User talk:Arilang1234/Archive 2

Archive

This page was hopelessly too big. I moved it to User talk:Arilang1234/Archive 1. Note that there exist bots to archive your talk page for you. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just went to User talk:Oda Mari to complain on your behalf and quite by chance find that that page uses an archive bot. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Re Created page with 'Sorry, my mistake for omitting the "sandbox". No! Your mistake was omitting the colon after 'User'. You will find the page at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Massacres and atrocities of Manchu and Mongols.

I know you have a lot of information about that, but your previosu article Massacres and atrocities committed by Manchu rulers was deleted. Why not put them in my new article, Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arilang. I think this is very bad advice Teeninvestor has given you! Is he aware that the administrator who deleted that page asked you to obtain consensus from PBS, PericlesofAthens and myself before reposting this page? I hope we don't need to get into all this again. In the mean time, keep up your good work on the other articles you've been working on, because I think you have truly improved as an editor in the last two months or so. Happy New Year! Madalibi (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that in the contrarian view could use some of his information. By the way can you give me a link to Lao Baixing.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor, User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing Arilang ^talk 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not deleted

OK, I shall do it. What you think about the Lao Baixing?老百姓 Arilang ^talk 13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Manchu atrocities go under Contrarain view. Qing dynasty only is the view that Qing is legitimate, Mongol is not. I'm sure you dont hold that view.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

冤案

There were many 冤案 in Qing, like 明史案, 楊乃武与小白菜, 曾靜案, etc, all these should have their own wiki. Arilang ^talk 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So sorry

for my misjudgment. It was really stupid of me. Please forgive me. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it was my mistake

User Oda Mari, you don't have to say sorry, it was my mistake. Arilang ^talk 13:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LaoBaiXing page

I created one in mainspace redirecting it to people (I think that it might be in some ways better to redirect it to chinese people, so maybe a disambiguation page would be better, but redirect for now to the literal translation). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lao Baixing or Laobaixing

• In Lao Baixing, the emphasis is on baixing(百姓), where Lao(老) is an adjective.
• I think Lao Baixing deserved to have it's own wiki, google 老百姓, 21,900,000 for 老百姓. (0.16 seconds).
• Could we have a consensus among editors?
• Once we have a Lao Baixing wiki, we can then have a Fumu Quan父母官 wiki? Arilang ^talk 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help right away. I'll be very busy this week and I won't even be on Wikipedia much until the weekend. Until then...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lao Baixing

Sorry, I am not interested in this article.--Neo-Jay (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arilang. Thanks for inviting me. Like Neo-Jay and PericlesofAthens, I'm afraid I don't have time to help. I'm trying to take a break from Wikipedia so I can work seriously on my dissertation, which has been almost orphaned for a few months now. If you want to find scholarly references, you could probably start with this, this, and this (keyword searches of "laobaixing," "lao bai xing" and "lao baixing" on Google books). Since "laobaixing" has by far the most hits, my suggestion for the article title would be Laobaixing (common people) or Laobaixing (ordinary people). Good luck with the writing! Madalibi (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second with Neo-Jay and say that I'm not very interested in working on it (mostly because I'm swamped in work right now). I'll help with some translations if needed, but I think that information related to "lao baixing" would best be put on the Chinese surname article..... L ^talk 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Laobaixing might be confusing

Although Laobaixing might be the correct term for people in Chinese, I find it rare that in Chinese books that it states Song Laobaixing, Ming Laobaixing, Qing Laobaixing, etc.... I would still use the term people. However in quotations, I believe Laobaixing can be used.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor, Lao Baixing has eliminated the confusion brought forward by Chinese, which has multiple meanings. Arilang ^talk 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but Lao Baixing is an unfamiliar term to most people(English-speakers), and I don't think that history books talk about dynasties like Song Laobaixing, etc... They use the term "ren min"(people) and other terms. I think Laobaixing should be used in quotations or in reference to the common people. But in certain situations, such as when we are talking about Jin invasion of Song, and saying, Song people resisted would be a better term than Song Laobaixing resisted.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since I know you don't like the CPC, would you really prefer Liu Xiaobo("China needs 300 years of colonialism") and his Mingyuen guys. China has problems, but they are problems that every free-market capitalist country developing encountered. At least the Chinese dont send in the army to round up peasants as slave labor or shoot union leaders(several memorable episodes in industrial revolution.)Every country has to go through a strongman stage(Chiang for ROC, Deng for China) followed by weakening of the ruling party and eventually democracy. I guarantee you in 10 years the CPC will not have the power it has now. If you skip a stage, look at post-1991 russia.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to emphasize more on grass-root

I know we are dealing with history here, but there is no reason for editors solely concentrate on King and Queens, and just ignore the grass-root-Lao Baixing. If you look at articles such as Qing, the whole article is extremely POV to me, because:

1. no mention of Lao Baixing
2. no mention of Soft Power
3. no comparison of Life-style between Han, Hui, Tibetans, Manchus.
4. the whole article just talk about the Manchu rulers, as if other ethnic people were non-existence. Arilang ^talk 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely true. The Qing dynasty is extremely POV, does not discuss obvious changes in Chinese life(Yangzhou massacre, Literary inquistion, etc..)Teeninvestor (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest AfD tag for Qing

@Teeninvestor, If I tag Qing a AfD, what you think? We can force the changes of editing style on Qing and other Manchu related articles. Arilang ^talk 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think AfD is the way to go here, its too liable to be abused. It won't succeed in any case. I think the best way is to work on the article itself and add content with reliable sources, and keep on doing it. I'm quite wary of AfD's they're too likely to be abused.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is a neutrality tag. We can easily press our case here, using these passages= "Setting the Qing capital in Beijing may seem a straightforward move in hindsight, but it was then an act of innovation because historically no major Chinese dynasty had ever "inherited" its immediate predecessor’s capital"

Complete bullsh!t. Song inherited the capital of its predecessor, so did T'ang. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is so biased sometimes. I just saw an article that said Zheng Chenguo(Koxinga) was a pirate. Maybe the East India company, but Zheng was fighting for national Liberation.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor, and the amount of Manchu scripts is plain silly, I read somewhere that the whole world now there are less than 200 scholars can read and write Manchu scripts, and us poor readers just have to bear it out by grinding our teeth when confronting this dead language. Arilang ^talk 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but putting An Lushan in the HYZB tang section is pretty controversial. He basically lead another "Wu Hu" uprising in China. Check out List of wars by death toll: Anshi Rebellion is high on the list. As such, including him would incur a debate about whether Tang multiculturalism was good or bad(let the barbarians in some times) and I'm sure we don't want to go through that. The Manchu race is basically assimilated now, like Xianbei, so I agree we shouldn't put Manchu script in. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how important the Manchu language is to scholarship on the Qing dynasty, I agree that the Manchu script doesn't add much to the article. Suggestion: we do away with the Manchu script, but we keep the transliterations.

I also agree that the Qing wiki is not very good, and for a large number of reasons. If you want to make modifications, just go ahead. Just don't be strident about it, and don't use information from blogs, no matter how good you think they are. Let me know if you need good references on particular issues you're interested in. Madalibi (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lao Baixing

I moved Lao Baixing to Baixing in line with Chinese and Japanese articles zh:百姓 and ja:百姓. 2. Of course "Chinese" should NOT be replaced by "Lao Baixing", which only refer to ordinary people and do not include officials and the nobles. Please use the words adopted by mainstream historians, and don't impose your preference upon others! Please, please, please!!--Neo-Jay (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know Lao Baixing refers only to plain folks, but at times Chinese can be very confusing. For example, Tang Chinese and PRC Chinese and Oversea Chinese have very different meanings. And Qing rulers refused to be regarded as Chinese. Shouldn't we work out what is the best way to eradicate this confusing factor? Arilang ^talk 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Again! Please use the words adopted by mainstream historians, and don't impose your preference upon others! Please, please, please!! --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

你好, Pericles here. I'm glad you have created the Baixing page, but I wouldn't go around replacing the national label of "Chinese" in every article, especially if we are talking about Zhonghua minzu 中華民族. I would say virtually all of the people who come to English Wikipedia—and who only speak English—are more familiar with the label "Chinese" than 百姓 bǎixìng. Baixing should certainly be mentioned in the articles for: Chinese people, Han Chinese, Zhonghua minzu, Ethnic minorities in China, etc. However, its use really shouldn't extend beyond articles such as these. For example, I don't think it would be appropriate to replace every "Chinese" with "Baixing" in the article for Ming Dynasty, since most English-speakers who visit the Ming Dynasty page are only familiar with the concept of "Chinese people" and not even "Han Chinese". It's easier for them to understand if it is simply "Chinese". Remember, most English speakers who visit Wikipedia don't know much about China anyway, and probably can't even locate Beijing on a map, even if it meant saving their own lives! Lol. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens, thanks for your comment, I agree with you that most readers are ignorant about China, and they just take it for granted. But the fact remains that, at times, Chinese would really add more confusion to many issues. Another really bad translation is Confuscianism 儒家, and Neo-Confucianism. To many 漢族 scholars, Confuscianism and Neo-Confucianism are both wrong translation, should just use 儒家 and it's pinyin. Please let me know what you think. Arilang ^talk 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Neo-Jay and PoA that replacing all instances of "Chinese" with "Baixing" would be inappropriate. The best reason is given by Neo-Jay: we Wikipedians need to use the words we find in reliable sources, not the words we think may sound better. And there is another problem: the word "Chinese" in the articles you mention refers to many different things: Huaxia, the imperial state, people of Han ethnicity, Chinese thinkers, the common people, etc. Calling all these "Baixing" would make no sense. As for Rujia 儒家, Western scholars today tend to dislike the translation "Confucianism" as well. There are entire books discussing how Westerners (starting with the Jesuits) have created and then imposed this misleading notion of "Confucianism" on the Chinese past. This is why some historians now speak of "the Ru," while others prefer to paraphrase Ru as "classical scholar" or "classical scholarship." Yet other people keep the word "Confucianism" for the sake of convenience, but they still explain why this term is inappropriate. Madalibi (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course "Confucianism" is a bad translation for 儒家; this should definitely be mentioned in the page for "Confucianism" with a proper source that explains why it is a bad translation. However, "Confucianism" is so widely used and accepted in the West that English Wikipedia should follow consensus and popular understanding of this philosophy and system of ethics. Remember, the job of Wikipedia editors is not to dictate or determine which labels they personally think are the best; we are merely here to report what sources say on a certain topic, and more importantly, the majority opinion on a topic found in a range of different sources. If the majority of sources out there made it clear that only 儒家 and its pinyin rendition should be used, then the article on "Confucianism" could be renamed. However, this is not the case. Virtually every Western source I've read that explains the philosophical school of Kongzi 孔子 labels it as "Confucianism".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second Pericles here and state that, because the majority of scholars et al translate "儒家" as "Confucianism" in English, then that is what it should be. I disagree with the manner in which many things are translated (e.g. "上访"/"信访" and "petitioning") or when and how foreign terms are adopted (e.g. "laogai" rather than "reform through labour" [or even "lao-gai"!]), but because they are what the majority use, that is how it should be on English Wikipedia. Otherwise we might as well say that nothing that is not natively an English concept is comprehensible in English simply because it is a foreign language and thereby write out everything, e.g. about China directly in pinyin. (And as someone who was trained as a linguist and translator, I'm not about to agree to the latter argument.) L ^talk 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The modern meaning of 百姓 in Japanese is "peasant". And it's normally read "hyakushō". The Japanese Wikipedia explains the original meaning of 百姓 and how it evolved into the modern meaning. But arguing for a move to Baixing on the basis of Japanese is not a good argument.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many instances of wrong translations

@Madalibi, Confucianism is really a very wrong translation, may be Wikipedia is the place to right the wrong?
As with Baixing, I was not going to replace all the Chinese with Baixing, but definitely in many instances Baixing makes more sense then Chinese. In my opinion, this English word Chinese would qualified to be the most missed-used word in all the China related articles. Arilang ^talk 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi zhi bian and the Unification of All under Heaven

I apologize for dropping out of this project - got involved in other things. I find the article is still a bit incoherent, but would like to think about it a bit, maybe make a few edits. I am going to be very busy in real life in the next few days, so not right away. But I will watch the page. At this point, no, I am not going to start an AfD or other formal review. But from a quick glance, I think the article is lacking a strong central theme, and may be seen as original research. Be patient - there is no hurry. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag for AFD? If this article can survive an AFD quickly no one should be abel to delete it.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainland China view of Qing and Yuan

What do you think is? As an immigrant who however has visited the motherland several times, I think the mainstream view would be similar to what you and me view. It's the same view most people would have privately, but publicly they would not condemn Qing and Yuan openly, as that might give ammunition to those seperatists who go: Then tibet , xinjiang is not part of china. This is similar to how chinese don't condemn Mao in public like russians condemned Stalin(who was far more competent than Mao) but in private 99% of chinese would want to dig up his body, lash him, and feed whats left to a dog. (that would include Deng, Jiang and the current leadership by the way; they were all victims of cultural revolution.)Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor, http://www.boxun.com is very informative on contemporary China. The more you read, the more you would understand China. Arilang ^talk 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxun.com

www.boxun.com has articles that support that traitor dalai.... , and falun gong.... and "300 year" Xiaobo and the mingyuen, which is funded by CIA. It even supports Christianity and denounces evolution! that religion caused roman empire to fall 1000 years back you know. One of the reasons why China was 10 times more advanced than West is due to those christians. China is corrupt, but no more than other countries in its current stage(think 1980's Taiwan) and its definitely not protectionist. CPC is not nice, but would you think post 1991 russia is a better fate? Ming also had problems, does that mean all the chinese should embrace Manchu invaders? Should all the chinese in 1937 flock to surrender to the Japanese because ROC had problems? If your country has problems you should solve them and right now Chinese leadership is doing a better job than say, British gov in the industrial revolution in relieving hardship. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WOW! Boxun.com even has people who diss Joseph Needham and say china did not invent gunpowder, printing press, and others! who says chinese civilization is younger than Greek! and who says west has always been ahead of china! BULL! the descendants of barbarians does not catch up to the most civilized country on earth. You should read some western history Arilang1234, if you believe half the crap on this site. I'm telling you some of the things that barbarians (ancestors of current westerners) did when they took over the Roman Empire make the Manchu look enlightened. You can criticize the CPC, but don't go and degrade the Chinese people. Instead of dissing our ancestors, we should all be ashamed that we have not continued our ancestors' glorious exploits. Arilang1234, do you really agree with some of the opinions on this site, especially the ones dealing with history? Do you really think a civilization that lead the world for roughly 2,300 years and was first-class for 2,800 is worthless? Do you think China cannot ever recover her ancient glory?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxun has many things, all of which need to be taken with a grain of salt. Practically anyone can post things to Boxun. When reading Boxun, you have to think to yourself, "where does this come from?" However, this does not mean that everything on Boxun is bad and wrong. This also does not mean that people like Liu Xiaobo or people in the minyun (is Liu a member of minyun? I don't know whether he considers himself part of it) always write incorrect things. They simply see things in a different manner, one which you yourself obviously do not subscribe. L ^talk 04:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

@Alainna, I am glad you join this discussion between me and Teen. Please bear in mind this user is only a teenager, a high school student, we should admire (His/Her) dedication towards the understanding of Chinese culture. Patience is needed to explain things to a teenager, and this is not an insult, I would pay any kind of money to regain my youth, if that could be done. Arilang ^talk 04:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Waah, I would hope that a teenager would appreciate being conversed with in the manner that one would use with any other person, rather than being spoken down to, especially considering that this author's teen years aren't all that far behind. ;) L ^talk 04:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for criticizing the CPC, but please don't extend your criticism to your own homeland! China has problems, but these are regular problems that were faced by every industrializing country. In 10 or 20 years, I suspect the CPC will voluntarily democratize, just like what happened in ROC and ROK.

My main point is: BOTTOM LINE: DON'T BETRAY THE MOTHERLAND. You can criticize whoever you like(even Deng himself said he was only right 50% of the time) but don't get into bed with FLG, Tibetan seperatists, and certain Anglo-saxons(government only, regular people are nice) who want nothing more than to plunge china into chaos and continue their dominion for another century. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bathrobe

I was reading your conflict with Bathrobe on Qing dynasty, and I'm wondering why you didn't report him to Wikiquette. He called you a squirrel, made racist comments about all chinese(your mind is filled with propanganda, ) and the like(US has more propanganda then CPC can ever dream of). If it was me, i would have filed wikiquette right away.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are too young

1. I knew User Bathrobe was out of line when he said all those things, but back then I hardly knew anything about Wiki(even now I do not know much). Anyway, what is Wikiquette?
2. I am glad you are reading the Qing talk page, and you would know it is very hard for an unexperienced editor trying to right-some-wrongs on all these POV biased articles. My humble suggestion is if you can recruit some more editors who understand both English and Chinese(I know there are plenty of them on some internet forums and chat-sites), and encourage them to become Wiki editors like you. The task(what you are doing now) is both tedious and long term, and enormous. And I wish sometimes in the future you would become an admin, believe me, it is very important to have the Power, but only use it to help other editors, and not to abuse it.
3. In regard to Chinese civilization VS Western civilization, it will take forever to debate, but I am glad you bring it up; since you are only a teenager, I admire and congratulate you on your concern on such a boring(to a teenager) subject. For a start, no matter how great or how bad the Chinese civilization are, and were, it lacks one fundamental corner stone, which is Thou shall not kill, which is one of the basic Western laws, and to me, that basic law, plus other laws, is enough to tell the difference between a Modern western civilization and ancient and out-of-date Chinese civilization. Look at it this way, from Qing until PRC, the total number of human(Asian) life lost(due to wars, mass murders and genocides), just think for a moment, had the Ming (or earlier) people were able to incorpolate The teaching of Christ into Confucianism, I am very sure this ancient civilization would have made a gient step forwards, towards the goal of The world's greastest civilization. Arilang ^talk 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Stock investing is also a boring subject for teens too, but a 95 average lets you do anything. In regard to the above, I would think that Chinese civilization WAS the greatest one for a quite long time from 500 BCE to 1750CE. I have read both the histories of China and Western Europe, and believe me, feudal Europe is not a good place to live(neither is Rome particularly, with civil war every time an emperor died.) As to christianity, i'm not so sure its a good thing. You may want to inquire as to why all the ancient Greek texts can only be found in Arabic?Teeninvestor (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thou shalt not kill

I would take that with a grain of salt. If you look at the Germans who followed christianity, and China who followed confucianism, China is clearly less aggressive and more peaceful. Of course the west is rich now after taking so much wealth from India, Americas, etc.. it can afford to go "oh human rights, don't kill, christian morals, etc..." But when they weren't that rich, they were heavily murderous. I will list some examples:

Fall of Roman Empire: German invasions caused Population of Romans to literally drop to zero. Roman Empire had 80 million under Trajan. under German domination, whole of Europe(non-Byzantine) had 20 million, and that's counting Germans. Modern western civilization was not a descendant of Romano-Greek civilization; in fact it was built on the back of millions of dead Romans.

India: British killed at least 20 million in mutiny. If you search list of Indian famines(which were engineered by British), the amount of deaths from 1850 to 1950 alone equals 64 million. Plus another ten million or so from Maratta wars, and we're close to 100 million.

Americas:

Spanish- at least 10 million in Peru, and another 10 million in Mexico.

British- 10-15 million in Canada.

Americans- 30 million at least in North America.

Africa:

Belgian Congo- 10 million

Slave trade- 10 million(at least)

Boer war, Mau Mau, Sudan- 2 million

Asia:

Chinese who died from British opium-15 million(at least)

Australia- 1 million

Vietnam- 4 million

Arabia:

Iraq- 4 million

Palenstinian deaths after Israel took over and started killing- 1 million(at least)

and that's not counting Indirect deaths(for example, japanese suicides after they got screwed over By US in 1989 currency manipulation; Sudanese who died after bombing a drug factory; famines from African countries that get robbed.) Add it up if you have time, but it's a pretty big list and it didn't count Europeans killing themselves(far more wars in Europe than in Ming or Qing CHina.) The difference from Modern and Ancient chinese civilization is one thing: its called factories. China didn't catch up because Qing stagnated, and now they have to go the hard way(strongman, luckily Deng is not a bad guy.)Teeninvestor (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note: Palestinian deaths caused by Israel cannot be anywhere near 1 million. Note that the First Intifada and Second Intifada combined don't show 10,000 Palestinians killed during those years, and those were 12 to 14 years combined. Israel has only existed for 61 years, and the years when those intifadas were not going on by definition must have been less violent than the intifada years. I don't know how many Palestinian deaths have been caused by Israel, but 1 million does not make sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the deaths is not in the intifada but in the initial expulsion and invasion, as well as attack on lebanon.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Debate with Madalibi

I think most of what you have suggested can go under the article Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate. or we can improve the Great Divergence article, to reflect four stage theory.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to keep everything under one wiki

Yes and no. My ideas is, if possible, create more wiki with different titles, and develop each title slowly in the future when time is ripe. And my opinion on the Great Divergence as a title name, it is too plain, not enough color. For example, Anti-Qing sentiment is a good name for a title, it is straight forward, it tells the story, and very easy to remember.

1. Nearly forgot, just to remind you again, in a democracy, majority rules. Be friendly with users like Alianna, PoA, because when voting time comes(for example another AfD voting), we need all the help we can get. And remember to encourage more editors to work on wikipedia.

Arilang ^talk 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize that part. Remember, I already fought an AFD battle.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

人海戰術

I like to borrow this 人海戰術 for our task in en:wiki. For example, we may be facing difficulties when editing articles like Qing or others, may be there are editors with opposing views. Why not leave it alone for a while, and we go away to create articles that tell the facts with reliable sources. When many good articles are created, and we come back to the original articles, and force a AfD tag, present those articles with alternetive views, then WOW, job is done, with a minimum of fuss. In this case, articles 海戰術 is used, instead of 人海. You agree? Arilang ^talk 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tibet

What's this notion that Tibet became a part of China only after Qing? Ming had control over it also. In fact, T'ang had conquered that region at its height.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, if you read Tang history, the relationship between Tang and Tibet is:

1. Same as Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, at best was a Vassal state of Tang. In fact, at times, ancient Tibet was a much stronger nation then Tang was, that was why 文成公主 went to Lhasa, as the Han Dynasty's Heqin.
2. Qing did send 駐藏大臣 to Lhasa, but that post was more a Liasion Officer than a Governor. Back then Tibet had it's own army, and own government. It really was another Vassal state

I did read all the histories. T'ang had established a rule over Tibet briefly in 650, when Lhasa is captured. By time of Yuan, Mongols had governance there. Ming had sent commissoners to that region as well. Qing had very tight control, and stationed troops there. That's a sign of soverignty. Just because troops is not there does not mean lack of soverignty; for example, Canada doesn't station troops in North, but no other country, I think, claims Northern Canada. Most claims of independance, I think, are very politically motivated.

文成公主 went to Tibet at a time T'ang was very strong, I don't think the T'ang who beat the Turks would fear Tibet. Turks were very strong(Xiongnu, Mongols).

Han dynasty's Heqin didn't send real princesses, you know...

China had controlled Tibet no later than Qing(assuming Mingshi is exaggerating which it is probably not, Manchu had incentive to write down Ming dynasty, yet still kept mention of tibet as a commandry.) Since Qing ruler bequeathed all its terroritories to China, in effect entering a voluntary annexation, China would then restore soverignty over Mongolia and Xinjiang(Like Han and T'ang, and some parts of Ming) as well as Tibet(assuming Ming didn't rule it). Most of the terroritories that Manchus conquered were already part of China by Ming; just that introduction of Maize caused Manchus to have tighter control over them.

Right now, it is a very prilevged region of China. CPC puts lots of cash into that region. Wages in Tibet are higher than in Sichuan! Teeninvestor (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

天朝大國,萬國來朝

1. soverignty over Mongolia and Xinjiang is a complex issue, historians can debate for months and still disagree with each others. Again, when 天朝(Chinese Empire) was strong, both in military and Soft Power, as in the case of Tang, all the various little nations would come to pay tributes to 天朝, to Kowtow to 天可汗, and proud to be associated with Tang, until today, Tang's legacy still shows in the form of China Town 唐人街. Han Dynasty was also powerful, that is why Chinese call ourselves 漢人, people of Han. Back then, the concept of National border was non-existance. When China stepped into post-1900 modern-time, the Chinese rulers had to adapt to unfamilar political terms, and brand new ways of dealing with foreign nations. Until today, the current Beijing government still conduct it's affairs in kind of pre-modern times' ways, as can br easily shown in the ways their handle 2008 Summer Olympic and the 2008 Summer Olympic Openning ceremony. Beijing goverment gave the absolute priority to the staging of the Olympic, which essentially is just a sports meeting, but the government used that event to project an false image of 萬邦來朝, as if 漢唐盛世 is here again.
2. The mentality of the current Chinese emperor was very obvious in the case of shoe-tossing. When George W Bush nearly got hit by a flying shoe, he ducked, and then joked about it, because most fundamentally, George Bush is just a ordinary human beings, even though he was holding the most powerful office in the world, he just brushed away the incidence with humors.
   

But Wen Jiabau treated the incidence differently, because many Chinese, including Wen, still lived in pre-modern times, when Wen is still regarded as a kind of emperor or King. Put it another way, had the shoe-tossing incidence happened in China, I am sure that guy would be tossed into a forced-labor camp, no doubts of it. Arilang ^talk 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wen Jiabao treated it differently because Wen didn't KILL ONE MILLION PEOPLE, as Bush did. Bush, like ALL American presidents, has blood on his hands. Emperor or not emperor, throwing shoes at visitors(who didn't invade your country and kill a million, of course) is not polite. If that shoe-tossing incidence had happened in China though, the guy would be decleared "freedom fighter" by US, hired out by "human rights" groups, and go around lecturing on why anglo saxons should invade china and "liberate" it. (if not noticed, 2 or 3 years of laogai). Laogai(labor camp), though should be required for criminals; it is unjust for them to live at taxpayers' expense; now im not advocating gulags, but getting them to say, make some toys or something shouldn't be hard. Wen is not even close to emperor, maybe Deng, but not wen. China right now is a CAPITALIST nation, like US in 1920s(and I'll tell u, they weren't too "Democratic" then.); power is in hands of capitalists obviously. China's government(in expenditures) has much less than US. Right now there is a sort of 萬國來朝, as all the western nations are pleading for China to "regard the sake of mankind" and bail them out. It's not the 萬國來朝 that we wanted, though. it's more like 萬國來抢Teeninvestor (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually all countries care a lot about olympics. In Canada, where I live, in first 2 weeks the canadian team did not win a single medal; there was a huge uproar about need to spend more money, etc... When the first medal was won by a chinese immigrant, a ton of people are like: "Ah, it's a chinese who won it, what happened to our anglo saxon physique, etc...". But China has a strong incentive to show it because CPC wants Chinese to think that its 漢唐盛世 again(should add Ming in there). To be fair, if CPC continues to make the right decisions(UNLIKE japan in 1987, where they got robbed by US) for 10=20 years, China would probably go back to 漢唐盛世.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Drafts are coming along

If you want a sneak peek at how the articles for Economy of the Han Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty are going to look, take a look at User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economy of the Han Dynasty and User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens, thanks for the invitation, I know there will be more featured articles from you. By the way, have you ever thought of publishing your own books? Or E-books on internet, may be a good idea? Arilang ^talk 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. For now, Wiki is fun and a quick means to reach the masses. Also, the draft is done, and the article is up and running! See Economy of the Han Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua Yi zhi bian

Would you want to have an AFD session on Hua Yi zhi bian? It would strengthen the article if it is to survive.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, I really do not know much about AfD tag, and it is really not up to me to say. As you can see, this article is really very powerful when it is quoted at the right time, and at the right place, when we are discussing Qing related articles, you agree?

New sections of Hua Yi zhi bian.

Added some new ones, take a look, correct you don't like, etc...Teeninvestor (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, the content you add do enrich the article a lot, and can be further extended, somehow, for examples:

1. New articles can be created: Barbarian tribes's adoption of Han surnames, in this article we can have a list of barbarians-turned-Han-chinese. For example Manchu gave up their Aisin Gioro name, if they are so proud of Qing, why then they give up 爱新覺羅, the surname of Manchu Emperors? Have you heard of any 刘 family gave up the 刘 surname? This argument is powerful enough to remove all the Manchu scripts on all the Manchu-related articles.
2. New article:From Dongyi(東夷) to Joeson(朝鲜)
3. New article:From Wa(倭) to Japan(日出之國)
4. New article:From Malacca(滿喇加) to Malaysia
5. New article:Zheng He, Captain Cook, and Australia
6. New article:The marine and commercial empire of Zheng Zilong(郑芝龍)
7. New article:Naval battles of Konxinga

Plus many more. All these new projects should keep you busy? Arilang ^talk 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ran Min

What tone should I adopt? He is probably very controversial because on one hand he might have saved China from the barbarians but on the other he is decried as a genocider. What should we adopt to him? I personally think he is a hero.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ran Min should be given Han Hero status, same as 岳飛 and 文天祥.

1. Mongols killed millions of Han, Manchu killed hundreds of millions, so what if Ran Min killed a few millions, or 10 millions, or 100 millions? Remember Hanwu Dadi, 犯强漢者,雖遠必诛.
2. Not only killed them, Han people also ate them, and drank their blood:

壯志饑餐胡虜肉，笑談渴飲匈奴血; 岳飛 滿江红

1. 匈奴未滅,何以家為? 汉朝猛将霍去病, died at age 24. Arilang ^talk 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchu killed about 25 million, Mongol about 20 million. In percentage, thats 16 and 25. Wu Hu is worse, about 50-70%. Ran Min probably preserved Civilization, as without Chinese civilization- no printing press, gunpwoder, etc... Western/Chinese Civilization would not have advanced. In this regard, he is a bigger hero than Yue Fei. China would be a place with a very barbarica Wu Hu Empire, which goes around razing and killing. Makes Genghis Khan looks good.

My main problem is that others may not share our view, so it might attract attention. However, it is an excellent example of Hua-Yi zhi bian. I have an account of Ran Min's campaigns. My message is that we should start thinking of arguments to defend the section. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about. As it was stated in the lead section, it can be racist, especially during war time. This is the stuff that is needed in an historical topic, remember, we are talking about history, about the past, as long as your contribution is verifiable with reliable secondary source, why should you worry about what other editors might think? Arilang ^talk 02:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The mongol generals under the service of the manchu Qing sluaghtered 1 million fellow mongols. The mongols under genghis khan also massacred everyone in the jin empire, whether jurchen-manchu or chinese. all this talk about numbers does not matter.

Jiehe were caucasians, not xiongnu. probably related to tocharian? anyway if a white supremacist discovers this about ran min they could use this endlessly as propaganda on how chinese tried to exterminate the "white race".22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~

No, you are wrong. White supremacist do not talk about history, if they do, Genghis Khan would have given them more than enough ammunitions. After all, we are talking about pre-modern history, back then, everybody was trying to exterminate everybody else. Don't tell me King George(or Queen Victoria) of England did not know the effects of opium when he was counting all those silver bars coming from Qing dynasty? What Ran Min did, or did not do, was pure historical facts, and should not be tinted with any artificial color. Just present it as it happened, that is all we can do. Arilang ^talk 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If white supremacists read history, they wouldn't be white supremacist any more(sorry if you think this is racist.)Teeninvestor (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

genghis khan killed indiscriminately. what we have here is Ran Min giving out orders for the "Final Solution" to the "Aryan Question".

Caucasian may be the wrong word?

Quote:The concept of a Caucasian race was developed around 1800, and today, some scholars reject the concept because human genome studies have not shown a precise genetic definition of Caucasian Unquoted.

We are talking about events happened thousands of years ago, maybe you are using the wrong terminology Caucasian? Arilang ^talk 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Arilang1234

User:Arilang1234, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arilang1234 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Arilang1234 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Albert584 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note:While I do agree with the view that some of the Manchu rulers that ruled China until 1911 were quite nasty, I don't see how a user page that pushes this view is beneficial in any way. On the contrary, it might send a message that proponents of this view will do anything to make their voice heard. Also placing numerous links on a user page to web sites in any language other than English is usually seen as spamming. Albert584 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The MfD has been closed as "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

I plan to completely revamp it something like this:

Feudal Era

Beginnings- Xia

Further development, metallurgy- Shang

Jing tian- Zhou

"Bastard feudalism"- Spring & autumns

Mercantilist Era

Warring states- reforms, collapse of Jingtian/feudal system

Qin's reforms- Legalist, absolutist state established, China unified, standards, etc..

Han- early partial reversion, appearance of highly profitbale iron/salt industries, plantations, etc..

Three Kingdoms & Jin- Devastation, recovery.

Wu Hu& North/south dyansties- disruption of trade route, restoration of fedualism early on, etc...

Sui- instates examination system, revives Han laws, introduciton of Sotian system.

T'ang- government starts withdrawing, more liberalization, etc.., collapse of the Sotian system.

"Proto-capitalist" Era

Song- invention of printing press, economic revolution, paper notes, collapse of hereditary nobility, investment, first overseas trade, etc..

Yuan- Mongol devastation of North, state-sanctioned trade at Quanzhou.

Ming- expansion of Song, privatization of enterprises, merchant class is empowered through examination system, overseas trade expanded, economic imperialism(Langfang republic, Tungning kingdom).

Qing- Intial feudal disruptions(Booi aha), destruction of shore line, slow recovery in Kangxi, stagnation later, effects of opium, and gradual decline in 19th century.

Modern Era:

ROC- initial attempts at reform, militayr industries developed for war with Japan, stock markets, etc..

PRC(Mao)- transition to planned economy, Great Leap forward, cultural revolution & stagnation.

PRC(Deng)- transition to market economy, prosperity, liberalization, "chengbao" system, now almost 80% of US industrial production, revival of Chinese civilizations, etc...

I have only one source dealing with pre-ROC Chinese economic history, a 2000 page book called "5000 years of CHinese history". It has some details, but one paragraph for each section would do. Can you help me get some sources? thank you. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow down, slow down

1. Please, tackle small topic first, I think your ambition is too high.
2. Talk to user PoA, have a look the way he handle big project, and have a look at all his references. Put it this way, he can cite hundreds of scholar-books. Please talk to him before you plan on doing big projects, and always remember PoA has got more than 10 featured articles under his name, this guy knows his stuff.
3. Please refrain from quoting and citing Chinese internet forums alone, you know that a lot of blogs on those websites are pure fabrications to serve bloggers' own ego, which is not the material needed on Wikipedia. Try searching on cites ended with .edu, then the material stands more chance to be kept by wiki.
4. Regarding Ren Min did this or did that, most of it is pure fabrication, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, though I agree that 羯族 was barbarians, 鮮卑(Xianbei) was barbarians too. We have to be careful, need to be able to tell facts from fictions. Arilang ^talk 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My editing policy

My policy in editing wikipedia is to add information first, and add some sources. Then I will add A LOT MORE sources. Check the article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, and you will see that I am not a person who does not know how to cite sources. First, I find a plethora of information, then I add the sources, and as you can see it is now very good. I've gathered a few sources and I am going to revamp Economic history of China at least up to B-class, similar to my revamp of Liu Song dynasty and Comparison of Roman and Han Empires. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As to Ran Min, there is information about what he did in basically any detailed history in China. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, the only thing I worry about is AfD. If you can come up with reliable source, it is fine with me. On the naming of the article, my idea and Madalibi seem to differ a bit. My idea is this HYZB is basically a 帝皇思想, as can be seen in 尊王攘夷. What is your opinion? Arilang ^talk 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about Afd's, Arilang1234, I have done them before. Contacting Article rescue taskforce, china wikiproject, works wonders. Also, arguing helps. AFD will take at least 4-5 days. In that time, if you can overhaul the whole thing, it will become real. Check Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. As to HYZB, i think it's a popular thought as all the chinese had, not necessarily emperors. Chinese people fought very hard to keep the barbarians out.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What we know about Ran Min

What we do know: He issued Xi Hu Ling. it was carried out. several million Hu were killed.

That's actually all the article needs, i think. Some of the details are provided by Jin shu, as primary sources can be used to back up descriptive claims.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

you have to note that the hu that were killed had "Aryan" features.

HYZB as an article

Like I said before, the name of HYZB alone is worth a thousand words in Wikipedia, if it is used in the right place and at the right time. You know how hard I argue for it in the AfD debate. This name does not come easy, that is why I will try anything to protect it. Anythings else is supplymentary. Arilang ^talk 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

I have a sinking feeling my ambition overran itself; check Economic history of China. Do you think I overdid it?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You want my opinion? Move it into your sandbox, which is where it belongs. Arilang ^talk 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you move it into your sandbox?Teeninvestor (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at economic history of china in my sandbox, I have already written the lead of all the eras and the article. What do you think of the prose? By the way, I think that I'll need some help. Maybe you can help?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, Madalibi and PoA are the best editors you can get, and about me, I have a heavy-biased attitude, which is very difficult to shake off. And I am hopeless in adding big chunk of text, a few words here and there, that is about all I can do. Arilang ^talk 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jur'chens???

This guy is very confused. They did not emerge until about 1100CE, when they overthrew Liao and then devastated Song(that caused Song to go back another 50 years). Afterwards, Yuan killed 80% of them and Ming was nicer, moved them back to their homeland(of course, they rose later and formed Manchu, denying China the industrial revolution again!). They did lots of damage to China, but they did not go to Europe.

Some people say that Hungary is descended from Huns who is Xiongnu, they devastated Roman Empire and help Germans(current westerners, then they were barbarians) took over Rome and kill the population. Huns created a large empire in europe, read about it in Hunnic Empire. It is funny how a race that served the Chinese can be so powerful elsewhere. Chinese today do not measure up to the greatness of ancients, except maybe Deng Xiaoping, China today is still following his path. Even if you hate CPC intensely(and some people should, due to Mao, but I tend to think he is solely responsible for crimes), you should like Deng better. Chiang, Mao and others couldn't put China back on the road to revival; only Deng did. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from Deng:取二十萬人頭,換二十年和平(famous quotation from 1989), is this really from him? Arilang ^talk 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he would say something like that. He is known for his moderation, that is how he got into power; ppl needed a moderate guide after Mao's cultural revvolution. But you have to look at the achievements of the man. In 30 years he brought China from Maoist, dirt-poor country to a country that now has 20K per capita income and industry that is more than US. 1978-2008 in China is probably fastest econmic development in its history, if not world history. Britain, even using slave and forced labor + wealth of all of India, Africa, took 50 years to industrialize. As of january 2009, China made more steel, more cars, more ships, more cement and others than US, which is rapidly declining(That's how this "teen investor" get his money).

From the experience of Russia, we can see he is right in Tiannemen as well. Besides, Tiannemen was only several hundred deaths anyway. Sichuan earthquake was more. Another thing that was better is that there was no after-purges; like in Maoist era, not only is there initial purge, all the people who join in demonstrations are "counter-revolutionaries" and "Bourgeois" and get struggled. Deng just called the army in for two days, and did not impose a wide purge for "counter-revolutioanry" or "bourgeois". All the people who took place in demonstrations that were not in Beijing stayed alive/did not get discriminated, jailed, etc... several of my relatives demonstrated, right now they are CPC members(all store owners, rich people, capitalists, etc.. are CPC members in China.)

I'd rather have 300 deaths than the entire country collapse go into civil war/get robbed- similar to Russia, their lifespan went from 70 to 47!!!! Less than Africa!!!Teeninvestor (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article on Boxun.com

Boxun.com is run by "dissidents", it says so on the article on wikipedia Boxun.com. I would urge you not to take this as a serious source, as most "dissidents" are paid by US and probably have not been in China for 15 years and are not good economists!!!! China probably has changed a lot since they left, and that is assuming they are not in the pay of the CIA. And ya, more evidence christianity is not what it made out to be(and Lu Shun thought confucianism was bad): [[1]]Teeninvestor (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wont claim i know much about chinese media ( I dont), but even if the source is controlled by american interests (which I dont know) I would say that these sources could provide an intereesting level of view to the TTC fire article page. Keep up the good work with the page, as soon as I have more information regarding the structural aspect of the building Ill add it Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ottawa4ever, there is English edition of Boxun.com http://boxun.us/news/publish/

Sci and Tech of Han

Science and technology of the Han Dynasty has been established just today, after a lengthy period in my sandbox. You've already added some Chinese characters to the sandbox version; see if there's a couple more spots that could use character phrases.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation PoA, I shall look it up soon. Arilang ^talk 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That does sound like an interesting book! Of course, Sima Qian was not even alive during the time of Qin, and perhaps only possessed materials that were partisan against Qin's legacy. Given some known examples of reasonable actions made by Qin Shi Huang, and parts of the Qin law code that has been brought to light in modern times (which is very similar to the Han law code), it would be tempting to say that he was not much of a tyrant after all, but unfortunately most of the material we have about Qin was written by people in the Han period who had political control over the writing of history and how posterity would view his regime. They had a vested interest in legitimizing Han's rule over Qin's. Since most of what we know about Qin comes from accounts such as the Shiji and Hanshu, our speculations about the better qualities of Qin can only go so far (unfortunately). Anyways, glad you are reading the new article on Sci and Tech of the Han Dynasty!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New article: Society and culture of the Han Dynasty. Also, check out Template:Han Dynasty topics. Very cool.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a reply on the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Chinese forums.

Maybe you can go to some neutral chinese forums besides Boxun.com

www.backchina.com

www.comefromchina.com

go to hanminzu.com sometimes too but it is biased.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

a heads up

this guy is trying to start multiple votes to change articles with the word "chinese" or chinese names in them to korean centered ones. keep watch on this guy, and if anyone starts canvassing koreans to vote on name change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.30 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto with this guy [2], using ethnic slurs openly on disputed talk pages. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ming collapsed because of Little Ice Age, plain and simple.

Little Ice Age caused huge swaths of farmland in North China to be unfarmable, leading to repeated revolts from 1627CE on. It shows how strong Ming was as they kept on defeating hte Manchu until 1644CE, when Wu Sangui surrendered. Also Ming's government could not collect taxes efficiently because of opposition by merchants(See Wanli's attempts to collect taxes in Suzhou). Ming was much stronger/advanced than Song because Ming actually respected generals(unlike Song). Without Little Ice Age, Ming would have easily defeated Qing(who are not even as strong as Khitan Liao).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, I fully understand that, but history is the most complex thing, we must also take many factors into account, not just one factor alone. Like user PoA once said, silver, more silver, then no more silver. The question is, where has all the silver gone? If the Ming court were able to hold on to lots of silver, then the economy, hence the military would not have collapsed. Arilang ^talk 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ming's problem is that Ming's government is weakened in power; all the merchants can oppose it. Similar to US now(all the bankers can oppose gov). Ming gov did not have ability to increase taxes. When these taxes began to collapse after Little Ice Age, Ming was unprepared. To be fair, the catastrophe that hit the Ming would have brought down any other Chinese dynasty as well. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: 牛

Yes, I thought it would be a way of decorating my userpage. Funny you mention that, I remember that a long while ago there was an article on "Chinese Internet Terms" or something, that got an AfD and thus disappeared into the abyss. Now there's hardly anything on "牛" on Wikipedia, not that much of it should be on, anyway. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If Grass mud horse can be included, 牛逼 is relatively mild, and 牛逼 is much more widely used everywhere. I feel that terms such as 裝逼 is very colorful, another is 傻逼, which of course is used every 2 minutes in all the Chinese conversation. Arilang ^talk 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm preparing to create an article on "Internet Culture in the People's Republic of China" or something along the lines, however am unsure where I should obtain sources from. My aim of such an article is to create something along the lines of Internet phenomena or Internet meme, however much of these articles are western-centric, and are excluding 1.3 billion of the Earth in my opinion. Information regarding Chinese memes, Internet terms and culture that is exclusive to Chinese on the Internet. Note that I am also in the midst of creating a "Naming Laws in the People's Republic of China" page, regarding what can be used, rare characters, difficulties of the digitized ID system and the like. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet is becoming more and more important for Chinese netizens(and others) by the day, reasons:

1. There are nearly 300 millions Chinese netizens
2. Wen Jiabao goes online everyday, spends up to one hour per day
3. Human flesh search engine becoming more common and more powerful
4. Not much secret can be hidden from the keyboards of netizens nowadays
5. All over the world people start to learn things about Chinese
6. Editors like PoA, Madalibi, Teeninvestor, Alanani, Nuja, Benjawong, plus many others, are very dedicated editors on China-related articles, together we do form a very good team. Arilang ^talk 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wen Jiabao

Arilang, I noticed the things you added to the Wen Jiabao article. It may be best in this case to add the quotations to Wikiquote, as Wikipedia is supposed to give general information, and is not a source for quotations. If you think the quotations describe the man please add it in earlier sections of the article. Colipon+(T) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@Colipon, due to the complexcity of China's politic, quotations from politicians do help readers to understand the true color of them, whatever this true color means. I feel that these Wen Jiabao quotations are very often barred or deleted in mainland China's mainstream media, and the reasons behind these barring can only be speculated upon by us. I feel that it would help wikipedia readers a lot if the true color is also shown within the information presented to them. Just a thought. Arilang ^talk 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not like Wen Jiabao very much. He reinstituted medical insurance and social security from maoist era, which will one day be a big headache to China, just like they are bankrupting the west now(US pays social security fund with Bonds).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, like him or not, right now he is China's NO.2 man, and he seems to be using internet video chats to gain political power; well, at least he sounds better than Mr.Hu, to me Hu always pretend to be dumb because he always act dumb, like Cantonnese saying, 扮猪吃老虎. In fact, Hu remind me of great movie comedians such as Peter Seller, or Charlie Chaplin, both of them were great at making funny faces. Arilang ^talk 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason for China's success is because Deng and Zhu put in a free market system and Chinese work harder than any other people on the planet. That's all. Putting in the benefit system of the west will plague China heavily. I like Hu Jintao better than wen; wen likes to show off a lot, Hu is more quiet/gets more done.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

火燒圓明园

Teen, please tell me what is your reaction:Chinese bidder says he will not pay for looted bronzes, and has anyone created an wiki article on it yet? Arilang ^talk 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi distinction

I appreciate your suggestion that I read Hua-Yi distinction. As a result, I have added links to this article in the "See also" sections at Ryukyuan missions to Edo, Joseon Tongsinsa and Gaikoku bugyō. The sinosphere schematic on that page was particularly suggestive.

I'm going to try using Euler diagrams to parse the complicated foreign relations of the Ryūkyū Kingdom in the 17th-19th centuries as a vassal of Late Imperial China while at the same time acting as a conquered vassal of the Shimazu and the Tokugawa shogunate‎. I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@user Tenmei, I am glad you appreciate Hua-Yi distinction, I think this article has the potential of further development, for example:

1. China-Wa (Japan)-Japan relationship based on Hua-Yi distinction
2. Imperial Japanese embassies to China at the moment has not much content, it also has the potential to expand further, from Japanese side. Nearly all Japaneses like the poem: 姑苏城外寒山寺,夜半鐘聲到客船.
3. How Meiji Restoration had moved towards westernization and modernization and China stay behind
4. Joseon from 朝天 to 燕行
5. How Japanese 天皇 was going to －统天下 during Japan-Korea wars and Sino-Japan wars.

Your Japanese background would help build up Hua-Yi distinction and related articles to have more comprehensive Asia-East Asia contents. Arilang ^talk 22:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised

The article I wrote on the Baidu Cao Ni Ma meme was mentioned in some French news website. I didn't even believe this news myself until I saw it. So surprised. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinese netizens are very creative, every couple of weeks a new catchphrase would pop up. I think this Grass Mud Horse would stay hot for a long time to come. Are you going to do 牛逼 ? What about Bu Zheteng? Arilang ^talk 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:new article - Roger that, I've done as I can at this current time. I need to find more time, to improve further. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A first draft of Internet Culture in the People's Republic of China should be up soon, time permitting. I will contact you when it is ready. Kindest regards, -- | —Talk contribs 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Don't use WP Commons, upload directly to EN Wiki, that way you can use the "fair use" tag (only if 1. the image is relevant, 2. used fairly, 3. low resolution) and add a rationale (this is only allowed on EN wiki). -- | —Talk contribs 07:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK now, reupload on EN Wiki (NOT commons) and use this:

Kindest regards, -- | —Talk contribs 07:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: refer to WP:FAIRUSE. Don't overuse it, and only upload images where necessary. That way, admins can accept these images in good faith. If we were to get the impression that the fair use tag could be exploited, then we will not be able to do so. This would lead to all such images being deleted under the idea that they aren't fairly used. If we are to stick to the fair use guidelines, then it should all be fine. Also, only use the generic fair use tag sparingly. Do not use it each time if there are alternate possible tags. If it is a TV screenshot use the "screenshot fair use tag", if it is from a videogame use the "videogame tag", or "game cover tag". There are movie poster tags, US federal government tags, living person tags, etc. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. If it is possible, use these ones first. And try not to get a reputation for disobeying copyright (i.e. claiming images as your own work, or as public domain, or creative commons, where it isn't) as this might work against you, as it has happened with many others before, where no-one would believe their statements even if an image was created by them. And with all copyright fair-use tags you MUST add a detailed rationale arguing its purpose.

Possible notes in rationale:

• of great importance/significance
• of low resolution/quality
• small portion of original
• to visually depict ...
• used fairly
• image is of a living person
• this person is well known
• highly unlikely for image to be commercial (in the case of an internet phenomena)
• unlikely to find an alternate image
• article is meaningless without a depiction

However you must tell the truth in these, for others to accept good faith. As they say, Do not game the system. -- | —Talk contribs 08:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S archive your page. I'm having trouble accessing it most of the time, it is too long. Australia, so-called "first world country", is like a third-world nation in terms with internet speed (it is terrible here), and so its difficult to view your long page. By the way, yesterday I was present in the city centre in Canberra where there were Tibetan protests; I've taken a few photos. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the tips, it is really very helpful. To tell you the truth, I do not know how to archive pages, could you show me? Arilang ^talk 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just create a page, example, User talk:Arilang1234/Archive_1 (actually I would use User talk:Arilang1234/Archive_2 now since its already full), and then copypaste a whole load of raw wikisyntax text there, and save. Delete from your original talk page, and add a link to the archive. Just refer to my talk page.

BTW continuing on photo tags, If it is an old photo, use the "public domain becuase copyright expiry" tag. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)