Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture)

You are confusing Asian architecture with Chinese architecture when you copy/past info from one article to another

You are mixing terms that do not belong together when you copy paste information from specific articles on Chinese architecture like Dougong. You are misusing the term. I don't think you understand Chinese architecture. --Mattisse 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The content here are consistent with the references you added at Zaojing. Personal attacks are not helpful. FYI I did not copy and paste content from Dougong - this article existed long before you made dougong.

If you do not remember, when you created dougong I congratulated you on your talk page saying that "I now have something to link to on Caisson (Asian architecture)". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you were going to copy the article, including the sources and put it into another, unrelated article. --Mattisse 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dougong

Is there evidence that Dougong was used in the Forbidden City? --Mattisse 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See the references cited, and see references on Forbidden City.

If you are unsure about whether the dougong is used in the Forbidden City, the epitome of palatial Chinese architecture, then really it is you who don't understand Chinese architecture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The books I have, and some online sources quoted in zaojing say that by that period dougong was purely ornamental and not structural. Even by the time of the Songyue Pagoda, dougong was becoming ornamental rather than structural. --Mattisse 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Western bias in Chinese architecture articles

The Forbidden City is the only site I have seen the Caisson term used in Chinese architecture articles. Most of my interest are in the history of Chinese architecture, and I have zero interest in the Forbidden City.

My interest starts about 10,000 BC, hence my interest in the traditional Chinese terms, rather than the Western terminology of the colonists who in the last couple of hundred years have tried to make Chinese architecture fit into the Greco-Roman architectural tradition. That attempt is probably why Chinese architecture is of so little interest on Wikipedia and perhaps accounts for the large interest generated by the articles I write using the original Chinese terms as well as those written by User:PericlesofAthens, who introduced me to the use of Chinese wording , who also uses Chinese words. The Indian articles have been very successful in this regard. See Hoysala architecture

We all know that Wikipedia has a Western bias that we all have to work on eliminating. I am also working in conjunction with editors who are creating and enlarge other Chinese articles on history, technology, art etc. who are also using Chinese vs Western terminology. --Mattisse 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for eliminating systematic bias on Wikipedia, and as I have said before, I have immense respect for your work on Chinese architecture and history pages. However, as I said on your talk page, in this case the caisson is an oft-used term, not just in the sources I cited, and not just in sources relating to the Forbidden City, but also in more general sources, including ones you cited at Zaojing.

Also, as I said on your talk page, the caisson or zaojing is found, in identical form, not just in China but throughout East Asia. Given this, the common English name is preferrable because it may not be known as (or at least pronounced as)the zaojing in those contexts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references and examples of the "oft-used term". If it is oft-used, then that should not be difficult. --Mattisse 14:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All the sources quoted. Cheers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be referenced but not well referenced. For example, the OED would never be accepted as a source for articles on Indian architecture, so why should it be accepted for Chinese architecture? Cheers. --Mattisse 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED is being cited to support this sentence:

"The caisson is a general name for any sunken panel placed in the ceiling."

Pray tell what that statement has to do with Chinese architecture per se, and even less, Indian architecture.

It is a statement as to the usage of a word in English. The OED is much more authoritative as to linguistics than any source you would care to pull out, guaranteed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing incorrect citations

I am going to remove my citations from another article that you incorrectly applied here in a way that is misleading. The sources are not essential to your article. --Mattisse 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed information and citations that are at odds with this article and is incorrectly included. --Mattisse 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated these sources since I do not see why they are irrelevant. Please specify how they are irrelevant. Please stop referring to Wikipedia articles as "yours" and "mine", because they are not. If you do not agree to licence your contributions under GFDL you should take them elsewhere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed other meanings of the word caisson since they are irrelevant to this article, and are dealt with by the dab page Caisson. The OED is online and is in every academic library in the world, so it is easily verified. See http://www.oed.com/. Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you seem to be removing sources on the basis that they refer to Zaojing. This seems to be based on a presumption that zaojing and caisson are different things. Please stop doing this, as they are clearly different names for the same thing. If you continue to do this, then out of consistency you sould remove all references that use caisson at Zaojing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed sources from a book I have that do not support the statements you have attributed to them. You must find sources that do support your statements. My book does not mention either zaojing or dougong in reference to the Forbidden City. Dougong almost certainly was not used in the structural sense there, as after 700 CE fasteners and adhesives were increaingly used, especially when you get to the relatively recent time period of the Forbidden City's building and rebuilding. --Mattisse 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Err.... no. Any standard reference work on the architecture of the Forbidden City talks about zaojing or dougong. What kind of book are you using? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The architectual books referenced in zaojing that you removed from the article and put in the caisson (Asian architecture) before you set up the #REDIRECT from zaojing to caisson (Asian architecture). --Mattisse 14:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of caisson

Please find definition in an online source, preferably an architectural glossary. There is no need to use a source not accessible to most readers when there are plenty of online sources available. --Mattisse 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• here is one I found by Googling the word "caisson" + architecture: [1]

"Coffer. Also called caisson, lacunar. Architecture. one of a number of sunken panels, usually square or octagonal, in a vault, ceiling, or soffit." --Mattisse 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. The OED is the authoritative source on the English language. No online source can be more authoritative than the OED, save http://www.oed.com/. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. We are talking about ancient traditional Chinese architecture, and no, the OED is not an appropriate reference for that. I do not think the OED pretends to be an authority on architecture. Would you look up a term in Psychology or Engineering and expect to obtain more than a lay definition there? It's not even a good source for any in depth architectural article. I do not think you will find serious architectural articles on Wikipedia using the OED as a reference. --Mattisse 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean about your habit of opening up lots of little threads? You keep on picking on the OED as if it is the only reference for this whole article, when in fact it is a reference for only one sentence. As I posted to the topic above:

The OED is being cited to support this sentence:

"The caisson is a general name for any sunken panel placed in the ceiling."

Pray tell what that statement has to do with Chinese architecture per se, and even less, Indian architecture.

It is a statement as to the usage of a word in English. The OED is much more authoritative as to linguistics than any source you would care to pull out, guaranteed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First para not supported by Peoples Daily source

[2] does not mention much of what you state in first para. --Mattisse 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And nor am I presenting it as the reference for the entire paragraph. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I suggest that you be clear in the way you reference so the reader will know. --Mattisse 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and any manual of style you care to cite, you will see that the reference for the sentence is placed at the end of the sentence. What would you prefer? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your description of caisson ceiling is not supported by my sources

You make many statements that are not supported or are directly contradicted by my sources. Those are the ones I am removing. --Mattisse 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me edit the article

There is no need to rush in and immediately change or remove anything I modify. This makes it seem like you own the article when you do this, not allowing other editors to edit unless you approve of the edit. Since you want to merge the zaojing article into this one, I want this one to be correct. From my point of view, since I am interested in the history of Chinese architecture, I want the history in the article to be correct. The article flings together disparate periods. I am trying to correct the misperceptions that this causes. --Mattisse 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not "merging" anything. I am adding contents relevant to this article, which I am obtaining a variety of sources, including the "Zaojing" article.

I am not reverting anyone else's edits, just yours because you insist on removing contents based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the subject matter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. That can be considered a personal attack. Please stop. --Mattisse 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. You are displaying bad faith, for example by starting some weird merger proposal when you haven't addressed my challenges to your edits to this article. Please address them. If you fail to address them, I will revert all of your edits. Thanks, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Centralised list of issues

Your practice of opening a new paragraph for every sentence you write is making the discussion difficult to follow. I am challenging each of your edits below. As is the practice on Wikipedia, the onus is now on you to justify each of the edits, otherwise they will be removed.

1. Opening paragraph

1.1 Chinese vs East Asian You cite chinainfoonline.com as showing that the Caisson is unique to Chinese architecture. This is plainly false. See the following Japanese sources for mentions of Japanese usage of caissons:

• [3]
• [4]. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1.2 Location at centre of building You dispute this. Why? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1.3 Various shapes You have put an additional fact tag on this. The various shapes of the caisson are described by both the People's Daily source and the ChinaInfoOnline source: from the latter: " polygon or a circle ,decorated with elaborately cared or painted designs "; from the former: "square, a polygon or a circle". Specific examples of the polygons - i.e. octagon etc, can be seen from the specific instances mentioned in the rest of the article, especially the images.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I rely more on my architectural book that I do many online sources. On line sources will do when you have nothing else, but books by experts on the history of Chinese architecture are superior sources, from my point of view. --Mattisse 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So which shape are you disputing? Does your "architectural book" say that it is only square or circular or what? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Names

2.1 OED You have put a dubious tag on the OED reference. As I have said before, the OED is the authoritative source on the English language. I don't know what more I can say about your dubious tag without verging on personal attack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles under discussion are on Chinese architecture and like the articles on Indian architecture, it would be preferable to use the Chinese terminology as other editors have been trying to do on Chinese architectural articles. You are taking a narrow view to quote the OED, hardly an architecture source for Chinese architecture. You are not taking a {{globalize}} view. --Mattisse 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you disputing the authority of the OED on linguistics? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Structure

3.1 Forbidden City You inserted: "Dougong was not used in the Forbidden City in a structural sense as by that time Chinese architecture, influenced by outside sources, had evolved more complex structural methods."

This is problematic in several ways. 3.1.1: it lacks citation 3.1.2: how is the construction of the Forbidden City more "complex" structurally than earlier structures? 3.1.3: there are plainly dougongs in the Forbidden City. The cited source (Yu) clearly discusses it. Unless you can provide a citation for your assertion, Yu, as the authoritative source on the architecture of the Forbidden City, will prevail your inconsistent statement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

3.2 "Completely different" You said: "This type of zoajing is completely different in nature from the ancient Chinese architectural zoajing which were related to water and the fear of fire."

Both are called caissons, zaojings in Chinese. How are these completely different in nature? You have no citation for it, and it sounds like an original assertion (not even research) on your part. All zaojings are related to elemental superstition. The dragon is a creature of water, and thus dwells in the water-well. I see no inconsistency. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No scholarly references I have mention zaojing in connection with the Forbidden City. In any case, the essential connect of zaojing to water and fear of fire in wooden structures does not seem to be featured in the descriptions of the structures of the Caisson article (other than in the sense of general past history not pertaining to the Forbidden City). --Mattisse 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor argument. As I said, I have cited sources which talk about the caissons in the Forbidden City. You are arguing "omission in one book denies mention in another book" - not a valid argument. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Use in other structures

You made mass deletions from this section without explanation. "My book is different" is not an explanation. Please provide a full explanation below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are not in a position to complain, since without consulting any other editors, and without a {{merge}} discussion, you emptied out the contents of one article, posted a #REDIRET and stuck the contents in another article, mostly in incorrect places. I removed the sources I had put in one article where you had moved them and incorrectly applied them in the second article. I removed those as I do not believe in using incorrect sources. If you have the source material, then use yours. --Mattisse 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are taking a proprietary attitude to "your" source again! As I said before, if you don't agree to licence your contributions under the GFDL, you should take them elsewhere and not place them on wikipedia.

"I put up these sources so no-one else is allowed to use my material" is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.

It would help if you could instead point out how they are being "misused". As far as I can see, "your" sources are directly on point for this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied from thread below) The sources that I used in another article that you took and put in this one (when you did your unauthorized merge of that article into this one) do not support the material in the article you used them to reference. That is why I removed them. If caisson is a generally used term for what you are describing, then it should not be hard to find reference sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Adding material and sources to an article is not an "unauthorized merge".
2. You deleted material and sources from this article without discussion.
3. Please point out exactly how these sources do not support the material in the article, because I assert that they are directly on point.
4. You are right that it is not hard to find reference sources - I found them in the article you wrote, and I added them to the article. That is how Wikipedia works. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Received third opinion on merge

I asked for an honest opinion from an editor who writes many articles, including several Feature Articles, on Chinese history and Chinese architecture. His reply:

If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

--Mattisse 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See further reply from Pericles on my talkpage. I have posted a new message on your talk page. Cheers, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest merge to Coffer

• Merge Since the term Caisson is not used in Western architecture in the way it is used in this article, it seems like this material would fit better in the article Coffer which currently lacks much information now but is the right term. This article would help the article on coffer out by beefing it up, plus it would change the title of this article to the correct architectural term. --Mattisse 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Caissons in Asian architecture. An Asian caisson is structurally different from a classical coffer. Please do not try to change the topic. The Zaojing issue needs to be resolved first. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see last several entries on your talk page. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide some reliable architectural sources for your definitions

You do not have sources other than online travel and publicity pages and a general dictionary source. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yu, Zhuoyun (1984). Palaces of the Forbidden City. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-53721-7. , pp 253ff is not an online travel and publicity page, nor a general dictionary source.

The sources which were in this article but removed by you were not online travel and publicity pages, nor a general dictionary source.

The people's daily is not an online travel and publicity page, nor a general dictionary source.

There were previously sources quoted in this article, which you have now removed, that are not online travel and publicity pages, nor a general dictionary sources.

It is rather disingenious of you to remove sources from the article for no good reason and then attack its supposed lack of sources.

If you had good reasons for removing the sources, you still haven't provided them. Saying "these sources are mine", as you have, is not a good reason. The discussion threads are still open above. Please comment there.

Please see your talk page on further comments about sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page for discussions of this article. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My sources did not support the material in the article they referenced

The sources that I used in another article that you took and put in this one (when you did your unauthorized merge of that article into this one) do not support the material in the article you used them to reference. That is why I removed them. If caisson is a generally used term for what you are describing, then it should not be hard to find reference sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please centralise the discussion in the thread above. I am copying your response to that section. Please respond there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you need an admin to come in and discuss?

I'm not an admin, but it does look like someone else needs to straighten this out. Frankly, I agree with PalaceGuard's position, per Pericles' comments here: "After reading the Caisson article (which I really didn't before, I only went on Mattise's word that it focuses solely on the Forbidden City) it is plain and obvious as day to see they are the same exact thing, only using either English terminology or the exact Chinese terminology. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why don't you guys draw straws or play rock paper scissors or something, because there are articles on East Asian topics that have English originated titles or exact renditions of East Asian terms." Considering Mattisse's trouble with teamwork, I definitely think some kind of arbitration is necessary. - Cyborg Ninja 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotta add... another important thing to point out is that the Caisson article was created (and edited by multiple users) before the zaojing article was created. And funnily enough Firefox's spellchecker (which has a low number of words) recognized caisson but not zaojing. - Cyborg Ninja 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)