Talk:Tang dynasty in Inner Asia

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>[1]</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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Denis Twitchett and Hans-Peter Tietze write 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 Twitchett and Tietze 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)

corrected names Yaan (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Scott Latourette's PhD dissertation was about the history of religion; and 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Revision as of 23:04, 1 March 2009 (edit) (undo)

141.155.157.221 (talk)
(Undid revision 274260996 by Tenmei (talkconsencus was made out entirely of pro mongolian editors)

Next edit →

Toxic 162.84.134.66 -- Everyone recognizes that this gambit is nothing more than "beating a dead horse;" and if you don't understand this phrase, click on the link and learn about a commonly-used English idioms.

Why not give us all a break? Your time would be better invested in studying How to Win Friends and Influence People. --Tenmei (talk) 14:23, 4 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:

• Wikipedia: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?

Extended content
khitan was a mongolic language Daur people are a mongolic people, DNA test shown them to be descended from khitans. yet someone has been claiming they are tungusic, and khitan is already classified as mongolic language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

mongolia

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)

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)

Extended content
map map was made by a french person, with sources. he also has a dislcaimer on it which reminds users that borders are indicatives, not factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 23:05, 1 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 Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia 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 A Tang period gilt-silver jar, shaped in the style of northern nomad's leather bag decorated with a horse dancing with a cup of wine in its mouth, as the horses of Emperor Xuanzong were trained to do. 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. A tomb guard (wushi yong), terracotta sculpture, Tang Dynasty, early 8th century 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. A clay haniwa model of a ship, from Japan's Kofun period (250–538) 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.

Semi-protection needed

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 Wikipedia 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. See Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection and Template:Pp-semi-indef.

The problems here are arguably the work of a PRC-sponsored shill whose intentions are inconsistent with the goals of Wikipedia. I had hoped that this problem had something to do with an overly-zealous, misguided youth -- but, no. In any case, the following vandalism warnings were reasonable and entirely ineffective:

• 162.84.138.30
• 162.83.161.11 ‎
• 162.84.136.193
• 141.155.153.147

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

Yes, the article should be semi-protected for at least 3 months. Thank you for your efforts to improve the article. --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what shall I say? I guess "yesterday's compelling admission" was what everyone of the Mongolia work group expected when reading the original version of the article. It is frustrating if you talk to some young Chinese in South Mongolia and they claim that dear old Chinggis Khan was the first emperor of the Yuan Dynasty. And if such views are endemic, there must be system behind it. School books etc. I guess a semi-protection would mean somewhat less stress than in the last few days, so I'm all for it. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Caveat lector ("Let the reader beware")

Extended content
LOL g purevdorj, no chinese claimed genghis khan was the first yuan emperor, kublai khan HIMSELF made his dear own grandfather POSTHUMOUSLY the first emperor of yuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.34 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the protection policy, there needs to be evidence of ongoing vandalism, edit-warring, etc. Can you point me to the bit of WP:PROTECT that would admit protection as an option here? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In the semi-protection section, which only affects anonymous disruption, I was encouraged to try to use this defensive tool by the following words:

• Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are anonymous ....
• Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly .... A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time.

Bearing in mind the guideline underlined above, I still plan to ask for protection for both article and talk pages; but I haven't figured out how to parse the procedures yet. During the time it takes to figure out the steps to take, I expect both article and talk page disruptions to continue apace. This seems unlikely to be any more effective than the futile vandalism warnings, but there you have it -- a temporary holding action which allows time for a different strategy to evolve, e.g., see above at Caveat lector.

As for the disruptive comments which are collapsed in keeping with the warning above, I would have thought the overwhelming character of the posting serves to illustrate an odd "edit war." In other words, the overwhelming whatever-it-is-supposed-to-be is a timely illustration. Q.E.D. --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did add both article and talk pages to the list asking for semi-protection -- see 1st attempt + correcting error. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection declined for time being

Declined for the time being, I have declined the requests to semi-protect either the article or this talk page. In the past 72 hours the article has been reverted fewer than a half-dozen times, so I do not feel it meets the levels of "significant" vandalism or disruption as described in the Protection policy. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kralizec! -- Now what? The dispute resolution procedures are deemed to be unavailable because the response to disruption has been too modest, too mediated by reason and too measured? And because the disruption involves an anonymous IP trouble-maker, the terrain for figuring out what to do next is too difficult?

Kralizec! -- This bland response seems to emphasize the wrong elements -- leaving those who should be encouraged without that much-needed affirming gesture. Worse, this response seems to underscore the effectiveness -- the success -- of disruptive tactics.

Kralizec! -- Provocative, disruptive strategies should be discouraged, not affirmed.

Kralizec! -- This response devalues every other participant in the process of trying to deal with this problem. Surely that is unintentional; but just as surely it is not an irrelevant consequence.

Kralizec! -- I'm certainly not disputing your judgment about the use of administrative powers in the situations you confronted. I'm assuming, of course, that your judgments were scrupulously correct. However, the question about what to do next can't be dismissed as an inappropriate one in this context. What next? What constructive options are available which have not yet been engaged? --Tenmei (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't semi-protect both article and talkpages simulataneously in any respect. It would violate a foundational principle that anyone, including anonymous editors, is allowed to contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the page history, it didn't seem like the page was receiving significant vandalism, so I agree with the admin in this situation.--Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems to be trying to address a situation which falls through the cracks in the system. Maybe I need to state explicitly that Kralizec!, Fritzpoll, and Kraftlos are each arguably correct. That having been said, now what?

What constructive options remain to be tried? --Tenmei (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

If the article and the talk page are now demonstrably shown to be indefensible in terms of Wikipedia's futile dispute resolution system, then perhaps Yann's suggestions at the top of the inconclusive AfD-thread should be revived and implemented -- see here?

Perhaps a constructive step away from this mess might be developed in a process of merging this article into Tang Dynasty, leaving it to the someone else or some other group of editors to deal with whatever this disruption strategy is designed to achieve? If so, then this article would exist only as an awkward re-direct; and this target of obsessive attacks would then be replaced with something else ... and this waste-of-time will become someone else's headache.

• See -- Talk:Tang Dynasty#Merge proposal

I don't like the idea of abandoning an article because it is indefensible from persistent vandalism, but this proposal is better sitting on our hands. Frankly, I'm very not good at defending against this kind of gaming the system -- not nearly good enough; but that too can change over time I suppose.--Tenmei (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think vandalism is a valid reason to merge an article. However if there isn't any prospect of more reliable information being found, it might be reasonable to go ahead and merge the article. We should take our time with this decision and not feel forced to act because of vandalism. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

I wouldn't support a merge at all. I really don't see how it could help. If Anon is determined to get his/her point of view in then s/he'll just follow back to the main article and edit there and the problem would continue. The level of editing at the moment is such that keeping the article on our watchlist and reverting problematic edits should be sufficient. I'd also suggest not letting Anon fluster you; it's possibly that his/her entire aim is to annoy people and that s/he enjoys seeing people run around desperately trying to fix things. In which case the best solution is just to calm down, revert quietly, and generally ignore him/her until s/he gets bored and goes away. --Zeborah (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D. ("that which was to be demonstrated")

Extended content

im not pro PRC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.34 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC) The ROC is the only country with claims to mongolia besides mongolia. and tenmei, i must say, your semi-protection request is equally as fraudulent as the supposed "concensus" you came up with to delete Mongolia during Tang rule, in which an admin REVERTED you. i must say, judging from your hoked up concensus, and consequently blaming me for the fact that an admin actualy checked to see if you did have concensus to delete that page, your editing ability must be removed. this semi protection is not the first hoked up fraud request by User:Tenmei this request is not the first hoked up request by tenmei. User:Tenmei supposedly had "concensus" to delete Mongolia under Tang rule. an admin spotted it, and realized the so called "concensus" was not covered by G6. tenmei proceeded to blame me for the fact that an admin spotted his fraud request for deletion and realized it wasnt covered by policy. And the fact that most of the discussion on this page is made up of pro mongol editors, shows that tenmei is not willing to pull in a neutral 3rd party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.34 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) and the fact that USer:Tenmei is putting warnings on my talk page despite the fact that he knows i DO NOT have a Static IP shows his fraudulence That's actually standard practice to warn IP/anon users. And admins are the one's who delete pages, its not automatic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

I wonder how exactly the current map is relevant to this article? It seems to show a situation where there was not much Tang influence into Central Asian affairs at all. The situation in the 7th century seems to have been quite different, even if this map or at least its legend are hopelessly off. Somewhat hard to understand that the author claims the Cambridge History of China as one of his sources. The maps there look quite different wiith regard to Inner Asia. Yaan (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Maybe I was not really clear, but the last two sentences of the statement above are referring to this map. Not to the one that has just been removed. That does not mean I do not agree with the removal, but because the map seems irrelevant, not because I think it is doubtful. Yaan (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am removing that other map again. Some reasons:

• It shows some kind of Tang control extending to the Caspian Sea. The basis for this seems unclear. Even the Cambridge History of China's Map of the protectorates created under Gaozong, Taizong's successer, ends at a line that goes roughly through Zarang(?), Herat, Bukhara. (Vol. III, p.281)
• It shows "Mongol tribes" in the northeast. This looks like a really bad anachronism.
• It includes Nanzhao as an integral part of Tang China, too. Also looks like a mistake

It is also completely unsourced, if that should be of any concern. Yaan (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you actually look at the map, it shows vassals of the Tang such as Nanzhao as well as areas under military administration such as the two former Gokturk Empires. Also, Nanzhao was not independant until the rule of Emperor Xuan. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Nanzhao on your map, and I don't see Yunnan as part of the Tang dynasty in 639 in the map in Cambridge History of China, vol. III, p. 204, nor any hint they became part of the Tang dynasty afterwards. Whatever their relationship was, they do not seem to have been ruled directly by the Tang administration. Maybe that area could be depicted in dark yellow, but if you look at the map, you will see it is in bright yellow. Also, I don't see any source for the Western Turks controlling the Caspian Sea in 642 or afterwards - they may have controlled it shortly in 630, but that was before their empire broke apart. If your definition of "vassal state" includes simple tributaries, which may have well existed in that area at that time, why don't you paint the Arabs dark yellow, too? And btw. what is that about Gorguryo - would you really say they were a vassal of the Tang at the time of Taizong's death? Yaan (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tang had destroyed Western Gokturk Empire by 657 AD and Eastern Gokturks even easier in 630. I'm not too clear about Nanzhao but Nanzhao as a state was not established until 730AD, I believe.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This map is from wikimedia commons, so It is "sourced".Teeninvestor (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yaan, the map yug made was probably based on the conclusion that since the western turks controlled the area up to the caspian sea, and the eastern turks contrlled the area represented on that map on the basis of another map, and that the tang seized them led the author to the conclusion that their borders must be tang's border's. theres no reason to beleive that they had changed the moment tang dynasty seized the gokturk khaganates.

The problem is that the Western Turks seem to have only expanded their dominion to he Caspian in 630 (small source can be given next Monday, if needed). Later that same year, their empire virtually split in two parts (per Rene Grousset, Empire of the Steppes, Rutgers Univ. Press 1988 p. 95 [2]) and generally seems to have descended into chaos. And per p. 102f, they were not really pacified (or whatever term fits better) after 649 either. Is it believable that their borders remained the same? Maybe. Could we believe their borders did change? I guess this might be possible as well. I guess one might even think that the idea of defined borders in that time and that area is a bit anachronistic. But in any case, I don't think the assumption that the Tang (or their "allies and vassals") controlled the eastern coast of the Caspian from 642-665 or in 649 is so straightforward that one could accept it without source. Yaan (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

and teeninvestor, other wikimedia projects are NOT WP:RS. this map even has a section to display its sources, the current map has none, and goguryeo and balhae existing at the same time is a big joke.

Teeninvestor -- In this case, will it be helpful to state that the onus is on you?

I wonder if this thread might be moved constructively forward by revisiting WP:V. The first paragraph on that policy page explains: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

In the context which the paragraph creates, your edit summary appears to have misconstrued what is needed. As you know, you wrote: We need a map. You have no proof this map is incorrect.

Yes, of course, a map or other image is a helpful addition in any article; but a flawed map is worse than no map at all. --Tenmei (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ..... Does that make sense?

Is it possible that a review of legal and scientific notions about the burden of proof may help clarify the way in which WP:V is to be construed in this specific instance? In the past, it has been helpful for me to parse the first paragraph of WP:V as a step-by-step strategy for clarifying what I think about problems like this. I often find that marrying a burden of proof analysis with this parsing strategy leads to a clearer appreciation of where burdens of persuasion will lie. Perhaps something similar might serve you well? --Tenmei (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that wikimedia commons is relatively verifiable. Also, these pictures are in use on Emperor Taizong of Tang. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons is no more a reliable source than wikipedia itself. Everyone can upload his (or her) favourite image of the Tang dynasty's borders there. No matter if these maps show only the outskirts of Chang'an or half of Eurasia. I won't do that now because it's late and this would be against WP:POINT, but I guess you can see the problem. WP:OTHER is not really an excuse either. Yaan (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Really. Even the most featured articles use wikimedia images. Also, if you didn't see it, Yunnan is not listed as part of the Tang Empire, the bulging part is western Sichuan. And if you didn't notice, Nanzhao was not formed until 730CE! so it would not be included on the map.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, Yaan is correct on this issue; Wikimedia Commons, like Wikipedia, is not a reliable source (unless the image itself contains a properly cited source). Regardless of even the Yunnan/Nanzhao and Korea/Three Kingdoms issues, the Caspian Sea extension already raises too many questions. The map can be added back later if it can be proven that the Turks controlled its shores up to the date the map is supposed to represent. Until then, as Tenmei said above, no map is better than an incorrect map.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, despite the fact that the Nanzhao Kingdom was formed in 730 CE, that does not immediately prove that the Tang had partial control over Yunnan prior to the formation of that state. I'm not too surprised about this; even after Emperor Wu of Han subdued the Dian Kingdom of Yunnan, he largely left the locals to their own devices.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious posting

WARNING: Toxic 162.84.161.162 -- The size of the following maps was quite overwhelming. The effect of "A" + "B" + "C" on my screen was stunning, startling -- worse even than the conventionally accepted SHOUTING which is to be inferred from text printed in all caps. Accordingly, I have changed the format into manageable thumbnail-sized images. In future, if I should encounter something similar, I will delete the image immediately on the assumption that it is mere vandalism.

WARNING: Toxic 162.84.161.162 -- In my view, it is the responsbility of the one who posts such images to avert this avoidable problem. This is no less true for an IP-"contributor" than for anyone else.

WARNING: Toxic 162.84.161.162 -- Beyond this matter of good form and wiki-formatting, it stretches credibility for anyone to post images of maps without any explanatory text. It is not possible the wider Wikipedia community to follow the development of this thread without the words which inform judgment. This thread, and indeed all of Wikipedia, is designed to encourage and facilitate the cooperative editing process. Accordingly, I see no alternative but to construe this strange "contribution" as being inconsistent with Wikipedia's long-term objectives and short-term goals. Without the benefit of explanation, I will assume that any further such postings are mere vandalism; and I will delete whatever-it-is immediately. --Tenmei (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Map "A" -- source unspecified?

Map "B" -- source unspecified?

Map "C" -- source unspecified?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.161.162 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The second map (the japanese one) seems to show Uighurs in what is now Mongolia, is that correct? If this is so, then it's not really the timespan we are talking about here with regard to Tang control of the Caspian Sea: Uighurs took over what is now Mongolia only in 744, here the talk is mainly about mid-600s.

That 'blue' map by Yug seems to have yet another problem: if we believe the text of the article, in the 640s the Tang only managed to drive the Western Turks out of what would later become Dsungaria. It says that the Tang would only "take over" all of the western Turk's territory (I guess what is meant is that the last Western Turks submitted to Tag rule, which is somewhat different) in 657. Yaan (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is the basis for the colouring of the Tang protectorates in Central Asia in the upper (bright yellow English-language) map? Yaan (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Central Mongolia under Tang domination for more than a century?

It's too bad the Library of Congress article does not cite any sources. Of course most Turkish monuments in the Khangai mountains which, when looking from Ulaanbaatar, are indeed further westward, but there is also a rather well-known stele by Tonyukuk not so far away from Ulaanbaatar. I guess this means that at least at the time when this stele was created, there was no Tang control in that area. Just some circumstancial evidence of course. Yaan (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Turks

I still think the appropriate title of this article would be something about the Tang and (only) the Eastern Turks. Or at least that would be closer to what the old topic of this article should have been. I actually think that the interactions between the Eastern Turks and the Tang Dynasty are quite noteworthy. At the very least they led to a number of interesting inscriptions. Of course the Tang in Inner Asia (what is now Xinjiang + and the former Central Asian SSRs?) is an interesting topic too, but I think a slightly different one. Yaan (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious source

The following source may or may not be credible. I can't be bothered to try to figure it out, based on previous experience with dubious material offered by an anonymous "contributor" to this specific article. However, I do have the ability and willingness to determine that the dubious citations attributed to this Chinese language "history" are inconsistent with WP:V.

• Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001.

Accordingly, I have deleted all of it. This kind of anonymous "participation" is incompatible with Wikipedia's standards. --Tenmei (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful not to bite the newcomer, Wikipedia is built on contributions from both anonymous and regular editors. But yeah, I aggree, that source doesn't appear to be very helpful. If the IP user would like that work included as a reference, it would be better to refer to an academic translation rather than the rather rough and often inaccurate google translation. That google translation isn't intended to be used in place of regular translations in academic settings. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It was contributed by me, not an IP editor. And even if it was contributed by the IP editor, you have no right to delete it without consulation. Also, I edited using my wikipedia profile, not IP. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

Teeninvestor -- If I may respond to just one part of the above:

A. The obligation, burden and responsibility to put some work into the not-so-easy task of defending your additions is yours, not mine. I need no consultation to delete inadequately supported text. It is you who must demonstrate that each statement from your Chinese source is (a) relevant, (b) accurately translated, and (c) credibly verifiable in the context of current scholarship. This burden is not mitigated by what I don't know about this subject. Nor would this requirement that you defend your edit be lessened by problems flowing from my limited skills in working well with others. You do understand this already, don't you?

B. Perhaps I was arguably wrong in many ways; however, it is not correct to claim that "you had no right to delete it without consultation."

C. Instead of deleting your text -- which is demonstrably inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources -- I've now separated each dubious sentence which Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence expects you to defend with, at minimum, a specific page number. Then, as you must already know, the job you have voluntarily chosen has only begun. You will also need to demonstrate that the original Chinese text has been faithfully served by your your translation so that even someone who knows less than me will be able to understand that the posted sentence is credible ... etc. If you cannot or will not do this, fine. I will simply delete it without compunction until the sentences comply with WP:V; and then I will stop.

D. In this clear course of action, I feel supported by the following:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough ... [Pseudo information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." -- Jimmy Wales<:ref>"Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." May 15, 2006.</ref>

E. The questions I raise are fair and reasonable. In these cautious demands, I ask no more from your edits than I would expect you to require from mine. For example, if you like, please feel free to criticize my modest contributions to Imperial Japanese embassies to China. If your input can help enhance the quality of that article, I would welcome your suggestions.

F. Kraftlos expressed appropriate concern about my WP:TONE, but that issue is quite different from those contemplated within the scope of Wikipedia:Reliable sources or WP:No original research. --Tenmei (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sourced with page numbers. This is all under "foreign relations of the Tang dynasty".Teeninvestor (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"A. The obligation, burden and responsibility to put some work into the not-so-easy task of defending your additions is yours, not mine. I need no consultation to delete inadequately supported text. It is you who must demonstrate that each statement from your Chinese source is (a) relevant, (b) accurately translated, and (c) credibly verifiable in the context of current scholarship. This burden is not mitigated by what I don't know about this subject. Nor would this requirement that you defend your edit be lessened by problems flowing from my limited skills in working well with others. You do understand this already, don't you?"

This is exactly what Jim Wales was complaining about when he was talking about problems with deletionists deleting articles of worthiness. This is passive obstructionism. If we went by your standards, 70% of articles on wikipedia would be deleted. This article is already extremely well-sourced, considering all the citations added/page numbers. Also, see discussion on comparison article for the relevance/verifiability of this source.

"I need no consultation to delete inadequately supported text." "This burden is not mitigated by what I don't know about this subject." Yep, this is the attitude that will improve wikipedia. Invite all your friends who know nothing about a subject, bombard it with citation tags, and move on to the next one. You JUST VIOLATED WP:CONSENSUS, MY friend. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why?

In the last ArbCom election, one of the candidates expressed what I'd not yet managed to put into words for myself. Coren's statement included arguments in favor of

• "More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues." [emphasis added]
• "Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. [emphasis in original]

In this article and this talk page, I feel compelled to respond to Kraftlos's gentle and generous point-of-view by adopting Coren's less tolerant words as if they were my own.

It is not "pro-Mongolian" to state that I'm against using Wikipedia articles as a battleground to advance real-world factional agenda. Whatever is going on here, we confront no innocent "newbie" in this instance.

Googling ISBN 7-204-04420-7 produced unanticipated results? At best, one might reasonably guess that this "anonymous" contributor is an awkward alter-ego of Teeninvestor?

• See Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires#Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7?
  • See Wikiversity:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires?
• Alternately, see Teeninvestor defending Han Dynasty from an overwhelming "contribution" from this same source -- see here.

Unlike IP-only contributions I've encountered in other articles, Mongolia during Tang rule begs an unavoidable question: Why?

What next? --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)