Talk:Liqian

What does "is a defunct county" mean?

What does "is a defunct county" mean?

Does the county no longer exist, literally as in it was sucked through a black hole, or was it annexed by a neighboring county, merged with another county, recategorized as a village or province or something?

Using "is a defunt county" as an explanation for "Liqian village" may assume a knowledge of Chinese methods of political subdivision and perhaps also, an understanding of the particular author's intent and base knowledge. But virtually any reader except the author does not have this understanding and therefore, the initial sentence of the entry fails.

I suspect some of the problem amounts to the use of the word "defunct" since it is not clear in what respect Liqian Village is defunct. If Liqian Village was a county, but has been annexed into a larger village, than that should probably be specifically said. The second sentence changes Liqian Village into a city, but also says it's in another village. Confusion ensues.

Does Liqian Village no longer exist in name, only? I don't know and that should not be the result of this entry since its purpose is to define Liqian Village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.87.180 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but here are my answers to your questions:

"What does "is a defunct county" mean?" It may be a technical term used in the literature somewhere, but I think what the term is getting at is that the county was in existence and then eliminated.

"Does the county no longer exist, literally as in it was sucked through a black hole, or was it annexed by a neighboring county, merged with another county, recategorized as a village or province or something?" According to Cihai edition 6, it changed names after the Northern Wei and then became part of Fanhe county during the Sui dynasty.

"Using "is a defunt county" as an explanation for "Liqian village" may assume a knowledge of Chinese methods of political subdivision and perhaps also, an understanding of the particular author's intent and base knowledge. But virtually any reader except the author does not have this understanding and therefore, the initial sentence of the entry fails." Agreed.

"I suspect some of the problem amounts to the use of the word "defunct" since it is not clear in what respect Liqian Village is defunct. If Liqian Village was a county, but has been annexed into a larger village, than that should probably be specifically said. The second sentence changes Liqian Village into a city, but also says it's in another village. Confusion ensues." Yes. I have tried to make this article about the historical concept of Liqian County and the modern theories about it. There is a village called Liqian in Jiaojiazhuang township of Yongchang County, but I have a source that says Zhelaizhai village and that village are the same village.

"Does Liqian Village no longer exist in name, only? I don't know and that should not be the result of this entry since its purpose is to define Liqian Village." Liqian village does exist, but I think it's the same thing as Zhelaizhai village. This article is now focused in on the ancient county, while the Zhelaizhai village article is about the modern geographical location. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

56% Caucasian??

Looking further, I think the 56% figure is probably sloppy journalism. That 56% figure matches one test, conducted in 2005, that found one villager was 56% caucasian... which seems too exact for coincidence. I now do not think that the article is referencing a new study. Someone with time may want to fix this...

See: http://english.eastday.com/e/101120/u1a5561020.html "Cai Junnian has yellow wavy hair, a hooked nose and green eyes. A DNA test in 2005 confirmed he is of 56 percent European origin. It made him famous almost overnight." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.74.165 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with your analysis, and I'll figure out a way to incorporate that news bit into the article, especially the part about Liqian being on the Silk Road, which provided lots of opportunity for "cross-cultural exchange". But to outright dismiss the Telegraph story would be inappropriate, as they are considered a reliable source. If you can find a better story than that one, it can be replaced, but until then, there's no reason to remove it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A DNA study has debunked the speculated Roman ancestry:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17579807

Can anyone add this in? Thanks.AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Yeah. Another point: China Daily isn't exactly considered a reliable source here if you read the discussions at RSN; it is considered one step away from being deprecated. So there's no way it ought to be considered reliable for genetics, yet it's actually being used here to imply something that it doesn't even say.

The comments about Tarim mummies also seem like original research to me, as there's nothing in these studies linking those mummies to abything about Liqian. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The dab page has been moved already, and will be linked with a hat note. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Liqian (village) → Liqian – Right now the page "Liqian" is a dab page with 2 people named Li Qian. However, while a place "Liqian" may be written as "Li Qian", nobody will write a Chinese person named "Li Qian" (surname = Li, given name = Qian) as "Liqian", so this is unnecessary disambiguation. Timmyshin (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Move the dab page to Li Qian, which is where it should be located, considering it can also be a variant improper pinyin spelling for this village. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dab page is now displaced, since the two people are only "Li Qian" -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Sovereign/^Sentinel 12:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liqian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120710120257/http://people.virginia.edu/~ewg4x/roman_li-chien.pdf to http://people.virginia.edu/~ewg4x/roman_li-chien.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)