Talk:Liu Chong

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no objection. -- tariqabjotu 04:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Liu Min → Liu Chong

– Liu Min was never a name used by this individual (I'm talking about the emperor) in reality. The given name was changed to Min (旻), a hardly ever used Chinese character, from his real given name Chong (崇), a common character, after this individual became an emperor, to alleviate the burden for the population who must observe naming taboo. The concept of naming taboo is difficult to understand, but in simplest terms, an individual is not allowed to use any word in an emperor's given "name", so effectively the "name" was never really "used". The 3 most important history books on this period are Zizhi Tongjian, History of the Five Dynasties and New History of the Five Dynasties, all written less than 150 years after the death of the individual. The first 2, which are more objective than the 3rd written by a single (very opinionated) person, do not use "Liu Min" at all, only the 3rd book does. The 3rd book is very concerned with Confucian concepts and the legitimacy of sovereigns. In a footnote about the name, the author's student Xu Wudang (most people believe it was actually the author who wrote the footnotes using his student's name, see "Introduction" of the Davis translation ISBN 0–231–12826–6 p. xlvii) said "(Liu Min)'s personal name is used because he cannot be considered an emperor." This is a very subjective opinion. The author needs to justify the legitimacy of the period he lives in (Song Dynasty) and therefore only the Song's immediate predecessors (namely, those who controlled more or less the same area in Central China) were considered legitimate empires by the author. I think all modern historians will agree that the "there can only be 1 legitimate empire in the entire universe (centering in Central China), everybody else is either a barbarian or a rebel" thinking is no longer a valid thinking.

We can also ignore my personal argument, which admittedly is also opinionated, but rather focus on the WP guideline. WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." So if we ignore Chinese sources and look at the most reliable English-language sources, we find:

• The Cambridge History of China, vol. 5, part 1: "Liu Ch'ung" (archaic spelling of Liu Chong), p.112, p.113, p.116, p.120, p.129. "Liu Min" is never mentioned.
• The Cambridge History of China, vol. 6: "Liu Ch'ung", p.81, p.82. This is by different authors than the chapter in vol. 5. "Liu Min" is never mentioned.
• Imperial China 900-1800: p.16 says "Liu Min (earlier called Liu Chong)". p.95 says "Liu Chong (also called Liu Min)". I must point out while the author F.W. Mote is a highly-respected historian, the period in question is not his field, he admits his field is in the Yuan/Ming Dynasties and he cannot write all the historical periods with the same expertise as The Cambridge History of China series, whose individual chapters are written by different authors.
• Unbounded Loyalty: Frontier Crossing in Liao China (ISBN 0-8248-2983-2): "Liu Chong", p.86, p.88. "Liu Min" is never mentioned.
• The Structure of Power in North China During the Five Dynasties (1965 book): "Liu Ch'ung", p.92, p.195. "Liu Min" is never mentioned.

These are basically the only English-language books I can think of to deal with this particular country, except for one Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms book that I had not been able to get hold of. As you can see, "Liu Min" is almost never used and should definitely not be the title of the article. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment you're also contending that the actress is the primary topic of "Liu Min", but you haven't shown any information about that in your rationale. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• So is the intent for Liu Min to redirect to Liu Chong as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or to have a dab? --BDD (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As long as it's not Liu Min, it's OK to me. But to answer your question, I personally believe the other Liu Chong (from 1st century AD) is relatively unimportant. There's no English wiki page yet, no Chinese wiki page, and the only mention in English wiki is basically found in the page Wang Mang:

"Several members of the imperial Liu clan were naturally suspicious of Acting Emperor Wang's intentions. They started or assisted in several failed rebellions against Wang: In 6, Liu Chong (劉崇), the Marquess of Anzhong, made an attack against Wancheng (宛城, in modern Nanyang, Henan). His attack failed, but historians did not specify what happened to him, other than that as punishment, Wang had his house filled with filthy water." Actually the hatnote to the other Liu Chong should even be deleted per WP:NOARTICLE. Timmyshin (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.