User:YilinW722/sandbox

Article Evaluation
The article I am evaluating is Book censorship in the Republic of Ireland.

Evaluating content:

In general, I found the content being really relevant to the article topic and up to date. However, there are two places I want to point to. First is the first paragraph of "History" section. I think the connection between the Committee of Evil Literature and the Censorship of Publications Acts of 1929 is not clear to the readers. The function/responsibility of the Committee is missing, so is information regarding the actual command/content entailed in the Censorship Publications Acts of 1929. In addition, I was wondering if the committee had anything to do with passing the Acts or they are just independent events in history while reading this part. Thus, it would be helpful if more information could be added to clarify the connection here. Another place where I got kind of distracted and confused is the paragraph on Senator Sir John Keane's comment on the book ban. I am not sure how this part is tied to the mentioning of Ulysses. It seems like the last sentence of this paragraph fits more under the category of people's reception of the book ban instead of "History", which should contain factual information in chronicle order. That being said, I am not suggesting deleting this information. In fact, I think a section of the public reception of the book ban and a section on its consequence/influence on literature, publishing industry and society would be worth adding to this article.

A side note, I also think the phrasing could be improved in certain places. For example, changing the structure of sentence "books could be banned that were considered to be indecent or obscene" to "books considered to be indecent or obscene could be banned" might provides a smoother reading experience.

Evaluating tone:

I think the tone is pretty neutral. I don't think the article presents any attempt to shape a certain viewpoint on the book censorship. Most of the content is still informational rather than opinions. Thus, I certainly do not think the article is biased. However, claim on the role of religion and catholicism in the book censorship should be more careful and supported with more information/sources. The claim is suggesting that religion is a main factor leading to the book censorship. While this might be the truth, I would expect more elaboration and sources to show that this the consensus interpretation or to present that there might be other factor contributing the emergence of book censorship.

Evaluating sources:

Almost all the links work, except for Iris Oifigúil and Kennedy's Dreams and Responsibilities, which I was able to find an online version. After checking on the sources, it appears to me that the sources do support the claim and information presented in the article. More importantly, most of the sources seems to be reliable, these include Irish Parliament script of Senator Sir John Keane's comment on book censorship, other governmental record, academic paper/book, and articles from The Irish Times. However, I would be a little hesitant on relying too much on information on The Irish Times, which seems to present itself with certain image and position as "liberal and progressive", according to the wikipedia article on The Irish Times. Hence, it would be better the draw on other newspaper just to check on the information reported in articles on The Irish Times. More importantly, the claim on Ulysses not being banned is not cited with any sources! If I were to edit/improve this article, this is definitely a claim worth checking for extra information and sources.

Checking the talk page:

The article is rated as C-class and it is within WikiProject Ireland, Books, Law and Freedom of speech. The conversations on the talk page includes the discussion on the validity of the claim on the president, which correlates to the point of whether this point is relevant or if this claim is biased. The conversations also include adding links to sources. The discussion here is different from the one in our lecture in terms of that our discussion in the lecture involves personal interpretation/opinions on the subject addressed. The discussion here, however, is more about if the content is verifiable, checking the fact and etc.

Article Selection

 * 1) Jin Ping Mei
 * 2) * Evaluation:
 * 3) ** Content: Highly relevant to the article topic. I could not found any information/sentence that deviates from the topic. I think this is pretty impressive
 * 4) ** Tone: I would hesitate in saying this is written neutrally. At least I think there's room for improvement for sure. The article seems to downplay the negative impact that the sexual aspect of the book has over people's reception to this book and its literary value. Or, in other words, the article might leave out crucial criticism on the book. Though there are a lot of scholar/reviews praising the literary value of this book, and it is indeed an important piece of literature in Chinese culture, it would make more sense for Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia to also include difference voices and the critics on this book, to present a comprehensive and objective article. After all, this book has remained controversial for many years. Hence, I would like to work on adding more information on the prohibition and critics on this book.
 * 5) ** Sources: Most of the claims do have a citation, which is really good. However, there also exists claims unsupported by any citation. For example "Some critics have argued that the highly sexual descriptions are essential, and have exerted what has been termed a "liberating" influence on other Chinese novels that deal with sexuality, most notably the Dream of the Red Chamber." This claim is not cited and the phrase "some critics" is vague and does not follow the criteria of a good Wikipedia article. Other than this, the sources used here are all reliable sources, especially those academic work published under prestigious academic institutions. In addition, most of the sources are independent from the topic. None of them falls under blog post/press release.
 * 6) ** Talk page: It seems that none of the conversations in the talk page address the critics on this book either
 * 7) Literary Inquisition **(This is the article I am most interested in working on but still awaiting approval)
 * 8) * Evaluation:
 * 9) ** Content: While the content is relevant to the article topic, too little information is provided for Ming dynasty and prior dynasties (if this is something existed for a long time, since Qin dynasty). Information on the first time such practice appears in historical records, its background, etc are all worth adding to this article. This would be my focus if were to edit this article
 * 10) ** Tone: The tone is pretty neutral; however, the lack of information on literary inquisition prior to Qing dynasty might give a false impression that it was not really a serious issue in those dynasty. Even the content already written are not hitting the core of topic; there are plenty historical cases other than a story from the novel Water Margin.
 * 11) ** Sources: Though the sources used are qualified as reliable sources, several claims lack citation/reliable source. For example, the claim "The practice of literary persecution has been recorded since Qin dynasty, and has been used by almost all successive dynasties ruling China", "The poet Su Shi of Song dynasty was jailed for several months by the emperor due to some of his poems" (what are "some of his poems" specifically? and where this is recorded?) all need proper source and citation to support them.
 * 12) ** Talk page: the conversation so far are focusing on minor edits, I think this article represent how language skills might become an issue for a good article, in english.
 * 13) Burning of books and burying of scholars
 * 14) * Evaluation
 * 15) ** Content: Highly relevant to the topic, the only thing that could be considered as less relevant is the poem by Zhang Jie of Tang dynasty. I believe any historical record of the burning of Epang Palace and its correlation with the books is more valuable to mention here instead of the poem.
 * 16) ** Tone: This article does an excellent job in citing claims and even note the potential bias of the sources (ie the Records of the Grand Historian), as well as presenting Michel Nylan's research, which poses doubt on the exact extent of the book burning, which might often be exaggerated
 * 17) ** Source: The "Consequence" part definitely need more sources and information. The article makes it sounds like that the event is not as severe as it seemed to be while I think the reason provided for this right now is not enough to make such claim. The consequence regarding the history books also need more support. Besides, I would love to know where "An account given by Wei Hong in the 2nd century added another 700 to the figure" is coming from. Furthermore, though existing sources are all reliable sources, I think this article worth more research and adding more sources.
 * 18) ** Talk page: The current conversations range from updating the sources to improving specific phrasing

Bibliography/Notes

 * 1) Literary Inquisition:
 * 2) * Earliest literary inquisition

First Draft (Literary Inquisition)
The literary inquisition  or speech crime  refers to official persecution of intellectuals for their writings in China. The Hanyu Da Cidian (汉语大词典) defines it as "the ruler deliberately extracts words or phrases from intellectual's writings and arbitrarily accuse him in order to persecute him" ("旧时谓统治者为迫害知识分子，故意从其著作中摘取字句，罗织成罪"). The inquisition took place under each of the dynasties ruling China, although the Qing was particularly notorious for the practice. In general, there are two ways a literary inquisition could be carried out. First is that the conviction came from the writing itself. That is, the writing was the direct cause of the persecution. The second is that the writing was used as a tool to provide legitimate evidence for a predetermined conviction. Some persecutions could owe even to a single phrase or word which the ruler considered offensive. Some of these were due to naming taboo, such as writing a Chinese character that is part of the emperor's personal name. In the most serious cases, not only the writer, but also his immediate and extended families, as well as those close to him, would also be implicated and killed.

Before Song dynasty
The earliest literary inquisition on historical record could be traced back to the state of Qi in Spring and Autumn Period. Recorded in Zuo Zhuan, in 548 BC the Duke Jing of Qi, who just killed Duke Zhuang and took over the position, killed three court historians (Taishi, 太史) because they insisted in using the word "弑" (shi), which has a negative connotation among the words meaning the action of kill, to record this historical event. The Burning of books and burying of scholars in Qin dynasty is also considered a form of literary inquisition by Chinese scholars such as Li Zhongqin (李钟琴), Wang Yelin (王业霖) and Hu Qiguang (胡奇光). It is uncertain how frequently the persecutions occurred. However, compared to Ming and Qing dynasty, literary inquisition before Song dynasty happened less frequently due to the lack of printing, political instability and frequent change of dynasties. From the the first recorded case in 548 BC to the start of Song dynasty in 960, there were more than 40 dynasties. As a result, the practice of literary inquisition had not reached the same scale as later in Ming and Qing dynasty.

Han Dynasty
One major case in Han dynasty is the case of Yang Yun (杨恽). Emperor Xuan first discharged him from his position in the government under the accusation of defamation. In 54 BC, he was sentenced to death through waist chop because of his complaints on his unfair treatment written in a letter for his friend Sun, which was considered disrespectful and outrageous to the Emperor. Affected by this, his friends who were still in court, were also discharged from their positions. Kong Rong, a lead figure of the Seven Scholars of Jian'an in late Eastern Han dynasty, was killed by warlord Cao Cao for his letters to Cao disagreeing and criticising his rule and practice, including Cao's ban on alcohol for its potential negative impact on the nation. His wife and two sons were also killed. In Three Kingdoms period, the death of Ji Kang was also related to his writing. In response to Sima Zhao's offer of a position as civil official, Ji Kang wrote a letter (“与山巨源绝交书”) expressing his refusal of pursuing any political career. This letter, however, later provided justification for the advice of Zhong Hui, the official who conveyed the offer for Sima Zhao to Ji Kang, to sentence Ji Kang to death.

Southern and Northern Dynasties
During Northern Wei dynasty, prime minister Cui Hao carved Guo Shu ("国书"), which records the history of the ruling Tuoba clan and of which he was assigned as the lead editor, into stone monuments and located them on the side of a major road in suburb of the capital. The Xianbei bureaucrats found exposing their ancestor's history to the public was offensive and inappropriate. Thus, Cui Hao was accused of defaming the state and thus sentenced to death in 450. Along with Cui Hao, his whole clan, his wives' clans and 128 officials participated in the editing work were all sentenced to death.

Sui Dynasty
In Sui dynasty, Xue Daoheng, the grandfather of Xue Yuanchao, was sentenced to death Emperor Yang. In response to Emperor Yang's attempt to keep Xue from retiring, Xue wrote an essay praising the previous Emperor Wen. Emperor Yang considered this response as a mockery and found it offensive. The direct cause of Xue's death was his saying in reminiscence of Gao Jiong (高熲), who supported Emperor Yang's competitor and was sentenced to death. However, there is also evidence for that the underlying cause of his death was Emperor Yang's jealousy of his talent on poetry as the author of the famous poem "XiXiYan" (“昔昔盐”) from Sui dynasty. In this case, Xue's death could also be considered as a literary inquisition on poem (诗祸, shihuo).

Song Dynasty
Song dynasty marked the rise of literary inquisition both in its the number of cases and in its use. During Song dynasty, the number of literary inquisition cases reached over one hundred. The concept of literary inquisition also started to take formal shape in this time period. Unlike isolated cases in previous dynasties, literary inquisition in Song dynasty became a tool in political struggles, consciously and purposefully used by opposing political parties to suppress and eliminate opponents. However, because the founding emperor of Song dynasty, Emperor Taizu, vowed to not kill any scholar or intellectuals who wrote to comment or address on political issues, intellectuals involved in literary inquisition in Song dynasty were often exiled instead of sentenced to death.

Northern Song
In 1079, the poet Su Shi of Song dynasty was jailed for several months and later exiled by the Emperor Shenzong due to an accusation of writing and disseminating poems alleged to slander the court. This case was also related to the political context at that time. The state was undergoing socioeconomic reform, New Policies, led by chancellor Wang Anshi. Su Shi as a conservative at the time, however, had expressed his disagreement with certain practices of this reform. Such action triggered the anger of people in support of the reform, which included several persons from the Censorate (yushitai, 御史台) responsible for surveilling officials and fact-finding in the case of legal procedure. One of the censorates, Li Ding, initiated the case by writing to the Emperor and accusing Su Shi for defamation. Under his effort, the Censorate pointed out more than 60 spots of evidence across more than 10 of Su Shi's poems and identified more than 20 people who have communicated with Su Shi through writings.

Southern Song
Southern Song, especially during Qin Hui's tenure as the Chancellor, marked the rise of extensive and systematic use of literary inquisition for political purposes. In face of invasion from Jurchen Jin Dynasty to northern part of China, the debate in the court was between the "pro-war party" led by Yue Fei and "anti-war party" advocating peace treaties with Jin. As the leader of "anti-war party", Qin Hui used literary inquisition as a tool to intimidate or eliminate his political opponents in order to reach political conformity on the threat of Jin invasion. Qin Hui targeted specifically on the leading figures of "pro-war party", Zhao Ding (赵鼎), Hu Quan (胡铨) and Li Guang (李光). In 1138, in response to Jin's humiliating terms in their peace negotiation that would render Song as subservient state, both Zhao Ding and Hu Quan expressed strong objections. As a result, Zhao Ding was removed by Qin Hui from his position as Great Councilor in the fall of 1138. He was later exiled to nowadays Hainan where he committed suicide in 1147 when Qin Hui took action against his writing declaring again his determination against peace negotiation with Jin. Meanwhile, Hu Quan wrote in his memorial in 1138 that accepting these terms would be "[taking] the Empire of Your ancestors and [turning] it into the Empire of these dog barbarians". While these phrases spoke out for the public sentiment toward the peace negotiation, Qin Hui took it as rebellious and called for severe punishment of Hu as an example to stop other officials from doing the same. Therefore, Hu was dismissed from office, exiled to Zhaochou (昭州) and forbidden from reinstatement.

Li Guang was also punished for his outspoken criticism of Qin Hui being a traitor. Qin Hui thus accused Li of resentment and ill will, and exiled him to today's Guangxi province in 1141. In 1150, he was further exiled to Hainan because of his attempt to compose a "private history" (野史), which was forbidden and alleged slanderous by the Emperor and Qin Hui due to their fear of potential negative record of their doings. Li Guang's case involved several other officials associated to him. One of them was Wu Yuanmei (吴元美), who was demoted as a result of Li's case. He then wrote "Tale of Two Sons of Xia" ("夏二子传") expressing his feelings toward his current situation. In this writing, Wu used words "Xia" (夏) and "Shang" (商), which could be seasons as well as dynasties, and thus could be interpreted as the change of seasons from summer to autumn or the decay of dynasty. Wu also mentioned "flies and mosquitos", which were insects active in the season yet also often served as allegory with despicable person in Chinese culture. Therefore, these words provided evidence for Qin Hui to accuse him of defamation and further exiled Hu to today's Guangdong province, where Hu died.

Addition to Qing Dynasty Section
In 1799, Emperor Jiaqing announced that treating literary inquisition cases as the same level as treason and rebellion was legally unjust and inappropriate, and ordered previous cases to be reviewed. In this way, he ended the era of extensive literary inquisitions under Emperor Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong that lasted nearly 150 years.