Talk:Teochew string music

new-old text
The new text that has been added here has been built on the old text. All data has been removed that is unsupported by citations and contradicted by available citations. The "confusing and unclear" tag has been removed.Redheylin (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please edit in a more deliberate manner, using "Discussion," so that it is clear exactly which material is being removed, and why. It's best to not remove accurate material when adding new material. Badagnani (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A 3 revert report has been submitted. Redheylin (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the article is without citations and tagged "confusing" the following statements are particularly removeable as unsupported or contradicted;


 * developed from a fusion of elements from various northern musical genres.
 * As an accompaniment to some of the musical passages in Chaozhou opera
 * Most pieces have 68 beats.
 * generally tuned to a seven-tone equidistant temperament.
 * Two common modes are qingliu (轻六, literally "light six"] and zhongliu (重六, literally "heavy 6"). Qingliu uses the sol-la-do-re-mi scale structure while zhongliu uses the sol-ti-do-re-fa structure. While qingliu is associated with liveliness and joy, zhongliu is associated with melancholy.
 * "Stuck and plucked strings"!! Use of cello etc.

Redheylin (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the statements such as the use of cello in Shantou style (and spreading to other regions), 68-beat tunes, northern origin of much of the repertoire (whence the Chaozhou emigrated), equidistant temperament (clearly seen in the fret spacing of the meihuaqin) etc. are easily verified. These should have been given "fact" tags and discussed first, rather than unilaterally and summarily been removed (again and again). Badagnani (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have every chance to contribute. You keep asserting that you can back these things, but do not do so, do not collaborate, do not improve the article. That is why your reverts constitute edit-warring. There is no need to tag material that has been left unreferenced for years and contradicts material by authoritative sources that is being inserted. Rather, it would be bad editing to leave the article self-contradictory. The page has been tagged for a long time and there have been no improvements. The article has no references to "Shantou style", gives no example of or reference for "68 beat tunes" to contradict the tunes cited as typical in the main sources, does not refer to northern origin "of repertoire", nor "the Chaozhou" nor "emigration"; the full account of tuning in the cited source does not mention "equidistant" tuning (a term that itself has no citation anywhere) and instead suggests links to a westernised just-intoned system. And these contradictions and failures are simple and self-evident. Redheylin (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why the use of "Discussion" (first) and "fact" tags (second) is important before reverting the removal of important information many times (last resort). The end result will be the most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. Your opinions above regarding the removed material are largely speculative in nature. Badagnani (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The material is unsourced and contraindicated by the added material. That is why it has been removed. It could be included if there were notable authority. "the use of "Discussion" (first) and "fact" tags (second) is important before reverting the removal of important information many times (last resort)"? It is pointless asserting you see reversion as a last resort - you have done nothing else! Redheylin (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Warnings re edit warring
The edit warring here is not appropriate. I find B's reverts particularly unhelpful, as he is making no attempt to work with the new text but is blindly reverting. Do not do this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Badagnani, I do not mind - you can add references for material you wish to see included, or else you can build the referenced material I added into the page, fix the links and disambiguate the contradictions between authorities. It's up to you, I shall get back in a little while. Redheylin (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As requested above, when adding new information, please don't summarily remove earlier text, such as those elements mentioned above; please use "fact" tags to identify areas that you believe need to be sourced. Badagnani (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the post above. Work with the new text, don't just impose the same view of yours over and over without any reason to back it up with. It's called bold editing, and if Wikipedia were to follow your style of editing from the very beginning, this wouldn't be Wikipedia.  GraYoshi2x► talk 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)