Wikipedia talk:Did you know/TangTalk

This page was created to move discussions regarding the book of tang off the dyk page --Victuallers (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Huangfu Bo (history)

• ... that the Tang Dynasty chancellor Pei Du was so distressed by the prospect of serving with Huangfu Bo that he offered to resign?

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 05:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•   Huangfu Bo – Nlu (give) (tag)

• I am concerned that this article is only referenced by the Book of Tang, New Book of Tang, and Zizhi Tongjian, all written at least 1000 years ago, and not by any recent scholarship on the Tang Dynasty that clearly exists. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• None of the sources were written "at least 1000 years ago." I am not convinced that a less-reliable modern source needs to be cited when the medieval sources are more reliable. --Nlu (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the medieval sources more reliable? They do not conform to our definition of reliable: peer-review and fact checked. Note that WP:RS specifically recommends that we use scholarly sources. In classes on Chinese history, for example, students read textbooks and secondary sources written by historians. This is what the field considers reliable material, so this is what we must use. Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• But as discussed the last time we went over this -- they were peer-reviewed, although by the time that they were written, they could no longer be "fact-checked" -- neither can any modern sources on the issues. They have to rely on the same medieval sources that you are criticizing. Certainly Bo Yang, whom I consider to be highly influential in the field despite his originally non-historian background, had to rely on these sources extensively. I still don't see what is the point of citing Bo, for example, when he still just relayed the same assertions. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus ... make, create or encourage one please ... there are lots who want to make things work Victuallers (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Peer Review is meant to be an aid to editors. Peer Review is not a seal of approval or validation of the article contents. Many peer reviewed articles have sourcing problems after peer review. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Li Yong (Tang Dynasty) (history)

• ... that the Tang Dynasty chancellor Li Yong, ashamed to have been recommended by the eunuch Tutu Chengcui, never assumed chancellorship authorities and resigned thereafter?

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 19:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

•   Li Yong (Tang Dynasty) – Nlu (give) (tag)

• This article relies entirely on ancient texts or Chinese language websites. Since there are plenty of modern historical works on the Tang Dynasty, as demonstrated by this Tang Dynasty article, as well as the many others on Wikipedia on Chinese history, I am concerned that this editor is creating an article that is not based on any references to current historical knowledge. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Those modern sources either 1) don't provide sufficient depth of coverage or 2) simply relay medieval (not ancient) sources so cited anyway. I could cite the Bo Yang Edition of the Zizhi Tongjian for each of the citations, instead of the Zizhi Tongjian itself. That would not provide any additional reliability. (When I need to cite Bo instead of Sima because I am citing to Bo's commentary or notes, I do it; otherwise, citing Bo would be effectively meaningless.) Please note that we've had this discussion not too long ago, and while there was no consensus, I think I can accurately say that the majority position was in accordance with mine rather than with yours. --Nlu (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• That is a misrepresentation of the discussion. It was actually quite difficult to determine what "side" people fell on because at the RSN, there were nuanced views. Most importantly, WP:RS specifically recommends scholarly sources. We should quote what scholars say is the most reliable information from these older sources and we should explain to readers the context in which these older sources were written. The most reliable information on Chinese history is that provided by historians. We are not in a position to analyze these older works ourselves and to decide what to include from them and what to leave out. That is what historians do. Moreover, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent WP:NPOV. The articles that you are submitting make no attempt to articulate the contemporary view of historians; the articles are thus POV. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reopen the discussion if you want. I find your representation to be a misrepresentation. In any case, I find it curious that apparently, by your definition, Sima Guang and Ouyang Xiu were not historians. That, I submit, is a ridiculous definition. In any case, people can go back to the discussion and look at the points made. Don't consider a source unreliable just because you're not familiar with it. To be frank, I also find it, for the lack of a better word, offensive that you are apparently again simply ignoring the points made not only by myself but a number of other people in that discussion thread without addressing them. It certainly makes me feel like that the points I made then, which I certainly spent time and energy constructing, to be completely pointless, since you not only aren't listening -- and I am not asking you to necessarily agree to me -- but are simply blocking the points out in your arguments without addressing them. --Nlu (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The most important point here is that knowledge has advanced since 900-1000. New ideas and theories about Chinese history have been developed. For some reason I cannot fathom, you are intent on ignoring all of it. It is not that we should not include anything from these sources - the problem is relying exclusively on them. It is as if you are saying there is nothing to learn from the modern field of history, which is significantly different from what it was 1000 years ago. Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can't cite what doesn't exist. As I've written, contemporary sources simply don't provide the same type of coverage (unless they are simply relaying). Certainly I don't expect a single contemporary source to cover Li Yong's life to the same extent. If you can find one, be my guest. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process, and I am certainly not preventing, nor can I prevent, anyone from putting any contradictory information about Li Yong if such information can be found in contemporary sources.
• Take Wang Chengzong for example. In that article, I believe that I gave a fairly extensive discussion as given in the Book of Tang and the Zizhi Tongjian regarding his requesting Tian Hongzheng to intercede for him in requesting mercy from Emperor Xianzong of Tang. Bo Yang summarized the event in his Timelines of Chinese History with the very simple description of, in his entry for 818: "Li Shidao and Wang Chengzong heard of Wu Yuanji's defeat, and became very fearful. Li Shidao surrendered Xin, Mi, and Hai Prefectures, and Wang Chengzong surrendered De and Di Prefectures. Li Shidao soon reneged. Li Chun issued an edict to attack Li Shidao." Succinct and accurate, but not enough coverage for an article about Wang Chengzong. Bo's Bo Yang Edition of the Zizhi Tongjian, being a translation of the Zizhi Tongjian to modern Chinese, simply relayed the Zizhi Tongjian version, and I believe it is completely pointless to cite either unless there is an unique assertion I'm citing therein that is not contained in the original. (Bo often made commentaries and at times cited other sources in comparison in the Bo Yang Edition; in those situations, I do cite Bo, but otherwise, because Bo was simply relaying Sima, citing Bo rather than Sima is, indeed, in my opinion, inaccurate.) --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• I will also state this: I am not only not opposed, but would be ecstatic if reliable contemporary sources are available that include archaeological and scientific evidence. For example, the opening up of Li Chongrun's tomb and the findings of the artwork and written text therein certainly would add to our understanding of Li Chongrun's life beyond what is in the medieval texts. If, for example, eventually DNA evidence showed that, hypothetically, Li Chongrun was the biological son of Wu Sansi rather than Emperor Zhongzong of Tang, then that information should not only be included in Li Chongrun's article, but should supplant the medieval sources' assertions about Li Chongrun's being Emperor Zhongzong's son. But I am aware of no comparable evidence about Li Yong. This means that the medieval sources are the best sources that we have for Li Yong's life, unless you can point me to a more reliable contemporary source. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus ... make, create or encourage one please ... its not fair that the rule is 5 days and these are 2 weeks old Victuallers (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The continuing trouble with these hooks that there is a whole body of recent evidence showing archeological evidence that people and places were not always located as described in texts over 1000 years old. It is also interesting that almost none of the persons noted in the older manuscripts seem to have importance in the well researched Tang Dynasty article that these articles use in their hooks. I feel the whole endeavor is unrepresentative. It the editor would put in the hook something like " ... according to the Book of Tang, chancellor Li Yong, ashamed to have been recommended by the eunuch Tutu Chengcui, never assumed chancellorship authorities and resigned thereafter?" - then that would be more accurate. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Awadewit and Mattisse for addressing this; it's been annoying me as well. Basing an article on medieval sources instead of modern scholarship amounts to WP:OR, because the reliability and veracity of such sources necessarily is a matter of scholarly interpretation. When I write articles on medieval subjects I try to avoid direct use of chronicles as far as possible. I am not familiar with Chinese history in this period, but if modern historians only "relay" what the ancient sources say, then they are not really historians at all, at best antiquarians. And if no WP:RS exist (and by that I mean scholarly material written within the last couple of centuries), then perhaps there should be no articles on these subjects until they do. As it stands, these articles do not adhere to Wikipedia's standards, and certainly should not go on the Main Page. Lampman (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• I should add that another one of these, Li Yijian, has already been moved into the queue. Lampman (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please read the discussion (which I've linked to) the last time the issue came up on as to whether the sources constituted reliable sources. Note that nothing in WP:RS currently indicates that the sources are not considered reliable sources. Indeed, they fit every single criterion that I can think of in WP:RS. Effectively, to take them out of the group of reliable sources for Wikipedia standards requires a consensus to change policy, and none was created to do so the last time the issue was discussed. Indeed, I would say that in that discussion, the view presented by Awadelit and Mattisse was clearly the minority view. If either of them (or you) wants to reopen the discussion, be my guest, but no one should act as if the discussion actually created a consensus that went against what the actual majority view was. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Let me also say that I have no objection to Mattisse's putting "According to the Book of Tang ..." qualifier. But as my own personal view is that such a qualifier is unnecessary (but unobjectionable), let whoever believes that it is necessary put it in. I won't do it. But I won't stop (and can't stop) anyone else from doing it. (What I do find objectionable is effectively a backdoor way of questioning these sources without reopening the discussion as to whether they are reliable sources. If the discussion should be reopened, then it should be reopened. Don't continue raising the objections that had been rejected by the majority the last time that we had a discussion without reopening the discussion.) --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Read again. In the RS section named "Scolarship" it says "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field." In the field of history sources may still be relevant after one or two generations, but a thousand years is just plain ridiculous. As for the previous discussion, you seem to be putting a very personal spin on that. There were some who thought ancient sources could be used in combination with modern scholarship, but as far as I could see nobody meant they could be used exclusively. In any case, consensus is irrelevant when it so clearly violates basic policies; policy always takes precedence over consensus. Lampman (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• How does the portion of WP:RS you quote show that using them clearly violates basic policies? It's hardly clear, particularly when the sentence itself used "may." Moreover, there has been no showing at all that there is "superced[ing] ... recent research" at all. There is also no showing of "competition with alternate theories, or controvers[y] within the relevant field." If there is, obviously those competing theories, superceding research, or controversy should be noted and discussed. (That's exactly what I did, I feel, in articles like Li Chongrun and Princess Taiping, where, indeed, there is archaeological evidence and other textual evidence that is relevant.) There is no need to disqualify medieval material when no controversy exists. (Certainly no one questions the reliability of these sources on Chinese Wikipedia.) Again, if you feel that a reopening of the discussion is necessary, reopen the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean that "no controversy exists"? If no modern scholarship exists on the subject, then you simply don't have the reliable sources for an article. If the material is corroborated by modern scholarship then those sources should be used, because they're inherently more reliable. Lampman (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, do you propose that we start deleting all articles about ancient (and here, I'm talking about 1500+-year-old personalities) that are uncorroborated by any archaeological evidence? Be my guest to bring them all up on AfDs. Somehow, I don't think those AfDs will go anywhere. --Nlu (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Again, if you want to change the definition of reliable sources to exclude these sources, open another discussion or reopen the one that was previously held. Don't act as you are the supreme authority on what is reliable and what is not reliable. --Nlu (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Nlu here, the sources he has used do constitute reliable sources. Additionally, primary sources are supposed to be more reliable than secondary sources, as they provide the most accurate account. There is nothing in WP:RS that states that use of primary sources always constitute WP:OR in regards to historical articles. The word "caution" is used, which is an entirely different concept, and I am sure that Nlu has been cautious in his usage of sources. From looking at his previous works, we can accept in good faith that Nlu has no intention of providing inaccurate material. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I again disagree with Nlu here, No matter how he justifies the usage of the "primary sources", articles referenced solely by those ancient sources does not constitute our policies on sourcing and similar problems can be seen in articles of East Asian history.--Caspian blue 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This anti-primary source issue has already been recognized by university academics. See criticism of wikipedia. There is some really crazy fetish with 3rd party sources. Which is good if there are enough to choose from. But clearly not always the case. Benjwong (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for related topic) Adding a wrinkle to the sharpei: this issue has quite degenerated at Cui Qun (a former DYK suggestion that Nlu has let expire by refusing three times to add a single inline note for sourcing the hook[1]), where Nlu's comrade Benjwong has removed 5 times the annotated tags for primary sources, missing inline citations, and unadequate lead (as seen removed on this diff). A baby bro to this discussion took place at WP/ANI (permalink to post-discussion ANI). I think one crux of the problem may be summarized with this remark, "[Benjwong writes:] If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think."[2] which is echoed here with "[Benlisquare writes:] primary sources are supposed to be more reliable than secondary sources, as they provide the most accurate account" – primary sources vs. secondary sources, so we each see the other as crazy! (Except that Wikipedia has chosen secondary sources.) And maybe that my summary about Cui Qun could also apply to most of Nlu's articles:

• 1) If the subject is WP:NOTABLE enough, then there are certainly modern scholars who have produced modern secondary sources about him, after at least critically cross-examining those only Tang sources, in order to produce reliable material for today – even if they eventually accepted or concurred with the original source, their expert work at reaching those conclusions is what will make them a reliable source (as opposed to 900-year-old documents written to please an Emperor that could execute anybody and whose text can have been tampered with any number of times – and hosted on Chinese Wikisource where anyone can rewrite them). Even if modern sources are scant or slim, they should provide the reliable skeleton of an article, possibly expanded and complemented by irreplaceable Tang sources duly quoted or noted as "according to..." (As it's done for Biblical events, or for the life of Casanova from his Memoirs vs. the scant historical records about him.)
• 2) Else, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - Jimmy Wales in Wikipedia:Verifiability policy — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 07:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You said the exact same thing over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated removal of annotated unresolved issue tags. Again, you refuse to accept the fact that a 900 year old doc is the most complete set there is. Benjwong (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

brief comment re consensus. Hooks wait here for peer review. The consensus here appears to be that the addition of "according to" would remove all major issues. The author has no objection to this, but refuses to do it. By all means continue to discuss the sources issue ... elsewhere? But I think this hook has timed out on the DYK process. A resolution acceptable to all has been identified, but the author refuses to put it in the article. Under my understanding of the DYK process, this is the end Victuallers (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand... This is at least the second time Nlu is letting an otherwise accepted DYK expire for a minuscule reason (not adding a mere copy of an inline ref next to the hook, or not adding a mere "according to"). Is there some cultural problem here too? Is it considered a loss of face or a "feminine weakness" to change something himself at the request of external parties, or somehow conflated with an admission of error or lack of competence? Surely such repeated stubborness on simple things has some reason. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 10:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I find "according to" to be unobjectionable but unnecessary, and therefore, if someone believes that it is necessary, let that person add it. I'm not stopping anyone from doing so.

But the issue here is greater than that. It involves the rejection of a whole body of otherwise considered reliable works (certainly Chinese historians, both in the past and the present, both in the academia and without, consider them sufficiently enough to be relaying the information as reliable) without a proper policy discussion. If the Wikipedia community decides to reject these sources as a whole, fine, that's the community's decision. I have serious objections about several people, based on their personal views without full understanding of the methods of these sources' creation, rejecting the sources without engaging the community in a policy discussion, particularly because the last policy discussion on the issue certainly not only did not create a consensus that conformed with their views, but had a majority (albeit not a consensus) that went against their views. --Nlu (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Defining primary and secondary sources purely based on the narrow and clearly inadequate definition in WP:PSTS is pure wikilawyering; even if a source was originally written as a secondary source, no responsible historian will uncritically use any pre-c. 1800 source as such.

I'm not trained in the Chinese history tradition, so I read up on the subject. It seems clear that the authoritative work on the subject is Endymion Wilkinson's "Chinese History: A Manual" (2000), where you find the following:

In a country such as China with a long tradition of historical writing and compilation, the distinction between a primary and a secondary source is not an easy one to make. (p. 483)
...
Because of the long and sophisticated historiographical trend in China, instead of working from official archives or private documents (as in post-Rankean European historiography), the modern student of Chinese history is liable to be handling historical works compiled by Chinese historians continuously over the last 3,000 years. In order to be able to assess the qualities and the biases of these works, clearly some knowledge of the aims and methods of the historians and compilers who produced them is essential. (p. 490)

Endymion Wilkinson, Chinese History: A Manual

I will freely admit that I did not know enough about Chinese historical research, and that it might have some essential differences from the European tradition. This doesn't change the basis point that I have been making all along though; rather Wilkinson supports it. If you read the last sentence, you clearly see that using these sources requires the knowledge and interpretative skills of a trained historian. Hence the direct use of such sources, without the corroboration by a modern-day scholarly authority, is inherently WP:OR. Lampman (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But all sources require that kind of interpretation. Certainly when we write articles based on modern sources, we don't shut our brains off without some interpretation of the modern texts. That does not mean that all of that writing is original research. Nothing in WP:OR suggests that, particularly since WP:PSTS defines primary sources in a different way that Wilkinson does. Again, if you believe that the definition should be changed to fit these sources under the definition of primary sources, open a policy discussion. Backdooring your own view on the matter in and act as if it already policy is inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly all sources should be treated with caution, but that is why WP:RS recommends peer-reviewed sources from reliable journals or publishing houses. First of all there's a difference between modern publications from independent academic institutions, and work made under the patronage of autocratic rulers. Secondly, historical methodology has developed significantly over the last thousand years. I'd be happy to debate clarifying the policies, but presently we're debating how the – admittedly vague – guidelines should be applied to a specific case, and to me consensus seems to be against building articles entirely on ancient sources. Lampman (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a consensus is forming in that direction -- but assuming that it is. What do you propose should be done with medieval sources? (This is not a trick question; I don't think under any definition of the word "ancient" can the sources that I used be considered ancient.) Assuming your answer is the same, the next answer would be: what do you do with clearly notable individuals for whom no modern source is available, at least to the editor? And on whom should the onus of finding the modern source be? One thought I have is: the onus should be on the editor who believes that a modern source exists and can be found. After all, if you believe that a modern source improves it, why should you not be the one who goes out and finds the modern source? --Nlu (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole peer-review process does not make sense. Some of these subjects are so new to far-east studies (in the west), you simply cannot find English sources period. Your choice is either the authentic Book of Tang in Chinese, or a less reliable source probably also in Chinese. In this situation, why would wikipedia not allow the primary source? The entire 24 histories are acknowledged worldwide by well known universities and scholars. Benjwong (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue

Ok I was not aware this issue was so massive. I ran into a tagging debate with Little Blue Frog. And this was debated over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated removal of annotated unresolved issue tags and Talk:Cui Qun. This avoidance of primary sources is bizarre. Is like we cannot distinguish one article from another, and the rules are applied in the most robotic mindless method. Every other language wikipedia is translating from English sources over. English wikipedia is the only one with a problem with reverse translations. Look around. Benjwong (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether Wikipedia is wise about that policy is not clear. It is policy. But it's also policy definition that these sources are not considered primary sources. Unless those who oppose treating them as secondary/tertiary sources can get the policy changes, these sources are considered secondary/tertiary sources whether they like that or not. --Nlu (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether you want to count it as 1st, 2nd, 3rd source. Usually for a source of this type to be completely written off as unreliable for studies, there has to be conflicts or problems that show the Book of tang is bad. I have not seen anything from academics that deny it, let alone denying it 100%. So I don't know how Little Blue Frog does it. Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lampman made above a point about "work made under the patronage of autocratic rulers." First, if that is a reason to completely exclude the works (with or without a policy-revision discussion -- and I still don't understand why Lampman and the others finding these sources so objectionable don't open a proper policy discussion), we'd have to eliminate a substantial portion, if not a majority or near majority, of European works until about the middle of 19th century. Second, it would require judgment on, and exclusion of, works by historians in countries that are currently or recently considered "unfree." (E.g., the USSR, the PRC, and many countries in the Third World.) That, I think, would be an absurd result, but would be the result dictated by your logic. Third, it's not true of many works included in this body of work that you're proposing the exclusion of. Of the Twenty-Four Histories -- which are the sources that we're largely talking about -- these were how I'd view whether they were "work made under the patronage of autocratic rulers":

• Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian: clearly not.
• Ban Gu's Book of Han: debatable, but I would argue no. Not really created under imperial patronage of any kind initially, as it was started by Ban Gu's father Ban Biao even while Ban Biao was not holding any offices during Xin Dynasty and the early years of the Eastern Han Dynasty, even though Ban Gu later did receive imperial sanction (as did his sister Ban Zhao after his death while imprisoned, which was probably an execution) in the finalizing of the work.
• Chen Shou's Records of Three Kingdoms: clear is.
• Fan Ye's Book of Later Han: clearly not.
• Shen Yue's Book of Song: clearly is.
• Xiao Zixian's Book of Southern Qi: clearly is — although Xiao wrote in a unique situation as a descendant of Southern Qi's imperial house during the subsequent Liang Dynasty, which in a way takes it out of objection that Lampman made.
• Wei Shou's Book of Wei: debatable, but I'd consider so, particularly since Wei employed the might of Emperor Wenxuan of Northern Qi in silencing the critics of it. (Although, ironically, Wei did so by arguing that those critics were trying to interfere with the historical integrity of his work.)
• Yao Silian's Book of Liang and Book of Chen: clearly are — but see below about Tang policies about imperial interference with historians.
• Li Baiyao's Book of Northern Qi: clearly is.
• Linghu Defen's Book of Zhou: clearly is.
• Wei Zheng's Book of Sui: clearly is.
• Fang Xuanling's Book of Jin: clearly is.
• Li Yanshou's History of Northern Dynasties and History of Southern Dynasties: clearly not.
• Liu Xu's Book of Tang: probably should be considered so even though it is fairly clear that it was not mostly written under Liu Xu himself.
• Xue Juzheng's History of the Five Dynasties: clearly is.
• Ouyang Xiu's New History of the Five Dynasties: debatable. I'd argue not, as it was started as a private work, although it did receive imperial sanction later after the work's completion and after Ouyang's death.
• Ouyang Xiu's New Book of Tang: clearly is.
• Toktoghan's History of Liao, History of Jin, and History of Song: clearly are.
• Song Lian's History of Yuan: clearly is.
• Zhang Tingyu's History of Ming: clearly is.

One other major source that I frequently use, Sima Guang's Zizhi Tongjian, both directly and through Bo Yang's lenses (i.e., through his Bo Yang Edition of the Zizhi Tongjian), is not one of the Twenty-Four Histories but is often considered official as well. That history was also a private history to start with, although it eventually received imperial sanction of sorts -- by Emperor Shenzong of Song, who, toward the later parts of the creation of the work, gave Sima a stipend and a staff to work with. I would not consider it created under imperial patronage, however, particularly since Sima was on the losing end of a power struggle with Wang Anshi during the time that he wrote the work.

However, it should be further noted that Tang had a strict policy that emperors were not to read the accounts by the imperial historians so that the historians would not be hesitant to write things less than flattering about the emperors (whether current or past). Whether the imperial historians self-censored even despite that is debatable, but if you read the histories themselves, I think that one would be hard pressed to argue that these historians were flatterers and aggrandizers. (Again, I get the impression that the editors who criticize the use of these works haven't read them.)

In any case, I think it is highly unwise to exclude a class of works that modern Chinese historians consider reliable based on age alone. Certainly, that policy, if it required the exclusion of such substantially more ancient works (say, of Pliny, Eusebius, Plutarch, Tacitus, &c.), perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't exist any more because it wouldn't be an encyclopedia any more. An encyclopedia needs to be comprehensive, and conscious exclusion of ancient sources will necessarily eliminate coverage completely of a large segment of cultures and a large segment of historical figures.

That having been said, I do think I have to admit that personally, I think certain of these official histories are less reliable than others — with the most problematic work that I see being the Book of Wei, whereas I think the most neutral, although not necessarily most reliable, of these works may very well be the most ancient of them all — the Records of the Grand Historian. But those biases can be solved by simply not shutting your brain off while using the sources. As F.W. Mote noted in his works, he believed that traditional Chinese historians were accurate in their reporting of events but not necessarily of motives. When I use these works, events are what I use them for, for the large part, not motives, and when I felt that I have to use them for motives, I've tried to qualify them. Since WP:NPOV requires that we stick to the facts anyway, and these facts of the events are largely not disputed (and where there are, again, I note them where I know of the dispute), I don't see a problem. (And, again, neither do modern Chinese historians.)

And I'd dare say again that viewing your view on historiography as the only correct one runs completely opposite to the idea of Wikipedia as a community that establishes policies by consensus, ignores that it contradicts the historical views of modern historians in the Chinese-speaking community (and in effect, proclaims that your view is superior to theirs without a showing that you are more qualified to judge than they are), and encourages systemic bias. It makes no sense.

As I've said before, I could cite Bo instead of Sima when using the Zizhi Tongjian. That, in my opinion, not only adds no reliability at all, but misattributes the origin of the source. As much as I respected Bo, he was not the one who compiled the information; Sima and his staff were. Bo was an interpreter, not a creator, as far as the source was concerned. That is largely the same for many modern sources — which, I also dare say, to the minor extent that they deviated from the ancient/medieval sources, often clearly misread the ancient/medieval sources rather than have genuine scholarly justifiable disagreements with those sources. Do I misread these sources myself at times? I'm sure that I do. But that doesn't make the sources themselves unreliable, any more than the misreading of contemporary sources make the contemporary sources unreliable. I would assert that many modern sources we cite in historical and non-historical articles alike are less reliable than these sources, and yet we cite them because, again, we don't shut our brains off while using these sources. Wikipedia editors are interpreters and writers, not parrots — or at least they shouldn't be. I enjoyed reading Alison Weir's works, but while I am not an expert on the subjects that she covered (whereas, I would dare say, while I'm not in academia and am not close to being able to be in academia on the subject I'd consider myself a relative expert on Chinese history, at least pre-Song history), I don't think Weir's works are of particularly great historical value — but I wouldn't hesitate, nor do I think I should, to cite Weir if I have no other source to cite and know of no source that contradicted or questioned her on a particular point. That doesn't mean that I don't read Weir critically if I ever have to cite her. I don't shut my brain off while citing her, or Sima, or Ouyang, or Wei Shou. I don't think anyone should, and to suggest effectively that one should or that one does is, well, insulting to say the least. I myself don't include the clearly more superstitious or mythical assertions made in those histories as I consider those portions unreliable. That doesn't render the works, on the whole, unreliable. Indeed, the authors themselves often use language that suggest that they doubt that certain reports they made to be true. When that happens, whether it is I or someone else who's interpreting that passage should clearly relay the author's own doubts, and I do that frequently. (See the way that I phrased Linghu Chu's claims of descent from Linghu Defen, for example.)

I will urge again: read the works involved before you declare them rubbish. I am still getting the impression, which has been uncontradicted so far by anyone who proposed that these sources are unreliable, that those people who make the arguments have not read a single one volume of a single one of these works. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the introduction, I found it interesting. But I think you misunderstand my point if you think I'm criticizing these sources specifically. The part about the patronage of autocratic rulers was just a general observation on the development of the field of history. I don't criticize these sources, because I don't have the qualifications to do so, but I don't need to. Maybe you have that expertise, but that's irrelevant because it's not our job. Source criticism is an academic exercise, and inherently WP:OR. That's not to say you "shut your brain off" while writing, it's simply a matter of working within the basic rules of Wikipedia. I'd be happy to discuss clarifying the rules, but I don't think it's necessary in this case, because it's so obviously covered by the present rules. WP:RS lists the following as reliable sources: "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Arguing that the list doesn't specifically exclude ancient Chinese histories is like saying it doesn't exclude writings on bathroom walls.

As for corresponding Western sources; ancient historians and medieval chroniclers should be used sparingly, but that does not mean, as you say, that Wikipedia would cease to exist. These sources have been thoroughly studied by academics, so there's plenty of reliable sources to use. The same goes for older works of modern scholarship. Gibbon's Decline and Fall can be used as an example of 18th century historiography, but shouldn't be used as a secondary source, because it's been thoroughly superseded by more recent scholarship. WP:RS makes this clear. Where the line goes - at 50 years, 100 years, 200 years - depends on the nature of the work and the activity within the field since. So when you're asking for more precise guidelines, those are impossible to give, but that you can't use sources that are almost 1,000 years old as reliable secondary sources is simply a matter of common sense. And if no recent scholarship can be found, then the subject simply isn't notable. I'm not saying it's not notable per se, it's just not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Lampman (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not allowing a source because it is considered "work made under the patronage of autocratic ruler" is even more crazy. If wikipedia only allow work made under "good rulers who are nice to people", that list would be 2 lines long. Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No it would not. I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you simply don't understand the basis on which Wikipedia is built, but I'll try to explain it anyway. First of all, the word "autocratic" does not imply anything about the personal qualities of the ruler, it simply describes a form of government. Secondly, the personal qualities of the ruler are irrelevant, what matters is whether or not the government interferes with the freedom of speech. The list you talk about would include everything produced by a free university or an independent press - literally millions of works. That is how Wikipedia works now. Lampman (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Every government interferes with the freedom of speech at least on some levels. Even if you have a list that shows which country's source is allowed on wikipedia because it doesn't have government interference, I cannot take you seriously. Benjwong (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You specifically omitted this bullet point from WP:RS:

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

The sources I cite have been vetted by the scholarly community — both at the time of their creation and subsequently by the community of Chinese historians. As far as publication in reputable peer-reviewed sources and by well-regarded academic presses, I can't think of any more reputable or well-regarded sources/presses than these. And you're still ignoring the fact that excluding works written during times when there were reduced freedom of speech/press — even if, arguendo, that could be determined objectively — would effectively mean that Wikipedia can't use any pre-20th century sources and effectively would have to be purged of the majority of its articles on history, and that even as of the very recent modernity, Soviet history articles would have to be entirely gutted. That, I would say, is an absurd result required by your logic. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, an academic press publishing a source doesn't mean they vouch for its content, or that it's been vetted. The Bible has been published by academic publishers; that doesn't mean you can use Genesis as a source for history articles. As I've said previously, if a source has in fact been vetted by modern historians, then reference that modern source.

You still don't seem to understand the distinction between sources and subjects. Let's take you assumption that we can't use any pre-20th century sources (I never said anything like that, and I think I made it abundantly clear that no such hard cut-off point can be applied). Even so, pre-20th century subjects are still eligible, as long as modern-day sources on the subject exist. I would be very cautious of using a source from the Soviet Stalin era, especially on social science subjects (see Soviet historiography). That doesn't mean that the Soviet Union as a subject is off-limit. Western scholars, and more recent Russian scholars, have used those original sources, applied academic scrutiny to them and come up with an interpretation. This is what's called research, and it's the domain of scholars, not Wikipedia editors. Lampman (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You also failed to address a few other issues:

• Reading in requirements you propose in WP:RS requires a policy discussion and consensus, not just imposition of your (or anyone else's) personal view.
• Reading in requirements that a source be modern to be considered reliable also requires a policy discussion and consensus, not just imposition of your (or anyone else's) personal view, since there is no policy that states that the age of the source disqualifies it as a reliable source.
• Reading in a notability requirement that a person's notability be established by a modern source — when none exists in WP:N, and where the current guidelines (this is my opinion; this is nowhere near explicit) — particularly, the guideline that "[n]otability is not temporary" — implicitly rejects such a requirement — also requires a policy discussion and consensus, not just imposition of your (or anyone else's) personal view, since no such policy exists.
• That it shouldn't be my (or whoever else created article's) sole responsibility to find modern sources (or to certify that none exists) on the subject, particularly since that it is impossible to prove a nonexistence — that whoever thinks that a modern source should be added is welcome to find one and add one.
• That "lack of modern source" is a criterion for deleting an article — which is not currently a WP:AFD criterion — also requires a policy discussion and consensus, not just imposition of your (or anyone else's) personal view, since no such policy exists. Further, take a look at AfD discussions and the arguments used there generally. I don't think most editors there will agree with you that this is a valid basis for deletion, let alone agree with writing in a policy that requires per se deletion.

To be frank, I still find it utterly astounding that sources that the community of Chinese historians relies on everyday and has relied on for millennia (in the case of the oldest source among the Twenty-Four Histories, the Records of the Grand Historian, which is just barely over 2,000 years old) for research is suddenly found to be unreliable, and that you should somehow feel that your judgment is superior to theirs. But even if that were not an issue, you still don't have the consensus of the community on your side. (That doesn't mean that you can't persuade them to be on your side; but you haven't opened any policy discussions or persuaded any policy changes.) --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Read your own sentence again: "relied on for millennia...for research": "research" is the key word here. I think it's great that these sources are used for research, I just don't think that's what we should be doing here. Or rather I know it's not. As for the policies and guidelines; I think WP:RS and WP:OR cover this sufficiently. That is unless someone deliberately tries to obfuscate the issue by making absurd claims such as that a 1000-year old source is as good as one from a modern-day academic press. Here common sense has to apply, it's not allowed just because the policy doesn't explicitly ban it. The policies are written to be summary; they can't explicitly ban every silly and obviously wrong idea people might come up with, or they would go on forever. Lampman (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In your view, that is. Again, I would welcome them if you want to open policy discussions on this. Your view cannot substitute for community consensus. And I still find it insulting that you claim to know better than the consensus within the Chinese-speaking community at large and the Chinese historical community specifically. In the views of those communities, these ancient and medieval sources are generally considered more reliable than the modern sources. --Nlu (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How can the "Chinese historical community" consider these sources more reliable than modern sources?! Surely these modern sources must be written by the "Chinese historical community" themselves? Do they deliberately distort the content of the original sources? What you say makes no sense, unless you mean more comprehensive, rather than more reliable.

Anyway, this is not only my interpretation of the guidelines, it's an interpretation I share with Mattisse, Awadewit, Caspian blue, The Little Blue Frog, YellowMonkey, Danaman5, and apparently just about anyone not directly involved in the creation of these kind of articles (probably because it's the only reasonable interpretation, but that is my opinion though.) The issue at handseems to have been settled. If you want to impose your fringe reading of the guidelines, then it seems to me it is your responsibility to get support for it. You can perhaps introduce some guideline that would tone down the emphasis on peer reviews, university publishing and mainstream media, and instead suggest that it should not matter when or under what circumstances a source is written. If you can get community support for that then you can continue pushing these articles. Lampman (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lampman, These are not original research. These are translations. Again, they are NOT equal. One scroll or book may contain 90% of that period's history. By denying that source, you are basically suggesting wikipedia wait for an English-scholar retranslation. Now if that is what you and Little Blue Frog intend, I will tell you that is very biased (if not totally unrealistic). In addition, you are doing the wiki community a disfavor by withholding sources that are obviously legitimate. Benjwong (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Language had nothing to do with it. WP:NONENG says that English sources are preferred on English Wikipedia, but only if they are available. This is not a matter of language, but of reliability. Lampman (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lampman, if you are so sure that there is a consensus to change policy (and, again, the last policy discussion on the issue in WP:RSN had a majority, although not consensus, in the opposite direction), reopen the policy discussion or open a new one. Wikipedia governs by consensus, not by your say so, and certainly not by a discussion that is aimed at the wrong discussion area. If you really believe that what I write should go, open some WP:AFDs. I think I know what the results would be. I really don't see a rational reason for you to continue to stand by your position without trying to submit it to the community for discussion in the right forum other than you're trying to backdoor in a "policy" without such consensus. As it stands, I also believe, notwithstanding whatever may be reached with regard to whether these sources are reliable, you're continuing to take the position that these sources are primary sources. That's a completely absurd reading of WP:PSTS. --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

April 5 ... from dyk

Articles created/expanded on April 5

Linghu Chu (history)

• ... that the Tang Dynasty official Linghu Chu was, after the sudden death of his superior Zheng Dan, threatened by soldiers with swords to draft a will for Zheng?

• ALT1:... that it was the advocacy of the Tang Dynasty official Linghu Chu that the bodies of the chancellors Wang Yai, Jia Su, and Shu Yuanyu were buried after being exposed to the elements?

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

•   Linghu Chu – Nlu (give) (tag)

• I continue to think that featuring articles on the main page constructed solely from such old sources is poor practice when both WP:V and WP:RS demand "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine." However, as there is no consensus at this time for rejecting these articles, I would like to suggest that all of these hooks attribute the information. For example, for the first hook, we could say "according to the Book of Tang...". Note also that in the article, the word used is "report", while the hook says "will". Why the difference? Awadewit (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't think that in a hook you'd want to use "final report"; it would not be as clear in the context of the front page as to what it is. --Nlu (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Awadewit that these article based on history written over 1000 years ago, and ignoring modern scholarship on the Tang Dynasty, are problematic and need to clearly indicate somehow that this information based on ancient sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Given that none of these sources were "over 1000 years ago," I find your assertion to be itself suspect. --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia, New Book of Tang (1060), Book of Tang (945), and Zizhi Tongjian (1084). That is about 1000 years old. If Wikipedia's dates are incorrect, please fix them. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did forget that the Book of Tang was a 10th century source. However, the last I checked, 2009 - 1060 = 949, and 2009 - 1084 = 925, unless my math is off. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK "about 1000 years old" - does that remove your suspicion? If this is the level of the discussion, I fear we will get nowhere. Do you have any support from other sources to bolster your position? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• To bolster what position? That the asserted facts in the hooks are factual? I think the onus is for someone else to show that there is, at least, a factual dispute. Without any assertion of factual dispute, there is no greater reason to doubt the medieval sources more than any other sources. (The issue would be quite different if there is a factual dispute, but none has been demonstrated.) --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The facts stated in the hook need support from modern sources. There could be a parallel article on Wikipedia, about the same person using a more modern version of the name, and we would never know. From the Tang Dynasty article and the many related articles, I realize there is a great deal of modern scholarship, including archeological findings, available. Have you consulted these? All you are doing is rephrasing the Book of Tang into a series of Wikipedia articles. Would that be enough for an editor to do for articles on stories from the Christian Bible? Or for an editor to write a series of articles on the history of Greece using ancient Greek writing alone? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the other commentators, but I would like to go further. These articles are an offence both to the project and to the field of history. There is no need for any consensus, since they so clearly violate the most basic of principles: WP:NOR. It's really very simple: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims", that means you can say "according to the Book of Tang...", but you cannot use it as a source in itself. The idea that a thousand year old source (sorry, 925+) can be regarded as anything but a primary source, just shows a complete lack of understanding for historical method. Furthermore, the fact that there are no secondary sources here whatsoever, brings the whole article into doubt. I'll tag them with {{Primary sources}}, but really I question the justification for their very existence. Lampman (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, unfortunately. Several of these DYKs from the Book of Tang, the New Book of Tang etc. have been displayed per week for a while now. I would prefer for DYK to exercise some minimal quality control. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Tagging them with {{Primary sources}} would be, in my opinion, a complete falsehood, since under WP:PSTS they are not primary sources. Again, if you want to open a discussion on whether they should be considered primary sources, be my guest. No one is stopping you from doing it. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there is another discussion at WT:WIAFA but I would think that such sources are suspect due to the extreme passing of time. I know of a few famous historians who wrote their PhD thesis by interpreting the chronicles, if these were considered truly secondary I don't think that they would allow a PhD at an Ivy League to simply rehash them. Another thing is that although the writers were learned for their time, there is nowhere near the academic freedom or historiographical rigour that there is now. Eg, the chronicles commissioned by the Nguyen Dynasty were written by learned scholars of the time, but was highly critical of the Tay Son Dynasty, which the Nguyen deposed, and kept on referring to them as bandits and pirates etc, which is why it's better for trained scholars to weed out the fact from the exageration, rather than amateurs like us. Another thing is that basically all histories of the old days are written in a xenophobic tone, especially when dealing with wars against other countries. This type of stuff was common in all Viet dynasties' histories criticising their predecessors. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

However, such biases can be dealt with without throwing the entire history away -- as effectively, it is being proposed here (again, without formally opening a Wikipedia policy discussion). The histrionics and the epithets can be abandoned, and the political agenda can be dealt with, without simply deleting, for example, Trưng Sisters. --Nlu (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I came here in response to a posting on WT:CHINA. I agree that using only ancient sources can be risky. However, it is important to allow someone with the time and resources an opportunity to find modern sources. I just found one for the article under discussion here, that at least proves Linghu Chu's existence. I certainly wouldn't support deleting this type of artice en masse or anything. If you have concerns about any article, let me know, and I will try to find sources for it. (or you can do so yourself if you have access to a university's resources)--Danaman5 (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I think the heart of the matter here is whether or not China's Standard Twenty-Four Histories compiled in premodern times can be considered primary sources or secondary sources. Despite their age, they are in fact secondary sources. The definition of a primary source according to our very own Wiki is "a document, recording or other source of information (paper, picture,....etc) that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic." This definition simply does not describe the Book of Tang, or the other Standard Histories for that matter, which are more in line with Wiki's definition of a secondary source: "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented." The Twenty-Four Histories are not memoirs. They are not diaries. They are not newspapers or pamphlets. They are not written talismans placed in tombs. They are not original photographs of events. They are not courier letters, travel logues, protest signs, or long-lost drafts of political speeches. They are in fact systematically-organized, peer-scrutinized, government-sponsored histories which utilize primary sources and sometimes other secondary sources. They were written by professional historians, albeit gentrymen writing for an original reading audience of other literate gentrymen. More often than not, they were written about a previous dynastic era, one that had just preceded the contemporaneous ruling house. This alone dispells any notion that they are primary sources. There are some problems with the Standard Histories. Sometimes information in them has been proven false due to modern research or archaeological finds. But the amount of claims proven false in modern times is marginal compared to the vast majority of events, people, places, and things described in the Standard Histories. Modern historians depend on the Standard Histories for much of what they know of premodern China. This fact is admitted as such by the renowned sinologist Denis C. Twitchett (The Writing of Official History Under the T'ang, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 0521522935). If someone here wishes to make an argument that use of the Standard Histories somehow violates Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then I'm afraid that argument is going to have to be based on some other grounds than claims that they are primary sources and thus cannot be used. One could point out that The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire published in 1776 by Edward Gibbon may have some inaccuracies that modern scholarship has revealed, but does that make his source suddenly a primary one which we are unable to use or cite? No. Of course not. Edward Gibbon was no more an ancient Roman citizen than Song-era historian Sima Guang was a man of the Tang Dynasty. That's the end of my input. Good night.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We can consider these sources as secondary sources, but that does not make them reliable secondary sources for a Wikipedia article. I've read Gibbon's Decline and Fall and enough about the birth of modern historiography to know that we should never use that book as a source in an article about the Romans precisely because its methods are so different from what we consider legitimate history now. We could, however, recount what Gibbon said and explain how visions of Roman history have changed over time. Note also that Twitchett writes at the beginning of his book "the machinery of state historiography was still in development and underwent considerable changes during the dynasty" (4). It is precisely because of these changing methods that we need to make readers aware of the differences between sources and provide a variety of points of view. However, articles that rely solely on sources from so long ago do not take into account the development of modern historiography. Awadewit (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've said for the Nth time now: if the issue is that you believe that the sources are not reliable, open/reopen the discussion in the appropriate area. The discussion last time not only did not form a consensus that conformed with your view, but had a majority view that did not. (I know you dispute that; that is something that also should be resolved over there, not here.) Until there is a consensus that there should be a policy change, nothing in the current policy indicates that sources that I cited are not reliable. Indeed, what you are proposing is the introduction of a systemic bias, in my opinion. You've made your opinion plenty clear now. What is still missing is any indication that in a discussion in the right area (i.e., in a reopened discussion about WP:RS policies) that you'll get a consensus formed in conformance with your opinion.

I still find it utterly astounding that you are advocating, effectively, the throwing away of a large body of historical works just because, in your personal opinion (but not in the consensus opinion) that they do not conform with your view of how historical works should be written. (At least, that's your formulation of your view now; previously, it was "They're too old! Throw them away!") Certainly modern Chinese historians don't approach traditional Chinese histories that way. I think I can dare suggest that you have something to learn from their approach. I would also dare suggest that you are stepping into an area outside of your area of competence. I would certainly not dare to simply, based on my view, declare a body of English, or Russian, or Turkish, or Greek historical works to be useless just because they're old. I suggest that you read and study more about the same sources that you are critiquing, and at least read the text a bit yourself (if you know Chinese) before declaring them rubbish. (If you don't know Chinese, I know that at least the even much more ancient Records of the Grand Historian has an English translation. Read it sometime.) --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion relates to the discussions ongoing here. Would someone care to copy this article/ hook discussion there too.... until the matter is resolved? I'm sure that we could take it for main page if the matter is solved in next few days --Victuallers (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheng Yi (Tang Dynasty) (history)

• ... that the Tang Dynasty chancellor Cheng Yi died before he could depart for a tour of the northwestern borders with Huigu and Tufan, which he had volunteered for?

Created by Nlu (talk). Self nom at 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

•   Cheng Yi (Tang Dynasty) – Nlu (give) (tag)

Note to administrators: This article's main content totals at 6443 bytes; more than enough for DYK. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As with the hook about Linghu Chu, I suggest we attribute this information to the Book of Tang. Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as there are many sources of modern scholarship on the Tang Dynasty that are not consulted for this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you'll be able to find a modern source with sufficient coverage on Cheng Yi that doesn't simply relay the medieval information anyway. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mondern scholarship puts ancient information in context. Often archeological remains provide evidence that locations and time frames vary from the information given in ancient texts. Location names have changed over time, as have the names of individuals as more information comes to light. It is inaccurate to say that information from over 1000 years ago is accurate in any other way than to say it is an accurate rendering of the Book of Tang. Take the Christian Bible - modern research has greatly enhanced our historical understanding of the texts contained therein. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The bible is well studied in english and hebrew. I don't believe it is nearly as well studied by other languages. The book of Tang has the same issue where it is well studied in its own native language but not others. Benjwong (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Mattisse wrote anything discriminating against modern scholarship in Chinese language. Yaan (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I've opened a request for mediation. For anyone involved, if you are interested in mediation, please sign your name on that page to agree to mediate. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)