Talk:An Lushan Rebellion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

An Lushan Rebellion (Move 2003)[edit]

Shall we move these page to An Lushan Rebellion despite the new title does not take Shi Siming into account? Google search of An Lushan Rebellion [1] yielded more English titled resuit than that of Anshi rebellion [2] kt2 14:30, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"An Lushan Rebellion" does turn up significantly more hits than "Anshi Rebellion" or "An-Shi Rebellion". So I agree with the move. --Menchi 01:57, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
done kt2 04:36, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back. First of all, it is An Shi Rebellion. I don't know what you're getting but... Results 1 - 10 of about 18,500 for an lushan rebellion Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000 for an shi rebellion If you are saying Anshi Rebellion, then your mistyping it on purpose. That's like searching World War II and typing it like Worldwar II. An Shi is two seperate words, not one word and should not be typed like one word. Yialanliu (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment[edit]

Good length and level of detail. Now it just needs organization, pictures, an infobox, and references. LordAmeth 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


How did this manage to kill 36 million people? This article needs a few more details perhaps Woscafrench 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this - that was the question I can to this article with, and no explanation is provided. Sylvain1972 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talkcontribs)
Most likely due to starvation and a few to war casualties. Remember back then, farming was like treading on a wire, one failed harvest would be disastrous. A whole region might starve to death because of lack of food. When no one has food, stealing doesn't matter especially when you cannot find food to steal. Yialanliu (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is on the basis of census data. Some historians suggest that post war census may have been a significant undercount. Poetic evidence suggests that the war was very destructive and causing the death of 2/3rds of the population (from all causes) would not be inconceivable. Read some of the poetry of Du Fu. He, a well connected government official, describes learning that his daughter has died of starvation. How much more so a regular family? In other poem, he describes the capital, Changan, as an abandoned ruin. (This poem contains the famous line 感時花濺淚 which is often (rather idiotically, in my opinion) translated "Even the flowers weep, in these hard times" or similar drivel, when a much better translation would be something like "seeing the flowers, I weep for our era", ie. the flowers growing through the pavement of the ruined city.) (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Historical Perspectives[edit]

This article seems to have a bias when compared with a recorded lecture I’ve listened to as well as to the page on An_Lushan. In “From Yao to Mao, 5,000 years of Chinese history[3]” Kenneth Hammond takes the position that the Confucian historians where strongly opposed to the power emperor Tang Xuanzhong gave to An Lushan who was not Chinese. Also, the historians treated Yang Guifei unfairly because the emperor consulted her on matters of state.

I can think of 3 points which would be useful to resolve:

• An Lushan wasn’t just non-Han Chinese, he was Turkish.
• There is no evidence An Lushan was planning rebellion before he was ordered to the capitol.
• An Lushan had reason to believe if went to the capitol he would be unjustly executed.

I intend write a polite letter to Prof. Hammond asking where I could find the sources he used. Once I read the sources I hope update the article giving credence to both Historical perspectives. --Pstaight 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I never got a response from Prof. Hammond. However, I’m very pleased with the revisions. I realize that I was mostly hoping to simply contribute to Wikipedia and it may be time to remove my talk section. If any one can suggest other ways I can contribute let me know. Otherwise I will continue to read books and make suggestions. --Pstaight 10:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WRONG. he was half sogidan half turkic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Move proposed (2008)[edit]

I am a bit puzzled by present name and suggest that the page be moved to An Lushan rebellion, as per WP:COMMON.--Amban (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. An-Shi rebellion is simply more occurate. (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The common term in the English language is An Lushan rebellion. I'm surprised it has not been moved after five years of polite suggestion and no "occurate" rebuttal. Not even discussion. In a few days I plan to move it myself. Huangdi (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back. First of all, it is An Shi Rebellion. I don't know what you're getting but... Results 1 - 10 of about 18,500 for an lushan rebellion Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000 for an shi rebellion If you are saying Anshi Rebellion, then your mistyping it on purpose. That's like searching World War II and typing it like Worldwar II. An Shi is two seperate words, not one word and should not be typed like one word. Yialanliu (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I'd always heard it called "An Lushan rebellion" as well. Weird.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Again... "An Lushan Rebellion" brings up 10.800 pags. "An Shi Rebellion" results in 2,550 pages, and many of those simply link to this page. It's disingenuous to search without quotations. Now...can we get some momentum for moving the page?? Huangdi (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any ideas about what is now the key parts of the page to be fixed? I read it and thought it reasonable, but there is definite need for improvement. Anyone got an idea? Homunculus (strange tales) 15:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism on death toll[edit]

I am just wondering that why is it, if the death toll of 36 million for this war is thought to be a gross exaggeration, that it is listed as the official casualty list? Also, why is this war on so many lists on this site, such as the "Wars by death toll" one, if its total death toll is considered to be so exaggerated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The decline is in registered population. After the war the Tang Dynasty's registration system collapsed, so only 24 million were registered instead of 60 million before. However, most of the "deaths" were simply unregistered.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverting this as there was no citation. The Tang Dynasty did not collapse until much later(907 AD). Also, while some people have conjectured such sentiments, there have made no estimates upon this. As this record(census) is considered fact unless disproven we must treat it as such until there's ample evidence to overturn this fact with a new estimate. Yialanliu (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus seems to be that a) An Lushan Rebellion is the most common name in English language sources and b) that policy supports the most common name. Hence moved. Dpmuk (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

An Shi RebellionAn Lushan Rebellion — lets try to get a consensus on what this should be called, since there have been multiple moves and reversions without seeking consensus in the history of this article, possible choices include

-- (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Provisional support It is called "An Lushan Rebellion" in all the history books I've read and in most of the other Wikipedias as do the majority of other Wikipedias. In Google Books[4][5] and Google Scholar[6][7] An Lushan seems to dominate. "An Shi" might be more accurate, but unless or until a scholarly consensus develops/developped in the West in favor of "An Shi" than "An Lushan" makes more sense on English Wiki. That said I could see giving preference to the Chinese way of doing things on a Chinese article, but I think I lean against that more than for it.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It's still inaccurate. As I noted below, accuracy is more important than commonality of use, per Wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest, and an encyclopedia should strive not to promote inaccuracies. --Nlu (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The inaccuracy of the name can be dealt with in the article. The policy you site refers to "often" not "always." In the case of "tidal wave" the term is simply wrong as it does not involve tides. In terms of "An Lushan Rebellion" the wrongness is more about incompleteness as An Lushan was involved. Still I'll go back to "provisional support."--T. Anthony (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment: To which policy do you refer? The article naming policy says exactly he opposite of what you appear to be claiming. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll also state this (and folks are welcome to verify this in case it's just my eyes' being biased): most of the uses of "An Lushan Rebellion" that I can see from the Google Scholar search were citations to a few articles that had "An Lushan Rebellion" in their titles, rather than genuine textual uses of "An Lushan Rebellion" as a phrase within the main text. At least, again, that's as far as I can see. I don't see the same phenomenon in the references to "An Shi Rebellion" (or variations thereof). --Nlu (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well then in my look I note that most of the ones using "An Shi" are from China itself and we're discussing the name that works for an English-language Wikipedia. Although possibly the Chinese should have preference.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • If I just google "An Lushan Rebellion" and the name of various historians (Ebrey, Wakeman, Spence) I remember from my school days, the requisite textual references do show up. Huangdi (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I would also disagree with the characterization that "An Lushan" is used in "most of the other Wikipedias." Specifically, all of the Asian language ones use "Anshi" or variations thereof. --Nlu (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You're right. It would have been better to say "the majority of other Wikipedias." From what I count 8 use An-Lushan, 7 use An-Shi, and I'm not 100% sure on Russian. However I'm pretty sure Russian is also using An Lushan so if so that's a majority. I'll amend.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking it up Russian is using "An Lushan" not that that's necessarily relevant. Still I think I'm going to drop the "provisional" again.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support proposed move as "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). Both "An Lushan Rebellion" and "An Lu-shan Rebellion" are vastly more common than "An Shi Rebellion" according to both Google Books and Google Scholar, with the non-hyphenated form more common in recent works. "安史之乱" (Ān Shǐ Zhīluàn) is the standard term in Chinese, but the English Wikipedia should follow English usage. Kanguole 13:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move as historically inaccurate. While it is true that the general policy is to use the most common usage, it should not come at the cost of accuracy. The precise reason why the Chinese-speaking community refers to both An and Shi is because they were both central figures to the rebellion, not just An; calling it the An Lushan rebellion misses the point. It would be like referring to the Axis Powers of World War II as "Germany and its allies." --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Specifically, take a look at this from WP:NC:
      The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate tidal wave.
      • Note the emphasis on other in the original (it's the last paragraph of the section), which has been omitted in the quotation above. This section actually says that the common name is the primary consideration, and that the other factors, such as accuracy, are secondary. I know this isn't what some want it to say, but it's what it does say. In the case of tsunami, the common use is arguable, so secondary considerations assume greater relevance than in the current discussion. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We should not encourage the misconception (which I would not even call a "common" misconception since that is not how the Chinese community misconceives it) that An Lushan was the only leading figure of the rebellion by moving the article to a more inaccurate title. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
At this vast of a contrast, it's not even an issue of popularity anymore. It's about usage.
This article from a Chinese Reader illustrates how this cross-linguistic nuance should be handled: "The An Lushan R." is in the title (written along side 安史之亂 in this case), and explained later in the main text that it's called differently in Chinese historiography. --Menchi (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move back to An Lushan Rebellion. There appears to be strong consensus that this is the common name in English. Arguments against all appear to be either based on a misunderstanding of policy or attempts to promote a "correction" to current English usage, or both. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move and return to An Lushan Rebellion. It's the most common English name, and it's also how academics in the United States refer to the event. Huangdi (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But English Wikipedia is not "United States Wikipedia." What scholars use in the United States is relevant, but I believe even more relevant is how scholars in the Chinese-speaking world treat the subject, and there, "An Lushan Rebellion" would be derided as completely inaccurate. (The same view apparently is held by scholars in other Asian, but non-Chinese, countries as far as I can see.) --Nlu (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed English Wikipedia is not "United States Wikipedia", but the same usage also dominates across the rest of the English-speaking world. And according to the naming policy of this Wikipedia, that is what matters. Usage in other languages is not relevant to the English Wikipedia. Kanguole 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I took the qualification in the United States to just mean that the contributor didn't want to claim personal knowledge of worldwide usage, while they did claim knowledge of US scholarly usage, and I think it's a very helpful way of contributing. It's reasonable to accept the claim they made without further evidence and unless someone disputes it. Agree that the question is broader, but disagree that Chinese scholars are more relevant. All scholars who use English are equally relevant. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is Chinese History and because this name is the phonetic spelling of the pinyin of chinese, we should keep it that way. The current name is the name that is used like Mao Zedong for Chairman Mao. How would you feel about naming him Mao Tsetung We should stick with the pinyin version as that is the correct scholarly version. Yialanliu (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
An interesting point, I'll return to provisional.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This is covered in detail at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): we use Mao Zedong because the pinyin form of his name is now standard in English usage, but Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen because those are still the common usage in English. It's just an instance of the general naming policy. Kanguole 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - google books and scholar searches confirm that "An Lushan rebellion" is far more common.--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • It seems indisputable that the overwhelming majority of scholars discussing this event in English refer to it as the "An Lushan Rebellion". It is not the role of Wikipedia to decide whether that usage is erroneous (that would be OR), nor to promote a "corrected" usage. We must follow the reliable sources. Kanguole 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I'm fascinated by the appeal to policy above to support imposing a more "accurate" name. The actual policy opposes this, in many places. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed the naming policy addresses such situations directly in WP:POVTITLE. Kanguole 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Which makes the claim above that accuracy is more important than commonality of use, per Wikipedia policy (my emphasis) all the more fascinating. I note that there is no reply as yet to my question above asking exactly which policy supports this. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Nlu has referred to last paragraph of the WP:COMMONNAME section (with the tsunami/tidal wave example), but the present case is missing the "as determined by reliable sources" part. Kanguole 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The tsunami example is very different because (1) scholarly work invariably uses "tsunami", and (2) any high school text on the subject will start by explaining why the common term "tidal wave" is inaccurate. Kanguole 09:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Usage in other Wikipedias is a red herring: the issue here is usage in English-language reliable sources. Kanguole 09:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (At the risk of repeating myself -- although this is intended not to, but rather to add an additional argument) It seems to me what it comes down to is that non-Asian (I mean geographical location, not ethnicity) scholars, when writing in English, prefer "An Lushan Rebellion," while Asian scholars, when writing in English, prefer "An Shi Rebellion" (or variants). In this case, although I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, given the gradual opening of Chinese scholarship to the non-Chinese world, the "An Shi" usage will predominate. But even if that were not true, given that this is a Chinese history subject, the Chinese predominant usage should be adopted, in addition to its being more historically correct. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - TL;DR. At first glance though, An-Shi rebellion seems to be a better choice because An Lushan/Qingxu and Shi Siming/Chaoyi are different people, but without a hyphen it looks like there's a guy whose surname is An and given name is Shi. However, An Lushan rebellion seems to be blatantly historically inaccurate since An Qingxu, Shi Siming and Shi Chaoyi all led the rebellion after Qingxu killed Lushan. Please correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, participants of this discussion may be interested in this one as well. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Don't want to complicate matters too much, but is this perhaps a case where useage has changed in recent years, as have so many names in the People's Republic of China? If so, it may be appropriate to put date parameters into all those Google searches people are doing! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    Try it. Certainly "An Shi Rebellion" appears recently (from roughly 1980), but "An Lushan Rebellion" still overwhelmingly dominates post-2000 Google Books searches, especially if you filter out the Wikipedia reprints. Kanguole 11:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Summary An attempt to summarize the arguments made above:
    For "An Lushan Rebellion":
    • It is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME), as shown e.g. by Google Books[8][9] and Google Scholar[10][11].
    For "An Shi Rebellion":
    • This is Chinese history, so the article should follow Chinese usage (安史之乱 Ān Shǐ Zhīluàn), of which this is a direct translation.
    • Some editors believe the other title is incorrect.
    • This usage is expected to become more common in English in the future.
Have I omitted anything? Kanguole 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this is a good summary. --Nlu (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • What about An-Shi rebellion, which is both grammatically sound and historically accurate (though not necessarily used widely)? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't oppose it. --Nlu (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Nlu, but I must point out that the 3 arguments for the current title have no support in the article title policy; indeed it rules against each of them (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTAL respectively). Kanguole 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • How does POVTITLE play into this at all? "An Lushan Rebellion" is not any more neutral than "An Shi Rebellion." (I might agree that a hypothetical title of "Tang-Yan War" or "Yan-Tang War" would be less POV (albeit completely unsupported by common usage and therefore unsuitable as a title), but certainly "An Lushan Rebellion" isn't any less POV than "An Shi Rebellion.") As far as it being common is concerned, the question is still: common where? It's certainly going to be less common in China (and, as I think has been shown, in Asia in general, not just in China, as well). More common in the western world? I'll grant that. More common overall? That's hardly been demonstrated. In any case, it's inaccurate to state that no policy supports "An Shi" (or variants) — I believe the portion I quoted from WP:NC does (dealing with incorrect names that are common). Others have argued that the "tsunami" vs. "tidal wave" situation doesn't apply here. I disagree, but I understand and acknowledge their points, and I believe I've courteously done so. Please show the same courtesy by not twisting my arguments — in particular, the POV part, which I think is completely a wrong-headed statement. Exactly what POV would the title of "An Shi Rebellion" promote that "An Lushan Rebellion" doesn't? --Nlu (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
          • It has been claimed that "An Lushan Rebellion" presents an inaccurate view because it omits the role of Shi Siming. WP:POVTITLE says that in such cases we should follow the sources rather than making our own judgement. The portion of WP:COMMONNAME you mention requires the inaccuracy to be "determined by reliable sources", and that is missing here. As for "common where?", the policy is very clear: English-language reliable sources. Kanguole 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
            • That's not what WP:POVTITLE is about. This is what it states (copy-and-pasting, not re-wikifying):
            • When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.
            • This refers to the situation when the title itself passes judgment or is itself non-neutral, not when there are multiple views about what the title itself should be; otherwise, every single naming dispute will be considered to involve WP:POVTITLE, which is not what that paragraph is supposed to be about. Please don't argue points that don't apply. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I was referring to its emphasis on following the English-language reliable sources rather than the judgement of Wikipedia editors, and certainly not accusing anyone of pushing a POV. However I can see it has offended you, and the same theme recurs throughout the article title policy, so I've replaced the link. The point remains: the 3 arguments for "An Shi Rebellion" are all contrary to the article title policy, which relies on English-language reliable sources. Kanguole 10:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (unindenting) It's not policy, but please also consider whether a systemic bias exists in this case: when the country that the subject area is most intimate with — in addition to one highly populous country (Japan) that is not most intimate with the subject but is a major contributor to the research in the area — both use the usage that is allegedly less common, then I think one has to examine whether the use of the allegedly more common usage (and I still do not accept, but I understand, the argument that it is more common), I think there is a systemic bias issue. In any case, I don't think I have much, if anything more, to add. Consensus will have to govern one way or another, and perhaps we're already spending too much time here arguing over this. --Nlu (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You say "allegedly" – is there any serious doubt that "An Lushan Rebellion" is more common in English-language reliable sources? (I accept that following English-language sources creates a bias towards regions where English is used, but there seems to be a broad consensus for it on the English WP.) Kanguole 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I used "alleged" because I am not convinced that that is the proper metric to look at, particularly given that Chinese and Japanese scholarly sources (and here, I refer to the nations, not the languages) are not as likely to be available on online searches as American ones. --Nlu (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
        • True, but internal publications in China or Japan are unlikely to be in English, no? Kanguole 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
          • "Unlikely" as in <50%? Yes. "Unlikely" as in "lacking a reasonable probability"? I don't think so. --Nlu (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the naming of this article[edit]

I thought I am late in participating in discussing the move. But by borrowing the analogy of Pugachev's Rebellion and Bulavin Rebellion on this site, I guess that An and Shi Rebellion or An Lushan and Shi Shiming Rebellion may be a suitable name of balancing the two aforementioned naming convention. -- Ktsquare (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Or An-Shi Rebellion, analogous to Croatian-Slovenian peasant revolt and An and Shi Rebellion, analogous to Spithead and Nore mutinies. -- Ktsquare (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"a major societal disturbance and turmoil"[edit]

I know wars with death tolls in the tens of millions are just disturbances to the Chinese but this was a pretty terrible war, even for China. Can we just call it a war? (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no value judgement in the word 'war' or the phrase 'major societal disturbance and turmoil'. The latter only focusses more on the impacts, IMHO. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrase is vague and uninformative – it could just as well cover widespread tax riots. War isn't quite enough either, as you want to explain it was an internal conflict. I've had a go at rephrasing. Kanguole 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Matthew White[edit]

I've removed citations of Matthew White (atrocitologist) as an unreliable source, in favour of the John Durand paper from which White got the census figures. White's methodology (going by the number of households in the censuses, say half the the population disappeared, and then halve that again to be conservative) just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Kanguole 23:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An Lushan Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)