Talk:Yuan Weishi

Arilang1234's edits
I'm not sure if this article is a biography or an article for history statement. It doesn't concern to the person that the title implicitly dedicated but mostly to some history research statements. I think this article should be edited to conform to a biography. JC Valeron (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re these edits: I have some comments.

I think you're right that there were too many wikilinks in the first sentence: for example "professor" doesn't need a wikilink.

I think the correct word is "entitled", not "titled".

Re "which contain numerous distortions of the historical accounts": A Wikipedia article should not say this. It can say that he accused or stated that they contained such distortions. Wikipedia will not express an opinion as to whether that was true or not. State facts, not opinions (WP:NPOV).

What does "drinking wolf's milk" mean? (Although, I'm not sure if we can explain that in the article without violating WP:NOR.)

"Professor Yuan pointed out that": Using "pointed out" implies that what he said was true, violating NPOV. It would be better to say "stated".

Re "did not carried out": the correct verb form is "did not carry out". (You need to fix this in two places.)

Re "Manchu official simply ignored this request": if it's more than one person, use the plural ("officials"); if it's one, write the word "A" before "Manchu official".

Re "and to no avail." it would probably sound better if you change "and" to "but".

Most of the section "Was the burning of the ..." is not about Yuan Weishi. It would have to go in a different article.

I think the whole section "The role of ..." is not about Yuan Weishi. It should not be in this article.

You can't say "The stupid Emperor Xianfeng". WP:NPOV policy says we have to use an impartial tone. We can't say someone was "stupid": that's an opinion.

I didn't read all of what you added, but we also can't say "What is most shocking".

I think most of what you added needs to be deleted from this article. I'm sorry. Maybe some of it can go in different articles, with some words changed to make it NPOV. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your advices, I had made some changes, and will try to improve it further. (1)I forgot to point it out, most of the text I added is the translation of professor's essay with the name of 'Modernization and History Text Books'. Professor has written many books, all in Chinese. This essay is the only one that I happen to read it. My personal idea is that this essay is a very important essay regarding 1800s history, simply because the official Chinese history text books paint a rosy picture for the Manchu rulers, and the professor says otherwise. And I am on the professor's side. (2) Would it be better if I write a different article with the name 'Modernization and History Text Books', with the complete English translation of the original Chinese essay on it?Arilang1234 (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Coppertwig.

Cheers to Yuan WeiShi! Spettro9 (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

put SPACEs AFTER you put a COMMAs, NOT BEFORE! XIE XIE! Spettro9 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of non-Yuan-related material
The underlying subject matter is largely out of my area of expertise, but I am going to go ahead and remove a large amount of material that has nothing to do with Yuan himself, as irrelevant to the article. The rest of the article will still need cleanup. (It should be noted that the article also currently fails to show sufficient notability by its own text, although the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia article made clear his sufficient notability.) --Nlu (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I simply decided to remove anything other than the lead. The current material in there is simply way too off proper grammar/diction to be salvageable for anyone even with proper expertise in the field.  Someone will have to redo the article later.  As it stands, the text was a demonstration of where the text present can be so awful that any useful information that it provides becomes meaningless to any reader.  --Nlu (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More information
If the reader wants to get more information, her should read McGregor, The Party (esp. the part on the Boxer Rebellion). --13Peewit (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)