Talk:Shi Jingtang

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Title
Per Naming_conventions_(Chinese), the word 'emperor' should be put before the current title.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

– (see talk page) Timmyshin (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin → Shi Jingtang
 * Emperor Taizu of Later Liang → Zhu Wen (Later Liang)
 * Emperor Zhuangzong of Later Tang → Li Cunxu
 * Emperor Mingzong of Later Tang → Li Siyuan
 * Emperor Gaozu of Later Han → Liu Zhiyuan
 * Emperor Yin of Later Han → Liu Chengyou
 * Emperor Min of Later Tang → Li Conghou
 * Emperor Taizu of Later Zhou → Guo Wei (Later Zhou)
 * Emperor Shizong of Later Zhou → Chai Rong
 * Emperor Gong of Later Zhou → Chai Zongxun
 * Emperor Liezu of Southern Tang → Li Bian
 * Emperor Yuanzong of Southern Tang → Li Jing (Southern Tang)
 * Li Houzhu → Li Yu (Southern Tang)

Very similar proposals have been made by another user 3 years ago (see Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang), which were rejected. I hope to relist the proposals.

First, some background:

All of these emperors were rulers of ancient China's Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (circa 907-960). NC-ZH states "Emperors of the Tang, Song, Liao and Jin (1115–1234) dynasties: use temple names, such as Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗)." The 5d10k period is between Tang and Song dynasties and concurrent with Liao Dynasty.

There is a problem though: While this convention of temple name can and should be followed for Tang, Song and other long-lasting dynasties, it cannot be applied to the 5d10k period without sacrificing consistency. Take a look at these names, all of them emperors in this period:

As you can see there is no consistency, the naming convention is completely arbitrary, and it is incredibly confusing. Therefore my proposal, as well as the previous one in 2010, is to change all of their names to personal names.

The most authoritative book in the West on Chinese history is probably The Cambridge History of China. In Volume 5, Part 1, there were many genealogy diagrams in its first few pages. In Figure 5, they had only temple names without personal names for Song Dynasty emperors. However, for the 5d10k period:
 * For Later Liang emperors (Figure 1), personal name first, followed by either the temple name, the posthumous name, or simply the word "emperor".
 * For Later Tang emperors (Figure 2), personal name first, followed by either the temple name or the posthumous name.
 * For Later Chin (Later Jin) emperors (Figure 2), same as above.
 * For Later Han emperors (Figure 3), same as above.
 * For Later Zhou emperors (Figure 3), same as above.
 * For Wu emperors & Southern Tang emperors (Figure 4), only personal names.
 * For Wuyue emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
 * For Southern Han emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
 * For Chu emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
 * For Jing'nan emperors (Figure 4), same as above.
 * For Former Shu & Later Shu emperors (Figure 4), same as above.

One of the reasons, other than consistency, for preferring personal names for these emperors was: unlike emperors in long-lasting dynasties such as Song Dynasty, who were merely princes before ascending the throne, most of the 5d10k emperors in my proposal were famous generals and warlords before they took over. These include, at least (since I do not profess complete knowledge of the period) Zhu Wen, Shi Jingtang, Li Cunxu, Liu Zhiyuan, Guo Wei and Chai Rong. Take the example of Liu Zhiyuan: he only ruled for 1 year, and it was his outstanding accomplishments in countless previous battles that distinguished him rather than a forgetful reign, and not only the biography but also the title should reflect that.

Timmyshin (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, with comment. I believe that using personal names is consistent and proper, and further moves us toward a more NPOV coverage of the period.  (There is precedent in that this is done with the Three Kingdoms emperors as well.)  As far as which of the personal names to use for people who used multiple ones, I believe that that bears further discussion individually, but I think the key is to first reach a consensus on moving to personal names.  --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Nlu. I'm all for that principle. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 06:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Cambridge History of China. _dk (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment this appears to be a proposal to moodify NC-ZH, therefore speedy procedural close as this is occurring at the wrong place, and possibly should be an RFC -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NC-ZH states "Name of emperors: ...The general principle is to use the name most commonly used in English reliable sources, per policy." My proposal is simply following this principle. Timmyshin (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment—The nomenclature argument seems to be mildly persuasive, but I'm nervous about severely truncating these titles. The proposed titles look like names that could be possessed by thousands of people; and it is useful to the reader-in-search to have "emperor" in the title, isn't it? Tony   (talk)  02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expressing your concern. As you can see, currently I'm trying to "truncate the titles", as you put it, of 11 emperors (Li Houzhu is another issue, "Houzhu" is a nickname, I shouldn't have listed him with the others.). I think I also missed one, Emperor Min of Later Tang should be renamed Li Conghou. So these are 12 of the roughly 55 rulers, or emperors in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, which actually only lasted around 50 years. The complete list can be found here: List of Chinese monarchs. Disregarding Li Houzhu, by my count 26 emperors currently have personal names titles: Zhu Yougui, Zhu Zhen, Li Congke, Shi Chonggui, Qian Liu, Qian Yuanguan, Qian Chu, Wang Shenzhi, Wang Yanhan, Wang Yanjun, Gao Jixing, Gao Conghui, Ma Yin, Yang Xingmi, Yang Wo, Yang Longyan, Yang Pu, Liu Yan (emperor), Liu Sheng, Liu Chang, Liu Min, Liu Jiyuan, Wang Jian (Former Shu), Wang Yan (Former Shu), Meng Zhixiang, and Meng Chang. An additional 16 emperors have no pages as of yet. So your question about having personal names without the word "emperor" should also concern these 26 pages.
 * One of the things one needs to understand about this historical period is that it differs significantly from a long-lasting stable Chinese dynasty that people think of, for example the Song Dynasty. Song Dynasty lasted over 319 years with 18 emperors, that's about 18 years per emperor's reign. Then look at the 5D10K period, it lasted only 53 years, but there were 55 emperors. If you look at the basic stories behind the guys I'm trying to rename, you probably could have a better picture why (the following is just my understanding of the history, you can probably check the links to read more):
 * Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin → Shi Jingtang: this dude was a warlord who rebelled against his emperor, also his stepbrother in-law, and proclaimed himself the emperor after causing the latter's death.
 * Emperor Taizu of Later Liang → Zhu Wen (Later Liang): this dude was a rebel-turned-warlord who murdered his emperor, put a puppet in power, then murdered the puppet and proclaimed himself the emperor. He was murdered by his own son.
 * Emperor Zhuangzong of Later Tang → Li Cunxu: this dude was a warlord who rebelled and attacked the Zhu's, eventually proclaiming himself the emperor. He killed his own brother whose followers eventually killed him.
 * ...etc. You get the idea. In fact 6 of the 12 rulers (Shi Jingtang, Zhu Wen, Li Cunxu, LIu Zhiyuan, Guo Wei, Li Bian) I tried to rename had been warlords who killed or usurped power from those whom they once swore allegiances to. At least 2 others (Li Siyuan and Chai Rong) were major generals for a significant period before they took power. My point is, calling them by personal names greatly simplifies descriptions of the already confusing events of the period, also achieving consistency with the already existing 26 pages. Hence the choice of The Cambridge History of China for this period. Hope this clarifies some things. Timmyshin (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Historical Dictionary Of Medieval China (pp. cxvi-cxvii, 32-34) has a summary of this period that uses the proposed forms. In particular, Zhu Wen is far better known as a scheming, eunuch-slaughtering Tang dynasty general than as an emperor. Kauffner (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Orphaned references in Shi Jingtang
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shi Jingtang's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ZZTJ280": From Zhao Ying: Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 280. From Liu Yanhao: Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 280. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)