Category talk:Former countries in Chinese history

CFD discussion

• Category was listed for deletion on January 23, 2005. Consensus was to keep.

POV and unmanageable. What is a country anyways? There have been warring "states" in the past but there is only one "mandate of heaven" ruling "all under heaven". Are these states only related to China? Part of China? Some of them are tributary... --Jiang 22:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose While the term is improper, the category itself makes sense. Two-four thousand years the term "country" might be not very well applicable. I am not a china-historian, but there definitely were quite a few different "empires", "domains", whatever you call it. Mikkalai 03:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rename...um...something. Category: Historical Chinese nation-states, perhaps? Grutness|^hello? 04:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is obviously an attempt to make a national subdivision of Category:Former countries. I guess this cat can include any former country related to China or ruled by Chinese. The listing of a former country in the Chinese history does not preclude it from being listed in any other history, right? --Gene s 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the term "country" is sometimes innacurrate or POV--Jiang 19:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a subdivision of the Category:Former countries. Please propose to rename that category as well if you strongly think that the word "countries" involves points of view. -- 10:03, January 26, 2005, UTC

Keep--AznEffects HuangDi 1968 23:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Former countries in China history

It proposed that it be merged into this category.--Salix (talk): 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why are certain countries, like the East Turkestan Republics, etc. considered part of the history of China? Are these countries, even if independent, considered not worthy of having their own history and just being second tier protagonists, who only can have a history in the context of another one? Is the United States also a country in the history of China? Can I add it to the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.85.85 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Category must be corrected due to current POV pushing/manipulation

It's become clear after I examined this page and looked into why so many countries that shouldnt be on here are on here, that I have come to the conclusion that this page's definition is not only too vague (and should be fixed), but it's not even being applied properly and in many cases the category is being used aggresively to push POVs.

"Definition: same as Category:Former countries. States under this category appeared in Chinese history, and their appearance in human history is largely found in Chinese records (e.g. Nanzhao, Dali). They do not have to be part of, or tributary of imperial China."

First and foremost, the Former countries in Chinese history is one of the few pages in the categories that actually uses this definition. Contrast this with the Former Countries in East Asia category page. The Mongol, Korean, and Japanese pages do not use this territorial definition, and almost all the listed states of the three pages clearly list states that were identified as predecessors of the modern iterations of the Mongol, Korean and Japanese states. The territorial argument would also create an absurd cascading effect, if we applied this page's category logic, then by extension, the Yuan Dynasty could be argued as a "former country in Korean history" by virtue that it did hold a significant portion of northern Korea, or that the Qing Dynasty is a "former country in Russian history" because of the Amur annexation, etc etc. Imperial Japan can now arguably be a "former country in Korean, Chinese, etc history" on basis that it was technically the ruling country for large portions of territory on various respective countries. The records part is also especially unprecedented, the territorial argument at least could have some merit, the records argument is found only on this category and this category alone.

That's not even touching upon another key point, while I believe the initial definition was well-intentioned albeit misleading, this category is clearly being used to push a POV, because certain editors have not even been applying it correctly on the territorial basis, and the records argument can't even be used on basis that there's scores of countries on here from the medieval era up into the early modern era that have records of their respective kingdoms that aren't Chinese at all.

Here are some examples such as Champa, the Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam, Tay Son, the Mac Dynasty, Later Tran, Le Dynasty, Ho Dynasty, Tran Dynasty, Ly Dynasty, Early Le Dynasty, Dinh Dynasty, Ngo Dynasty, Early Ly Dynasty.

These are thirteen examples that I have personally found of the exact edits that were clearly POV pushing, though I am sure there are more as I cannot reasonably be expected to find every single example. But here are thirteen "former countries in 'Chinese' history" that were added into this category, even though almost all of them have not held territory in what is now modern day China, and all of which were clearly civilizations that had their own record keeping and cannot in any shape or form be argued as a "country in chinese history" when they're clearly not Chinese. It's very clear the implication of these additions into this category, the clear violation of this very definition suggests that this category is being abused to just add former countries that have both historically not been Chinese and presently do not fall under modern Chinese borders, with the likely intention to suggest that these non-Chinese countries are "Chinese."

This is only touching the tip of the mountain on just how many other countries there are that are added on here that clearly never held any territory in modern day China or barely held any land in modern day China. Lan Xang, a Laotian kingdom is on here, Bogd Khanate of Mongolia (a modern Mongol state) is on here, the Ryukyus are on here even though the territory is under Japanese territory even if we disregard the disputed portions of the Ryukyus, Wiman Joseon which was based in modern day Pyongyang is on here even though it held no territory in modern-day China and could only fall under the territorial argument if we followed the Korean Nationalist revisionist school that suggests it was based in China rather than Korea, there's countless other examples like here and here even though most of these countries either did not hold land in modern day China, or held such a small portion of it that the argument can't logically hold.

As stated before, these additions completely violate the spirit of the problematic, vague definition. The vague definition suggests the countries have to either be in 1) the Modern day territories of China 2) Be a former country that was Chinese or 3) Be mainly recorded in Chinese history. The first one is problematic because that creates a massive cascading effect, the second is the most logical one because that's what most countries follow (or a hybrid of 1 and 2) and 3 is unprecedented and really is only applied to this page and should be fixed.

And yet despite all that, many of these former countries added here are clearly not territorally Chinese both past and present (Lan Xang, Champa, Nguyen Dynasty, etc). They are not ethically or culturally Chinese (Ryukyus, Buyeo, Bogd Khanate of Mongolia). Many of these countries appearances are found in their own records or modern Western records rather than that of China's (Especially all the medieval or modern states, such as Lan Xang, Champa, the Bogd Khanate). On this basis, there can really only be two explanations for why these countries are being added to this category based off the POV pushing, either 1) These countries fall under "Chinese territory" in the viewpoint that Laos, Vietnam, etc are/should be in the modern territories of China (because again, clearly some of these countries never ruled even a small part of China), or 2) that while these countries are not territorally a part of China, they are "Chinese."

This category must be redefined to follow the precedent of the ones of Japan, Korea, Mongolia, etc where it follows more of a state-succession or ethnic categorization rather than this maximalist territorial categorization that not only just adds countries that have inisignificant holdings in present day Chinese territory or even just adds countries that are territorially never been Chinese on here.

This category is clearly being manipulated to push a POV that suggests that various Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, etc countries were "Former Countries in Chinese History" and by that virtue, that these are a "Part of China". While I disagree with the territorial argument, I could understand where this argument could come from. But this category page is blatantly being abused and its not even following the territorial argument, unless the implication is that various former countries that existed in Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, parts of Japan fall under the territory of China, or are Chinese. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Grutness and @Musikanimal apologies in advance for referencing your edits and/or discussions on the talk page more than a decade ago, but I was hoping for your opinions on this since I did see there was a previous discussion on this topic many years ago (as well as reverting the deletion of the definition).

If you have the spare time, do you mind reading my talk page post pointing out the relatively vague definition as well as the violation of that very definition by various edits that suggest a strong, intended POV push, and providing your thoughts? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a few more days, but if there is no opposition I will delete the pre-existing definition. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Hello, you have raised a very interesting topic and one that I think is worth discussing. For a start, I agree with you that the definition in this category is slightly vague. I thank you for starting this discussion.

However, for the examples that you had listed, I would object if you were to remove them from this category. The reasons being:

• Champa: This state gained independence from the Eastern Han dynasty and remained in close contact with China. I would encourage you to flip through some of the primary sources in Chinese history to get a sense of the interaction and exchange.
• Vietnamese dynasties: These were tributary states of various Chinese dynasties and whose territories had some overlap with modern-day China, especially at the Guangxi region. Some of the rulers (e.g. Tran dynasty) also had Chinese ancestry.
• Bogd Khanate of Mongolia: this state declared its independence from China, but was not recognised by the majority of the international community, with most recognising it as a part of China.
• Ryukyu Kingdom: a tributary state of Ming and Qing dynasties. Again, I encourage you to read through the primary sources to get a sense of the interaction and exchange.
• Wiman Joseon: territory overlapped with modern-day China, and the founder (according to some sources) came from the Yan state.
• Tokhara Yabghus: its rulers were installed as officials of the Yuezhi Protectorate (月氏都督府) of the Tang dynasty. This was basically an autonomous regime within the Tang political orbit.
• Jaxa: it was basically a bi-product of Sino-Russian border conflict, whose territory was incorporated into the Qing dynasty after the Treaty of Nerchinsk.

The only example I agree with you that is somewhat problematic would be Lan Xang.

It is true that many of the states listed in this category were not ethnically or culturally "Chinese". But the analysis of a country's history is not and should not be defined by the scope of ethnic and cultural history. This is especially true for a country such as China, whose territory (historical and present) is large and has diverse ethnicities and cultural regions. If we were to only analyse Chinese history based on what we consider "Chinese" (which I assume from your post that you are exclusively referring to Han Chinese), then no one would be able to have a comprehensive view of Chinese history, especially since so many non-Han regimes had ruled over China in whole or in part.

I note that including a historical country in this category does not preclude it from being included in another country's category. I further note that the aforementioned countries are also included in the respective categories of Vietnam, Mongolian, Japanese, and Korean histories, among others. No one is excluding these historical countries from other categories.

I would not object if you were to include Yuan dynasty under the category of Korean history as well, given it had indeed played a part in shaping the course of Korean history. Neither would I object if you were to include Empire of Japan in the categories of Chinese and Korean history.

We should not be pushing for an exclusive "ownership" of historical countries (which some of your edits were trying to do, based on your editing history) that did not conform to our present-day understanding of nation-states. This is especially so for historical countries that had helped shape the history of multiple modern-day countries. There is nothing preventing anyone from including these historical countries in the categories of the relevant countries' history, but this should not be the reason to remove them from the category of Chinese history.

To simply label this as "POV pushing/manipulation", "abuse", and "violation" (which are strong words) assumes bad intention of the various users who contributed to the articles across many years, and shows a disregard and lack of understanding of the depth and dimension of Chinese history.

Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the wiki page, the Bogd Khanate was ruled by the Republic of China for a short period of two years. Buyeo was situated entirely within modern China's borders and frankly, Koreans are considered an official ethnicity in China, and most of the records recorded about Buyeo were Chinese. This should be more than enough to qualify both as part of Chinese history from a combined territorial, communication record, and ethnic standpoint. I disagree with tagging polities that were solely tributaries without a combination of the above however. Qiushufang (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

You should have pinged me for this since I was part of the revert that caused this argument. I disagree with your main argument because it is based on an ethno-nationalist logic. There are multiple examples of past historical polities that are considered part of a modern country and their people's history without sharing the same ethnicity as the dominant ethnicity in that country. Champa, for example, is not ethnically Vietnamese, and is tagged with former country in Vietnamese history. A country is also not bound by ethnicity nor does the category of Chinese only contain Han Chinese, so the point is moot anyways.

I also absolutely agree with the following logic:

the Yuan Dynasty could be argued as a "former country in Korean history" by virtue that it did hold a significant portion of northern Korea, or that the Qing Dynasty is a "former country in Russian history" because of the Amur annexation, etc etc. Imperial Japan can now arguably be a "former country in Korean, Chinese, etc history" on basis that it was technically the ruling country for large portions of territory on various respective countries.

The Yuan dynasty should be considered a former country in Korean history as well as other countries it ruled. The argument that it should not is entirely based on modern nationalistic ideology of succession. Many countries do not have an obvious and ethnically linked predecessor or were ruled by the ethnic majority or even mainly based out of their country for large portions of their history. I don't see why those would not be considered part of their country's history. Otherwise what would Vietnam put for their entire history for the entire first millenium AD if the Han dynasty or various Chinese dynasties were not considered part of Vietnam's history? It's ridiculous. The Han dynasty and the various dynasties of China that ruled Vietnam are part of Vietnamese history and should be tagged as such if people had the interest to do so. The fact that they're not is largely based on the modern nationalist interests of the authors, but it doesn't naturally follow that the lack or existence of tagged categories are correct or incorrect. It just means that somebody wanted to add that tag.

I do agree that this category overstretches to include the monarchic dynasties of Dai Viet though and that tributaries such as Ryukyu that were not ruled by a polity based in China or owning territory in China should not be included. But that's as far as I would go. Qiushufang (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I was planning on tagging you after my initial edit but was caught up by other events. I strongly disagree with your argument that my argument is based solely on ethno-nationalist grounds. I am clearly making the point that this category is not being fairly applied at all, and is maximalist/revisionist and being abused for nationalist arguments.

Per my initial, previous point, I am arguing that the categorization should fall under one of the two points, either territorial (which I argue with to an extent even if I am not the biggest fan) or ethnic/cultural. I am not suggesting that only Han Chinese states should be in this category, I am arguing that this category is way too maximalist to the point that every slight indication that a state was "Chinese" (whether it be a non-Chinese state that occupied parts of modern China, a Chinese state that is not in modern Chinese territories, a state that was occupied by a previous Chinese state that is not in China terrtorially nor is it ethnically Chinese, tributaries) makes it somehow a "former country in Chinese history."

Champa is a great point here, yes it was not ethnically Vietnamese, but it was territorially in Vietnam. The entirety of the former countries in say Japanese or Korean or Vietnamese is solely on just those two points, either it was 1) Vietnamese by both state succession + ethnicity/culture or 2) is territorially Vietnamese. That is the exact endpoint of these categories for other pages, it does not go as maximalist (such as including tributaries) and it is implied or expressly written

On your point about "Otherwise what would Vietnam put for their entire history for the entire first millenium AD if the Han dynasty or various Chinese dynasties were not considered part of Vietnam's history?" Yes this is a fair point to an extent, but the main point I am pointing out is that this is not how the categorization is going, the Han Dynasty is a part of Vietnamese history, but that should not make it a former country in Vietnamese history. As I stated before, an occupation does not make the occupied's history the history of the occupier and vice versa. There is a level of ownership in history, state succession typically draws lineages not from occupation but rather from the lineages of the people themselves.

Additionally, again the inclusion of the entirety of Vietnam's history from the end of the Third Northern Domination up until the end of the Nguyen Dynasty as a part of "Former Countries in Chinese History" again reiterates just how maximalist this category has become. We have Vietnam from its inception until about a century of modernity where it has a massive overlap of it as a former country in Chinese history which objective observors would conclude is a POV push. Yes Yuan/Qing/Ming can fall under the territorial argument of Korea/Russia/Vietnam etc etc, but even that really can just cause a cascade effect with how complex that can go and would both not be practical and also be strongly opposed.

Additionally, while Korean is an officially accepted group in China, that just further raises controversy and isn't really applicable. There are close to 76 million Koreans in the two Koreas, the remaining Korean population abroad in China, the US, etc are far less than number, to the point that the Korean American population is larger than the Chinese Korean population. The Chinese Korean population also is fairly insignificant sizewise in China, had they been say 5% of the population it could have been maybe a stronger argument, but they number at barely less than 0.2% of the population and to put that on equal footing for the ethnic/cultural argument is not an equal balance for adding Koreanic states into this category. It also lends the question, on the basis that then a state simply recognizing an ethnic group suddenly could lead to ownership of history, such as say the Russia or America officially having recognized ethnic groups and including them in categories.

Anyhow the end point I am arguing here is that the categorization is too loose and has been abused multiple times, all the other pages are either territorial, ethnic/cultural or state succession (from the dynasty's perceived inheritance or otherwise) that is not derived from occupation. Frankly speaking, the tributaries argument is completely moot and all former tributaries should be removed because its not defensible, and the occupation argument also doesn't really ring true. I would be open to a mixture of the three with the latter two taking precedence as I pointed out, but what is going on right now here where practically scores of non-Chinese states are in this category is unacceptable. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

We are at disagreement then. I don't see how appeals to racial demographics and arbitrary succession requirements that don't neatly fit history is anything other than an ethno-nationalist viewpoint.

An argument predicated on ownership is a modern ethno-nationalist viewpoint regarding succession, that certain countries or ethnicities own certain history, which you are certainly proposing now with appeals to demographics and controversy and whatnot citing WP:OTHERCONTENT in support. Countries or ethnicities cannot own history. Being tagged as a former country in Chinese history no more means that Chinese people or China owns that country or history than does Korea or Koreans just because it is tagged as part of Korean history. It is a form of categorization for the purpose of usability. The implementation of the category, whether it is maximalist, inclusive, exclusionary, or other has no bearing on this. To be sure, many editors do not treat it like that and use the categories as a nationalistic battleground. I've seen both you and MorrisonJohnson do the same.

I've always been on the side of inclusiveness to the point of usability, whether that's at previous discussions we've participated in such as infoboxcountry or here. Likewise, this exclusionary logic that you are proposing now does not reflect history, which does not neatly fit into only one category. Battles over Wiman Joseon, a polity ruled by a person from the Yan kingdom in the Han dynasty based in what is now modern Korea, have been ongoing due to this. The obvious answer, as it has always been, is to just tag it as both Chinese and Korean history. That it is not done is a reflection of the interests of the editors, not that it is superior, more accurate, or better for Wikipedia.

I'm also peeved that you didn't ping me or MorrisonJohnson given that this was started due to a disagreement involving us. Pinging decade old participants in some previous discussion, with a low chance of participation, rather than the obvious immediate participants in the current argument gives off the appearance of deliberate avoidance to sneak in changes. Qiushufang (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not my argument, my argument also points out that territory should be included in this discussion which is not being acknowledged despite me raising this point multiple times, it cannot be an ethno nationalist argument precisely because I have continually said that while I disagree with the territorial argument, I see some merit in it and would be open to applying it albeit to a lesser extent.

Furthermore, my argument is pointing out that this framework is precisely being abused because of its artibrary execution, it's complete abuse to an extreme extent when this framework is using 1) Tributaries 2) Countries that were just recorded in Chinese history in an early era and 3) Countries that were occupied by China, all of which are clearly maximalist and not used at all on other pages. No other category uses any of these, especially #2 and #3.

Adding onto that, this is clearly not about inclusivity or even exclusivity at its core, this is about how this category is frankly using way too many definitions (some of which are only from this page, like countries recorded in Chinese records), applying them way too liberally, and even applying things that aren't mentioned in this page like "countries occupied by prior Chinese states" or "this country was a tributary." The fact that this is the only category with this issue speaks volumes to how widely this category is being abused.

As I mentioned beforehand, I did intend to ping you but was distracted by other events, such as the prior coup attempt in Korea a few hours ago. Additionally, I pinged these prior participants precisely because they had prior insight and were the initial people who triggered this discussion for their potential expertise or thoughts when this was first discussed before pinging you.

Again, I am making this very frank assertion that I want this definition changed to something that is based on state succession, ethnicity/culture and territory with a lesser emphasis, this cannot be an "ethno-nationalist" argument when I am making it clear that modern borders can play a role in this categorization, but that 1) Tributaries should be removed 2) Countries that were recorded by Chinese historians should be removed and 3) Countries that were just occupied by China historically should be removed. It is frankly unfair to suggest that the removal of these 3 points would make my argument "ethnonationalist" when the key point I keep raising is that this page has completely swallowed entire modern countries into "Former Countries in Chinese History" like Vietnam. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Per your claim below about me dropping my stance on ethno-nationalism and my belief that that is what you are predicating your argument on. Here is my explanation.

I want this definition changed to something that is based on state succession, ethnicity/culture and territory

We have fundamentally opposing perspectives on history. Most historical categories are a mix of these criteria, but obviously opinions differ on what the right succession, right ethnicity, right culture, and right territory are. China categorizes Koreans as an official ethnicity of China. Some consider this significant while others disagree. Now what? The definition is intrinsically part of the modern ethnic nation making project. As you've stated, many categories apply their definition of what the right mix of these are and what qualifies for those criteria, just as editors are doing for this category. But it does not follow that these categorizations are wrong or right.

Many decisions are simply delineations based on arbitrary non-historical reasons as a result of ethno-nationalist ideology seeking to create a neat line of state succession and descent. The Vietnamese claimed Zhao Tuo as a Vietnamese emperor at one point, now they do not due to modern ethno-nationalist ideology, yet multiple Vietnamese dynasties had their origin in territory that is not in modern Vietnam. Similarly Wiman Joseon is not tagged as History of China or Chinese history despite being in the same situation as Nanyue, ruled by a foreigner from a Chinese state. One historical difference that might explain the difference in treatment is that Wiman Joseon overlaps with modern Korea whereas Nanyue mostly with modern China. However the actual reason why Nanyue is tagged as a country in both Chinese and Vietnamese history whereas Wiman Joseon is not is because the editors who most recently edited it made it that way. There is no hard and fast rule for these things. Xingliao is tagged as History of Korea but it was not in Korea but ruled by a descendant of Balhae's royal family. Its supporters were mostly Jurchens. Should the category be removed? That a certain criteria is being implemented somewhere but not elsewhere does not prove correctness or wrongness.

As I've said in the discussion on the inclusion of Hanja or Hangul in the infobox talk page which you may remember, the source of these arguments and edit wars aren't actually over the lack of guidance or even definition, but whether a modern ethnic country gets to lay claim over that history. That's partially why I avoid modern categories like Chinese or Korean when I edit articles when contemporary terminology such as Ming or Goryeo are available. The other reason is that I'm highly skeptical that any contemporary over hundreds of years ago would have seen a connection the modern nation states and their supporters that are laying claim to their history. For me these categories are more like guides for convenience rather than something that claims ownership.

And that is something I will never get behind. Hopefully you can better understand why I do not agree with the majority of definition changes you propose, as they are no more reasonable than the current definition from a historical perspective. Qiushufang (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I get your point, and I agree with it to an extent, yes history is not simply Past Country A => Only the History of Country B in some cases, and then it is Past Country C => Modern Country D in other cases. I understand that because clearly there are various examples even in the early modern era like Austria-Hungary. And a lot of the flow of Wikipedia is driven by its editors, for better or worse.

The point about Chinese Koreans is interesting, but really it's hard to put an equal weight on a minority ethnicity that comprises less than 0.2% of the entire Chinese population with the two Korean states that is 35x that minority group's size. I'm not saying it should solely be excluded on this point alone, but again the numbers on this don't really lie. The primary reason if Buyeo fell into this category would be on territory as Buyeo's territory falls under modern PRC borders, many non-Korean/non-Chinese academics themselves don't really buy that argument either if we wanted to follow the opinions of experts rather than those of editors.

Regardless of if you agree with my definitions or not, the current definition is completely unacceptable in any shape or form. You absolutely have the right to your belief on what should or should not be in categories (or believing that all categorizations are ok), and I do see merit in your points even if we have fundamentally different views. But I do disagree with you strongly on this point, there can be and are wrong categorizations. "Countries recorded in Chinese history" is an unprecedented and frankly absurd definition, it's literally indefensible. Just because Country A wrote about Country B before Country B's inhabitants created a writing system (or their records were destroyed) making it to this category is nonsenical to an extreme degree.

And neither are the tributaries really, especially given that the Chinese Tributary System derived itself from mainly independent states paying tribute to the Chinese Emperor in a ritualized service rather than the more European system of vassals, with modern academics comparing it more to an international relations systems than an internalized system. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Arguing by this basis that Champa, various Vietnamese dynasties, Ryukyu and other states as "Former Countries in Chinese history" just on the notion that they are tributaries is not a coherent argument especially when the very definition of what a "Former country in Chinese history" here is so vague and absurdly abused that it's clearly not being used in good faith.

The argument you are making is that 1) Any country that falls inside modern China's borders is a former country in Chinese history 2) Any country that was a tributary of China falls under a former country in Chinese history 3) Any country that appears through Chinese records falls under Chinese history 4) Any country whose rulers might have been/were ethnically Chinese falls under Chinese history. This is clearly a far too maximalist, vague and loose definition that is quite frankly unsustainable and unfeasible. None of the other pages have followed this argument, the only one that has any credence of legitimacy are the ethnic and cultural ones as well as ther territorial ones.

Champa clearly had some Chinese roots due to the occupation, but 1) the region was clearly not under complete Chinese rule 2) Was a fusion of the local cultures and the countries that liberated themselves from Chinese rule. And to argue that because Champa had liberated itself from Chinese rule makes it a "former country in Chinese history" is exactly the maximalist argument I am talking about. By this logic, the Ming Dynasty is a former country in Mongol history, the Republic of Korea/Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea is a "former country in Japanese history", etc etc. Occupation does not make the occupied belong to the occupier's history. And let me point out here, the very definition above does not even touch on saying that occupation is a valid categorization. You have just conceived this notion when it wasn't even definitionally included here.

Arguing that the Vietnamese dynasties should be included is not even defensible, these edits ead to practically every single Vietnamese dynasty/country from the 1000s AD up until the 1800s/1900s in the category, to the point that there isn't even an exclusive Vietnamese historical country to begin with. Tributaries are regarded as de-facto independent countries, the Wikipedia page for Tributary system of China itself clearly notes that the various tribtuaries were autonomous in nature. Sure, we can talk about inclusivity and exclusvitiy, but that is not the case here, the case here is that every single Vietnamese historical polity has been absorbed into the Former countries in Chinese history tag to the point that there is no seperable Vietnamese entity at all. If every single Vietnamese state is also belonging in the Chinese category, then there's nothing seperating them from China at all. The same applies here for the Ryukyus on the tribtuary argument.

And again, as for the others like Lan Xang, the Bogd Khanate, Wiman Joseon, the very point I am making is that its clear the category here is being severely abused, no other category follows anything close to the vague and incredibly loose notions here and if every category did the exact same thing it would be quite frankly not make sense. All of them clearly don't have uniting factors, Wiman Joseon was partially territorially in China, while various Vietnamese dynasties were tributaries but not territorially in China at all (which is not defensible, the vast majority of the linked dynasties clearly did not hold any lands in China), Champa was liberated from Chinese rule so that makes it "Chinese", etc etc. This is again the maximalist argument I am pointing to.

By this same logic, the various Japanese clans and states under the Ouchi Clan or even the royal family of Japan could fall a "Former Country in Korean History" based off the fact that they either claimed Korean lineage or had verified Korean descent, when that would be seen as an incredulous argument by objective observors. Or the Germans can now claim that the Tsardom of Russia is Germanic/Former Country in German History because many of the Russian rulers were related to the Germans, etc etc.

This is not even touching on how unevenly this has been applied, every single edit I pointed out was done by one editor, it has always been adding non-Chinese states into this category, there is basically little instance of the opposite being applied, where a Chinese state was added into a "Former Country in Vietnamese/Japanese/Korean History" category as I mentioned about Qing being in Russian history then by the territorial argument, or the Ming due to the Yongle Emperor's alleged Korean hertiage, etc etc. This category has been severely abused, if this argument was truly believed in terms of inclusivity then we would not be seeing such a one-sided application of this category for the past 2-3 years.

Also, you make the argument here when you state that "We should not be pushing for an exclusive "ownership" of historical countries (which some of your edits were trying to do, based on your editing history) that did not conform to our present-day understanding of nation-states. This is especially so for historical countries that had helped shape the history of multiple modern-day countries. There is nothing preventing anyone from including these historical countries in the categories of the relevant countries' history, but this should not be the reason to remove them from the category of Chinese history."

There are multiple instances of you directly contradicting your own positions, like here where you removed Takri Kingdom from the list of Korean dynasties whilst adding it onto China's back in December 2023, so that very argument you made is not being fairly applied. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I am going to provide proper clarification and rebut your argument you made when you pinged Qiushufang.

Here, you are accusing me of pushing a "Korean narrative" and "exclusivity" when you want to be inclusive, yet I have repeated evidence of you doing exactly the opposite. Not just at Takri Kingdom which I saw you remove from the Korean dynasties section, you literally removed Gojoseon from the list of former countries in Korean history. This is considered to be the first state in Korean history, yet you are claiming that I am pushing a narrative and that I am being exclusive? I have you on record taking out the Wikipedian accepted names of various Koreanic dynasties into Chinese names. This again is not even touching that the edits you have made have now included every single major Vietnamese dynasty into Chinese history.

You have removed various Koreanic states and who knows how many other states for years, my edits aren't a "Korean narrative" or "anti-Chinese" or "Exclusive" a lot of it has been removing the biased POV push you have been doing.

My argument is simple and as follows, that this category is being abused, and that it should follow something similar to the other pages where tributaries are not included, where countries China formerly occupied aren ot included, and where it is based on an agreed upon mixture of state succession, ethnicity/culture and to a lesser extent modern territory. To assume that this is a Korean narrative when I am arguing that the entirety of Vietnamese history should not included as "Former Countries in Chinese History" is frankly not true. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to explain my edits pertaining to the examples cited, Takri Kingdom and Gojoseon.

For Takri Kingdom, when I removed it from the list, it was purely based on the article's indication that it was located along the Songhua River in China. However, after you had added it back into the list, I did not revert it back because I understood your intention — that the state had some Korean links, and I respected your decision. In fact, the Takri Kingdom, and the other states under the Korea section, were first added into the list by me.

For Gojoseon, when I removed the tag "Former countries in Korean history", it was because the category of "Gojoseon" itself was already tagged with "Former countries in Korean history". I had explained this in my edit notes. To tag the Gojoseon article again with the category of "Former countries in Korean history" would be "double tagging" (for the lack of a better term). Once again, you reverted my edit, and I did not counter-revert your edit.

On the issue of Vietnamese dynasties, since both you and @Qiushufang have raised issues with their inclusion in the category of Chinese history, I have no objections if you or other users remove the tagging. When I added the tags, as I had explained, it was because Vietnamese dynasties had been close tributary states of China, and had some slight overlap in territories at the Guangxi region. However, I agree with the two of you that this could have overstretched the definition of this particular category.

Again, I would like to encourage you to refrain from using terms such as "biased POV push" and "abuse" etc. when you are engaging directly with other users on an issue at the talk page, because this assumes bad faith and intention without even waiting for others to reply to your post. By your logic, your ethno-nationalist argument here could have been easily labeled as a "POV push" as well, but both Qiushufang and myself have not referred to your edits as such.

I hope I have clarified my edits and the thinking behind them. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm too tired to check all the articles' history to see what your history is with each other, but to clarify, my stance is to include any relevant category to the point of usability. You two and others should lay off the constant removals, whoever is doing it. This category is too large now imo and Vietnamese dynasties should definitely be removed since they're not by themselves historical polities, and are different from the Chinese dynasties or when Korean states are called dynasties. Qiushufang (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That means you added it and then removed it, which makes me personally more convinced it was a POV push. I could at least understand your argument if you had not been the one to add it, and then removed it because you might not be familiar with the topic. But why would you add it on the list of Koreanic states and then reverse course? You must have known it was Koreanic on some level because you had added this information, or else you would not have added it at all to begin with. It doesn't help that the edits were made in succession of adding it as Chinese and then deleting it as Korean does make it appear as a POV push, there's really no going around this.

The category argument is not convincing when we have this very page that has the exact same issue you said Gojoseon was having. The Chen Dynasty has both its page and its category as "Former Country in Chinese History." The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom has both its page and category as "Former Country in Chinese History." There's like ten other examples with the exact same issue on this page that were not fixed but Gojoseon, the one that has Former Country in Korean History gets deleted? And not to mention, the pages that do follow the format you suggest have the exact opposite, they have the "Former Country in Chinese History" on the page itself not in the category. So even if that argument was true, it was not applied correctly at all.

And really, the addition of the entirety of Vietnamese history post the Northern Dominations is inexcusable, we had every single dynasty from the 900s/1000 AD up until the final Nguyen Dynasty be categorized as a Former Country in Chinese History. There is no point underplaying just how severe of an abuse of this categorization this was, there are merits to some of Qiushufang's points such as on Bogd Khanate or others but this is ridiculous how many Vietnamese states were added to this categorization.

I have been very clear to not accuse either of you of making nationalist or imperialists arguments despite my belief that there is a biased POV push and despite being repeatedly accused of making ethno-nationalist arguments, and frankly this is tiring my patience. It's ridiculous when I was not the one who added every single Vietnamese dynasty from the 900s AD to the 1800s AD into the Chinese categorization, when I was not the one who added Champa into the Chinese categorization, when I was not the one who deleted Takri Kingdom and Gojoseon off the Korean categories and then immediately added the Chinese categories.To suggest that I am an ethno-nationalist because I am opposed to adding 1,000 years of independent Vietnamese history to all fall in an overlap with Chinese history is not even defensible. If anyone is making any nationalist arguments here, it is not me.

Again, my argument is not ethno-nationalist, and its frankly misleading to keep suggesting that when I deliberately keep pointing out that I want this definition redefined to match other pages, I want 1) The Tributaries removed 2) The countries being recorded primarily in Chinese history removed and 3) Countries that were occupied by prior Chinese states removed if they do not fall under Chinese territory. The territorial argument again I am open to an extent, and frankly that would require a far greater discussion within the wider sphere of Wikipedia and I am open to leaving the status quo for now. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So what is your point here? If you are talking about the Vietnamese dynasties, I had already mentioned in my earlier reply that you can feel free to remove the tag "Former countries in Chinese history" from the Vietnamese dynasties articles, as I agree with you and Qiushufang's point on not including them. There is no need for you to talk about the same thing over and over again in your posts. The same thing for Takri Kingdom and Gojoseon, which I had already explained above — no need for you to go back and forth in a circular logic.

On my part, I have no issue if you were to remove Champa and the Ryukyu Kingdom from the category as well. (I have decided to go along with your suggestion here, despite my earlier post stating that I would oppose if you were to remove Champa and Ryukyu Kingdom from the category.)

Based on our interactions on this talk page, I don’t get the feeling that you are trying to resolve the issue in a friendly and constructive manner. I have been trying to engage you and explain my rationale behind the edits, and have even agreed with you that we can leave out the Vietnamese dynasties from this category. Your tone has been condescending despite my attempt to be as constructive as possible in my discussion.

Sure, you might not agree with some of my past edits in some articles (and vice versa), which you had already reverted and I did not counter-revert. Suffice to say that there is no more dispute on those articles (as far as I am concerned), so there is no need for you to keep harping on these resolved issues when we are talking about this current issue. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I raised these points because 1) I had been accused of pushing a Korean narrative in the initial messages sent to Qiushufang, and that this was an issue (on the categories) of exclusivity/inclusivity when I had seen this not being fairly applied 2) I was accused of engaging in ethno-nationalist arguments multiple times when I repeatedly mentioned I just wanted this category to be similar to ther categories and even expressed open-mindedness on the territorial argument despite my disagreements with it (and so far have even now not accused others of engaging in nationalist arguments) and 3) the initial edits did try to defend keeping tributaries on there.

You don't have to convince me, but I did have a right to ask you about the Takri Kingdom and Gojoseon edits especially given that I was making the point that your prior edits were being applied unfairly on Wikipedia (on the points of inclusivity especially), and again, I do think the spirit of the edits on Takri Kingdom and Gojoseon based on the non-response does unfortunately prove the point. Regardless, while I disagree with your assumptions on my attitudes, I believe you have every right to your feelings and opinions, you might interpret my questions or tone on why to be condescending, and I did not mean for it to be conveyed like that in anyway. You also have a right to not believe me personally, but my tone if anything is one that is more nearing an end of patience and frustration from the improper application of these edits rather than a tone of maliciousness.

But I do agree with you on one thing, we are beginning to go around in circles, and this topic has been discussed in-depth to exhaustion. We can leave it at that then, I am sure you are no longer interested in me harping the point about why Vietnam's history being included in the entirety of the Chinese category is outrageous as much as I am not interested in being accused of pushing Korean nationalist narratives. Further discussion will only engender higher tensions and I fully agree with you that our discussion while so far still civil is dangerously approaching the point of personal contention as shown by the more recent comments about condescending tones, accusations of nationalist arguments etc.

In a show of good-faith, I will respect Qiushufang and your arguments on the territorial argument despite my personal/academic disagreements with it (again I will emphasize, I do agree with territory to an extent, just not the more puritan interpretation especially given that on disputed territories such as the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands it can get really muddy) I will not alter the status quo though I also expect the same in return, I will not remove any of the currently added states that had significant holdings in modern-day Chinese borders such as the Bogd Khanate but neither should any new ones be added because I am sure this will only bring more and more contention from other editors. While I believe it should be a topic of discussion in the future since it still can create very uncomfortable scenairos such as the Imperial Japan being a former country in Korean/Chinese/Vietnam history or Nazi Germany being a former country in Polish history, for now the status quo and precedent is acceptable.

That said, I will begin the process to remove the categorization of "Former Countries in Chinese History" for the tributaries (such as Vietnam), removing the part of the category description that says countries recorded by Chinese historians (because this part is found only in this category from the various categories i have searched), and I will remove non-Chinese states that were formed outside of modern-day Chinese territories (whether it be PRC or ROC) that had been formed due to prior Chinese dynastic occupations such as Champa. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a statement on what changes I support, but there does not appear to be any consensus yet what changes should be made. It is not good form to make unilateral statements like I will not alter the status quo though I also expect the same in return as if this was some sort of battleground and peace is being brokered or traded over article editing rights. That implies ownership which is something I feel Sunny often does not understand or wilfully interprets in their own personal way, whether that pertains to history or editing. Qiushufang (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus on multiple points, it's that tributaries shouldn't be included (Which everyone has on record already agreed to now) and I am assuming the same is being applied to the state born from occupation, the inclusion of states recorded primarily by Chinese records appears to not have been discussed as much, hence why I am still bringing it up to gauge your opinions.

That is a massive distortion of my statement, your interepation is not what I intended when the entirety of that last message I just posted was clearly intended to pre-emptively prevent an edit war from occuring and preserve the status quo and cool tensions right now. That is the very obvious intent of the message, the entirety of that paragraph is talking about the status quo, how tensions between editors is heightened and could go personal etc etc.

And this is not even touching on how your arguments have pivoted from initially suggesting my arguments are ethno-nationalist (Which you are not even raising anymore like in your last message because I repeatedly said I was supportive of territorial arguments to an extent, and all I wanted from the beginning was removing 1) Tributaries 2) Countries that were just recorded in Chinese history in an early era and 3) Countries that were occupied by China, unless if you care to explain how those are all ethno-nationalist arguments when literally no other page uses that.

Now the new argument is that I don't understand ownership because I am trying to prevent this discussion from pivoting towards personal insults and edit warring? Not to mention, there was a massive abuse of the concept of ownership and that was triggered precisely because we had every independent Vietnamese polity + various others added into a vague and loose definition of what a former country in Chinese history was. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My statement on tributaries was I do agree that this category overstretches to include the monarchic dynasties of Dai Viet though and that tributaries such as Ryukyu that were not ruled by a polity based in China or owning territory in China should not be included. But that's as far as I would go. Not that tributaries should not be included. I did not say anything about removing or changing the definition or even whether or not I agreed with it.

Not to mention, there was a massive abuse of the concept of ownership and that was triggered precisely because we had every independent Vietnamese polity + various others added into a vague and loose definition of what a former country in Chinese history was.

That's not what WP:OWN means either on Wikipedia or for history. Seeking to prevent an edit war predicated on the right to edit especially as a form of exchange or truce is still asserting ownership over the content. Moreover there was never any indication of an edit war at all in the first place given that we all headed to talk already and ceased editing the relevant pages.

And this is not even touching on how your arguments have pivoted from initially suggesting my arguments are ethno-nationalist (Which you are not even raising anymore like in your last message because I repeatedly said I was supportive of territorial arguments to an extent,

No, that makes me believe in the ethno-nationalist nature of your argument more, not less. I didn't make any comment on your reply because I didn't have time to or consider writing a text wall to be productive. We're talking past each other at this point and you obviously have an entirely different concept of how history wiki editing should work. There is definitely no consensus, not on the definition, not on which ones should be removed or included, except maybe the Vietnamese monarchic dynasties or Champa. And even then the motivations are so different, I would be skeptical of any changes made. Qiushufang (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright then, I appreciate that correction, but that just complicates the situation. Which tributaries should be kept and which one shouldn't be then? Again, none of the other categories even use tribtuaries for their categorizations, so the fact that this page is one of the few if any pages that even uses tributaries makes it an anamoly to begin with.

There absolutely was a genuine risk of something of that sort breaking out and frankly pointing this as ownership appears to be ignoring the borderline hostile comments in this talk page, when the entire conversation was devolving into claims of ethno-nationalism, accusations condescending attitudes of editors, editors not "reading" properly, etc etc. If I had made an edit by beginning to remove the tribtuaries (because that was the answer that I was getting from Morrison) without making that comment immediately after the previous comment when editors were accusing each other of having malicious or ill-intended attitudes it could very easily have spiralled into an edit war. I was clearly relaying my intentions before making any edits, and we are not even including that I was making this directed towards you two in particular to pre-emptively prevent an edit war. The fact that you answered here precisely proves my point, because I was preparing to make edits to remove the Vietnamese dynasties that did not occupy any territories of modern China. Had I not made that statement, you and Morrison could have easily interpreted my immediate edits in a hostile matter which could have spiralled.

You continue to keep snipping my arguments, when the other half of my point was that "1) Tributaries 2) Countries that were just recorded in Chinese history in an early era and 3) Countries that were occupied by China" should not be included. The entire argument again was as followed that it should "Follow other pages which follow the categorization that lies with ethnicity/culture, state succession (Yes, there first two points alone could be qualified from your interpretaiton as "ethno-nationalist" but that is not the entire argument I have) coupled with territory of modern day states, and the removal of Tributaries, Countries that were just recorded in Chinese history and Countries that were occupied by China (in the past to clarify on this point).

I am not saying that we should just remove all non-Ethnic Han Chinese from this category if you are interpreting my comments that way, or that we should remove traditionally non-state succession states from this category like the Dali Kingdom, I am saying that it should follow what other categories have which is similar to it, and also at the very least make it just like the other categories, especially on the point on tributaries (that almost no other page has, or being recorded in Chinese history which not a single one has at all). The only other alternative explanation is that every single other category group is somehow ethno-nationalist based except the Chinese category group. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Tributary status is not a useful criteria for inclusion in Chinese history. It is too broad, there are too many, and some have barely any connection to China other than trade.

Records is quite broad but I can see a case for it. The examples given in the definition are Nanzhao and Dali, which don't need the criteria of record in the first place to qualify for inclusion since they are situated in modern Chinese territory and their inhabitants (Bai, Yi) are considered Chinese. Some ancient polities were only mentioned in Chinese records but they tend to fall under modern China's territory anyways, so there is a lot of overlap. The Hephthalites are neither an accepted Chinese ethnicity or succeeded by a Chinese state, but large portions of their history are recorded in Chinese texts, and a large portion of their territory overlaps with modern China. I don't see a problem with such a case. There may be cases where the location or ethnicity of the people are uncertain and they only exist in Chinese records in which case I support adding them to this or another relevant category pertaining to Chinese history. What are examples of tagged pages using the records argument that you think is being abused?

Countries that were occupied is also quite vague but potentially relevant. What counts as an occupation and what counts as a country? Does only territory that is not currently ruled by the PRC or ROC today count as non-occupied? Was Vietnam occupied for 1000 years under Chinese rule even though Vietnam didn't exist as a country at the time but later became independent? If occupied countries don't count, does that mean Dali doesn't count as part of Chinese history or are we only counting the ones that later became independent after occupation? Are we only counting polities that we would recognize as states at the time because those would be considered for inclusion in this category? I don't see occupation as part of the definition listed here and without more specific examples I can't make a judgment. If it is just a polity that was briefly occupied by a Chinese state with no lasting changes caused, then I would not consider it for inclusion.

The only other alternative explanation is that every single other category group is somehow ethno-nationalist based except the Chinese category group.

Actually, they all are, both the China category as well as the other pages are all based in some part on ethno-nationalist ideology but with different criteria. But the rationale used for the categories can lean further into it. Stating explicitly that only certain polities are exclusively part of one country's history but not another's based on the principle of ethnic or state succession is going further along that line, potentially causing arbitrary distinctions where none existed historically.

States like Nanyue or Wiman Joseon can be considered to be under more than one category, but circumstances pertaining to modern territory and state succession rationale has resulted in edit battles over categorization. Hence one is only tagged as part of Korean history while the other both Vietnamese and Chinese. Xingliao also suffers from the same lack of consistency. Neither Nanyue or Wiman Joseon would be recognizable to modern Koreans or Chinese or Vietnamese, being separated by nearly 2000 years. The Yuan dynasty's royal family had marriage relationships with Goryeo's royal family. By all counts it should qualify as a former country in Korean history but it is not tagged as one based on the prerogative of editors who edit those plages. As much as you would like to have it, there is no hard rule here. That's why these categories are best treated as guides rather than symbols of ownership. From my pov, they're merely tools of convenience where tagging with multiple countries bares no harm other than readability. For this reason, I still don't agree with the WP:OTHERCONTENT, and I don't believe other pages are doing it more correctly/factually. Any changes I support will be mostly for usability and this category is too large. Qiushufang (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

At least from what I am interpreting from that statement I believe we are somewhat in alignment that tributaries shouldn't be included.

Records is too braod, and it has been severely abused because there's a lot of states included here on that icategorization even though often times the articles themselves explictly mention that other countries, not just the Chinese, had records of these states. The ones that stood out the most were ones such as DaYuan (it is recorded in Han records, but it is also mentioned in multiple Roman/Greek ones too), Jibin, there's even mythical places which I'm not sure could fall under the country concept itself such as Fusang though im a bit more amendable since it's existence appears to be mythical. Then there's a bunch which I can only assume were added because they were never tributaries and aren't anywhere near China's borders like Lan Xang, Upper Mustang, Koshanpye, and others.

The most appropriate categorization would just be to add it to the category for History of Foreign Relations of China rather than have them as a former country in Chinese history.

For your point on occupation, I want to provide clarification. There are actually two subsets on this topic, the one you are addressing delves more into if an occupation or annexation means it should fall under this category. I think you make a good point that I disagree with, but quite realistically this is not even answerable by academics let alone Wikipedia editors, because it further splinters into two points both of which hold merit. For example yes, the Four Commanderies of Han or the Northern Domination of Vietnam can from one perspective fall under the former countries in Korean/Vietnamese history, but that is further complicated by questions. For example, if the occupied peoples' descendents such as the modern day Koreans or Vietnamese (both the common people and academia/goverment) do not recognize this, then why should it be included when they don't want it so? Shouldn't people be allowed to choose what their history is? On one merit, if the Vietnamese people, academia and government wanted to shorten their history to 1,000 AD, then should outsiders be allowed to stop them?

There's then the counterargument, that the Vietnamese for example shouldn't have a say on this point because technically what constitutes modern Vietnam had its northern half occupied for a thousand years. If we do apply a territorial/occupational argument, from a strictly puritan point of view the Thousand Year Domination does make the Han occupation make it fall under Vietnamese history. Then there's the point of contention where Vietnamese and Chinese editors or historians will dispute each others points, further complicating the situation.

The other subset, where I hope to find more agreement on, is on the states that broke away from Occupation. This was the rationale used by Morrison to argue that Champa and various other states such as the Vietnamese Dynasties fell under the "Former Countries in Chinese History" just because they broke away from prior Chinese dynasties even if they weren't ethnically Chinese, didn't hold any territory in modern day China, some of them weren't even tributaries, nor were they primarily recorded through Chinese records. On this point it's really a stretch especially given that this is a liberation from an occupying power and that if its not even within modern Chinese borders should make this fall into this category.

I think you make a fair point again on Nanyue/Xingliao/Wiman Joseon, the issues I again had on this was the rather one-sided complete application of this, as well as the fact that this category has unique categorizations that the others pages don't have. I am not arguing for complete and utter uniformity but I do believe in some level of coherence. For the arguments on ethno-nationalism I do disagree, because the categories are partially based but not fully (Hence why I do not believe they are completely ethno-nationalistic) as they do include territory on a basis and other factors, though it seems we are really running around in circles on this.

On your point on usability, I do agree, I examined this page further and it has even just individuals listed as former countries or associations or rebel groups (I don't mean states that rebeled, I mean just actual organizations) as former countries. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Dayuan's article is based entirely on a single Chinese primary source other than the speculative equivocation to Greek Ionia, which references a general source with no specialization on the subject or citations to back up their statement. The entire Greek section of the article or any part that does involve Chinese interaction contains no citations. If there are significant references to Dayuan from other sources that has to be substantiated. The vast majority of their recorded history seems to come from the Shiji from the perspective of the Han dynasty and their interactions with it, so I think their inclusion is sound given the lack of other sources.

Jibin and Fusang fall into the category of states of uncertain location or don't have enough confirmed info to warrant discussion. This is one of those cases where inclusion would be for the sake of search queries and navigation and exclusion for usability as well as navigation.

Lan Xang was added by User:Look2See1, whose most recent history consists solely of mass categorization of a wide swathe of articles, which I assume is why they are banned. A search of their talk archive doesn't bring up anything related to Chinese history. I doubt they had any specific rationale for why they added the category other than as part of their general mass categorization behaviour. It should be removed.

Upper Mustang and Koshanpye were added by Morrisonjohn022. I assume Upper Mustang is due to its described role in the article as a trading intermediary involving the Qing dynasty and Tibet. Koshanpye is a bit more confusing. According to the article it's just another name for the Shan States, which includes Möng Mao, a kingdom conquered by the Ming dynasty. Möng Mao is already listed in this category so I don't see why a broader one is needed. I don't think there is enough to warrant inclusion of Upper Mustang and Koshanpye, which should be removed unless more substantive connections are provided.

I don't think a short occupation and tributary status is enough to warrant including Champa here.

Some editors add individuals in this category out of convenience probably out of convenience since the states they ruled do not have individual pages. I think this is most applicable to rebels or short-lived states that were dominated by a single individual such as Nong Zhigao. I don't feel strongly about this either way and they could be recategorized as rebels in Chinese history or something similar. Qiushufang (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Qiushufang, you are right regarding my edits to Upper Mustang and Koshanpye. While I agree that Upper Mustang could be more appropriately tagged with another category such as History of Foreign Relations of China, I believe there is some value to tagging Koshanpye with "Former countries in Chinese history" due to the connections with Mong Mao, Ganya, Zhanda, Menglian (Mong Lem), Nandian, etc. (these polities are listed in the table in the Koshanpye article). These were all tusi (土司) chiefdoms of the Ming and Qing dynasties and whose territories were situated within China's modern-day borders. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. However I don't see the connection being made explicitly in the article. It is also poorly sourced and barely a stub, so there's not much point discussing what category it falls under right now. That goes for many of the articles being discussed like Dayuan, which I had tagged for lacking citations years ago and has never been improved upon. Pretty ridiculous that so much effort is being spent on a discussion regarding something as trivial as categorization when the articles themselves are so lacking. Qiushufang (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That's helpful insight into some of these articles Qiushufang, I think the relative lack of information clouds which should be removed and which should be included. The "being primarily recorded in Chinese history" is again still really not that great of an argument, I think the only realistic application I could see for it really lies in the mythical or semi-mythical states like Fusang. The alternative "History of Foreign Relations of China" I think is where Dayuan and Jibin should more realistically fall under. I think the uncertainty def is part of the issue, I'm again open to keeping the mythical states in this category though.

I think for historically significant rebels or short-lived states I'm open to keeping them, like for example Huan Xuan or Duan Kan (similar to Nong Zhigao) but that said it does make the category a bit awkward. But there's a lot of organizations or towns that didn't have really any states or countries, like Keriya Town, Timeline of the Oirats or the Korean People's Association in Manchuria where it's either just a location (when often times the state associated with the location is already there), a timeline of the Oirats (when the Oirat Confederation is already here) or a county level prefecture group. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Dayuan fits in both categories and possibly more (central asian countries, Greco-Bactrian succesor states?). Because its primary relevance is completely derived from its interactions with China told from a Chinese perspective, because that is the only perspective that exists on it, I do think it's useful to have it listed here. I still disagree that a category like this should only cover history from a state succession or territory perspective. For me Dayuan fits somewhere alongside Hephthalites, where they are obviously not Chinese, but such a large part of their history is only recorded in Chinese texts from a Chinese perspective that it would still be useful to be listed as something mainly related to China. Perhaps a more specific category can be made like "Former states recorded in Chinese history" as a substitute.

Keriya Town could qualify as an oasis state. Timeline of the Oirats should be removed for overlap. I don't know enough about Korean People's Association in Manchuria to speak on it, but if its population really was 2m, that's more than enough to qualify imo. Many independent rebel groups probably had as many people. Perhaps a new category could be made like "Autonomous organizations in China" or something similar. Qiushufang (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we can keep Dayuan as is then, I still think though that a country recorded primarily through Chinese records really isn't that strong of a reason for categorization here unless if it was a mythical state, just cause sometimes the article is just mixing it up with an actual state that did exist. Keriya Town could qualify as an oasis state but the article itself at least suggests that there isn't really much of a state there or should reference what state was there. The population argument is a strong one, but then again I'm also not fully convinced its accurate (at least just from the alleged size of the territory it held, it being two million is a little hard to believe).

Regardless, since it seems there lacks consensus on changing most of the definition and because discussion while fruitful seems to be nearing its end, I think the agreed upon articles that should be removed are mainly the tributaries that were discussed (Champa, the Vietnamese dynasties that did not hold significant holdings in modern-day China, Lan Xang, Ryukyus) and potentially the rebel groups/towns/overlaps if they aren't actual states (As discussed). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)