User talk:PericlesofAthens/Archive 7

Help?
I recently created the long overdue bio for Chen Wangting. However familiar with the tai chi I might be, Chinese history articles are not my forte, and any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering...
Do you plan on nominating all of the Han Dynasty articles for FA? Because they all seem deserving. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * And another congratulations from me! That's quite an undertaking there. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too.  Xan dar  23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Brilliant work, and congratulations. That old Greek guy you've named yourself after would be proud. :P --  李博杰    | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on that wonderful achievement! The strippers are definitely on us. And I promise clowns, bears, and meerkats for when Society and culture of the Han Dynasty becomes featured too. Great job, you old mountain hermit! Madalibi (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah, congratulations for another splendid accomplishment. What a work!--Caspian blue 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Han Dynasty
I have started the copyedit of the article. Anyone else from the last copyeditor conglomerate joining in the fun? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: When you say "The imperial capitals of Western Han Chang'an and Eastern Han Luoyang were some of the largest in the world", do you mean some of the largest economies or physically large in landmass? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will peruse it myself for now, unless people in the FA request more eyes. Let's hope my writing is up to snuff! Lol! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt I can catch "everything", even as awesome as I am. I am going to bed now, but I hope to perform the bulk of the copyedit tomorrow. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding this sentence: "Sadao Nishijima, a professor emeritus from the University of Tokyo, speculates that the Han government found it easiest to collect coin taxes, which did not necessitate transportation of taxed goods and properties." Does this mean property as in land? If it does, it would be very hard to transport, so you probably meant seized, but if you meant property like this computer is my property, the word should simply be cut from the sentence. Please clarify. (The copyedit is chugging along!) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I did not have opportunity to be near a computer this weekend; I will continue. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another question: In this sentence "he abolished the purchase and sale of land in a system called King's Fields (王田), a variation of the well-field system where the government owned the land and assured every peasant an equal share to cultivate." Is the King's Fields system the system he abolished, or the one he implemented in its place? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This sentence does not make sense to me: "While registered merchants were not allowed to own land; if they broke this law their land and slaves would be confiscated" How can their land be confiscated if they were not allowed to own land? Oh, and the copyedit is plodding along, slowly but surely. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, another question (he said sheepishly): "During Western Han, conscripted peasants were organized into work teams numbering into hundreds of thousands" Were there hundreds of thousands of work teams, or hundreds of thousands of peasants in each team? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are certainly welcome! If I can do anything else for you, just let me know. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Investigating what "screened" means or implies
As you may or may not know, Teeninvestor has appeared to accord great weight to your imprimatur in the context of a minor ArbCom case.

At Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence, a number of the claims presented by Teeninvestor at Evidence presented by Teeninvestor appears to be over-reaching. In that context, there are some questions which would help me clear up any misunderstandings which still linger.

You may not know that Teeninvestor mentioned you specifically in his/her evidence sub-section "Screened by User:PericlesofAthens and User:Penwhale"
 * "In addition, the source has been screened by the two above users and the information as well, and they have shown the information to be perfectly correct as well as the history book being what I said it is: a history book .... The above two users have stated the information of the source is correct and the source was presented with correct bibliographic information as to allow the reader to verify the source ...."

In the context created by these few sentences, I am obliged to ask you to clarify, please.


 * 1. Question : Teeninvestor states  that "... the source has been screened [by PericlesofAthens] ...."  Did you, in fact, "screen" the book?  If so, what did the term "screen" mean specifically in that context?


 * 2. Question : Teeninvestor states that "... the information [has been screened by PericlesofAthens] ...."  Did you, in fact, "screen" the information?  If so, what did the term "screen" mean specifically in that context?


 * 3. Question : Teeninvestor states that "... [PericlesofAthens has] shown the information to be perfectly correct ...." Did you, in fact, "evaluate" the information?  If so, what did the phrase "shown the information to be perfectly correct" mean specifically in that context?


 * 4. Question : Teeninvestor states that "... [PericlesofAthens has shown] the history book being what I said it is: a history book." Did you, in fact, "evaluate" the book?  If so, what did the phrase "[shown] the history book being what I said it is: a history book" mean specifically in that context?

With all due respect, I believe you are only able respond to Question 4. I would guess that your inability to respond similarly to Questions 1, 2 and 3 will demonstrate that these are examples of over-reaching.

In this context, I would appreciate any constructive comments you might be willing to offer.

Thank you for the time you choose to invest in ArbCom matters. --Tenmei (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is very helpful. It's good news considering my terrible report card(90) and Bernanke screwing the life out of me with his Plunge Protection Team. Just hoping things will get better from here. Regards. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty
Congratulations on its featured status! And my apologies that I couldn't have gotten to it sooner - real life has interrupted a great deal, and I find it difficult to express my regret as fully as deserved.

I've tried as much as I can so far, and I will continue to copyedit the article, as you had asked. :) &mdash;La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Military Strength of the Song dynasty
It is stated that SOng's military strength was about 1,000,000 men. I find this relatively astoudning considering the Song's enemies(Liao and Jin, and later Mongols) could not have fielded more than 200,000-300,000 men,(even conscripting Chinese). If SOng's army was relaly three to four times the size of the enemy, then their defeat and fall is as inexplicable as the Plunge Protection Team. Perhaps Song's army was not so large??? Also, on the new article Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty shouldn't there be a mention that the Mongols were only able to reach Xiangyang because of the surrender of the Song general defending Sichuan, who was persecuted by Jia sidao.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi! I'm basically from Han Chinese Clothing club haha! I have a question about Song Dynasty, well you see this painting? I noticed that almost every empress have three marks on their face. Do you know the story behind it? BTW if you know, you can add it to Song or HCC articles. --Lennlin (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will try to research it =] just because these marks are so beautiful on their face but if you had any info on it please tell me :P --Lennlin (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;La Pianista  ♫ ♪ 03:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi
Just say Hi to you as I have come back from a long wiki break.  Arilang  talk  08:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks (re: my username)
Not everyone is so kind to it, so it's nice to get praise from you.

Han Dynasty is a spectacular article—much to read, and much to see—so seeing even tiny mistakes makes me pounce on them! Nice work getting such a long one to "the top". --an odd name 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible statement on ArbCom
We already have about five people documenting Tenmei's behaviour, so there's no need for any more. However, I think you should make a short statement confirming the accuracy of the information in the article, as you have done in Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty. And also, congratulations for finishing the Han dynasty series of articles.Teeninvestor (talk)`

Another new article
Please have a look and help to add content:Nucai  Arilang  talk  04:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another new article
Please check List of offences that attract jail terms in China   Arilang  talk  09:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Must see video that will change your concept on Chinese.


 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 1》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 2》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 3》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 4》 是中国人都要看的电影 4
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 5》 是中国人都要看的电影

]
 * In Chinese: 大陆禁片《我虽死去 6》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 7》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 8》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 9》 是中国人都要看的电影
 * In Chinese:大陆禁片《我虽死去 10》 是中国人都要看的电影
 *   Arilang  talk  08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

China thanks you.
Thank you for the Barnstar; if I deserve one for copyediting the articles, then you definitely deserve this one:

Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again.
The Han articles inspired me to finally use the note/reference system in an article. It took a couple of hours, but I restructured the ref. style in the Middle Colonies, which is currently at GAR, to comply to this style. So, thanks for the inspiration and the example! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Flame thrower
I had a little think about this, but I really have my doubts about including the Chinese flame thrower. The text mentions the earlier version and the extent of the trade. The older version was known to the Chinese, and the only difference between the two is that one spurts flame, and the other spurts flame continuously. I know there's a different system involcved, but is it enough to be an invention? I'd call it an adaptation, or an innovation, but its just not different enough to be a new invention. Mdw0 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the argument is whether a system adapted from a known prototype using bellows, siphon piston and flame is an invention or an adaptation / innovation. For me the weapon is interesting, but not original enough to be included. Mdw0 (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't like to use metaphors when it comes to this sort of thing, - red herrings abound, and splitting the definitions of what is a gun and what isnt comes into play. However, in the context, consider the following; How much influence was a crossbow on the matchlock? Virtually none. There was a whole range of gun development separate from the arrow slingers. The influence of the Greek prototype on the Chinese flamethrower seems more direct. Also consider the thing that is shot is different, a ball or bullet versus an arrow, wheras the flamethrowers shoot the same thing and create the flame the same way. But in the end you'll notice I haven't re-deleted this section and am willing to acquiesce. If you think they are truly different enough, OK, but I'd reccommend rewriting the section to better indicate the different systems. Mdw0 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Empire of Japan navbox
Just created Template:JapanEmpireNavbox to aid in the navigation of Empire of Japan related articles. Please check for inconsistencies and add contributions of your own. Thanks. --  李博杰    | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case
Links: :Workship Evidence. I think it is relevant if you report your findings to ArbCom as to the accuracy of the info in the article(without addressing other matters). By the way, I came upon the convo you had with the anon in History of the Han dynasty and boy did he seem like Tenmei. I proposed a ban for him, by the way.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was joking in that his TLDR comments seemed like Tenmei's(He posts long paragraphs just like Tenmei). What I mean is that you can post a small section of evidence that show your findings about the accuracy of the article. Ignore the other stuff if you wish.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:AssegaiAli
Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:AssegaiAli. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta Da
I present to you Economic history of China which is finished!!! Okay, if you want to help, here's the to-do list: 1. add more citations 2. Expand Ming, Qing, ROC, PRC sections(Which were a bit rushed) 3. Get pictures. Teeninvestor (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished expanding Ming, ROC, Qing sections and is going to take a wikibreak(not doing any serious editing). When I start editing seriously again, im going to expand the PRC section(post-Deng). Can you just help look it over, adding citations from other articles???. I want to get this to peer view, and then maybe GA status. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought no because the article would have to be split up first.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I will expand/work on the PRC section once Vol 3. of Sun Jian's book arrives.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

仕農工商
PoA, just a thought you might be interested in is this Four occupations, this system had been adopted by the Chinese society for thousands of years, and is the main reason why Capitalism had never been able to evolve in the Chinese society, because Merchants 商 were always at the bottom of the society, because all the emperors were aware of rich merchants became too rich and had the power to take over.  Arilang   talk  02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely about this notion. China was by no means stuck in a "time warp". From roughly the Warring states to the Qing, China lead the world in development of both innovations and the market. The Market economy doesn't happen overnight, you know.

I would think that the Song and Ming Dynasties were very close examples of capitalist societies. While most of China's population still remained on the countryside, they had became an integral part of the market economy by the Song(they produced for the market and purchased most of their goods over it). Large enterprises with several million taels had emerged for a long time, and in terms of trade Ming China was far more friendly to it than Europe(who had adopted a mercantilist stance). Chinese factories were able to turn out large amounts of products for a massive market. Technologically wise, production per capita was always improving. This can be seen in that throughout Han, Tang Song and Ming, agricultural techniques were always improving in some way or another. In terms of taxes of regulations, China's merchants were subject to far less than European countries(Tax per capita). The rural market was by no means small; due to advances already made during earlier dynasties, farmers usually were able to procure a surplus of food for themselves and thus had quite a bit of purchasing power. The real reason capitalism didn't develop was the suppression of it after the takeover by the Manchus in the 17 th century which marked the beginning of China's decline.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For years in China the reason why China could not develop capitalism was given Marxist dogmatic explanations which were fundamentally traced back to the prejudiced and ignorant model of the so-called "oriental despotism", where the "servile orientals" could not develop their own. More or less, these academics had an answer in mind, and were trying to justify that answer through finding evidence. It's like having a conclusion before making up your hypothesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, rural farmers became heavily engaged in trading at urban markets where they would periodically travel to sell goods they produced on the farm. And yes, some rural farmers did purchase luxury items crafted by artisans in the cities. On the point of the "urbanization" of rural farmers' culture, Timothy Brook makes this abundantly clear in his The Confusions of Pleasure: Commerce and Culture in Ming China (1998), a wonderful book if you ever get a chance to read it. However, farmers did not purchase "most of their goods" from the market. Aside from buying metal farming tools which the peasants couldn't produce unless they operated their own blast furnace, the peasants pretty much produced all of life's necessities on their patch of land from local resources of timber, stone, earth, etc. This is pretty much identical to commercial interactions between the cities and countryside in premodern Europe, before the Industrial Revolution. As impressive as the Ming and early Qing era porcelain factories were in regards to scale of production (which would simply rival if not surpass any of the greatest European industries at the time), think about the limited market of people who actually bought luxury porcelain items. And was production of porcelain—as a luxury commodity sold to a limited amount of people—really the driving engine for drawing a mass of rural farmers from the countryside to the city for work in factories? Hardly so.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The real reason capitalism didn't develop was the suppression of it after the takeover by the Manchus in the 17 th century which marked the beginning of China's decline." But the suppression of the merchant middle class was nothing new to the Qing period. The Qing court's strict regulations and limitation of foreign maritime trade to only a handful of seaports were major policies of the previous Ming Dynasty (although repealed in the mid 16th century). In both Ming and Qing, the imperial court was convinced that the Middle Kingdom itself produced nearly everything that the Middle Kingdom would ever need.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutbacks at Economic history of China
I think with the split we are down to roughly within the limit(the pictures and citations, I think, are roughly 16kb considering the number of them(20 pictures and 270+ citations).Teeninvestor (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you look over said article, copyedit and do some work? thanks. It's been in userspace for two months, and it's stayed there too long. I put it into mainspace as fast as I could get all the citations up. Regards.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

K. Here's the current system.

Original article has been split into Economic history of China(Pre-1911) and Economic history of Modern China. Economic history will redirect to the first article, but a notice at the top will show that for modern developments you go to Economic history of Modern China.

The reason I did this is that I will be getting several new sources that I will be expanding the ROC and PRC sections with. If such an expansion occurs, the article will become simply too large to handle. Therefore I decided to split it into 2 articles, 1 ancient and 1 modern.

Another way we can do this is to keep the ROC and PRC information in the article, and then I'll expand it there. But if that happens, the article will expand to 160kb-ish, and although right now It's probably only a bit bigger than the Ming in Prose size(before split), an expansion with the sources will bring it higher and thus relatively unmanagable.

A third way is to leave the two articles as they currently are, and create a new Economic history of China article that summarizes both premodern and modern and redirects to them. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wu Hu uprising
Can you look over my new article Wu Hu uprising?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese history from 304 to 589 CE is not covered very well. I plan to add more details to these barbarian uprisings, including perhaps Wei-Jie war, Wei-Xianbei war(Campaigns of Ran Min)) and Expeditions of Liu Yu(covering his expeditions against Later Qin, Northern Wei, and Southern Yan]]. These stub articles should be done very quickly. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New forum
Hi Eric! Nice to hear from you. Yes, I heard about the new forum for the first time today (from Yun) and I immediately applied for membership. You'll see me there as soon as the admins process my application. I logged into CHF because I kept receiving PM's from staff asking me where I was. I also posted a few messages, but the site has become much duller since everybody's departure. I'm sure the new forum will be much more stimulating. I can't say enough how impressed I am about your Han articles. I just don't have enough time to contribute these days, but still! E-mail me to tell me about your plans. Weren't you planning to come to China at some point? All the best, Madalibi (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Government of the Han Dynasty
Hi, in case you want to use the Ordos map, it is available as File:Map of Ordos Region, 1908-9.jpg. As I have explained, due to its publishing before 1923, it is public domain in US (but not in UK, its country of origin). Jappalang (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Han emperors
Well, the fact is that I didn't really have any sources for that template. I made it based completely on material that was in the article List of Chinese emperors beforehand. See this old version.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty
Hey! Are you planning to nominate this for featured list? It looks good to me.— Chris!  c t 22:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't trying to nominate it because I am not the primary editor. I am just wondering.— Chris!  c t 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It was really not meant to be such a big thing. I just think it is a bit weird when non-Latin characters appear on a page and there is no link provided to make some sense of that. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Might more hassle than it deserves. A centralized page would work, but linking every character would be too much. Don't worry about it too much. Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Title
I'd seen your opinion of talk page of Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. I think the current title is not legal, because it makes people think that Tibet was part of the Ming Dynasty, but Tibet was independence throughout this period until the Manchu conquest. So the aticle should be renamed as Relations between Tibet and the Ming Dynasty. 71.165.197.22 (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. A number of editors and I had trouble thinking of how to rename the article, but we never got around to it. I don't think it would be wise to move it now, since it is a featured article. Plus, the article goes to great length in showing various scholars' opposition to the idea that Tibet was politically or even culturally "part" of China during the Chinese Ming Dynasty. Nevertheless, the Mingshi and some modern PRC historians insist that it was, hence the current title of the article. Even renaming it Relations between Tibet and the Ming Dynasty would be a POV move; there's really no way to satisfy both sides of the debate here. Unless you can think of a more neutral title.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of China

 * China People's Liberation Army's ambitions an enigma to the West, a good reference article for you.  Arilang  talk  11:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you need my help I can scoop up some material for the revamp of this article. This article is going to need to be revamped Economic history of China-style. I would suggest a structure like describing the changes in the Chinese army per dynasty. Since I just finished that article(s), I'm pretty much free. If i can be of help, contact me. Regards. I may be working on article Wu Hu period Though.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan to be working on that article due to lack of sources for the near future, I am going to work on Sixteen Kingdoms(though I should be finished very quickly).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This era is very important to China. First it obstructed CHina's development for several centuries due to barbarian invasions. In addition, China was so weakened by this event that even the later Tang, Song and Ming Dynasties could not recover to the high point(militarily compared to the barbarians) of the Han(Who had more or less solved the barbarian threat for several centuries).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wu Hu uprising
 * Wei-Jie war
 * Liu Yu's expeditions
 * Disaster of Yongjia
 * Wei-Xianbei war
 * Huan Wen's expeditions
 * Ran Min's cull order
 * Sixteen Kingdoms
 * Liu Song Dynasty

With the creation or improval of these articles, I feel that the Wu Hu era is now relatively better covered than before. I'm going off wiki as this achievement is enough for today, I guess.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

北洋水師
Unlike you guys, I am more interested in modern CHina military history. Accoding to one Chinese historian(forgot his name), one of the main reason why Qing lost the First Sino-Japanese war, was because:
 * 李鴻章 treated 北洋水師 like his own private navy.
 * Though the iron-cladded battle ships had a lot of big guns installed, but most of the ammunitions were on land, and never carried on board.
 * 曾国藩, after defeating the Taiping rebellion, was very much tempted to overthrow the Qing dynasty at the same time. But he didn't do it, and left the job for 李鴻章. <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If 曾国藩 had overthrown Qing in 1870, China could have modernized at the same speed of Japan as soon as the Manchus were gone. If it were not for the hindering of the state(during Mao's era) and foreign rule(during Manchu and ROC eras), China would have developed rapidly. The Chinese people have always been very receptive towards the free market(China during the dynasties of Han, Tang, Song and Ming usually pursued relatively laissez faire policies).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Must see video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4920138942953644691&q=Rape+of+Nanking&hl=en  <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  07:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
... for your note. I hope to improve the articles about the civil rights leaders you mentioned when I get a chance, and when I can get some good reference materials. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your graduation! — Malik Shabazz 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty
Sorry about that, I didn't realize I made a mess. The reason I did what I did was to avoid the empty space above the table, since the images push the table down.— Chris!  c t 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice you're already making the changes I proposed! I think the note on emperors should have a marker "Note 1" next to "Posthumous name"; the note ("Note 2") on the years should be next to "Range of years," which should be re-arranged over two ranks like "Period of reign." This way, the table will look as good as before, and the notes will be exactly where they belong! Let me know what you think. Madalibi (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job! I just think the short paragraph on the emperor would look best in the lead paragraph instead of a section called "Naming conventions." Then you'll have another featured article under your name! Take care, Madalibi (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the Tang Dynasty
It's a shame, really, since the four main dynasties of China, Han, Tang, Song, Ming all have thier own hisotry articles except the Tang. Taking some info from the main article and adding some more, should get a history of the Tang Dynasty article to become a GA in no time.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that before my source on Economic history of Modern China arrives, I can't really do much work on that respect. My plan is to complete my coverage of the 304-420(Wu Hu Era) era by updating the Jin Dynasty article and writting History of the Jin Dynasty.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think I should list Economic history of China(Pre-1911) for peer review? (The modern history one is not done yet and is too short).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyeditor
Can you get me a good copyeditor for Economic history of China (Pre-1911), so he/she can fix the references, smooth out redundancies, etc...Teeninvestor (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know any good copyeditors that could look over the article/fix it?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (TC)

Song the economic highpoint of Classical China? Doubt it.
Although the Song Dynasty was one of the fastest growing dynasties economically in China(The GDP per capita rose heavily compared with Han and Tang dynasties, though these two above dynasties also saw increases), the Song Dynasty's peak technologically and economically was surpassed by the Ming by the 1400's, by which time the Chinese had recovered from the Mongol conquest. This is shown quite well by Zheng He's expeditions. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice userpage. I stumbled on your userpage/draft and the next thing I knew, it was your userpage! Cheers.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More Photos!
Just went to the 应县木塔 and 大同 last weekend, there I saw the 云冈石窟 (Yungang Grottoes)，善化寺 (Shanhua Temple) and 悬空寺 (Hanging Temple)! Unfortunately all the temples in Datong were under renovation, which lessened my enjoyment. Hope you make it to China too sometime, and enjoy the photos I've uploaded already.Zeus1234 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I might go to Sichuan this summer. Do you know of a resource which lists the location of these gates? I can't look at the book in the link you sent me. Thank you for complementing my photography, but I really think that there is much room for improvement. The new camera I recently got does help though. Zeus1234 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Google Books is not blocked (unlike many other sites), but that book is not available for viewing. No preview is available.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just solved the problem. It seems that the book is not available for viewing in China, but my proxy solved that! I'll let you know if I do in fact make a visit Sichuan this summer.Zeus1234 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to Chengdu in just over a week to view the 2009 Solar Eclipse. Besides the Que, do you have any other photography requests for things located in the area? Zeus1234 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Photos of the Gao Yi Que (高颐阙）in Ya'an have been uploaded! Zeus1234 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New user page
Hi PoA. No time to chat, but great job on your new user page! But where's the meerkat?! Madalibi (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your comments! Phg (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty/archive1
Don't mind that comment. It was a really bad attempt at a sarcastic joke. Sorry. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyeditors for Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
I took a wikibreak between June 1st and 9th(Schoolwork) and now I'm back, I contacted 10+ copyeditors. Hope some will come to the article.22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey man, thanks very much for the barnstar! Of course making a template is one thing, but completing your second featured topic? Now that's something to commend! Love the new userpage design too, it's very sleek and user-friendly. Keep up the excellent work! Cheers, --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another must see article
乾隆盛世是一个饥饿的盛世 张宏杰 <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic: Han dynasty
Not to worry. I was just finishing off and coming to let you know it was promoted.

The Topic talk page boxes are automagically updated as the status of articles change. So when i first created it, only Han dynasty was updated, and the box thought that was not enough for a FT. As soon as the second FA was added, it changed it to FT. It is either that or add all the articles first, leaving the topic as a redlink - so it looks strange for a few minutes either way. (note, it takes at least 30 minutes to do all the category creation, article histories and transclusions, so there is always a small lag).

But all is now done, so just left to congratulate you on your great work! <b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 18:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, i just checked Economy, which was still showing GT - i needed to purge my cache to force it to refresh to the correct FT. Takes a while for the translusions to feed through otherwise, as your browser will have it cached as GT for a while.<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it me, or are modern figures on economic history before 1800 complete bs...
I did a little research on ancient economy estimates and the results are pretty astounding(if you actually believe the data, which is pretty much nonsense). For example, for the Song it was stated that the income per capita of the Song Dynasty was only 10% above that of Medieval Europe for the same period. Yet if you take Song's agricultural advances(seed drill, hoeing, etc..) you would know that's nonsense. these techniques did not spread to Europe til 1500 and were not fully adapted til 1700.. These techniques would have ensured that each Song era Chinese farmer produced perhaps two or three times more output PER person than the Europeans. Yet somehow that output is only worth 10% more? I don't think so. Also what happened to all the extra commerce from not being engaged in feudal warfare?

It is the same with the Ming. It states in one magazine that GDP per capita income for Europe surpassed China in 1500. Maybe that is true for the Netherlands, but for Europe in general that is not true. In terms of agricultural tools, European agricultural output per person did not come anywhere close to matching Chinese output til the agricultural revolution in the 1700's, which was matched by a corresponding decline(after the Manchu Conquest). Since agriculture made up 80% of the ancient economy, I have no clue how they could have concluded that. It was not as if Ming economy was in any way inferior to Europe in terms of trade and manufactures as well.

The list of regions by historical GDP(PPP) article is simply laughable and should have been deleted. THe data is all from one source and it states that India had a higher GDP than the Song and Han dynasties, not withstanding the fact that the Han and Song had much more population as well as having a higher agricultural output(from my argument above, no need to repeat). These "economic historians" better get their act straight as their figures are not in any way even close to reality.

P.S. If you thought the above was bad, I recently read a book which advocated this nonsense "Malthusian view" of economic history. This view is simply too laughable to accept. It states that from 100,000 BCE to 1800 CE, GDP per capita was constant. Also, it states that an English labourer's wages in 1500 was much higher than in 1800. I don't want to waste time refuting this absurd argument, but you can see for yourself what's happened. Thanks for listening to my rant!

Oh ya, and congratulations for Han Dynasty now being a featured topic.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, provided that he does so in a civil fashion. He is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to or  on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others or his mentors). Tenmei shall also be assigned one or more volunteer mentors. Other remedies also apply.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Should the remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Tenmei lost and now they're going to assign someone to look over him.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We will be missing your work here in wikiproject China
Wikiproject China will have lose a ton of progress without you here, while the Ancient Egypt wikiproject will also be quite enhanced. Good luck with your new work. My goal is to get Economic history of China (Pre-1911) up to GA or FA status this summer, now that I'm home free. Then, maybe I'll be working on Plunge Protection Team, at least until the CIA finds my house....Teeninvestor (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument
PoA, when you have time, please have a look at commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, I bet you would not stop laughing, wonder how silly people can become. Even a blind Frady can see the difference between Blue and Black, so to speak. <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang   talk  01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * diff. Betcha didn't know this wikiproject existed.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chanyu is preferable to Shanyu
Thank you so much, Pericles of Athens, for suggesting I search through articles and make the change to Chanyu - I needed a bit of a push! I have done the articles I could quickly think of as likely hiding places - but I'm sure there are still some Shanyus lurking out there which I have missed. If you come across any hidden Shanyus please let me know and I will head out on my white charger and deal with them! Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Yannismarou has already nominated you, so it's not a self nom. regards. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors
Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider
(a) This is just my view - it is not my group any more. (b) 'Excommunication' would be for very serious offences such as gross or persistent incivility, bullying, abusive socking and so on.

Perhaps this was an unfortunate analogy. I am a medieval scholar and perhaps these things seem more 'normal' to me. Apologies again. Peter Damian (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would urge you not to leave. As Damian says, he is not in charge of the group, he merely initiated the idea.  This group needs your advocacy and ideas.  Nothing is settled yet, and I completely agree with you that editor review/enforcement is exactly what the group should NOT be doing.  That is totally covered by the processes already in place.  I think the group should be all about improving content and perhaps clarifying content policies.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Holy $hit
Heh, thanks for those words. I suppose it'd be more impressive if I did anything other than hurricanes, but I think my username shows you where my interests lie :) Who knows, I might break an arm one of these years, and I'll be out of commission to let everyone else catch up! ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've broken my wrist three times before, so chances are, I'd cope with a broken arm, rather than retiring. Now if it was during a hurricane, which consequentially totally eliminates my interest in storms, it might be a different story ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the kind words. I've noticed and enjoyed the excellent articles you've written on Chinese history. I hope you catch me soon on number of FA. As you've probably noticed, one area where the Wikipedia model works is when someone such as yourself takes a topic that they find fascinating and runs with it. It's unfortunate that there aren't more editors doing the same.

I see by your contribution history that you'll be coming up on three years of participation soon. The three-year mark is where burn-out or disillusionment hits a lot of committed participants. I've observed that the editors who are here to actually write quality articles, such as yourself, are often able to avoid burn-out because of the pride and satisfaction they can take in the very real and visible accomplishments that they've achieved. Best of luck in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian protests
Hi PoA, and sorry for not replying any faster. Yes, I've been watching news reports about the Iranian protests. To me, two things are surprising: the strength of the desire for change within the general population (not just students), and what seems to be a deep rift even within the ruling class. Former president Rafsanjani, for example, seems to be supporting the opposition, and he "happens" to be the head of a council that has the power to remove the Leader of the Revolution (Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who seems to be taking the hardline). It is purely coincidental but still funny that Khameini took power 20 years ago on June 4, 1989, the day of another famous repression... Anyway, I doubt the reformers will win this one, because the army seems to remain loyal to the ayatollahs. At best, they can hope to be integrated into the new government in exchange for stopping the protests.

I've seen your new project on Egyptian literature. I guess you found a way to a good library even after graduating. Library of Congress? But I hope this is not a permanent departure from Chinese historical topics! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not as if Iran couldn't use good old fashion Deng Xiaoping-style free market reform(60% of the economy is nationalized) but these protests seem like another one of those astroturf "velvet revolutions" sponsered by certain intelligence agencies. However, Mousavi should be a lot closer to Khameini than Ahmadinejad; he was an official all the way back to the islamic revolution.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I predict this might actually end in the victory of Mousavi since Ahmadinejad(as I said earlier) is in reality not as close to Khameini and the "old guard" then Mousavi is. If the protests get bad enough, he might just get ditched by Khameini and the others. Iran's economy could use some liberalization and marketization(then again, so does everyone; even in China, where the public sector has only 20% of the GDP, probably needs some more). However, it seems Mousavi's policies is not much better than Ahmadinejad's. Teeninvestor (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree with you there. The fact that Mao screwed up the economy so bad was actually an impetus for reform in 1978. THe only time where governments adopted free market policies very well is when its clear statist policies have failed miserably. They don't change til they hit their head on a brick wall, I suppose.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting on color soon
Hi PoA, looks like there is going to be a consensus voting on the color of ROC flag:commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, please go there and voice your opinion. <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek, Genghis Khan, or Tian Kehan
PoA, there is a discussion on your possible past lifes on my talk page, please join in. <font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang  talk  01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

New Userpage
I really like your new userpage. In fact, I like it so much that I may steal it and modify it! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. But really, would it be okay if I modified your design? The working prototype is at User:Scapler/Userpage prototype. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be honored to copyedit another of your articles — it forces me to read them carefully, and your articles are treats to read. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Economic system of Ancient Egypt
Economic systems of civilizations in the (relatively) modern era are easy to determine; for example, from existing records we can see that the Chinese under the Song and Ming Dynasties had a very complex market economy that some even argue to be a form of early capitalism, the Han and T'ang a semi-autarkic but still relatively complex market economy, and India and medieval Europe a feudal economy(as evidenced by people inheriting their fathers' positions). Roman and Greek economies were similar(though less advanced) to the economy of Han China.

However, for very ancient economies(such as the economy of Ancient Egypt and Mesopatamia) it seems difficult to determine what type of economic system they had. From reading the featured article Ancient Egypt, it seems that Egypt had a feudal economic system, similar to Ancient India and the Xia, Shang, and Zhou periods in China. Is that correct?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the important thing is whether the majority of land was owned by independant farmer-cultivators, like in China, or by the state. It seems that in Ancient Egypt the state had a great share in owning and irrigating new land and that cultivators weren't necessarily owner of the land they farm- this is a big distinction since owner-cultivators will naturally work much harder than simply semi-slave labor as this is their land, after all.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian literature
Hi. Thank you for your note. Unfortunately I'm swamped IRL and won't be able to help with anything for the foreseeable future. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country
The discussion for Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6 in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Must watch video
 <font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang  talk  06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1937 video-cast of Soong Mai-ling address to the world in English
 * 1943 Soong May-ling address to the American Congress

photos
Aloha. I saw some of the photos you uploaded recent on the Scalper's page. Very nice! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Many, many thanks
Thank you so very much for awarding me a barnstar. It was most unexpected and a real honour - especially coming from you, who has done more than anyone else I know of to improve the articles relating to Asian history on the Wikipedia. It is really most encouraging when people notice what you are doing, and give you some praise - I am so thrilled! See you soon on the discussion forum on Chris' work. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fourth Of July
Are you a friend of CoM too?

 H A  P  P  Y  I  N  D  E  P  E  N font color="red">D  E  N  C  E  D  A  Y  ! -- The Legendary   Sky  Attacker  07:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever spoken but I am pleased to make your acquaintance.-- The Legendary   Sky  Attacker  07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
Economic history of China is looking very very nice. The last time I looked at it, it was a terrible mess. I want to thank you for the excellant work you and user:Teeninvestor have put into it. I think it's ready to go for a GA or a FA review. LK (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between Late Tang and West Roman Empire?
After the Anshi rebellion, T'ang dynasty had lost control of much of the Northern regions. Although after the campaigns of Emperor Xianzong the internal heartland of China was reunified(as in the area south of the Yellow river) and controlled by the central government, the Hebei region was still ruled by automonous barbarian warlords. This contributed to the T'ang's weakness in the 9th century.

I'm starting to think that this arrangement was quite similar to the situation of the Western Roman Empire after the sack of Rome(besides the fact the Tang were much more prosperous and advanced, and had more control) as the western Roman Empire's provinces of Gaul and Spain were largely ruled by semi-autonomous barbarian states such as the Visigoths and Franks who took over much of the western terroritory while symbolically being subservient to the Romans. Although this arrangement fell apart a lot quicker(after 455 the barbarians extended their rule to Italy) the two situations seemed quite similar. Just to be curious, what was the ethnic composition of Aetius' army? it seemed to be mostly German and Hunnic mercenaries.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the non-Chinese jiedushi were in the Hebei and Liaotung region. They were mostly commanders under An Lushan which frankly Tang should have killed rather than accepted their surrender. By 761, after the second retaking of Luoyang, Tang forces had retaken all but the Hebei region and had Shi Chaoyi on the run. However, instead of fighting to the finish and eliminating An's remaining followers in Hebei, Tang accepted their surrender and focused its attacks on Shi Chaoyi instead, who by then had lost all importance.


 * I think the gradual barbarization of the Hebei-Liaotung region is a big factor in the formation of Liao, Jin and Yuan rule and a big factor in the Song's inability to reclaim it. In the early Tang this region was mostly agarian while by the late Tang this region seemed to have been a semi-agricultural/pastoral area, which is much more suited for nomadic invasion and control. So one could argue that the T'ang's policy of settling Turks in Chinese terroritory was just as disastrous as the Jin's policy towards the Wu Hu, in the sense that the gradual transformation of this northern region made the Song very vulnerable. Who knows what would have happened if the Song did not fall? Perhaps the streak of Chinese dominance since the Warring states would not have ended in 1644.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/General George Washington Resigning his Commission
I've taken the liberty of suspending this: Those sorts of requests have a tendency to kill nominations while people wait for them to be filled, or for the user to say that he has gotten all he can. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Coeratadas
Do you know anything about this guy? I warn you, he is Spartan. I enjoyed the photos. I responded a while back, but I think you missed it. I especially like the animal figures which are stylized yet very lively and animated and not stiff looking at all. Good stuff. Terrific and encyclopedic shots for sure. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one: Menelaus of Pelagonia. Article says he's a friend of Athens. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should have a look at ‎user:Catalographer's contribution history. I'm seeing a bunch of brand new articles, many of them never patrolled, deep in the new article backlog. I presume they'd be happy to have help expanding and tweaking and what not. I'm a bit out of my league on that topic area. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

General George Washington Resigning his Commission FPC nom
My first nominated FPC was this. Nominating just one more in the series doesn't seem worth it. Would you be interested in a co-nom of the seven others in the Capitol rotunda, as a featured picture set? All the information on the images pages needs to be complete and similar, all noting where they are, etc. If you want to do that, withdraw the current nom and we can begin working on this. Let me know.  wadester 16  04:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2 funniest words i hear on TV: Communist China
Whenever I hear these two words, I start to laugh. It is really the epitome of hypocriticism when the US, with its welfare state, massive credit-expanding Fed, and hundreds of subsidies and departments in charge of interfering in the market, call China communist. Even in terms of government spending, China is lower by 10% of GDP.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do cab drivers actually drive around with Mao idols? As far as I know most Chinese hate Mao's guts, especially the over-40 group who experienced his devastating socialist policies. Even among younger people, Mao is quite reviled. Most Chinese, I'd think, would support free market policies rather than Mao's socialism. I don't think many people would object to  merely to preserve the "legacy of Mao's revolution"(which was largely a disaster anyways). It's not as if this was the first time China implemented free market policies; for heaven's sake nearly all of the dynasties in Chinese history were relatively laissez faire. The concept of "oriental despotism" is perhaps the worst term ever invented; compared with the Han, Tang, Song and Ming, it is rather Medieval Europe that should be called occidental despotism. The current Chinese state is entirely the handiwork of Deng Xiaoping; even Hu Jintao was appointed by him! By the way, wheres scapler? He got all the article done up the five dynasties and ten kingdoms, and then he left.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason that such a favorable treatment of Mao was given in the early 80's is the political climate there; in the early 80's China was still a planned economy and was officially(and actually) socialist. If Deng Xiaoping had condemned Mao right there, it would have been a huge disruption as the regime now loses its official stance(including Deng himself, who was after all promoted by Mao). However, they could not ignore his disastrous policies. So in the end, they gave a 70% good, 30% bad rating to Mao so everyone could be at least nominally satisfied. The reason this treatment was continued is that, post-Deng, no one wants to change the recommendation(it would create a huge fuss among the few remaining Maoists, and they are few). Chinese are a people who care about face a lot; Communist party bureaucrats still study Marxism-Leninism, but who believes it? same with the treatment of Mao. Nominally in China there is not a lot of discussion of this officially, but you have to realize the real place where people discuss this in China is internet forums, so you'd have to frequent there.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I live overseas but I still feel I can call myself a Chinese patriot. Mao is a disaster, only exceeded by the rule of the Wu Hu, Jur'chens and Mongols (and the Japanese if they had succeeded). I'm pretty sure that he never really believed in the socialist stuff; he just used it to hold on to power. The cultural revolution was pretty much a power grab on his part, at the price of plunging the country into anarchy/destroying much of China's culture. He often compares himself to Qin Shi Huang but I think that is a disgrace to the latter, who was a visionary leader that laid down the foundations of the Chinese nation/empire. Had Qin Dynasty stayed for a few centuries, I'm pretty sure that its discipline would have made China into a hundred-foldth sparta that would have never been conquered. Speaking of Qin, check out my new article Qin Shi Huang's wars of unification. By the way, how's that ancient egyptian literature coming along?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Qin would not have turned China into sparta. The basis of Sparta was a 300,000-man society of slaves that did all the work. The chinese, being a society of free men, did not have this. But what I'm thinking is that the Qin dynasty's laws had they continued for a couple hundred years would have made the Chinese a lot more disciplined and legalistic(Qin's society was one based on laws), while the later Han Dynasty was more focused on confucianism, which concentrated on relationships and face. As regarding the nomads, if the Qin had never fallen the Xiongnu would have never came to power as it was the fall of Qin and the resulting turmoil which allowed the Xiongnu to come to power by capturing Hetao. But you're right regarding Qin's laws; they were too harsh and the people of the other six kingdoms could not adjust to them, so they rebelled. The fall of QIn itself was a fluke, though; Qin's two main armies, one was in the north and was defeated bY Xiong Yu, but the one in the south, campaigning in Vietnam, decided to remain there and betryaed Qin. Had that army moved northward, Chu's forces might have been suppressed. This was a major factor along with Zhao Gao, the corrupt and inept eunuch. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Going for the GAN
Wish me luck! I am nominating Economic history of China (Pre-1911) for good article status. By any chance, are you a GA reviewer?Teeninvestor (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re ZooFari
Hey, you complemented my userpage but I've changed it a bit due to SVG problems.  Zoo Fari  04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama Health care "reforms"
So, private healthcare in the US, which produces the most drugs in the world and has the best waiting times, now has a "problem" because the market forces in there haven't been wiped out yet. So, monsieur Obama now has a very glorious "plan" to nationalize the entire health care industry and raise taxes by a hell lot. This is not going to be good. If you want to look on how well these "reforms" work out, check out Wen Jiabao's attempt to reintroduce socalist medicine in China in 2007. Now it is failing and Wen had to roll back some of his "reforms"(he has been forced to again contract out hospitals to private operators after it was found out the CPC officials aren't the most efficient in the world! *Shock*). These people arguing for a nationalized health care are as dumb as those who argue the current depression is a problem with the free market; what else can you expect with the Federal Reserve engaging in 30 years of credit expansion?Teeninvestor (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I live in Canada and I can tell you, health care here is not good. Even in the capital Ottawa, waiting times are long. One Canadian doctor even quipped: " a dog can get a hip replacement surgery faster than a man here". Even in emergency rooms you have to wait hours. If you want to pay for better care, you can't. And the worst thing is that in order to pay for this shoddy health care system, taxes are actually raised under almost every government with the name o f" health premiums", "health bonuses". It's sheer crap. But, of course, in public schools the Canadian state teaches that the health care system is the "pride of Canada" and looks down on the US for having "for profit health care". what irony! In fact, some of the Chinese community go back to China for treatment of certain diseases than here. Anyways, the point is, no matter how bad private health care is, it has two huge advantages: 1. if its bad, you don't have to use it. 2. It has to compete, so if it has problems these problems will gradually abet(or else the insurer will be forced out of competition) something that a state monopoly will not have.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Du Fu FAR
nominated Du Fu for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Instructions of Kagemni DYK
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Hekerui (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty page
Hi, I'm sorry for the VERY late reply. If you remember, more than a year ago you deleted my edits on the Huolongjing about how Ming dynasty weapons varied in quality from region to region. This was because I didn't provide the page number. So I decided to get the page number, put it off, and then forgot about the whole thing :p Anyways, now I remembered and the page number is pg 13 in Osprey's "Late Imperial Chinese Armies". I'll give the quote from the page. In my defense, it's "Better late than never".


 * Fo-lang-chi p'ao, or 'Frankish cannon', were probably first encountered on board two captured Portuguese ships in 1523, and were being manufactured in China by 1529. Originally they were iron breechloaders of the type mounted on Portuguese warships, but it seems that later the same term was used for larger bronze or iron muzzle-loaders, as well as for light, portable wooden copies. The quality of Chinese gun founding seems to have varied greatly from one area to another:de Rada describes their artillery as small and 'most inferior', but in 1585 Juan de Mendoca described cannon 'of huge greatness, and better made than ours'. Methods of employing artillery could also be very sophisticated: a local history of Soochow describes gunners spotting by telescope in the wars of the Ch'ung-chen reign (1628-43) against Li Tzu-ch'eng's rebels. This predates the widespread use of the technique in Europe.
 * By the end of the 16th century European heavy artillery was considered so superior to indigenous types that the latter had almost disappeared except for the defence of city walls; where their mobility and rate of fire were less important than in the open field.
 * Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520-1840, by Chris Peers, Christa Hook

Whether you still want to add it or not is up to you. But the quote's here if you want to use it. Gnip (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009

Oh, the irony....
I copy you, someone else copies me :P --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination of Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
No action so far! It's been up for a couple weeks but so far I have seen no action or reviews. How long does it take? Once the GA nomination is finished, I might amuse myself by revamping Military history of China into the Chinese Army (Pre-1911) article. See my draft User:Teeninvestor/Chinese Army (Pre-1911). Do you have any suggestions? Also, I think I just used my 4000th edit on your page(adding this sentence!) Teeninvestor (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, I saw a guy whose article has been up for GAN since June 6.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Very strange(and possibly fake) Chinese news story
According to this Chinese news story, Iranian virgin female prisoners who have been sentenced to die have to be deflowered before their execution to comply with the law. Very strange and possibly fake.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the best
I'm very thankful for your work on Chinese Histories :') and especially including the Cultural article of Clothing during Song Dynasty, I hope someone would expand other dynasty's cultural section. THANKS , GREAT READINGS YOU SHOULD GET PAY BY WIKI --24.199.111.240 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hah. Me getting paid a salary by Wikipedia; now that is a very novel idea. ;) I like it! Unfortunately for my pocketbook, I don't do this for the money: I do it for the love of history and the grandiose desire to disseminate knowledge on a global scale. :) Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias at Socialist economics
Two editors, Spylab and ViperT(an editor whose account was created today and jumped right into the debate, very suspicious), have repeatedly reverted cited material about criticism of socialism by famous Austrian free market economist Ludwig Von Mises that I inserted into the intro. Please keep an eye on it.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually they're reverting out of blind bias. But I will expand the criticism section, so as to comply with wikipedia standards.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
The result has been hold as the reviewer wanted more citations from different sources. Can you find some sources and add more citations to the article overall? thank you. In particular, can you change the citation system to inline citations? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll try to fix it up. I don't think there's a risk of the GAN failing, however, I want this to go up to FA and I'm going to need to revamp the citation system for that.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the hang of the inline citation system. Having some free time, I'll probably fix it up to give all inline citations in one hour(no joke, it's mainly Li and Zheng references who need work and they don't repeat often). Shouldn't take long. Then I hope I'm on the way to an FA. Did you read the GAN? Although it was put on hold it seemed the reviewer still had a very positive view of the article(most of the issues he addressed has been fixed).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not so much more citations as in a better citation system, e.g., fixing dates, inline citations(which I'm now finished). Fixing the inline citations and others took a longer time than I thought, and ended up costing me 90 minutes of free time! If you don't mind, check over the citations now and fix what errors are left(I've converted the entire citation system and added dates).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing the cite pages to pg now. SHould be done soon. Keep looking out for problems. I'm using your Economy of the Han Dynasty as a model! Cheers.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that with the citation system revamped this article is ready for the gruelling test of FA. lol. Also, do you know what I would think is the most important battle in recorded history? The battle of Fei river. If Fu Jian had been successful, Former Qin would still collapse but then the south would be exposed to the invasions of the Xianbei or some other tribe who would have conquered all of China and extinguished Chinese civilization, much like how the Roman civilization was extinguished in Europe. It was only the victory at Fei, along with the later military pressure of Liu Song (which pretty much defeated all the Wu Hu except the Xianbei) that forced the Xianbei(when they had reconquered North China) to adopt sinocization reforms that eventually led to Sui. In this regard, the battle of Fei is history's most important battle, as without it the destruction of the Chinese civilization, whose technology was the backbone of the improvements of first the islamic and then the western civilizations(who inherited the mantle left behind after Rome, Persia and India collapsed). In a sense, the classical world would have been completely disconnected from the modern world. And there would be no industrial revolution since paper hasn't even been invented yet(it did not spread outside china til 750's), not to mention gunpowder, the printing press, etc...! And the funny thing was, the battle was a fluke. While the Jin Chinese Army certainly had superior training and equipment, Former Qin's army was four times its size. It collapsed mainly due to the fact surrendered Jin generals were actively encouraging desertions before the battle so that when it began, the CHinese conscripted by Former Qin all fled and ran away, leaving the Di cavalry to collapse! LoLTeeninvestor (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911) now GA!
See title and check out the article. What improvements do you think are needed to improve the article to FA? (The reviewer mentioned need for more sources for the obscure periods, for example, Xia, shang, zhou, Wu Hu, Spring autumn, etc..). Teeninvestor (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello? Teeninvestor (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there are 233 citations, because I changed to inline citations. Do you think the prose is up to par, though? That is what I am concerned about. Citations are easy to add. Prose, not so much.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it seems that user is taking a wikibreak. Also, there are 236 citations now. Doing a little math, the citations per kilobyte in economic history of China (Pre-1911) is 2.03, while the citations per kilobyte for Han Dynasty is about 2.5 and citations per kilobyte for Economy of Song was 2.4. Hmmm. On the other hand, the featured article Buckingham palace, has a citation per kilobyte ratio of 1.9, which suggests that I could pass FAC with the current citation/kilobyte ratio. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? I've gone through the article and my principle was that at least one citation per paragraph. So far I don't see any completely uncited paragraphs(besides one in the intro, whose claims were repeated in the articles many times. I've now added a citation regardless. The new citation/kilobyte ratio is about 2.1, which seems middle-of-the-road for FA's.(Though two sources do make up 60% of the total; however, before Li and Zheng alone made up 60% of the total!(it's now like 35%, with Cambridge making up another 25%).Teeninvestor (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added many citations to the paragraphs you just mentioned. However, I'd like to ask. For a list(such as Wang Anshi and Shang Yang's reforms, do you just add 1 cite at end or 1 cite for each of the reforms?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyways, I've added more citations so now I'd venture to guess the citation-to-kilobyte ratio is 2.3 or something. Thus, I believe all I need to do is to find Scapler or some other copyeditor to copyedit it a second time. In the mean time, help me find stuff that needs to be cited, incorrect formatting, etc..Teeninvestor (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Need Copyeditors!!!! Scapler MIA, along with most other copyeditors!!!Teeninvestor (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay for socialism!
PD-DPRKGov

Alright, I have done my research, and hereby have created and completed Template:PD-DPRKGov and Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK, meaning that all state-created DPRK images are now permitted on all Wikimedia Foundation projects under free use, as permitted by the Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Kindest regards, and long live socialism, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Han Chinese
Could you please edit your recent comment on Talk:Han Chinese to remove my name? I did not argue that "Han Chinese" is a discriminatory term.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was attempting to disagree with Colipon on this point.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please help to find a good name for a new en:wiki
Please have a look at 中國遠征軍 and 中國遠征軍, please suggest a good name for a new en:wiki. Thanks. <font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang  talk  16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well
Hey, sorry about this. It's true that some contributors abhor the idea of a featured set, but I thought chances wouldn't be bad since the set of 10 went through just before. Though what is annoying is that it would have passed if we didn't co-nominate. So much for working together on a collaborative encyclopedia. ;-) Best,  wadester  16  20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese armies (Pre-1911)
Revamped this article (was formerly military history of China). Come and look at it, maybe add a few pictures.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Literature
Hi PoA,

Nice work on the article. It gives a nice overview that spans the entire literary history of ancient Egypt and points out some very good examples and gives pretty thorough coverage. The scholarship is of a high quality too. I'll give you my candid comments on where the article could be improved. Forgive me if it sounds too critical; I'm just writing this as a stream of ideas.

One of the most important concepts in ancient Egyptian literature is about '''how literature is used for political/religious/etc. purposes.''' The article mentions some of these, but it might make a bigger impact if these were put into a section of its own. Important concepts are: literature used for propaganda, such as the battle of Kadesh (article definitely must mention this!) because of Ramesses used his version of the account of the battle to glorify his achievements. Also could mention that book of the dead etc. was a type of literature used as a guide to the afterlife. Could also mention the Eloquent peasant and how this was an indication of democritization and recognition of rights in the middle kingdom. The article briefly touches on these already; these ideas should be greatly strengthed and elaborated. Other things to mention are that early writing consisted of text on labels, that early writing was developed mainly for commerce or economic reasons, and could mention the Narmer Palette.

On the other hand, it seems overly analytical, and keeps mentioning the names of scholars and schools. E.g. "Parkinson says...Simpson says..." and "Edward Wente, a member of the Oriental Institute and professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago" And multiple additional examples. People tend to associate this type of prose with long-winded academic writing rather than "brilliant, compelling prose". In other words, I sort of think that referring to all these scholars--in the text rather than footnotes--is getting in the way of conveying the message rather than adding accuracy. The way to fix this is to just summarize the general ideas for the typical reader.

Another habit the article has is to constantly refer to all the time periods, jumping backwards and forwards through history. In many cases, the exact dynasty or even period of creation for a text is unknown, and the exact date of a copy adds nothing to our understanding. Time periods are important, in a broad-brush sense, to understand how literature was changing, but for each reference, ask whether referencing the specific dynasty for a text or whatever adds to our understanding or just complicates the article. My advice is to only call attention to the specific dynasty/kingdom when that information has direct relevance rather than "FYI" value.

Think about ways of showing how AE literature influenced other cultures, or how other cultures influenced AE lit. What was the lasting legacy of their body of work?

Lastly, the article is a little bit overlinked, words that are linked for dictionary defs shouldn't be (eg. handwriting, testimony, fiction) and only link the first instance of the word.

Crisp, concise writing gets you the most bang for your buck; extra trivia and details in the text diverts attention and obscures the message. As Strunk & White say: "Make every word tell".

Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry if I caused any edit conflicts. I didn't see that you were working there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"See also"
Hi, sorry that my edit summary for the revert was clipped. I intended to write something along the lines of, The very idea of a "See Also" section of links—especially one to articles about topics which editors acknowledge are not fit for article inclusion—is just begging for crackpots and partisans to start linking every tangential issue, conspiracy theory, AfDed allegation and fringe lunacy. Thanks for your understanding (as you noted in your edit), Abrazame (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Literary Musings of those most Great Egyptians
I would be happy to help again! Your articles are a joy to participate in. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on grammatical subjects, but it appears to me that Scalper ended one of his sentences with a dangling preposition. I hope he does a better job on the article's grammar. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, here it comes: editor food fight and cage match! Lol. In all seriousness, and one itty bitty mistake aside, Scapler did an excellent job copyediting all the Han Dynasty articles here at Wiki. I place my full and unyielding trust in his abilities. I assure you, he can 'work some magic', so to speak.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 06:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll see. I never really bought into the whole ending a sentence with a preposition is bad argument anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that went far better than expected. Your prose was at a much better starting point than it was in the Han articles; I barely corrected anything. In fact, the majority was formatting (making sure serial commas were used or not used throughout, maintaining periods outside of quotations, etc.) You have outdone yourself, the prose was nice and focused. And I see that CoM reared his ugly head again. :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you; you are too kind. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake; I suppose I was thinking MLA when I was doing it, even though there was no parenthetical documentation. I will go through and fix it. I assure you I was not going for British, as evidenced by the serial commas, which are mainly used in the US. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re:You completely misinterpreted what I said. Completely.
I assure you, I have no animosity towards the visually impaired! Lol. Before verbally biting at people you do not know, stop and think for a moment: why would anyone be callous towards the visually impaired? I think if you had spent that moment to think about the context of "problem solved" (i.e. as in the problem was solved for the betterment of people who are visually impaired), I don't think you would have said something so incredibly out of place, and quite frankly a bit rude. Anyways, doesn't matter too much; I'm really not offended. But just keep this in mind: Civility, before launching an attack on someone and assuming that they have a bad attitude.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read my comment I didn't say you had anything against the visually impaired. I rather thought you had something against providing alt text for them. In the same way some people have issues with providing disabled access, though they don't have anything 'against' disabled people etc. Perhaps you could have stopped and thought about your choice of words? I'll analyse your statement and show you why I thought your attitude was stand-off-ish:
 * "I literally have been here since 2007 and have more than ten Featured articles under my belt, yet have never come across this problem before (or rather, no one bothered to mention Alt Text). Does this mean I have to go back through every article I've ever written and provide Alt Text now?"
 * Specifically, you mention "problem" and then say "or rather... Alt text", making me think you were connecting the two. Then "have to go back", implying it's against your wishes to provide it and "every article I've ever written" further accentuating the impression I was getting. Then you went on to say "Problem solved. Moving on...", which made me feel as if the whole idea of Alt text was somehow getting in the way of the FA process.

I evidently misjudged you and your comments (although I hope you can now see why I did so), but I can imagine that some users will be unsympathetic and not understanding to the point of Alt text, which does rile me. Sorry to have thought the worst of you, it's a habit of mine. Good luck with the FA review, from what I've seen it's an excellent article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three Fanzhen of Hebei
I have created a new stub article. Perhaps you could expand it?Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

 * Thanks! It isn't my first barnstar (I keep them on a subpage), but I plan on checking out your page, to see how you've arranged your barnstars for new ideas. Some folk who are whizzes at coding are able to put things like their FA articles as well as barnstars in scroll boxes, which I think is particularly nifty! - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, your user page is amazing! I might be calling upon you for tips in the future. :D - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian literature
Wow, great job on the new article! This one is definitely FA quality! Ancient Egyptian literature's quite a shift from your previous body of work. What led you to this topic? Any plans for further articles about the ancient Egyptians? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You never cease to amaze me. My love for Egyptian mythology is what eventually led to my interest in History. I really like the article. My current interests lay with Muslim era Egypt as portrayed in the famous Cairo Geniza documents. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing I would really like to look into is how Muslim and Jewish polymaths utilized Greek philosophical treaties translated into Arabic. Hence, Greek science influenced that practiced in Egypt and across the Levant. I am currently reading an awesome biography of Maimonides (a long time resident of Egypt) by Prof. Joel Kraemer and it states that Jews actually believed the science utilized by the Greeks was stolen from the ancient Hebrews. There were also instances where Indian treaties on mathematics were translated into Arabic. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again!
Thanks for your note on my page. We have had 4 really old, dear and wonderful friends visiting from Sydney, so I have had little time for anything much extra. I have had a quick skim of the excellent and very erudite discussions on Beckwith's book so far - but I will have to wait until next week before I can hope to participate in a meaningful way. Some of the issues already raised are ones I had in mind to discuss, but there is much more. I just hope I can contribute usefully to it all.

Your article on Egyptian literature is masterful - congratulations! Cheers, John Hill (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OT
I'm sure everyone's made this excuse many times: Man blames cat for child porn downloads - Yahoo!7 News --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and on a more serious note, more evil images for WP use!

PD-Iran-unrecognised
 * Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: You regularly edit Uncyclopedia? Hehe, I never knew that! You don't really seem at first to be that kind of person... :P I've had an Uncyclopedia account for a few years now, it's been rather inactive recently. :D --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Ancient Egyptian Literature looks awesome!!! Great work, as usual :P. I see there's probably no problem in you getting an FA anytime soon. ;) --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism and Chinese philosophies
While Marxism was certainly a foreign ideology in China, I think that ancient Chinese philosophical thought incorporated important elements of what would later be called "classical liberalism" in the west. For example, Confucianism's ideal of being a "light burden on the people" and Mencius' statement that "the monarch is light, the people is heavy" corresponds with the liberty of the people not to be oppressed by the state. Similar statements can be found in Taoist and Mohist thoughts. In addition, many of the Chinese dynasties, such as Eastern Han, Ming and Late Tang were relatively laissez-faire states, especially when compared with Pre-Enlightenment Europe.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My thought on this topic is that classical liberalism wasn't an original product of China, but if you look at intellectual trends in the late Ming Dynasty, it was certainly headed towards that direction. In fact, in terms of the Late Ming(especially after Zhang Zuzhen's reforms), i think you can certainly say the late Ming was a laissez-faire and liberal state, in which individuals were free of onerous oppression. Remember, even in the west, classical liberalism faced all sorts of opposition from churchmen to monarchists, not to mention that fact that now it is largely defunct; Liberalism had largely been abandoned in the west by the early 20th century, when western governments implemented a plethora of statist policies from the minimum wage to the establishment of the Fed to the destructive inflationist policies that lead to both the Great Depression and the current depression. Looking at the statist policies that dominate current politics, one might think that the Song and Ming were closer to the ideal of liberalism than now(in fact, in certain respects, the CPC's current policies are more liberal than those in the west, though Wen Jiabao's "reforms" are largely reversing that tide).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)