User talk:Arilang1234/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Arilang1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Boxer Rebellion has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://chinarains.blogspot.com/2007/12/112007yuan-weishi-historical-perpective.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer Rebellion edits

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I believe that there are various issues with the new section you added to the Boxer Rebellion article. I have moved it to the talk page temporarily for discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyuan, etc.

Arilang1234; your edits on the Boxer Rebellion article aren't, I'm afraid, up to scratch. The sentence structure is poor, their are numerous misused words, your date format is not consistent with the rest of the article and much of the information is presented elsewhere are is not really needed within the article.

I refer particularly to Boxer_Rebellion Revision as of 07:20, 5 September 2008. I wrote a large chunk of the article on the Taiyuan Massacre, your copy in the Boxer Rebellion article contradicts some of the spellings used there, is not as clearly written IMO and is better placed outside of the main page on the Boxer Uprising. Perhaps you could post any further additions on your suer page and then ask for assistance on the Talk:Boxer Rebellion page? You also appear to have added a lot of info on the Dowager Empress, which duplicates what is in the article about her.

Lastly a factual point: it seems strange to focus on the BMS, especially concerning Taiyuan, as Taiyuan was not a major posting for the BMS prior to 1900 as far as I'm aware. The_Sheo_Yang_Mission (later absorbed into the BMS) and the CIM appeared to have been the main protestant groups in Taiyuan Fu at the time. If you have more info (I was aware of [1] but haven't yet included the details in the Taiyuan Massacre page - then please add it to the talk page and I'll try and incorporate it when the page gets converted from the simple quotes it holds now to being proper prose. Thanks. Pbhj (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent1

I understand the importance of eunuchs in Chinese politics but your section on the chief eunuch is not relevant in relation to the Boxer rebellion. In that section, you introduce the chief eunuch but he is not subsequently mentioned and is not seen to play a role in the event. Therefore I removed that section as being irrelevant.

Additionally, I suggest the section entitled 'Diane Preston' should also be removed. Diane Preston is simply an author and you're using her book as a source of reference. It would make better sense to move the information she's contributing into the main body of the article, e.g. into the section 'Results' and add her book as a reference.

Finally, please take note of the comments from Pbhj. I believe your additions are making the article less coherent than it was previously.

Transparent1 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sections

Hi Arilang,

Your contributions need to be added under a different approach. Currently, you are adding new sections prior to the main body of the article. For somebody reading the article for the very first time, it makes it very difficult to see what is going on. You need to analyse the information you have and see how it can fit into the existing text so that the article as a whole tells a connected story.

Thanks for moving the Diana Preston info into the 'Results' section. However, the style is still not quite right. Have a look at how I've now changed it. Basically, you shouldn't need to mention Diana Preston in the body of the text at all. Just put down the key information and add a reference using the <ref> tag. The reference will automatically appear in the footnotes below. See if you can do the same with the other new additions you've made, e.g. Yuan Weishi, Alessandra Stanley.

Transparent1 (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page

Hi Arilang1234,

Have a look at the discussion page for the Boxer Rebellion article. Click on the 'discussion' tab at the top of the article. Various users have commented on your contributions. Have a look at the comments. There is basically something very wrong with your additions which makes the article look terrible, so people are trying to restore it to a better state.

Read various sections from here before making any more changes so your style is consistent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

Transparent1 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arilang1234.

If you need help finding out how to edit Wikipedia, you can ask me on my talk page. On my talk page, click "new section" at the top to add a message. You can also get help at the help desk.

I see you're adding a lot of material to Boxer Rebellion. I guess you're doing a lot of work! But articles on Wikipedia are written by many editors, not by just one editor. On a different website you can write things and just put them up. On Wikipedia, you need to talk to other editors, and when many people agree that a new paragraph is good, then it can go in an article. At least, that's the way it usually works. On some articles where many people edit, it can take weeks of discussion to change a few words!

I'm sorry: I'm confused about the talk page of Talk:Boxer Rebellion. For some of the words, I'm not sure whether they're a comment by you, or part of what you want to put into the article.

Sometimes people add things directly into an article. But apparently many of your changes have been reverted. You need to take this as a sign that when you add something, there's a good chance that it doesn't have consensus: that others don't want it. So, I think it would be better to post your new material on the talk page first. You could, for example, write at Talk:Boxer Rebellion "(start of draft paragraph)", then put the material you want to add, then "(end of draft paragraph)", then write some comments that explain why you think it's a good idea to add that to the article. Then, people can help you fix the grammatical errors and punctuation errors and other problems. But please don't be surprised if people don't want to add your paragraphs. That happens a lot at Wikipedia: what one person wants to write in an article, others don't want. We have to discuss and compromise. Maybe instead of writing paragraphs, on the talk page you could say something like "I think the article should say more about ..." and talk to people about how to change the article.

You can ask me to fix errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. I like doing things like that. I don't promise to do it because I might be busy, but you can ask.

It's not easy to write in a way that meets the neutral point of view policy. That's one reason to discuss things on the talk page.

When you edit, please use the "preview" button more. Instead of making many edits to an article, one after another, please use "preview" instead of "save page" for a while, and click "save page" when you're finished. Or, you can write things in a file on your computer, and copy it into the article when you're finished. It's harder for people to read the article history if you have many edits. You can find the article history by clicking "history" at the top of the page when looking at the article. It shows all the edits everybody did. There, you can find edits you did and you can click on the date to find the article the way it looked when you edited it. So you should be able to find any material you wrote and edited in.

You might want to create a page in your userspace. You can make pages with names like User:Arilang1234/Sandbox (or change the last part of the name to what you want). You can edit a draft article in a page like that, and then ask other people to look at it.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! About creating a page or pages in your user space: please remember that all pages on Wikipedia, even in your user space, must be part of the work to make an encyclopedia. See for example my page User:Coppertwig/Sandbox. I have lists of things to do, and I have some sections which are articles I'm working on; some of them I've already turned into articles, for example I-message, but I wrote them there first. I have other pages in my userspace, too. You can write things in a page in your user space, and then later maybe put parts of it into an article or make it into a new article. You can get other people to help you edit it. If it's in your user space it isn't part of the encyclopedia yet. To create User:Arilang1234/Sandbox, just click on it right here in this sentence, and it will say that the page doesn't exist, but it will also give you a link called "create this page". Click there, and type in some stuff, and you create the page. See Help:Starting a page.

You can write some stuff in your user space and then ask me to look at it, or ask other users, or post a message on an article talk page asking people to look at it. Then we can help decide whether it's good to put that information in an article or not, and help fix mistakes in it.

I don't know much about the subject you're writing about. Maybe I can learn a little, and help you figure out how to write in a neutral-point-of-view way.

If the material isn't good for that article, it might be good in a different, related article, or a new article. It has to follow the policies, though (WP:V WP:NOR WP:NPOV etc.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You posted material to Wikipedia:Sandbox, which is one sandbox for everyone, but things will be reverted there very quickly. I moved it to User:Arilang1234/Sandbox, which is your own sandbox. I'll try to find time to look at it in a few hours. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources is it based on? (i.e. what books or what web pages etc. did you get the information from?) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right: you can't use Wikipedia articles as sources. You have to use books, magazines, newspapers, reliable websites, etc. Only good, reliable sources: not all books are good. See WP:RS. Where did you find the information? Did you get it from other Wikipedia pages, or from books or what? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Catholic encyclopedia is probably OK as a source; I'm not sure. The other source you're using, the review of books, I'm doubtful about: I think it's probably not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't know anything about it.

Every source has a point of view. The Catholic encyclopedia may have a Catholic point of view. That's OK, but to write a Wikipedia article we need more than one source, with more than one point of view. You can look for other sources, or you can work together with other editors who have other sources.

These parts of your writing look to me as if they're from a particular (Western) point of view: "great scholars" "the words of Christ" "modern weapons making" "two great cultures" "whose ancestors were primitive tribal nomads" "systematically killing", "in the end causing the downfall and collapse of their own empire" "when Britain was on its way to becoming the Empire that the Sun never set." (possibly OK as colourful language, but probably not NPOV enough) "the primitive Manchu Dynasty" Having quotes from two British people: how about quotes from Chinese people? "old and tired Manchu Dynasty" "humiliating defeat" "which lasted only 260 years" (seems like a long time to me!!)

I don't understand why you mention Harry G. Gelber: is he the author of one of your sources? Is the sentence about him supposed to be part of an article?

It would be good if you could find sources that give a different point of view, especially an Eastern point of view.

Do you have an idea about which article this material could go in, and which part of the article? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning how to edit

I am a learner on wiki,and I wish to have as many editors as possible to help me.Please feel free to criticize me and help ne to improve.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Hello Arilang1234. I'm leaving you the official warning about revert wars. There will be no block issued this time, but you should try to obtain consensus for any future edits on Boxer Rebellion. You may respond to the 3RR report if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial feedback

Hi Arilang,

Some comments on the sections found on your user page:

There's no need for a bullet point on the first paragraph of 'Long Term Causes of the Boxer Rebellion'. Too much details on the missionaries: I think you're trying to say the missionaries facilitated cultural exchanges between East and West?
As this is really an English article, there's no need to include the Chinese characters for any of the names.
You need to have a space added after the punctuation marks such as the full stop and the comma.
When mentioning people like Matteo Ricci and Johann Adam Schall von Bell, there's no need to mention their dates of birth. Since these names to linked to their own Wiki pages, this information can be found there if the reader needs to find out.
The writing needs to be more objective. For example, you say 'great scholars' but 'great' is somewhat subjective. You should leave out the word 'great'.
There are a number of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes which need correcting. I can give you a hand if you need it.
From reading the section 'Long Term Causes of the Boxer Rebellion', it's not clear the section is making a good argument... so what exactly were the causes?
Under 'Short Term Causes...', you quote two British men who made their comments in the 18th century, more than a hundred years before the Boxer Rebellion. I wouldn't consider the impact of these comments as 'short term'.
Again, no need for bullet points in the 'Short Term...' section.
Too much details on the Opium Wars (which are described elsewhere on Wikipedia). Perhaps the details should go on those pages instead?

I'm not sure what you've written ties in with the Boxer Rebellion. Looking at the existing Boxer Rebellion article, it says that the 'uprising began as an anti-foreign, anti-imperialist peasant-based movement in northern China'. Perhaps you ought to write a section which explains where this xenophobia amongst the peasants comes from. I think that's what your 2 sections 'Long Term Causes...' and 'Short Term...' are trying to do indirectly.

Transparent1 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback,it is very useful to me,I really need all the advice I can get. What I am trying to say is, Ming Dynasty was already a World Power on many ways.(1)World's largest Navy 郑和七下西洋 Zheng He's ocean going fleet was No.1 of the world. (2)Ming's army were using rockets,cannons, hand grenades,land mines, etc, 200 years before Manchu came along.Why did they stay with bow and arrows is beyond me. (3)If Manchu could not produce modern weapons, they could always buy, but they didn't. (4)It is a big mistake to say China=Manchu.Majority of Chinese were, and are, Han ethnic. And Manchu was, and is, a tiny minority group. (5)Ming was ultra strong in her time. There were wars(big one)with Japan three times, and Ming won three times. (6) Ming had many brilliant scholars,scientists,many advance inventions.Manchu had none. (7) Manchu deserved to be crushed by the western powers, because it was backward, primitive, and barbaric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think the argument you're trying to put forward has anything to do with the Boxer Rebellion. You're making a comparison between the Ming and Qing dynasties and saying that the Qing dynasty was not as good as the Ming dynasty. Whether or not the Manchu 'deserved' to be crushed is very subjective. I think you have dug up some new facts that can be put into Wikipedia but they need to go on the relevant pages. Transparent1 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you,Transparent1.May be "Christainity In China,from Ming to Qing". What you think?Arilang1234 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday12

I presume you've seen this page already? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China Transparent1 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Transparent1, not a problem, my perspective is entirely different. My emphasis is on missionary point of view, from Church point of view. I believe it can be developed into a big project, with lots of help, of course.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an answer for you on my talk page, with some questions for you. If you would like me to fix grammar on your user page, you can ask me to. You can also ask me to fix the spaces around the comma and period.

Is what you wrote on your user page supposed to be all for one article? I think it may be better to put small parts of it into different articles. It will need some changes, too. I can help better with the changes when I know where you're thinking of putting it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk

Discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Arilang1234 asking for help.

I fixed some grammar and punctuation.

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Insertion of Chinese characters. It tells when to put Chinese characters in an article and when not to. If there's a wikilink to a page that has the Chinese characters, then it says not to put them.

I asked you some questions on my talk page; I don't think you've answered all of them.

I think that before your material is ready to go into an article or articles, it needs these things:

After you tell me where you're thinking of putting it, I'll comment on organizing it. It will probably need to be changed: putting things in a different order, deleting some parts maybe, etc.
The references should be formatted, or at least clearly indicate what book or what web page etc. they're referring to. Full bibliographic information is needed, as I told you before.
It must be neutral. An article can't be from the Ming perspective. It can describe the Ming perspective and also describe some other perspectives.

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No links in headers please

Hi, please don't link items in the title or headings, as you did in this edit. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links. NJGW (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just be sure to have a look at the Manual of style when every you have a formatting question, and you can also check out wp:help for all sorts of questions. Don't be afraid to ask questions, as most editors are happy to help and can show you where to find any answer you're looking for. I'm off to bed right now, but let me know if you need any assistance along the way. I'll put a list of helpful links at the top of this page for you. NJGW (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arilang, just want to point out that you haven't been using the summaries. You should put at least a couple words to indicate what you're doing ("adding incident", "better source", "moving text to better location", etc.) so that other editors have an easier time following the evolution of the articles. Otherwise, keep up the good work. NJGW (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back overlinking

Hi.

I've rolled back your edit here, which looked like WP:overlinking to me. In particular, please note Wikipedia:MOS#Section_headings: "... Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones which link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems." Thanks for trying to improve the article, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Hi. I noticed you are using an incomplete referencing format for citing news stories in 2008 baby milk scandal. Instead of using a malformed {{cite web}}, may I suggest using the appropriate parameters in {{cite news}} for news stories? For example:

{{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}

For more information, see Wikipedia:Citation templates. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistakes, I am new here, and only beginning to learn. I use the {{cite web}} because it is on the tool bar. I can use {{cite news}} but I do not know where to get it. Can you help me?Arilang1234 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What toolbar are you using? Is it the gadget you activated in preferences? You can find the cite news template at the Wikipedia:Citation templates link. You can keep using the cite web if you like, but make sure you fill out the right parameters. I noticed that they being lumped together instead of being used separately. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found (cite news)template, please have a look at ref 10.Have I done the right thing?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did the right thing, but make sure you place the references after the punctuation (not before) and usually, at the end of the sourced content. It looks like you can place the reference at the end of the quote. Also, notice that the byline appears at the end of the article, so you can add the authors name to the citation. Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to create a page for Zhu Yonglan, but I do not know how, can you help me?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:PROF? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to understand all those words. Anyhow, thanks for you help, I need lots of them, simply I am at the elementary level.Arilang1234 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This is easy. You want to satisfy Criterion 1 of the academic notability guideline before you create Zhu Yonglan. Go to Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria. Choose 1 of the 9 items. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arilang, just a note on citations, be sure that the ref goes at the end of the sentence (after the period), unless there's some important reason to have the ref earlier in the sentence (like multiple references in a sentence. This makes the articles a lot easier to read, and shows that the whole sentence is referenced, not just the first part. NJGW (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you find an English version of this ref? It's very hard for readers to verify that all the information you wrote there is in that article, and also hard to tell how reliable the source is when it's not in English. NJGW (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit introduces a blog as a source. We can't do this as it violates wp:v (the ability to easily verify where the info comes from) and wp:RS (the need for a proven reliable source). Blogs are actually strictly not allowed in almost all cases. What we need is a trusted news outlet or a journal article. NJGW (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake NJGW, I will continue looking for an acceptable translation of the article. I think the info presented in the article is valuable, pity that right at this moment is only in Chinese.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: China Media Project

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as China Media Project, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://jmsc.hku.hk/cms/content/blogcategory/1/6/8/32/, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:China Media Project and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:China Media Project with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:China Media Project.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:China Media Project/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:China Media Project saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! V. Joe (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on China Media Project

To answer your concern, I don't know. You may be right... but I will have to find out at a later time V. Joe (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arilang1234! It's nice to see you. I put a message for you at Talk:China Media Project. If you tell me which sentences are copied from a web page (which web page?) and which sentences you wrote yourself, I may be able to help you re-write the article so there are no copyright concerns. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No time... I don't have enough knowledge or time to go over your article as far as creative commons. Sorry and good luck V. Joe (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hello. You have a reply to your note on my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replied on my own Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer Rebellion edits

Hi Arilang -- I'm not clear about what you mean when you add "citation needed" just before a citation! I'll wait for you to let me know, but will undo in a little while unless I misunderstand. All the best. ch (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yangzhou massacre

People have suggested that you create an article on the Yangzhou massacre, but for some reason you have continued to resist this. Instead you added a whole section to the article on Wang Xiuchu and you keep adding information about the massacre to the already very long article on the Qing dynasty. The result was messy, and instead of one single, easy-to-understand article on the massacre, you scattered information (in greater than necessary detail) among other articles. Can you tell me why you continue to do this? I'm really not sure what is so hard to understand about the idea of putting detailed information in an article specifically devoted to the topic, and putting less information in the main Qing article!

Despite the fact that I pointed out that the Macartney embassy material is already covered at its own article, you have also added a new and very big section on the Macartney embassy to the Qing dynasty article -- in fact, it's even longer than the article about the Macartney embassy article itself! You keep asking people to help you become a better editor, and people tell you, but you keep ignoring their advice and making the same mistakes! I can only think of one reason why you might want to pack the Qing article with information that belongs in detailed separate articles: you are absolutely desperate to add anti-Qing information and sentiments to the Qing article. That is why I keep hammering you about your POV. Your POV and absolute determination to add as much anti-Qing sentiment and information as you can are causing you to make these mistakes. Only when you stop thinking "I've got to tell the world about the Qing!" can you start becoming a good editor.

The Yangzhou massacre material and the Macartney embassy material should be covered in detail at their own articles, where you can add as much information as you like. But the main Qing dynasty article should be kept as "brief and clean" as possible. That means you can refer to the Yangzhou massacre and the Macartney embassy, but you shouldn't make these into long detailed sections. If people are interested in more information they can click on the wikilinks -- that is what they are for.

I'm quite busy in real life and I don't have time to be constantly cleaning up after your poor edits. If you can't understand what good editing is about, I suggest you cool down and stop editing for a while.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang, I put a message for you on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion

There's a discussion that concerns you at User talk:Coppertwig#User Arilang. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchus and Mongols

There is an interesting article on the web that discusses the way the Mongolians see China, giving quite a bit of perspective on history. It touches on the Manchus as well as the Chinese, Russians, Turks, etc.

I'm referring you to this article not so you can judge whether the views of the Mongolians are "right" or "wrong" -- from the Chinese point of view they would be considered "wrong" -- but so that you can get an idea how a different perspective on history can give rise to a completely different POV. (Incidentally, I have personal experience being picked on by Mongolian nationalist youth at Metropolis disco).

Hope you enjoy the article.

[2]

I've also added a note at User_talk:Coppertwig.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the power of emperors, I'm rather confused. The quote you give talks about the Ming. My rather superficial understanding is that the breakdown of communication between emperors and bureaucrats was one factor in the fall of the Ming (based on Ray Huang's book and the Wikipedia article on Wanli). But I'm not sure what that has to do with the absolute powers of the Qing emperors.

I think what we need is a source stating explicitly that the Qing emperors had greater and more untrammelled powers than previous dynasties -- not merely the Ming. This kind of information should be available somewhere, possibly in some treatise on the governmental structures of the Qing.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking round, thought you might find this interesting: [3]

Bathrobe (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Huang's book only covers limited section of Ming history. As I mentioned before, Ming's history suffered the most sever distortion in the hand of Qianlong. He not only burned tens of thousands of books, he personally made sure that for those remaining books he didn't burn, any single words that touched on misdeed done by Manchus, Mongols, Jurchens, or Tartars, all those words had either been deleted, or modified. This is the reason why Qing and other Manchu related articles were so lacking in opposite POV, because history books(or most of the history books) had been modified, words had been changed. And the communist China education and propaganda department made the situation worst. I know you were saying ROC and PRC wanted to keep those territories inherited from Qing, but that is not the full picture, because you forgot to look at the problem from a different perspective. Look at it this way, Xinghai revolution's main slogan was "Lets get rid of the Tartars, lets resurrect Chunghua". PRC defeated ROC and took over China, enemy's enemy is your friend, so PRC has to put Manchus under glorious light. It is more politic and less history, my friend. This is the real reasons why all the Manchu related articles are singing a similar tune composed by editors educated under communist China educational system. If you read Yuan Weishi you will understand more. I consider myself lucky because I didn't grow up under that draconian regime, and wasn't brain-washed like many others. You cannot imagine how distorted a person can become if that person was subject to 20 or 30 years of 'thought control', or brain-wash.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Lianke

Though it's been a while since your changes, I'd like to express my thanks. Your additions have improved the entry quite a bit in my opinion. I made some small changes to the language to make it flow more naturally, and made a modification to a translation of the quote from Mao Zedong, changing "heavy" to "important" (为人民利益而死，就比泰山还重). It's good to have users like you who can help bring Chinese language sources to English speakers. Stevendaniels88 (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Arilang. Thanks for the information you've put on my talk page. But I would like to know where all these texts come from, so don't forget to give me the references!--Madalibi (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROC flag

Here is a photo I took of my 96x144cm flag I got last week. It's only dark in the middle because of my shadow. It was taken in my room. I want to take some photos outside with it, but not sure where I can do it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see that it is quite dark. However, when it appears on monitor, you can use lighter color, otherwise it is just look like Black. Can you tell me where can I find a tutorial on how to make .gif ?Arilang1234 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. The format of the image, SVG, is more technical to do, so I will make the changes. I just want people to agree to the changes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I mentioned the dark part in the middle is my shadow. I need to photograph my flag outside. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arilang. I replied to your messages at my talk page.

Personalized signature

Hi, To personalize the appearance of your signature using the 4 tildes (~~~~) for preferred colors and style:

Click on "my preferences" at top of page
Open "User profile"
Check "Raw signature"
Enter the html code you desire in the "Signature:" box.
Save and close

There is no template to do this, so you have to type in your own html code. As an example, mine is:

[[User:JGHowes| JGHowes ]] [[User talk:JGHowes|''talk'']]

which produces JGHowes ^talk 10:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) The color green is #008000, a chart showing code for all colors is here. Hope this helps![reply]

The "Anti-Qing sentiment" page

Hi Arilang, I know you’re very busy collecting new material for many pages at the same time, but I think you need to spend time addressing issues on the Anti-Qing sentiment page. For one, try to be more careful about the structure of your edits. The "Famous anti-Qing persons" section is very messy: it has no order that I can detect, it looks like a collection of citations (never a good idea), and it mixes Western commentators (Macartney) with 19th-century rebellion leaders (Ma Hualong), intellectuals who lived under the Qing (Lü Liuliang), and modern historians (Yuan Weishi) without explaining why.

The inclusion of some other people is dubious: Liang Qichao worked for the Qing government during the Hundred Days' Reform and Zheng Zhilong surrendered to the Qing in 1646 almost as soon as he was asked! Lu Xun was very critical of traditional society (and of literary inquisitions), but I don’t think he stood out as an anti-Qing figure.

See also my comments in the talk page, where I proposed to merge Anti-Manchuism with Anti-Qing sentiment and to discuss only examples of anti-Qing thinkers or social movements during the Qing, presented chronologically. You could also design thematic sections like "Anti-Manchu intellectuals in the early Qing" (Wang Fuzhi, Gu Yanwu, Lü Liuliang, etc.); "Anti-Qing rebellions" (White Lotus Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion, etc.) and "Revolutionary rhetoric in the late Qing" (Sun Yatsen, Zou Rong, Zhang Binglin). To send the right message to other editors, I think it's important that you make the changes on your own. Be confident: I know you can do it! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you don't need to engage in another long debate with Bathrobe in the talk page, and I know how tiring it is to be engaged in conflicts that sound personal, especially in a "foreign language" like English. So let's forget about that and let's discuss the Anti-Qing sentiment page instead! I think it is promising, but it can be vastly improved. Thank you for reacting to my suggestions, by the way. Now what do you think of my proposal to divide the article into three sections: 1. "Ming loyalism in the early Qing"' 2. "Anti-Qing rebellions"; and 3. "Late-Qing revolutionaries"? The current content would be easy to integrate (Sun Yat-sen in 3; Hong Xiuquan and Ma Hualong in 2; Koxinga in 1) and the new structure would be a convenient frame to add new material (Wang Fuzhi in 1, White Lotus Rebellion in 2, etc.).

You could also rephrase the lead paragraph after reading the following short article, which defines the issues and would be a good reference for any discussion of Wang Fuzhi's anti-Manchuism:

Gasster, Michael (1998). "Anti-Manchuism." In Modern China: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism, edited by Ke-Wen Wang, pp. 11-13. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities. New York: Routledge. ISBN-10: 0815307209.

Maybe Gasster's article will also convince you that anti-Manchuism is difficult to distinguish from anti-Qing sentiment. Would you agree to merge the two articles under a single title? I could do it if you want.

Anyway, do your best, and don't be discouraged by other editors!

Madalibi (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we seem to be at loggerheads again.

Actually, I'm quite happy that you replaced some of the Fact tags at anti-Qing sentiment with citations from sources. I feel that one of your citations actually proves the opposite, and I therefore removed the sentence, but that's not important. The fact that you went in and put up citations for your edits is a great advance.

I'm sorry for comparing you to a child scattering toys. I've sometimes felt exasperated that you keep marching ahead with new edits when there are big problems with what you've written. When you go back and try to fix up problems with your edits it makes a very big difference, and I hope you will keep it up.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arilang. I think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not sure I agree with all of your points. First, you may not embrace the term "anti-Manchuism" and its racist overtones, but the anti-Manchu phenomenon certainly existed in history: it has not been "made up by people." Look at the writings of Lü Liuliang, or at Zou Rong's 鄒容 "Revolutionary Army" (革命軍) or Zhang Binglin's revolutionary pamphlets: they are clearly and unambiguously anti-Manchu. And I'm sure you agree that Lü, Zou, and Zhang were also clearly anti-Qing. I am NOT saying that all criticisms of the Qing are examples of "anti-Manchuism," but at least it seems clear that anti-Manchuism and anti-Qing sentiment are not "like fire and water." Of course, discussing anti-Manchuism in the past does not mean labeling modern people as "racist" or "Han chauvinistic" (and I agree that Han chauvinism is a very POV wiki, by the way).

I proposed redirecting anti-Manchuism to anti-Qing sentiment because I see anti-Manchuism as a part of anti-Qing sentiment. We could then explain the distinction between the two in the merged page. And once again: this would not imply that all anti-Qing sentiment is "anti-Manchu" in a racist way.

What I now understand that I didn't before is that you want to talk about a resurgence of anti-Qing sentiments today. This is why you wanted to discuss Yuan Weishi's views of history, and perhaps the whole Yan Chongnian incident. If this is so, why not create a wiki called "Anti-Qing sentiment (modern)"? I personally would be interested to learn more about people calling the PRC government the "Later Qing" and the current elite the "new Eight Banners." (A side question: is this really anti-Qing, or more anti-CCP rhetoric?) But I still think this topic is distinct from the activities of Koxinga or the writings of Sun Yat-sen. For one, I see a big difference between being anti-Qing while you live in the Qing state, and being critical of the Qing dynasty's role in Chinese history from today's point of view.

To summarize, my solution to this whole problem would be as follows:

Redirect anti-Manchuism to anti-Qing sentiment.
Explain in anti-Qing sentiment that not all expressions of anti-Qing sentiment were "anti-Manchu," and that some "anti-Manchu" rhetoric was used as a political tool in anti-Qing movements, but dropped as soon as the movements had succeeded (as claimed in the article by Gasster that I linked to above).
Let anti-Qing sentiment be a historical discussion on both anti-Manchu and anti-Qing movements.
Create a new page called Anti-Qing sentiment (modern) (or something like that) where Yuan Weishi's points of view as well as current blog discussions on the PRC government can be addressed.
Finally, add a short section called "Modern resurgence" to the page on anti-Qing sentiment, and link to the wiki on Anti-Qing sentiment (modern) as the "Main page."

I think all these changes (which are actually not very hard to make) would clarify the issues and get rid of most disagreements between editors. What do you think? --Madalibi (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good suggestion. However, I don't agree on the need for a page on Anti-Qing sentiment (modern). I feel it would be better to just have a section on "Modern resurgence" at the page on anti-Qing sentiment, without a separate page on the modern resurgence.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was proposing a new page so that the section on "Modern resurgence" doesn't become the largest one in a page that should be devoted to historical discussions. I still can't pinpoint it right now, but I think we need something on modern controversies surrounding the historical significance of the Qing dynasty (Manchuness vs. sinicization; role in "decline of China"; role in leading to the modern boundaries of the PRC; etc.). All points of view should of course be presented even-handedly and in non-POV language. Pandora's... hope? --Madalibi (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are great!

You are the best! I wish there are more editors like you. Go ahead and do it. I hope one day you will become a famous professor of East Asia History.Hehehehe Arilang ^talk 07:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generous assessment! I was about to sign off for a few hours, so maybe you can go ahead with some of the changes: I will help when I come back. Let's keep improving Wikipedia together! --Madalibi (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment from Bathrobe

I notice that you have found another source for saying that Koxinga was worshipped as a god. I think it is fine to find sources. However, it has produced a situation of imbalance: 3 of 5 citations on the page about anti-Qing sentiment are there in support of one statement in the article -- that Koxinga was worshipped as a god.

Unfortunately, the fact that Koxinga was worshipped as a god is almost completely irrelevant to the article itself. My feeling is that directing fully 60% of citations at this one statement verges on overkill.

As two other editors have already suggested, this information would really be better placed at the page on Koxinga himself. Rather than hunting for three citations to support a single point, wouldn't it be better to spend some effort moving that particular section to the article on Koxinga?

Bathrobe (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever-Victorious Army gallery

Thanks for the gallery! I think you should add some of these pictures (not the pictures of Hong Xiuquan, but the other ones) to the page on the Ever Victorious Army, which is a bit dull right now. And speaking of galleries: I proposed removing the "Ming arsenal" gallery from the page on the Southern Ming Dynasty because all the weapons are too early. If you agree, could you remove it on your own? (I'm very busy with other things right now.) Thanks! --Madalibi (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary answers to some of your questions

I've tried to answer some of your queries here on my talk page. I'll try to find time to write more in the next few days! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a new message on my talk page regarding your questions. I will try to discuss Wang Yangming in the next few days. Cheers, --Madalibi (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another new message. --Madalibi (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu Qing

Hi Arilang. Glad to see you've been active, but I'm afraid this title won't do! "Genocide" doesn't apply to the events you describe, as Qing armies only killed the population of cities that did not surrender. Maybe "atrocities" is better, but I (and other editors) would certainly prefer "massacres." Also, some of the events you note don't seem to fit in here: how is the Taiping rebellion a "massacre" ("genocide," "atrocity") committed by the Qing? Also, most of the decline in the population of Sichuan is usually attributed to banditry (Zhang Xianzhong, etc.), not to the Qing. And you can't attribute the decline in population from 1600 to 1650 entirely to the Qing conquest. How about banditry, epidemics, famines, etc.? They all took a heavy tool in the 1630s and 1640s before the Manchu conquest. Another problem: not a single reference for the casualties. Notes 1 and 2 say things completely different from what you claim, and note 3 only confirms a date. And how about dates: when did the Jiangyin and Chaozhou massacres take place? If you don't want to give a misleading impression of strong POV, you probably need to mention that the Qing explicitly ordered its troops not to plunder cities that surrendered. Massacres only took place when cities resisted (Yangzhou, Jiangyin, Jiading), and then the massacres were committed mostly by Han-Chinese troops (I can find scholarly references for this claim), not "the Manchus" or "Manchu soldiers": this seems like an important fact to point out. Also, "Manchu Qing" (probably a direct translation of "Man-Qing" 滿清) does not exist in English, so you need to remove that phrase from the title. In the text, you'll have to say something like "the Qing," "the Manchu-led Qing dynasty," "Qing troops," "Banner troops," etc. Finally, as far as format is concerned, you should avoid inserting links in section titles. Ok, I'm out of time for tonight! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan quote

“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”

@Madalibi, how much differences is there between Genghis Khan and Manchu emperors? Arilang ^talk 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction under the Mongol Empire#Historical accounts

@Madalibi, what Mongols did to Baghdad, is similar to what Manchu did to Ming, and Han Chinese in general, would you agree? Arilang ^talk 10:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“

Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. - Steven Dutch

”

Hi Arilang. To answer your question: no, I don't think the Manchus did to the Ming (or to China, or to Han Chinese) what the Mongols did to Isamic civlization. First, the Manchus did not sack Beijing or Nanjing, which would have been the equivalents of Baghdad at the time. On the contrary they ordered Banner troops to be particularly careful not to plunder these cities, because they wanted to convince the residents that the mandate of heaven now belonged to the Qing and no longer to the Ming. After Li Zicheng took Beijing, the Qing officially presented themselves as the avengers of the fallen Ming. As Jerry Dennerline said, Dorgon listened to advice from recently surrendered Ming officials Fan Wencheng and Hong Chengchou, and adopted a strategy of pacification rather than one of "marauding for land, loot, and slaves." [Jerry Dennerline (2003), "The Shun-chih Reign", in Cambridge History of China, Vol. 9, Part 1: The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, ed. by Willard J. Peterson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 81.]
Li Zicheng was the one who plundered Beijing with his undisciplined Han-Chinese and Muslim troops, tortured officials, and set fire to the imperial palace. He would have become the emperor if the Manchus and Wu Sangui had not defeated him. I'm not saying he would have conquered southern China, but northern China would have been devastated even without the Manchu intervention.
Even more than Li Zicheng, Zhang Xianzhong brought utter devastation to the Sichuan area. Unlike the Manchus, who did not force anybody to serve for them (former Ming officials in Beijing were happy to surrender to the Qing after what Li Zicheng had done to them), Zhang Xianzhong tortured officials, killed their families, etc. But his most terrible deed (certainly an atrocity by any standard) is that he conducted a thorough scorched-earth policy throughout Sichuan. The only reason why people today (including you) don't hate him is that he was a Han Chinese. He was a dangerously unstable, violent, and uneducated tyrant, and it was great for Chinese people that the Manchus got rid of him, even if they didn't do it "for Chinese people" per se.
There were massacres during the conquest, of course. In Yangzhou, Jiading, Jiangyin, etc., Qing troops used terror tactics against the civilian population, which was also atrocious. But I would like to remind you that those who actually killed people were not Manchu soldiers themselves, but mostly Han-Chinese Bannermen: surrendered Ming troops. The entire campaign to conquer the south was also put in the hands of the future "Three Feudatories" (三籓) and their Han troops. They were the ones who massacred the population of Chaozhou and Guangzhou.
Very importantly, the point of all these massacres was not to commit "genocide" against Han Chinese, but to terrify the civilian population of other cities into submission. By contrast with the early-13th-century Mongols, who systematically razed cities wherever they went and simply left afterwards, the post-1644 Manchus actually established a civilian administration in the cities they seized. And whereas the Yuan dynasty never developed strong control of the Chinese countryside and never really cared about Chinese peasants, the Qing developed stable rule that allowed the countryside to prosper (by pre-modern standards, of course). Wouldn't you say that this was a completely different approach to governance?
The only part of Qing rule that I would call "genocidal" was the Qianlong emperor's policy toward the Dzungars in the late 1750s. The Dzungars were eliminated not because they were Buddhists, of course (the Qing emperors were Buddhists too, and they also sponsored Tibetan lamas), but because they were an enemy that kept bringing trouble to the Qing on its northwestern border. This is a little-known aspect of Qing history that deserves to be discussed more.
I'm out of time for today, but we can keep discussing all this if you want! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Genocide?

Genocide

“

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

”

Madalibi, you and me need to look closely at the definite meaning of 'Genocide'. According to the above quote: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part," and" causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Well, I can cite plenty of verifiable historical facts to support my argument that Manchus were 'Genocidal' in what they did to Han Chinese and other ethnicities, that is if you and me we both agree on the difinition of 'Genocide' according to the 1948 Geneva Convention. Arilang ^talk 09:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08 is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I moved the page to User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08 to salvage the content, and deleted Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08. --Efe (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

While I welcome your efforts to contribute to wikipedia, perhaps you should let others contribute to the article you've created on Weiquan. I've added it to WP:CHINA, so hopefully others will. This is because according to your userpage, you have a predisposed inclination in favor of one side, and I've twice removed material that fails wikipedia policies on NPOV, and V. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi

Nice to know you. Thanks for your contributions to Charter 08 and Liu Xiaobo (intellectual).--Neo-Jay (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload any image, please be sure to not violate copyrights. For further information, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the articles Ming and Qing of course need to be expanded and modified, just as every other article at Wikipedia. I can understand your nationalist position as a Han Chinese. I am also a Han Chinese and also sympathy with the fall of Ming. But, I hope that our edits can meet Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. We might be more objective if we are not Han Chinese. Actually, Ming also did genocide to other ethnic groups such as Bo people (僰人). The history of Han Chinese is also a history of colonisation. With the expansion of its territory, how many other ethic groups were massacred and then extinct? Do we really care what crimes Qin Shi Huang and Han Dynasty committed to Yue peoples? Just because we were born as Han, we call Han's conquest of others as epic, and others' conquest of us as crime. Fair? As an individualist, I am first a human, then a Han Chinese. The value of individuals is higher than that of a nation. For me, Ming and Qing should be equally scrutinized and, if applicable, equally condemned. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom Arilang ^talk 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have a substantive debate with you on whether Manchu was the most murderous barbarians in Chinese history. I only hope that your concerns with this issue is because of your human identity, not because of your ethnic or national identity. And I also hope that your anger and hatred are against the acts, not against any ethnic group. Every coin has two sides. I hope that your hatred does not make the other side invisible to you. Thanks. Period. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to express my opinion

In English version I need somebody help to translate. -浙太湖 (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted and asked for translation help. -浙太湖 (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers

I have nominated Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Madalibi (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At your request I have moved the contents to User:Arilang1234/Sand box. I think that this is for the time being a reasonable compromise. Arilang1234, I suggest very strongly that unless you can find a reliable source that links together the events that you list that consider adding the various sections to articles that already exist to help balance their POV and do not consider putting this out as a page on its own. You have moved the page several times to new names shows and that shows you have an understanding the concerns raised by the people who have commented on User talk:Arilang1234/Sand box, and I hope that this is the end of a debate that has taken up a lot of time. If after further development you decide that the page is suitable to move back into article space please inform the people who commented on the on the talk page before you do so:

and see if there is a consensus for such a move --PBS (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the question on my talk page. Yes I'll be pleased to help. --PBS (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charter 08

On 17 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charter 08, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hello and thanks for your support,

I will slowly provide more maps.

I also can provide maps (of china) after request... if you provide a trustable source. If need, I can provide you my email.

Regards, Yug (talk) 14:35, 18 December

2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. At my user page in Commons, there is a map:Eight banners beijing.jpg, which shows the living quarters of Eight Banners people in Beijing after the Manchu invaded China. Could you color the various 'Banners' in their respective colors, so that readers would no longer need to read the text inside those little blocks? Regarding my request on your talk page, I shall come back with more info (may be in text only) on the provincial Eight Banners garrisons throughout China.Email address will be appreciated. Thanks again. Arilang ^talk 14:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email : Special:EmailUser/Arilang1234 state that you have not enter your email, so:

you can see Special:Preferences to do so ;
you can Special:EmailUser/Yug provide me your email, allowing me to provide mine, allowing your to send me more data.

Regards, Yug (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify copyright permission for article Charter 08

Hello, Arilang1234.

Thank you for your efforts to obtain permission to add a translation of this material to the article. Currently, all verification of copyright permissions must be processed externally, either by a release published at the site or by an OTRS ticket logged after release is e-mailed to the Wikimedia Foundation. The section has been blanked to allow time for that verification to proceed.

The e-mail you received is not likely to be sufficient to allow us to use this material on Wikipedia. In order for us to use it, the copyright holders must release it under the terms of GFDL, which not only allows us to reproduce it but allows others to reproduce it and modify it, as long as it is properly attributed. It can even be commercially reproduced. Another problem is that the translator may not hold the copyright to this material, since translation is a derivative work. If the original text is not released into public domain, we may need to obtain copyright permission from the original copyright holders.

You should probably contact again the person with whom you communicated about this. There is a boilerplate release form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Please have them specify by name the article on Wikipedia in which the material is being used. Forward their response, if they release the material under GFDL, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Once that e-mail is received and processed by a member of the Communications Committee, the article's contents will be restored if the release is legally sufficient. Please make a note that you've done this on the talk page of the article. You can compose a note or very simply paste the following on the talk page, brackets and all: {{OTRS pending}}

The article will be revisited in about a week to see what additional steps have been taken or may be necessary. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know at my talk page. While I am not a member of the Communications Committee, I will certainly help walk you through the process (which can be tricky!) the best that I can.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@user Moonriddengirl, thanks for your helpfull comment. I wonder if you could ask another user to help me to become the go-between of Wiki and draft an e-mail to NY Times Book translator, in this way things will move faster. If you can get user Coppertwig to help me would be fine, as you probaly know I am not a native English speaker. Regards. Arilang ^talk 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arilang. I'd be happy to help with that; I'm sure Coppertwig would also. The first thing we need to figure out, though, is if they legally have the right to release this. Your being a non-native English speaker may help with that. :) Can you find the original site of publication of this material? Does it have any note about copyright on it? US law automatically grants copyright on publication, but if they have specifically released the material we may be able to use it anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question:Can you find the original site of publication of this material. Answer: Do you mean the original Chinese text(which I can find) or the original English translation text(which I believe is the Book NY Times site. May be I shall provide you with both sites? Arilang ^talk 21:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese text is what we need to explore. The law of the United States says that only the copyright holder has a legal right to make translations of foreign language material. In order to reproduce a translation, we need the permission of the original publishers, unless there's some special circumstances that allows us to use it anyway. The book site would be good, too, so I can see if they address that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my best to find out who the copyright holder(or holders, I believe it was a group effort). There shouldn't be any problem. Arilang ^talk 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. Let me know what you find out. Once we verify that the translators have the right to release the text, then we can write them to ask them to do so under GFDL. It's a bit of a pain, but legally necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written by a group of 300

I can confirm that Charter 08 was written by a group of 300 scholars. http://e-info.org.tw/node/39769 Web site of Taiwan Environmental Information Center 《零八憲章》是三百多位中國的學者、作家、律師、維權人士及社會人士為促成中國的民主改革，在今年的國際人權日當天連署發表的建言 Translation:Charter 08 was a proposal released and co-signed by 300 plus Chinese scholars, authors, lawyers, rights-protection activists, and others, on this years' International Human Rights Day. End of translation.

user Moonriddengirl, may be to contact Professor Perry Link(the translator) is a better bet, because a lot of the co-authors are in house arrests, or being watched over by police. The main author Liu Xiaobo is still behind bar. Arilang ^talk 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it quite hard, yes. :/ Do you know where it was first published or what the terms were of publication? Was that the original publication site? Does it have a note on copyright status? My experience with the Communications Committee suggests that it's a really good idea to be very clear on terms before writing them, since clarifying afterward can be quite difficult. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the wikipedia legal side(to protect against any future legal problems). I believe the writers would just be too happy to have Wikipedia to give them the global coverage, which they desperately need it, because of Great Fire Wall of China. And I believe that if ever any person dare to raise the copyright issue against Wikipedia in future will be scorned by 1.5 billion Chinese. That said, I seriously think that the only option is waiting for Professor Perry Link to grant us a GFDL, what you think?

Nearly forgot to answer your question: The original Chinese text of Charter 08 is on many Chinese web sites now, I can find out the original web site, it would take time to explain to the webmaster what I need, and there is no 100% I shall get a reply, because of Great Fire Wall again. I would still try. Arilang ^talk 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the primary problem: if Professor Perry Link does not own the copyright, he cannot legally grant us GFDL permission. If the original document is under copyright protection, any one of those copyright holders can grant us permission to the original text. If it's not, then we do need Professor Link's grant. The secondary problem is that a contributor has quite rightly pointed out that this should probably be at Wikisource instead of on Wikipedia and referenced here by a link. (Wikisource, if you aren't familiar, is a Wikimedia project for holding original documents.) If this material is going to go on Wikisource, we need to find out how to satisfy their requirements. The permission process we have in place for text is specifically for the English language Wikipedia, not for Wikisource. :/ Why don't you resolve that issue with other contributors to the article first? If it's decided that this needs to go on Wikisource, I'll contact a member of the Communications Committee to see how they suggest we proceed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for your help. (1) I shall post a comment on talk page asking other editors opinion. (2) I also agree that this really should go to wikisource. (3) May be for the time being put it at my user/sandbox until we sort it out what to do next? Arilang ^talk 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we're not supposed to publish it anywhere until permission is verified. We could post it in your userspace and then immediately remove it, so that it's easy to reach later, but I don't know that we need to, since it's already in the article's history. I've just removed it from the article, but we can still get it by following this link. I'll contact the Communications Committee and see what I can find out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say thank you again to you, as hundreds of millions of Chinese will do likewise, when Charter 08 goes into history books, future generations will remember the birth of this manifesto Arilang ^talk 14:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted a member of the Communications Committee who is also an administrator at Wikisource to find out how best to proceed. I'll certainly keep you updated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I have response, and it's good news. If we get GFDL permission from the New York Review of Books, we should be clear to place this on Wikisource. (See User talk:Jayvdb#OTRS issue.2C strange one.) Evidently, manifestos are presumed public domain at wikisource, here, if it cannot be ascertained that they have license. Our next step is requesting sufficient permission from the New York Review of Books and forwarding that to the standard permissions address. I'm going to be traveling for the Christmas holidays, so I may not be the best person to send e-mail. I won't be around for a quick reply, if they have questions. I notice that you spoke to Coppertwig at the article's talk page about working with him on a permission letter. I'd be very happy to help you craft the letter, if one of you would like to send it. Otherwise, I can help with that after I return from my travels and again have access to internet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help. I will also be travelling and may have less time online, but I don't expect to be completely out of touch. I might write a draft letter in the next day or two if one of you doesn't do it first.

That's good news about the manifestos being presumed public domain!!! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of words can express my gratitude to both of you. Today it is a Manifesto, Tomorrow it shall be the New Constitution of a New and Free China. God bless you all and Merry Christmas to you all.

Just to show off a bit Teacher Coppertwig, it was Arilang your student who put the word 'Manifesto' on the article, hahaha. Arilang ^talk 03:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hen hao! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a letter

I have drafted a note here which either of you is welcome to modify and use in an e-mail to the lady in question. Coppertwig, if you send it, you might want to explain your connection to her. :) I'm going to ask User:Jayvdb for feedback on it, since I have never worked on a permission request for Wikisource. Ordinarily, I'd incorporate the original publishing URL and the name of the Wikipedia article. Arilang, if you know the original publishing URL, please add that where it says "[ insert link ]." Is Charter 08 a good name for this document at Wikisource? The letter we sent to the Communications Committee should be specific about where this is going insofar as we can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Moonriddengirl, I think it is better for Coppertwig to do the actual correspondence, since I might type the wrong word and muck up things. I think the New York Book review should not have any problem as long as Coppertwig copy and paste the original e-mail from them. May be they already knew the full story if one of them is following the Charter 08 on Wikipedia. To answer your questions: (1) the original publishing URL:http://chinesepen.org/Article/sxsy/200812/Article_20081209131918.shtml

(2) the original name:零八宪章 (3) Yes, Charter 08 is a good name for wikisource, the name, I am quite sure come from Charter 77).

I'm sorry; I phrased that badly. This time, the URL I want is the New York Review of Book's. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22210 Arilang ^talk 14:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll probably be sending the email, maybe today or tomorrow. Meanwhile, Arilang, I suggest that you might want to check whether the Chinese Wikisource has Charter 08, and if not, you might want to put the Chinese version there. If Chinese Wikisource has the same rule about assuming that manifestos are public domain, then there should be no problem with copyright; I guess you can just create an article for it there. (I'm not familiar with Wikisource. I've never edited anything there.) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher Coppertwig, I shall check Chinese Wikisource, but as far as I am concerned, I shall not do anymore than that, because there exist a group of Gestapo style Chinese moderators and admins, they are hell bent on (1) to scare away as many editors as possible (2) to keep the articles in Chinese wiki as low as possible.(3) in short, they are a doing a very good job Arilang ^talk 02:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the email yesterday.

Chinese wikisource has a page for Charter 08 which contains only a copyvio tag. I may attempt to argue with them about that. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Teacher Coppertwig. Arilang ^talk 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had already changed it back into an article. I put a comment saying that I don't think it's a copyvio. I used an automated translation of "I'm sorry. I don't speak Chinese." 67.70.28.62 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on Chinese Wikisource. They changed it back into a copyvio template again. I hope they didn't misunderstand my message. On the computer I'm on now, I can't even display Chinese characters; not that I could understand them if I could see them. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Perry Link

@Coppertwig, Professor Perry Link send me another email:

“

Dear Wikipedia:

I don't know whether Robert Silvers at the New York Review of Books answered your request for permission to re-publish my translation of Charter '08.

In any case, you do have my permission, and Mr. Silvers has written to me that he, too, is happy to give permission so long as you note that it is translated by Perry Link and first appeared in the New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009 issue.

My best, Perry Link

”

Arilang ^talk 13:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for telling me. We're still waiting for a reply to my email, with the GFDL permission. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news everyone, I have just received another email from Professor Perry Link:

Quote:P.S.: I would request that note that "this translation by Perry Link frist appeared in the New York Review of Books in January 2009". P.L.

Perry Link wrote:
> I grant Wikisource a GFDL permission to publish my translation of
> Charter 08.
> > Perry Link
> Unquoted.

I received an email from Robert Silvers, who said that as far as he can see Perry Link owns the copyright of the translation, and that he had passed my email on to Perry Link.

I suggest that you forward a copy of the email you received to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (as an email address; that is, put @ instead of "at" and . instead of "dot"). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Teacher Coppertwig, Professor Perry Link e-mail forwarded to permission-en already. Arilang ^talk 20:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I put the text in at wikisource:Charter 08. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, too, Arilang. Also peace, freedom and justice. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason

Teacher Coppertwig, I am more familiar with Chinese blogosphere, let me explain. Chinese Great Fire Wall of China is an active firewall, by 'active', I mean the Ministry of Propaganda do employ bloggers to go onto various internet forums to 'shape public opinions in favor of Chinese Communist Government'. Well it sounds like a joke, but it is not funny. It is deadly serious. And zh:wiki do have a lot, I mean a lot, of them. Arilang ^talk 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I'm not disagreeing with you. (I think Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy tells people not to edit Wikipedia if someone is paying them to do it like that.) But I think that's not the whole story. I think there must be other kinds of people on Chinese Wikipedia, too. I think that if you spend some more time on English Wikipedia learning to follow the rules and to write in NPOV, then after that if you go back to Chinese Wikipedia and you try to get along with people with different points of view, you would probably find that it isn't as bad as you thought. There are many articles on English Wikipedia where some people have strong feelings that the article needs to be changed in some way. They may not be able to change it that way, because others disagree, but they may be able to make some small changes. They may be able to take out of the article the things that they think are the very worst things, because enough other people might agree with them about removing those things. I think the same things can happen on Chinese Wikipedia. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too, and thank you for your message of peace. Enjoy the long holiday! Madalibi (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your new message. A little detail: the move I was proposing was to "Slavery in seventeenth-century China": don't forget the "th" at the end of seventeen, and there shouldn't be any space in "seventeenth-century." I would also suggest that instead of creating redirects from the previous names of the page, you should ask an administrator to delete the old pages altogether. (If you do so, don't forget to correct the links you created on other wikis.) Concerning our disagreements: disagreements about history are normal and healthy. I also hope my last message in the talk page of Genocides in history has convinced you that I'm not a denier of atrocities. After all, I was the one who found the two sources calling the extermination of the Dzungars a "genocide," and I re-drafted another user's paragraph in order to state clearly who had ordered the massacre and why historians thought it constituted a genocide. Rest assured that I will do exactly the same if we can find similar scholarly claims on other massacres, no matter who committed these massacres. I like many of your new pages, by the way, especially those about the PRC. I'm not citing the titles directly, because I'm in the PRC right now and my page freezes when I try to post a message that contains these words! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Holocaust

With ref to User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Literary Holocaust.

Pelease read Wikipedia is not a directory "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote" (Link to Wikiquote Main Page).

If after reading that you still intend to use this name, before you do so please make the same request for advice at Talk:The Holocaust because I suspect most will say that the title is misleading. --PBS (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ userPBS, after reading Talk:The Holocaust and Holocaust (disambiguation), my understanding is that The Holocaust is very specific, whereas Holocaust can be(and are being used) in other cases, such as American Holocaust, Black Holocaust, etc. So I would not think my intended title User:Arilang1234/Sand box/Literary Holocaust by Manchu Qianlong should raise any objection from other editors, afterall the term was coined by Fairbank, not me. Please let me know your opinion Arilang ^talk 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@User PBS:After reading the The Holocaust, I have found out that there is a wiki article called Chinese Holocaust, which is currently being re-directed to Japanese War Crimes. I would like to undo the re-direct and expand the Chinese Holocaust article. Could you tell me how to undo it? Arilang ^talk 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arilang, and Happy New Year! I see that your sandbox is no longer a collection of quotations, so no problem there, but I still think the title you propose doesn't work. The main problem is that "literary holocaust" is not the term by which the Qianlong suppression is known in the scholarly literature. There is a book by Luther Luther Carrington Goodrich called The Literary Inquisition of Ch’ien-lung (1935) entirely devoted to this suppression campaign; the other relevant work (which you know about) is R. Kent Guy's The Emperor's Four Treasuries. Neither uses the term "literary holocaust." And Woodside uses the term only to emphasize the extent and seriousness of the censorship campaign, not as a consistent label. I am certain a Wikipedia page cannot be named after a single turn of phrase in a single author's work. Second problem: there is already a section in the Siku quanshu wiki explaining the suppression campaign that Woodside called a "literary holocaust." And there is already a page called literary inquisition explaining the broader censorship campaigns of the Qianlong reign. Actually, most of the content of your sandbox already appears in that page. To summarize: I don't think the name "Literary holocaust" is appropriate for a wiki title, and I don't think we need a new page devoted to the SKQS suppression campaign. But Woodside's words definitely deserve citation in both Siku quanshu and Literary inquisition, and even on the Qianlong page, though the term "literary holocaust" should be presented as Woodside's, not as some kind of self-evident label. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Holocaust

Hi again. Just a few questions concerning the page Chinese Holocaust you have just created. The main question is: do scholarly sources refer to all these episodes and massacres as "holocausts"? The lead paragraph says: "In China's thousands of years of history, there were many instances of massacres that can be suitably called holocausts." It seems to me like you're the one doing the labeling, here. If this is the case, then this wiki's title is inappropriate.
Also, I know of no scholarly source that discusses the Great Leap Forward, the Mongol conquests, and the Nanjing massacre together, not to mention the repression of the 1989 democracy movement. For this reason, these events should not be discussed together on a single wiki page.
I sincerely think that the tone of your edits has vastly improved in the last month, but you still seem to create pages according to the way you think things should fit together. This, I think, is why many editors oppose these pages, as in Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. As Wikipedia editors, we should simply reflect existing scholarly positions, not propose our own points of view, no matter how justified we feel they are. I know it's very frustrating, but once you understand this point, your life on Wikipedia will become much simpler and you will find much fewer people opposing you. I hope this helps. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving Chinese Holocaust back to a sandbox. Do you mind if I now recreate the redirect to the page on the Nanking massacre? Madalibi (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern

Quote:your life on Wikipedia will become much simpler unquoted. Well, may be a simple life is not what I aim for, have you ever thought of that? May be I prefer high risk life, controversial life, and exciting life. It is really up to me, as long as I do not harm others in the process, isn't it?
To answer your another comment, I think I may have better luck this time because Holocaust is being used in many areas; unlike Genocide which has a very restrictive kind of usage. We shall see what other editors say, you know I am more than willing to come to some sort of compromise. Arilang ^talk 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position

“

Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

”

Madalibi, to answer your comment on Chinese Holocaust, I think your narrow emphasize on scholarly sources is either plain wrong, or it is your own fabrication. Please show me which wiki page this scholarly sources come from, and if you can convince me that this is one of the wiki rules, I shall immediately remove this Chinese Holocaust content. Arilang ^talk 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of holocaust

Names of the Holocaust#"Holocaust"

“

Since the mid-19th century, the word has been used by many authors to refer to large catastrophes and massacres, particularly those caused by immolation. According to the OED, the earliest attested such usage dates from 1671, but it became common in the 19th century.

”

The key term here is "many authors" They (not Wikipedia editors) have used the term holocaust to refer to large catastrophes and massacres. Madalibi (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charter 08 Wikisource vote

Thanks for the notice; I've added my vote and notified some less active (but related to Charter 08) Wiki participants to join in the vote. L (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Need your vote

Hi, Arilang1234. Thanks for your message. After deliberate consideration, I voted "Yes". Happy New Year! --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arilang1234. I am a law student. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. And I hope that you can also contribute to Chinese Wikisource in the future. Cheers! --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay, thanks for your compliment. What make me feel repulsive are those Wumaodang(五毛党) in Chinese Wikipedia, and there are a lot of them. By the way, I am thinking of creating a Wumaodang in en:wiki, would you help me to co-write the article? Arilang ^talk 06:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I may not have time to help edit wumaodang. But I suggest you try to find reliable sources and avoid original research. Now there are only 583 pages for "wumaodang" by Google search. Probably you can find a more common English term for this concept. And now "zh:五毛党" is redirected to zh:网络评论员 in Chinese Wikipedia. I encourage you to add interlanguage links when you create new articles (this may help other editors realize that you are not doing original research), and also add your new created page as an interlanguage links to Wikipedia's other language versions. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wumaodang is a good name

Thanks Neo-Jay, I think I stick with Wumaodang, as you may know the total number of Chinese netizens are as high as 250 millions, if only 1% of them come to en:wiki, that is a big number. And I forsee, in the near future, there will be millions of english-speaking Chinese netizens around, so we should stick to Chinese name whenever it is possible. Arilang ^talk 12:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you can read carefully Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Otherwise I am afraid that your article will be asked for deletion again. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Differences between Huaxia and barbarians

I have nominated Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Madalibi (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hua-Yi zhi bian

Yes. Although I voted Keep, and rename or merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, the chance to keep it is very low. I think that you can continue to contribute at Sinocentrism. AND, Please, add reliable sources and avoid original research controversy. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay, Hua-Yi zhi bian and Sinocentrism are two completely different concepts. Sino does not equate Huaxia. For example, Manchu can equate Sino, sometimes, but Manchu can never equate Huaxia. The term Sinocentrism is not right. Arilang ^talk 09:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wei Man

korean editor kuebie is preparing a vote to change name to a korean one, and canvassing korean editors, vote no on name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.134.214 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your new article 2009 CCSTV New Year's Gala

Hi Arilang. Glad to see that you're back to work! I'm not sure I can contribute to this article, because I don't know much about this topic, but here are a few suggestions. In my opinion, the key issue to think about is notability: is this topic notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia? I think it is, but you have to flesh out the article so that most editors (some of whom will know nothing about China) will also be convinced that it's a notable topic. So here's what you could do:

To contextualize the CCSTV gala, you should explain in more detail (in about two sentences) what the CCTV New Year's Gala does every year, how many people watch it, and why it is so well-known in China. You could emphasize that the CCTV gala is watched by hundreds of millions of people every year (find a source for this kind of claim, of course), but that many people have criticized it recently and find it boring and repetitive (I think there are already links for these claims on the CCTV New Year's Gala page.)
Still to contextualize the CCSTV gala, you could explain what reliable sources (in this case, mostly English-language online newspapers and maybe online dictionaries of popular culture) say about the "Shanzhai" 山寨 phenomenon or "Shanzhai culture." Explain where it came from and how it has been translated. (You could eventually create a wiki called Shanzhai, but I advise you to build it up in a sandbox first. I will help if you ask me to.)
Also to prove "notability," find as many English-language reports on the planned gala as you can. If you can't find many (or any), find Chinese-language reports and put them in "External Links." I'll help translate the titles if you need me to.
Change the wording of the first sentence, because right now that sentence implies that Shi Mengqi organized the CCTV gala on a low budget. You should probably separate the two clauses.
If you can, find more data on Shi Mengqi (in Chinese sources if necessary) and explain what his background is. Don't forget to add the Chinese characters for his name.
Find a reference for every single claim the article makes: the gala is organized by Shi Mengqi on a low budget, 700 individuals or groups have applied to perform, Shi rented an office last month, the Tianya online survey, etc. (You could find the survey and put it in a footnote too.) If all the claims come from the China Daily article you cite, it's all right, but you should still add an inline citation to that source for every single claim you make. This way, when you find new sources later and add new footnotes, all individual claims will be clearly referenced. (This is a thing to do for all articles you edit, by the way.)

So that's it for now! Remember: to prove notability, you have to find as many sources as possible that discuss this upcoming gala. And the more you contextualize the gala, the better! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I almost forgot: Coppertwig can probably give you better advice than I can on how to establish a topic's notability. Good writing! Madalibi (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found an English-language reference to the gala! [4] The source also explains the meaning of Shanzhai and the context of the gala. Note that it calls the organizer Sun Mengqi, not Shi Mengqi. I don't know which one is right. Hope this helps! Madalibi (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Shi Mengqi is the right version. The link is to a Google search of that name. Among the results is this interview with the organizers of the gala. Madalibi (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise is needed

@Madalibi: (1) If you have time, please create an article on Shanzhai. Plese use Shanzhai alone, because any other English translation just could not convey the true meaning of the Chinese word 山寨. Please check Chinese wiki zh:山寨, which explain its meaning quite well.

(2) You are free to edit 2009 CCSTV New Year's Gala, in the coming weeks this will be a hot internet talking piece. Arilang ^talk 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have time to build up the article, but I will keep it on my watchlist and see if I can improve it once in a while. Good luck! Madalibi (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that there is an article called Mountain village (counterfeit). Even if this is English, I don't think this title is recognizable at all. I also see that you've proposed to rename the article to Shanzhai and I think this is a good idea! I'll go say that on the talk page. Madalibi (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better just to create a new article Shanzhai, much easier and faster. In future we can always ask him to rename it, or leave it as it is. Arilang ^talk 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be faster, but I'd rather not create a content fork. I'm writing something on the Mountain village (counterfeit) talk page. [EDIT: done.] Madalibi (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the FM Beijing

Thanks very much for the link on the Net FM radio, I think from now on I shall listen to it everyday. I have already fallen in love with the voice if the female presenter. I love her accent, and the apparent of her struggling to try to improve her pronounciation. This is best FM program I have ever heard. And who is the guy(Bruce?) with heavy scottish accent? Chinese would have no hope of working out what is he uttering! I think he did it on purpose! LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

This sounds really funny! Where is this link you're talking about? [EDIT: ok, I got it. I hadn't actually listened to the interview and the programming, so you're the one who found the funny voices! Is this a Shanzhai radio?! Lol.] Madalibi (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was off line for a while. OK, I thought you were listening to it before. The interview of Meng wasn't much, it was the ridiculous accent of all the presenters that make the impression of a Monty Python shows of years ago. Anyway, do you like the thick and heavy Scottish accent? Arilang ^talk 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xie Xie

Thanks for the Cannon correction/addition on Japanese_invasions_of_Korea. t'is appreciated. Hopefully theres other places your Chinese history knowledge and Korean history can cross paths. May i nudge you at looking at WP:Korea?! Thanks! --CorrectlyContentious 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2009 CCSTV New Year's Gala

Thanks for your message. I made some copy-edits to it.--Neo-Jay (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be deleted? It is already incorporated into the Shanzhai article. L ^talk 14:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

打醬油

I think that 打醬油 comes from Guangdong/Guangzhou, not so much here in Hong Kong. It has a very Mainland feeling (maybe that is why it is 醬油 and not 鼓油). Wen Wei Po and baike have ok articles ont he subject. I always think of it being something like "MEH" in English, but obviously not the same. L ^talk 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Alainna. Arilang ^talk 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨

Please refer to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians

Now that the debate on Differences between Huaxia and barbarians has come to an end, I think we should start to work on a new article with the temporary name Hua-Yi zhi bian. Instead of one editor, I think it is better to form a small task force to handle this very important subject, which played a pivotal role in ancient(and modern) China's politic, culture, foreign policy, frontal border policy, plus everything else.

I like to issue an open invition to following editors to join the Hua-Yi zhi bian co-editors task force, to work out the remaining issues:

Naming of the article.
Structure of the article.
Translation of relevant Chinese sources.
Collecting relevant English secondary sources
Whatever other issiues I have not thought of.

Lists of invited editors(random sequences):

Madalibi (talk) Hong Qi Gong ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers -Neo-Jay talk Bathrobe talk L talk Metropolitan90 (talk) Aymatth2 (talk Toon ^(talk) Bejnar talk

This list is open to any other editors who are keen on East Asia history. Arilang ^talk 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. My first comment would be: Should we be using this title? I know that User Arilang is quite attached to this term, but as User Madalibi has pointed out, this may be better subsumed under Sinocentrism, which is a well-known (if fuzzy) concept in English. It could also be subsumed under barbarian. Since the concept of barbarians is, however, Greek in origin, and has only been later applied to the Chinese situation, and the current article on "barbarian" very much reflects that, it might be advisable to have an article on "barbarian (in Chinese culture)". Quite frankly, I'm not too keen on the use of Wikipedia to propagate Chinese terminology that isn't already current in English to some extent. This is a little like original research -- making Wikipedia a "cutting edge tool" in expanding human knowledge. This is somewhat at odds with what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. Wikipedia should be collating and summarizing, not leading the way in creating new perspectives or categories of knowledge in English, tempting as it may be to do that.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but (on qualifications) I must point out that although I am a Chinese National/Citizen (dual citizen actually due to a citizenship law loophole), I know almost zip about Chinese History from the Chinese perspective (besides WWI/II, and some treaties of humiliation), as I have not studied in China (I do know more than the average american, as my 9th grade history teacher was 1/4th Chinese), and my parents aren't history majors (although my grandparents are retired teachers, but they are in China, and I'm schooling in the US...) so I can't help much with content contributions that can't be found via google. With that disclaimer aside, I'd be happy to review neutrality, and I do think some modification on the naming might be required. I do think that this warrants its own article if it isn't subsumed under "barbarian" as it is much closer to Sinocentrism than "barbarian". Lastly, I agree with the temporary naming, although it would need to be moved/redirected to a better English translation (despite the fact that things are lost in translation). Best of Luck. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a somewhat generic start at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name) for those with more knowledge on Chinese History. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I am a chinese canadian who has, however, a great deal of knowledge about chinese history and has studied it extensively(Being one of my three hobbies, other being stock investing and halo 3, strange for a teenager not?) but I do believe this article is notable; the difference between Hua Xia and Yi(Chinese and barbarians) is a very important concept in chinese history. Also in this case, Yi(foreigner) basically means the same as barbarian used in this concept. I have read your edits, Arileng, and you have done some good work! However, I wouldn't be so sure about your views of the PRC supporting the barbarian dynasties; the prevailing mood in china is against them. Check HanMinZu.net. Also, PRC is not communist anymore; It is probably now the most free-market economy with schools, hospitals, bus lines, privatized.Teeninvestor (talk)

It would be more fruitful to make an article about "barbarians" in Chinese history to cover everything in general about them, rather than trying to make an article from the simple phrase 華夷之辨 and writing an article only on the difference between barbarians and Han Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arilang. At this time I am going to wait before attempting to contribute to the draft article on Hua-Yi zhi bian because I need to wait and see what other editors are going to write first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at the storm of comments about racism in the AfD discussion on Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. All people whether they live in Borneo, Burundi or Bolivia feel that they are at the center of the world, their culture is the true culture and the strangers encroaching on are them inferior and probably a threat. Given the huge importance of the Chinese culture and civilization, an article that discusses how this universal concept developed and evolved within China is certainly legitimate. It is clearly quite different from the political concept described in the article in Sinocentrism. But I have little understanding of the subject. I would be happy to edit/review, but do not think I could contribute useful content. One concern I have is that this is an English-language version, and preferably all content should be supported by English-language sources. In this case, that may be tough. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite and ive currently read through the transcripts of what was a long 30 minutes worth i must say! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/_Hua-Yi_zhi_bian(temporary_name), seems the place to be and hopefully you shall see some Korean additions to the cause. Bare with me however, as references are few and far between in Korean history. P.s careful of nationalistic areas and apologies but my Hanja knowledge is poor... Hangul i can deal with--CorrectlyContentious 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hua-Yi zhibian article

Sorry, Arilang1234. I don't know how to translate the concept "Hua-Yi zhi bian". I think that you can contribute at the article Sinocentrism. Adding content to the established article is better than creating a potentially controversial article.--Neo-Jay (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of Hua-Yi Zhibian should be: "Differences between Chinese and barbarians". However, I believe the text is best under its original context, e.g. in pinyin.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The topic will be more accessible if part of Sinocentrism. I also recommend the editors impose a discipline: "No Chinese words other than names and no Chinese characters". Stick to the concepts and avoid giving the readers a language lesson. If a phrase is hard to translate accurately, do your best. If I come across a word راوِ in an unfamiliar script followed by the Latin character transliteration, followed by the meaning, it slows me down. I just want the meaning. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To user Aymatth2 and Neo-Jay, if you read all the external links on User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name), you can find out easily that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" and Sinocentrism are two different concepts. In it's essance, Hua-Yi zhi bian is about the difference of good vs evil, civilization vs barbarism, right vs wrong. Like my statements in the AfD debate, "Hua-Yi zhi bian" can be used to explain the modern time penomena such as Chinese culture revolution and Red guards burning embassy building. And Sinocentrism has no hope of doing that. Arilang ^talk 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I quite strongly disagree that Hua-Yi zhi bian can be used to explain the Cultural Revolution, etc. This is pure speculation and no one is entitled to write an article based on the idea that this kind of thing can be taken for granted.

As for "good vs evil" civilization vs barbarism etc., that is a very strong value judgement about China (good, civilisation) vs others (evil, barbarism). The words "Sinocentrism" literally suggest that China was "at the centre", which is perhaps why User Aymatth felt that China was little different from anyone else. But in reality Sinocentrism carries precisely the connotations that Arilang suggests -- that the Chinese regarded themselves as possessing superior virtue and civilisation to the barbarians around them. These are the ideas at the heart of Hua-Yi zhi bian. I don't see that they are different.

Bathrobe (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe's claim that "the Chinese regarded themselves as possessing superior virtue and civilization to the barbarians around them" is too adamant, to say the least, and I wish user Bathrobe would refrain from making such a simplistic statement towards a 3000 years(or is it 5000) old civilization with records written in difficult-to-understand-text, towards which user Bathrobe had admitted before of little understanding(please I am not trying to look down on Bathrobe's literary ability). One good example is Tang dynasty, of which the rulers were known to be non-Han-Chinese(of Turkish blood), and yet Chinese all over the world do claim the Tang dynasty as a CHINESE dynasty.

Two good examples showing that Sinocentrism(I believe it was coined by Fairbank) and Hua-Yi zhi bian are two totally different concepts:
(1) Zhu Yuanzhang using the concept of Hua-Yi zhi bian to fight off the Mongol invaders, by calling the Mongols as Northern Barbarians
(2) Sun Yatsen did the same thing, he called the Manchus as Barbarians. And he suceeded, just like Zhu Yuanzhang before him. Try using Sinocentrism to explain these two historical events, and you shall have no hope of doing it. Arilang ^talk 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the T'ang you will have to use Hua-Yi ZhiBian to explain the phonenmon because although the T'ang rulers had some Xianbei blood(not turkish) they regarded themselves as chinese. The Qing and Yuan rulers on the other hand, regarded themselves as non-chinese. Qing emperors frequent made statements like" We must preserve the Qing, rather than China" and so on. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To understand Hua-Yi zhi bian, one needs to be able to read classical Chinese

I like to ask user Bathrobe one question:Please explain 夷狄之有君,不如诸夏之亡也. This is a famous saying of Confucius, only by understanding this phrase, then one can really understand Hua-Yi zhi bian. Again, I am not trying to make fun of user Bathrobe(because Bathrobe admitted before of unable to read classical Chinese). I am trying to show that one's words would be weak in authority if one is lacking in understanding of the primary source, because sometimes secondary source can be inaccurate. Arilang ^talk 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain:Confucius said:夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之. Arilang ^talk 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之. This means if barbarians move/are conquered into China, then they will be assimilated into chinese. If the reverse happents, then chinese will be forced to adopt barbarian ways.

夷狄之有君,不如诸夏之亡也. This means that a barbarian nation with a government is worse than China in anarchy.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also more phrases to demonstrate the Hua-Yi Zi Bian concept: 华夷之分，大于君臣之义; 夷狄异类，詈如禽兽;

Although I believe Sinocentrism and Hua-Yi Zi Bian are similar, Hua-Yi ZI Bian should have its own article as it is a crucial concept that needs to be explained. Sinocentrism merely puts CHina at the centre, while Hua-Yi Zi Bian means "Chinese are different from foreigners" which is a crucial concept to sinocentrism. For example, if we have an article on keynesianism, does that mean we should not have an article on the labor theory of value, which is a part of keynesianism?Teeninvestor (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have analysis on Hua-Yi Zi Bian in other Asian countries that was within the chinese cultural circle. However, You're missing one important country; CHINA! Also, I have to agree with BathRobe that sinocentrism and Hua-Yi Zhi Bian are quite similar. Violence durign the culutral revolution was just Maoist fury, not related in any way to Chinese culture.

Also some links to the belief in china that Qing Conquest of Ming and Mongol conquest of Song were comparable to German conquest of Roman Empire and Mongol destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate, though they may not be reliable resources<http://bbs.huanqiu.com/zongluntianxia/thread-104527-1-118.html><http://www.hanminzu.com/bbs/TopicOther.asp?t=5&BoardID=9&id=238675>. They are articles from hanminzu.com, a site in china that promotes traditional dress. They also discuss sinocentrism in Japan and Korea.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a person of English origin living in Canada, I certainly consider that I possess superior virtues and civilization to the barbarians around me. But seriously, the article on Sinocentrism discusses a political concept - "a hierarchical system of international relations" - then discusses Cultural Sinocentrism, Sinocentrism today and related concepts. Surely there is room in this general article to add further observations on the Hua-Yi zhi bian concept, derived from reliable sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the title of this section quite disheartening. I was anxious to have the full meaning of Hua-Yi zhi bian explained to me, and now I find I will have to learn classical Chinese before I can grasp the concept. If this is really true, there is no place for an article on the subject in the English Wikipedia - few readers will be able to make sense of it. But perhaps the title is just a humorous illustration of the concept? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Can we please move this off Arilang1234's talk page as talk is meant to inform him, not debate him on the talk page? perhaps move it to a subpage.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Also, I don't think Manchu were most muderous barbarians in chinese history. That honor belongs to the Jie, who massacred chinese en masse. If Ran Min did not kill them all, "chinese" might today be caucasian blondes, and we would be talking about the "ancient Chinese Empire"(Not that we would exist).Teeninvestor (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/_Hua-Yi_zhi_bian(temporary_name)

And its relevant talk page to be used! thanks. --CorrectlyContentious 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion about anti-Qing sentiment Page

You will need to show that China stagnated during Qing and Yuan and progressed during the Ming and Song(not very hard to do) in order to overcome complaints about anti-Qing sentiment page. Examples could include: harassing merchants; reverting to feudal system(Banner system); suppressing of various chinese inventions(firearms, clocks, navigation, etc..). Also McCartney's embassy has a very strange comment in which he describes china as having stagnating since Marco Polo's visit and that they were conquered by the "Tartars" for a long period; however, he must have been aware of Dutch and Pourtgese contacts with the Ming dynasty, which was by no means a "Tartar" dynasty, and much more advanced than Europe(at the time).[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Divergence of China and West

I have added a new theory "Manchu Conquest Theory" to the reasons why china fell behind that of the west on the "Great Divergence" Article. Please check my sources and add more if you wish. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Can you also help me on my new article, "The Han Net".Teeninvestor (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will try to add contents to them. On your contributions on User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name) please be careful, I mean there are editors who are more than happy to put another AfD tag on it, so please put inline citation on everything you add, just to stop them from complaining. And you know that topic is still very controversial. Arilang ^talk 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that experience with comparison with Han and Roman Empires. Only fervent work kept it from being deleted. You seem to have a knowledge of chinese, why don't you consult the sources on the Han Net <www.hanminzu.com>Teeninvestor (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the view points on The Han net, but the problem is:
(1)Manchu burned many complete works of books(see Siku Quanshu and Literary Inquisition) so that western scholars end up having the wrong ideas.
(2)Communist China's education system was(and is) trying to cover up the nastiness of Manchu out of political motives(see Yuan Weishi and Yan Chongnian#Face-slapping incident. So my conclusion is, the view points promoted by Han net will be supported by people from the west and from the east, but it will take time, and effort. And tireless and persistent hard work. Arilang ^talk 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CPC should be more properly called the capitalist party of china now, see their economic policies I know Mao was a pig, but you should look past him; but Deng and his successors have basically transformed china into a capitalist, modern country. Deng Xiaoping is especially a great man, i think he is comparable to Tang Taizong or at least Han Wendi. In 2007, China's industrial production matched 75% of US industrial output, and thats counting that most US cars, etc. use chinese parts. There is no doubt about that. Right now if you go to china, all the dramas and news try to convey one idea: PRC will revive glories of Han ,Tang and Ming(three Golden Ages), bring china back to celestial empire, etc... If thats what they're trying to promote, i dont think PRC will try to emulate the Qing dynasty. Therefore, I think the ideas on Han Net will rapidly gain more weight. You have to know in china, in public theres one thing, in private theres another. By the way, would you assist me if i created an article "Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate".Teeninvestor (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that by bringing back these golden ages, each dynastys relevant military expansion wont occur in the modern world? Think thats a topic worth having or are we keeping to the peaceful current approach under the CPC? --CorrectlyContentious 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CorrectlyContentious, thats discussed under the article China as an Emerging superpower. In comparison to other ancient empires, the Han, T'ang and Ming were relatively peaceful. They were much better than the British, whose colonialism murdered 130 million; the american settlement of the old west, which genocided the native population of 30 million and interventions in Iraq, Vietnam, central america and other places, which probably adds up to another 10 million., or the Japanese and German fascists who killed some 60 million. Even the Romans were quite brutal compared to them, burning cities and enslaving their population(Carthage).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be fooled by communist

Before you created anymore articles on these Manchu-Mongol topic(not that I oppose you), please try to read more on John K. Fairbank, Preston Torbert, Pamela Crossley, Patricia Ebrey, and others. A lot of their material is Anti-Manchu, and please try to quote them as much as possible.

For example:{{Quote:One factor that distinguished Qing scholars from their Ming predecessors was the prominence of academies in forming a relatively autonomous intellectual community committed to evidential research. Page396 http://books.google.com/books?id=hi2THl2FUZ4C&pg=PA388&dq=Beatrice+S.+Bartlett.+Monarchs+and+Ministers:+The+Grand+Council+in+Mid-Ch%27ing+China#PPA396,M1 The Cambridge History of China By Willard J. Peterson, John K. By late Ming, the growth of academics was phenomenal. They became centers for classical discourse on the one hand and dissent and political protest on the other. The appearance of the Donglin Academy and later the Fu Shin(Restoration Society) at the apex of a loose association of literary groups and poetry clubs during the seventeenth century brought out into the open the politicized orientation of late Ming academy education. Dedicated to supporting its members in the factional struggle that dominated late Ming politics, the Restoration Society(Fu Shin), in William Atwell's words, "formed probably the largest abd most sophisticated political organization in the history of traditional China. page 397 Unquoted }} Arilang ^talk 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Qing conquest of China and Yuan conquest of China is just as bad as the fall of the Roman Empire, that's provable by any fact. As to your suggestion, I will consult these materials, as well as materials i have at hand(chinese essays, history books). Also, the CPC's newest history book condemns the manchu, so i don't think the CPC is still endorsing the manchu/mongols.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand CPC

@Teeninvestor:

I know you read a lot of books, but Wikipedia is about reliable source, not about facts. Anything you contribute, if you don't want deletion from other editors, your contributions need to be supported by good references, preferable from edu.com kind of web sites. If your edu.com are Chinese websites, your can try what I have done:Using google's bot translation facility.
Please check:http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/pubvp/2008/12/200812131436.shtml. Boxun.com is a very good oversea Chinese web site, they have a lot of academic people talking about serious stuff. Arilang ^talk 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Market Leninnism “市场列宁主义”

@Teeninvestor. please check: Arilang ^talk 06:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.1bao.org/ Arilang ^talk 06:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIT BBS

I am so far edititng "Economy of the Ming dynasty

This is my main issue right now. When it is finished i will ask you guys for an opinion. Also, I do know that material you add must be supported by sources; note i express my opinions, but i do not add them.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to know you are interested in Ming

Please check:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_571ca593010090lj.html

杜车别 is not his real name, but this guy has solid history foundation, he can quote historical facts like reading from his palm. You may not be able to quote him, but you can check up all his sources and quote from them. He is my internet hero. Arilang ^talk 13:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Teeninvestor, please check this one: Arilang ^talk 07:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.mitbbs.com/bbsdoc/History.html Arilang ^talk 07:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference for your coming article

I think i have these sources in print. Right now I have exams but once they are over i intend to make this article. Ming is most underestimated of the chinese dynasties, it definitely needs some more material. I have several publications about Ming. Also thank you for your help on COmparison between Roman and Han Empires.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Economy of the Ming dynasty" I will create after my exams which is in two weeks. Anyone is welcome to create it first, i will add it afterwards.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the cultural exchange part fit in with Great Divergence? it talks about how China fell behind the west, not exchange. New article Cultural exchange between west and east?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural exchange

My point is:Ming encouraged cultural exchange between China and the West, resulting in the strong Soft power of Ming.
Qing stopped any cultural exchange between China and the West, resulting in the overall deteriorating of soft power, causing China to fall behind the West. That article on the talk page explained it quite well.
You may be right, we should not talk too much on the cultural exchange, this way the article become un-balance. You can trim it down somehow? Arilang ^talk 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CCSTV New Year's Gala

An article that you have been involved in editing, CCSTV New Year's Gala, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCSTV New Year's Gala. Thank you. Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arilang. I voted "keep" on the AfD page. Remember that this is not just a vote: the result is decided by assessing the arguments, not by counting the number of people who support Keep and Delete (check How to discuss an AfD). So don't forget to explain why you think the article should be kept. So far, the argument seems to be strongly in favor of keep, so I don't think you should worry too much about it! Madalibi (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this page can help: Wikipedia:Notability (web). Madalibi (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder on canvassing ([5]). Notices should be neutral. Have a great day! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Han Dynasty

I recently responded here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arilang. Have you ever taken a look at my articles for the Song Dynasty?

And for that matter, my most massive single work to date, List of Chinese inventions? Have a look if you find the time.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the footsteps of Joseph Needham

First, congratulation to a young scholar's excellent achievements, with so many high quality featured wiki China-related articles, I can see the coming of age of a sinologist, following the footsteps of Joseph Needham and John King Fairbank, and surpassing both of them.

Please allow me to offer you some advices, based on the POV of my 漢人 background(I am trying to avoid the word Chinese), and using Chinglish, of course.

Let me use Kung Fu as an analogy. Lets say your Kung Fu now is at X level, and you would like to go up a few more levels(according to some Kung Fu masters, there is no limit to the upper levels that one can achieve). So, as a self-appointed Kung Fu coach, for you to go higher levels, you need to master the 漢字(Han words), that means you need to learn the meaning, and memorize about 4000 漢 words, preferable the Long hand, not the simplified. In the old time, a student need to know the sequence of each strokes before he can write the word properly. In the age of computer, student no longer need to write anything, mouse-clicks would do the job.

Now 4000 pictograms seems to be an awful lot, but it is not, because these pictograms are all you need to know, there is no need to increase the vocabulary anymore, because simply by stacking up 2 to 4 of these pictograms, virtually anything from cooking to rocket science(or nuclear science) could be explain, and interpreted by these pictograms. Whereas English language do not have this advantage; when a new English word is invented to describe a new thing, a new sequence of a string of alphabets need to be decided, and memorized. So a medical doctor has to have a vocabulary of 20,000 strings of alphabets, and between lawyers, musicians, cooks, accountants, bankings, plus numerous other professions, ten of thousands of strings of alphabets need to be learned, and memorized. It is very obvious which languages is the superior one.

A even higher goal, is to become a 大師 grandmaster. Take example of Wang Yangming, who was both a scholar and a military commander, a 文武 master, a true hero of the Ming era. I hope one day you would become Wang Yangming style of scholar.

(Out of time today, will come back and add some more comments.) Arilang ^talk 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response

Thank you for this long and thoughtful response, Arilang. I perhaps know about 500 漢 characters as of now. In fact, I am taking my third Mandarin Chinese language course right now at George Mason University. Although it is easy to remember the letters of the Latin alphabet, you are right about the difficulty of remembering the strings of alphabetic letters for each new word, in contrast to radicals of 漢字 which drastically simplify the language, also achieved by the "stacking" of these pictograms as you mentioned. The only comparison I can think of for Western languages is the use of root words of Latin and Greek apparent in many modern words (mostly for scientific appelations), yet the common Westerner unfamiliar with Latin and Greek will most likely not even recognize these Latin and Greek roots. I believe you are correct that when someone has fully memorized 4,000 漢 pictograms, they have mastered the language, but for an alphabet-based mind such as mine, it is truly difficult to learn not only 4,000 individual characters but also to get the order of brush strokes correct! Sigh. I'll master it one day. It makes it even more difficult that I'm required to learn Simplified characters for my classes (teachers are from the mainland), but I am simultaneously trying to learn Traditional characters since I want to be able to read Chinese documents written before 1956 (when the PRC instituted the Simplified Chinese characters).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for following in the footsteps of Wang Yangming, those are perhaps very large shoes to fill, since I certainly do not fancy myself as a great philosopher (to use a generic Western term). I think that even Wen Jiabao 溫家寶 understands Stoicism more than I do, since he has read the Meditations of Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius so many times! Hah. Also, I don't think I'll be surpassing Joseph Needham any time soon, but I have my hopes to become a great sinologist. Take care, Arilang, and good night.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ article on Shanzhai

There is a good article on WSJ about Shanzhai and the CCSTV New Year's Gala, in case you're interested. (I'll CCSTV article to reflect some things it has and link it when I get time.) If you can't access WSJ and would be interested in reading it, I can a copy. L ^talk 05:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alainna

(1) Thanks for your info on WSJ article, I have read it. Like I had said before, Shanzhai in 2009 will become big on internet.
(2) On your planning article Petitioning in the People's Republic of China, my suggestion is stick with the pinyin of 上訪, which is a thousands years old tradition, no English translation are able to convey its age-old meaning. Wikipedia is a great internet invention, but English language is hopeless when it come to translate age-old Chinese concept. Arilang ^talk 12:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)冤[reply]

Sorry, but I'm really going to disagree. The commonly-used translations are "petitioning" and "letters and visits". I've seen the use "shangfang"/"xinfang" in pinyin, "shangfang"/"xinfang petitioning", and other combinations, but "petitioning" is really what it is and the most general translation in common English use. (It's the same reason I do not agree with the use of "laojiao" rather than "re-education through labour", which is the most commonly-used terminology in English.) L ^talk 05:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petitioning

My online dictionary says:

A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.
A formal written document requesting a right or benefit from a person or group in authority.

In the West, Petitioning usually require many signatures, and shangfang normally has only one signature.

But shangfang really means that, when folk(老百姓) suffer in-justic at the local level, and there is no other means, or no other local governments can help him to right the wrongs, then folk would go up one level, and one level, and then the final level, which is Beijing. When they reach Beijing, usually they already had been into shangfang for many years.

TV drama 包青天, or 包公判案, has many excellent cases of shangfang.

Petitioning does not carrying the meaning of 冤情, or 冤枉, which is what shangfang is really about.

Or, may be 老百姓 can have it's own wiki too, what you think?

Another good candidate for a new wiki is 父母官. In the west, government officials are public servants, whereas in China(even now), officials are 父母官, translation:Supposed-to-be-your-parents-government-officials.

Arilang ^talk 07:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what your online dictionary says, "petitioning" is the accepted term used to refer to this. I've done far too much research on it in Chinese, Japanese, and English to state otherwise. L ^talk 05:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on 上訪

The origin on 上訪 is 欄轎申冤, or 鳴鼓申冤. In the old time, folks could only kneel on the street in front of official's sedan chair, in order to present their grievances on a piece of paper(狀纸). Alternatively, they could go to the court and beat the drum(鳴鼓), which carried an immediate penalty of caning, usually was 20 strokes, and the 'cane' normally was a thick piece of wood.

When you are ready to write the article, all the above info can be included. Arilang ^talk 19:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of the Ming dynasty

The article has been created. Can you help me improve it? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate

This has also been created. My plan is to work on this and Economy of the Ming dynasty as well. Could you please help? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T'ang as height?

Saying Tang dynasty is height of China is a bit excessive. T'ang is one of the heights, but you can't T'ang was better than Han, Ming, or maybe even the Song(overall, not just military strength.). In terms of military strength Han was most likely stronger and in terms of economic and cultural development Ming is definitely the highest. By the way, 杜车别 I also know him. I have several of his historical essays stored in my computer! They are extremely good. However, I do not agree with his economics (he is a marxist and doenst like the free market.), but his history is excellent.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang?

I have invited Pericles of Athens to come to help out on Ming's economy article. He has more than 10 featured China-related wikis under his belt, once he comes to help, there would not be any problem.
Why I say Tang is the best? May be because of the languages I speak. Because I speak Cantonese and Hockkian fluently(I speak some Italian and Korean too), so I know Cantonese always called themselves Tong Yen, and home-land is always Tong Sun 唐山, so it must be my Cantonese POV.
Again if we talk about soft power, Tang will be top, just look at all the religions, and 遣唐使, Kentō-shi , can you imagine a Japanese nation without Tang?
西遊記 just could not happen in Han(too strict), Song? definitely not in Ming, because Zhu Yuanzhang was reputed to be a Muslim(his wife 馬皇后 is definitely a Hui, because most of the people with the surname 馬 was a Hui), also Zhu used 明教(Persian religion) before he came to power, but afterward he began to persecute 明教. Arilang ^talk 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

西遊記 was written in Ming, you know. In terms of morals and others, I think Ming is possibly the most loose(loosest is current China(after deng). Just to prove a point, three of the four chinese classics are written in Ming, and only one in Qing(when Ming's spirit wasn't yet completely trashed by Manchu.) By the way, do you have any sources on the Liu Song dynasty(420-479). I am planning to write an article on the history of that dynasty, but all I have is a few disjointed parts.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User Arilang1234/Lao Baixing

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as User Arilang1234/Lao Baixing, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]