Talk:Xiao Cong

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Emperor Jing of Western Liang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210073416/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw:80/ccw/02/swa9.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/swa9.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emperor Jing of Western Liang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206115302/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/ntan08.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/ntan08.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/swa9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the three "Western Liang" articles; no clear consensus to move Emperor Jing of Liang, but please feel free to initiate a standalone request to discuss the issue of that article's title further as necessary. Dekimasu よ! 10:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

– The so-called "Western Liang", for which we have no separate article, was simply a rump state of the Liang dynasty, at least after the year 557. ("Western" was an adjective added by later historians.) Therefore Xiao Cong was also an Emperor Jing of Liang, which makes this title ambiguous (Xiao Fangzhi had a different Chinese character for the sound "Jing").
 * Emperor Jing of Western Liang → Xiao Cong
 * Emperor Jing of Liang → Xiao Fangzhi
 * Emperor Xuan of Western Liang → Xiao Cha
 * Emperor Ming of Western Liang → Xiao Kui

English-language sources on these emperors are virtually nonexistent. It's important to think about the historical background and recognize two things: 1) Liang dynasty after the year 548 was in complete turmoil, and these 4 emperors were all puppets who only controlled a portion of the original Liang empire. (Specifically, Western Liang was a small puppet state subservient to the Western Wei, Northern Zhou and Sui dynasties in Northwest China. Xiao Fangzhi (who BTW "ruled" concurrently with the Western Liang "emperor" Xiao Cha) was a puppet emperor dominated by the general Chen Baxian.) 2) We already couldn't use the "Emperor X of Liang" format for two "legitimate" Liang emperors Xiao Dong and Xiao Yuanming and 3 "illegitimate" emperors Xiao Ji, Xiao Zhengde, and Xiao Zhuang (all from the years 548–560 who contested for supremacy and legitimacy). In other words, we won't be moving away from WP:CONSISTENCY with these moves.

I will invite User:Nlu who pretty much authored every one of these articles and is undoubtedly the preeminent Wiki expert on the Liang. Timmyshin (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Leaning toward support. In general, I am of the philosophy that Wikipedia should gradually switch away from using imperial titles to using personal names, to avoid POV issues.  However, in this case, romp state as it might be, it was a continuation of Liang, so I can also see the point of keeping the imperial titles if we are not generally abolishing them.  --Nlu (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is that imperial titles may be kept for centralized, long-lived empires like Han, Tang, Song etc., at least when they were sufficiently stable. The Liang dynasty after 548 was anything but stable. To avoid POV issues like you mentioned, Xiao Yuanming and Xiao Cha who ruled simultaneously ideally should use the same format, but the former doesn't have an imperial title (The epithet Emperor Min was given by Xiao Zhuang who was "illegitimate"). Currently, with the imperial title it may seem like Xiao Cha was the more legitimate Liang emperor when Xiao Yuanming was actually the one in Jiankang. Timmyshin (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The additional problems with Western Liang are 1) we don't have an article yet, and 2) many books call it Later Liang (Gbook hits: "Western Liang" + "Xiao Cha" = 259, "Later Liang" + "Xiao Cha" = 209, not a big difference). Either name is ambiguous (see Western Liang and Later Liang) and not sufficiently recognizable. Timmyshin (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It's not for us to judge legitimacy, but rather to follow the best available sources. I have Historical Dictionary of Medieval China by Victor Cunrui Xiong. It gives the names of all these rulers in the proposed format. Xiong doesn't mention any alternative forms. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for the three Western Liang rulers, but Oppose for Emperor Jing of Liang per naming convention. Liang dynasty is usually considered a dynasty or empire in Chinese historiography, whereas Western Liang was a short-lived splinter state that ruled a tiny area. -Zanhe (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.