Talk:An Lushan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the An Lushan article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

An Lushan was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: May 22, 2008}

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] An Lushan origins

The Iranian origins of An Lushan seem to be denied by some contributors. For a start "An" means "Parthia" in Chinese, as in 安息　and 安国. Please check Google also, where An Lushan is more often associated with "Iranian" (25000 hits) than with "Sogdian" (only 913 hits). What is this seemingly POV obsession with the Sogdian (to the exclusion of Iranian) affiliation of An Lushan? PHG 05:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The mention of An Lushan being partly of Iranian descent is sourced from the Encyclopedia Britannica: Encyclopedia Britannica article PHG 06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Google hits" is really not a good scholarly results, not unless you wanna make fool of yourself again. I had more scholarly sources than yours, so you're really in no position to talk back. Eiorgiomugini 07:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Google is just an indication of where general interpretations stand. As a matter of fact, the number of times An Loushan is associated with Sogdiana is ridiculously low (933) compared to the Iranian association (25,000). The "number of sources" certainly is not a general criteria, especially when they come from obscure Chinese-languages sources, and are not reason enough for erasing "Encyclopedia Brittanica", which in itself stands as quite a reference. You have no right to delete such sources, only balance them with others if you wish, otherwise what you are doing is just vandalism. PHG 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While there's no rule that we should follow Google instead of provided sources. Get that through your argument. "not reason enough for erasing "Encyclopedia Brittanica" Like I said evidence, since you claimed I deleted your sources. And furthermore you're in no position to judge on obscure Chinese-languages, as well as other foreign sources, since you don't read them. Eiorgiomugini 08:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language sources are to be treated carefully on the English Wikipedia are they are hardly verifiable by most users. Normally you should provide the original and the translation of the passage you are refering to. I, and many other Wikipedia users, can read Chinese enough to check your sources. PHG 08:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"STOP deleting the references of others" Please provide a proof that I had deleted your reference, otherwise stop making nonsense. Eiorgiomugini 08:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here: you are taking away the mention of "Iranian" associated with its Encyclopedia Brittanica reference. Edit with others instead of editing against them: I do not delete you points or sources, and I do not post personal attacks on your Talk Page as you are wont to do. PHG 08:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you being ludicrous, even at here. The "Encyclopedia Brittanica" and "Iranian" (under note) still stayed, are you sure you know what you're talking about or just whining about me? Furthermore, an award can be given to anyone else by anyone, read the policy, they are not necessarily positive ones. Eiorgiomugini 08:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to put my text under a "personal note": a reference goes into a personal note, not a statement belonging to the article itself. It seems that for some reason you dislike seeing the word "Iranian" in the article, why?
You have no right to make personal attacks on other users, be it through text or through a dummy award using personal insult. PHG 08:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And you have no right to restore it either, since Britannica also said he was from Bukhara, is just not a solidity source for you to make that claim, plus the source is confusing on whether refering to Iranian speaking popluation or just Iranian. "dislike seeing the word "Iranian"" Is not about disliking, but there's no evidence. Secondly, you have no right to say I made personal attacks either, since the award I given contain civility manner, it might be insult to you though, since you don't like it. I am sorry, I had no time to accompany with you on this petty matters, as I had thing to do back in my life. Eiorgiomugini 08:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: if Brittanica says he is of Iranian origin, it is enough to have it mentionned. The rest is your own personal interpretation of what Brittanica says, which is not relevant here. PHG 08:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"personal interpretation" I cut and paste out from Brittanica, and you said the rest is my own personal interpretation, good one, so what's next? Eiorgiomugini 08:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall I make it clearer still: if Brittanica says he is of Iranian origin, it is reason enough to have it mentionned.PHG 08:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And if Brittanica said he was Turkish, you might had to accept it? So what if I found out some link in the google that said he was a Chinese general and nothing else, are you gonna take that? Eiorgiomugini 08:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand a fundamental characteristic of Wikipedia: we are not here to determine what is right or wrong. We are only here to gather as much referenced knowledge on a subject as possible. If indeed Brittanica says he was Turkish, this is something that can be mentioned, and you have the right to balance that with other sources. If you have references about him being "a Chinese general and nothing else" that also is respectable, and you have no right to delete such sources as well, only balance them. PHG 08:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand a fundamental characteristic of Wikipedia, first of all you have no right to make such big claim on me, since I was the one who tired to balance the article, not you. Furthermore, the source you provided still stayed there, and regarding the method on his origin that Brittanica used is quite confusing, you don't seem to bother the matters, instead insisting on reverting my edits, so what are you gonna do? Plus I do have right to put your source under the note for better clarification. "If you have references about him being "a Chinese general and nothing else" Good, make sure you kept your words, I don't wish to have another revert while I inserting about his Chinese origin. Anyway, see you later, as I have no time to string along with you any further. Eiorgiomugini 08:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No: you are deleting repeatedly the mention of his Iranian origin within the body of the article, inspite of the Brittanica reference. Just respect other's sources, and leave that "Iranian" mention where it belongs: in the introductory lines of the article. PHG 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

" I... can read Chinese enough to check your sources." Sorry, I just found this amusing, judging from the sources I provided on Yuezhi talk last year, I don't think you could read them very well. So this whole argument could be meaningless. Eiorgiomugini 11:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So far from what I can see, you had provided no source or proof whatsoever to back up your claim, and even Brittanica agreed he was from Sogdiana. I even found the statnment "Turkic-Sogdian or Iranian origin" quite confusing, does that meant he was half Turk and Sogdian, or just a full 'blooded' Iranian. Eiorgiomugini 11:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so contemptuous of others? I do not criticize your English, do I? It should be only normal for you to help English-speaking contributors with your Chinese-only references.

Brittanica says "Turkish and Iranian origin", there is no need for me to provide further "proof", a reference by a respectable source is enough. To balance the phrase properly, we could say "Turkic and Sogdian/Iranian origin". PHG 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I do not, but I do think those are the crucial point to be mentioned. As you can see, this disccusion could go into a meaningless chat for both of us. Respectable source does not necessarily mean the truth, and sometime it can be confusing, "Brittanica says "Turkish and Iranian origin" I already told you that this is in fact contradicting in the context of Brittanica itself. I don't know why you're so vexatious over this petty matter. Your compromise really are confusing, first of all Brittanica stated he was of Turkish descent not Turkic. Eiorgiomugini 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is incomprehensible is that you keep erasing "Iranian", from the text, when it is actually properly referenced, and when actually Sogdians are an Iranian people, as mentionned by User:PericlesofAthens. I really don't care whether An Lushan was Turkic/ Turkish/ Iranian/ Sogdian or pure Chinese, but I do care if someone erases my referenced contributions without a proper and legitimate reason, and moreover mixes that with personal attacks (bogus award etc...). I reiterate the compromise phrasing "Turkic and Sogdian/Iranian origin", with attendant references, which seems quite a fair solution. PHG 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good so stop reverting, and keep the "Iranian" under the note, because by no means the Brittanica are being clear in the context, since it provided two origins. You're the one who care so much about An Lushan origin instead of someone erases you referenced contributions or whatever crap you wanna to claim[1][2][3], so much so that you're willing to take the risk on 3R. So you should move on and go on with another article. Moreover if you think you are under personal attacks go complain on somewhere else and stop bothering me. Now there's more source said he was a Sogdian in East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History and Charles Benn's China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty, not just the obscure Chinese-languages sources. I reiterate your incomprehensible statnment "Turkic and Sogdian/Iranian origin" is really quite coufusing, get that through your head for once, Brittanica said is Turkish-Iranian then is should be Turkish-Iranian for Brittanica alone. Eiorgiomugini 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your total lack of WP:Civility is again obvious, as is your disrespect of reputable alternate sources that go against your POV. Don't expect other Wikipedians to accept this kind of behaviour. PHG 00:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why deny the linkage of Kang (康国) to Kangju? Do you consider it as a different polity? If so could you elaborate? Would that justify a different article for Kang (康国)? PHG 00:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Another false accusations and warning. So, you had changed the lead section, however, I do not think they're going to do any good, I am going to make some changes. "If so could you elaborate" I don't have to elaborate anything, since I don't made the claim that Kangju was Kang. You claimed Kang to be Kangju, you're the one who needed to elaborate it, do you have any sources? Most primary source would certainly disagreed. Eiorgiomugini 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what Kang (康国) is then? PHG 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I owe you this. However, Kang was a name for Sogdian state during the Sui and Tang. Was that enough? Eiorgiomugini 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And Kangju was the name of the Sogdian state given by China since the 2nd century BCE with the explorations of Zhang Qian, consistently using the same primary ideogram. Why don't you agree they are the same geographical entity and why shouldn't they belong to the same article? PHG 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, you need to provide your source before making this claim. But so far, I from what I know that, both Kangju and Kang had a different captial. Eiorgiomugini 03:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my sources, starting with Zhang Qian, Burton-Watson and Hill, say clearly that Kangju was the Chinese name for Sogdiana in the 2nd century BCE, and your sources say that Kan (康国) was the Chinese name for Sogdiana in the 5-8th century CE. Linguistically, they are also identical though their use of the primary ideogram 康. This is more than enough to consider these two as "Ancient Chinese names for Sogdiana". I don't see any reason to disconnect them. If you wish to contradict that, you will have to bring references indicating that Kangju and Kan are unrelated geographical entities, even if their capital may have changed in time, quite a possibility in a period of a 1000 years. PHG 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the image confusing, since you input the photo, how do you know that those are Sogdian and not Tocharians or Iranian, do you have any source for this? Eiorgiomugini 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the attribution is made by the Guimet Museum, owner of this work of art, in Paris. PHG 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all people are willing to pay for a ticket to Guimet Museum you know, can you be more specific on how was Guimet Museum a source for the people in the photo to be Sogdians? Eiorgiomugini 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a museum, and a museum has captions describing its works of art. I simply reproduced the caption used. I have no way to know what specific sources the Guimet Museum uses, but usually they are quite good (some of the best in the world) at this kind of attribution. It is not our purpose here to challenge recognized scholarly attributions either. PHG 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we all just wanna be sure that whether those photo are appropriate, since you mentioned about the caption, do you happen to have the caption detail or photo that has been shot? Eiorgiomugini 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, here's the caption. PHG 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very neat, now may I ask why you keep dividing the section of our discussion? When I asked a question, I don't prefer to title it as a section, so I hope you respect my will too. Eiorgiomugini 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You should stop deleting other's edits without a very good reason. If I make the effort to clarify the different components of this (long) discussion, it is not quite courteous to delete it right away, especially as you revert does not bring any value added. By the way you forgot to answer to the previous subject (Kang and Kangju), which is one of the reasons why I put the titles in the first place. PHG 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another false accusations, now I am afraid if you continued to do this, I will have to ignore them. "By the way you forgot to answer to the previous subject (Kang and Kangju" No, I had answered it anyway, for as much of what I had know. Below, do you think is courteous for you to make all these sections even on my own question? "this (long) discussion" I have an opinion, why don't you moved all these irreverent question over to your talk. Eiorgiomugini 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget you are the one being discourteous in the first place because you summarily revert the work I have done (the structuring of this discussion). And no thanks, this discussion is essentially about An Lushan's origin, and therefore belongs here. For Kang and Kangju, I will move forward and link them within the same article, in the absence of any proof that they should be treated separately. PHG 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're the one being discourteous in the first place by dividing the sections and making false accusations. You insisted Kangju was the same with Kang, good, provide a source instead of interpreting my source, because my source did not said he was from Kangju. What you're doing is really discourteous without even discuss with others, don't forget those are the source I provided, you are the one being discourteous, so even there is a absence of any proof that they should be treated separately, there's no proof that they should be treated the same, as Kangju belonged to Han Dynasty era not Tang, is a anachronism. Eiorgiomugini 04:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain in what it is discourteous to divide a long discussion into sections? This is nonsense.

For Kang and Kangju, you keep evading the obvious connection: you really need a good reason if you wish to maintain the two are separate and unrelated. Here again: "Burton-Watson and Hill, say clearly that Kangju was the Chinese name for Sogdiana in the 2nd century BCE, and your sources say that Kan (康国) was the Chinese name for Sogdiana in the 5-8th century CE. Linguistically, they are also identical though their use of the primary ideogram 康. This is more than enough to consider these two as "Ancient Chinese names for Sogdiana". I don't see any reason to disconnect them. If you wish to contradict that, you will have to bring references indicating that Kangju and Kan are unrelated geographical entities, even if their capital may have changed in time, quite a possibility in a period of a 1000 years." PHG 04:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And could you explain why isn't your accusations being discourteous, first you're talking about I reverted your edits under the discussion, then start talking about civility. "obvious connection" How obvious they are by the way? "you really need a good reason" No, you're the one who need a good reason for changing my source. " Kangju was the Chinese name for Sogdiana" So? Does he mentioned anything about Kang? And Sogdiana was a huge region as well. "This is more than enough" There's none, so far you had provided nothing of they're connection, the main point is my source stated he was from Kang not Kangju, get that straight. "I don't see any reason to disconnect them" That's your own opinion. "If you wish to contradict that" Like what you did under this article? "you will have to bring references indicating that Kangju and Kan are unrelated geographical entities" No, you'll have to bring up a source for Kang being Kangju. "even if their capital may have changed in time" Another assumption, one more restore on linking Kang to Kangju, I will have to simply revert it, I hope that you do know what're talking about, and stop wasting others time for that Kang=Kangju unreferenced crap to bring up another reverting war. Eiorgiomugini 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me throw in my two cents here -- it is my opinion that the linkage of Kang and Kangju is fairly obvious (although not completely conclusive), at least according to traditional Chinese sources, and those sources, unless refuted, are generally fairly reliable. I'd suggest that the Kang = Kangju linkage is permissible here, but that somewhere in the Kangju article should be explained that Kang is likely the same entity (or successor) but is not conclusively so, and that should solve the issue. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, linking Kang to Kangju without any reference is much of an arbitrary decision, I am thinking of keeping it without any link, and for article Kangju, since is really not related to his origin here, should be mentioned and explained there about the relation between Kang and Kangju. Eiorgiomugini 05:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nlu for his common sense. Eiorgiomugini, I am afraid your position does not stand. PHG 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear section

what means « [...] Yang, however, persisted in his reports against Yang, [...] »

Maybe I'm currently tired (or too much French), so I will come back tomorrow to read it a 2nd time calmly, but I think the section An_Lushan#Rebellion have some odd unclear sentences (redaction). 220.135.4.212 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA-Failed

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this GA for quite a few reasons. For one, most of the article is not formatted correctly. Instead of using bold print for subtopics of the topics, you can put ===Subtitle===, and if needed, ====Subtitle====. Also, the references need to be formatted correctly. Also, the lead section (prose) is much too short. Next, 'Young life' just doesn't sound good as a topic. Some others don't either, and I'd look into renaming them. Finally, all the Chinese characters (I think), do not show up in either Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer. I don't know if there is any way to fix this, but since these are not supported by either major browser, I'd look into fixing that. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese characters seem to show up fine for me in Firefox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they show up as question marks for me, but it's not too big of a deal. There were still plenty of other problems to fail this article. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I made several changes :

intro expanded;
links in ref improved;
bold change into editable === Sub-section === .

Please correct your comment on the talk page accordingly.

The page, of course, still need a copyedit for my adds. 220.135.4.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is still much work to be done. The references need to be formatted correctly above all else, but many of my above issues still stand. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)