Talk:Chen (state)

Requested move[edit]

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. 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: Not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chen (state) → Chen (Zhou dynasty state)
Chu (state) → Chu (Zhou dynasty state)
Jin (Chinese state) → Jin (Zhou dynasty state)
Qin (state) → Qin (Zhou dynasty state)
Song (state) → Song (Zhou dynasty state)
Wu (state) → Wu (Zhou dynasty state)
Yan (state) → Yan (Zhou dynasty state)
Han (state) → Han (Eastern Zhou state)
Zhao (state) → Zhao (Zhou dynasty state)
Liang (state) → Liang (Zhou dynasty state)
Liao (state) → ??
Shu (state) → Shu (Zhou dynasty state)
Sui (state) → Sui (Zhou dynasty state)
Qi (state) → ??
Qi (Henan) → ??
Shen (state) → ??
Shěn (state) → ??
Wei (state) → ??
Wey (state) → ??

– All of these are ambiguous with later states in Chinese history and must be further disambiguated. "(Zhou dynasty state)" is not perfect since some survived for a few decades after Zhou dynasty no longer existed in name, like Qin, Chu, Yan, Han (state) and Zhao. I had considered "(ancient Chinese state)", but not everyone can tell the difference between ancient China and imperial China (which starts after the collapse of Zhou dynasty). I'm open to other proposals too.

The Han (state) proposal is to distinguish it from Han (Western Zhou state). I'm not sure about the last 3 pairs of homonyms, but I find denoting one of the "Wei"s as "Wey" completely arbitrary. Notice the Liao (state) article also contains 2 different states. Timmyshin (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've written many articles about rulers of Zhou dynasty states, and thought about possibly renaming the articles. The issue is very complex and my conclusion is that among the number of imperfect choices, the current scheme works the best. Although numerous entities of imperial China repeatedly reused the names of the Zhou states, these later entities are usually called dynasties or kingdoms, whereas the Zhou states are almost invariably referred to as states. Consider the case of the Ji states. There are at least four different Zhou states that are romanized as Ji (紀, 薊, 冀, 極), and currently only one has an article on en wiki. If we were going to use "Zhou dynasty state" as the standard disambiguator, we'd end up with unworkable names like Ji (Zhou dynasty state in northern Shandong), Ji (Zhou dynasty state in southern Shandong), Ji (Zhou dynasty state in Beijing), etc. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see how those proposals are unworkable if they help to clarify things. As far as the later "entities" (dynasties/empires and kingdoms) as you call them go, are they not also states? As far as I know, there is no standard in Sinology which limits the use of the word "state" only to those guo (國) in the Zhou dynasty but not those afterwards. Timmyshin (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google books search for "State of Wei" shows that the word "state" is used primarily for the Zhou dynasty state. Despite the large number of polities named Wei in imperial China, most results refer to the Zhou state (although a few refer to Cao Wei). -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's not like you can claim WP:primarytopic, so WP:Precision should be exercised. Ran Wei, Northern Wei, and Wei (Dingling) hardly have any English-language information on them beyond Wikipedia, but that does not mean they cannot be considered as states, or, are not notable. Timmyshin (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "state of Wei" in this book, The Columbia History of Chinese Literature occurred 4 times, and respectively referred to Wei (state) (p.93), Wey (state) (p.524), Cao Wei (p.621), and Northern Wei (p.252). Shall we agree it is definitely ambiguous? Timmyshin (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is only one cherry-picked example. There are several good reasons to assert WP:primarytopic here.

The Zhou states are the original ones. All later polities are named after them.
The later polities are not commonly referred to as states, but normally as dynasties or kingdoms (Cao Wei, for example, is one of the Three Kingdoms, and Northern Wei, Western Wei, and Eastern Wei are three of the Northern Dynasties), whereas the Zhou states are almost always called states, as in the Warring States.
As already shown above, the vast majority of google books search results for "State of Wei" refer to the Zhou state, even though there are several well-known imperial polities named Wei. For other states such as Chen, Chu, Qi, Yan, Zhao, etc., the results are even more overwhelming. And in the case of Qin, almost all history books refer to it as the State of Qin during the Zhou dynasty, and as the Qin dynasty after its unification of China. There's absolutely no ambiguity.

-Zanhe (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "cherry-picking examples", as you claim? It's a good example to illustrates that the phrase is ambiguous, since it's from the same book, I can at least "cherry-pick" 10 other examples. The words "kingdom" and "state" have the exact same corresponding Chinese word, and again, there's no rule saying you can only translate the Zhou dynasty guo as "states" but not the later guo. If you check the page Seven Warring States the first sentence begins with "The Seven Warring States or Seven Kingdoms..." As far as "dynasties", they are still states, aren't they? Another "cherry-picked" example: [1] Timmyshin (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's no rule to translate Zhou dynasty "guo" as "state" but not the others, but that's the common practice, and that's what matters. As for cherrypicking sources, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. -Zanhe (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing WP:Cherrypicking which proves that I've not done any cherrypicking as defined by WP. However, if you ignore my source which clearly pointed out disambiguation, then you are the one who is committing cherrypicking. Timmyshin (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as for the spelling of Wey (state), it's pretty much the standard in Western academia, used by all authors of the Cambridge History of Ancient China, including many top authorities in sinology. The alternative would be utter confusion. In Warring States history, you often see events like "Wei invaded Wey and took two cities", "Wei and Wey formed an alliance and invaded Qi". This situation is analogous the spelling of Shaanxi versus Shanxi. Many authors also spell Han (state) as Hann to distinguish it from the Han dynasty, which I think we should consider following. -Zanhe (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaanxi and Shanxi are pronounced differently in Mandarin and the spellings reflect that tonal difference. Besides, these spellings are widely accepted and are official (endorsed by the government). The 2 Wei states, on the other hand, are pronounced exactly the same. Even if that is a scheme developed by Cambridge History of Ancient China to simplify narratives, it does not mean there is any basis for Wikipedia to follow it, because it is completely arbitrary. Edit: A Google Book search reveals many titles which spell Wey (state) as "Wei" [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] etc. Timmyshin (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wei and Wey being completely identical in pinyin further necessitates the need to spell them differently, as they cannot even be differentiated with pinyin tone marks. The spelling of Wey is far from being limited to the Cambridge History of Ancient China. A google books search shows its wide use in hundreds of books by numerous authors. And it's not difficult to understand why. Look at the notes on Sun Bin's Art of War, for example: "Wei attacked Zhao because Zhao attacked Wey"; "Wey was bordered by Wei and Zhao. If Wei was going to attack Zhao, it had to cross Wey." The counterexamples you give above differentiate the two states by using the original Chinese characters, which are not meaningful to most readers of the English wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My counterexamples contained Chinese character not because these are the only counterexamples, but because it would take more time to find counterexamples without. I understand the convenience the Cambridge History scheme offers and why some books adopted it; but this is too arbitrary to be authoritative. Why not choose to call Wei (state) "Wey" and Wey (state) "Wei" instead? Chinaknowledge, for example, calls both Wei: [7] [8], so this is definitely possible on Wikipedia as well. Besides, you do realize that the map in the Wey (state) article has no "Wey" but a "Wei", right? Is this not confusing too? Timmyshin (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "too arbitrary to be authoritative". If you think about it, all names are arbitrary when first coined, but become authoritative when adopted by the authorities and/or the general public. And the authors of The Cambridge History of Ancient China are the unquestioned authorities in Sinology outside of China. They include Michael Loewe, Edward Shaughnessy, Robert Bagley, K.C. Chang, Cho-yun Hsu, David Keightley, Mark Edward Lewis, David Nivison, Jessica Rawson, Nicola di Cosmo, among others. Chinaknowledge is a useful introduction to Chinese history, but it's an amateur site that is filled with errors. To equate Chinaknowledge with the Cambridge History is beyond ridiculous. As for the map, it is confusing, but not too bad because it shows a period before Wei (state) was created from the partitioning of Jin. Otherwise you'd have two states called Wei side by side. -Zanhe (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not equating Chinaknowledge with Cambridge History, the example is only to point out it's completely doable, since Chinaknowledge is in a similar format as Wikipedia. I also don't understand why you have to list all the authors of Cambridge History, it's still only 1 book under the same editorship. Timmyshin (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaknowledge does it by using the Chinese character to disambiguate. In the Wey article you list above, for example, "In 346 the rulers of Wei were degraded to marquesses and were mere satellites of the state of Wei 魏", which is clear only to people who can read the character 魏. So you're basically saying we should move Wey (state) to Wei (Zhou dynasty state 衛), and Wei (state) to Wei (Zhou dynasty state 魏), and we'll write sentences like "Wei 衛 was bordered by Wei 魏 and Zhao. If Wei 魏 was going to attack Zhao, it had to cross Wei 衛." I really don't think that's a better solution that what we have now. -Zanhe (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I just noticed that the map on Chinaknowledge's Wey article uses the "Wey" spelling. -Zanhe (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current naming system is fine as it is and this adds a level of complexity that serves no useful purpose (per WP:TITLE). Having in the past spent a lot of time creating or expanding articles on ancient states I've never had a problem with nomenclature using the current practice - if there is an overlap then it can be handled via geographical disambiguation or the hatnote mechanism. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 04:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you have only the Zhou Dynasty states in mind; otherwise these titles violate WP:Precision. Timmyshin (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many of these will necessarily need to be renamed since much more famous states with the same name exist, such as the Han Dynasty, Qin Dynasty, Song Dynasty etc -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that these dynasties are almost never referred to as "states". -Zanhe (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define "almost never". What "Han state" or "State of Han" were they referring to in these books? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] I could go on and on... Timmyshin (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're cherrypicking sources again, my friend. A rough look at a Google books search for "State of Han" shows about 90% of the results are about the Zhou dynasty Han (state). Of course, out of over 13,000 books, you can easily handpick dozens of exceptions, which you've done above. But that's the very definition of WP:CHERRYPICKING. -Zanhe (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:CHERRYPICKING. "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Where is the proof that I committed Cherrypicking? The point is that the terms are ambiguous, and you cannot claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if you have a parenthetical disambiguation term already. Timmyshin (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are frequently referred to as "states". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't have used "almost never", but it's infrequent for sure. See above. -Zanhe (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if you have a parenthetical disambiguation term already. Timmyshin (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.