Hello JArthur1984! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Using references on talk pages[edit]

Hi - I made a slight addition to your comment at Talk:Chinese Communist Party#CCP vs. CPC for formatting purposes. One of your comments contained two citations. If you add the ((reflist talk)) template with your comment it will lock those references to that point, instead of appearing at the bottom of the page amongst other comments as the discussion continues. You can see what I did with this edit. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn thanks very much, I have often edited in visual and haven't learned these nuances. Also, I thought your contribution to that discussion was instructive. What a valuable contribution to the topic. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with all the repeat edits to this post? JArthur1984 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had been using the incorrect template. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14 August 2022[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello JArthur1984! Your additions to Environmental policy in China have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Spintendo  03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me more about what happened here?
My edits were merging information from another Wiki article (Environmental Governance) that should be merged, and has a request for deletion.
So is this warning a mistake, or does that mean it was actually a copyright violation in the Environmental Governance of China article?
What tool checks for potential copyright violations? Unless there’s been a mistake here, someone needs to run it on Environmental Governance in China JArthur1984 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! My reply posted here on my talk page.  Spintendo  04:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kawsachun News[edit]

Kawsachun News officially has editorial stance supportive of the Movement Toward Socialism ruling party, as stated in its main article, and its independence has been questioned previously, including when Evo Morales used the radio to call for the formation of armed militias ([1]). Being that the disputed information that quotes the outlet is directly related to the government, it is not an independent source to be used. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Wikipedia requirement. As the Reliable Sources policy explains, "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." These sources are not deprecated or questioned and are appropriate for the proposition cited. If you specifically believe the information is wrong, by all means let's address. But the sources are appropriate. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, I added a third source. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China–Syria relations[edit]

Hi, I see you've added a reference (Murphy, Dawn C. (2022). China's rise in the Global South : the Middle East, Africa, and Beijing's alternative world order) to China–Syria relations. Does the book also cover the China–Lebanon relations? If so, can I ask you to add the information to the article? Thanks, Nehme1499 11:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it would be my pleasure. I’ll review the source and add what I can. I highly recommend Prof. Murphy. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the significant references from Prof. Murphy's text. I hope you find them useful as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, much appreciated! Nehme1499 18:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Genocide Question[edit]

I reverted your changes to this article. There is a discussion on this at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. GreenCows (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand the broader dispute. Regardless of which article remains after the deletion discussions you reference, there are reliable sources for Churchill's description of Indians as a "beastly people with a beastly religion" and so forth, and they can be incorporated into the surviving article as otherwise appropriate. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur related articles[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that articles related to the Uyghur genocide are subjected to general sanctions (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide). While it might not be mandatory, it'd advise to stick with the 1RR rule to avoid any potential sanctions, particularly if one of your edits has been challenged by more than one user. Best regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noon -- the basis for your deletion was that the source was self-published. The source is not self-published. It's an academic text, and in fact it has had two different publishers -- one for the European market and one for the American market. So your basis was obviously incorrect. In such circumstances where a factually incorrect assertion is made, it made perfect sense for me to revert. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the explanation, my concern still remains that the edit has been disputed by two editors, as well as personally regarding the source, namely regarding its reliability and its due weight. Kind regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you lay out your concern regarding reliability and due weight? These pages have well-covered the assertions of forced labor, but provided little or no weight to systemic factors that may explain the issue. It is not undue to include another such perspective. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said "another" above, but it would actually be the first such perspective included. It does not present a concern of undue weight under such circumstances. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring across multiple pages[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Xinjiang cotton industry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there HEB. I am not edit warring. You made a deletion without explanation other than not an RS. But it is a peer-reviewed academic text that is clearly an RS. So I reverted. Then another editor deleted claiming the source is self-published. It's not - in fact there have been two different publishers -- a 300 year-old publishing house in Europe called Brill Academic publishing and Haymarket in the US. So the other editor is simply wrong from a factual standpoint. So I have made two reverts, one in response to your inadequately explained deletion, and the other to an editor who was obviously wrong.
I'm happy to engage on the substance of the matter if you would like to lay out your grounds, your claim that an academic peer-reviewed text is not an RS.... your issue is not self-evident. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you made two reverts you were edit warring, there is no "the other editor's argument was wrong" exemption from edit warring. The WP:BURDEN is on you to go to the talk page and get consensus for your desired change, that is *especially* true if you believe that those who reverted you were simply mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I erroneously attributed some of the mistaken edits to you. Sorry about that.
On the wider point, two RVs is not an edit war, and we don't need humor patently incorrect arguments like saying a text is self-published when it is not. It is also incumbent on people making deletions to take care to educate themselves on the sources they contend with. As always, I remain happy to engage on issues of substance. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two reverts on how many pages? If it was just one I would agree with you. People humor your arguments when they're patently incorrect, maybe you should extend the same courtesy. On the issue of substance I don't think I would have reverted initially if Brill was the publisher, Haymarket is a different story. I assume you're working from a hard copy and the one you have is published by Haymarket? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the views on procedure, the other editor and I are now talking through the substance so we will get through it. Yes, I'm working from a hardcopy Haymarket edition. The background is that this volume is part of the "Studies in Critical Social Sciences" book series originally published by Brill. Haymarket is re-publishing this series in paperback instead of hardback. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insert joke about Haymarket's market not being able to afford new hardcover books here* Lol, JK (I have a few on my own shelves). Do you think you'd be able to share more of the context for the passages you pulled from the book? Or maybe a paraphrasing of their larger argument instead of quotes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I quite like the quip, and in fact the Brill version is more than three times the price!
Yes, I'll come back and post further context no later than tomorrow. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow you weren't kidding[2], having to pay Walmart or Amazon two hundred and forty four US dollars to access anti-Imperialist perspectives might just be the funniest thing I've seen all day. Take your time, doesn't have to be today or tomorrow. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put this on the talk page for XInjiang Cotton industry just now JArthur1984 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I appreciate you offering a third opinion and noticed you removed the listing. Would it be proper for me to relist it with the aim of obtaining further third-party opinions? I'd really like to get a wider perspective from the community as a whole. I'd be grateful if you could suggest or advise on the best way to obtain multiple experienced editors to weigh in and provide their input on the matter? IPIPIPIP (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion is an informal, optional, and non-binding process and the hope is that it will allow the editors to resolve the matters themselves once they receive it. You are absolutely free to pursue the other resolution mechanisms if you were unable to resolve the matter yourselves following my third opinion.
But it would not be the right procedure to re-list on the Third Opinion board. You mention wanting a wider perspective from the community as a whole. To obtain views from multiple uninvolved editors, you can use a mechanism like an RfC. Because this was an issue involving the biography of a living person, you could also ask for further views on the BLP noticeboard.
For more information on what to do when a Third Opinion is not successful in resolving the issue, please see the 3O FAQ. I wish you both the best of luck in arriving at a collegial resolution of the issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fingar volume[edit]

Hello JArthur, I notice that you have made a series of edits to Sino-Indian War and Sino-Pakistani Agreement using a volume edited by Thomas Fingar. You didn't include a Google Books url for the book. So I presume you have a physical copy. You must be knowing that Thomas Fingar was the editor of the volume and not the author. You have omitted the author's name in your citation. Can you explain why? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I saw that you added this in for the first link, and now I have done so for the second. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merely going too quickly and using the autogenerate citation function. I am happy to also add the chapter authors. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On another note, I would appreciate if you don't add worldcat links in the url fields. That link is really meant for the content of the source. If you don't have such a link, you can leave it out. The OCLC field already gives the OCLC number. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. It is autogenerating like that and I did not perceive the issue. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rp tempate[edit]

You may find the Template:Rp useful for cases where you need multiple cites with different pages for the same underlying source. Amigao (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know how to get that formatting before. I'll try it out. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I trouble you with a question on this @Amigao? I was experimenting with the template but I don't see how to "link" the new page citation to a previous citation. Is it that I add the citation as normal (which in my case means via Visual editing and the insert citation button), and then instead of adding a page number to the citation, I insert template:rp page immediately after it? And then I re-use the initial citation and then immediately at the RP template after it on subsequent occasions? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. Just re-use the initial citation and add the RP template to each instance as needed. Amigao (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! JArthur1984 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ron DeSantis[edit]

Stop reinserting challenged content at Ron DeSantis. [3][4] This has been being discussed at Talk:Ron DeSantis if you wish to participate. Edit warring can lead to sanctions. You need to revert your edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to offend you, but it is apparent you have not read the talk page closely enough. I have been a participant on the talk page, which is how I know the consensus has been satisfied. There was a substantial group (a numerical majority if you count the IP addresses) who believed the material was appropriate even before the Miami Herald and Newsweek coverage. With the Miami Herald and Newsweek coverage, the prior objections have been satisfied. Moreover, an addition and then a revert is not edit warring. So you are incorrect on procedure. You are also incorrect on the substance: it is not contentious that Adayfi said what he said. Were the claim in wikivoice or not attributed, it would be contentious. But the statements of Adayfi are unodubtedly clear. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editors shouldn't read discussion and determine if there is a consensus for or against something. Firefangledfeathers gave you the contentious topics notification about American politics below. You've remained respectful, but in contentious topics editing should be done quite carefully. I still think you should undue your edit in the spirit of discussion and WP:BRD. There a few examples where it's appropriate to reinsert the same challenged content within a matter of hours, and this would not be one of them. Also you said an addition and then a revert is not edit warring, and that's true, but what you did was you inserted text, I reverted it, and then you reinstated it. I bolded the part where your edit warring began. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic area the Balkans or Eastern Europe[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.test

Propaganda in China[edit]

I noticed that the below keeps getting removed from Propaganda in China and Censorship of Wikipedia.

Despite being censored in mainland China, and as VPNs are normally not allowed to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia administrators from China have permitted IP block exemptions for a select number of mainland users. Such users are recruited to change the editorial content on Wikipedia in support of China's viewpoint and/or to support the election of pro-Chinese government administrators on Wikipedia, with the aim of gaining control of Wikipedia. Academics suggested that “China urgently needs to encourage and train Chinese netizens to become Wikipedia platform opinion leaders and administrators … [who] can adhere to socialist values and form some core editorial teams.”
The pro-Beijing Wikipedia community, the Wikimedians of Mainland China (WMC), have clashed with Wikipedia editors from Taiwan, not only over Wikipedia's content, but also making death threats made against Taiwan's community of Wikipedians. One Taiwanese editor suggested that it was not just patriotic mainlanders, but a "larger structural coordinated strategy the government has to manipulate these platforms" beside Wikipedia, such as Twitter and Facebook. The Wikimedians of Mainland China (WMC) also threatened to report Wikipedia editors to Hong Kong's national security police hotline over the disputed article "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests" characterized by edit warring. A Hong Kong-based editor, who remains anonymous because of fears of intimidation, noted that "Pro-Beijing people often remove content that is sympathetic to protests, such as tear gas being fired and images of barricades. They also add their own content". Acknowledging that "edit wars" happen on both sides, the anonymous editor stated that "Pro-democracy editors tend to add content to shift the balance or the tone of the article, but in my experience, the pro-Beijing editors are a lot more aggressive in churning out disinformation. It's now unfixable without external interference. Someone is trying to rewrite history."
On 13 September 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation banned seven Wikipedia users and removed administrator privileges from twelve users that were part of Wikimedians of Mainland China (WMC). Maggie Dennis, the foundation's vice present of community resilience and sustainability, said that there had been an yearlong investigation into “infiltration concerns” that threatened the "very foundations of Wikipedia". Dennis observed that the infiltrators had tried to promote "the aims of China, as interpreted through whatever filters they may bring to bear", suggesting possible links to the Chinese Communist Party. Dennis said “We needed to act based on credible information that some members (not all) of that group [WMC] have harassed, intimidated, and threatened other members of our community, including in some cases physically harming others, in order to secure their own power and subvert the collaborative nature of our projects”.

HertzUranus (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that's a good fit for propaganda in China either. Probably a better fit for Censorship of Wikipedia page than the propaganda page. But it looks clearly appropriate (although not at such length) for List of Wikipedia controversies. There's another page that I'm not remembering the title for, which addresses Wikipedia content controversies such as the US CIA (or FBI? I'm not recalling) edits to Wikipedia. Possibly that is an appropriate place.
Independently of where the material makes sense, the other question is how strong the sourcing is for this. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another note I have is this is written in more of a news article-style tone rather than an encyclopedia style tone. Quotes from anonymous sources, for example, raise the issue whether they are encyclopedically significant. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your observation, so will have to work on changing the tone to make it more encyclopedic as well as shortening it.
So far for sourcing there is BBC, HKFP, and Slate. HertzUranus (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Overall, the editing of China related articles can be significantly contentious. For this reason, I emphasize robust sourcing in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
And of course, welcome to Wikipedia! JArthur1984 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

You removed the WP:SYNTHESIS. Neither of the sources claimed that the number of abortions fell in China. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Chen Boda
added a link pointing to State Planning Commmission
Petroleum industry in China
added a link pointing to Cizhou

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite curious about the balance of books and academic papers[edit]

Hi. As the title says. I'm planning to write something recently, however it's awkward that book sources and papers tend to account for a one-to-one situation, with books presented broadly and dissertations presented in detail, which is not quite the same as what I used to write about in Japan - detailed papers and detailed books, so I'm a bit curious how you balance them? Regards, ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 07:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I believe that English-language "mass market" books are not helpful in these subject areas. Academic publishers, however, publish some rigorous and detailed books. For example, Stanford University Press and Routledge have excellent book-length treatments that are detailed and focused.
Does this help answer your question? JArthur1984 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much, I know that mass market books suck (in China too, especially the various roadside tabloids published in the 1990s), I want to know more about the balance between academic books and academic papers, as I described. Thanks in advance for your answers. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 18:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, as I am still not quite understanding the question but am willing to keep trying and be of any help that I can be.
Regarding the balance of between academic books and papers, I tend to find that both are detailed. In my view, this is more a matter of the author's style than the form of the work.
Many academic books I have found helpful recently resulted from the author's prior articles. For example, Meysken's excellent book on the Third Front was preceded by his articles like this one and this one. The subsequent book and the preceding articles are all well-detailed.
I tend to prefer working with book sources myself, but this is merely a matter of personal preference and relative ease of access. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I want. Specifically, I'm just curious about how you organize and identify sources, so that's exactly the answer to the question. Thanks again! ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! My pleasure.
I would also add that I find great sources by reading the bibliographies or footnotes of other sources I find useful. For example, a recent book I read which contained oral histories from the Shanghai Small Third Front cited important discussion from a Harvard-Yenching Institute monograph on the Daqing oilfield, so I then picked up a copy of that monograph as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that for me, since I know more or less Chinese, it was easier to find macro and "positive" sources, but I would have preferred to write about something more detailed. Never forget that China has several times the population of the US and is about the same size as the US, so in principle it should be detailed enough, but it isn't.
Additionally, I have to say that, no matter what, I admire your efforts to at least take a step further and hope you could do more. :) ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 01:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I always appreciate your edits as well. My language abilities are limited but I think it's very good to add Chinese sources when we can. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Whole process people's democracy[edit]

Information icon Hello, JArthur1984. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Whole process people's democracy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Do you know why broader China topics have been made subcategories of Category:Anti-Taiwanese sentiment? Vacosea (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't make sense and should be reversed. I'm not sure how to do so as I am not very proficient when it comes to the technical side of categories. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Normchou. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wolf warrior diplomacy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines and content policies. Normchou 💬 02:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Whole process people's democracy[edit]

Hello, JArthur1984. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Whole process people's democracy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I cut and pasted it into main space long ago, so it's good the draft was deleted. Thank you. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note about Harvard style citations[edit]

"Harvard-style" references. Step to step instructions are:

  • Click the "Cite" button, then choose the "Manual" tab and the "Basic" option at the bottom.
  • In the "enter your citation here" box that comes up, type "((". This takes you a template search form.
  • In the template search form, type "harvp" (for Harvard citations with parentheses) or "harvnb" (for Harvard citations without parentheses – these are common in other articles), and click on the template name.
  • Fill in the fields that you need (the authors' surnames, year and page / page range at a minimum). You can add and remove fields using the tab on left-hand side.
  • When you are done click the "Insert citation" button in the top-right of the box, then click through the remaining dialogues to actually insert the citation and save the edit in the usual way.

JArthur1984 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDing[edit]

You violated WP:HOUND when you followed User:Amigao and/or myself to Fu Xiaotian to continue your contentious editing. I'm happy to continue talking with you on the original page on which we started talking, but this is your last warning on Xiaotian. Continue your contentious editing there and we'll be going to WP:ANI. NickCT (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Conversation started here. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really know whether people get curious about other's talk pages or not. But I suppose just in case I will note here that this ANI was closed with no action against me, and the editor above received a logged warning for BLP violations. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States sanctions[edit]

Thanks for patrolling the disruptive edits today. I've asked for semi-protection[5] , so perhaps we can get some relief. Oblivy (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome and thank you for doing so. I think it’s a good idea to semi-protect at this point. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

The Chinese Barnstar
For your recent contributions to a variety of articles about China's economy and recent economic history. Thanks for making Wikipedia's coverage more detailed and informative! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Mx. Granger! I have seen your contributions in these areas as well and likewise appreciate them. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Third opinion on our discussion regarding the poll of economists re Cuba[edit]

I have asked for a third opinion on [opinion] as you suggested. --Mikeschaerer (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you. I think that's a good course and will prevent us from deadlocking. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social Credit System[edit]

I saw you were interested in editing the Social Credit System article. Just for fun, take a look at the final version of the article from 2019 and compare it to the current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Credit_System&oldid=933326055#Social_status

A lot of the predictions that were mentioned in the old version of the article didn't come true, and the tone of the article has since changed to reflect on the misconceptions. Interesting, eh? Félix An (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is remarkable. The dreadful state of the article in 2019 is a good reminder of the reasons behind the policy that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and also the issue of WP:crystalball. So often claims are made in the heat of something "new" that prove not to be correct or as anticipated. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I was actually misled by that version of the article. Before my first modern visit to China in 2019, I read the article, and I was expecting something really advanced and dystopian. I was surprised and relieved to find out that most of the speculations in the article about the numerical scores did not apply to most of my family and friends in China, and that the actual social credit system was a lot less advanced than I expected it to be. The 2019 version of the article said that it would be fully implemented by 2020, but when I entered China in 2022 for university, I realized that the social credit system was still pretty underwhelming, and nothing like the original 2020 predictions. Félix An (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I do use Alipay, which gives me a Zhima Credit score. I still sarcastically refer to it as a "social credit score" (even now that I know it isn't) just to joke about the mix-up that foreigners have between Zhima Credit and social credit. 😂 Félix An (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! A recent addition of mine (in the public perceptions heading) was a bit to the article that talks about how Euro/American misconceptions have become a source of humor in China, especially online. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Work unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soviet architecture.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion on "Chinese Communist Party"[edit]

Please see Talk:Chinese Communist Party. Félix An (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JVP[edit]

You're right, the sourced material removed by another editor had already been readded by someone else. I reverted to the wrong version. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen. Glad it is cleared up. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of personality[edit]

My sincere apology, I did indeed misconstrue the nature of your edit. Thanks for correcting me and reverting my edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for saying so. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping's sister[edit]

Hey there! You reverted my edit that Xi's sister was "persecuted to death". I see how it's clumsy language so maybe a paraphrase is in order, but "suicide" is not something there is any documented evidence for, so I thought it's more accurate to avoid that language, no? Hiko (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your pointing out that nuance. I did not realize the existing source did not say "suicide." I am now persuaded support your edit as an improvement. Feel free to revert-my-reversion. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool, maybe I should have mentioned the source-thing in the edit comment. Have a nice evening! Hiko (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thedisinfolab.org[edit]

Thanks for flagging. Discussion started at WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. Seems like a sock puppet situation as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth reporting on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations as well. Amigao (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Grover Furr. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qin Gang Page[edit]

Hello Arthur.

I reverted your edit as you just removed sourced content.

I think that it is important to stress Qin Gang's disappearance in the frontal 1st paragraph since most users focus on it.  144.172.12.14 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP - this is the same issue as your previous efforts.
The actual information is already in the lead. You would like to include information about “disappearing” from public view. We should avoid this sort of figurative language as it is not encyclopedic in tone. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea[edit]

It appears there is another editor trying to make unilateral changes to the infobox without reading through or participating in the discussion about it or getting a consensus. Personally, I want to move on, but I thought I would let you know in case you're not watching the article. Sagflaps (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chunfeng Lin affiliation[edit]

From what I can find (just an Amazon description for his latest book that you cited) he is "Associate Professor of Communication at East China Normal University, China". I can gather based on a google search that he did his PhD at University of Illinois, but can't find any more information so far on current affiliation - can you share what you have found? Superb Owl (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar - https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gAfH2nkAAAAJ&hl=en. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chunfeng/ - he has been, according to his LinkedIn, a professor since 2019 at a Chinese university. My understanding is that Wikipedia does not consider academic works on topics like politics in countries that do not have academic freedom to be reliable sources. Superb Owl (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No such rule exists, no. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be thinking of when I read the guidance around China Daily (below). I will start a discussion page to this effect unless you can point to some other rationale for that citation being enough to support the claim:
"China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attributionand inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily." Superb Owl (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith[edit]

@JArthur1984, wanted to note the specific edit for the record where you made assumptions about my motivations for flagging a potentially poor source in an article. The academic had in fact been employed by and based in China since 2019, not Illinois. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. Superb Owl (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984, it seems that you have continued to assume bad faith in the talk page of Xuanchuan Superb Owl (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to engage with you on discrete issues of content, or sourcing, but I must ask that you please not post here or tag me unnecessarily. Thank you for respecting this. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea has an RfC[edit]

North Korea has an RfC for the government type infobox. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sagflaps (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol[edit]

Hello JArthur1984!

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your timely and helpful edits on the lead section of Cultural Revolution, thank you so much! Zinderboff(talk) 13:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, thank you for raising the issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem[edit]

Ad hominem: "This sort of guff" YOUR LANGUAGE REGARDLESS OF WPFORUM 45.58.95.7 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC) The Community[reply] 

   Build consensus • 
   Assume good faith • Etiquette
   No personal attacks

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.95.7 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

仓星[edit]

The Chinese Barnstar
I'm very lucky that I can contribute and learn while surrounded by editors like you. Thank you so much for your work on China-related topics, it's a real inspiration for me.
Thank you for your kind words. I likewise appreciate and learn from your efforts. It has been a pleasure to see the quality of China-related topics improve over the last few years.


Some self-notes for citations[edit]

[1]


[2]

[3]

[4]

JArthur1984 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Crean, Jeffrey (2024). The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History. New Approaches to International History series. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-350-23394-2.
  2. ^ Qian, Ying (2024). Revolutionary Becomings: Documentary Media in Twentieth-Century China. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231204477.
  3. ^ Cheng, Wendy (2023). Island X: Taiwanese Student Migrants, Campus Spies, and Cold War Activism. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. ISBN 9780295752051.
  4. ^ Tsang, Steve; Cheung, Olivia (2024). The Political Thought of Xi Jinping. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780197689363.

The Grayzone[edit]

Hello, nice to meet you. You made some solid edits to this article recently. I think, and have thought for a long time, that this article is horrible. It was even highlighted and mocked by Glenn Greenwald as a particularly egregious example of propaganda and pro-Western chauvinism on Wikipedia.

I just wanted to tip my hat to you for trying to gently bring the article in a more reasonable, encyclopedic direction. Based on your talk page, it looks like we have quite a few interests in common. Perhaps, if there are other politics & media-related articles you are working on, I can help out. Cheers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad you thought these modest changes were useful.
Overall, I find the WP:GLOBAL essay to be important. This being the English language side, there is a tendency towards circular sourcing based on the Anglophone sources. And since editors primarily rely on web sources, there is often excessive use of the popular press. Of course these can be useful sources too, but Wikipedia is not meant to be the news or written like the news. I recommend engaging with academic book length treatments and academic sources.
I am often to be found editing articles on the politics and history of China, and the foreign relations of China. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on The Grayzone[edit]

Hi JArthur1984, at 20:16, 12 March 2024, you removed the image File:The Grayzone as of 11 September 2021.png from the article The Grayzone. After I reinstated the image at 04:11, 13 March 2024, you edit warred to remove the image again on 13:41, 13 March 2024. As you are aware, The Grayzone is covered under three contentious topics for which you have previously been alerted. See below for the standard edit warring warning. — Newslinger talk 14:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Grayzone. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 14:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More