This page was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This page was hopelessly too big. I moved it to User talk:Arilang1234/Archive 1. Note that there exist bots to archive your talk page for you. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I just went to User talk:Oda Mari to complain on your behalf and quite by chance find that that page uses an archive bot. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Re Created page with 'Sorry, my mistake for omitting the "sandbox". No! Your mistake was omitting the colon after 'User'. You will find the page at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I know you have a lot of information about that, but your previosu article Massacres and atrocities committed by Manchu rulers was deleted. Why not put them in my new article, Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What I meant is that in the contrarian view could use some of his information. By the way can you give me a link to Lao Baixing.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I shall do it. What you think about the Lao Baixing?老百姓 Arilang talk 13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Manchu atrocities go under Contrarain view. Qing dynasty only is the view that Qing is legitimate, Mongol is not. I'm sure you dont hold that view.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There were many 冤案 in Qing, like 明史案, 楊乃武与小白菜, 曾靜案, etc, all these should have their own wiki. Arilang talk 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
for my misjudgment. It was really stupid of me. Please forgive me. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User Oda Mari, you don't have to say sorry, it was my mistake. Arilang talk 13:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I created one in mainspace redirecting it to people (I think that it might be in some ways better to redirect it to chinese people, so maybe a disambiguation page would be better, but redirect for now to the literal translation). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not interested in this article.--Neo-Jay (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Although Laobaixing might be the correct term for people in Chinese, I find it rare that in Chinese books that it states Song Laobaixing, Ming Laobaixing, Qing Laobaixing, etc.... I would still use the term people. However in quotations, I believe Laobaixing can be used.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teeninvestor, Lao Baixing has eliminated the confusion brought forward by Chinese, which has multiple meanings. Arilang talk 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
True, but Lao Baixing is an unfamiliar term to most people(English-speakers), and I don't think that history books talk about dynasties like Song Laobaixing, etc... They use the term "ren min"(people) and other terms. I think Laobaixing should be used in quotations or in reference to the common people. But in certain situations, such as when we are talking about Jin invasion of Song, and saying, Song people resisted would be a better term than Song Laobaixing resisted.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, since I know you don't like the CPC, would you really prefer Liu Xiaobo("China needs 300 years of colonialism") and his Mingyuen guys. China has problems, but they are problems that every free-market capitalist country developing encountered. At least the Chinese dont send in the army to round up peasants as slave labor or shoot union leaders(several memorable episodes in industrial revolution.)Every country has to go through a strongman stage(Chiang for ROC, Deng for China) followed by weakening of the ruling party and eventually democracy. I guarantee you in 10 years the CPC will not have the power it has now. If you skip a stage, look at post-1991 russia.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I know we are dealing with history here, but there is no reason for editors solely concentrate on King and Queens, and just ignore the grass-root-Lao Baixing. If you look at articles such as Qing, the whole article is extremely POV to me, because:
Completely true. The Qing dynasty is extremely POV, does not discuss obvious changes in Chinese life(Yangzhou massacre, Literary inquistion, etc..)Teeninvestor (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teeninvestor, If I tag Qing a AfD, what you think? We can force the changes of editing style on Qing and other Manchu related articles. Arilang talk 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't think AfD is the way to go here, its too liable to be abused. It won't succeed in any case. I think the best way is to work on the article itself and add content with reliable sources, and keep on doing it. I'm quite wary of AfD's they're too likely to be abused.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is a neutrality tag. We can easily press our case here, using these passages= "Setting the Qing capital in Beijing may seem a straightforward move in hindsight, but it was then an act of innovation because historically no major Chinese dynasty had ever "inherited" its immediate predecessor’s capital"
Complete bullsh!t. Song inherited the capital of its predecessor, so did T'ang. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is so biased sometimes. I just saw an article that said Zheng Chenguo(Koxinga) was a pirate. Maybe the East India company, but Zheng was fighting for national Liberation.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teeninvestor, and the amount of Manchu scripts is plain silly, I read somewhere that the whole world now there are less than 200 scholars can read and write Manchu scripts, and us poor readers just have to bear it out by grinding our teeth when confronting this dead language. Arilang talk 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but putting An Lushan in the HYZB tang section is pretty controversial. He basically lead another "Wu Hu" uprising in China. Check out List of wars by death toll: Anshi Rebellion is high on the list. As such, including him would incur a debate about whether Tang multiculturalism was good or bad(let the barbarians in some times) and I'm sure we don't want to go through that. The Manchu race is basically assimilated now, like Xianbei, so I agree we shouldn't put Manchu script in. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I moved Lao Baixing to Baixing in line with Chinese and Japanese articles zh:百姓 and ja:百姓. 2. Of course "Chinese" should NOT be replaced by "Lao Baixing", which only refer to ordinary people and do not include officials and the nobles. Please use the words adopted by mainstream historians, and don't impose your preference upon others! Please, please, please!!--Neo-Jay (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I know Lao Baixing refers only to plain folks, but at times Chinese can be very confusing. For example, Tang Chinese and PRC Chinese and Oversea Chinese have very different meanings. And Qing rulers refused to be regarded as Chinese. Shouldn't we work out what is the best way to eradicate this confusing factor? Arilang talk 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Again! Please use the words adopted by mainstream historians, and don't impose your preference upon others! Please, please, please!! --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens, thanks for your comment, I agree with you that most readers are ignorant about China, and they just take it for granted. But the fact remains that, at times, Chinese would really add more confusion to many issues. Another really bad translation is Confuscianism 儒家, and Neo-Confucianism. To many 漢族 scholars, Confuscianism and Neo-Confucianism are both wrong translation, should just use 儒家 and it's pinyin. Please let me know what you think. Arilang talk 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
@Madalibi, Confucianism is really a very wrong translation, may be Wikipedia is the place to right the wrong?
As with Baixing, I was not going to replace all the Chinese with Baixing, but definitely in many instances Baixing makes more sense then Chinese. In my opinion, this English word Chinese would qualified to be the most missed-used word in all the China related articles. Arilang talk 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for dropping out of this project - got involved in other things. I find the article is still a bit incoherent, but would like to think about it a bit, maybe make a few edits. I am going to be very busy in real life in the next few days, so not right away. But I will watch the page. At this point, no, I am not going to start an AfD or other formal review. But from a quick glance, I think the article is lacking a strong central theme, and may be seen as original research. Be patient - there is no hurry. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Tag for AFD? If this article can survive an AFD quickly no one should be abel to delete it.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think is? As an immigrant who however has visited the motherland several times, I think the mainstream view would be similar to what you and me view. It's the same view most people would have privately, but publicly they would not condemn Qing and Yuan openly, as that might give ammunition to those seperatists who go: Then tibet , xinjiang is not part of china. This is similar to how chinese don't condemn Mao in public like russians condemned Stalin(who was far more competent than Mao) but in private 99% of chinese would want to dig up his body, lash him, and feed whats left to a dog. (that would include Deng, Jiang and the current leadership by the way; they were all victims of cultural revolution.)Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teeninvestor, http://www.boxun.com is very informative on contemporary China. The more you read, the more you would understand China. Arilang talk 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
www.boxun.com has articles that support that traitor dalai.... , and falun gong.... and "300 year" Xiaobo and the mingyuen, which is funded by CIA. It even supports Christianity and denounces evolution! that religion caused roman empire to fall 1000 years back you know. One of the reasons why China was 10 times more advanced than West is due to those christians. China is corrupt, but no more than other countries in its current stage(think 1980's Taiwan) and its definitely not protectionist. CPC is not nice, but would you think post 1991 russia is a better fate? Ming also had problems, does that mean all the chinese should embrace Manchu invaders? Should all the chinese in 1937 flock to surrender to the Japanese because ROC had problems? If your country has problems you should solve them and right now Chinese leadership is doing a better job than say, British gov in the industrial revolution in relieving hardship. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
WOW! Boxun.com even has people who diss Joseph Needham and say china did not invent gunpowder, printing press, and others! who says chinese civilization is younger than Greek! and who says west has always been ahead of china! BULL! the descendants of barbarians does not catch up to the most civilized country on earth. You should read some western history Arilang1234, if you believe half the crap on this site. I'm telling you some of the things that barbarians (ancestors of current westerners) did when they took over the Roman Empire make the Manchu look enlightened. You can criticize the CPC, but don't go and degrade the Chinese people. Instead of dissing our ancestors, we should all be ashamed that we have not continued our ancestors' glorious exploits. Arilang1234, do you really agree with some of the opinions on this site, especially the ones dealing with history? Do you really think a civilization that lead the world for roughly 2,300 years and was first-class for 2,800 is worthless? Do you think China cannot ever recover her ancient glory?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
My main point is: BOTTOM LINE: DON'T BETRAY THE MOTHERLAND. You can criticize whoever you like(even Deng himself said he was only right 50% of the time) but don't get into bed with FLG, Tibetan seperatists, and certain Anglo-saxons(government only, regular people are nice) who want nothing more than to plunge china into chaos and continue their dominion for another century. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I was reading your conflict with Bathrobe on Qing dynasty, and I'm wondering why you didn't report him to Wikiquette. He called you a squirrel, made racist comments about all chinese(your mind is filled with propanganda, ) and the like(US has more propanganda then CPC can ever dream of). If it was me, i would have filed wikiquette right away.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Stock investing is also a boring subject for teens too, but a 95 average lets you do anything. In regard to the above, I would think that Chinese civilization WAS the greatest one for a quite long time from 500 BCE to 1750CE. I have read both the histories of China and Western Europe, and believe me, feudal Europe is not a good place to live(neither is Rome particularly, with civil war every time an emperor died.) As to christianity, i'm not so sure its a good thing. You may want to inquire as to why all the ancient Greek texts can only be found in Arabic?Teeninvestor (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I would take that with a grain of salt. If you look at the Germans who followed christianity, and China who followed confucianism, China is clearly less aggressive and more peaceful. Of course the west is rich now after taking so much wealth from India, Americas, etc.. it can afford to go "oh human rights, don't kill, christian morals, etc..." But when they weren't that rich, they were heavily murderous. I will list some examples:
Fall of Roman Empire: German invasions caused Population of Romans to literally drop to zero. Roman Empire had 80 million under Trajan. under German domination, whole of Europe(non-Byzantine) had 20 million, and that's counting Germans. Modern western civilization was not a descendant of Romano-Greek civilization; in fact it was built on the back of millions of dead Romans.
India: British killed at least 20 million in mutiny. If you search list of Indian famines(which were engineered by British), the amount of deaths from 1850 to 1950 alone equals 64 million. Plus another ten million or so from Maratta wars, and we're close to 100 million.
Americas:
Africa:
Asia:
Arabia:
and that's not counting Indirect deaths(for example, japanese suicides after they got screwed over By US in 1989 currency manipulation; Sudanese who died after bombing a drug factory; famines from African countries that get robbed.) Add it up if you have time, but it's a pretty big list and it didn't count Europeans killing themselves(far more wars in Europe than in Ming or Qing CHina.) The difference from Modern and Ancient chinese civilization is one thing: its called factories. China didn't catch up because Qing stagnated, and now they have to go the hard way(strongman, luckily Deng is not a bad guy.)Teeninvestor (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think most of what you have suggested can go under the article Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate. or we can improve the Great Divergence article, to reflect four stage theory.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no. My ideas is, if possible, create more wiki with different titles, and develop each title slowly in the future when time is ripe. And my opinion on the Great Divergence as a title name, it is too plain, not enough color. For example, Anti-Qing sentiment is a good name for a title, it is straight forward, it tells the story, and very easy to remember.
Arilang talk 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I realize that part. Remember, I already fought an AFD battle.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I like to borrow this 人海戰術 for our task in en:wiki. For example, we may be facing difficulties when editing articles like Qing or others, may be there are editors with opposing views. Why not leave it alone for a while, and we go away to create articles that tell the facts with reliable sources. When many good articles are created, and we come back to the original articles, and force a AfD tag, present those articles with alternetive views, then WOW, job is done, with a minimum of fuss. In this case, articles 海戰術 is used, instead of 人海. You agree? Arilang talk 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What's this notion that Tibet became a part of China only after Qing? Ming had control over it also. In fact, T'ang had conquered that region at its height.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teen, if you read Tang history, the relationship between Tang and Tibet is:
I did read all the histories. T'ang had established a rule over Tibet briefly in 650, when Lhasa is captured. By time of Yuan, Mongols had governance there. Ming had sent commissoners to that region as well. Qing had very tight control, and stationed troops there. That's a sign of soverignty. Just because troops is not there does not mean lack of soverignty; for example, Canada doesn't station troops in North, but no other country, I think, claims Northern Canada. Most claims of independance, I think, are very politically motivated.
文成公主 went to Tibet at a time T'ang was very strong, I don't think the T'ang who beat the Turks would fear Tibet. Turks were very strong(Xiongnu, Mongols).
Han dynasty's Heqin didn't send real princesses, you know...
China had controlled Tibet no later than Qing(assuming Mingshi is exaggerating which it is probably not, Manchu had incentive to write down Ming dynasty, yet still kept mention of tibet as a commandry.) Since Qing ruler bequeathed all its terroritories to China, in effect entering a voluntary annexation, China would then restore soverignty over Mongolia and Xinjiang(Like Han and T'ang, and some parts of Ming) as well as Tibet(assuming Ming didn't rule it). Most of the terroritories that Manchus conquered were already part of China by Ming; just that introduction of Maize caused Manchus to have tighter control over them.
Right now, it is a very prilevged region of China. CPC puts lots of cash into that region. Wages in Tibet are higher than in Sichuan! Teeninvestor (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
But Wen Jiabau treated the incidence differently, because many Chinese, including Wen, still lived in pre-modern times, when Wen is still regarded as a kind of emperor or King. Put it another way, had the shoe-tossing incidence happened in China, I am sure that guy would be tossed into a forced-labor camp, no doubts of it. Arilang talk 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wen Jiabao treated it differently because Wen didn't KILL ONE MILLION PEOPLE, as Bush did. Bush, like ALL American presidents, has blood on his hands. Emperor or not emperor, throwing shoes at visitors(who didn't invade your country and kill a million, of course) is not polite. If that shoe-tossing incidence had happened in China though, the guy would be decleared "freedom fighter" by US, hired out by "human rights" groups, and go around lecturing on why anglo saxons should invade china and "liberate" it. (if not noticed, 2 or 3 years of laogai). Laogai(labor camp), though should be required for criminals; it is unjust for them to live at taxpayers' expense; now im not advocating gulags, but getting them to say, make some toys or something shouldn't be hard. Wen is not even close to emperor, maybe Deng, but not wen. China right now is a CAPITALIST nation, like US in 1920s(and I'll tell u, they weren't too "Democratic" then.); power is in hands of capitalists obviously. China's government(in expenditures) has much less than US. Right now there is a sort of 萬國來朝, as all the western nations are pleading for China to "regard the sake of mankind" and bail them out. It's not the 萬國來朝 that we wanted, though. it's more like 萬國來抢Teeninvestor (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually all countries care a lot about olympics. In Canada, where I live, in first 2 weeks the canadian team did not win a single medal; there was a huge uproar about need to spend more money, etc... When the first medal was won by a chinese immigrant, a ton of people are like: "Ah, it's a chinese who won it, what happened to our anglo saxon physique, etc...". But China has a strong incentive to show it because CPC wants Chinese to think that its 漢唐盛世 again(should add Ming in there). To be fair, if CPC continues to make the right decisions(UNLIKE japan in 1987, where they got robbed by US) for 10=20 years, China would probably go back to 漢唐盛世.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want a sneak peek at how the articles for Economy of the Han Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty are going to look, take a look at User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economy of the Han Dynasty and User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens, thanks for the invitation, I know there will be more featured articles from you. By the way, have you ever thought of publishing your own books? Or E-books on internet, may be a good idea? Arilang talk 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you want to have an AFD session on Hua Yi zhi bian? It would strengthen the article if it is to survive.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teen, I really do not know much about AfD tag, and it is really not up to me to say. As you can see, this article is really very powerful when it is quoted at the right time, and at the right place, when we are discussing Qing related articles, you agree?
Added some new ones, take a look, correct you don't like, etc...Teeninvestor (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teen, the content you add do enrich the article a lot, and can be further extended, somehow, for examples:
Plus many more. All these new projects should keep you busy? Arilang talk 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
What tone should I adopt? He is probably very controversial because on one hand he might have saved China from the barbarians but on the other he is decried as a genocider. What should we adopt to him? I personally think he is a hero.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ran Min should be given Han Hero status, same as 岳飛 and 文天祥.
壯志饑餐胡虜肉,笑談渴飲匈奴血; 岳飛 滿江红
Manchu killed about 25 million, Mongol about 20 million. In percentage, thats 16 and 25. Wu Hu is worse, about 50-70%. Ran Min probably preserved Civilization, as without Chinese civilization- no printing press, gunpwoder, etc... Western/Chinese Civilization would not have advanced. In this regard, he is a bigger hero than Yue Fei. China would be a place with a very barbarica Wu Hu Empire, which goes around razing and killing. Makes Genghis Khan looks good.
My main problem is that others may not share our view, so it might attract attention. However, it is an excellent example of Hua-Yi zhi bian. I have an account of Ran Min's campaigns. My message is that we should start thinking of arguments to defend the section. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing to worry about. As it was stated in the lead section, it can be racist, especially during war time. This is the stuff that is needed in an historical topic, remember, we are talking about history, about the past, as long as your contribution is verifiable with reliable secondary source, why should you worry about what other editors might think? Arilang talk 02:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The mongol generals under the service of the manchu Qing sluaghtered 1 million fellow mongols. The mongols under genghis khan also massacred everyone in the jin empire, whether jurchen-manchu or chinese. all this talk about numbers does not matter.
Jiehe were caucasians, not xiongnu. probably related to tocharian? anyway if a white supremacist discovers this about ran min they could use this endlessly as propaganda on how chinese tried to exterminate the "white race".22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~
No, you are wrong. White supremacist do not talk about history, if they do, Genghis Khan would have given them more than enough ammunitions. After all, we are talking about pre-modern history, back then, everybody was trying to exterminate everybody else. Don't tell me King George(or Queen Victoria) of England did not know the effects of opium when he was counting all those silver bars coming from Qing dynasty? What Ran Min did, or did not do, was pure historical facts, and should not be tinted with any artificial color. Just present it as it happened, that is all we can do. Arilang talk 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If white supremacists read history, they wouldn't be white supremacist any more(sorry if you think this is racist.)Teeninvestor (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
genghis khan killed indiscriminately. what we have here is Ran Min giving out orders for the "Final Solution" to the "Aryan Question".
Quote:The concept of a Caucasian race was developed around 1800, and today, some scholars reject the concept because human genome studies have not shown a precise genetic definition of Caucasian Unquoted.
We are talking about events happened thousands of years ago, maybe you are using the wrong terminology Caucasian? Arilang talk 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Arilang1234, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arilang1234 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Arilang1234 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Albert584 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Note:While I do agree with the view that some of the Manchu rulers that ruled China until 1911 were quite nasty, I don't see how a user page that pushes this view is beneficial in any way. On the contrary, it might send a message that proponents of this view will do anything to make their voice heard. Also placing numerous links on a user page to web sites in any language other than English is usually seen as spamming. Albert584 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I plan to completely revamp it something like this:
Feudal Era
Mercantilist Era
"Proto-capitalist" Era
Modern Era:
I have only one source dealing with pre-ROC Chinese economic history, a 2000 page book called "5000 years of CHinese history". It has some details, but one paragraph for each section would do. Can you help me get some sources? thank you. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
My policy in editing wikipedia is to add information first, and add some sources. Then I will add A LOT MORE sources. Check the article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, and you will see that I am not a person who does not know how to cite sources. First, I find a plethora of information, then I add the sources, and as you can see it is now very good. I've gathered a few sources and I am going to revamp Economic history of China at least up to B-class, similar to my revamp of Liu Song dynasty and Comparison of Roman and Han Empires. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As to Ran Min, there is information about what he did in basically any detailed history in China. Teeninvestor (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said before, the only thing I worry about is AfD. If you can come up with reliable source, it is fine with me. On the naming of the article, my idea and Madalibi seem to differ a bit. My idea is this HYZB is basically a 帝皇思想, as can be seen in 尊王攘夷. What is your opinion? Arilang talk 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about Afd's, Arilang1234, I have done them before. Contacting Article rescue taskforce, china wikiproject, works wonders. Also, arguing helps. AFD will take at least 4-5 days. In that time, if you can overhaul the whole thing, it will become real. Check Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. As to HYZB, i think it's a popular thought as all the chinese had, not necessarily emperors. Chinese people fought very hard to keep the barbarians out.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What we do know: He issued Xi Hu Ling. it was carried out. several million Hu were killed.
That's actually all the article needs, i think. Some of the details are provided by Jin shu, as primary sources can be used to back up descriptive claims.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
you have to note that the hu that were killed had "Aryan" features.
Like I said before, the name of HYZB alone is worth a thousand words in Wikipedia, if it is used in the right place and at the right time. You know how hard I argue for it in the AfD debate. This name does not come easy, that is why I will try anything to protect it. Anythings else is supplymentary. Arilang talk 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a sinking feeling my ambition overran itself; check Economic history of China. Do you think I overdid it?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You want my opinion? Move it into your sandbox, which is where it belongs. Arilang talk 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you move it into your sandbox?Teeninvestor (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at economic history of china in my sandbox, I have already written the lead of all the eras and the article. What do you think of the prose? By the way, I think that I'll need some help. Maybe you can help?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
@Teen, Madalibi and PoA are the best editors you can get, and about me, I have a heavy-biased attitude, which is very difficult to shake off. And I am hopeless in adding big chunk of text, a few words here and there, that is about all I can do. Arilang talk 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This guy is very confused. They did not emerge until about 1100CE, when they overthrew Liao and then devastated Song(that caused Song to go back another 50 years). Afterwards, Yuan killed 80% of them and Ming was nicer, moved them back to their homeland(of course, they rose later and formed Manchu, denying China the industrial revolution again!). They did lots of damage to China, but they did not go to Europe.
Some people say that Hungary is descended from Huns who is Xiongnu, they devastated Roman Empire and help Germans(current westerners, then they were barbarians) took over Rome and kill the population. Huns created a large empire in europe, read about it in Hunnic Empire. It is funny how a race that served the Chinese can be so powerful elsewhere. Chinese today do not measure up to the greatness of ancients, except maybe Deng Xiaoping, China today is still following his path. Even if you hate CPC intensely(and some people should, due to Mao, but I tend to think he is solely responsible for crimes), you should like Deng better. Chiang, Mao and others couldn't put China back on the road to revival; only Deng did. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I doubt he would say something like that. He is known for his moderation, that is how he got into power; ppl needed a moderate guide after Mao's cultural revvolution. But you have to look at the achievements of the man. In 30 years he brought China from Maoist, dirt-poor country to a country that now has 20K per capita income and industry that is more than US. 1978-2008 in China is probably fastest econmic development in its history, if not world history. Britain, even using slave and forced labor + wealth of all of India, Africa, took 50 years to industrialize. As of january 2009, China made more steel, more cars, more ships, more cement and others than US, which is rapidly declining(That's how this "teen investor" get his money).
From the experience of Russia, we can see he is right in Tiannemen as well. Besides, Tiannemen was only several hundred deaths anyway. Sichuan earthquake was more. Another thing that was better is that there was no after-purges; like in Maoist era, not only is there initial purge, all the people who join in demonstrations are "counter-revolutionaries" and "Bourgeois" and get struggled. Deng just called the army in for two days, and did not impose a wide purge for "counter-revolutioanry" or "bourgeois". All the people who took place in demonstrations that were not in Beijing stayed alive/did not get discriminated, jailed, etc... several of my relatives demonstrated, right now they are CPC members(all store owners, rich people, capitalists, etc.. are CPC members in China.)
I'd rather have 300 deaths than the entire country collapse go into civil war/get robbed- similar to Russia, their lifespan went from 70 to 47!!!! Less than Africa!!!Teeninvestor (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Boxun.com is run by "dissidents", it says so on the article on wikipedia Boxun.com. I would urge you not to take this as a serious source, as most "dissidents" are paid by US and probably have not been in China for 15 years and are not good economists!!!! China probably has changed a lot since they left, and that is assuming they are not in the pay of the CIA. And ya, more evidence christianity is not what it made out to be(and Lu Shun thought confucianism was bad): [[1]]Teeninvestor (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Science and technology of the Han Dynasty has been established just today, after a lengthy period in my sandbox. You've already added some Chinese characters to the sandbox version; see if there's a couple more spots that could use character phrases.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation PoA, I shall look it up soon. Arilang talk 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you can go to some neutral chinese forums besides Boxun.com
go to hanminzu.com sometimes too but it is biased.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
this guy is trying to start multiple votes to change articles with the word "chinese" or chinese names in them to korean centered ones. keep watch on this guy, and if anyone starts canvassing koreans to vote on name change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.138.30 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Little Ice Age caused huge swaths of farmland in North China to be unfarmable, leading to repeated revolts from 1627CE on. It shows how strong Ming was as they kept on defeating hte Manchu until 1644CE, when Wu Sangui surrendered. Also Ming's government could not collect taxes efficiently because of opposition by merchants(See Wanli's attempts to collect taxes in Suzhou). Ming was much stronger/advanced than Song because Ming actually respected generals(unlike Song). Without Little Ice Age, Ming would have easily defeated Qing(who are not even as strong as Khitan Liao).Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it would be a way of decorating my userpage. Funny you mention that, I remember that a long while ago there was an article on "Chinese Internet Terms" or something, that got an AfD and thus disappeared into the abyss. Now there's hardly anything on "牛" on Wikipedia, not that much of it should be on, anyway. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Arilang, I noticed the things you added to the Wen Jiabao article. It may be best in this case to add the quotations to Wikiquote, as Wikipedia is supposed to give general information, and is not a source for quotations. If you think the quotations describe the man please add it in earlier sections of the article. Colipon+(T) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
@Colipon, due to the complexcity of China's politic, quotations from politicians do help readers to understand the true color of them, whatever this true color means. I feel that these Wen Jiabao quotations are very often barred or deleted in mainland China's mainstream media, and the reasons behind these barring can only be speculated upon by us. I feel that it would help wikipedia readers a lot if the true color is also shown within the information presented to them. Just a thought. Arilang talk 06:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not like Wen Jiabao very much. He reinstituted medical insurance and social security from maoist era, which will one day be a big headache to China, just like they are bankrupting the west now(US pays social security fund with Bonds).Teeninvestor (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
@Teen, like him or not, right now he is China's NO.2 man, and he seems to be using internet video chats to gain political power; well, at least he sounds better than Mr.Hu, to me Hu always pretend to be dumb because he always act dumb, like Cantonnese saying, 扮猪吃老虎. In fact, Hu remind me of great movie comedians such as Peter Seller, or Charlie Chaplin, both of them were great at making funny faces. Arilang talk 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason for China's success is because Deng and Zhu put in a free market system and Chinese work harder than any other people on the planet. That's all. Putting in the benefit system of the west will plague China heavily. I like Hu Jintao better than wen; wen likes to show off a lot, Hu is more quiet/gets more done.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Teen, please tell me what is your reaction:Chinese bidder says he will not pay for looted bronzes, and has anyone created an wiki article on it yet? Arilang talk 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestion that I read Hua-Yi distinction. As a result, I have added links to this article in the "See also" sections at Ryukyuan missions to Edo, Joseon Tongsinsa and Gaikoku bugyō. The sinosphere schematic on that page was particularly suggestive.
I'm going to try using Euler diagrams to parse the complicated foreign relations of the Ryūkyū Kingdom in the 17th-19th centuries as a vassal of Late Imperial China while at the same time acting as a conquered vassal of the Shimazu and the Tokugawa shogunate. I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
@user Tenmei, I am glad you appreciate Hua-Yi distinction, I think this article has the potential of further development, for example:
Your Japanese background would help build up Hua-Yi distinction and related articles to have more comprehensive Asia-East Asia contents. Arilang talk 22:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The article I wrote on the Baidu Cao Ni Ma meme was mentioned in some French news website. I didn't even believe this news myself until I saw it. So surprised. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A first draft of Internet Culture in the People's Republic of China should be up soon, time permitting. I will contact you when it is ready. Kindest regards, -- | —Talk contribs 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
OK now, reupload on EN Wiki (NOT commons) and use this:
Description |
Extent of the damage done to the Television Cultural Center after the fire in 2009. |
---|---|
Source |
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/02/chinasmack-cctv-fire-funny-photoshops-by-chinese-netizens/ |
Article | |
Portion used | |
Low resolution? |
300x451px |
Purpose of use |
To visually depict the extent of the damage done to the building. Incident is of great significance. Image used fairly, in an effort to inform. |
Replaceable? |
no |
Other information |
no other picture available (that shows the aftermath of the incident and the overall damage created) |
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Beijing Television Cultural Center fire//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arilang1234/Archive_2true |
This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. | |||
|
Kindest regards, -- | —Talk contribs 07:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Possible notes in rationale:
However you must tell the truth in these, for others to accept good faith. As they say, Do not game the system. -- | —Talk contribs 08:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S archive your page. I'm having trouble accessing it most of the time, it is too long. Australia, so-called "first world country", is like a third-world nation in terms with internet speed (it is terrible here), and so its difficult to view your long page. By the way, yesterday I was present in the city centre in Canberra where there were Tibetan protests; I've taken a few photos. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 09:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW continuing on photo tags, If it is an old photo, use the "public domain becuase copyright expiry" tag. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)