Talk:Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia/Archive 1

AfD
Unhealthy 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.  D r e a m 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)

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>


 * ¶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

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. (19 65 ). The Chinese: Their History and Culture, p. 144.
 * Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (19 34 ). 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: How appropriate would be the following -- copied from Greater Mongolia?
 * Category:Mongolia?
 * Category:Tang Dynasty?
 * 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 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
 * Mongolia during Tang rule ---> Tang Dynasty in Central Asia
 * Mongolia during Qing rule ---> Qing Dynasty in Central Asia
 * 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
thumb|right|90px|One sentence: "He took the title, 'Heavenly Khan, thus designating himself as their ruler." at page 144 in [[Kenneth Scott Latourette|Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (1934). The Chinese: Their History and Culture. New York: Macmillan. OCLC 220885107.]] 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.


 * 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 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 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)

Agree to delete the REDIRECT page with title "Mongolia during Tang rule". It is time to delete. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:07, 19 April 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: 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 ....
 * Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule?

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?

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)

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)

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
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. 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.



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 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")


 * 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)

1st 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

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")


 * 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 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 ) 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&mdash;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)



—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 Mongolia People's Publishing House. 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)
 * Ok. I agree, IP or regular user; edits should be evaluated on their own merits, not the user's status.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:28, 17 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 Verifiability -- I've now separated each dubious sentence which Verifiability 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.

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 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)


 * Teeninvestor --  No.  Frankly, your unfocused response was unhelpful. Perhaps after further reflection, you may want to re-visit the relevant issues.  Although the gambit has emotive appeal, the fact-of-the-matter is that a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument won't avail you much in this setting.  Your observations do not dispose of the significant questions which need not be reiterated in order to remain valid and substantial. --Tenmei (talk) 22:35, 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?
 * 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)

im the anynymous ip
im not teeninvestor. i am pro REpublic of China and affirming republic of china claim to mongolia. teeninvestor is pro People's repbulic of china and uese some dumb communist source, i dont sue communist source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.131.138 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, 162.83.131.138 -- How can I encourage you to re-think your objectives in participating in the Wikipedia project. This article is not a battlefield. --Tenmei (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia is legally part of Republic of China (Taiwan)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.131.138 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it's not generally a good idea to modify someone else's contribution in a talk page setting, this represents an exceptional circumstance. I have re-formatted the two maps which  pro-ROC 162.83.131.138 posted here.  The initial size is made more manageable, and it becomes possible to distinguish them by adding the following information to each map:
 * |thumb|right|180px|Map "x" -- source unspecified?]] 
 * Without this crucial information, the maps appear to be much too large. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I'm distinguishing this formatting issue from a quite separate discussion about the source credibility of these maps and the purpose for which they are offered.


 * I am only addressing the format issues at this time. --Tenmei (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This unsigned IP guy shows his real intention, that is to claim Mongolia. Dream on, guy. Taiwan is not recognized as an independent nation by the UN and most of the countries, while Mongolia enjoys the UN membership and diplomatic relations with more than 100 countries. Is there any moderator/administrator out there who can stop this ill-intended IP guy posting such ....? Tenmei's request for semi-protection of the article and its talk page was quite legitimate. --GenuineMongol (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No OR issues.
This is all said from the source. Even if you were to be put a template, wouldn't it be WP:V?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be in agreement here. I would be astonished if you couldn't find some Chinese-language source that makes nationalist claims and creates a past after its wishes. I do believe that Teeninvester does make use of such a source. So there must be other templates. I suppose that TE wouldn't make the effort of scanning in the relevant pages, the preface of the book and its part about the begin of the Manchu rule over Inner Mongolia and email it to me, so that I could take a look. (I wouldn't myself, at any rate.) G Purevdorj (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BS, man, BS. Chinese histiography is quite reliable. In any case, its far better than vain attempts to create a supposedly "Mongolian" identity, considering Mongolia itself was a Russian creation.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, Teeninvestor -- How can I encourage you to re-think your short-term objectives and long-term goals which inform your participation in the Wikipedia project? This article is not a battlefield . --Tenmei (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mongolia itself was a Russian creation?! Teeninvestor, you must be kidding. Or you're just one of the Chinese chauvinists who claim that Genghis Khan was one of the Chinese Emperors. Mongolia was founded by Genghis Khan and this fact was written on many sources dating back to that time. --GenuineMongol (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * chinese historiography like the Shiji, is reliable, but communist sources are not because they are based on Russian leninism historiography, you see the russians twiste the history of many regions, making up fictional identities- Buryatians for mongols, tajikis for persians, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.135.216 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is almost getting funny, but I fancy Teeninvester has just made a claim that allows to revert all of his edits here as POV. I'm glad that s/he doesn't want to propose Mongolian tribes in Tang times, though. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you guys determined to delete this article??? That in itself is a violation of WP:Consensus, heavily. And no, genghis khan was not a chinese emperor. He was a bloodthirsty barbarian, who did nothing except kill millions of innocents and wreck an industrialization oppurtunity. THis article is not a battlefield, but you have MADE IT ONE. YOU HAVE MADE IT ONE BY ATTEMPTING TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE REPEATEDLY. I have written an article that is relatively well sourced and up to standard. PLEASE DONT DISRUPT WIKIPEDIA TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. By destroying sound articles that don't fit in with your POV.

And no, I don't go on wikipedia to push my POV, as you do. I GO ON WIKIPEDIA TO MAKE SURE HISTORICAL AREAS, SUCH AS THIS ONE, GET COVERED. "GET COVERED." Get that it into your head. I've contributed over 2,000 edits, and 9 articles. That is not the contribution of someone who wants to push POV, as you have. Your constant deletions of material, and your refusal to contribute or write any material, as well as your utter lack of any contribution to this subject area, make you disruptive and unhelpful. And yes, Mongolia is a Russian creation. The "Mongolian People's Republic" was proclaimed after the Russian army overran mongolia. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot see that someone who decides to confuse Mongolia and the "Mongolian People's Republic" cares for factual correctness, and while the creation of the latter would indeed have been impossible without Russian politics, it is obviously ridiculous to state that the "Russian army overran mongolia". You exhibit a rather peculiar (let's say, nationalist) conception of historical facts. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mongolia as a state was not convened until the "Mongolian People's Republic" was proclaimed. This is a fact. Mongolia as a geographic area existed before. Also, the Russian army did overrun Mongolia; that is a historical fact.

"Mongolia was founded by Genghis Khan and this fact was written on many sources dating back to that time." The state he established was dissolved long ago. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement that at least during the 18th and 19th century, there is nothing that could be called a Mongolian state, and of course the state of Chinggis Khan and the modern Mongolian state as successor of the people's republic have no that much in common. I was tempted during my last edit to say something in that fashion about the several states that were founded on Chinese territory. And under the more common presuppotions, it is false to state that the Russian army overran Mongolia. Of course there was Russian military near Khovd, but it had not met with any Mongolian resistance and was not perceived as hostile. Just the opposite, they were to a certain degree supported by the population. Of course, you might truthfully state from a Chinese perspective that there was a Russian invasion into Chinese territory. The Mongolian perspective on this matter is that the Mongolians were subject to Manchu rule, not Chinese rule, and thus the Chinese forces in Khovd were occupiers. I don't care much about whose perspective is juridically right, either might have been, you would have to go back to some Mongolian-language documents in the 17th century to be sure about that. But it is precisely this kind of "historical fact"s that are POV when you tell only one half. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you are disrupting an article and deleting text without explanation and without improvement. That's not editing; that's vandalism.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is a battlefield
G Purevdorj -- There is nothing funny here. There is nothing here that good nature or good will can mitigate.

It is relevant that Mongolia during Tang rule and a corollary article about Tibet were created on the same day by the same Sarsfs:
 * 22:03, 18 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty ‎
 * 22:08, 18 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Tibet during the Tang Dynasty

It is relevant that each of these battlefields was created with an investment of mere minutes. Both travesties were contrived within minutes of each other --see here ... and the pernicious effects are measured in hours wasted by those who were misguided by the hortatory WP:AGF.

It is relevant that both of these battlefields were contrived within minutes of another "Back on topic" section just like the one introduced below -- compare Talk:Yuan Dynasty. Closer scrutiny of Sarsfs's "User contributions" reveals that this back-story is even worse. Compare the following:
 * Talk:Yuan Dynasty with
 * Talk:Mongolia.

It is relevant that the only way to begin to get a grip on the un-acknowledged factors affecting on this talk page was by cross-referencing thread discussions at Talk:Mongolia and Talk:Yuan Dynasty?

No, no, no. This is not practicable. --Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic
It might be helpful if someone finally dug out some english-language academic sources. I am sure there are enough of them to still turn this mess into a useful article. For a start, I'd recommend to just look into the Cambridge History of China or into Rene Grousset's Empire of the Steppes, even if the latter is a bit old now. But I am a bit too lazy to do this myself. I think an alternative could be to try and back up the reliability of that "5000 years" book or the credentials of the authors of said work when it comes to the topic of this article. The title of the work suggests it has a more general scope, though.

I actually think that some problems here, like Aral vs. Caspian Sea, might be pure geography rather than historiography. But more generally I guess it doesn't help if some contributors appear to be more interested in nationalistic pipedreams than in 7th century history. Yaan (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In other circumstances, Yaan's mild tone and modest recommendations would have merit; but not here.


 * We only add fuel to an arsonist's fire with citations like these:
 * Fairbank, John King, Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett. (1994). The Cambridge History of China: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368 (Vol. 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 186526593
 * Grousset, René and Naomi Walford. (1988). The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 10-ISBN 0-813-51304-9; 13-ISBN 978-0-813-51304-1; OCLC 90972
 * I think a better strategy focuses on extinguishing this fire instead of feeding it. --Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is a battlefield
No "back on topic" is practicable

This article serves NO purpose or function other than as a polemical battleground. I would argue that this mess can NOT become a useful article. This bitter lesson has been learned the hard way. The edit histories of both the article and this talk page admit no other conclusion.

The inescapable fact-of-the-matter is that real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oils and mineral rights have poisoned the genesis of this battlefield and everything which followed.

In lieu of a merge with Tang Dynasty, a better and more practical tactic would acknowledge the plain facts that the edit histories reveal. This article is like Salting the earth in the 7th century in order to achieve 21st century goals and objectives.

The fatal flaw in Yaan's subject heading is its underlying presumption that this poisoned article can have any topic divorced from unending subterfuge and proxy combat.

I suggest a merge with Salting the earth. This non-standard, non-AfD-process strategy was inspired by the tag. Such a proposal has one major advantage over the proposed merge with Tang Dynasty -- it incorporates a measure of sober reality into what is demonstrably proven to be a Sisyphean folly.

Reiterating what I said at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty-above: " ... a flawed map is worse than no map at all."

The flaws in this toxic article make it worse than no article at all.

No, no, no. This is not practicable.--Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article just needs some editors who are really interested in the topic at hand rather than their small little phantasies. I think the topic is valid and not uninteresting, it just needs some editors to spot nonsense like "Russian steppes", "Mongol tribes", emperor Taizong conquering Gorguryo etc. Yaan (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm retreating from this article and will unwatch it in a minute. While it seems biased (and as can be seen from his treatment of maps, Teeninvestor doesn't care too much about this), that holds true of many history articles on Wikipedia that I don't care to edit either. And while biased, it doesn't seem to be anachronistic anymore (as was the purposefully wrong creation of Ms./Mr. Anonymous), and that was the only reason why I decided to get involved with a historical topic. As the reasonable line (which Tenmei seems to have held to a certain degree) that research has to be accepted only according to proved methodology doesn't seem to find consensus, there is little I can do about this without putting considerable effort into it. The map issue just seems to have been settled for the time being, that is, no unsufficiently sourced map. Thus, I'm back to language topics. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm retreating from this article and will unwatch it in a minute. While it seems biased (and as can be seen from his treatment of maps, Teeninvestor doesn't care too much about this), that holds true of many history articles on Wikipedia that I don't care to edit either. And while biased, it doesn't seem to be anachronistic anymore (as was the purposefully wrong creation of Ms./Mr. Anonymous), and that was the only reason why I decided to get involved with a historical topic. As the reasonable line (which Tenmei seems to have held to a certain degree) that research has to be accepted only according to proved methodology doesn't seem to find consensus, there is little I can do about this without putting considerable effort into it. The map issue just seems to have been settled for the time being, that is, no unsufficiently sourced map. Thus, I'm back to language topics."

We need editors who actually KNOW THIS SUBJECT MATTER AND WHO WILL EDIT IT WITH A SOURCE. Also, anyone care to change this to tang-gokturk wars(Considering no one has a source on Inner Asian culture and other topics.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "We need editors who actually KNOW THIS SUBJECT MATTER AND WHO WILL EDIT IT WITH A SOURCE." Correct.
 * "Also, anyone care to change this to tang-gokturk wars(Considering no one has a source on Inner Asian culture and other topics." Rene Grousset actually treats the states of the Tarim basin, as does the Cambridge History of China. I think what you want is really a different article, not just a different title. Yaan (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a source, then bring the information in. Geez.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd Merge proposal
I suggest a merge with Salting the earth. The expected consequence is that this salted bomb article will be disarmed -- see Talk:Salting the earth.

The rationale for this merge is informed by Scorched earth and Poison pill -- see Talk:Salting the earth. This novel tactic is just the first step in a process of developing a strategy which increases the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for the long-term toxic warrior who attempts to overwhelm an article in the ways that have happened here.

Academic integrity needs to become a practicable priority -- not just a theoretical nicety. Anything else destroys the credibility of our collaborative efforts to build a wiki-encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Intentional disruption
Several editors are intentionally trying to disrupt this article and attempting to destroy it, because it doesn't fit in with the POV. If you don't like the article, add something to it. Unfortunately, none of you have added anything and you have deleted my valid contributions which were SOURCED. That is some very serious violations of wikipedia rules. Also, this quote:

"I think Teeninvestor just made a quote that allows us to delete all his contributions as POV".

That is in itself demonstrates your altitudes. Editors who have no knowledge whatsoever in this area and nothing to contribute should not try to delete articles of which they have no knowledge, and little judgement.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NO -- I am the non-involved, 3rd-party who cannot be derided as "pro-Mongolian." Labels will profit nil. Please strike out the comments which mischaracterize my participation in the development of this article and Wikipedia.


 * NO -- I invite you to devote your attention to the specific and relevant questions which have been raised about your contributions.


 * Just to set the record straight, this article's edit history shows that the only unchallenged sentences were contributed by me. --Tenmei (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You have deleted large, sourced sections without explanation. You have not improved the article in any way. You have attempted to delete an article which was voted not to delete by the wikipedia community. In no way did I say you were pro-Mongolian("in fact, I haven't used those words). But you have disrupted the article through deleting material and not replacing it.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To refresh your memory, I deleted the dubious synthesis because it was not consistent with WP:V. A review of the summaries in this article's edit history will show that it is disingenuous to claim that I have deleted large, sourced sections without explanation.
 * More precisely. You have deleted large, sourced sections without explanation is not correct.


 * Refreshing your recollections about that AfD thread, it was closed without consensus; but that factor would seem irrelevant in the context which has developed since that exercise in futility was set aside.
 * More bluntly. You have attempted to delete an article which was voted not to delete by the wikipedia community is innacurate.


 * Reminding you of something you already know, my edits are specifically informed by the maxim "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."
 * More directly. But you have disrupted the article through deleting material and not replacing it is misleading and false.


 * Now that I've demonstrated by example, perhaps it will help to encourage yet again to respond to the specific comments, suggestions and questions which have been directed to you in the course of this talk page. Please respond in any way you see fit.


 * I have responded seriatim and perhaps you could do the same.


 * I have responded in a way which I hope can be characterized as thoughtful and perhaps you can do the same. --Tenmei (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reminding you of something you already know, my edits are specifically informed by the maxim "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." " None of the information is demonstrated to be misleading or false or unverifiable. The information presented has been screened by an editor whose experience has created 10 good articles+ 11 featured articles, and who is a history major, and WHO HAS SAID THIS ARTICLE IS CORRECT. I THINK THAT SETTLES IT.

YOU MUST SHOW A SOURCE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT BEFORE YOU CAN CHALLENGE IT. WE JUST HAD PERICLES SCREEN IT AND HE HAS STATED THIS INFO IS CORRECT. THE ONUS IS ON YOU MY FRIEND. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Teeninvestor -- No. It does not matter that your extravagant claims are presented in all caps. What informs my persistence is now copied here -- unambiguous, plain, easy-to-read.  Your escalating tone is noted, but it is unpersuasive.


 * The several shortcut boxes seem to have been overlooked above. We cannot ignore the following which I re-present here for redundant clarity:
 * Non-English sources


 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. [emphasis added]


 * The firm insistence on compliance with WP:V is not disruption, not vandalism, not trouble-making, not a "tag team" trick. With all due respect, you need to think again. --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations " I haven't translated anything, have I? I used information in the article to write this. Also, that guideline has long proven to be impractable and destructive; check the most featured articles do not follow it.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This article survived AFD, should be kept.
If you have issues, actually IMPROVE it and don't disrupt others'editing. Also, please only edit if you actually HAVE knowledge of the subject area!!!Teeninvestor (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NO -- escalating prose is unhelpful at this point.


 * Reasonable comments, suggestions and questions have been presented to you by a number of participants in this thread. Why not re-examine what is written above? I would have thought that something written by someone would have elicited some kind of response.  You cannot evade responding by attempting to redirect attention elsewhere.


 * It simply won't work in this setting.


 * More to the point, your seeming refusal to respond reflects poorly in terms of your credibility in the context these talk page threads have created. --Tenmei (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My refusal to respond??? Name one problem with the article that warrants its DELETION.21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"More to the point, your seeming refusal to respond reflects poorly in terms of your credibility in the context these talk page threads have created. --Tenmei (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) "

"http://www.dushu.com/book/11657212/" "http://www.book.sh.cn/booklist/booklist-final.asp?MCODE=&SCODE=M04&TOTAL_BOOK=6919&gopage=415&serial_no=1000129728? " ". http://www.haotushu.com/press/61" "http://www.ilucking.com/press/neimenggurenminchubanshe/."

Also, I have added citations for every one of the "dubious" claims you inserted. That is, in the mind of any unbiased editor, more than enough to settle the issue.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on it, see "A" in one of your own postings -- here.
 * Not to beat a dead horse, use English.
 * - "http://www.dushu.com/book/11657212/"
 * dead link - "http://www.book.sh.cn/booklist/booklist-final.asp?MCODE=&SCODE=M04&TOTAL_BOOK=6919&gopage=415&serial_no=1000129728? "
 * - "http://www.haotushu.com/press/61"
 * - "http://www.ilucking.com/press/neimenggurenminchubanshe/."
 * There are a number of unsettled issues which could be addressed by a constructive response from you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say in Wikipedia policy that I must provide translations for all my citations for a foreign-language source. I am required to provide citations and standard bibliographical information; that is all.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

diff

 * I think before any more accusations are hurled at anyone's doorstep, everyone here should read Assume good faith. Now settle down and provide additional sources to this article; if something contradicts the "5000 years" source, then mention it in the article. I really don't see why this conversation needs to be a mile long.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Se

Sources used
It's good that the article, although small, is heavily cited; yet all but three citations belong to Li Bo and Zheng Yin's book. More sources need to be introduced to build consensus (not that there's much information in this very sparse article to be contested). I don't have time to scour more sources to improve this article, as I am busy with Han Dynasty topics at the moment. Does anyone have access to a university library or JSTOR? That could really help this article in terms of credible sources used.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this settles it. THe article's main problem is a lack of sources, which I don't have time to work on(like Pericles, I am busy on Economic history of China"). But be aware if you continue to delete sections without work, I will seek intervention.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei, you have failed to respond. Pericles has been invited and he said the problem is to find more sources, not delete the original source. Your obstructionism is BS. I am not required to provide any more than a credible source, and citations, as per WP Policy. Pericles and me agree on this; you have no knowledge of this subject whatsoever, and have so far failed to contribute a single fact. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not saying that every sentence is perfectly ok; for example, I'd like to see what other sources say about the extension of the Tang realm to the Caspian Sea, and whether or not it is realistic to think the Tang "took over" all former Gokturk domains once the Gokturk Empire collapsed. When one says that an empire stretched anywhere, one implies that sedentary settlers, civil officials, and military officers occupied such territory and incorporated it as a regular part of the empire. Obviously, Tang's direct control over territories extended no further than the Tarim Basin, and at times this was even cut off by the Tibetans.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL @ Tenmei
I have not seen a single person complain about Tibet during the Tang Dynasty. i do not see a pro chinese POV on that article. only you are repeatedly whining about sections you don't like that are being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.139.58 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

USer:tenmei is obviously pro japanese and has an anti chinsee POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.139.58 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have striken the unacceptable, unsupported and unprovable slurs suggested by Toxic 162.84.139.58.  In this context, the record is very clear than I am pro-WP:V, which implies neither pro-Mongolian nor anti-Chinese nor any other kind of "pro-?" or anti-?"  I am the neutral, 3rd party participant whose sole interest is in ensuring in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty that Academic integrity becomes a practicable priority -- not just a theoretical nicety.  Anything else destroys the credibility of our collaborative efforts to build a wiki-encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL
i was laughing for at least 5 minutes after i read Tenmei's proposal to merge this article with salting the erath. this is the biggest joke over, i hope someone is watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.139.58 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was not intended as a joke, but my best efforts may have been construed as merely humorous. In due course, my judgment and writing are likely to improve. --Tenmei (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
I've posted a call for assistance at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. There is no benefit to be gained from escalating stress or tension.

I noticed that there is an Administrator's Notice Board which has to do with Reliable sources. That may be a more helpful venue, but urgently, we face a problem which we need to nip in the bud. Then, perhaps, we can move more constructively to discuss the issues at hand. --Tenmei (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This may be the wrong venue. I'm not interested in complaining, but rather in resolving an issue which doesn't need to be the subject of much stress or difficulty. If not WP:AN/3RR, then some other venue might serve? --


 * Check the SOURCES USED SECTION FOR PERICLES COMMENTS, WHICH SETTLES THIS SUBJECT ONCE AND FOR ALL(He is a respected editor who has written 22 good & featured articles).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty

 * The following was copied and moved from diff at Talk:Tenmei.

Please stop your revert wars with your tag team composed of genuineMongol, G Purvoj and you. You know nothing about the subject matter and have contributed nothing and have reverted sourced, verifiable material without explanation. That is usually called vandalism and violative of WP:CONSENSUS.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tag team -- no. Who's kidding who?  NO.


 * Anything further belongs on the article talk page. Accordingly, I am removing this from my talk page; and instead, I am copying in to the relevant talk page where all may see. --Tenmei (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. If I haven't pointed out yet, you HAVE YET TO CONTRIBUTE A SINGLE SENTENCE OR OFFER A SINGLE REASON FOR YOUR EDITS.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This talk page adequately records what I've contributed or failed to contribute; however, the alleged "tag team" label requires a response.


 * Tag team -- NO. If anyone chooses to check the talk pages for each member of this alleged "tag team," he/she will find that the only commonality is my apology for failing to minimize the evolution of stressful problems.


 * In the context created by my own words and theirs on this page and in all edit summaries, the very term "tag team" is offensive, unjustified, improper, unhelpful. I reject that epithet entirely; and worse, I am compelled to argue that this wrongful characterization reflects badly on Teeninvestor.  Such pointless and unsubstantiated accusations are designed to undermine credibility.


 * I do not want this baseless accusation undermine my credibility in this setting or anywhere else. Innuendo is for other occasions, not this one.


 * At this point, I can only encourage Teeninvestor to strike the innuendo and the specifically offending words themselves. I recognize that this is a personal affront which may be believed by those who have not closely followed the development of this thread.


 * This needlessly extravagant escalation is an patently clear example of "gaming the system" in a way which harms the collaborative editing process. I don't play that game well.  I don't like it.  I'm learning slowly.


 * I uderstand enough to know that this doesn't need to be one of those times when my temerity causes me to learn the wrong lesson the hard way.


 * Bottom line: the very reason I participate in defending this article is expressly because of the successful innuendo which marred the AfD discussion. I am -- and the record proves this -- the disinterested 3rd-party whose only interest is now and has always been the credibility and academic integrity of Wikipedia.


 * In choosing to mount a personal attack on me, Teeninvestor has selected a conventionally successful gambit. I am responding with firm, unqualified denial. I reject the specific tactics and I reject Teeninvestor's strategy as well. --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

diff
Dude. Tenmei. What are you doing? What exactly is the content dispute over? I see a mile-long rant on the talk page for Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, but little from your end on which specific sentences are "poison". Granted, I am not familiar with every battle in the Tang Dynasty, but if you are going to mention WP:V over and over, then why don't you do just that: verify! Do you have access to scholarly sources? If you doubt anything in that book which Teeninvestor is citing from, then what is stopping you from finding a flurry of sources which could contradict him? If there is a consensus from other scholars that what Li Bo and Zheng Yin are saying is false, then there is either a serious bias problem with that source, or Teeninvestor is twisting their words or misrepresenting material. I doubt either is the case, but you can't prove anything until you bring something to the table, which you have not. All's you've made so far are accusations. It's a little unbecoming, I have to say, considering Assume good faith.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To stress why more sources are needed, check the sources section I started above:

"Well, I'm not saying that every sentence is perfectly ok; for example, I'd like to see what other sources say about the extension of the Tang realm to the Caspian Sea, and whether or not it is realistic to think the Tang 'took over' all former Gokturk domains once the Gokturk Empire collapsed. When one says that an empire stretched anywhere, one implies that sedentary settlers, civil officials, and military officers occupied such territory and incorporated it as a regular part of the empire. Obviously, Tang's direct control over territories extended no further than the Tarim Basin, and at times this was even cut off by the Tibetans.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)"

Suggestion: name change to Tang-Gokturk Wars
Since the article does not seem to describe Inner Asia's conditions during Tang dynasty, I suggest we change the name of this article to Tang-Gokturk wars.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, since only warfare and military campaigns are mentioned, but not culture, economics, society, administration, etc.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is moving to fast. Not everyone has the luxury to stay online all day and participate in discussions. Its ridiculous to have 8 new talk sections in a period of 24 hours, basically consisting of the same conversation. I think people need to WP:COOL down, take a break and come back later. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone contact an administrator and change the name????Teeninvestor (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think you are switching topics too fast. First it was only what is now Mongolia (i.e. the Eastern Tturks), then it became whole of Asia (i.e. Eastern Turks plus Western Turks, plus the Tarim Basin, plus "Persia"), now it is supposed to become only Eastern Turks plus Western Turks plus only the military angle. What about simply creating a useful article? Yaan (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what we are trying to do, unlike your friend, user:Tenmei, whose activity above is very "strange" to say the least.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, I am afraid I don't really understand what you are talking about. Inserting unsourced und nonsensical maps certainly does not look like trying to create a useful article. Nor does discussing territorial claims of a certain island that is not even close to Inner Asia. Yaan (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"My friend, I am afraid I don't really understand what you are talking about. Inserting unsourced und nonsensical maps certainly does not look like trying to create a useful article. Nor does discussing territorial claims of a certain island that is not even close to Inner Asia. Yaan (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC) " and when did I discuss terroritorial claims of a certian island??? you seem to have a talent for slander my friend. In addition, what maps can we use(considering wikimedia commons is the most used source for maps).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A map for what? Tang sovereign territories or the routes of 7th-century Inner Asia war campaigns? I doubt Wiki commons has anything that particular for the latter. To be honest, there aren't that many well-sourced maps at Wiki commons. A shame, really.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Tang controlled Liaodong. Teeninvestor (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! I didn't notice until you mentioned it. The main map used for the the Tang Dynasty article shows Liaodong under Tang control. Of course, it shouldn't even need mentioning that Balhae controlled part of Liaodong in the 8th century, but the entire peninsula? No.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Storm in a tea-cup

 * 1) I did not follow the whole discussion, first of all, Teeninvestor may have put in one or two comments which may need citations, that is fair enough, the important thing is user Teeninvestor is here to provide contents for current and future readers, other editors could help to improve the content, which would be a better option.
 * 2) Tang dynasty was the Alpha Nation at that time, and history is normally on the victor's side, unless someone can invent a time machine, go back into those ancient time and come back with evidence that prove otherwise. Put it another way, are they any historians who are into the history of those extincted civilizations such as Gokturk, Khitdans, Jurchens, Xianpeis and various other mysterious tribes? If there are, let them talk.
 * 3) @ user Tenmei, editors should act and work like editors, should not act like old age demential sufferer nagging endlessly on meaninless things. Han Chinese was Alpha, Number ONE, once and for all.  Arilang   talk  02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by Alpha Nation and Chinese was Alpha? I'm not familiar with that terminology.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Tang history, Han Chinese had the most powerful military force in that part of area, unless you can show me otherwise. When you are Number One, then I would call it Alpha Nation, as in alpha male Arilang   talk 

06:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

YES THANK YOU. TENMEI YOUR DISRUPTION HAS BEEN THWARTED.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"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. 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) " LOok at Tenmei's intentional disruption as shown by this article. Despite a source being presented to him contradicting him he refused to admit he was wrong and insulted teh IP user for being "Annoymous". We may have our own disagreements, but please dont insult users because they are IP.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Tang stretch as far as caspian sea???
I think it depends on the notion of soverignty itself. The extent of the Tang "Yin Yo Dai" is debatable, but I believe that Tang may have had bases that were on caspian sea, just like Han. Teeninvestor (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the things that seriously needs to be confirmed. Do Yi Bo and Zheng Yin simply say that the empire stretched that far without giving details? Do they simply mean that the Tang accepted the tributary submission of Turkic vassals that happened to live that far out? Or did Tang frontier administrators or military officers ACTUALLY venture that far. I have a big hunch the latter is not the case, but prove me wrong with an additional source.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rechecked and in the book the Tang "Yin Yo Dai" only stretches as far as the Aral Sea, but turkic tributaries extend to caspian sea. I think it was something like sphere of influence??? However, the Japanese map(used previously) seems to disagree.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, then there is a problem with the map. It clearly designates Uyghur and Tibetan territories as vassal states marked by different colors, grey and green, yet if the area stretching from the Aral to the Caspian was merely tributary as well, why is that territory the same color as China proper? The map becomes all the more dubious considering that its source is "Japanese Wikipedia", which is not an acceptable source at all. We've been over this before, that Wiki itself is not a source! Let alone a credible one.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it does not really matter, but actually that Japanese map does not even show the Caspian. Yaan (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Han Dynasty never never never had bases on the Caspian. This is some stupid mistake debunked more than 90 years ago. In league with that alleged Tang expedition to Ctesiphon in 662 that Jaques Gernet writes about here (alternative version of events here). Yaan (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Really. It's been sourced and mentioned many times in history articles.  Teeninvestor (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really. Please re-think the flawed assumptions implicit in just this one declaratory sentence. As a constructive gesture, I've offered a non-controversial policy shortcut box here and at relevant places above. This and other policy shortcut boxes represent the foundation from which I and others reason collectively in order to work together. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [off-topic]
 * To be honest, the claim that Ban Chao went to the Caspian, which is what I think both Teeninvestor and me have been referring to, is a rather popular myth repeated in a number of sources one might reasonably assume to be reliable. Some apparently even go into quite some detail. The claim is however completely absent in authorative sources like The Cambridge Histories of China or of Early Inner Asia. And yes, some authors have even taken the time to write this is just nonsense.
 * [/off-topic]
 * In the case of Jaques Gernet, I think anybody would normally consider it a reliable source, the only problem there is that he seems to be the only one writing about the Tang going to Bagdad. Yaan (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only do the Cambridge sources lack anything about Ban Chao reaching the Caspian, but Rafe de Crespigny makes no mention of it in his Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms; check my sandbox for this: User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox6, where I took extensive notes from Crespigny's source. In any case, this is a conversation for another day.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think terroritory, no they didn't but troops, yes.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are still talking about Han dynasty, I am afraid you are falling for a myth. Yaan (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you assuming that Han cavalry could not have reached teh Caspian Sea???? They reached Baikal, for gods sake. I said they could have TRAVELLED there as in pursuing the Huns;Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not saying any of this. I am saying this is off-topic. What I have been saying is they did not reach the Caspian (no "can", or do you see one?). Or alternatively, I am saying that a number of authorities have denied that Ban Chao reached the Caspian and that there seems to be no debate about this. Yaan (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ended off-topoic convo.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
A request for mediation has been entered at Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Teeninvestor did not consent to mediation; and for this reason, the process could not go forward. --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A request for arbitration has been entered at Requests for arbitration; and the complaint is captioned "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article". --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Would any one object if I moved this to Tang-Gokturk wars instead
See title, and comment. If no objections, I will move it in 3 days. Or if anyone has sourcs relating to other non-military conditions of "Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty"Teeninvestor (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Objections about moving too fast are mentioned by more than one participant in the discussions above.
 * I have no objection to the proposed name change. My only concern has to do with timing. --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
How reliable are the troop numbers currently given in the article? Did anybody count helmets or the like? My impression is that such numbers from primary sources are often more figurative and should always be taken with a grain of salt. Like Mao's ten-thousand kilometer long march which was in fact closer to 65% of ten thousand kilometers (IIRC). In any case it would be nice to know where the numbers come from, if we are going so much into details. Yaan (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently involved in ArbCom, will respond later.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

POV headnote
In the ArbCom evidence thread, Teeninvestor argues that "a consensus has been achieved ... and the edit history is evidence."

In the following context, this is shown to be naught but a contrived post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
 * A. 23:55, 16 March Teeninvestor adds DO NOT EDIT UNTIL DISPUTE IS RESOLVED + -headnote
 * B. 21:27, 1 April Teeninvestor deletes -headnote "Seems to be no more disputes- disrupters gone"
 * C. 01:09, 6 April Tenmei restores -headnote (Undid revision 281157793 by Teeninvestor) disputes not unresolved
 * D. 21:29, 6 April Teeninvestor deletes -headnote Let's not put any tags on this article before ArbCom makes its decision
 * E. 21:33, 6 April Tenmei restores -headnote (Undid revision 282199466 by Teeninvestor)  post hoc ad propter hoc fallacy--not going to work again

This edit history shows a sequence of edits unfolding. After Teeninvestor urges an editing halt, the seemly compliance with that edit-summary suggestion becomes "proof" that dispute resolution is moot and that problems are naught but the handiwork of "disrupters."

No -- wrong.

I'm not sure what lessons are to be learned from this experience. The edit history doesn't document the kind of constructive engagement which is crucial for collaborative work. I hope for better days ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A consensus due to content- which User:Tenmei obviously does not agree with.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Teeninvestor -- I've indented your comments so that what you wrote will be visually distinguishable from what I wrote.


 * In this narrow setting, it's not so much of a problem; but as I've been trying to review the thread above, it was often difficult to distinguish one contributor from another because this indenting format convention fell by the wayside. I would regret it if anyone were to mistakenly conflate your words and mine simply because the indent-formatting failed to clarify the distinctions.


 * As for your analysis, the fact-of-the-matter is that your "spin" presupposes what has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved -- See Douglas Walton, "The Fallacy of Many Questions," Argumentation. Vol. 13: 379-383, 1999.


 * The presuppositions in your analysis narrows the range of responses; and the only potentially constructive response is to reject the rhetorical fallacy at its root. --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New sources
Well, well, well. As promised elsewhere, I have come armed with new deadly explosive sources from my library at George Mason University. Here they are:


 * Mackerras, Colin. (1972). The Uighur Empire According to the T'ang Dynastic Histories: A Study in Sino-Uighur Relations, 744–840. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 0872492796.
 * Drompp, Michael R. (2005). Tang China and the Collapse of the Uighur Empire: A Documentary History. Leiden and Boston: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004141294.

I will use these sources which cover roughly the same topic to verify whether or not Teeninvestor's statements in this article (from the disputed source) are correct or not, since no one seems to be able to get a hold of his source. For that, I will need some time to consult these new sources on specific issues, and then I will produce quotes here (with page #s). That ought to put a stop to this little charade.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just keep in mind that the Uighur empire collapsed in the 840s or so, while this article currently mainly seems to deal with mid-7th century stuff. Regards, Yaan (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware. The books cover more ground than that, though.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. These books have some relevant material, but not enough, I'm afraid. My library also does not have any specific books focusing on the Gokturks, and has only a handful of books focusing on Tang-era military affairs. I'll keep looking for better sources.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 02:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep looking, but in the meantime, here is something from this source:


 * Hucker, Charles O. (1975). China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 8047-0887-8.

"As emperor (r. 626–649), T'ai-tsung had still more military successes. A masterful strategist and tactician, he so intimidated the Turks of Mongolia that in 630 they made him their grand khan; he was the first Chinese ruler to attain such power over the northern steppes. Then, with combined Chinese and Turkic forces, he established T'ang authority throughout Chinese Turkestan and across the Pamirs into Afghanistan, driving out the local agents of a Western Turkic empire based in western Inner Asia. The western campaigns of 639–40 and 647–48 also brought Tibet under T'ang suzerainty, and in 648 a small Chinese force crossed the Himalayas from Tibet into northeastern India to chastise a regional ruler who had insulted a T'ang ambassador; the offender was brought captive to Ch'ang-an. In the 640's T'ai-tsung also sent armies against Korea on two occasions, but Korean resistance was so vigorous that the Chinese had to abandon the effort."

This is from page 141 of Hucker's source, which clearly supports some of the statements already found in the article. After discussing the An Lushan Rebellion, Hucker says on page 146:

"A semblance of the earlier political order was finally restored, but the effort required the military help of the Uighurs, a Turkic people who had overthrown the Eastern Turks in Mongolia in 744, and even some Arab auxiliaries from Central Asia. The restored T'ang court, all its foreign influence having evaporated during the rebellion, was almost a vassal of the Uighur khan."

That's pretty much where Colin Mackerras and Michael R. Drompp started their historical discussion of Tang-Turkic relations (except when discussing the origins of the Uyghurs and their previous domination by other nomadic Turkic groups).-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the assertion of Hucker's above that Tang Taizong was acknowledged by the Turkic peoples as the Khagan, or Tian Kehan, after defeating them in battle, is also asserted by these two sources:


 * Adshead, S.A.M. (2004). T'ang China: The Rise of the East in World History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403934568 (hardback). Page 18.
 * 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. Page 124.

Moving on...-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Ebrey chips in a bit on this topic, but not much:


 * Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66991-X (paperback). Page 111.

"Using this army, the Sui and Tang rulers quickly extended their control beyond China proper. On the Inner Asian frontier, the powerful Turks had become a recurrent threat. To keep them in check, these rulers used the old strategies of strengthening fortifications, marriage diplomacy, investiture of their rulers, trade and tribute missions, and getting one tribe or contender to fight another. For instance, in 605, when the Khitan from the northeast made raids into China, a Chinese general was sent to lead 20,000 Turkish cavalrymen against them. When the Khitan were defeated, their women and livestock were given to the Turks as their reward. In 630, however, the Chinese turned against the Turks, wresting control of the Ordos and of southwestern Mongolia away from them, and winning for Taizong the title of great khan. This opened the way for joint Chinese-Turkish expeditions into the Silk Route cities of Central Asia in the 640s and 650s, which resulted in China regaining overlordship in the area."

I hope a clear picture is emerging here, for all parties interested...-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 21:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability and Synthesis tags
As explicitly referenced on this talk page, the rationale for these restored headnotes is quite simply clarified by the very familiar first paragraph of explanatory text 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. 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."

A restored the "Synthesis"-tag and added a "Verifiability"-tag seems reasonable in light of the logical fallacies Teeninvestor has revealed at Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence at "Evidence presented by Teeninvestor.

Edit history
A. In mid-March, Tenmei added a "Synthesis"-tag and a "Original Research"-tag from the top of the article page.
 * (diff) 02:07, 15 March 2009 Tenmei (4,585 bytes) (adding synthesis tag)
 * (diff) 02:08, 15 March 2009 Tenmei (4,607 bytes) (adding original research tag)

B. March 15 -- Teeninvestor deleted both tags.
 * (diff) 16:56, 15 March 2009 Teeninvestor (5,815 bytes) (Sythnesis??? hardly.)

C. March 16 -- Teeninvestor added a "Neutrality"-tag.
 * (diff) 23:55, 16 March 2009 Teeninvestor (5,915 bytes)

D. April 1 -- Teeninvestor deleted POV-tag.
 * (diff) 21:27, 1 April 2009 Teeninvestor (7,360 bytes) (Seems to be no more disputes- disrupters gone)

E. April 1 -- Tenmei reverts edit, restoring the POV-tag.
 * (diff 01:09, 6 April 2009 Tenmei (7,386 bytes) (Undid revision 281157793 by Teeninvestor (talk) disputes not unresolved) (undo)

F. April 24 -- Tenmei restored the "Synthesis"-tag and added a "Verifiability"-tag
 * (diff) 18:30, 23 April 2009 Tenmei (7,745 bytes) (adding and  tags)

Rationale for "Synthesis" and "Verifiability" tags
Teeninvestor in effect "spins"s and mis-frames the relevant issues in a WP:NPOV context.

Teeninvestor argues that in lieu of compliance with WP:V, it is sufficient if a text is "screened" by others. For redundant clarity, this is the book which was subjected to the so-called "screening":
 * Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp, ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001.

Even if it were ascertainable what "screened" by PericlesofAthens and Penwhale" means or implies, it would be beside the point of this ArbCom case, which is in part about re-visiting a wiki-policy maxim that truth ≠ verifiability. Your gambit is simply off-topic ....

The fact-of-the-matter is that the only thing PericlesofAthens and Penwhale have actually confirmed is that the book exists on a publisher's web page -- here; which is the very same thing that I expressly confirmed with a link in my first comment about this dubious source -- here.

This topic is addressed more generally here and here; and for redundant clarity, the diffs are explicit below:
 * A. March 16 -- diff: Teeninvestor claims that text was verified -- simple past tense
 * B. March 27 -- diff: not verified
 * C. April 8 -- diff: not verified
 * D. April 22 -- diff: not verified by PericlesofAthens
 * E. April 22 -- diff: not verified by Penwhale

Teeninvestor's claims about the would-be imprimatur of other editors were not accurate; nor have citations attributed to this source been validated in a manner consistent with the minimal standards of WP:V. For these reasons, this proposed finding of fact should be discarded.--Tenmei (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In a number of articles other than this one, Teeninvestor has contributed many citations from this dubious source. It is relevant that Teeninvestor's singular reliance on this one book has inspired no notice in some articles; and in other instances, it has caused dispute threads focused on WP:V and WP:Synthesis, e.g.,
 * Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
 * Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
 * Wikiversity: Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
 * Economy of the Ming Dynasty
 * Hua-Yi distinction
 * Mongol invasion of China
 * Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate
 * Talk:Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate

The repetition of the same dispute across a number of talk pages becomes relevant and troubling evidence of Teeninvestor unhelpful obstinancy. This history of disputes does nothing to mitigate the concerns and questions which developed independently on this talk page; and in fact, it exacerbates our problems by setting them in a wider context.


 * Aside: I note that Teeninvestor describes me as obstinate -- diff and diff; but the-fact-of-the-matter is that this carefully reasoned explanation is not mirrored by any of Teeninvestor's diffs. Therefore, I would have thought that the term "obstinate" inescapably means something quite different when used as an adjective in relation to me. This thread demonstrates that my persistence is accompanied by serial attempts to identify and build from common ground.  I would prefer the label persistent or insistent.

In summary, a source can not be deemed reliable or not independent on the facts it is used to source per WP:RS, which is becomes a variant restatement of WP:V in our context. --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tenmei is on the loose! looks like he didn't actually read verifiability. WP:V is  verifiability in principle, not verifiability for every reader. and If you check the WP:RS board links you provided, you would see that foreign-language sources are used the way I use them, with formatting and sourcing just like English sources. Me in disputes? look at yourself.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Graphic representation of dispute


 * The diagram at the right may be helpful in describing this modest policy dispute between Teeninvestor and Tenmei. Both appear to reason and to argue at cross-purposes; and this hampers foreward movement.


 * The caption attempts to view the disputed array of wiki-policies -- WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:RSUE, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:SYN, etc. -- from Teeninvestor's perspective.


 * In contast, I would have preferred to construe my position in the center, with Teeninvestor's erratic orbit wandering outside conventional wiki-norms and wiki-policies. I don't know how to bridge the chasm of disagreement, but this diff represents a reasonable effort to do so.  The absence of similar gestures on the part of Teeninvestor does not reflects well on him/her.


 * Arguably up til now, Teeninvestor has been unwilling or unable to address specifics, preferring instead to posture in lieu of genuine engagement. Perhaps the graph will assist in stimulating a process of moving towards resolution?


 * The ramifications of this dispute extend beyond this one article and these two temporary adversaries, but the differences between the two points-of-view remain fundamental and unresolved in the minor context of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For Shangdi's sake, what's with all these sub-sections?
Seriously, Tenmei. Why can't you limit your argument to a paragraph? Who do you think even bothers wading through all of this extraneous rhetorical fluff? I'm a guy who likes to get straight to the point. In other words, look here. According to several sources I have recently consulted, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the claims in this article, other than the Caspian Sea statement. I think the latter is entirely incorrect as Tang sovereignty never extended that far west, let alone any Chinese dynasty's sovereignty. The furthest western limit of any Chinese regime's control was an extension beyond the Tarim Basin into eastern Afghanistan.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Caspian Sea statement wasn't even in the book.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert/undo
Teeninvestor reverted the edit which added and  -tags:
 * (diff) 19:24, 23 April 2009 Teeninvestor (7,713 bytes) (No POV-pushing til ArbCom is over. leave the article the way it is(consensus view).)

What I have learned from my experience on this talk page at more particularly from the ArbCom workshop page is this: This is demonstrably the kind of exception-which-proves-rule situation in which edit warring is the only practicable way to proceed.

Among the lesson learned the hard way here is this: When dealing with Teeninvestor or his ilk, a great deal of attention needs to be given to what a reasonable man will construe as status quo ante.

Another lesson which is still to be learned has to do with the amorphous term "consensus."

On closer inspection, the insubstantial nature of Teeninvestor's alleged "consensus" is revealed.

Who is encompassed in alleged "consensus"?
When Teeninvestor uses the term "consensus" to imply working with other editors, an inevitable corollary question becomes "who?" Who were the existing editors with whom Teeninvestor worked effectively? The edit history of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty includes a limited number of contributors. It is only reasonable to ask for a little more specificity, but Teeninvestor was unwilling to answer in the ArbCom context. I reiterate the same question again here:
 * Question : Who, other than Teeninvestor alone, participated in the exchange of views which becomes the hallmark of "working with existing editors" or "consensus"?


 * A Nobody
 * Addbot --BOT
 * Amalthea
 * Arilang1234
 * Enerelt
 * Fritzpoll
 * Dream Focus
 * Gantuya eng
 * G Purevdorj
 * GenuineMongol
 * Ikip
 * JL-Bot --BOT
 * Kraftlos
 * Kralizec!
 * Nishkid64
 * PericlesofAthens
 * RussBot --BOT
 * Sarsfs
 * SmackBot --BOT
 * Teeninvestor


 * Tenmei
 * The Black Void
 * Yaan
 * Zeborah
 * 立足东方
 * 68.160.246.158]
 * 69.86.119.207
 * 76.66.193.90
 * 141.155.150.240
 * 141.155.153.147
 * 141.155.157.221
 * 141.155.149.45
 * 162.83.131.138
 * 162.83.135.20
 * 162.83.161.11
 * 162.84.134.66
 * 162.84.136.193
 * 162.84.136.193
 * 162.84.138.103
 * 162.84.161.162

How and when did alleged "consensus" develop?
Teeninvestor claims about an alleged "consensus" suggests the need to inquire about "how" and "when" in addition to "who?" How and when did this consensus evolve? Who helped Teeninvestor in the teamwork implied by "consensus"? It is only reasonable to ask for a little explanation.
 * Question : How and when did the the elements of agreement fall into place as Teeninvestor helped form a consensus"?

What is "consensus" about
Teeninvestor claims about an alleged "consensus" implies a need to inquire about "what" in addition to "how" and "when" and "who?" It is only reasonable to ask a little elaboration. Expressed in the negative, the question still begs the same inquiry:
 * Question : What does Teeninvestor intend to be understood as the "consensus not accepted by Tenmei"?

Onus to explain "consensus"
The "Verfiability"-tag is consistent with the headnote at Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate -- see diff.

Those plausibly construed to be in a straw poll in support of this tag would include PericlesofAthens, Penwhale, Tenmei, and others.

The onus is on Teeninvestor to articulate the ambit of this so-called consensus, or to simply leave the headnotes in place pending further developments in due course. --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei doesn't understand WP:V
WP:V simply states that " a source should be third-party and reliable, having a reputation for fact checking". Considering this history book is an annual publication, with a reputable publisher(and that the facts found in many sources support the article), as well WP:AGF saying that you should assume the source is well credited unless it is obvious otherwise, it seems that Tenmei has sadly been unable to understand this policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Revamping the history section
Going to revamp the history section to include 763-907 era.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)