Talk:Yuan (surname)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Yuan (surname) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 18, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 20, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
姓	This article is maintained by the Chinese surnames workgroup.
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Yeu Ninje (talk • email)

Contents 1 Deletion policy 2 Chinese characters 3 Yuan (surname) 4 Nguyễn 5 Vandalism Alert 6 Original research 7 A couple of questions 8 Some observations on Zhongguo xingshi 9 Not verified tag

[edit] Deletion policy

There is a proposal to create a precedent that names are not encyclopedic. Articles about names regularly show up on various deletion pages and are summarily deleted. Perhaps - since you've been working on an article about a name, you hold a different opinion that you'd like to express. Please do: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames SchmuckyTheCat 17:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese characters

For this article, I've found it impossible to explain the the historical origins of the Yuan name, and variations of the character to write the surname, without using Chinese characters. Some uses may not be understood by an English reader without knowledge of Chinese, so I've confined these to the footnotes. For example:

"Other transliterations of the surname include: 元; 渊; 圆; 源; 远; 苑. None of these are ranked in the top fifty of Chinese surnames in terms of population."

--Yu Ninjie 10:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yuan (surname)

(copied from User talk:Yu Ninjie)

That article was very well written. I don't know if I was any help--I copyedited a bit but I'm no expert so I don't know if its fair to say I did a peer review (I don't know the rules of Wikipedia peer review anyway)...yet in reality I don't think there are that many experts on Chinese surnames here (or even on zh wiki for that matter!). Is Yuan your surname (in Mandarin)? Come to think of it, can we add the pronunciations in other dialects? Were you the anon 211.26.149.129 who created the article. Again, great job. --Dpr 06:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind praise. Your suggestion about dialects was very helpful. I added two that I know of, and will seek advice on other variations (Hakka, Minnan etc.). There may even be small numbers of Koreans and Vietnamese who have that surname, though I have never heard of any. In answer to your question, yes, Yuan is my surname and I was that anon writer - I think it was one of my first contributions to Wikipedia. --Yu Ninjie 06:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ninjie, there is something rather important I forgot to mention the last time--it's not entirely clear throughout the article whether the Yuan you refer to is monolithically the Yuan of Yuan Shikia which is a top-50 name, or whether reference to the "spread of the Yuan name", "Yuan families," etc include the very small groups of Yuan under other characters as well. I'm almost certain it's the former, but I don't think it's 100% clear in the text. All the best, Dpr 09:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything I said is completely pointless in light of your revisions. It's extremely clear at this stange. Excellent work on your second (and subsequent) passes since the other day. One question: you may want to have a go at tidying/harmonizing Yuan on List_of_common_Chinese_surnames. Additionally, have you see the ancestral home article--it may be useful, and in either case, maybe you'd be interested in helping spruce it up. Thanks and kudos. Peace, Dpr 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Now all I need is transliterations in Xiang, Gan and maybe Jin, Hui and Pinghua. You don't know anyone who would be familiar with these languages, do you? Thanks for the continued attention, mate. Yeu Ninje 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That article was very well written indeed. However, I would like to know how u found the materials in the Notes and references. I.H.S.V. [[User_talk:Ktsquare|(talk)]] 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I got interested in the surname from studying the downfall of the Han Dynasty, particularly Yuan Shao and Yuan Shu's imperial pretensions. In China, quite a lot has been written about the early Yuan clans from a social perspective. It was just a matter of finding some good journal articles and then branching out from there. At least a third of the sources are just standard histories, so it's just a matter of combing through them and using some good electronic search terms. The rest of the research was through google. There are now a lot of genealogical researchers online (much different to three years ago when I was introducing myself to the area) and a lot of Chinese newspaper articles are online too. The biggest problem with genealogical research is that a lot of the sources are still uncatalogued or in private hands. Yeu Ninje 01:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Converted to the Chicago romanization, is it? :) Anyway, thank you so much for your kind assistance at ancestral home. Haha--as you probably know, the term "hometown" is probably overused in English translations of Chinese, or by Chinese speakers of English, but maybe it's just a cultural artifact and couldn't/shouldn't be rectified. Not to say other other features of Sino-English oughtn't be corrected :) Good luck in your future endeavors. If I know anyone who can help with finding those transliterations, I'll send them your way. All the best, Dpr 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nguyễn

I wonder if it is worth a mention that the very popular Vietnamese surname, Nguyễn, would sound like Yuan in Chinese? Not very related, I suppose. -- KittySaturn 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nguyễn and Yuan sound quite different. In Mandarin Chinese the surname Nguyễn (阮) is pronounced Ruan. I think it has the same or similar pronounciation to the Cantonese Yuen, but I doubt whether that's worth a mention. Yeu Ninje 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Alert

seems to be some vandalism here - the section on adoption by non-Han, for example

Also, the caption under the seal image.

-And also someone adding "ain't Ernie but..."

[edit] Original research

I glanced through this article and it seems to be based partly on original research, which seems to have eluded those editors who made this article a featured one. For instance, I see several references to dynastic histories and Confucian classics such as Zuozhuan. These are primary source material for the study of ancient China and Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought on Chinese genealogy. I am loath to delete things and ruin the article, so I hope that someone with access to credible academic secondary literature can overcome this serious shortcoming.--Niohe 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what "original research" means? Please read WP:Original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:NOR: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.". Please explain, on how making references to well-known historical context such as Zuo Zhuan is "publishing original thought"? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the page and it says: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Now, I see several primary sources that are several hundred, sometimes thousand years old, quoted in this article. I would like to see these sources backed up by credible secondary sources preferably in English, but lacking that, Chinese would do as well.--Niohe 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your statement of "original research". In my opinion, it's a totally inappropriate term to use in here. Verifiability is also not a problem due to Zuo Zhuan's status as a credible source. The Zuo Zhuan claim that your referring to is this: "Descendants of Yuan Taotu are mentioned by name in the Zuo Zhuan as holding high office in the state of Chen". Note that this claim is NOT a "interpretation" of the primary source if you actually read the reference: "Zuo Qiuming (Yang Bojun ed.), Chun qiu Zuo zhuan (春秋左傳: "Zuo's commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals") (Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju, 1981) at 502, names the Chen diplomat Yuan Qiao (袁僑) and Yuan Po (袁頗) as descendants of Yuan Taotu". AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To AQu01rius: So you think that Zuozhuan is a source you can just quote and the meaning is apparent to anyone who can read Chinese, just like I would quote a speech from Hu Jintao? Let me remind you, Zuozhuan was completed 2300 years ago and any statement regarding that book is subject to historical interpretation. Now, the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted also says:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Look, this article purports to chronicle the history of the surname Yuan back more than two millenia. If you are using dynastic histories and Confucian classics to write that history, you are not just describing, you are in fact synthesizing and interpreting primary sources. If that is not original research, I don't know what is.--Niohe 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:NOR says that primary sources are allowed, if only to be used with care. Secondly, "original research" in the context of WP is original work that us as WP editors have concocted. Your original research accusation of this article is entirely invalid. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's be polite and not use words such as "accusation". I'm making a claim that this article is partially based on original research and I'm patiently trying to explain what I mean. I would like to hear your thoughts on what I said above.--Niohe 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I already told you my thoughts - WP:NOR says that primary sources are allowed, and "original research" means original work that WP editors have came up with. So the idea that it consititutes original research to use Chinese classics as sources are wholly inaccurate. If there are specific parts of the article that you feel need to be verified, you can put the Template:cn tag on it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that primary sources are not allowed, but that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, especially when we are dealing with texts that several thousands years old. Please do not remove the tag again, we can ask for a third party to give his or her view. I want to know what the policy means.--Niohe 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read WP:NOR, please. The policy is to prevent us, editors of WP to insert our own research. It's to force us to actually find the information from published sources, whether online or in print. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and not use primary sources to construct the history of a fictive lineage going back two thousand years. So, those who want to keep the article the way it looks, go ahead and find some credible secondary literature.--Niohe 03:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The user of word "fictive" displays ignorance to a certain extent.

Please explain on which part of the "origin" section is a "interpretation of the source" rather than "descriptive claims"? Right now you ARE accusing the section is based on complete interpretative claims.

By the way, reference 5 (one of the four references in the section) is a secondary source published in 2005, I don't know if you missed that. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of "primary sources". A primary source would be using a book as a source for information contained within the same book (for plot summaries of fictional works, for example). The Zuozhuan source would only be a primary source for an article about that publication. -- Black Falcon 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope User:Khoikhoi does not mind me quoting him, but here is what he posted on my user page:

According to WP policy, the interpretation of primary sources such as Chinese classics is indeed considered original research. Though it is sometims useful to quote such sources, normally their interpretation should be left to professional scholars. WP then reports on their work (secondary sources).

So, while I have no problem moving the tag up or down, do not remove it! Instead come up with some secondary sources for this article.--Niohe 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Yuan Surname Study Website states that Zuo Zhan indicates this claim. Under 陽夏世系:

袁濤涂故去后被賜謚號宣，所以人們又稱之為袁宣仲。后裔世居陽夏（今河南商水西南），濤涂生子選，選生聲子突，突生惠子雅，雅生頗。《左傳》稱之為轅頗。

The editors may have translated this information from the Chinese article. Is this the correct/appropriate source? ian-Kiu-Biu 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I will take a look at it. By the way, I just want to make clear that my insertion of the tag is not based on the quoting of Zuozhuan alone. The article also quotes a number of primary sources such as Shi ji, Ouyang Xiu, Hou Han shu, Sanguo zhi, Jin shu and Qian fu lun. I hope we can clear this up.--Niohe 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note: a source is a primary source only for an article about itself (e.g., a person giving information about herself/himself, taking information about a book from the book itself). This is not a case of primary sources unless this article is about the sources itself. Please see WP:NOR -- Black Falcon 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. This article is advancing claims about the origins of the Yuan surname based on the use of Chinese sources that a several hundred years old. That is original research, unless you can quote a recent, reliable secondary source to support the claim.--Niohe 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference to ancient history records should not be a problem, and should not be your focus. Your focus is on crediblity of the "origins" section due to its lack of secondary sources, so stay with it. The rest of the article is well-referenced with secondary sources, please do not ignore them. Your comments are giving strong false impressions.

Again, I don't think original research is the correct term to use here. Definition of OR: "is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research.". Now please QUOTE a section that violates the definition, which I have asked you to do and your seemingly ignoring.

AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The mere assertion of original research here seems to be that the sources are really old. As stated by WP:NOR, ...For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source... Failing this, a statement might be considered original research. Now - exactly what parts of the article don't you (Niohe) think agree with the primary source? I don't recall you've mentioned any at all. Just the fact that the sources are old does not make it original research. This is what I've kept repeating - original research means original work that WP editor has came up with. In the case of primary sources, this would occur if what is written on WP does not concur with the primary sources. So what exactly do you think is original research? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article, which is very interesting in itself, basically reads like a research paper into the origins of the surname Yuan and it draws on several traditional sources. I doubt that I can find this information anywhere else in English or even Chinese, and that is what makes it an interesting paper at the same time as it makes it a dubious encyclopedia article.

For example. When the person who wrote this article quotes an ancient source such as the Hou Han shu and say that the heartland of the house of Yuan was in the state of Chen, he or she is basically making an implicit argument about the origins of this surname. However, an educated reader may ask him or herself what other sources we have for this period. Do they conflict with the Hou Han Shu or not? What is the bias of this claim? We can't use texts like these as simply factual sources. This is where we need the work of a historian, who could place this text in a historical context and tell us how it relates to other source material from this period.

This is just an example of what I mean, I don't want this discussion to deteriorate into a discussion on the origins of the Hou Han Shu.

Is this important? I think so. Last fall, a number of editors were engaged in an edit war with a stubborn editor who claimed that the Jin dynasty was essentially Korean because the dynasty shared the character with the Korean surname Kim. This editor quoted a number of ancient sources, but none of us could find his claims supported by any credible secondary source, so we decided to strike out these references. I see the same problem with this article.--Niohe 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The example you raised about the house of Yuan being in the state of Chen would only be original research if what is stated in this article is not supported by what was written in Hou Han Shu. Does it do that? If it does not, then it is not original research. Like I quoted in my earlier comment from WP:NOR - ...For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.. If Hou Han Shu supports that claim, then it's not original research. Your only concern seems to be that the sources are old, not that editors have inserted their own original work into the article. While that is a perfectly valid concern, it is not a problem of original research.

And I am actually familiar with the Korean claim about the Jin dynasty, elsewhere online, not here on WP. The problem with that claim was that it was completely unverifiable, so it would violate WP:VERIFY, and the claim also made logical leaps and conclusions from what the sources actually say. Are there any specific parts of the article that's making logical leaps and conclusions based on what was written in the sources? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Niohe. Niohe, you wrote "This article is advancing claims about the origins of the Yuan surname based on the use of Chinese sources that a several hundred years old. That is original research, unless you can quote a recent, reliable secondary source to support the claim." Is this article giving a unique interpretation of the Chinese source or is it simply repeating a claim/statement made by the source? If it's the latter, then this is not original research. Also, please stop switching back and forth between claims "original research" and "primary sources". A book is a primary source only for an article about itself. It can be original research when used for other articles only if WP editors uniquely interpret it. As long as what is stated in the book is only being repeated, it does not matter if the book is 2 days old or 2,000 years old. Ideally, everything would be from new, well-researched, reliable, and English-language sources. However, when those do not exist, the use of older and non-English sources is neither forbidden nor discouraged. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - What troubles me in your responses is that you somehow seem to assume that the meaning of texts that are several hundred years is somehow self-evident and do not require specialist knowledge. For instance, Chinese scholars have been debating the "true" meaning of Zuozhuan for centuries. There were the Old Text school, New School, the Evidentiary school, etc. The flamboyant reformer Kang Youwei even came out to denounce the Zuozhuan as a Han dynasty forgery. Now, is the author of this article privy to some special knowledge about Confucian texts, dynastic histories and ancient genealogies that enables him to "know" the true meaning of these texts without recourse of secondary sources?--Niohe 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, there aren't any official WP policies or guidelines that state that any time Chinese classics are used directly as sources, it is considered original research. Now, in all good faith, I ask you, what parts of the article is actually not supported by the Chinese classics that are used as sources? If there really aren't any, then it's not original research. The use of primary sources is only considered original research if the average user cannot verify what is said on the article with the sources used. But if you see any specific parts that the sources do not support, please point them, because I'm sure there are editors that would love to improve on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Nah, I wouldn't ban ancient Chinese texts from Wikipedia, but I would ask everybody to be more discerning. I would like someone, perferably the author himself Yu Ninjie, to insert references to reasonably recent secondary literature at most places where traditional sources are used. I have already mentioned Shi ji, Ouyang Xiu, Hou Han shu, Sanguo zhi, Jin shu and Qian fu lun. If you want more, I can get back to you when I have more time.--Niohe 23:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Secondary sources would be great, but it still hasn't been substantiated how the use of Chinese classics here is an instance of original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe one of the external link now provides references with traditional sources used. ian-Kiu-Biu 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I am late to this long debate. I am the one who wrote basically the entire article in late 2005, and have been updating it since. I can understand Niohe's anxiety about some of the sources used, so let me explain the use of references.

When writing, I sought to include only factual references. Just as AQu01rius points out, the fact that men named Yuan Qiao and Yuan Po existed in the ancient state of Chen is uncontroversial. I'm not saying that they were brave in battle or wise in government, but merely using their mention in the Zuo zhuan to demonstrate the existence of the surname in that early period. This is in fact confirmed by other sources, like the Xin Tang shu.

I want to stress that the mere use of pre-Qin or dynastic sources doesn't mean that there is an act of interpretation or evaluation. Having a recent article mention what is in these sources, which seems to be what Niohe requires, doesn't make them any more or less true. What Niohe seems to be arguing against is not really based on the original research rule of Wikipedia, but is actually a criticism of the work of historians in general. The question "What is the bias of this claim?" is actually a question which can be applied to all historians who have ever lived.

The rule against original research is to stop crazy editors from doing their own whimsical "research" and claiming them as facts. The linking of Kim to the Jin Dynasty is a case in point. This is clearly not what is occuring here. If you can find a statement in the article so ludicrous as the Kim-Jin debate, then please let me know, and I will happily remove it. I'm confident that all the facts used are verifiable. On the origins of the surname, the article merely states what the texts state, without claiming them as either true or false.

As far as I know, this article is the only one in English to have tied together a number of disparate sources to form a single narrative of a Chinese surname. It would be a shame to question it just because it uses older sources, since specific modern studies are understandably lacking. The original research tag should be removed. Yeu Ninje 09:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank for stopping by and leaving your comments, I was waiting for you. First of all, I want to make clear that you have done an admirable job putting this article together. The reason why I inserted the tag is that I want to clarification as to what original research actually means and I am still waiting for an experienced editor or administrator to weigh in before we remove the tag. Let me stress I am not against historical research - quite on the contrary - but in an encyclopedia we should stick to what the most credible research has established in a particular field and summarize it.

I may have a stricter interpretation that you do, but I think quoting ancient sources and piecing them together to construct a genealogy of the Yuan surname in a single narrative is original research - especially if this is the only article of its kinds. What you have done is that you have created new knowledge and that qualifies as research. You think that you have only pieced together simple facts about the Yuan surname, but you are actually creating a coherent story here that may or may not be contested by specialists in Chinese genealogy. How would we deal with such a situation? How would other editors without knowledge in classical Chinese be able to evaluate the merits in the case? I am not saying that we should never quote Chinese sources, but if we write articles that are almost impossible to evaluate we are undermining this entire project.--Niohe 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To Yeu Ninje: Hi again. I hope you don't take offense, but to me it seems that you have posted your research on your own family history here. I'm not sure if this necessarily disqualifies you from writing an article on the Yuan surname (I hope not), but parts of this article look like a field-report where you use unpublished genealogies from Fenghua, for instance. I think this would make a great web page, which could be linked to as an external link, but I'm not sure if this kind of original research should be included. I will ask for an outside opinion on this.

To HongQiGong: Could you please not delete the tag just yet? I want to get an opinion on this first.--Niohe 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Niohe, you've gotten plenty of opinions on this, and you've still failed to provide us with specific instances of original research. And in all good faith, I actually was hoping that you can point out some specific instances so we can improve on the article. But you still have not done this, after repeated requests. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are still refusing to quote a specific section which you think is inappropriate, and how. I am not sure if your saying that using ancient sources to write any sort of claim is wrong - even if it's merely descriptive (which is acceptable AND strongly encouraged according to WP:NOR). I don't know if you are familiar with Greek-Roman history FA articles, but many of them contains reasonable amount of "original research" according to your policy (such as Roman-Spartan War, which many part of the sentences in the article cited the ancient sources of Polybius and Livy only). Again, your concern seems to be the lacking of supporting secondary sources, which is a perfectly fine concern. Let's look at the sentence that cited Zuo Zhuan, which you are seemingly having trouble with:

"Descendants of Yuan Taotu are mentioned by name in the Zuo Zhuan as holding high office in the state of Chen"

Most Chinese encyclopedias have verified the origin of the surname, stating Yuan Taotu as the common ancestor. For example, the 1978 update of Dictionary Encyclopedia (辭源, published by The Commercial Press (台灣商務印書館) ) verifies the origins of the surname in the Yuan entry (page 1902), as it says that the Yuans are:

"(陳)胡公滿裔孫袁濤塗後。以祖字為氏。"

Which directly translates to "The descendent's of Yuan Taotu, who is the descendant grand son of Duke Hu (of Chen) Man (滿, the founder of the Chen State, which located in the present day Shandong). The descendent's used their ancestor (Yuan Taotu)'s name as their surname."

Now, let's look at the Yuan descendants that are mentioned in reference 4, and look up their names in Zuo Zhuan: 襄公三年: 陳公使袁僑 (Diplomat Yuan Qiao of Chen), 哀公十一年: 轅頗為司徒 (Yuan Po as Situ)

By the way, reference 5 (which you ignored) is a article published just couple years ago by a verified historian, and mentions: "袁涛涂，其子袁选，其孙袁颇、袁侨均为陈国上卿", which directly translates to "Yuan Taotu's son Yuan Xuan, grand sons Yuan Po and Yuan Qiao were all high officials in the State of Chen. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a genealogy. There certainly is genealogical information, but the purpose of the article is to discuss the history of the surname by use of verifiable sources, rather than creating a family tree or anything of that sort. What genealogical information there is on the Ru'nan Yuan and Chen Yuan is uncontroversial. I don't know of any historians, for example, who would challenge the fact that Yuan Shao was the great-grandson of Yuan An.

Again, it seems to me that your main problem is with the sources used, calling them "almost impossible to evaluate". There may be editors who have no knowledge of classical Chinese who might not be able to evaluate the sources, but then again there are also many editors who have mastery of classical Chinese who can evaluate the sources. Should we remove all sources in another language just because some editors can't read or evaluate them?

I am not creating new knowledge. The facts in the Zuo zhuan and Hou Han shu have been around for millenia, and repeated in modern sources, as AQu01rius as pointed out. There are plenty of modern sources out there which state the same facts, but it makes far more sense to quote the original source. Take for instance the the fact that Yuan Taotu was a descendant of Duke Man. The earliest source which can be found for this is probably the Xin Tang shu, although there are hints at this in the Hou Han shu and Sanguo zhi. I can find a dozen modern sources which state the same fact, but they would have gotten their information from the historical sources too. The historical sources are the root of our knowledge on surnames, which is why it makes sense to quote from them.

You accuse me of posting research on my own family history on this page. If you read the article carefully, you will find that there is one sentence on the Yuan clan of Fenghua (along with others from Zhejiang), and one image of a genealogy from Fenghua. I don't think that this constitutes a "field report". Moreover, the genealogies of the clans of Xinchang, Fenghua, and Yinxian are by no means unpublished. They are all public domain documents held in public repositories in Shanghai and provincial cities. Nor do I mention the Yuan clans of Zhejiang exclusively. There are also references to the Yuan clans of Guangdong, and many others all around China.

As Hong Qi Gong has said, please cite particular instances of original research, so we can discuss them and make changes where appropriate. Otherwise, the original research tag should be taken down. Yeu Ninje 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To HongQiHong: I actually have said where I think this article is based on primary research, I have mentioned the dynastic histories, Confucian classics and genealogies. I still think this may count as original research, you don't. Let's leave it at that and hope that an editor who is not committed to either of our viewpoints weigh in.

To AQu01rius: You seem to think that I am applying a double-standard when I evaluate articles, but there is an important difference. You may not have noticed that the Latin and Greek primary sources quoted in the article are English translations. That means that the interpretive work on the primary sources can be attributed to the translator. Please cite me a single article that is based on untranslated material in Latin or Greek, and then we have a comparable case. This is exactly the problem: the meaning of texts that are several thousand years old is not self-evident.

Now, as long as we do not have English translations of these texts, we either have to rely on authoritative translations into modern Chinese or secondary sources in a modern language. Thanks for bringing up the sources, why don't you try to intregrate them into the reference matter?

To Yeu Ninje: It was not my intention to accuse you of anything, so I am sorry of you took offense. I do, however, have to say that extremely rare books such as clan genealogies are problematic sources for Wikipedia. I imagine that if someone quoting a rare medieval book as a source on Wikipedia, s/he might encounter objections on grounds of orginal research as well.

I have to run, I'll be back soon. Hope the above clarified my points.--Niohe 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Niohe, genealogies are mentioned in the article simply to confirm their existence and to indicate their geographic spread. Two genealogies are mentioned specifically to illustrate the clan practice of tracing ancestors in the remote past, without reference to the authenticity of such claism. I can see that such sources may be problematic if we were trying to prove, say, that Yuan Chonghuan was descended from Yuan An. In this case, however, all the article is saying is that the clan of Yuan Chonghuan claims descent from Yuan An. This is a factual statement.

You also make a point about translations. It would be helpful if you could cite specific cases where the texts may be controversial, because I can assure you that they are not. I'm not sure why you say that the meaning of old texts is not self-evident. I can see that if you were reading, for example, the Analects certain phrases may be subject to interpretation based on historical context. I think the references used in the article, on the other hand, all have quite obvious meanings. For example, there is this phrase from the Xin Tang shu: 莊伯生諸，字伯爰，孫宣仲濤塗，賜邑陽夏，以王父字為氏 (at 3168 of the Zhonghua shuju edition). It establishes that there was an individual named Taotu, who was granted a feoff at a place called Yangxia, and that he took part of his grandfather's style name of Boyuan as his surname (Yuan). I think for someone who understands classical Chinese, this meaning is quite obvious and non-controversial. I'm not sure how familiar you are with classical Chinese, but I think if you bring in someone who is familiar with these sources, they will agree with me.

If you are unhappy with the way your concerns have been addressed on this talk page, then maybe you should raise it with a bigger audience, rather than leaving the original research tag up there indefinitely. Yeu Ninje 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) To add my opinion, I don't personally see this as original research or misuse of sources. All that the article is saying is "There were guys with this surname in these traditional sources, so clearly the name existed as a surname back then." It is not a matter of interpreting the sources, it is a matter of looking at them and saying "Hey, there is a guy with the last name of Yuan in this document, so it must have been a last name by then!" The traditional documents act as benchmarks for when the name came into use. In places where they construct even the semblance of a genealogy, the article makes it clear that the genealogy is derived from traditional stories. You might be able to find modern sources pinpointing the date more fully, but as it stands now, it is not original research.--Danaman5 00:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I must repeat this - but please read WP:NOR. It specifically says that primary sources only constitute as original research if there are statements in the article that cannot be confirmed by the primary sources. In otherwords, once again, it is only original research if it's something that an editor has came up with himself, or even if it's something that's unverifiable. You have not pointed out anything that is not supported by sources. I'll be removing the OR tag now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Protest - As a party to this dispute, I'm not restoring the tag. But what credibility do you have to close the discussion, HongQiGong? When I first added the tag, my failure to spell out my concerns within seven (7) minutes prompted you to delete the tag. After I restored the tag and gave my preliminary thoughts, it took you five (5) minutes to decide that my claims were without merit and you deleted the tag again. After I had tried to restore it a couple of times, you gave me 3RR warning. Only after I managed to involve an administrator did you stop deleting the tag. Now the finger is back on the trigger.

Is this what you call a discussion? I'm not glued to the computer and I don't have time to respond to three or four editors at the same time as I run back and forth to the library, checking the sources. I prefer a slower pace and I have invited other editors to join the discussion, I'm still waiting. This is ridiculous.--Niohe 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Protest noted - You have not once substantiated why there may be original research in the article. That is why I've removed the tag initially. User:Khoikhoi then informed me that I should let a tag stay for at least 24 hours. Now after two days worth of discussion, you still have not substantiated where there is original research. That's why I've removed the tag a few hours ago. You have misinterpreted what original research is. And I've asked you repeatedly in good faith, exactly where you see the original research, exactly what part of the article is not supported by the sources. All you've said was that the sources are old - but using old sources is not original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you know what policy is and nobody else. That's why you can tell what is an illegitate claim before someone has a chance to state it. I said it before and I am saying it again: quoting ancient sources and piecing them together to construct a genealogy of the Yuan surname in a single narrative is original research - especially if this is the only article of its kind.--Niohe 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Have you not noticed that you are the only one involved in the discussion that thinks there is original research? It would seem like you are the one that "know what policy is and nobody else". Quoting ancient sources to write an article about the Yuan surname is not original research. And this is not a genealogy. Again, please read WP:NOR concerning primary sources. Using primary sources is only original research if the content of the article is not supported by the primary sources. You have not been able to come up with any specific instances of statements that are not supported by the sources, despite everybody else's good faith request that you show us some to justify your OR tagging. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not intergrate the sources in because you are refusing to ACTUALLY quote a specific section of statements which you think is inappropriate, which I am unsure of where exactly your concern is. In many places, you have made a generalization claim on "this article is seemingly based on original research".

Now you have clarified that it would be a better idea to cite Vernacular Chinese translations. That's fine (although it's not a necessary case here, because the classic text references used here are fairly straight forward if you have a standard knowledge of Chinese). However, if you have read the references carefully, the Zuo Zhuan which reference 4 cited is a annotated, edited version of Zuo Zhuan published by a famous Chinese historian named Yang Bojun in 1981 (verified and annotated in Vernacular Chinese, of course), and is used as the standard version in many Chinese universities. If that doesn't satisfy your requirement, we would be happy to cite a Vernacular Chinese version for that reference. If you have no other valid concerns, the OR tag really have no other reason to stay (We already had third parties outside of Chinese editors, unless your definition of third party is someone that agrees with you). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A clear distinction between primary sources and secondary sources does not exist. If you use the Zuo Zhuan to discuss events that far preceded the Zuo Zhuan, then the Zuo Zhuan can be interpreted as a secondary source. If you use the Zuo Zhuan to discuss the Zuo Zhuan itself or events contemporaneous with it, then it serves as a primary source. As with any source subject to controversy, it should be noted in the text itself. If you want to study what happened in the state of Lu during the Spring and Autumn period, then the Zuo Zhuan is the best you've got. The court records and oral traditions were the primary source material; whoever compiled the Zuo Zhuan already did the original research. If you want to study how Confucius purposely altered historical records for didactic purpose, then the text contained in the Zuo Zhuan, when compared to other records serves as a primary source. Your research is on the Zuo Zhuan itself. The same goes for the Shiji: Sima Qian has been called a historian; he spent his life doing historical research. If your question is about events prior to his own time, then Shiji is a secondary source. If your question is about Chinese historiography on the Shiji or the person Sima Qian, then Shiji is a primary source. Age of the material used only matters in relation to the actual events being discussed. Being old does not make something a primary source.

All historical research consists of fitting bits and pieces of material into one coherent piece. In many ways, writing a encyclopedia article is no different from regular historical research. What you gain from secondary source material (the work of historians) is not only coherence and concision, but interpretation. What we need to avoid in Wikipedia is interpretation of fact, not statement of fact itself. Or else every article constitutes original research.

I really don't see a problem with the sources as they are used in this article.--Jiang 10:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Even regardless of whether or not the sources used are primary sources, statements in the article are only original research if they are not supported or can't be verified by the sources that are used. We've spent almost all of this Talk page discussion the issue, and User:Niohe still has yet to provide any particular instances, per good faith requests by other editors, where a part of the article is not supported by the sources, and he remains the only person that thinks an OR tag is necessary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Jiang. Just to clarify, never meant that Zuozhuan should be considered a primary sources just because of its age and I more or less agree with your distinction between primary and secondary sources. But I think we disagree on whether the use of sources here is problematic or not. If you want to patch together a narrative on a distinct event like a battle or a biography of a distinct person, and all you have is Shiji - then I guess you have no other choice than to use that source and just state facts "as they are". But in this article, the author has used a wide range of very different sources spanning over 2500 years. I do not think we are dealing with just stating facts here, it is original research and I am not sure Wikipedia should be the first to publish these kind of findings. I think this is a matter of how we interpret the policy.

I guess my gripe is about surname articles in general. I am not sure about this drive to create articles and lists surnames in China-related articles is the right way to go. Anyway, I first stumbled on this article when I read an exchange between two editors on the pros and cons on having a list on Chinese surnames. I was hoping that other editors would stop by and weigh in but that has not happened within the strict 48-hour timeframe we are working under.--Niohe 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of us already realised that you have a problem with articles about Chinese surnames in general. Which really makes your addition of the OR tag border on a bad faith edit. Also, as I was told, we should not be removing dispute tags within 24 hours. So the time frame here really was 1 day. We then had almost 2 days worth of discussion and you still could not justify where there was OR in the article. And really, in all good faith, if you see something that is not supported by the sources used, please point it out. But there is no policy against writing an article about a certain subject and using sources that are not centered around said subject itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of questions

So, gentlemen, I took some time off to browse Academia Sinica's on-line database of Chinese classics, it was very interesting. It was very difficult to find basis for some of the factual as well as the interpretive claims that this article base on the classics. So here are some questions:

Where does the Zuozhuan say that:

1. Yuan Taotu was the first to bear the surname Yuan?
2. That he created the name out of his grandfather’s styled name, Boyuan? (I could not find a single hit for this name anywhere in the 13 Classics.)
3. That his estate is regarded as the ancestral home the earliest Yuan clan?
4. That he could claim ancestry with Emperor Shun?

Are these claims based on the text itself, on commentaries, or other literature? If these claims are based on the Zuozhuan, give me a reference to the text, which juan and which year. If these claims are based on commentaries, please refer us to who first made the claim.

Further, where does Sima Qian corroborate the claims that:

1. Prior to 221 BC, most people with the surname were concentrated in the state of Chen?
2. That the process of emigration from the Yangxia heartland accelerated considerably after reunification?

I also have a more general question:

1. What are the claims about the spread of the Yuan name from the 12h through the 15th centuries based on?

I can probably come up with a number of further questions, but I wanted to begin with these. My questions are based on a quick browse of the concerned texts and I may have used the wrong search terms, so I may very well have gotten it wrong. But if no one can come up with any credible evidence, I presume I can delete the above claims from the article within say 48 hours - if we are to stick to the time limits for responses that have been established on this talk page. Only kidding.--Niohe 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It would have been so so much easier to discuss if you had found these first, and then inserted the OR tag, instead of you putting the OR tag in there first, and then complaining that other editors do not agree with you. Now we can really work on improving the article and addressing your concerns. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I prefer to go from the general to the specific and I didn't realize that you were so eager to delete the tag. I think we can all learn from this. I will give you more time to come up with something here, but if I don't see any development within a couple of days or so, I will consider filing a request for deletion or a move to Wiktionary.--Niohe 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... Original research is not criteria for deletion. It's criteria for article improvement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, original research may be grounds for deletion, but we are not there yet.--Niohe 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would apply to the entire article. Are you trying to claim that the entire article is original research now? If your end-goal is article deletion to begin with, and not article improvement, then please just tell us now. Otherwise, the quickest solution to the issues you've raised is simply deleting or editing the specific claims, and not article deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not there yet, I was just responding to you saying OR is not a criteria for deletion.--Niohe 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed your questions by adding references where necessary. Most of the traditional account of the origin of the surname is contained in a specific chapter of the Xin Tang shu. The account of the spread of the surname comes predominantly from Yuan Yida and Zhang Cheng's Zhongguo xing shi. Further, I've edited some of the sentences slightly.

As I see it, your questions focus on the lack of referencing, and not the original research issue, which is why I've removed the OR tag. Should you find any other statements unreferenced, please let me know. Yeu Ninje 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yue Ninje, it may be helpful if you specify what chapters of the classics the sources are found. Many of them could actually be found online, and there are different publications of them. They won't correspond to the page numbers you've given. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point, Qigong. The relevant chapter in the Xin Tang shu is 卷七十四下 表第十四下 宰相世系四下. Yeu Ninje 07:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turn-around, Yeu Ninje. But I don't understand why all this aggressive removal of OR tags, AQu01rius. First, the tag get removed because you say that I don't give any examples, then when I give you a couple of examples, you change the topic into one of verification and accuse me of abusing tags. The tag should be put back up and not removed within 24 hours, period. All this ad hominem is getting a bit tiresome, neither of us own these pages and you have to tolerate that skeptics come in and ask questions.

OK, I will take a closer look at this when I have time. Just couple of reflections. Zhongguo xingshi sounds like a credible source and I will take a look at the book myself soon. I see no reason to question this for the time being. As for Xin Tangshu, I am more hesitant. It was written some 1600 years after the death of Yuan Taotu. Possibly, he was relating a foundational legend about the origin of the surname, but I find it unlikely that he was privy to any special sources. I also find no evidence in the sources for the claim that the surname spread through emigration - that is not a statement of fact, but an interpretation of the material. I think the whole section on the origins of the surname should be shortened and renamed something like "Foundational myths".--Niohe 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some observations on Zhongguo xingshi

I just got my hands on Zhongguo xingshi and it looks like an interesting, but problematic source.

First, I make the seemingly trivial observation that one of the authors has the surname Yuan and hails from Fenghua. Is this a pure coincidence, Yeu Ninjie? I am asking because if you have given prominence to a publication of people you know or are related to, there may be a conflict of interest. Just asking.

Second, I notice that none of the two authors are historians, but geneticists and who seem to make a sociobiological interpretation of Chinese history. While I am not comptenent to comment on their numerical analysis of Chinese surname data, I note that there are no notes or footnotes at all in the four pages that cover the surname Yuan. It is very hard to know, for instance, how they came up with a figure that 0.33 per cent of China had the surname Yuan during the Song dynasty (p. 196). It seems that they are using mathematical and statistical models to extrapolate data backwards, but where they got their data from is unclear and there are no data sets other than the results. Is there any scholarly consensus on the validity of these models and their findings? Furthermore, when looking at the bibliography, I also notice that they make absolutely no reference to many important works on historical demography.

These are my impressions based on a quick read and I may be wrong. Please let me know what you think.--Niohe 23:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If properly sourced and referenced, I fail to see this as a problem. Readers are free to decide what they think of the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

...and I am free to remove references to this book and the material it is supposed to support.--Niohe 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

...and I am free to revert that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

...and then we'll have a revert war. Not fun. Could you explain why you think this book is OK? I see several red flags in this book and I'm reluctant to give it publicity before we see any scholarly consensus emerging.--Niohe 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is published by East China Normal University. To me that's already credible enough. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're basically saying it is credible because it is credible. Look, I have no problem with their data on distribution on surnames in China, which is well documented in the book and seems to be its major contribution. But see a big problem with an author who says that he is able to tell how many people had a certain surname during the Song or Yuan dynasty just on the basis of a mathematical extrapolation. We just don't have the data to be able to say that.--Niohe 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're really approaching a straw-man argument here. I'm saying it's credible because it's published by a major university in China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't comment on the substance in my post. It's fine, I will edit and delete as I see fit, and you can catch up. But please don't defend a source you haven't even bothered to look at by referring to the publisher. That won't take you anywhere.--Niohe 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The source is published by a major university in China, written by a couple of PhDs. Your argument against the credibility of the source is... well, your own personal opinion, not supported by any sources. This is a no-brainer. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

...and that is your personal opinion - based on not having looked at the book and an appeal to authority. Very credible indeed. Next time, you are going to ask me for proof that they are wrong. I wonder if what other cards you have in your sleeve? Just pick and choose!--Niohe 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. Yuan Yida is a researcher at the Institute of Genetic and Developmental Biology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chinese surnames is his area of study. Articles about his research has been on major news sources like XinHua, Yahoo, Sina, etc. Do you have any sources that specifically question the credibility of his work? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Let's see"...after a quick check on the Chinese Internet, it seems to me that his research has stirred up some controversy in China. I don't have time to through all the search hits, but his rankings have been questioned and he has also been accused of "messing up history". Is that enough, or do you want more?--Niohe 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have been late to this discussion - I've been preoccupied with work. As far as I know, Yuan Yida is a distant relative of mine, but I don't think that's relevant to this discussion. He is recognised as the foremost authority on Chinese surnames in the world. That is no exaggeration. As Hong Qi Gong has mentioned, he has been widely quoted by both Chinese and non-Chinese media sources, and has had academic experience in both Chinese and Western universities (including a period at Stanford). I certainly haven't given undue prominence to him. Like you, Niohe, I'm not sure where the authors of Zhongguo xingshi sourced their data from. I assume it's an estimate of some sort. It's not uncommon for Chinese academics writing a book for the general readership not to reference their sources. Like Hong Qi Gong, I assume the information in this book is accurate because it is written by two respected researchers, and because it is published by a major academic institution. I don't think it's our role to question the reliability of this type of source within the article because that would truly be a case of original research. As long as information comes from generally credible sources, it is not our role to make such judgments as to their accuracy. Let the readers themselves read the book and judge for themselves. Yeu Ninje 09:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by again. Foremost authority on surnames in the world? I beg to differ. I am aware of the fact that Yuan Yida has been to Stanford - but he doesn't have a degree from Stanford and he is not even a professor. Interestingly, he doesn't even quote this coauthored paper from Stanford correctly in the book, instead he cites the authors as "Yuan Yida, et al". That is quite interesting given the fact that he gives multiple authors for other people's work.

A PhD in genetics doesn't make you qualified to make broad brush judgements on Chinese history. When I browsed through the book, I found that the authors talk about historical myths as if they were real - that is a big red flag if you know anything about Chinese history. Thus far, I haven't been able to locate a single authoritative historian in China or abroad that quotes this guy.

I don't think we should spend too much time on this guy or present a critique of him in this article or in the article on him that you wrote. But I think we should exercise editorial discrtion and not quote him as a reliable source on Chinese history.--Niohe 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think this whole discussion is quite pointless unless there are some sources that specifically contradicts the information from Yuan Yida's book that this article cites. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are reversing the burden of proof here. Why do you keep doing that? WP:Attribution states: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.(My emphasis) If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Furthermore, there are guidelines for the notability of academics and for scientific findings. There are also guidelines on fringe theories, for your reference. You go and read them! I don't think that Yuan's theories on Chinese history live up to that or that he as an academic even merits a Wikipedia biography. I have searched several academic databases, and as far as I can see, he has no peer-reviewed articles on Chinese history or historical anthropology whatsoever. I have found very few citations of his research, apart from journalistic sources like the ones that have been bandied about here.--Niohe 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what Wikipedia:Attribution is talking about? Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. - the attribution here is Yuan Yida and his book. Read the second very line of Wikipedia:Attribution - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. - Yuan Yida's book is a reliable published source. As I've said, it's published by a major university in China, written by somebody who specialises in the field of Chinese surnames. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. - evidence is provided, the evidence is Yuan Yida's book. If you have a problem with this source, let's see some credible sources that question Yuan Yida's research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, it is quite difficult to have a serious discussion if you only respond to part of what I said. I am a challenging the reliability of this book as a source on Chinese history, since the authors of the book are not qualified in the field of history. They are researchers in genetics and it appears that they do not even have PhDs as you claimed. Publication at university press is not a criteria for inclusion in and by itself. Was the book peer reviewed, for instance? Has the book been quoted by historians? You have to come up with something better than this and please stop shifting the burden of proof.--Niohe 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I think you said that the book was written by PhDs. What is your evidence for that?

Niohe, can you please not distort what I'm saying? I said Yuan Yida is the foremost authority on Chinese surnames, not the foremost authority on surnames in the world. If you don't agree, I challenge you to present to me someone who is more recognised for their work on Chinese surnames. I'm sick of you making these swepping allegations without any proof. First of all, you said that this article was original research. Then you alleged that the article was a field report by me. You have given up these successive lines of argument and moved on to other claims which are equally unsupported. Whereas you found fault with historical sources in the past, now you don't like a modern source which has been given, to the point of suggesting that I may have some relationship with Yuan Yida which makes me biased. It seems to me that your problem is not with some aspect of the article, but with the article in general, since you seem so intent on finding fault with it. Yeu Ninje 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't given up my claim that the article is based on primary sources, but none of you have responded to my most recent post, so thought that you had given up.--Niohe 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Yuan Yida is a quoted expert in the field of Chinese surnames, and that his book that is used as a source was published by a major Chinese university, is enough to establish that this is a credible source. These are facts, not my own opinion. It hardly matters that Yuan Yida was not academically trained as a historian - he's been recognised as an expert on Chinese surnames by major media. How difficult is this simple concept to understand? We're not talking about using as a source the blog of some 16-year old. There is no WP policy that states that sources used for articles about Chinese surnames must come from people that are academically trained historians. There is no WP policy that states that sources used for articles about Chinese surnames must not be based on published and recognised research on genetics. Can you challenge this source based on anything other than your own personal opinion or mis-application of various WP policies? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. If you want to disagree with me, make sure that you know what we are disagreeing about. I have never challenged Yuan Yida's competence as a geneticist or said that articles on surnames should only be based on sources from academically trained historians.

My challenge is specifically directed towards Yuan Yida's extraordinary (and essentially unsourced) claims about the history of Chinese surnames, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I have already voiced my reservations about Yuan Yida's methods and it is not my job to refute him. It is up to you or anyone else who want to use Yuan as a source on Chinese history to find a couple of credible academic sources that specifically endorse his findings, then we have someting that looks like a scholarly consensus. I would advice you to find a couple of book reviews or citations. Not just one, but a couple. Random quotes from the press won't do, I'm afraid.--Niohe 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Still no response? Anyway, I was going through some databases and I found extremely little on Yuan Yida's research. That is an interesting fact by itself. I did find a reference to Yuan in Frank Dikötter's article "Racial Discourse in China" in The Construction of Racial Identities in China and Japan: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (1998). On page 30, note 55, in this article, Yuan Yida's studies on genetics and surnames are cited as an example of how racialized Han Chinese identity has become in PRC scholarship. Hardly an approving citation, to say the least. This is the only reference from a prominent historian that I have found on Yuan Yida. Now the ball is in your court.--Niohe 02:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, what's the point? You've been out to destroy the article from the beginning of your involvement. I can't make it more simpler how Yuan Yida and his work is credible for Chinese surnames. He's the head of a lab at a major Chinese university that studies this. The book that's used is published by a major Chinese university. It's been mentioned in a lot of media. If you still have a problem with that, take it up with dispute resolution. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, discussion is over. I will start editing the text now, please let me know if I am doing anything that is not in conformity with the sources quoted.--Niohe 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not verified tag

I noticed the not verified tag is still up on the Origins of the surname section. Niohe, will you please state what statements in that section are not verified? Surely you've had enough time to do that, and to obtain a second opinion on the original research issue. Otherwise, please take the tag down. Yeu Ninje 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)