User talk:Keahapana/Archive 11

A barnstar for you!
Many thanks, writing those articles was my pleasure. Keahapana (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with the source, just edit the ref
While the reference is debatable, you could have just remove the reference instead of a blanket revert. George Leung (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be slow replying. Please see Talk:Shangdi for your answers. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Historiographia Linguistica pdf
Hi, I can send you a pdf of:



if you still need it to complete your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thank you very much. Keahapana (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works
Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Asian reference works
Glad you have decided to join the project! I've had some questions regarding your area of expertise for awhile and could use your input. For one thing - Category:Encyclopedias by date lists encyclopedias from the 16th-century onwards by century, but I have only two before that - Category:Encyclopedias in Classical Antiquity and Category:Medieval European encyclopedias. I did this for two reasons - 1, there were not enough examples of encyclopedias by century before 1500 to warrant century based cats, in my opinion - 2, Classical antiquity and the Middle Ages are convenient and identifiable periods for Europe. This begs the obvious question - what to do with non-Western encyclopedias before 1500? Sometimes we hear phrases like "Medieval Islam" or "Medieval China", but I've never felt comfortable with those terms because it transposes a uniquely Western periodization onto other cultures.

Then there is the problem of correctly identifying an "encyclopedia". The words encyclopedia and cyclopedia, as you'll notice if you read the articles in 16th and 17th century encyclopedias cats, were coined in the 16th century Europe and gradually gained currency there until the modern concept of an encyclopedia - an abecedarian collection of articles on general or specialized knowledge - was codified with Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, the Encyclopédie and the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Chinese encyclopedias, as I am sure you are aware, did not begin that way. Leishu appear to be more like a large collection of texts covering an "encyclopedic" range of knowledge than modern, Western encyclopedias. They also appear to have stopped being made after the 18th-century, when Western influence began to infiltrate China. My solution to the problem would be to create Category:Leishu. This could be listed under both Category:Encyclopedias by date, solving part of the above problem, as well as Category:Chinese encyclopedias, though I don't know how Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese works based on the Chinese model would fit into the picture. What do you think?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bellerophon5685, and thanks for all the good work you've done starting WikiProject Reference works. Yes, there are some thorny terminological problems with English encyclopedia and Chinese leishu "encyclopedia", and whether a comprehensive "encyclopedic" reference work is necessarily an "encyclopedia". Have you read this?
 * Fowler, Robert L. (1997), "Encyclopaedias: Definitions and Theoretical Problems", in Peter Binkley, Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts, Brill, 3-29.
 * I've started working on improving the Chinese encyclopedia article and still haven't decided how to treat leishu, but translating with "Chinese leishu encyclopedia" seems preferable to "Chinese encyclopedia". While some sinologists use "Medieval China" to mean the period between Han and Tang dynasties, most don't use it owing to the Eurocentric connotations. Shouldn't your abecedarian be a-b-c-darian? The 16th-century cat has Compendium of Materia Medica, which is a pharmacopeia, and the 18th-century cat has Siku Quanshu, which is a huge collection of classical texts, but neither is an encyclopedia. A leishu cat sounds like a good idea, but while both these Chinese reference works are collated by categories, they're not usually considered leishu. Come to think of it, maybe we should move this discussion to the new WikiProject talk page, where we might get more input. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk)

Huanglan
You're welcome! — Llywelyn II   04:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

General Association of Koreans in China
Dear Keahapana

I'm sorry I haven't been able to talk much during the last few months. I have been beginning a new graduate program AND moving into a new apartment. You might be familiar with all the stress that can bring up. Anyway, I have been doing alot of studying on North Korea lately for my term paper and have found out about this group of pro-DPRK ethnic Koreans in the PRC

General Association of Koreans in China

The problem is that most of the available information sources on it in English come from North Korean propaganda sites and mainly just contain paens to the Kims that the group sends to Pyongyang rather than much hard information about the group. Do you think you could find something more substantial online in the Chinese or Korean languages? Particularly its date of foundation?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've never heard of the General Association of Koreans in China, and did some searching for Chinese or Japanese references (haven't studied Korean) but couldn't find anything in Reliable Sources, just blogs and PR releases like this.

http://www.kfausa.org/tag/general-association-of-koreans-in-china/

This blog gives the Chinese name for the General Association of Koreans in China as Lǚ-Huá cháoxiǎnrén zǒngliánhéhuì 旅华朝鲜人总联合会, which is not found in the Chinese interwiki.

https://justrecently.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/collectors-items-kimjongilia-on-display-in-shenyang/

The Japanese name is apparently Zai-Chu Chōsenjin Sōrengōkai 在中朝鮮人総聯合会, but Google only finds 9 ghits. Both this and the name for the Chongryon General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, Zai-Nihon Chōsenjin Sōrengōkai 在日本朝鮮人総聯合会, start with zai 在 "reside; in; at" implying permanent residents in Japan (it's complicated, see Zainichi). Compare the Chinese name that starts with lǚ 旅 "travel; stay away from home" implying temporary residents in China. Wonder why.

One idea would be to adapt the infoboxes from Chongryon for your article. Anyway, if I find more information, I'll post it here. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've used the Chongryon templates. I was able to add the Japanese version of the name, but I don't know how to add the Chinese versions of the name. Could you show me?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I used google translate to translate a portion of the Korean version of the article to English. The result is only slightly less ridiculous than usual

재중조선인총연합회의 모체는 1990년에 범민련 산하에 결성된 재중조선인본부이다.[2] 이듬해인 1991년에 재중조선공민총연합회라는 이름으로 출범하였다가 1998년에 재중조선인총연합회로 확대개편되었다.[3]

The mother tongue of the Korean Federation of Korean Residents is the Korean-Japanese headquarters that was formed under the Chung-Min Lee in 1990. [2] It was launched in 1991, the year following the year, in the name of the Korean Federation of Korean Residents, and then expanded to the Korean Federation of Korean Residents in 1998. [3]

OK, what I think that means is the group was founded in 1991, after an original core group - Korean-Japanese headquarters - was founded in 1990. However, it could not have very well changed its name from the Korean Federation of Korean Residents to the Korean Federation of Korean Residents in 1998, so I am guessing that the correct meaning is that it adopted its current name General Association of Koreans in China. I know you haven't studied Korean, but could you perhaps direct me to someone at WikiEmbassey or somewhere to find a correct translation of that passage, or its sources.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:KO. They should be able to help. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

meaning of 筮
Hi Keahapana, I just made an entry on the talk page for the wu article.

I figured out that you seem to have created the original entry that provides the interpretation of 筮 as having the meaning yarrow, so I figure my question might get to you more quickly if I make this entry.

I was very interested that there might be this direct connection in Chinese characters, leading from shamanistic practice to yarrow. In writing a few sentences about it, I tried to find online confirmation of this meaning. I was unable to find it. Online Chinese dictionaries provide different characters for yarrow. Google translates the character as "to divine with stalk." That's good, but if there is really this direct connection to yarrow, I'd like to be able to say so. Perhaps this is an archaic meaning? I'd appreciate it if you could fill me in! Also, it seems that some kind of revision of article on the meaning of 筮 might be in order.

Otherwise, it's a really great article. I will be linking to it from my website.

Thx,

Barryef (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Barryef. I'll look into this question and reply on the Talk page. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)