Talk:Conquest dynasty

Non-Han majority states

Now the subsection "Non-Han majority states" contains a lot of information about non-Han majority states such as Kara-Khanid Khanate, but there is no source given to state that these states are actually classified as "Conquest Dynasties". Please provide sources to say so, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cartakes: I agree. This stuff has nothing to do with the topic of Conquest dynasties, and I went ahead and removed it. -Zanhe (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conquest dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414060414/http://cces.snu.ac.kr/article/jces3_4biran.pdf to http://cces.snu.ac.kr/article/jces3_4biran.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lci/assets/2024/british-media-china.pdf

Relying on News sources in the context of academic discussion should be discouraged or outright removed from articles as well as the surrounding, which is inherently politicize

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%BE%81%E6%9C%8D%E7%8E%8B%E6%9C%9D/8490196 The Chinese Wikipedia page is a better example https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BE%81%E6%9C%8D%E7%8E%8B%E6%9C%9D

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.25.14 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) 

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

However, as pointed out by historian Mark Elliot it is very unfortunate to see politics comes first with the tome. Even though there may be issues with some scholarships, it is simply not the correct approach to prioritize politics over scholarship. --Wengier (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we follow what the WP:RSes state. WP:BAIDUBAIKE is not a reliable source and cannot be used. WP:WSJ is a WP:GREL source. - Amigao (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Think more about it, while I certainly agree with Mark Elliot's view about the History of Qing project, what he tried to criticize is the History of Qing project, rather than the "Conquest dynasty" concept. So it is probably better to put his criticism in the existing History of Qing (People's Republic) article, instead of this article. --Wengier (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)