User:Madalibi/Antbox

Useful quotes and data

 * "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so." (Source:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.)


 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." (Source: Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.)


 * "The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and are often excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.


 * More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." (Source: WEASEL.)


 * "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed." A note adds: "The templates Who, Which?, By whom, or are available for editors to request that an individual statement be more clearly attributed." (Source: WEASEL.)

Just a clarification: Qin Shihuangdi and the Yellow Emperor are indeed two different figures. Maybe some readers or editors of Wikipedia get them confused, but Western historians do not. As someone has already explained on this page, the confusion comes from the homophony of huang di 黄帝 ("Yellow Emperor" or "Yellow Thearch") with huang di 皇帝 ("Emperor" or "August Thearch"). Qin Shihuang coined the title huangdi 皇帝 ("Emperor") to distinguish himself from previous monarchs who called themselves "Kings" (wang 王). This is why Qin Shihuang is known as the First Emperor of China. Chinese rulers kept using that title until the abdication of the last emperor of the Qing dynasty in 1912. This is common historical knowledge, and there is no divergence between Western and Chinese sources (ancient or modern) on this point. The issue of the historicity of the Yellow Emperor is totally different, and it has nothing to do with Qin Shihuangdi. For more on it, see this new section below. Madalibi (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The historicity of the Yellow Emperor is a sensitive issue, because many (most?) Chinese today consider themselves as the actual "descendants of Yan and Huang" (Yan-Huang zisun 炎黄子孙), in which "Yan" stands for Yandi (the Fiery Emperor) and "Huang" for Huangdi (the Yellow Emperor). In other words, we should respect the fundamental content rule called Neutral point of view, which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." And remember: "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so" (source:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ). "People," here, refers of course to "reliable sources," not to personal opinion (see reliable sources).
 * Another useful guideline when we edit emotional topics: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." (Source: Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.) This guideline is about religion, but I think it applies well to any topic that has to do with people's identity.
 * So my point is this: as Wikipedia editors, we must try to write a balanced article that will give their due weight to all existing points of view. The best way to do so is to report as neutrally as possible what reliable sources have said about this topic. Good editing!
 * Madalibi (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Longshan culture (3000–2000 BCE)
 * Yangshao culture (5000–2000 BCE)
 * Dawenkou culture (4100–2600 BCE)

On the history of acupuncture

 * QUOTE: "Popular histories still tend to date the origins of acupuncture to the mythological Yellow Emperor, an anachronism which is no doubt perpetuated by the title of the most famous corpus of early medical writings, the Huangdi neijing 黃帝內經, "The Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon". Originally the habit of attributing authorship to a cult hero, divinity or revered historical figure served to confer authority and status on the writing. There is no longer any excuse for this kind of historiography."
 * QUOTE: "Until the 1970s, the work of historians attempting to date the origins of acupuncture was centred on dating the received canon of medical literature. It is still widely held to this day in China, that the Huangdi neijing corpus was largely a Warring States compilation. In the 1970's Lu and Needham brought that date forward to the first century B.C., equating the Lingshu (Numinous Pivot) with the Zhenjing (Needle Canon) 針經 of Han bibliographies, and attributing the Suwen to the previous century. (New evidence, set out below, indicates an earliest dating of the first century B.C. for any of the compilations). However they also cite rather cryptic passages in the Zuo Zhuan 左傳 and refer to the existence of needles to justify the assertion that acumoza therapy was already practised during the middle Zhou period (ca. 600 B.C.). Manuscripts and artefacts from the late Warring States and early imperial period, excavated in the last three decades, have forced historians to review the evidence."
 * QUOTE: "Of the newly excavated sources, important medical manuscripts discovered at the burial sites of Mawangdui and Zhangjiashan now show medical theory of the channel system at a relatively primitive stage."
 * QUOTE: "Western medical historians agree that an essential fusion of the technical and theoretical elements at the foundation of acumoxa therapy could not have hapened much before the first century B.C. and may have been a century later. This now also appears to be the earliest period during which the Huangdi corpus could have bee compiled."
 * QUOTE: "The Mianyang figurine, a lacquered wood carving of the human body excavated from a Western Han tomb [118 B.C.] provides us with fascinating new evidence. It is covered with lines that bear some similarity to the channels described in Zhangjiashan and Mawangdui channel texts. But it does not reveal the kind of holes, all systematically engraved with individual names, that we are familiar with from the cast bronze acupuncture model of the Northern Song period. So we can only conclude that so far there is no evidence to / show that stimulating the channel network via a mature acupoint system with metal needle was a feature of therapy before the first century B.C. at the earliest.
 * QUOTE: "Since the discovery of the excavated manuscripts, most medical historians now agree that an essential fusion of the technical and theoretical elements at the foundation of acumoxa therapy could not have happened much before the first two centuries BC."