User talk:Nlu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:

User:Uniquark9 edit warring[edit]

User:Uniquark9 seems obsessed with airbrushing the Yuan dynasty article to his personal taste, removing or trimming information about Mongol defeats and losses while trying to aggrandize Mongol victories. 3family6

First he removed information about the Mongol capital at Karakorum being sacked by Ming forces by mendaciously insinuating that it was conflated with the Battle of Buyur Lake and that Karakorum was far away from Buyur, ignoring the fact that the Ming won in both areas. [1] The Ming sacked Karakorum in 1388 and took 70,000 Mongol prisoners. [2] [3]
Secondly, as you know, the Yuan dynasty consists of the Chingisid (descendants of Genghis Khan) and more specifically Qubilaids (descendsnts of his grandson of Kublai Khan) who held the title of Khagan or Emperor of the Yuan dynasty up until 1635.
Uniquark9 added Mongols invaded the Ming many times in the following centuries and even captured its emperor (Zhengtong Emperor) after defeating a large Ming army at Tumu in 1449. The high point of Mongol power came again in 1517, when Dayan Khan moved on Beijing itself. Although the Chinese held the Mongols off in a major battle, Dayan Khan and his successors continued to threaten China until 1526. The Mongolian armies raided the Ming Dynasty not only in the north, but also in the hitherto quiet west. The Ming Emperor Zhengde lost his protectorate Hami to the Turpans at the same time. In 1542 Dayan Khan defeated Chinese troops just before his death.
The second thing concerns the defeat of the Ming dynasty at the Tumu Crisis at the hands of the Oirats under Esen Taishi. The Oirats are a different Mongolic group than the Khalkha (eastern) Mongols and the Inner Mongols. The "mainstream" Eastern Mongols and Inner Mongols (now living in Outer and Inner Mongolia) only recognized descendants of Genghis Khan as their legitimate Khans (the Golden Family, Altan urag).
However the Oirat Mongols have no such requirement and their leaders like Esen Taishi were non-Chingisids. Their Khans were not descended from Genghis Khan. Esen Taishi fought against Chingisids and managed to seize power from them and become the effective leader of the Mongols. Esen Taishi was not a member of the Yuan dynasty royal family. [4][5][6][7]
Esen Taishi and his Oirat army defeated the Ming at Tumu Crisis. After being intoxicated with victory, Esen Taishi arranged for his Chingisid son-in-law Agbarjin to be murdered and declare himself the Great Khagan. The Mongols then rebelled at him for claiming the title and killed him. The Oirats were rivals of the Chingisids and fought against them [8][9]
User:Uniquark9 seems to feel the need to remove "Oirat" and "non-chingisid" as descriptors of Esen Taishi and his army, as if pretending that the Khalkha and Inner Mongols under the Chingisids were the ones doing all the fighting against the Ming. Esen Taishi and his Oirats were the ones who defeated the Ming army at Tumu, not a Chingisid. Considering the fact that this article is about the Chingisid Yuan dynasty that is a massive fact to overlook. [10]
Thirdly Turpan was not ruled by the Northern Yuan, it was ruled by the Chagatai Khanate so what does that have to do with the Yuan dynasty article? In fact the Yuan and Chagatai Khanates fought against each other and Esen Taishi himself battled the Chagataids. It seems User:Uniquark9 just wants to insert as much as he can about Mongols winning and delete everything he can about them losing. If he wanted to put the information about Turpan conquering Hami somewhere relevant he would have put it on the Chagatai Khanate article.
Fourthly he keeps removing all information about how the Yuan dynasty was finally ended- the main line of the Yuan royal family was defeated by the Qing dynasty in battle and forced to submit in 1635 under Ejei Khan. In 1675 Ejei's brother Abunai w:zh:阿布奈 and his son Borni w:zh:布爾尼 revolted against the Qing. The Qing then crushed their rebellion, executed them, and exterminated their branch of the Yuan royal family, putting a direct end to the main senior Yuan line who held the title of Great Khagan. [11] [12] [13][14]the Qing then placed the Chahar Mongols under the direct rule of the Qing Emperor. Surviving cadet branches of Chingisids who were ruling the Khalkha Mongols were then forced to submit as subjects to the Qing in 1691 after they were invaded by the non-Chingisid Oirat Mongol Dzungar Khanate under Galdan Boshugtu Khan (a descendant of Esen Taishi). [15][16][17][18][19]
I would like to note that he also followed me to the Northern Yuan dynasty article, and started deleting the same information there too. [20][21][22] If anything the information is even more relevant at that article. How can an article about the Northern Yuan dynasty leave out how the last Great Khagan was defeated and his family was forced to submit to the Qing in 1635? That is like deleting everything about the Chongzhen Emperor from the Ming dynasty article.
The factual veracity of the information was not questioned by User:Uniquark9 as this stuff is pretty much common knowledge among people who have basic background information about the Yuan and Northern Yuan. I provided the sources in the above paragraphs and there are sources on the Chinese wikipedia articles on Abunai and Borni. Everyone who studied early Qing history knows that the Qing put an end to the Northern Yuan and killed the royal family after their 1675 revolt. And everyone who studied Ming and Northern Yuan history knows on how the Oirats were the ones who defeated the Ming at Tumu and that they were rivals to the Chingisids. User:Uniquark9 is not even challenging it, not in his edit summaries nor on the talk page. He is just blatantly deleting it because he doesn't like it since it is about Mongol defeats, and he knows the information is correct. He keeps reverting my edits without any explanation.
Then finally, User:Uniquark9 goes to another Mongolian User:Toghuchar and tells him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. He is blatantly telling another editor to engage in an edit war against meRajmaan (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me sleep on it... My gut reaction is that I shouldn't be involved with this dispute for a couple reasons:

  1. Yuan history is not my forte, and therefore, I am not really sure I would be in a good position to argue that these are distortions.
  2. As someone whose historical sources are necessarily only Chinese in nature (I do not currently have time to access or physical access to a lot of English language sources, and certainly cannnot read Mongolian or Russian ones), I may be accused of the same bias and therefore, my involvement may exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, this user's behavior.

I would suggest, for now, perhaps consider filing an RfC on this user's uncivil behavior, but let me sleep on it and see if I can think of something better. --Nlu (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is because Rajmaan is writing from too china-centric POV. Even tried to change the name of Mongol empire to a chinese translation of it. He does the same attempts on many other articles, like vietnamese Tran dynasty. So it is our duty to warn other editors of people like Rajmaan. Rajmaan is chinese. Is it problem if I mention Rajmaan is chinese? Lol. Uniquark9 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue is whether what he's writing is verifiable; if it is, and there is no other reliable source, then it should be used even if it is arguably "Chinese-centric." (For a lot of central/northern Asian peoples, Chinese sources are all the reliable sources that we have.) Uniquark9, I would suggest that the tone you are taking here suggests that you aren't well-versed in Wikipedia's principles of etiquette or of proper editing. Please consider taking a look at them, starting with WP:5P. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me also add that I have absolutely no idea whether Rajmaan is Chinese. (I will say that as you may be able to discern, if Rajmaan is Chinese, his Chinese isn't good enough that he does need help from me time to time with interpreting Chinese.) Nor is it relevant - it does not make him more or less credible on issues dealing with Mongolian history. Regardless, using an editor's ethnicity in attacking that editor is a violation of civility rules (among other things). And as a corollary, Mongolian (or Chinese, or any other ethnicity) editors are not supposed to "be united against those ________ oppressors!" in their editing. Doing so, I would say, violates NPOV principles. Please consider whether your conduct is in conformance with those principles. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Uniquark9 is referring to this source edit as me trying to "change the name of the Mongol empire"- In 1217 a Chinese title, Da Chao (大朝; Wade Giles: Ta-ch'ao ; English: "Great Dynasty") was adopted by Genghis Khan to refer to the Mongol state, alongside Da Menggu Guo (大蒙古國 ; Wade Giles: Ta Meng-ku kuo), the Chinese translation of the Mongol name "Yeke Mongghol Ulus" (The Great Mongolian State), until Kublai Khan imposed the new name Da Yuan (大元; Wade–Giles: Ta-Yüan). This is what it said in the source : "Chinggis Khan did adopt a Chinese title called "Ta-ch'ao" 大朝 (Great Dynasty) around 1217, after the Mongols embarked on the conquest of China. This state name was in use along with Ta Meng-ku kuo until it was replaced by the new name Ta Yüan under Khubilai Khaghan" I fail to see how I tried to "change" the name of anything by adding paraphrased information from a source.
As for the Tran dynasty, I added sources which correctly noted that the Tran family originated in China and migrated to Vietnam where they continued to speak Chinese, which is confirmed by numerous western historians with credentials from well known western universities- [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]southeast asian history Professor Alexander Woodside outright refers to the Tran family founder as "Chinese"
Some people apparently uncomfortable with the fact sought to remove it, even from the Tran dynasty article itself. Uniquarck9 also apparently has a problem using civil language, he used the word "bullshit" or "bullshitting" at least three times on this talk page- Talk:Genghis Khan
Also Uniquarck9 totally failed to address the reason why I brought this issue here- his repeated blanking of information from the Yuan dynasty article for absolutely no valid reason. He hasn't responded to any of the things I noted above about Karakorum, Esen Taishi, Turpan, the conquest of the Northern Yuan by the Qing and so on.
I took this conversation to User_talk:Philg88#Yuan_dynasty so everyone please respond there.Rajmaan (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bikram Sambat[edit]

Regarding [32], note that Nepal uses Bikram Sambat calendar. --Soman (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Soman: Ah, got it. Thanks - learn something everyday... --Nlu (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Nlu. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

• ServiceableVillain 12:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing: Lhasa (prefecture-level city) proposed move[edit]

You have been involved in preliminary discussions about splitting the article on Lhasa into two: one on the small city and one on the larger prefecture-level city. This is to invite you to contribute to the discussion on User talk:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city)#Proposed move. Please feel free to invite anyone else you feel would be interested. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You brought up the OR, NPOV and V policies, which makes it sound like there is some problem there. There are probably typos, and some of the figures may be inaccurate, but there is certainly no attempt to convey anything other than what the sources say. It is just a mundane description of a geographical area. I do not see anything more to add to the discussion. I will leave it for DGG to call the shot. I am bored with the subject. It is a minor decision about an obscure topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Turkic States[edit]

There is a discussion on Talk:List_of_Turkic_dynasties_and_countries#116_Turkic_states.3F over what constitutes as a Turkic state, as many Users are challenging the inclusion of Mongol ruled states whose Mongols rulers were Turkified, or had majority Turkic populations like the Golden Horde and Chagatai Khanate as Turkic, and advocate that they be put into a special section of "Turko-Mongol" states. The Mughal Empire was a state ruled by a Mongol origin family who were Turkified, then Persianized. The same can be disputed with states listed at List_of_Turkic_dynasties_and_countries#China. As far as I know, the Shatuo ruled states like Later Tang and Later Jin and Later Han had majority Han populations, were sinicized, used Chinese as their official language, used Chinese titles and essentially the basic character of their states were all Han, they didn't use titles like Khan and the only thing that can be described as Turkic is that the ruler was of Shatuo origin and had some Shatuo troops, and even then Later Jin claimed a (forged?) genealogy from a Han. And they used Chinese dynasty names, Chinese surnames and personal names for themselves, Chinese reign titles, and basically everything Chinese and didn't use Turkic titles or names. The Later Tang rulers even named themselves Later Tang since they were granted the Imperial Li surname and saw themselves as resurrecting the Tang. Can you comment and add input on the list and what section the Shatuo states should be put in?Rajmaan (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try. It's not really my area of expertise, but I'll try to give some input. --Nlu (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Rajmaan, the discussion section you linked to above is not about what constitutes a Turkic state. It was merely about the statement in the lead that up to today, there have been at least 116 Turkic states.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

These states again[edit]

  1. Yan (Five Dynasties) -> Yan (10th century)
  2. Yin (Ten Kingdoms) -> Yin (10th century)
  3. Zhao (Five Dynasties) -> Zhao (10th century)
  4. Qi (Five Dynasties) -> Qi (10th century)
  5. Jin (Five Dynasties) -> ?
  6. Wu (Ten Kingdoms) -> Wu (10th century)
  7. Min (Ten Kingdoms) -> Min (10th century)
  8. Chu (Ten Kingdoms) -> Chu (10th century)

1-4 I think will be better. #5 one I'm not sure, it's ambiguous with Later Jin either way. But if 1-4 are changed, 6-8 are probably best changed as well, since "kingdom" is in my opinion a lousy translation. The (Five Dynasties) ones I suppose could stay. Thoughts? Timmyshin (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I would (mildly) oppose on the basis that for those who are learned in Chinese history (and I don't think anyone who's not familiar with Chinese history would be all that interested in these states), conceptually, it's easier to think of them as associated with an era (Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms) than with a century. But I see the point in that in a way, they're somewhat misnamed currently. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I do understand your point, but a name like Yan (Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period) is just too unwieldy. At the very least #5 needs to be moved, Jin (Five Dynasties) should actually redirect to Later Jin (Five Dynasties). What do you think of Jin (907–923) (I hate names like this but I can't think of a better solution)? Timmyshin (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Lulong (state) for Yan, would this work? Timmyshin (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not like either of them, to be frank. Using exact years for states is problematic, in my opinion, because nobody's going to remember the exact years that a state existed (and Jin arguably was a "state" at the time that Li Keyong was created the Prince of Jin during Tang). Lulong as a state name is problematic because the state also included Yichang, and nobody (whether friend or foe) would have referred to Liu Shouguang as the prince/king/emperor of Lulong. --Nlu (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right. How about Jin (Later Tang precursor)? Timmyshin (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems a bit unwieldy, but I can live with it. Incidentally, I still don't have any additional thoughts on the others, but I think Min can be moved to Min (state). (That won't work for any of the others, though.) --Nlu (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks....[edit]

For fixing AfD nomination for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

At which occasion Murong Wei referred Murong Ping as his uncle instead of granduncle?[edit]

I am sorry that I failed to find the source.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@HenryXVII:In this case, it turned out that I was overly relying on Bo Yang, who, rather than any ancient/medieval source, was the one who made that mistake. Bo Yang had written that Murong Wei had referred to them as "the two uncles" (兩位叔父, that's in vol. 25 of the Bo Yang Edition of the Zizhi Tongjian), but as it turned out, at least according to the Zizhi Tongjian itself, Murong Wei actually referred to them as "the two lords/dukes" (二公, see Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 101). Feel free to go ahead and fix if you want to; if you want me to do it, I'll do it, having made the mistake myself. --Nlu (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)