User talk:CWH/Archive 2

MfD nomination of User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period

User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, 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:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period 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. ch (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Albert Feuerwerker

Hello, CWH, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Albert Feuerwerker, appears to be directly copied from http://www.ii.umich.edu/ccs/ci.ccsmournsthepassingofalbertfeuerwerkerfri3may2013_ci.detail. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Albert Feuerwerker if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lenin's article on the Boxers in Iskra

Marxists.org has an English version of his article, "The War in China". It says the article in Public domain as long as its credited to "Marxists Internet Archive".Rajmaan (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead with the quote, there should be more added on the people's own articles themselves. Tolstoy had more to say about the rebellion. He published an open letter or "epistle to the chinese people" criticizing the Allies. He also corresponded with Gu Hongming and agreed with him that Kang Youwei's reforms were foolish. There are sources for this at Talk:Leo_Tolstoy/Archive_2#Tolstoy.27s_anti_imperialist_stance_on_the_boxer_rebellion.Rajmaan (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yuan Shikai's anti Boxer campaigns in Shandong in Zhili

Yuan Shikai engaged in a brutal suppression campaign in Shandong and used extremely harsh tactics, I remember that one of them was possibly executing male family members of suspected Boxers. He killed thousands in that campaign and then joined the Eight Nation Alliance in Zhili after they took Beijing and killed several thousand more people. The information needs to be expanded and separate articles created for each campaign.Rajmaan (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

some sections don't have their own main articles. The main article on General Nie's Tenacious Army needs to be created. There are sources listed at Talk:Nie_Shicheng, we need to write more articles. We also need to create a separate article on the siege at Tientsin, see sources at Talk:Battle_of_Tientsin#Siege_of_the_concessions_in_tianjin.Rajmaan (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm thinking that we should split the Boxer article, which is over the suggested size for splitting. This would make it easier to read and also create room for detailed discussion of the topics you mention. We should be careful to build the links and references clearly into the Boxer article.

You are doing great work in finding these sources! But most people will be scared away from a long list of bare links, since the links usually do not show what they are. You will multiply the use by many time if you add brief descriptions. Also remember that Wikipedia policy discourages primary sources. ch (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wilt L. Idema

Hello, CWH. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Wilt L. Idema, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. GregJackP Boomer! 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wilt L. Idema for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wilt L. Idema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilt L. Idema until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Agnes Smedley/ Edgar Snow

Apologies -- I should have explained more clearly. I have nothing against Agnes Smedley, whose works I have read with pleasure and profit. But:

A) They were not as influential either among the American public or with later scholars as were those of Snow and Buck. B) The source in the footnote says the opposite: Smedley had "a certain vogue among the party faithful but not very far beyond" p. 162. Isaacs mentions only one other author, Lin Yutang. So unless you can find a source to back up the addition of Smedley, I hope you will agree that your well-intentioned sentence should be removed from the lede. But I do think it would be a good idea to add a later paragraph mentioning some of the other 1930s writers on the CCP.

Cheers ch (talk)

If it helps, I found another source that Red Star and Good Earth are the two most influential books is Mao's Journeys to the West: Meanings Made of Mao. in T. Cheek, (ed.), A Critical Introduction to Mao (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p 316. Unfortunately, the online Google Book doesn't include this page, but there is some discussion at [3]. I added a little more at George Hatem. ch (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

CWH,

First, thank you for your kind note. All too often, I receive notes from other Wikipideans that are very high-handed and self-righteous, while yours was anything but.

If you have read Smedley, then you know that 1) Smedley's Daughter of the Earth (1929) has been a long-time best-seller and 2) Smedley was blacklisted after allegations that she had been involved with communist spy Richard Sorge. Let me spell both points out a bit further, please. According to the New York Times, Daughter became much better known when reprinted in 1935 ("Book Notes," NYT, April 3, 1935, p. 21). According to the Library of Congress, the book has been reprinted four times, including 2011. According to biographer Ruth Price, HUAC investigation led the a blacklisting, of all Smedley's books except Daughters. Thus, almost any source writing after 1950 is likely to dismiss Smedley's importance, either due to anti-communism or its simple consequence that her name passed into censure and her books out of print. (Snow's experience under McCarthyism was far lighter by comparison.) Oh, and who reviewed her book Chinese Destinies in 1933 for the New York Times? Just Owen Lattimore ("A Long Way From the Whole Truth About China," by Owen Lattimore, NYT, December 10, 1933, p. BR9): also tainted and also investigated far more famously during McCarthyism). So, good CWH, I challenge you: show us credible sources that pre-date, say, 1945 (before American concerns turned from Hitler to Stalin -- and Mao), that show that Snow's book was more important than Smedley's two pre-1937 China books.

Here's a quote for perspective:

A second, perhaps even more important element in magnetizing the Chinese people and turning their passions against the Japanese, were the communists. Readers of the books of Edgar Snow and Agnes Smedley are familiar with the details. (The Dragon Wakes: A Report from China, by Edgar Ansel Mowrer. William Morrow, 1939, p. 173)

Thus, when Snow's book came out, Smedley's was the name associated. Just before his book came out, the names were Smedley and Buick, as this 1937 book on Google Books shows: Living China: Modern Chinese Short Stories. Just search on Smedley, Buck, and Snow and see how Smedley and Buck come out the big names.

One of the beauties of Wikipedia is the opportunity to correct historiographical inaccuracies: that is why I am trying to do here, as in many cases.

Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to reply

THanks for your great reply! I've left a long winded reply to your reply on your (talk|User Page). Hope it helps and that you go on to many happy edits. ch (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Military history of the Qing dynasty

Greetings, CWH. Sorry for being a busy-body, but I noticed you're working on splitting out this section into a separate article, and I just wanted to point out a little niggle. Wikipedia's licence requires a chain of attribution for all the text, and copying the section into your userspace, developing it there and then copying it to a new article would break that. That could be avoided by just copying the original section to a new article in mainspace and working on that – then all that would be needed for attribution would be an edit summary like "split from Qing Dynasty#Military". (There's much more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.) Best regards, Kanguole 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the (most appropriate) heads up and your (renewed) patience! ch (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Melville

Hello!

There´s a discussion here [1] about moving Isle of the Cross in the "Works by Herman Melville" template, if you want to voice an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Documents

Hi! I took a look at this edit. Even if the document itself is in English, it's a good idea to post the author's name in Chinese. That means somebody can find more documents written by the same person in another language. Andrew Lih, a Chinese American, has his Chinese name in his Wikipedia article (I put it there since it's the de facto standard to include Chinese names of Chinese Americans - see Anna May Wong and Gary Locke), and he only wrote in English.

I stated "Document in English, with two-page extract in Traditional Chinese." to make it clear to English speakers what the last two pages are, and that they aren't missing some kind of content. I also would like to include the Chinese version title as per the extract.

If the citation format absolutely does not allow "original script" names of article authors who do not have Wikipedia articles, please link to the guideline pages.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this message, which gives me a chance to say hello back to you! I took the opportunity to look at your page, and I like what I see -- if you're into chili, speak Chinese, and are owned by one or more cats, then I can forgive you for not being left handed!

But to business. Although I'm glad to see your message, I wonder if you've thought through what you're saying, namely that the name of every author of a reference in a footnote should be given in .... what? Their "native" language? Why only Chinese authors? Many people who are not Chinese have Chinese names, so should we give their names in Chinese too? What about Russian or Norwegian? Giving Chinese names in Chinese-American bio articles is not the same at all as giving the Chinese characters for the author of an article in a footnote.

Second, this is not a "document," but an article. Many articles in scholarly journals have abstracts, sometimes in French or whatever, and this is simply part of the article and does not need to be indicated any more than the fact that the article has page numbers in Arabic numbers.

You ask, "If the citation format absolutely does not allow "original script" names of article authors who do not have Wikipedia articles, please link to the guideline pages." The relevant section is WP:CITEHOW.

BTW, Wikipedia style: we do not have a section of "References" which lists items which are already in the footnotes. See GENREF, Footnotes and References, Further references.

I also have questions about the WP:NOTABILITY of the article De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes, which is showing up in a number of other articles where it's certainly not notable. But that's for another time.

Hope to see more of your work in this area. Thanks again for the message. ch (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I am very much right handed :)

The native names of Norwegian, Spanish, etc. tend to be written the same way in English as they are in the Latin script so it would be redundant to write them write. But for Russian I do try to include Russian names also. For instance I put one author's name here: Sergei_Safronov_(Hero_of_the_Soviet_Union)#References (the Russian name showed up in a Google Books entry). Same goes for Arabic, Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc. In WP:CITEHOW it says to include "the name of the author" but it doesn't give specifics on when one should indicate the other-script spellings of a name.

I decided to include the information because this particular article has an abstract in Chinese. While many articles have abstracts they're usually in the same language. I didn't want a non-Chinese speaker to get confused about the final two pages. I believe that by giving as much information about the article as I can it can help the reader make the fullest use of this article.

The way I've been using WP:GENREF is putting the book name in the "References" section (WP:GENREF states that the general book names go there). The example Wikipedia:FNNR seems to indicate that "Notes" go before "References" but "Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose" seems to give individual leeway on exactly what sections are called. It seems like the format can differ a little bit between articles. But regarding the point to not mix up the GENREF and specific footnotes, in which articles did this occur? As for Wikipedia:FURTHER What I do with "further reading" is list specific books that are not currently cited in the article but may be useful to the reader. If it's alright, may I see specific examples of ways my edits have not kept up to the format?

Even though you did want to save it for another time, I do want to get a few things out of the way about De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes, the basis of notability I'm using is WP:GNG. I did a search on an academic database and found two book reviews, which count as reliable, secondary, independent sources. That's the basis of the notability. If you'd like I can check for more. Keep in mind this one book has many articles on different subjects, so there are a lot of articles in which this book is relevant. I post the relevant child article from the parent book depending on the article. If you have a question about why I posted a certain article in an article's further reading section I'll be happy to answer it :)

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A number of points!

• Nobody said anything about Spanish names, but in fact they are, like French or Norwegian names, often different from English language usage even though they are written in "Latin script." You are doing a fantastic service by adding names in Russian for books published in Moscow and presumably translated from the Russian. I appreciate that you are trying to help readers, but it is 1) Not Wikipedia policy to ask for all forms of names for the author in a footnote any more than for the Chinese title of an article in English. 2) Perfectly easy for any reader who wants Liu Wu-chi's other articles to find out his name by looking at the Abstract. Or, if you are concerned, start a stub article for Liu, who is a very distinguished scholar. It is not a good use of your brains and time to try to supply names for every Chinese in every reference in every footnote in any case.

If you don't believe me, please ask at the Help Desk. Also whether it is needed or even allowed to include the presence, much less the language, of an Abstract.

• Notability for books is not given by WP:GNG but Notability (books). Two reviews do not make a book notable or else every book in every university press catalog would be notable. I am not raising the question on the De l'un au multiple page because you have put so much work into it, but in future you might look at other book articles to see what is the general practice rather than the letter of the law. The Immobile Empire, for instance, is to my mind notable because it has been cited and debated as representing a set of ideas, but it has been challenged for not being notable. Go Figure!
• Liu's article is not even a good reference for the Antoine Bazin article aside from the one point. Why is it in General References? And... um, if, as you correctly say, you have your choice of whether to call a section "General References" or "Further Reading," then you can't object that I apply the same standards to both interchangeably. That is, if something is cited in a Note or Footnote, it should not be listed in General References or Further Reading.
• I will take you up on your offer to explain listing Fogel's review as a (Further) Reference in the Jacques Dars and Water Margin articles. It is wrong to list journal articles, much less book reviews, which only mention the subject of the article in passing and give no useful information not already in the article. Please remove these additions and those from other articles which I have not found.

Again, please look at some well done articles in this area to see how these rules work in practice. You will save yourself time in the long run!

Cheers and warm breezes to you! ch (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications! I am happy to explain my decisions, so I'll answer your points here:

1. I just used Spanish as an additional example along with Norwegian. Sorry, I should have clarified that. As for "Perfectly easy for any reader who wants Liu Wu-chi's other articles to find out his name by looking at the Abstract." that's not the case with many non-Latin script languages. I would say the average English speaker would have no idea on how to type that name. Unlike many PDF documents where you can hover over and copy the text, it cannot be done with this source. An English speaker may not even recognize that as his name. I understand that not everyone understands to to find Chinese characters, or use radicals. Therefore I try to include as much as possible in regards to Chinese names, Japanese names, and other similar language to cater to English speakers. Anyway I will be happy to ask about the issue over at the help desk. As for Liu himself, I would be happy to write an article on him if I find sources about him. I also want to write one about Issei Tanaka (ja:田仲一成) who is also a Sinologist.

::::With all respect for your energy and talents, why in the world would anyone who could not read the characters be looking for articles in Chinese?

2. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The word sources is plural, so AFAIK that means two or more. I also found two more journal articles about this book, so it brings it up to four. As for why I would go out of my way to write a Wikipedia article about an academic book, it's done because in those book reviews (I can send them to you if you want) state possible things that would be of interest to someone using the book as a source. I included some examples I found here: Talk:De_l'un_au_multiple:_Traductions_du_chinois_vers_les_langues_européenes and for another book I wrote some notes here: Talk:Deng_Xiaoping_and_the_Making_of_Modern_China#On_accuracy_of_material. The Immobile Empire may be more widely reviewed than this one, but using GNG I feel one can cover several of the lesser-reviewed titles.

::::As pointed out, 1) The relevant guideline is Notability (books). 2) I think the article is borderline, but I'm happy to defer to you.

3. I cite Liu's work on the Antoine Bazin exactly because of that one point. The inclusion on the list of "General citations" is there simply because I am citing it for that one point. It's not implying that Liu's work has a masterful treasure trove of info about Bazin. I'm showing proof that "Joining the Shirt" has been used as a translation of the book title in a published work (I like to avoid Wikipedia:Original research as much as possible). Now, if someone wrote an article on the book itself I would likely move the information to that new article. The user who typed in some Chinese characters I couldn't copy and paste, User_talk:Wctaiwan#More_Chinese_questions, himself stated "Using an established translation might be preferable to inventing our own."

:::: I'm not sure why you cite the proper guideline but then do not follow it. The guideline is that sources in the notes are not listed elsewhere. That is, the full citation goes in the note, not in whatever you (quite properly) can choose to call Further/General/etc. Reading.

4. On Jacques Dars, this was why Fogel is in the general reference's page. Fogel's essay was not being used as a further reading (the section where it's listed is titled "References" not "Further reading": Jacques_Dars#References and in the articles I write I use "References" to mean "General References"). It was being used a reference stating that Jacques Dars translated the Shuihu zhuan (I didn't recognize "Au bord de l'eau" as being "Shuihu zhuan"). That's why I cited it. If it's no longer being used as a reference, or not necessary to, it may be removed. :) - And for Water Margin, Fogel's essay is being used here Water_Margin#cite_ref-26 as a reference to prove that Jacques Dars translated the book into French. That's it. I did not edit the Water_Margin#Further_reading for Water Margin.

::::Good -- but it should not have been in General References to begin with!

5. In regards to the naming of sections, it leads to Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR which states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." - I can understand on why one should not accidentally confuse "general references" (books which are being cited) with further reading (books which are not being cited but can be a further resource), but as long as the titles don't confuse readers, I can understand that some variation happens.

::::Well put, but not the point. "Citation style" means inline vs footnotes, author/(year)/title, etc. Not whether individual items cited should be listed in a separate section, whatever the section in called.

6. I consulted Wikipedia:FNNR#Notes_and_references further. General references is, defined here Wikipedia:CITE#General_references "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." - The reason why I was citing Liu in the Bazin article and Fogel's essay in the Water Margin is because I was calling up specific information from those works, but the page numbers belong in "Notes" and the book titles belong in "References". Now, Further reading is for works which are good references for the subject but aren't being cited. So it would be inappropriate to put Liu in the further reading of Bazin, and Fogel in the further reading of Water Margin. However I am calling up specific information from those books for those articles.

::::Again, you cite the right guideline but do not follow it: "a general references is, defined here Wikipedia:CITE#General_references "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article." Using Fogel and Liu in a note means that it is "linked to a particular piece of material..." They should not be in General Reference!!! Please remove them and put the full reference in the note. (CWH)

1. Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (books) it's a supplementary guideline. An article can pass WP:GNG without having to pass any of the supplementary notability guidelines, while an article can fail GNG but pass a supplementary guideline (this allows notabilities of academic journals and certain publications which may not be reported on in reliable sources). It seems like WP:Books acknowledges GNG by having, in its guidelines "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." (which is what GNG says). With the Books notability guideline one criterion needs to be satisfied for the book to be notable.

Again, I am happy to defer to you on the article, which you have turned into an ambitious piece, but I wonder if book reviews are "independent of the book itself."

2. I think the matter at hand is whether a book that is used once in the article should be in the General References section. The way I interpreted that passage is a general reference "a reliable source, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article" - Meaning it doesn't include page numbers, with the page numbers being linked to the particular pieces of material. So citing "Liu in the Bazin article and Fogel's essay in the Water Margin" or including Liu in the general references in the Bazin article and Fogel in the Water Margin is showing that those books support content in those articles. But the General References do not include the page numbers which are linked to the specific material. Now, what I could do is ask, in this instance, if there are editors who include the entire citation information in "Notes" if a book is only being used once in an article but using "General References" if a book is being used more than once.

1) It makes no difference if the page number is included or not, since in either case it is "linked to a particular piece of information."

2) In the first place, it is not necessary to have a citation for every piece of every aspect, only those which you think there is a 50% chance that someone might challenge. In this case, it is not necessary to have a note to Fogel documenting that the translation by Jacques Dars was done by Jacques Dars.

3) I continue to admire your hard work to help readers, but in this case telling a reader to go find the Fogel review will not help because there is no information added and you will be wasting the reader's time.

Thank you. I am aware of the principle of only citing information you think will be challenged. For instance I don't need to cite that Paris is the capital of France. But I've seen people go around and remove information "because it's unsourced" in a drive-by manner. I believe the reality is that the vast majority of things needed to be cited, partly to protect them from drive-by removal and also to show that I didn't make it up. In the case of the Water Margin, the info is that "the French translation of this series was done by Jacques Dars" or that "Jacques Dars is the person who did the translation of The Water Margin", not that "Jacques Dars wrote his own translation of the Water Margin". - I cite that because it's not "common knowledge" to an average person and a more overzealous editor may see it without a citation and wipe it away. Maybe I'm being too overzealous with citing in this case, but for years I've had the idea that I need to cite the vast majority of things I put in here. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_a_book_is_cited_once_or_twice... proposing that if a source is being used once or twice in the manner in the Bazin and Water Margin articles that the whole book citation go in "Notes"

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you,

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I started the discussion about whether Liu Wu-chi's Chinese name should be included in the article here: Wikipedia:Help_desk#In_citation_templates.2C_including_non-English_names_of_authors_who_wrote_articles_in_English - I also notified User:Wctaiwan (the person who found the source mentioning "Joining the Shirt") and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Should_non-English_names_.28such_as_Chinese_names.29_of_authors_be_mentioned_in_citations_of_articles_that_are_written_in_English.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese character(s)

Hi. I think your move was hasty and misguided, and have given my reasons why on the talk page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies -- the policies were clear and the advantages obvious, so I went ahead. ch (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a fight. I can see that you're drafting a respnse in your sandbox—please don't post that stuff to the talk page there. I meant everything I wrote, and still do—I'll make no retractions. I don't demand an apology—I demand respect. Apologies are expressed with mere words—respect can only be demonstrated through action. Please return to the discussion and we can all sort the titling issue out by giving due respect and consideration to each other's concerns. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good enough. I have offered you an apology on the Talk Page and, as you may or may not have been able to see on my Sandbox (depending on what point in the drafting you looked at it), I also planned to admit that I was wrong to say that I expected one (I didn't "demand" one, however).

Here, more or less between ourselves, I will only say that if you want respect, you should offer it. I never impugned your motives, I never accused you of being "hasty," I never accused you of not taking issues seriously, I never referred to your "attitude," I never accused you of "mind and word games," I never dismissively said you should go back and think about it again, and if I gave offense, I apologize, but it was never intended. Your remarks were personal and hurtful. Can you say that they were not intended to be so? At the very least they were not WP:AGF. I am deeply disturbed by them. I will say here, not there, that I think it would be appropriate for you to acknowledge this on the Talk Page in some way, however indirect. That said, I will make no further mention of this or anything but the issues. I continue to have high respect for your work as an editor. ch (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be easier for you to understand my position if you went back and read the discussion up to the point where I responded with the "fingers in ears" remark (a remark I stand by). I've read it over and over and still can't imagine myself responding in any other way. You shut me down—you didn't give my concerns the time of day. How would you have responded?

As for "hasty", this is the first time I've been told calling an action "hasty" was in any way impertinent. Anyways, to put the comment in context, just remember that I waited nearly a week after soliciting comments before I made my move—in contrast, you made your move, and then left a note about it, with a fingerpointing note naming myself: "Curly Turkey with no discussion moved page "Chinese characters" to "Chinese character"". I did solicit discussion, and it took eight months for anyone to bother to reply.

"if you want respect, you should offer it": honestly, I'm plenty respectful, and I see it as one-sided to be accused this way—and, seriously, if your offense begins with the word "hasty", then who is it really that's ignoring AGF? As it stands, I don't recognize that I have been disrespectful. Perhaps we have differing definitions of "respect"—in the world I live in, dismissing another's concerns as being unworthy even of discussion falls squarely in the "disrespect" category, if not outright "contempt".

But seriously, it was never my intention to get into any sort of fight. People can vigorously disagree with each other and still maintain respect. I've already offered more than once to bury the hatchet, but I won't do with conditions—I can (and have) read and reread that talk page and stand by every word I've written (except where I was wrong about bots). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say and you've said what you have to say. I'm happy to leave it at that. But I notice that you do not deny intending to be hurtful, while I have publicly apologized. ch (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My intention was to put a stop to behaviour that was shutting down the discussion (whether intentionally or not). If you were hurt, it was through no intention of mine. You've had the option all along to rejoin the debate in a respectful way, which to me would be far more meaningful than any apology. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bible translations into Chinese

Hi, any idea why RedPenofDoom did this?, I note you and he/she have been exchanging edits on the page for Bible translations into Mandarin which the tribal languages after being blanked was redirected to. At first sight I can't see why your edits are being reverted. Am I missing something? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. As you can tell from the exchange on the Bible translations into Chinese Talk Page, we didn't see eye to eye (not even the blink of one!). After a while I decided it just wasn't worth my while to push things any further, and went about other revisions. I can't recall that RedPen and I have had any previous exchanges.

I assume that blanking the page of translations into tribal languages was a misunderstanding. Maybe it seemed that the material was included on the List of Chinese Bible translations -- but then why redirect to the wrong page? Don't know. If you think it's appropriate, you can revert the blanking, however. ch (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:CWH/Edward Charles Bowra has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. Petan-Bot (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear CWH, I can't quite remember why I have your page on my watchlist, but I couldn't help notice this discussion about Edward Bowra. It turns out that there is an entire book on Bowra's life: Charles Drage's The Dragon Throne: Being the Lives of Edward and Cecil Bowra (London: Peter Dawnay, 1966). Bowra is also mentioned in Patricia Lim's Forgotten Souls: A Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery (2011). (See this). I hope these sources will help you to establish notability so that your article can quickly move to article space! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. First, I'm sorry for not seeing the "Further reading" section where this very book already appears! And yes, I'm a member of the AAS. I attended last year's conference in Hawaii, but I will not be in Toronto because I am not presenting and I have other conferences in north America in the first half of the year (not to mention that Toronto in the winter is a bit less attractive than Honolulu!). Attracting more scholars to WP would indeed be a wonderful idea! I remember reading your post concerning WP on H-Asia a few years ago (and the excellent article it linked to), but I don't know how many people followed your exhortations. I suspect many scholars are turned off by the ban on "original research," but once they understand it, they may realize that Wikipedia still leaves much room for creativity, and even learning. One motivating factor could be that some Wiki pages get more readers in one day than most scholarly monographs do in one year! In any case, I truly hope your initiative succeeds. (Incidentally, a review of my dissertation has recently been announced on H-Asia, so you can probably trace who I am. Let me know if you can't and I will email you.) All the best, Madalibi (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So now you know who I am! :-) Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean when a message I just wrote gets posted to the place where you just posted about the article where you just thanked me. If you see what I mean... :) Madalibi (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

North by northwest! ch (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"That fellow's dusting crops where there ain't no crops!" Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But can he tell a hawk from a handsaw? ch (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

...or turtles from jayes? Madalibi (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Words, words, words....with a bare bodkin...ch (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Alleged Cixi statement - urban legend/propaganda?

I believe that there is an false statement attributed to Cixi by anti-Manchu people, it goes along the lines that Cixi said she would rather give up the country to foreigners (Eight Nation Alliance) than give up a single city to her slaves (the Han civilian population of China) after the Boxer protocol was signed.

宁予於外盗, 不予於家贼.

This was actually attributed to Grand Secretary Gangyi, a Manchu bannerman and confident of Cixi, by Liang Qichao in a anti-Manchu essay he wrote after the failed 100 days reform in 1898, since Gangyi was a member of the conservative party and opposed reforms. And considering that Gangyi was one of the most ardent pro-Boxer supporters and anti foreigner individuals during the Boxer Rebellion itself, his execution was demanded by the Eight Nation Alliance (but he had died of natural causes), this alleged statement is most likely to be false for him too.

Liang Qichao attributed the statement to him after the failed reform in 1898.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yet Gangyi was the among the ringleaders of the anti-foreigners and a major Boxer supporter in 1900 and he ended up on the death list of the Eight Nation Alliance....

http://books.google.com/books?id=iSEyAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=gangyi+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=USfsUvKrBYOlsASCm4E4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gangyi%20executed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=r9OZ5W4FMwUC&pg=PA195&dq=gangyi+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=USfsUvKrBYOlsASCm4E4&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=gangyi%20executed&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lAxresT12ogC&pg=PA231&dq=gangyi+boxer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uCfsUqLICfLOsAT56YGwDg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gangyi%20boxer&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jVESdBSMasMC&pg=PA290&dq=gangyi+boxer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uCfsUqLICfLOsAT56YGwDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gangyi%20boxer&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=15BxAAAAMAAJ&q=gangyi+boxer&dq=gangyi+boxer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uCfsUqLICfLOsAT56YGwDg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw

http://books.google.com/books?id=z2japTNPRNAC&pg=PA528&dq=gangyi+boxer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uCfsUqLICfLOsAT56YGwDg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA

http://books.google.com/books?id=j1aGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=gangyi+boxer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uCfsUqLICfLOsAT56YGwDg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gangyi%20boxer&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention why I posted this, I was wondering if you know the essay which Liang Qichao wrote the alleged quote in?Rajmaan (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but the first place to look would be Liang's "memoir" of 1898, 戊戌 政变 记 Wuxu zhengbian ji, which is in his collected works and widely reprinted, most conveniently (I think) in the old Peking collection of documents on the 1898 reforms. Does this help? ch (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your 3O request for Joseph Schereschewsky

Just a head's up: you're probably better off listing your proposed name change at requested moves where a number of editors very familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions can weigh in and an admin can close the discussion rather than using the 3O process. Cheers! Wieno (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. I wasn't sure what the best place was. ch (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK -- but I'm not sure what the procedure is. Am I allowed to/ supposed to vote? Am I supposed to respond to the comments on the Joseph S. discussion when they don't seem to be aware of policy or to have read the discussion or the arguments? Am I allowed to place a neutral notice to the effect that this discussion is under way on the talk pages of admins who have ruled on naming questions of articles I have worked on, but with whom I have had no other contact? (I've had battles with some of them!)ch (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Any editor can weigh in. An administrator's opinion has no more weight on content issues than any other editor. You can certainly respond to/discuss the points other editors raise, but you wouldn't cast your own vote in the poll because the nomination itself is considered a vote in favour of the move. Unlike some dispute-resolution processes, a requested move nomination is not neutral, but is a clear request for the action (much as a nomination for deletion) and can be worded as such. When you are responding to others, make sure to be respectful. Remember that as Wikipedia operates by consensus, it's not a vote. The closing administrator is going to give more weight to policy-based arguments than mere statements of preference, though numbers do make a difference. Sometimes it can involve coming to a compromise that everyone accepts (even if no one's completely happy with it.

In terms of contacting editors, you can contact editors who you think might be interested in an issue, but it's best to use Wikiprojects and the like to contact editors based on interest or expertise in the topic rather than past experience with you. For more information, check out WP:CANVASS. Wieno (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again -- I want to do what I can within the norms, not just the formal rules. ch (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Foo Dynasty" or "Foo dynasty"?

There's an RFC here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Just so there's no confusion, I didn't want you thinking I was talking about you when I was talking about editors acting deceptively. Since that initial blowup we've persistenly and vigorously disagreed with each other, but I appreciate that you've taken my points seriously, even if you've disputed them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood! ch (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)