Talk:Emperor Xizong of Tang

Pending expansion, potential removal of Hinsch assertions
I am planning on expanding the article over the next week or so and add sourcing. One of the things that I would like some thoughts on (if there is anyone around who can provide input) is that I am planning on taking the Hinsch references and the assertions from the Hinsch book out. Frankly, based on my prior exposure to the Hinsch book based on the references made in Homosexuality in China, I find the Hinsch book to be not credible. (What in particular led me to conclude the book to be not credible were its references to Empress Zheng Yingtao as a male based on a complete misreading of the historical resources; I took out the references to her (again, mistaken as a male) out of the homosexuality in China article upon seeing it.) There is nothing else that I can find that suggests that the Hinsch assertions cited to in this article to be credible, either (although, admittedly, not as absurd as the Empress Zheng situation). I'd like to see if there are any objections, however, before doing it. (I wouldn't be doing it prior to tonight in any case, and probably not until April 6, 2011.) --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Hinsch's book or work so I can't really comment on his credibility. His book has been published by a university press though, and some quick googling seems to reveal that he is a professional scholar with several other publications to his name. So on a general basis, if we want to throw references to him out entirely we really ought to be able to point to third party reviews establishing that his book is thoroughly discredited. And even then we might have to settle for something like "According to Hinsch ... ... [refs], however his views have not found support among other historians who claim that ... [ref][ref]".
 * As for the rest of the article, I'm probably the author of most of the non-Hinsch text. I couldn't be bothered to add specific citations back then, but I'm happy to provide so now where you think it's necessary.  Fornadan (t) 20:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What I think I am planning on doing (with no intent to offend you) is to expand substantially, and as I'm doing it I'll be putting in citations. Most of what you've written would probably get lost in the process, and I'm sorry about that.  As far as for the Hinsch text is concerned, since, in this circumstances, he appeared to be relying on unreliable sources himself (as he did in the Empress Zheng situation), I'm going to go ahead and remove them as unreliable in all due time unless I hear a convincing argument as to why they should stay — for one thing, they don't really add anything significant biographically about Emperor Xizong himself, unlike the situation with, for example, Emperor Ai of Han and Dong Xian, whose relationship was very politically significant and played a major role in the events during and after his reign — even if a relationship really did exist, arguendo.  (And I still find it unencyclopedic and fantastic, to say the least; urine down the emperor's throat?  No imperial physician would have ever allowed that.)  (Incidentally, the one of the pitfalls with Hinsch with the Empress Zheng situation was this: even had he not misinterpreted the gender of the person involved (which was a huge mistake, obviously) he would still have been relying on a poem, which is hardly a reliable source.  In Emperor Xizong's situation, I can't even tell what source that he was relying on, but nothing that can really be considered reliable, to say the least.  Traditional historians do not have kind words to say about Emperor Xizong, so it's really not a situation where they would have been covering for him.)  --Nlu (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in citations for statements relying on modern historical interpretation as these should be carried on into the expanded version. As for Hinsch I don't really care either way, but the University of California apparently deems him reliable, just saying. Cheers  Fornadan (t) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(unident) Can you check if your source actually said that the warfares between Li Keyong and Zhu Quanzhong affected Henan and Huai'an (or Huainan, which I assume was intended)? The Li Keyong/Zhu warfare actually largely affected neither of those regions — it was basically a largely proxy warfare over the circuits of southern Shanxi and southern Hebei (Hezhong in southwestern Shanxi and Zhaoyi in southeastern Shanxi/southwestern Hebei/northwestern Henan, with only Heyang (central western Henan) being affected among the Henan circuits, and it did not get affected for very long due to the Li Keyong/Zhu struggle (it got affected by other people's warfare very badly, of course)), and Zhu, while battling the Zhu Xuan/Zhu Jing/Shi Pu block, wasn't really battling Li Keyong — and those warfares affected modern Shandong and northern Jiangsu. Clarification on this would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, what probably did damage the Tang imperial court's financial position after the Huang Chao rebellion's suppression, more than any other, was how Huainan Circuit was laid to waste by the warfare in the late Gao Pian years and the subsequent struggle for control, and how essentially it slipped out of imperial control even during Gao's time (as Gao grew independent). But that had nothing to do with Zhu Quanzhong or Li Keyong.  Incidentally, having put that first section on background in place, I'm probably not going to do anything else about it tonight, and since I am expecting two busy days in court the next two days, the next time I'll probably do anything substantive is on April 6.--Nlu (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe my wording was unclear. I did not mean to say that the Li/Zhu quarrel brought chaos to these regions (this was already the case) but that their falling out brought to an end any hopes of restoring order (as this would have required them to cooperate)  Fornadan (t) 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you went on and just removed all references to modern scholarship. That's against all sorts of Wikipedia policies you know :)  Fornadan (t) 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TangXizong.jpg