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)

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)