17,394
edits
Changes
→using the talk page: new section
::::Yes, yes, yes. I have done. I am not arguing about Chiang, or Florence, or Dougal for that matter. I am taking issue with your assertion that historians always use the name contemporary with the period being treated, which is manifestly incorrect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, yes, yes. I have done. I am not arguing about Chiang, or Florence, or Dougal for that matter. I am taking issue with your assertion that historians always use the name contemporary with the period being treated, which is manifestly incorrect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::We are agreed. I do not argue that historians always use one form or the other. It depends on the audience. A historian writing in a scholarly journal can assume the readers are experts. Here we should assume our users are home school/high school or college students who do not know the Chinese language.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:37, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::We are agreed. I do not argue that historians always use one form or the other. It depends on the audience. A historian writing in a scholarly journal can assume the readers are experts. Here we should assume our users are home school/high school or college students who do not know the Chinese language.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:37, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
== using the talk page ==
Please take all major changes to the talk page first, and please provide full citations. The reverted text assumes China was so fragile and weak that a couple spies could destroy it. That is contradicted by the recent scholarly literature. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:39, 16 April 2009 (EDT)