Talk:Xianbei

History of Manchuria

Changes were made to the Template:History_of_Manchuria to reflect actual Manchuria history. The changes were major. Please access the new changes and determine accordingly the relevence to this page.
Wiki Pokemon 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On WP:NCGN and "Manchuria"

Please refer to Template talk:History of Manchuria for relevant discussions and consensus. Cydevil38 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of Chinese culture?

"They first became a significant part of Chinese culture during the Han Dynasty, where they occupied the steppes in Mongolia, Hebei and Liaodong."
Is there any logical connectin between the two parts of this sentence? What's the purpose of the statement saying the "Xianbei became part of Chinese culture". Very unclear. What do you want to imply with that? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Han Dynasty" qualifier is necessary because it needs to be known when it was that they were in what is now Mongolia, Hebei, and Liaodong. Certainly they don't occupy Mongolia, Hebei, and Liaodong now. If you think they don't connect well, separate them. Taking out the information that they first came onto the scene in Chinese history during Han Dynasty takes out the timeframe context and makes the several sentences untethered, time-wise. --Nlu (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you aren't answering my question at all. And why do you revert when the sicussion isn't over? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how I failed to answer your question, and I am reverting because your removal of pertinent information is bordering on vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use personal attack. Don't be rude!!! I don't understand how pertinent it is. Why are you soooo rude? Please don't insult me calling me a "vandal" instead of enlightening me. You are engaged in an edit war , by the way. Be civil. If you can't discuss an issue peacefully, I'm not gonna waste my time with you. Unwatching the page. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate it when I directly answered your question and then was told that I didn't answer it. --Nlu (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous users' edits

There has been two anonymous user(s) (first 58.106.230.131, and now 81.214.153.182) who added an online Britannica article's link [1] to this article. In my opinion, this Britannica link is not a credible nor factual source for this article because: 1) it suggested that the tuoba clan of Xianbei was "Turkish speaking" (not "Turkic speaking" in which the anonymous users twisted the words around), which of course was not possible given the timeline and circumstance of linguistic history, and the fact that we know "Turkish" does not correlates to "Turkic" (i.e. German does not correlates to Germanic). 2) More importantly, this Britannica article is also contradictory to another online Britannica article [2] about the Xianbei in which it suggested that they were Mongol people instead.

Note the two articles from the same Encyclopedia Britannica offers two different views on this ethnic group. That is why these two sources from online Britannica are too contradictory and inconsistent to be used.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're looking at several other academic sources, the cultural institution Metropolitan Museum of Art suggested that the Tuoba clan of the Xianbei were proto-Mongol people [3]. While the Library of Congress suggested that the Toba clan of Xianbei belongs to the Donghu ethnic group, which were proto-Tungusic peoples [4].--TheLeopard (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is a questionable source on subjects related to the far east in general. I have run into conflicts when people copy/use from that source in particular. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said for every sources, even the most notable and commonly used academic references, considering the Library of Congress is among the world's most prominent and well-established research centers.--TheLeopard (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the past I have been skeptical on that source when others have used it on China related articles. But I understand what you mean. Benjwong (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More Anonymous users' edit

An anonymous editor 70.107.79.101 has added back a link to an article that has no relation to the current article. The battle which happened in the Xiongnu era isn't relevant to the Xianbei in any way. I have to remove that link. Sorry. Gantuya eng (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in that particular case, I agree with you, but a blanket statement that "happened in the Xiongnu era isn't relevant to the Xianbei in any way" (assume you are intending for it to be a blanket statement, rather than only to that battle) is inaccurate, because the Xiongnu and the Xianbei coexisted in the same geographic region for hundreds of years. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)