This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Wu Zetian interregnum justifying discontinuity in establishment years in infobox / header?[edit]
Under what historiography, dynastic classification, or academic authority is this article justifying Wu Zetian's Zhou dynasty be considered a discontinuity in Tang dynasty? The Zhou dynasty (690–705) article itself even states Traditionalist Chinese historiography considers the dynasty as a period of the Tang dynasty. Deviating from that means this article (Tang dynasty) is choosing a different historiographic viewpoint.
I agree with the need of the article Zhou dynasty (690–705) and the fact that it is prominently mentioned in a major section in this article. Unless academic consensus can be identified, I am wondering if this is applying European/Egyptian dynastic conventions to Chinese dynasties. Voidvector (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sources do tend to treat it as part of the Tang period. Perhaps User:Morrisonjohn022, who made this change a few years ago, whould care to comment. Kanguole 11:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wu Zhou is typically considered part of the "Tang period" or "Tang era" (唐代) for historiographical purpose. But Wu Zhou is not part of the "Tang dynasty" (唐朝). A distinction needs to be made between historiographical "period"/"era" and "dynasty". In addition, proper sources such as (i) The Sinitic Civilization Book I: A Factual History Through the Lens of Archaeology, Bronzeware, Astronomy, Divination, Calendar and the Annals; (ii) Digitized Statecraft of Four Asian Regionalisms: States' Multilateral Treaty Participation and Citizens' Satisfaction with Quality of Life; (iii) Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800, etc. do in fact label the Tang dynasty as "618–690, 705–907". Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Zhou Dynasty article says in the lead "Historians generally view the Wu Zhou as an interregnum of the Tang dynasty." That seems to be the same viewpoint as presented by the infobox here (which includes the Zhou Dynasty dates in small type, below).
I don't see how European/Egyptian dynastic conventions are relevant. Furius (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why anbei prptectorate and chanyu protectorat should not exist,User:Kanguole. 163.136.36.58 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The northern areas are not included in the map of Tang territory because the cited source maps do not include them. Kanguole 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many reliable are the "cited source maps"? 163.136.36.56 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Just so you know, you only pinged me with that by creating a piped link.)
Cambridge and Oxford University Press are generally reliable sources according to our content guidelines. Particularly, The Cambridge History of China is a very well-respected anthology.
Denis Twitchett and Mark Elvin are fairly well-known as sinologists go. Michael Shin is a director of geography at UCLA.
More concretely, there have been no criticisms of the research (or self-retractions) from fellow academics like that of the other proposed source material as far as I am aware of.
Is there an answer to this question that will satisfy you? Please rebuff me if I'm being insensitive, but it seems there's an unbridgeable gap because we do not happen to be using sources originally published in China. Remsense诉 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's probably a mistake when copying and pasting the mention link, don't worry about it.
Therefore, please write not only the names of the researchers, also write it down their claims in the main body of the article.
Otherwise it won't solve the problem. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky for you, the sources are cited inline one after another in the map caption. Are you asking for me to copy-paste the relevant passages in their entirety? Remsense诉 11:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the article on "Tang Dynasty" to be written in an easy-to-understand manner.
To ensure that the infobox map, article text, and real-world historical materials do not contradict each other. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to edit Wikipedia articles? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to compare and contrast with the sourcing given in the image description, I hope I've already done the needful. I've been very generous with my time and I'm not really interested in doing rote verification of fairly accessible material by those who should be able to do so themselves. Remsense诉 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that even though it has been edited over 20,000 times, you still don't know how to write the content of the information source in the article? ? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you find any discrepancies between the map and its cited sources. Remsense诉 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to find a contradiction
It would be enough to simply explain to Wikipedia readers "Why Anbei protectorate and chanyu protectorate cannot be included in the map of the Tang dynasty's territory." 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the title of this discussion says, I have said it over and over again.
so don't be shy, I'm sure you can do it. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'm easily accessible, but is that the case for the masses who read my articles?
I guess you've never thought about it seriously. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you upset with the concept of citation? That's not my problem. Let me know if you find something. Remsense诉 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm angry.
There is a good chance that everyone who will refer to Wikipedia from now on will feel confused and angry at the contradictions in the article.
Are you willing to fulfill your role as an editor? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would you have the sources of the researchers' claims at hand? 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come tomorrow or the next night to check your results. 163.136.36.57 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother unless you're pointing out a specific contradiction between the article and the sources it cites. Remsense诉 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
