User talk:Nlu/archive54

DYK for Qiao Lin

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection at Bruce Lee
It looks like you semi-protected this article in Nov 07 without setting an expiration. I'm not sure if that was your intention or if I am misunderstanding the logs but I think this protecton should have expired by now.-- Birgitte SB  21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.  (I think, at that time, the expiration mechanism was not yet fully implemented.)  --Nlu (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, thank you for looking into it.-- Birgitte SB  02:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you created : list
I eventuqlly found the good tool ! there : http://toolserver.org/~escaladix/larticles/larticles.php?user=Nlu&lang=en

Yug 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.248.245 (talk)
 * Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can you copyedit this new article History of Liao, and look quickly if some of the red link are not yet available under other title you may know.

If you have some information about Tuotuo 脱脱, the Mongolian historian, start a quick 3 lines stub on him may be great.

regards, Yug (talk)  13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are outside my area of expertise, although if/when I get a chance to read Tuotuo's biography in the History of Yuan I might try to write something, but that might be a year or so down the line based on the pace I'm going. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still astonished each time I come here and see the work you are doing, ... and planning ! Many thanks : I have lot of fun when reading your pages ! Yug (talk)  16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lu Qi

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Zhang Yi (Tang Dynasty)

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Self called name of chinese people
what did chinese call themselves during xia, shang and zhou dynasties..... surely not hanren because the han dynasty didnt exist yet... and not zhong guo ren...162.84.128.53 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC).128.53|162.841.84.128.53 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC).1253]] (162.848.53 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC).12.53|talk]]) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)~
 * Not Hanren, for sure, but I think Zhongguo actually had a fairly early origin, although the term Zhongguoren was not used that early. My guess, right now, without doing further research, would be that they referred to themselves by using the name of their tribe/state.  --Nlu (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

and about the list of monarchs of china article, or something named like that, no one bother to include the monarches of each individual states during the warring states. did these people keep family trees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.163 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

this article List of Chinese monarchs

and i read in a book about the zhou dynasty rulers calling themselves Wang, this implies that the shang dynasty and xia rulers did not call themselves it, but the book is a very old edition written a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.163 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Bo Yang asserted that they used Di (not Huangdi, which was a Qin Dynasty creation). --Nlu (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Jiang Gongfu

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

differnce between 古文 and 文言文
whats the difference? is 古文 the one preserving the ancient grammar and spelling and 文言文 just a way of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.163 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if a modern Chinese speaker/writer is using it, then it's not really 古 any more. I'd say that's the distinction.  --Nlu (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Xiao Fu

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

THis website
is this reliable and this * Script translation

if we want to write old chinese prononciations and seal script characters in certain articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.121 (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have insufficient knowledge on the reliability of this Web site, but since the reconstruction of old Chinese pronunciations is tricky, I do not think we should venture into it. --Nlu (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

how do they identify old characters if they look different than modern ones?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.121 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That really is outside my scope of expertise, since I have little knowledge in archaeology. However, for example, when the Bamboo Annals were discovered during the Jin Dynasty (265-420), for example, the court scholars went through years deciphering them, and I am sure that they did as good of a job as they could and yet wouldn't be perfect.  --Nlu (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

any reason in linguistics for the massive amount of homophones in standard mandarin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.159.252 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's really outside my area of expertise as well, but my feeling is that it came from Chinese, in ancient times, becoming a monosyllabic language rather than polysyllabic one; if English were a monosyllabic language as well, there would suddenly be all kinds of words that would be considered homophones, for example. There are only so many sounds that you can have in a single syllable.  (Of course, that begs the question as to why Chinese became a monosyllabic language; I have no answer for that.)  --Nlu (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu
Hi I do not have time currently to improve that article but I did find a scholarly and academic article in Iranica on the subject:. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks.  I am probably not going to get the chance to get to it, but it's interesting read.  --Nlu (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Zhang Yanshang

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Li Mian

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu
Hi I am attempting to clean it up but someone just r.v.'ed me. I removed two websites which did not meet WP:RS or did not work. I would appreciate it if you keep an eye on the article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say discuss it more. If needs be, make a request for discussion.  Meanwhile, I would say that rather than just stating "Chinese sources," cite a specific one.  I'd cite the Records of the Grand Historian, vol. 110, for example.  --Nlu (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks your help is widely appreciated to clean up that article. Since all the information about them is basically in Chinese, we do need experts in Chinese in the article.  I tried to clean up the introduction which was POV and categorize different theories about their origin.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am looking over your edits now. I actually think that the prior intro was better in that it does acknowledge the dispute, but I don't plan to touch any of your other edits.  Again, I'd urge you to discuss it more.  --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. The introduction previously was designed to give one POV more weight than it has in academia .  So I tried to categorize the origin.  But you have a point and I will wait for the other user to respond on why he thinks the introduction POV should be there before I remove it.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (unintending) I have to put my two cents here which i already explained in the relevant talk page. Actually, Nepaheshgar is misrepresenting the case, since he removed the information from the following sources (see the diffs for comparison):

1. Muller, F. M. 'Lectures on the Science of Language', Adamant Media Corporation, Elibron Classics, p288, ISBN 1421249006

2. Wink, A., 2002, 'Al-Hind: making of the Indo-Islamic World', BRILL, p60-61, ISBN 0391041746

3. Maxwell, V., (2005), 'Istanbul', Lonely Planet, p12, ISBN 1740594835

4. Smith, V.A., 'The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest', The Clarendon Press, p217

5. Dughlat, M.H., 'A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia', Adamant Media Corporation, p87-88, ISBN 1421249251

6. ''Hucker, C.O., 1975, 'China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture', Stanford University Press, p136, ISBN 0804723532'

7. Keyser-Tracqui C., Crubezy E., Ludes B. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia American Journal of Human Genetics 2003 August; 73(2): 247–260.

8. Nancy Touchette Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave

9. ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596591?dopt=Abstract Population origins in Mongolia: genetic structure analysis of ancient and modern DNA. Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Moléculaire, Institut de Médecine Légale, 67085 Strasbourg, France.]''

10. Paola Demattè Writing the Landscape: the Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia Province (China). (Paper presented at the First International Conference of Eurasian Archaeology, University of Chicago, May 3-4, 2002.)

11. MA Li-qing, On the new evidence on Xiongnu's writings. (Wanfang Data: Digital Periodicals, 2004)

So, he deleted eleven sources in favor of Iranica article. Iranica contains articles from many different editors and each article is as reliable as its editor. The sources deleted by Nepaheshgar are all reliable, but he's not taking the wikipedia policies into account when it comes to his edits. That's why i reverted his edits. Regards, E104421 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well,as I wrote above, I hope that there's more conversation on this, but I will say that I am also not in favor of a mass revert. It's more difficult on everyone to work with each other's edits, but it also makes the article better and more balanced, I think.  --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. Thanks. E104421 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously the user is getting intoWP:SOAP. I did not remove any of these (except lonley plant) I moved them.  E104421, please follow the discussion on the talkpage.  Some of the sources are from 1861, 1505, 1904!.. all POV sources.  Iranica is one source, but I have added many other sources, but the Iranica article is from 2006, not 1861!  Two well known Turkish linguists from the modern era deny any existence of relationship between Altaic languages and Xiongnu.  Yet we have an introduction which supports that POV, with sources from 1505, 1861, and 1904 and "lonley planet"(a travel guide and not an academic source)! --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who starts the discussion on the Talk:Xiongnu. Instead of complaining on user pages, i recommend Nepaheshgar to discuss the changes in the talk pages. That's simpler, i think. E104421 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay but there was no discussion for months and I did not remove sources (except lonley planet) but moved them! I moved them so there is no bias in terms of their origin towards one theory which is actually rejected by top linguists in altaic.  Also mind WP:civil, I did not complain on the userpage, I invited Nlu to get involved (hopefully to stop POV pushing).  Please comment now on why with various modern sources like this: [, we should keep the current POV introduction that lists sources from the 16th century, 1914, 1861, and lonley planet to justify an outdated POV.  I really hope Nlu gets involved actually. --[[User:Nepaheshgar|Nepaheshgar]] (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd wish that the charges and counter-charges would stop, honestly. As far as being involved in editing the article — to tell the truth, while maybe I should, right now, I am writing a series of Tang Dynasty-related articles and it's a little difficult for me to switch gears. Maybe in the future. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I urge you to be involved please and that is why I seeked your help in the first place. The charge was I removed sources.  I did not (except lonley planet,  a website that did not work and two popular websites which were not academic), but actually I categorized the rest of the sources that discuss origin based on different theories.  So my question is this. In the introduction should there be one single POV about their origin(with sources from 1505, 1861, 1914, lonley planet!), or should we have different theories discussed in the origin section much like this [?  Thank you.--[[User:Nepaheshgar|Nepaheshgar]] (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but right now I really can't. I've just had a really busy week, and while tomorrow will be relatively light, I've got things I got to do on Saturday again. And, again, while I think I have some knowledge on the subject, I'm hardly an expert. --Nlu (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Medal for Tang Dynasty Historian Nlu

 * Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Liu Zi

 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)