serica recensa. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
• Kiang, Heng Chye. (1999). Cities of Aristocrats and Bureaucrats: The Development of Medieval Chinese Cityscapes. Singapore: Singapore University Press. ISBN 9971692236.
• Kitagawa, Hiroshi and Bruce T. Tsuchida. (1975). The Tale of the Heike. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
• Levathes, Louise (1994). When China Ruled the Seas. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-70158-4.
• Liu, Pean. (1991). 'Viewing Chinese ancient navigation and shipbuilding through Zheng He's ocean expeditions', Proceedings of the International Sailing Ships Conference in Shanghai.
• Liu, Zhaoxiang et al. (2000). History of Military Legal System. Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. ISBN 7-5000-6303-2.
• Needham, Joseph. (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 3, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth. Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd.
• Needham, Joseph. (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Engineering, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering. Taipei: Caves Books Ltd.
• Needham, Joseph. (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology, Part 3, Civil Engineering and Nautics. Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd.
• Needham, Joseph. (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 1, Paper and Printing. Taipei: Caves Books Ltd.
• Needham, Joseph (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 4, Spagyrical Discovery and Invention: Apparatus, Theories and Gifts. Taipei: Caves Books Ltd.
• Pan, Jixing. "On the Origin of Printing in the Light of New Archaeological Discoveries," in Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 12 (1997): 976–981. ISSN 1001-6538.
• Reed, Carrie E. "Motivation and Meaning of a 'Hodge-podge': Duan Chengshi's 'Youyang zazu,'" Journal of the American Oriental Society (January–March 2003): 121-145.
• Reischauer, Edwin O. "Notes on T'ang Dynasty Sea Routes," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (Volume 5, Number 2, 1940): 142–164.
• Richardson, H.E. (1985). A Corpus of Early Tibetan Inscriptions. Royal Asiatic Society. Hertford: Stephen Austin and Sons Ltd.
• Schafer, Edward H. (1963). The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A study of T’ang Exotics. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1st paperback edition: 1985. ISBN 0-520-05462-8.
• Sen, Tansen. (2003). Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600–1400. Manoa: Asian Interactions and Comparisons, a joint publication of the University of Hawaii Press and the Association for Asian Studies. ISBN 0824825934.
• Shen, Fuwei. (1996). Cultural flow between China and the outside world. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. ISBN 7-119-00431-X.
• Song, Yingxing, translated with preface by E-Tu Zen Sun and Shiou-Chuan Sun. (1966). T'ien-Kung K'ai-Wu: Chinese Technology in the Seventeenth Century. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Stein, R.A. (1962). Tibetan Civilization; 1st English Edition, 1972. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-0901-7.
• Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman. "The Tang Architectural Icon and the Politics of Chinese Architectural History," The Art Bulletin (Volume 86, Number 2, 2004): 228–254.
• Studwell, Joe. (2003). The China Dream: The Quest for the Last Great Untapped Market on Earth. New York: Grove Press. ISBN 0802139752.
• Sun, Guangqi. (1989). History of Navigation in Ancient China. Beijing: Ocean Press. ISBN 7-5027-0532-5.
• Tang, Zhiba. (1991). 'The influence of the sail on the development of the ancient navy', Proceedings of the International Sailing Ships Conference in Shanghai.
• Temple, Robert. (1986). The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention. With a forward by Joseph Needham. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc. ISBN 0671620282.
• Twitchett, Denis. (2000). "Tibet in Tang's Grand Strategy" in Warfare in Chinese History, 106–179, edited by Hans van de Ven. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004117741.
• Wang Yongxing. (2003). Draft Discussion of Early Tang Dynasty's Military Affairs History. Beijing: Kunlun Press. ISBN 7-80040-669-5.
• Whitfield, Susan. (2004). The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith. Chicago: Serindia Publications Inc. ISBN 1932476121.
• Wood, Nigel. (1999). Chinese Glazes: Their Origins, Chemistry, and Recreation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812234766.
• Woods, Frances. (1996). Did Marco Polo go to China? US: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-8999-2.
• Wong, Timothy C. "Self and Society in Tang Dynasty Love Tales," Journal of the American Oriental Society (Volume 99, Number 1, 1979): 95–100.
• Wright, Arthur F. (1959). Buddhism in Chinese History. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Xi, Zezong. "Chinese Studies in the History of Astronomy, 1949-1979," Isis (Volume 72, Number 3, 1981): 456–470.
• Xu, Daoxun et al. (1993). The Biography of Tang Xuanzong. Beijing: People's Press. ISBN 7-01-001210-5.
• Xue, Zongzheng (薛宗正). (1992). Turkic peoples (突厥史). Beijing: 中国社会科学出版社. 10-ISBN 7-500-40432-8; 13-ISBN 978-7-500-40432-3; OCLC 28622013
• Yu, Pauline. "Charting the Landscape of Chinese Poetry," Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews (CLEAR) (December 1998): 71–87.
• Zizhi Tongjian, vols. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199.

|}

• Unassessed China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Unassessed Central Asia articles
• Unknown-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• Misplaced Pages content policies