- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
– All of these so-called "princesses" were wives of rulers of Western Qin, Southern Liang, Northern Liang and Former Liang, all independent states whose rulers called themselves wang, which is translated as either "prince" or "king". Per WP:History_standards_for_China-related_articles#Chinese_nobility, heads of states should be translated as "kings" instead of "princes", which I believe should describe all of these women's husbands. While the guideline did not specify what to call the wives, I think it's only logical to name them "queens" rather than "princesses". Not to mention the word "princess" can also mean daughter of king/emperor and is more ambiguous than the word "queen".--Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Do you have any reliable source documentation that they are commonly known as queens instead of princesses? There are nobilities where the consort is known as a princess not as a queen.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence; we are not talking about European consorts here; all of these individuals were from ancient China/Inner Asia and the matter here concerns with finding the best translation. These individuals are not known at all in the West (or in China for this matter). If you checked the pages all of the references are in classical Chinese and not in English. Unfortunately, I don't have any documentation, since the period known as the Sixteen Kingdoms (spanning a few centuries) seems to be
poorly (not at all?) covered by Western historians and The Cambridge History of China is also missing this period. But on the flip side, more the importance of these pages, and I believe I've explained why "king/queen" are better translations than "prince/princess" here. Timmyshin (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I believe LBB's point is that a king's wife may be called "princess" instead of "queen". This would be analogous to how Queen Elizabeth II's husband is called "Prince" and not "King-consort". -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- At this point I think its a stretch to state that they would automatically be considered queens. It doesn't help that Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles is considered inactive and does not cover female nobility. I also note the standard is currently to employ the term princess in this topic area (per: Category:Chinese princesses). This appears to be supported by the fact that there is no Category:Chinese queens. Either way, I can't say I'm convinced this move is currently a good idea.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- That's exactly the point of this multiple-move; so that a new category can be established from the existing category that indiscriminately lumps all non-empress palace women together. The so-called standard is only this way because all of the pages are created by 1 editor. I'm not sure what you meant when you typed "considered queens", but I think we should use the English word "queen" for wives of non-emperor sovereign rulers (王 wang) while reserving the word "princess" for either A) wives of princes (also wang but not sovereign rulers) or B) daughters of a sovereign ruler. 06:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Analyzing this from another angle, while English-language material on the Sixteen Kingdoms is limited (or nonexistent), English-language material on the contemporary and neighboring Goguryeo kingdom is plentiful, and all of their sovereign wives used "queen". Before anyone claims that Goguryeo is Korean and different from Chinese, let's not forget that most if not all of these women in this discussion are actually non-Chinese in ethnicity, it's only that their history was recorded in Chinese, just like Goguryeo was. From a historical standpoint, I don't think a different set of terminologies should be applied for the same Chinese characters (王后) just because a kingdom's territory falls into a different country in modern days. Timmyshin (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Do you potentially have source material that shows that "wang" is translated to mean queen in source outside of the Sixteen Kingdoms? Right now it feels far too much like original research but I could support if you can show that the translation is in sources (whether they be on the subject of the Sixteen kingdoms or not) used to mean queen.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- wang (王) is translated as "king" or "prince", you are talking about wanghou 王后), which is a title used by all of these individuals. Most sovereign wives in other periods of Chinese history are called by a different title huanghou or "empress" (otherwise there will be a lot more names in this move request). That's why what you requested is not easy to do. But I believe all of the "queens" here in Category:Korean royal consorts used the same characters 王后 (pronounced as wanghu in Korean Romanization). Timmyshin (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Light Oppose I'd need something in terms of reliable source material, either directly related to the subjects or that material, that shows that wanghou is translated in other cases to mean queen. As noted earlier, some countries do and have referred to consorts as either prince/princess even when married to a king/queen and it's necessary to show through some source material that that is not the case here--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose but do not feel strongly. I do think consistency is important. However, I think "Queen" (and referring to their husbands as "Kings") overemphasize these states as sovereign. They might be de facto independent states, yet theoretically they are vassals of greater states, thus making them no greater as a matter of law than those greater states' internal princes. (Indeed, Later Qin — which was the overlord to all of these states at at one point — explicitly limited their rulers' ranks at duke and marquess.) But king/queen is not "wrong" as such; I do think that they don't quite give the correct historical connotation. --Nlu (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I see your point, but let me tell you why I wanted the move in the first place; I think there should be a wiki standard to distinguish these 2 terms in Chinese: wangfei (王妃) vs wanghou (王后). The first one can only be translated as "princess (consort)", I believe (at least in China, Japanese and maybe Korean usage is different). The second one, describing all of these individuals here, can be either "queen" or "princess". I think it's a lot more convenient to only translate the second word as "queen". What is your opinion on this?
- Again I understand your argument. True, these states (although notice the usage "16 Kingdoms") are nominally vassal states, but I think the important thing is whether they are de-facto independent. You mentioned "matter of law", yes, for the greater states, but are the smaller states really under effective control that these laws can be realistically enforced? I do think these rulers deserve the title "King", to distinguish from "Princes" who are under direct supervision of an emperor. Just my 2 cents. Timmyshin (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I get this. That's why I say I don't feel strongly. I do still feel that the connotation is not quite right. I also do see the distinction between wanghou and wangfei, but if we are using "prince" for their husbands, then we should use "princess." (It should be noted that in the Han Dynasty, the wives of imperial princes were also styled wanghou, and I do think that it would be wrong to term those wangfeis as queens.) --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support. These states are almost always referred to as "kingdoms" in English, so the natural solution is to refer to their rulers as "kings" and their consorts as "queens." What was the law of international relations at this time? A clerk in Nanjing might list all these states as vassals in an imperial record, but do we know that this represents anything beyond a way to flatter the emperor? The king of Han captured Emperor Min and put him to work taking care of the royal horses, so he may not have thought of himself as a vassal. 192.186.141.87 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think think this is a valid point: "the king of Han" (Liu Cong (Han Zhao)) was an emperor and clearly one who did not view himself as subordinate in any way, and was in fact looking to overthrow Jin. That's why using the name "16 Kingdoms" in support is not a particularly valid argument, in my opinion. (In Chinese, 十六國 would just be "Sixteen States.") On the other hand, all of the princesses/queens that are being proposed here were wives of states that explicitly subordinate themselves. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I thought Han was one of 16 kingdoms and then the name was changed to Zhao when it became an empire. But even if Han-Zhao is a bad example, there is still Korea, whose ruler is always referred to as a "king" despite being a vassal of China. The subordinate rulers in the Holy Roman Empire were princes, but I can't think of any Asian state whose ruler is commonly referred as a prince. 64.15.157.78 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Only the founder of Han Zhao (Liu Yuan) used the wang title, and only then for a very brief period; all other rulers of Han Zhao used the emperor title. In fact, most of the "Sixteen Kingdoms"'s rulers used emperor title (or the alternate "King of Heaven" title which was, for all practical purposes, the same as emperor). --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose, noting that her husband, Qifu Gangui is repeatedly described using "prince", and that there is no mention of "king" or "queen" in the article. This feels like an attempt to change content style beginning on unwatched pages. There is certainly a problem with ambiguity in the language here, both Chinese and English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
