Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty

edit

List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list I've been working on alongside my revamp of Mongol Empire-related articles on WP. I am indebted to the authors of List of Chinese emperors for a considerable amount of the detail, and to the authors of the FLs for the emperors of the Han dynasty and of the Song dynasty for the layout. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

edit
  • There are two problems here, both of which I think have the same solution. The portraits don't have alt text, and the image column is the one set as the row headers but has no text to read out. Putting alt text on the images as the name of the ruler (e.g. [[File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg|110px|alt=Genghis Khan]] should sort that out, as the alt text would be read out for both cases. For the rows with no image, please add invisible text for the cell, so e.g. <span style="display:none">Oghul Qaimish</span>.
  • I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire

edit

Nice work.

Prose comments (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline any of them):

  • The Yuan dynasty was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China - The lede needs to be the most tightly written section of an article, and the most accessible to casual readers. I think "antepenultimate" might be too fancy a word here for the first sentence (ngrams says it is a very rare word in modern English). I'd just remove it and say "an imperial dynasty." (Or, if you really want to bring it up, then to split off a sentence on dynasties and move it there rather than have it in the first sentence - maybe "...by Kublai Khan. It was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China, which succeeded the Song dynasty and preceded the Ming dynasty." But just removing it is fine too.)
    • Removed.
  • "subsequently split into four autonomous states" Nit: I'd suggest the wikilink better fits "split into four autonomous states", not "subsequently split" (which seems like a more mysterious wikilink).
    • Good call.
  • I know that "rump state" is a term of art and fine for specialists, but the Northern Yuan ruled a still fairly huge swath territory for over a century, and I wonder if the term might suggest the Northern Yuan were punier & less significant than they really were. (Like, we wouldn't say "The United Kingdom is a rump state left over from the decline of the British Empire", and the modern UK is probably smaller than the Northern Yuan. If much more densely populated, of course.) Is there a better term to use here? It can still wikilink to rump state somewhere, of course. "His descendants continued to rule a state of reduced size in Inner Mongolia until 1634 in a polity known as the Northern Yuan." perhaps?
    • I'm comfortable with the current phrasing. Despite their large size, the Northern Yuan was fairly insignificant and very often not a coherent state at all.
  • While on that note, in the realm of easter egg links in Ukhaghatu Khan's notes. I'd definitely assume that "a rump state" linked to the rump state article, not the N. Yuan article. I know concision is important in tables, but I'd say it's worth writing "the Northern Yuan, a rump state in Inner Mongolia."
    • Done somewhat.
  • Nit: On the collapse in Background... it's not a big deal, but I could see reading "Forced to flee" as something like "Toghon Temür was captured and told to go into exile" (which is incorrect). But strictly speaking, he chose to flee. Could maybe reorient the sentence to give him some more agency, like "...an economic crisis led to a breakdown of the social order. Toghon Temür fled from the powerful warlord Zhu Yuanzhang, who conquered the capital of Daidu and established the Ming dynasty in 1368." Potentially a similar change in the actual list row's entry if you agree it'd be an improvement.
    • I don't think he really had much agency or choice, and prefer the current wording.
  • after it ended she quickly lost influence and died This could theoretically be misread as both her loss of influence and her death as being quick, but it's just the former. Maybe add a comma after "influence"? (If that's too many commas in one sentence for taste, could remove "But" and start a new sentence.)
    • No, her death was quick IIRC—just a few months after her loss of power.
  • she was found complicit in their rebellion and executed. This makes it sound like she was executed as a political foe, which sounds like it was true in reality, but she was "officially" executed for witchcraft. I recognize that these are short blurbs and not full biographies but this seems kinda relevant in the same way that Joan of Arc being executed for heresy is relevant (not for supporting the "wrong" king of France). Maybe "due to her opposition of Mongke, she was found guilty of witchcraft as a pretext, and executed."?
    • Somewhat adjusted.
  • his legitimacy was always suspect; he attempted reconciliation by purging those who had brought him to power. This is a very dour assessment of Yesun Temur. Paludan calls him "a respected steppe ruler" and Chi-Ching writes this his post-ascension purge was a "masterstroke" at restoring his legitimacy. Neither reports revolts or coups until after he died. In other words, this was no mere "attempt" at reconciliation, and his legitimacy does not seem to have "always" been suspect. Maybe "His legitimacy under question due to the assassination that brought about his ascension. He purged the coup plotters to restore the blot on his honor." or the like? Also, both sources spend time specifically calling out Yesun Temur's commitment to government impartiality with regard to religion, which seems very cool and worth a brief sentence.
    • Adjusted.
  • Is it worth throwing in a link to List of emperors of the Ming dynasty somewhere? Maybe the very end of the list? Totally optional, of course (I know you could get to it from the See also link to "List of Chinese monarchs", but that one is a little more relevant as the immediate successors).
    • I'd then probably have to include links to the Jin and Song dynasties. Annoyingly the infobox doesn't have appropriate parameter.

Source review:

  • Any particular reason Töregene Khatun doesn't have a posthumous name listed? The WP article says it's "Empress Zhaoci (昭慈皇后)" and Moule 1957 says "Lu Huangho" (which is... really far off, that sounds like it might be a different name rather than Wade-Giles being weird). I skimmed Broadbridge 2018 but I couldn't find her discussing her posthumous name - does anyone know for sure?
    • I don't think anyone does.
  • Setsen Khan (i.e. Kublai) is listed as having his reign start in 1271. But Rossabi 1994 writes "Khubilai ascended to the throne in China in 1260", Moule 1957 simply writes "May 5 1260" for reign start, and Paludan 1998 says "declared himself 'Great Khan' in 1260" while holding lots of Chinese territory. Paludan does offer a later date than 1260 in her timeline on p. 148, but that's 1279 (not 1271) when he becomes emperor of "all China" and wins the war. I get that the declaration of emperorship in 1271 is worth calling out somewhere, but it seems Kublai ruled de facto earlier, and also backdated his emperorship to start then as well. (Atwood's entry on the Yuan dynasty explicitly mentions 1279 as the start date to some Chinese historians too, so definitely a date worth calling out in the notes IMO.)
    • Correct, I don't know why I put 1271. Added a note.
  • Was Ragibagh Emperor? Moule 1957 lists him, but Paludan 1998 says "he is not included in the official list of Emperors" and Chi-Ching does not bother to give him a section header. I'm not saying to remove him, but List of English monarchs puts Jane Grey in italics and has a big "disputed claimant" warning, which seems the closest equivalent. Maybe deserves a different shading, italics, and a "Yesun Temur loyalists acclaimed this kid was Emperor but they didn't win the ensuing civil war" disclaimer. (Irinjibal seems a less controversial inclusion, though Paludan makes a similar remark about him not being in the official list. But Irinjibal also ruled twice as long and not during an immediate conflict trying to depose him.)
    • It's difficult to say much about a child who died after a month of rule. I don't see enough arguments in modern scholarship about whether he was emperor (contrasting with LJG) to justify saying he was a disputed claimant.
  • Verified the Wilkinson 2012 & Broadbridge 2018 cites.
  • Spot checked a few citations from Atwood 2004, looks good. (I focused most of my attention on the Yuan post-Kublai as that seems the most relevant time period for Chinese history, as the earlier rulers are presumably already well-covered by Mongol history, but checked a few here anyway.)
  • Spot checked the dates from Moule 1957, looks good. (The names are in Wade-Giles so those obviously don't match the Pinyin, but that's fine, it's clearly the same names.)
  • Spot-checked most of the citations to "The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6", looks good.
  • Spot checked various citations to Paludan 1998, looks good. There are a few differences but they're where she differs from Moule / Cambridge (e.g. she thinks Shidibala only took the throne in 1321? But the other two say 1320. Maybe even just demote her from being cited at all there, that seems more like a mistake than intentionally disputing when he took the throne.) Well, she doesn't use a Romanization with diacritics, but I'll presume the ones in the list are accurate. Also since some leaders have different Romanizations, you obviously have to pick one (I see Cambridge was favored for "Khaishan" vs. "Haishan", etc.), so that's fine. One other nitpick: the citation for Temur Oljeitu seems to be more appropriate to p. 154-156, not 156-158?
    • Adjusted the last.

Overall, great work! SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an exhaustive set of comments SnowFire, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits.
On Toregene's death: To be clear, I mean a reading of "quick" being the manner of death, e.g. dead in her sleep or shot through the head with an arrow, vs. an agonizing 2-hour long execution or a week-long severe illness. The source didn't seem to report the manner of death at all, ergo whether it was quick or not is unknown. If I wanted to emphasize that the death was merely shortly after in time, then "quickly lost power, and died soon afterward" perhaps? But I think just a comma is still enough space. (Ultimately up to you.)
On a List of Ming emperors link: Consistency is overrated. I say throw it in "See also" if there isn't a better place to fit it, but up to you.
On recent edits: Why did you remove the image File:YuanEmperor Kusala.jpg Eupakistani added? I've looked at the Metropolitan Museum's description of the image, a very reliable art history source, and it seems accurate enough. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/37614 : "Prince Qoshila" as the second marking in the bottom left corner (surely "Kusala"), and "At the bottom are portraits of the patrons, from left to right: Tugh Temür, the great-grandson of Khubilai Khan, who briefly served as emperor of the Yuan dynasty, his older brother, and their wives." It looks good to me.
Anyway, support, remaining issues above are nitpicks. SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

edit
  • comprise both Kublai's successors as rulers of China, and his predecessors up to his grandfather Genghis - I think there's no need for that comma.
  • and a regime in China, which was ruled by Genghis's grandson Kublai Khan - I think that relative clause is defining and, if so, the comma would not be needed.
  • An alternative view, favoured by some later Chinese historians, place - places?
  • They continued the tradition, dating from the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) of the ruling head of state being known as huangdi - A comma is needed after the parenthesis.
  • Toghon Temür died of natural causes - That's the only instance in the whole column in which the name of an emperor is mentioned.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure or rush, just following up to make sure you saw this feedback @AirshipJungleman29. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those should be sorted now, Alavense. Thanks for the comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_emperors_of_the_Yuan_dynasty/archive1&oldid=1243896921"