Talk:Song (state)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by EdJohnston in topic Requested move 9 June 2015
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Sources for article expansion
edit- this one, which says the last ruler was King Xian (posthumous King Kang) and that he ruled as "Lord Yan" from 337 prior to declaring the kingdom in 328. — LlywelynII 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sources
editThese lords were generally relatives of the Chou kings, although in several instances they were descendants of previous rulers of the territory concerned. We have already mentioned that the State of Sung was ruled by descendants of the Shang Kings.
Page 10
Title Ancient Chinese bronzes of the Shang and Chou dynasties: an illustrated catalogue of the van Heusden collection, with a historical introduction Ancient Chinese Bronzes of the Shang and Chou Dynasties: An Illustrated Catalogue of the Van Heusden Collection, with a Historical Introduction by Willem Van Heusden, Willem van Heusden Author Willem van Heusden Publisher Privately published, 1952
Requested move 9 June 2015
edit- The following is a closed 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 consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Song (state) → Song (Zhou dynasty state) – Move in order to distinguish this state from 2 other states also named "Song", i.e. Song dynasty and Liu Song dynasty. The grouped proposal last year at Talk:Chen_(state)#Requested_move did not go through, with the counter-argument being that I was cherrypicking examples, and that somehow the English word "state" in Chinese history is primarily reserved for ancient Chinese states, i.e. vassal states during the Zhou dynasty (a few were created during the Shang dynasty).
Here, I did a Google Books Search of "Song state" and the results are summarized as below ("Other results" include stuff like "Kim Il Song state"):
| Webpage# of Search | #Results on Song (state) | #Results on Song dynasty | #Other results | # "Books by wikipedians" |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Summary | 2.6% | 60.5% | 36.9% |
I think it's clear that "state" is not sufficient a disambiguator as most book references are about the more important Song dynasty. Therefore I believe a move is justified per WP:Precise. Timmyshin (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - the proposer's search results are misguided. "X state" is usually meant as a synonym for "X government", not as a proper name for the country, as in phrases like the "Song state religion", "Song state policy", "Song state organization", and so on, which would all show up in the proposer's stats above. The proper search term should be "State of Song", and Google books results for "State of Song" are overwhelmingly about the Zhou dynasty state. -Zanhe (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- If your page is the same as mine, then [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22song+state%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1# Google Books search of "Song state" generates the following results on the first page, all referencing the Song dynasty:
- "After all, the Song state had established its military ritual system before Zhenwu rose to prominence. "
- "The Song state was proclaimed in the year 960 following a coup by Zhao Kuangyin (927-76), a military officer in service to the regional state of Later Zhou (951-60)."
- "So, for all its patronage, the Song state imposed wide-ranging rules and restrictions on monastic Buddhism."
- "Nasu historical texts mention this bitterly fought war with the Song state and note that, throughout the Song dynasty, the Mu'ege kingdom was divided between Shuixi and Shuidong. "
- "Before Shenzong ascended the throne, the Song state had been militarily defeated by the Khitan state of Liao in the northeast and the Tangut state of Hsia in the northwest."
- "During the next decades an uneasy coexistence prevailed between the Mongols in northern China and the Song state in the south. "
- Where do you see "Song state religion", "Song state policy", "Song state organization"? There are no results on Google Books for "Song state religion", none for "Song state organization"/"Song state organisation", and "Song state policy" only generates "Writing a new song: state policy and path dependence in Bulgarian agriculture'". Even if "State of Song" is overwhelmingly "Zhou dynasty" state, it still doesn't take away the fact that "Song state" is overwhelmingly "Song dynasty" as shown above, and any reader who after encountering "Song state" in a book wishing to read more on wikipedia is going to be thoroughly confused with the current system. Timmyshin (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- In many of the examples you listed above, the "Song state" actually refers to the "Song government/regime", not to the common name of the country, which is overwhelmingly called Song Dynasty. The picture is clearer when the phrase "Song state" is used as an adjective:
- Perhaps most illustrative is the book Modern Chinese Religion I: Song-Liao-Jin-Yuan. Under the chapter entitled "Song Government Policy", it says "Beyond the state cult, the Song state claimed the authority to approve, regulate, codify, and control all religious activity in the realm", clearly equating the term "Song state" with "Song government". The only unequivocal use of "state" to refer to a country is the phrase "State of Song", which, as shown before, almost always refers to Song (state), not Song Dynasty. -Zanhe (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CHERRYPICKING. Regardless, and I repeat, it doesn't change the fact that "Song state" is overwhelmingly "Song dynasty" the country. Timmyshin (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're the one who cherrypicked the unnatural search term "Song state", instead of the far more natural term "State of Song", which would prove your argument wrong. You know, the proper name of Georgia (U.S. state) is "State of Georgia", not "Georgia state". -Zanhe (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CHERRYPICKING. Regardless, and I repeat, it doesn't change the fact that "Song state" is overwhelmingly "Song dynasty" the country. Timmyshin (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps most illustrative is the book Modern Chinese Religion I: Song-Liao-Jin-Yuan. Under the chapter entitled "Song Government Policy", it says "Beyond the state cult, the Song state claimed the authority to approve, regulate, codify, and control all religious activity in the realm", clearly equating the term "Song state" with "Song government". The only unequivocal use of "state" to refer to a country is the phrase "State of Song", which, as shown before, almost always refers to Song (state), not Song Dynasty. -Zanhe (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong rename WP:PRECISE Ambiguous disambiguation is a poor idea, and this is not the primary topic of "Song" as a state anyways. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- "State of Song" almost always refers to Song (state), not Song Dynasty. See Google books results. -Zanhe (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Zanhe, the current title is not "State of Song" though, and even if it was, it would be still ambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Khestwol: "State of X" was the title previously used for many ancient Chinese state articles, but it was decided that X (state) would be a synonymous but better title. And "State of Song" is not ambiguous per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Zanhe (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say the primary topic of "state of Song" is the Song Dynasty, called "Song" internationally within the East Asian cultural sphere at the time it existed, and still called "the Song" in modern works. (just like the Ming, the Tang, etc) , and most definitely for the currently disambiguated title. ("Song (state)" is the Dynasty) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your assertion is not backed by evidence. Google books results for the "State of Song" are overwhelmingly about the original Zhou state of Song, not the later Song Dynasty. There is a clear distinction between "State" and "Dynasty" in Chinese historiography. Here's the link again, please read it. -Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with 70.51.202.183. In the context of Chinese history, the term "Song" most of the times refers to the Song dynasty. There are many reasons for it, including that "Song dynasty" appears far more often in English books, and because the era of the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE, early Middle Ages) saw far more technological advancements, hence it is more historically important for studies. Quoting from the article Song dynasty:
It was the first government in world history to nationally issue banknotes or true paper money, and the first Chinese government to establish a permanent standing navy. This dynasty also saw the first known use of gunpowder, as well as the first discernment of true north using a compass.
Also see Islam during the Song dynasty:During the Song dynasty (960–1279), Muslims in China dominated foreign trade and the import/export industry to the south and west. Indeed, the office of Director General of Shipping for China's great seaport of Quanzhou was consistently held by a Muslim during this period.
So for studies in science, economics, religion, and all kinds of fields, "Song dynasty" is more historically important. Khestwol (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I 100% agree with 70.51.202.183. In the context of Chinese history, the term "Song" most of the times refers to the Song dynasty. There are many reasons for it, including that "Song dynasty" appears far more often in English books, and because the era of the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE, early Middle Ages) saw far more technological advancements, hence it is more historically important for studies. Quoting from the article Song dynasty:
- Your assertion is not backed by evidence. Google books results for the "State of Song" are overwhelmingly about the original Zhou state of Song, not the later Song Dynasty. There is a clear distinction between "State" and "Dynasty" in Chinese historiography. Here's the link again, please read it. -Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say the primary topic of "state of Song" is the Song Dynasty, called "Song" internationally within the East Asian cultural sphere at the time it existed, and still called "the Song" in modern works. (just like the Ming, the Tang, etc) , and most definitely for the currently disambiguated title. ("Song (state)" is the Dynasty) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Khestwol: "State of X" was the title previously used for many ancient Chinese state articles, but it was decided that X (state) would be a synonymous but better title. And "State of Song" is not ambiguous per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Zanhe (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Zanhe, the current title is not "State of Song" though, and even if it was, it would be still ambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that the Song Dynasty is more prominent than the State of Song for the term "Song", but you're confusing the concepts of "Dynasty" and "State". In the context of Chinese history, they are two different concepts that do not get mixed. Empires that ruled large parts of China, such as Zhou Dynasty and Song Dynasty, are rarely called "State", whereas smaller states of pre-imperial China are almost never called "Dynasty". Otherwise one could argue that Song (state) could be moved to ridiculous names like Song (Zhou state state). The distinction is made out of necessity. For example, during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, the Zhou royal domain was divided into two smaller states called the Western Zhou State (no English article yet, but see zh:西周国), which is not the Western Zhou Dynasty, and Eastern Zhou State (see zh:东周国), which is not the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Scholars are very careful in distinguishing the concepts, as I've repeatedly emphasized with the Google books results above. Mixing them up could cause endless confusion. If we equated dynasty with state, when the Eastern Zhou State article is eventually created, it would need to be called Eastern Zhou (Eastern Zhou dynasty state that is not the dynasty itself), instead of simply Eastern Zhou (state) (with a hatnote distinguishing it from the dynasty). -Zanhe (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Empires that ruled large parts of China, such as Zhou Dynasty and Song Dynasty, are rarely called "State"", what is your definition of "rare"? Timmyshin (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Google books results for "State of Song", which unlike the search term you chose, unambiguously refers to the proper name of a country. Out of the first 40 search results, only 1 possibly refers to Song dynasty (no book preview for that one, so don't know for sure). That's my definition of "rare". -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
| Webpage# of Search | #Results on Song (state) | #Results on Song dynasty | #Irrelevant results (music-related) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 8 | 1? | 1 |
| 3 | 9 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | 9 | 0 | 1 |
| Summary | 36 (90%) | 1? (2.5%) | 3 (7.5%) |
- Strong Support per nom. "Song (Zhou dynasty state)" is the precise and clearer disambiguation. As per nom's data above, and reasoning based on that data, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Song (state)" is Song dynasty, not this article about the Zhou dynasty state. After this article is moved to "Song (Zhou dynasty state)", then the location "Song (state)" should be redirected to Song dynasty. Khestwol (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're mistaken about the primary topic for the State of Song. See search results above. Also, out of 16 other Wikipedias, 15 use the equivalent of Song (state), including Chinese (ja wiki uses Song (Spring and Autumn period)). -Zanhe (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose on the basis of keeping it simple. We have over 100 states for the Spring and Autumn/Warring states periods and it's going to get terribly messy if we try and disambiguate each one in the article title. If we keep it as Song (state) a hatnote can take care of the other uses. Philg88 ♦talk 06:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: But you have not refuted nom's data. It will be logical to move this article, and change "Song (state)" to a redirect to Song dynasty. Khestwol (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I already pointed out the flaws of the nom's data above. Please read it. The correct search term for the proper name of the country is "State of Song", and Google books results for "State of Song" are overwhelmingly about Song (state), not Song dynasty. -Zanhe (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Zanhe, if the title was "State of Song" as a proper noun to refer to the Zhou dynasty state then maybe I could agree with you more. Why was it moved from that location to this? With the current title, "state" alone does not serve the purpose of disambiguation. Generally speaking the Song dynasty was also a state (polity), and a far more important state than the Zhou dynasty state also named Song. The title should be intended so that it is WP:RECOGNIZABLE to people with even moderate familiarity with Chinese history, such as "Song (Zhou dynasty state)". Khestwol (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- There was a time when some articles were called State of X, while others were at X (state), and somehow it was decided that they should be unified as X (state). It was before my time and I can't locate the discussion now. I would support moving the articles to State of X format, if that addresses people's concerns. It's true that Song dynasty is technically also a state, and Song (state) is technically also a dynasty (which, incidentally, lasted more than twice as long as Song dynasty), but as explained above, in Chinese history, the terms "state" and "dynasty" are not used interchangeably, out of necessity. And anyone with moderate familiarity with Chinese history knows that after Qin (state) conquered the other warring states, it became the Qin dynasty, no further disambiguation needed. -Zanhe (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I challenge you to find just one academic result that refers to the Song (state) as "Song dynasty". Timmyshin (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a funny request. I've always said scholars DO NOT mix up the concepts of "state" and "dynasty", and the terms are NOT used interchangeably. Read my postings above again. -Zanhe (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- There was a time when some articles were called State of X, while others were at X (state), and somehow it was decided that they should be unified as X (state). It was before my time and I can't locate the discussion now. I would support moving the articles to State of X format, if that addresses people's concerns. It's true that Song dynasty is technically also a state, and Song (state) is technically also a dynasty (which, incidentally, lasted more than twice as long as Song dynasty), but as explained above, in Chinese history, the terms "state" and "dynasty" are not used interchangeably, out of necessity. And anyone with moderate familiarity with Chinese history knows that after Qin (state) conquered the other warring states, it became the Qin dynasty, no further disambiguation needed. -Zanhe (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Zanhe, if the title was "State of Song" as a proper noun to refer to the Zhou dynasty state then maybe I could agree with you more. Why was it moved from that location to this? With the current title, "state" alone does not serve the purpose of disambiguation. Generally speaking the Song dynasty was also a state (polity), and a far more important state than the Zhou dynasty state also named Song. The title should be intended so that it is WP:RECOGNIZABLE to people with even moderate familiarity with Chinese history, such as "Song (Zhou dynasty state)". Khestwol (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I already pointed out the flaws of the nom's data above. Please read it. The correct search term for the proper name of the country is "State of Song", and Google books results for "State of Song" are overwhelmingly about Song (state), not Song dynasty. -Zanhe (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: But you have not refuted nom's data. It will be logical to move this article, and change "Song (state)" to a redirect to Song dynasty. Khestwol (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment As Philg88 pointed out above, this move request could potentially affect hundreds of article names. The proper venue for the discussion should probably be WP:Naming conventions (Chinese) instead of here. -Zanhe (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Moving it anywhere has much wider ramifications than this single article. Philg88 ♦talk 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is not much wider ramification. This is purely conerning WP:PRECISE. Things that are states (ie. countries) can all carry a disambiguator "(state)", and that is the problem with the current title, it's ambiguous disambiguation. We've discussed this several times all over Wikipedia, and ambiguous disambiguation is never a good idea. There's nothing special with Chinese history instead of any other subject area where some article is carrying ambiguous diambiguation. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Moving it anywhere has much wider ramifications than this single article. Philg88 ♦talk 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Philg88, I honestly do not think giving an unambiguous disambiguation to this title will harm any other article. Khestwol (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @70.51.202.183 and Khestwol: The proposer did make the same argument during a failed move request last year involving 19 state articles, including the current one. See Talk:Chen (state). Many Zhou dynasty state names were reused repeatedly in later Chinese history, and the academic convention has always been to reserve the word "state" for pre-imperial states. This is not an isolated case, and should be discussed as a naming convention issue for the sake of consistency. -Zanhe (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, that is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:JARGON. Any political entity that is a country is a state. The inconsistent usage on this article does not help anyone, since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it is not a specialist Sinology encyclopedia. The disambiguator is ambiguous because the term "state" means country, and the most prominent country called "Song" is the Song Dynasty, so "(state)" would never refer to this particular state. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is common usage, not jargon. The word "state" has so many uses what it exactly means depends on the context. The US is a country, but nobody calls it a state, even though google searches for "US state" will return tons of results for things like "US State Department". In the context of the US, a "state" is really a province. Analogously, in the context of Chinese history, imperial dynasties are not called states, only smaller, usually pre-imperial polities are. And as I've repeatedly shown before, that's the common usage in reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, that is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:JARGON. Any political entity that is a country is a state. The inconsistent usage on this article does not help anyone, since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it is not a specialist Sinology encyclopedia. The disambiguator is ambiguous because the term "state" means country, and the most prominent country called "Song" is the Song Dynasty, so "(state)" would never refer to this particular state. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @70.51.202.183 and Khestwol: The proposer did make the same argument during a failed move request last year involving 19 state articles, including the current one. See Talk:Chen (state). Many Zhou dynasty state names were reused repeatedly in later Chinese history, and the academic convention has always been to reserve the word "state" for pre-imperial states. This is not an isolated case, and should be discussed as a naming convention issue for the sake of consistency. -Zanhe (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Philg88, I honestly do not think giving an unambiguous disambiguation to this title will harm any other article. Khestwol (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion is about the single page only. Timmyshin (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the problem with the current title is that it's not suitable per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Khestwol (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the Google books results for "State of Song" I repeatedly mentioned and tabulated above? The current title is suitable per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Song (state) is the natural disambiguated title for a polity called "State of Song". -Zanhe (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the problem with the current title is that it's not suitable per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Khestwol (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Suggest move to "Song (Spring and Autumn period)". This suggestion is based on Zanhe's comment above where they say ja wiki uses this disambiguated name as title. See ja:宋 (春秋) (Japanese). Honestly I find it WP:PRECISE, and unambiguous, and suitable per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Can editors agree on using "Song (Spring and Autumn period)"? (Also ping Timmyshin, Philg88, 70.51.202.183.) Khestwol (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- That won't work. I forgot to mention that Japanese wiki's title is wrong. The State of Song was founded in the 11th century BC, long before the Spring and Autumn period began, and ended in 286 BC, two centuries after the end of the Spring and Autumn period. I just noticed the Korean wiki is also wrong. All other 14 wikis use the equivalent of Song (state). -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just noticed that our article also contained the wrong info. I've just fixed it. There's so much work to be done in this area, and I'm forced to spend so much time here trying to convince people not to create imagined problems. Sigh. -Zanhe (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- That won't work. I forgot to mention that Japanese wiki's title is wrong. The State of Song was founded in the 11th century BC, long before the Spring and Autumn period began, and ended in 286 BC, two centuries after the end of the Spring and Autumn period. I just noticed the Korean wiki is also wrong. All other 14 wikis use the equivalent of Song (state). -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2015 (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.