User:Madalibi - In the future, please do not move articles that have other contributors on them without first posting a Request for move section on the article's Talk Page. It is not the prerogative of individual users to move articles without giving other users the opportunity to contest the move or suggest alternatives. Whether or not you agree or disagree with them is irrelevant - Wikipedia operates on consensus. In this particular case, you've lucked out, as the move is reasonable. I personally would have liked to have had a heads-up and opportunity to comment prior to the move.

Feel free to research this policy more or share your concerns. Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  11:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi White whirlwind. Thank you for your message, and I'm sorry for not leaving a message either here or on the article talk page before proceeding. I went ahead because it is a straightforward rule of pinyin to put compound words together, so I thought the move would be uncontroversial. As you will see at Talk:Pure blood theory in Korea (particularly this edit), I usually go out of my way to justify a move when I think it might be controversial. So I don't think I'm a rash editor who just "lucked out" in this case. Anyway I'm glad you agreed with my conclusion despite my haste. Sorry again, and keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow - those are some of the longest "edits" I've ever seen. That's impressive.

Glad you got the message. Thanks for spotting the "error" in the title - please add to the article if you've got some good sources on it! Hope to work with you in the future.  White Whirlwind  咨  12:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, those edits took a while to write! And the problem is not even solved, so there's still work to do. I just added a bit of info to the Taiping Huanyu Ji from a book I own. I also see that Taiping huanyu ji is mentioned many times in this Google Books search. I have too much on my hands right now to go through everything, but maybe you can use some of these sources to develop the article. Finally, would you agree to changing "Tai Ping Huan Yu Ji" to "Taiping Huanyu Ji" throughout the article? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work. And, yes, if an article gets moved (i.e. its name gets changed) then certainly we would want to change all references in the article itself to match.  White Whirlwind  咨  13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi: We worked on the Boxer... er, thing. Thanks for the tip on the Bowra book, which is listed on my draft of the Bowra article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra, and is actually about this Bowra's sons. It was was fascinating family. Actually, my main interest is Dream of the Red Chamber. CA Bowra did an early translation, but I didn't want to clutter that page with his bio information. So I started a stub article, which the administrator disallowed, not unreasonably. BTW, are you a member of AAS? I'm thinking that there might be some sort of Wikipedia session in Toronto to recruit and Wikify new editors. I floated the idea on the general Wikipedia talk page and one of the administrators said she thought it was a great idea. What do you think? ch (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi, I am EJcarter, a student who is interested in the history of Asia. I observed several wiki pages (listed below) on ancient Korean history, content of which are very different from the western textbooks and what I have learned in the class. I have started to discuss and edit the pages and really hope you could participate the discussion and improve the articles' neutrality and reliability if you are interested. Below are three wiki pages I mentioned:

History of Korea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Korea

Old Choson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojoseon

Timeline of Korean history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Korean_history EJcarter (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the situation with Huaqing Pool. Usually, I plan out articles, and avoid being jumped on by faster-than-the-speed-of-light bots. It just seemed that with a en.Wictionary and a WikiCommons category, I might as well do a quick Wikipedia article.... Anyway, thank you, Dcattell (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all. I don't think bots were the problem, here. It's just that some people at New pages patrol zap new pages a little too quickly! Despite their good intentions, they tend to shoot down salvageable pages along with all the rubbish that lands on Wikipedia everyday. Anyway, the fix was quick and painless, so keep up the good work! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi, I have always admired your work on both the Ming and the Qing dynasties, so I venture to ask: would you be interested in helping me write an ambitious article covering the whole history of the Great Wall of China? (as the Wall plays a big role in the fall of Ming, both militarily and economically) I have a draft up in User:Deadkid dk/History of the Great Wall of China, and while I have made some progress, I have come to realize that I will not have the time and resources to complete this endeavour within a reasonable amount of time (years) - especially when real life commitments started to take its toll on my personal research time. I'd hate to abandon the draft, and the topic is one that the English Wikipedia sorely needs. So if you have time to spare, I'd be glad if someone as knowledgeable as you would be willing to help out :) _dk (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi dk. I'm very sorry for not replying any sooner. As you can see from My contributions, I haven't been on Wikipedia in 5 months, and so I missed your message. Your sandbox is very impressive! You obviously put a lot of time and thought into it. I agree it would be too bad to keep it in user space for years before the readers of Wikipedia can benefit from your research. I plan to stay very busy in real life in the next few months, so I doubt I'll be able to help much, but don't hesitate to contact me if you have specific questions and I'll try to answer as best as I can. (I plan to check my messages everyday from now on, so I won't miss any more messages.) If I may offer some advice, maybe you could write the missing sections very briefly (one paragraph each if necessary) and go prime time right away? You can even leave a few sections blank. Once the page is up in public view, you can keep building it with help from other editors. (I should think of applying my own advice to my own sandboxes...) Anyway, sorry again for taking so long to reply, and keep up that impressive work on the Great Wall! Hoping to see that page on Wikipedia soon. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, and thank you for you advice! There are a few sections that aren't as important to the history of the Great Wall, namely the Tang and Song dynasties, maybe I should cut them loose for now. Cheerios. _dk (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I would say the most important unwritten section at this point is the one on the Ming, because that's when the wall became strategically important again, first as a platform for active expansionist policies toward Mongolia, then as a more passive barrier. If you can write a draft of that section, the page should be a fine work in progress to add to main space. Best, Madalibi (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question, wise sir. Are there any sources, in addition to the ones that I have listed in my sandbox's reference section, that you think would be helpful or insightful to the topic I'm pursuing? Much appreciations. _dk (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi dk. I'm leaving for a short trip tomorrow morning and will be back on Wednesday evening. I'll think about your question while I'm on the road. There's nothing obviously missing for a general article on the Great Wall, but the Cambridge History of China volume on the Ming dynasty (Part One) has a lot of information on the Great Wall under different emperors. That would be a great supplement for the Ming section. I'll try to get back to you with more suggestions in a few days! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, have a nice trip! _dk (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again! I think I found an article that might interest you: Nicholas Tackett, "The Great Wall and Conceptualizations of the Border Under the Northern Song," Journal of Sung-Yuan Studies, vol. 38 (2008): 101-39. It might be a good addition to your work in progress. I hope you can find it! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I suddenly realize that I never got back to you after my mid-May message... Sorry about that. I talked to a friend of mine who studies the Qing frontiers, but he couldn't think of any good reference on the Great Wall during that period. He said there might be studies on techniques of construction and recent excavations of ancient sections of the Wall, but he doesn't know the exact references. But at least there's that article on the Song, so that's at least one new thing to report about! Sorry I couldn't find more. Bye! Madalibi (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I found the Tackett article and will get around to read it soon. Cheers! _dk (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, that means you have better library access than I do! Have fun! Madalibi (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi! Sorry for reviving a thread from almost two years ago, but I'm almost done with my draft of my History of the Great Wall article! (It took years as I predicted) Take a look if you have time! I don't know if this is ready to be put onto mainspace yet, since I'm missing the sections about the Mongol invasions and the Great Wall+Liaodong Wall's roles in the fall of Ming. I'm having trouble finding sources that talk about them. For instance, for the Ming part, I know that the Manchus made raids into China several times before Wu Sangui let them through Shanhai Pass in 1644, and I also know that Li Zicheng's army took him beyond the inner Ming Wall to Datong and back in through Juyong Pass; however, I couldn't find a detailed discussion of them (I've read the end of Ming chapters in both the Cambridge history and Mote's Imperial China), do you know where I can read more about them? Thanks for your help! _dk (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, this is huge! :-) Hi, dk, and sorry for once again being a bit slow in responding. I think I finally found something for you, something I should have thought of a long time ago, but better late than never! It's Frederic Wakeman's Great Enterprise (1985), in two volumes. The huge index has 40 entries under "Great Wall", so you'll get plenty of references about late-Ming defenses and Manchu raids. Peter Perdue (China Marches West) also has a few tidbits, including a claim (on pp. 42-43) that "Only after the mid-Qing, when the wall became militarily irrelevant, did it acquire effective symbolic value as a cultural marker among both Chinese and Westerners." Perdue also made me aware of two more articles by Arthur Waldron that may be helpful: "Representing China: The Great Wall and Cultural Nationalism in the Twentieth Century" (in Cultural Nationalism in East Asia: Representation and Identity [1993], pp. 36-60) and "Scholarship and Patriotic Education: The Great Wall Conference" (China Quarterly 143 [1995]: 844-850). They were published after his book, so this is probably new content.

Otherwise, believe me, your article is more than ready for main space! There are no empty sections, and at 72 kB of readable prose, it's already above the recommended limit for a split (see WP:SIZERULE within WP:LENGTH). As you keep improving on it, I suggest you move it to main space where everyone can see it. That way you can start to get more feedback. One good way of attracting attention is to link it in several key articles and to leave the name of the new link in the edit summary as well. I'm pretty overwhelmed with commitments right now, but I'll try to take a closer look at it eventually. Meanwhile keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind words! I have taken your advice and moved the whole thing to History of the Great Wall of China and had a few obvious articles link to it. I will have to come back to finish the sections about the Mongol and Manchu invasions, then look at the new sources you mentioned (Funny that I also came across Great Enterprise shortly after I asked though, ha). Thanks again and good luck with your current endeavours! :D _dk (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi! The history section of the acupuncture article is a mess - could I bother you to glance over it and streamline it a little? Will probably only take you 5 minutes. Cheers! --Mallexikon (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I had a second look and found it less complex than expected. Was able to do it myself. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mallexicon. Nice to hear from you. As I said to dk above, I just took a long break from the Wiki and I'm only seeing your message now. Sorry for not responding when you needed my help. I'm glad you were able to solve the issue quickly. I will take a look at the page you mention if I have time, but I have four conferences to attend in the next month and a half, so I doubt I'll have much time! Sorry again for not seeing your message any faster! All best, Madalibi (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No prob. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Madalibi, whilst it's nice that you added extra information to the article about the Yellow Emperor in November, your method was somewhat of a nuisance and you broke the rules. Instead of making a complete mess of the log by making hundreds of small changes, you could have introduced your changes all at once by saving it in the sandbox until you had finished. You could have even done it in larger chunks and thus made one entry in the log each day instead of 10 or so. You also broke the WP:ERA rule by writing "BCE" repeatedly instead of "BC", which is what the rest of the article had been using since its creation years ago. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hi WP Editor 2011. Sorry for not replying any sooner. I make small, incremental edits because I like to explain every single change I make to a page. I do that out of respect for other editors who may wonder why I added a particular piece of text or why I modified or deleted text that they may have written. Putting up entire paragraphs makes that impossible. Maybe you think this habit is a "nuisance" because you wanted to find out who inserted so many "BCE"s into the page, and to do that you had to sift through the whole page history. That was not necessary. The next time you have valid reason to disagree with BCE or BC on a page, just change it back to the version you think is right. Editors who disagree will then come out to discuss your change. Also, I think the best way to decide on BC/BCE is to establish a consensus on proper usage for each page, but I'm too busy for that right now, so let's just go with BC! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got to Shunzhi Emperor via Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese history, which is linked to in the talk page of Liao Dynasty, the article I've been working on lately.

I wanted to stop on by and say that your work is amazing. I've got a page up at User:Sven Manguard/Chinese Dynastic Period Article Improvement Project where I'm tracking the 'major' or 'core' articles, and the Qing Dynasty is in rather sore shape all around. I don't have nearly the supply of sources that you do (I've got access to a University library, JSTOR, and a strong undergraduate studies background in Chinese history) but I'm willing to chip in with what I've got if you're taking on another article in the near future. Let me know.

In the mean time, I'll be doing your GA review. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The initial GA review is done. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your detailed and efficient review of Shunzhi Emperor, and for your generous assessment of my work. As you can see on my user page, I tend to work on Qing topics, but I also do Chinese medical history and, occasionally, Korean history. All my work in progress is listed, so you're welcome to browse around. And you can always see what I've been working on lately by checking my contributions. Finally, don't hesitate to let me know if you need references for particular points in the articles you're working on. Thank you again for your help! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats! Keep the momentum going by bringing it to WP:FAC. I'm no expert, but I think it has a solid chance there. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you again, Sven, for taking so much time to review the article. The problems that you raised and that we solved will make an eventual FA review that much easier! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drop me a talk page message when it goes to FAC. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, I will! Right now I'm adding a few paragraphs that are missing for the article to be considered complete, then I'll submit it for FA. Thanks again! Madalibi (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi! Any 2 cents regarding this discussion? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm currently busy in my non online life, and I apologize for not responding to you faster. That's amazing that you're helping out with improving the articles on the Qing Dynasty. I noticed that "ijishūn dasan hūwangdi" is given as his title in Manchu, however "ijishūn dasan" is the Manchu transcription of the era name of the Shunzhi emperor, if I'm not mistaken he might of been referred in Manchu as "šidzu eldembure hūwangdi", please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the image of the era name, here you go,

Abstrakt (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much, Abstrakt, this is very helpful! I sometimes take entire months off, so don't worry for taking a few days to respond. And yes you're right, the Shunzhi Emperor is referred to as "šidzu eldembure hūwangdi" in Manchu documents written after his death, just like he is named Shizu 世祖 in equivalent Chinese documents. These are the emperor's temple names. But I've seen a few Shunzhi-era documents in Manchu, and the date is marked as "ijishūn dasan, Xth year, Xth month, etc." Since the Wiki conventionally use era names to refer to Ming and Qing emperors, "ijishūn dasan" should be good. I also find that form more interesting than "šidzu eldembure hūwangdi," which after all is a transcription from the Chinese ("šidzu" = Shizu 世祖) followed by a generic title that applies to all Manchu emperors. Thank you again for the help! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, if I'm not mistaken, "šidzu eldembure hūwangdi" is a combination of the temple and posthumous name in Manchu with "šidzu" = Manchu transcription of 世祖 and "eldembure" = posthumous name in Manchu. I did notice that the "temple + posthumous name" is given as the Manchu name of the emperors on the Chinese version of Wikipedia. Abstrakt (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. The posthumous "šidzu eldembure hūwangdi" is the exact equivalent of "Shizu Zhang huangdi" 世祖章皇帝 in Chinese. My mistake! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please find replies there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Expert Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to China-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!--Tomcat (7) 15:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just came back from two days off and this is a great surprise, thank you! My main goal in editing Wikipedia is to build content that will last. I'll continue doing that in the future, hoping that WP will keep improving as a reputable source of information on Chinese history. Cheers and thank you again! Madalibi (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi --

Snooping around, I came across your Boxer Chronology. Do you have plans to develop it? Isn't there a Wiki category for Chronologies and Timelines? There is a lot of controversy over at the Boxer Upbellion article, and it would be useful to have a straightforward chronology someplace. Any ideas? Would you mind if I messed around with your chronology? Not in the immediate future, but something to put on the 2Do list. BTW, Congrats on the "Expert" designation! ch (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CH. You're right about the chronology. I should have finished it long ago, but I took a long Wikibreak and then moved on to other projects. It's not far from ready, actually. Adjusting the footnotes and rephrasing direct citations shouldn't take too much time. Finding all the dates relevant to the Boxer Moverising would take longer. We would also need some kind of lede, preferably short in order to avoid a content fork with the main article. I could convert the references into usable footnotes sometime next week (after Dec. 10), but I'm far too busy in real life to do more than that. That means it would be great if you could put the more time-consuming tasks––lede and new entries––on your 2do list, or let me know of any good idea you may have about how to develop this page. And thank you about the "Expert" thing. It's always good to have one's work recognized! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to see the progress on the Boxer Chronology! You provide a useful model, one that we should replicate for other topics. There are some China chronologies scattered around, e.g. Chronology of Events Preceding World War II in Asia, but there seems to be a distinction between Chronologies and Timelines, though a quick search does not turn up what it might be.

The article List of timelines led me to Timeline of Chinese history, which is somewhat inconsistent in what it lists. WP:TIMEL gives technical tips, but not guidance as to substance. There is a category "Chronologies of Chinese history," but it only lists four of them (I added the WWII in Asia chronology).

This doesn't solve the question of how to proceed, though this is the normal Wikipedia situation, I guess, and not to be worried about. Should there be a chronology for the Qing Dynasty linked to the Qing section of Timeline of Chinese History? How detailed? But I don't know how or where to raise the question. I guess the China Project page would make sense, but realistically probably more as a notification than to recruit.

None of this takes away from the Boxer Chronology; it just goes to show that a single chronology can start a prairie fire. ch (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CH. Good points, all of these! I had never reflected on timelines before. Some quick research tells me that timelines are classified as lists. Timeline of Jane Austen, for example, is a featured list. So are the wonderful Timeline of the far future and Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, which I'm delighted to know exists. Each adopts a different format, from sophisticated tables to simple bullet points, so we probably don't need to worry about strict guidelines. It seems that only timelines about decades (1640s, 1790s) and years (1111, 1234, 1999) have to abide by Wikipedia:Timeline standards.

Some "chronologies" look exactly like lists (Chronology of world oil market events (1970–2005)), but others (Chronology of the ancient Near East; Chronology of Jesus) do not. The fact that there is no featured list with "chronology" in its title probably means I should retitle my sandbox "Timeline of the Boxer uprising."

For Chinese history, I think there's room for several kinds of timelines, with varying degrees of detail. Apart from chronologies of complex events like the Boxer movement or the Sino-Japanese War, the most detailed timelines should be for individual reigns. My most developed work in progress in this vein is User:Madalibi/Chronology of the Shunzhi reign and, to a lesser extent, User:Madalibi/Chronology of Nurhaci's reign. Only the most significant events from these reign-by-reign timelines should be kept for a Timeline of Qing history, in which each section should link to these more detailed timelines as "main articles" (as in User:Madalibi/Chronology of the Qing Dynasty, which is only an outline). Each dynasty should eventually have its own timeline, which would be referred to in an even more general Timeline of Chinese history.

Finally, when I compile these lists I use the present tense, describe a datable event, and explain that event's historical significance (as characterized by reliable sources, of course). That creates a different kind of reading experience, one that I think justifies having timelines side-by-side with regular articles. I'm eager to know what you think of the above. Thanks for pushing me to think further! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I comment on this matter here to you because I think the Boxer Chronology is an excellent model for what you call a "chronology of a complex event." I agree with your thoughts on the levels of -- should we call them Timelines? -- and how they should stack. This would be much like the existing structure of articles, which you rightly warned should avoid Forking.

I wish I could find the Wikipedia guideline I vaguely remember, for it seems to me that there is an existing Timeline/ Chronology distinction and thoughts on format (beyond those for the Timelines), though they may or may not be "policy." For instance, I remember that it mentioned your point that the verbs should be in the present tense, which I think is the general (though counter-intuitive) practice in the outside world. I'm also not sure what the policy on notes and references is or should be. There are none on the Events Leading to WWII in Asia. Or whether the organization must follow the organization of the article it describes.

The thing to do, then, is to forge ahead with individual chronologies. I have a chronology of WWII in Asia which I prepared for students as a handout. I will notify the Wiki Project China that I am doing so, and you can comment or not, as you please. ch (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick message before getting back to real work. I just spent about 20 minutes looking for the guidelines you mention, but I couldn't find anything. I did find, however, that "Category:Chronology" treats "chronology" as a broader concept than "timeline." Also, judging from the featured lists titled "Timeline of..." that I mentioned above, I think timelines should be as well-referenced as any other page, even if special pages concerning days (e.g., January 17, October 25) always lack references. Of course it's better to have a good-but-unreferenced timeline than nothing at all, but it would sound strange to abandon WP:V and WP:RS just because of the timeline format. Anyway I agree that we should simply forge ahead. I have WP China on my watchlist, so I should be able to comment soon after you post there. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick addendum: The Timelines I see in Category:Chronology and Category:Timelines mostly do not have footnotes, which I think is a good policy. I think that a good policy would be to indicate in one or two notes the general sources, which anyone can then check. (In theory, the Chronology is documented in the article.) Otherwise the page gets terribly cluttered without giving the reader any value added. I can understand having notes for every line in your draft of the Boxer Chronology, but I would urge you to take them out or consolidate them in the final version. OK, maybe I'm bringing this up because I got reverted when I cut one of two identical notes which decorated successive clauses in the same sentence. But the purpose of the footnote is to let a reader verify the source, which can be cleanly accomplished with a minimum of notes. Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the advice. All I've done to my draft so far is turn textual references into real footnotes. But the text of many entries is still too long, and the notes too cumbersome. I agree that the notes should be consolidated. I will do that after I work the text into a more usable form. I plan to put all references into a single footnote at the end of each entry. What do you think?

On the general issue of references: when you try to edit a page about a decade (1730s) or a year, a "PLEASE READ" note comes out saying that the consensual page format shouldn't be modified without discussion. Such pages contain no references whatsoever, so the absence of footnotes must be part of the consensus. But I don't think "no references" is an option in our case. We can't assume that all dates will be documented in the main article, and every deletion of erroneous material could possibly lead to an edit war, since all material would be unsourced anyway.

I think we should follow best practice, here, as represented by "timelines" that the Wikipedia community has recognized as "featured lists." All the featured timelines are fully referenced, but their entries are short and they only have one footnote per entry. Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814, which is about another complex event, is a relevant example. On visual format, perhaps we could do the Boxer timeline as a table that splits events according to where they took place, maybe three columns on Shandong, Beijing, and the rest of China? Let me know what you think! Best, Madalibi (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi! Inspired by your sandbox, I recently created Korean nationalist historiography. I would love if you looked at it and offered some suggestions for strengthening and improvement, since I anticipate at least some of the same blanking and disruption issues that plagued Korean ethnic nationalism. Shrigley (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shrigley! Thanks for creating this! This is very impressive work about a difficult topic. This page explains Korean conceptions of history to both readers and editors, which is great. (We also need equivalents for China and Japan, but that's a different story.) Here are a few suggestions and comments that might help to develop it. As usual I try to aim for the highest standards right away, so I'll try to emphasize the points that need work instead of the strengths, which are many.

TITLE:

• I think this is the best possible title, as we find this appellation in all kinds of scholarly studies. I've added a redirect from Nationalist historiography in Korea. There should be no controversy here.

KOREAN NAME?

• I've found two possible Korean equivalents for the notion of KNH. The first one is pretty obvious: minjok sahak (民族史學), which means "minjok [racial/national] historiography." I'm not sure it should be mentioned, but I'm putting it here for consultation. The other one is more recent: juche lon (主體論; "self-reliance theory"), which is based on the notion of juche proposed by the beloved Great Leader and Eternal President of the Republic Kim Il-sung. Jager 2003 (p. 59) claims that a "new nationalist historiography" (which she calls chuch'eron) emerged after the violent suppression of the Gwangju Democratization Movement in South Korea in 1980. This suggests that there are many intellectual motivations behind KNH, and that we should probably tease them out more clearly.

LEAD:

• What exactly are "the purposes of Korean nationalism"? This concept is probably too vague to serve in a definition.
• Needs clarification: who "lamented the weakness of Korea in world affairs"? Was it just Shin Chaeho or the other two as well?
• "Effete" is a citation from Jager's book (footnote 7). Maybe we could find a better way to express the same idea without a quotation mark (in the lead, I mean).
• Is "chosen people" (cited from Pai's book) representative enough of KNH to be cited in the lead? (Just asking.)
• The Korean minjok is the central concept of Korean nationalist historiography, so it should probably be mentioned in the lead.
• Verb tenses: most of the lead is written in the past tense, until we hear that these views "have increasingly come into the mainstream." We should probably clarify what parts of KNH were prominent in the early 20th century (under Japanese rule), in the immediate post-war years, and now. Jager's claim that a new KNH emerged after 1980 deserves consideration.

PEOPLE:

• I've seen many studies saying that Shin Chaeho was the founder of Korean nationalist historiography because he was the first to center Korean history around the concept of minjok (race-nation). Are the earlier (Joseon) people cited in this section just precursors of Shin, or already full-fledged representatives of KNH? Should we start with Shin first and then explain who were his inspirations?
• This section could also be renamed "Emergence" or "Origins," because it focuses on precursors and advocates of KNH. The intellectual context of Japanese colonial occupation could be described more fully.

NEUTRALITY: there are a few subtle issues that need to be resolved before this article can be considered neutral (NPOV).

• Almost two thirds of the references (26 out the 43, counting footnotes that appear several times in the text) are to Hyung-Il Pai's book on Korean archeology. That's probably too much, since her book is written in a very critical and debunking tone that is not fully representative of the way English-speaking scholars discuss Korean nationalist historiography. Her book is clearly a reliable source (and I must admit I like it a lot!), but we should be careful not to give it undue weight. For example, the "Ethnic homogeneity and pure blood" section sounds pretty scathing. That's probably because all of the info and judgments (except for one footnote) come from Pai's book. (This is speaking as a WP editor. As a practicing historian, I also resent distorting the past in the name of modern nationalist conceptions, be they Chinese, French, or Zulu.)
• A few turns of phrase might appear too emphatic, for example "completely mythological" when "mythological" would do the job. Be careful when you use "despite": you might sound like you're setting up a point. I'm also thinking of the sentence: "The well-documented existence of the Four Commanderies of Han by which China's Han Dynasty administered the Korean peninsula has caused consternation to Korean nationalist historians." "Well-documented" may not be necessary, and I'm not sure "consternation" is the right word. Also it's inaccurate to say that the Han dynasty administered "the Korean peninsula" with these Four Commanderies. Some of these commanderies were in Liaodong, and Lelang was in the northern part of the Korean peninsula.

STRUCTURE:

• I like the current structure, but I wish "Themes" and "Methods" could be distinguished more clearly. The crucial focus on Manchuria could be explained in more detail, once again in connection with the Korean minjok.

MISSING:

• The functions of KNH in postwar Korea. KNH is not only about distinguishing the Korean people from other peoples like the Chinese and the Japanese. It can be used politically inside Korea, for example to discuss re-unification, or the form of government that best suits the needs of the Korean people.

All right, these are just a few comments. The page is a great start, but this topic is huge, so it deserves to be developed and strengthened. I will try to help with that when I have time. For now I'm putting it on my watchlist. I don't think there will be too much disruption, but if you want the most peaceful experience I suggest you iron out the few non-neutral points that I mention above! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will defer to your judgement. The stench is still there, wreaking of bad faith edits against Korea, but the touchstone of which is to bring light to the unfortunate circumstances of nationalistic bigotry in East Asia, should not be stenched by a bad precedent of disruptive editing. Our mutual effort as that which is the precedent of articles to come, it means they should respect various Wikipedia policies, particularly NPOV and SYNTH. I will tolerate Shrigley's behavior for the time being, and I will tolerate five days of it. I sincerely commend your efforts to present yourself as a neutral party, and your skill at it is very good I might add. Nonetheless, KNH reflects your efforts, and I shall add that it is in much need of work for NPOV and SYNTH. I will take my hands off on the article for five days, and see how it turns out. I wonder how stuff might turn up, such as the Korean nationalist historiography on Dokdo(hint: it's Tsushima, not Takeshima). Meanwhile I will alert some Korean editors who are well acknowledged in the topic to attention. Without opposition from you, I will take this action as to bring more relevant attention and expertise to the topic. I know these editors to be constructive editors on Korean topics, and the only thing that they need is some alert for attention. For the spirit of long-term improvement of the KNH, cheers. Happy Holidays. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editors I had in mind where User:Historiographer, User:HKwon and User:Nlu. The two former editors, from my experience with them, are quite acknowledged in Korean history and culture. User:Nlu, as I remember it, is the amazing administrator who brought Goguryeo and Balhae to, uh, a state of relative peace. KNH, like Goguryeo and Balhae, has become another front for Korea vs China nationalistic controversy, and it is important that editors make this article a GREAT ONE!!(to take Malibi's charming attitude, no sarcasm). With the holidays, it seems a lot of these people are away, but anyways I'll bring in as much Korean editors to the article who can contribute without NPOV or SYNTH. In any case, again, I'll give the article five days. You have a publication deadline, and I have incoming books on the subject, so I think taking some time to cool off a good idea. :) Cydevil38 (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're the top editor at "Goguryeo", where most of your edits have been reverts like this, to label it a "Korean kingdom" in the first sentence to the exclusion of all other perspectives. If we've learned anything from the KNH sources, it's that nearly all the reliable sources that critically consider the question of whether Goguryeo can be considered "Korean" conclude that such a label is misleading and anachronistic. I recall Nlu writing that he gave up trying to fix the Goguryeo lead to something neutral, because he was exasperated from all the edit-warring to impose a singular Korean nationalist point of view. Historiographer was recently blocked for three months for the same type edit-warring, and he's been known to tag-team with Kuebie, an editor whose indefinite block for the same you appealed, on the merits of "those guys were bad too". Therefore, I don't have confidence in your proposal. In fact, I'm seriously discouraged and pessimistic about the prospect of your turning this article into another "Goguryeo", which although you probably like it, completely fails to meet Wikipedia's content policies and will never receive any sort of recognition. Shrigley (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's true that the ***last*** thing we need is for KNH to become "another front for Korea vs China nationalistic controversy"! So Cydevil38 got a little too excited with that sentence. Right, Cydevil? :) But Shrigley: Cydevil38 has agreed to take a few days off from the page and not to reinsert the tags for a while. This is a gesture of good will. I suggest we use this time to keep improving the page. Nlu's presence on the page will be a new guarantee that editing will not devolve into something bad. I really have to go, so this is a bad time, but I'll be back later tonight. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your efforts in trying to reconcile us. Your comments especially about what's missing are very useful, since the main concern for me with such a topic is not making it comprehensive enough (which is connected to due weight issues). Right now I'm reading Robinson, Michael (1982–1983), "Ideological Schism in the Korean Nationalist Movement, 1920-1930: Cultural Nationalism and the Radical Critique", Journal of Korean Studies: 241–268 ((citation)): Text "volume-4" ignored (help)CS1 maint: date format (link), which deals with the fact (alluded to in some of the other sources which talked about Shin's later anarchism, or South Korean dictatorships' censorship of the era's history) that socialist and communist thought became really popular during the 1930s, with the minjung replacing the minjok. But for various reasons of relevance and the anti-SYN witchhunt, probably not a lot of information from there will make it into the article. I'll try to make good use of this grace period. Shrigley (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, then! Minjung seems to be an important theme both before and after the war. As long as our RS connect it to historiography, I see no problem about including it. And I didn't know about Robinson's article, so thanks for pointing it out to me! Cydevil also made some good suggestions about content (the "national spirit" 國魂, Pan-Asianism, international communism). Other clues to pursue would be the cult of heroes (important for earlier KNH), as well as invasions and migrations. Anyway I hope you make the best of the next five days to take the article to an even higher level! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In practical terms, I'm done for the five-day period. I can't visit a library to consult the book sources because they are closed for the holiday. Also, the aggression (not only at KNH but with some JN editors on a separate article) has caused me to lose interest in Wikipedia for a while. I might revisit the article later, once I regain access. Shrigley (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shrigley. I'm sorry to hear that. While you rest, I will try to edit the article, starting with the introductory paragraphs to each section. I'm the slow-and-prudent type, but I will make sure that everything is worded in such a way that your new article becomes a model of balanced information which, I hope, will open a new era of collaboration and mutual good will between so-called "Chinese editors" and Korean ones. :) Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you move User:Madalibi/Fangmatan to the main space as there are several articles that mention Fangmatan, and it would be very useful to have an article on it. BabelStone (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! Thanks for reminding me of this one. I wanted to create it after Shuanggudui, but then I moved on to other things and forgot. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! BabelStone (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see that Shunzhi Emperor is now a Featured Article. Keep up the good work! Sven Manguard Wha? 17:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Sven! The whole process took a while, but I learned a lot of new skills in the process. Glad to see you back, and thanks for your help! Madalibi (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a heated controversy over the two names[1]. I believe the general consensus resulting from the controversy was to use Manchuria in historical contexts, and use Northeast China for non-historical contexts. I think keeping this strict conceptual boundary is helpful to averting needless antagonism. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malalibi, with your permission, I'd like to copy over your sandbox to my own and start working on it, particularly on the section of "Important Issues". Cydevil38 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cydevil38. I just took a long break from WP and just got back to it yesterday. I appreciate your continued effort to develop Korean nationalist historiography. I've also been working (on and off) on the chronological section in my sandbox. I've been trying to reshuffle the prose without removing information. My new section on Japanese colonial scholarship contains material I removed from the chronology, where it interrupted the flow of the narrative. I'll try to consolidate it in the next few days, then you're welcome to work on it! Madalibi (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malaibi, how's your work going on Korean nationalist historiography? If you think you've done the important parts, I'm hoping to start working on NPOV evaluations of Korean nationalist historiography based on your sandbox. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Shunzhi Emperor know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 15, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 15, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Shunzhi Emperor (1638–61) was the third emperor of the Qing dynasty and the first Qing emperor to rule over China, which he did from 1644 to 1661. He was chosen to succeed his father Hong Taiji (1592–1643) by a committee of Manchu princes in September 1643, when he was five years old. Two co-regents were also appointed: Dorgon (1612–50), fourteenth son of Qing founder Nurhaci, and Jirgalang (1599–1655), one of Nurhaci's nephews. Political power lay mostly in the hands of Dorgon. Under his leadership, the Qing conquered most of the territory of the fallen Ming dynasty (1368–1644), chased Ming loyalist regimes deep into the southwestern provinces, and established the basis of Qing rule over China. After Dorgon's death, the young monarch started to rule personally. He tried, with mixed success, to fight corruption and reduce the Manchu nobility's political influence. In the 1650s he faced a resurgence of Ming loyalist resistance, but by 1661 his armies had defeated the Qing's last enemies. He died at the age of 22 of smallpox, against which the Manchus had no immunity. He was succeeded by his third son, Xuanye, who subsequently reigned for sixty years under the name of Kangxi. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qing dynasty
Thank you for quality scientific articles on Chinese culture, medicine, and history, especially the Qing dynasty and its people such as Shunzhi Emperor, its first "emperor to reign over China", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. It's very nice of you to spread the joy like this, and very appreciated. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I remember the feeling when I felt honoured (2010), and miss the one who told me "peace" and took the picture of the sapphire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This story makes this precious sapphire all the more meaningful. And I like "Wer ein Wort des Trostes spricht, ist ein Verräter" and what precedes. Hail the one who made your day, and another warm thank you! Madalibi (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 425th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi M. -- I just put up an article, Official Communications of the Chinese Empire, a subject you know more about than I, so you might want to tweak or develop it. Cheers ch (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I finally got around to Sacred Edict of the Kangxi Emperor, which in your infinite spare time you might want to peruse. ch (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear CH, I'm very sorry for replying to your messages only now. I took several months off Wikipedia because most of my real-work time was turning into spare time that I spent writing here! I will be back once in a while, but I still plan to stay at a distance from these overly addictive activities! In the mean time, thank you for letting me know about your excellent work, which you typically wrote at such a high quality in such a short time. I will try to work on these two articles if I decide to write again in the near future! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for improving The Peach Blossom Fan! One thing I did was adding references to English sources. While Chinese sources are permissible and encouraged, it is often better to make the article as a whole rely on English sources since they are more accessible to English-speaking people.

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually did very little for this article. I slightly improved the prose and translated into English the many Chinese sources cited in the footnotes. But I must thank you for all the *real* and meticulous improvements that you've made to the page in the last few days! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Malidibi, and thank you for your work on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty. I'm working on the Mongol conquests at the moment, but I would be more than happy to work on the Manchu conquests in the future. Right now, I'm putting the finishing touches on Mongol siege of Kaifeng.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 04:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you take a look at this article? It's currently nominated for FA, and I'd appreciate it if you briefly went over it while it's under review.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 07:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that page 511 of Tong 2012 and page 682 of Tao 2009 give different dates for the Battle of Yancheng. Tong says that the date was in 1139, but Tao implies that it was after 1140, when Wuzhu broke the treaty. Could you confirm the date?--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 07:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tao is right! The Battle of Yancheng took place on 21 August 1140. The Song date is 10th year of Shaoxing 紹興, 7th month, yiyou 己酉 day, as confirmed in the Songshi (chapter 29, p. 546 of the Zhonghua shuju edition) and converted on this website. Hope this helps! Madalibi (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been working on verifying the Coblin 2002 date for Hangzhou: The Southern Court settled in Hangzhou in 1129... this place was formally declared the new capital in 1132. Like you surmised, Coblin had his dates wrong. The Song began building the imperial ancestral temple in Hangzhou in 1133, not 1132, and it was not formally declared the capital of the Song. I will remove the Coblin date from the article. Thank you for noticing the error.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 15:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sven Manguard -- Sven Manguard (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shamanism in the Qing dynasty you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sven Manguard -- Sven Manguard (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry, i dont know this rule. can i change to Zaixun, Prince Zhuang?--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shamanism in the Qing dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transgression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your extensive work on Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty, your excellent contributions to articles on Jurchen and Manchu history, and your mastery of the primary sources. Well done!--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been a pleasure working with you.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Khanate General! You have the enviable skill of writing complex articles in a very short time, and you always respond swiftly and constructively to comments, so the pleasure was mine. Congratulations on your first featured article, no doubt the first of many! Not to neglect your featured list Timeline of Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty, of course, but Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty is a higher feat. All the accolades you have received are well deserved, and it's good to have you on board as someone who can add such rich content to articles on lesser-known aspects of Chinese and Inner Asian history. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Mr RD. Madalibi, thanks for creating Chronology of the Shunzhi reign!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hello UserMadalibi, nice work done there on Chronology of the Shunzhi reign. Keep it up.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Mr RD 15:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sven Manguard -- Sven Manguard (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Shamanism in the Qing dynasty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shamanism in the Qing dynasty for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sven Manguard -- Sven Manguard (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 31, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty were a series of wars that took place in the 12th and 13th centuries between the Jurchen Jin Dynasty and the Chinese Song Dynasty. The Jin invaded the Song in 1125 and captured the Song capital of Kaifeng in 1127, causing Emperor Huizong (pictured) to abdicate. The Jin conquered northern China and the Song retreated to southern China, relocating the capital to Hangzhou. A treaty ended the war in 1142 and settled the boundary along the Huai River. Prince Hailing invaded the Song in 1161, but lost at Caishi and was assassinated shortly after. A Song invasion of the Jin motivated by revanchism in 1206–1208 and a Jin invasion of the Song in 1217–1224 were both unsuccessful. The Song allied with the Mongols in 1233, and jointly captured the last refuge of the Jin emperor in 1234, the year the Jin collapsed. The wars between the Song and Jin gave rise to an era of technological, cultural, and demographic changes in China. The Jin adopted the political and cultural institutions of past Chinese dynasties, gunpowder weapons like the fire lance were introduced, and the Song resettled and rebuilt their government in southern China. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Award of the Spahbed Barnstar
	Thank you for your help on the Shahrbaraz article. I appreciate it very much :). Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, HistoryofIran, it was a pleasure working with you on this topic I know so little about! Madalibi (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I replied for some of the issues you raised on the nomination page. Please check and answer to some of my doubts. The remaining issues will be looked into in a day or two. Thanks! Huang (talk ^{in public} _{in private} | contribs) 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi, I replied for each issue addressed for the factually accurate and verifiable part. Please visit Talk:Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei/GA2. Huang (talk ^{in public} _{in private} | contribs) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Madalibi, thank you for your GA reviews. As I mentioned on my talk page, I was far away for some days, so I need some more time to edit the articles. Could you wait till the end of the week before deciding? Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Borsoka! Yes, I saw the notice on your user page, so I was simply waiting for you to return. Take as much time as you need to make the necessary changes, and let me know when you're ready for me to take a look at the articles again. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Please find my comments on Fajsz here. (Interestingly, they were not transcluded.) Borsoka (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please find my comments on Samuel Aba, King of Hungary here. Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left you some comments at Talk:Hanpu. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hanpu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Piotrus -- Piotrus (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind words about my work. Here's my newest article that may be of interest to you: [2]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the coffee, Piotrus! I hope you keep writing on and about Wikipedia. Thanks to people like you, one day there will be a critical mass of people who will make WP not only the most consulted encyclopedia (which it already is), but the most reliable one as well. Then they will say you were a visionary. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia editing so please excuse any formatting issues. I have some notes and questions about some of the edits you recently made on the Boxer Rebellion article. First off, I'm not an academic nor an expert, just have a curiosity about history. The first point I wanted to make was about the removal of the line regarding Japanese prostitutes being present during the conflict. I found this link. http://books.google.com/books?id=iWxKQejMtlMC&pg=PA285&dq=boxer+rebellion+japanese+regimental+wives&hl=en&ei=l0zQTJaJOcWblge92tzmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prostitutes&f=false

This book actually is still cited on the current article just was being split by another citation to another source. The original poster added the info here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=394412667&oldid=394410684

Then added the citation here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=next&oldid=394413052

Back then the citation even had a link to the google books source I posted up top. Somehow over time things got convoluted and links misplaced I suppose. Like I said I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia editing so I haven't said anything on the article talk page, but thought it was relevant info. I don't know if the original wording was ideal but maybe it could be reinstated.

The other thing is more of a question regarding the picture of soldiers in black, some with rifles. I agree that it's highly unlikely that the boxer soldiers would be so well kept but found it funny that so many articles including every boxer rebellion article in different languages including Chinese and Japanese captioned them as boxers. It seems to be well sourced though. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BoxerSoldiers.jpg&action=history

Anyway, it seems you're most active in the English wiki so I was hoping you could help me with these points particularly the first one. Htk411 (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Htk411. Thank you for finding the reference for the claim about Japanese prostitutes! I reinserted it with different wording and with proper attribution. As for the picture, I've also seen claims that these were Boxer soldiers. Maybe I was too hasty in changing the caption... These pictures are difficult to interpret, because a lot of Chinese men (both armed and unarmed) were taken for "Boxers" at the time. We don't know who took that picture and when, so it's difficult to go very far. I would guess these are soldiers from one of the divisions of the Chinese Guards Army who may have joined the Boxers but kept their original equipment and uniform. If you have other comments relevant to the article, don't hesitate to post them to the article talk page! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Will do. Htk411 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I was about to copyedit Wuwei Troop per the tag on the page when it occurred to me that, based on current talk page activity, you might be rewriting/expanding it. Please let me know if it's OK to go ahead with the copyedit. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 09:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Philg88, and thanks for being so considerate! This is one of the pages I want to turn to eventually, but right now I'm concentrating on Boxer Rebellion, so by all means go ahead. If you have time, you could also drop a word at the move request I put on the talk page. All the best, Madalibi (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. Comment on the proposed move to follow. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's an RFC here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Hanpu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hanpu for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Piotrus -- Piotrus (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need a little more time to perfect the article.--Zoupan 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, Zoupan, take your time. Madalibi (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanpu, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hanpu, who came from the Korean peninsula, married a Jurchen woman, and that their descendants, the emperors of the Jin dynasty, conquered all of north China in the 1120s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanpu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

I'd like to thank you for supporting the DYK project. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Sound of hair being pulled out!) Aggghhhh ... See this as a further FYI on the above. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Philg88. Yes, I feel for you. I found all the relevant threads in various talk pages, read edit history, and traced the source cited at the end of the paragraph. I'm just about to open a new section on the article talk page. See you there! Madalibi (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I see that we have two threads there now ... not as bloody as Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 but close ... Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 09:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

真遗憾，你没有配置的电子邮件 :) ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philg88: got one now! Madalibi (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason why I kept on removing the subject paragraph is that it contradicts the whole Philippine claim in the page. The removed paragraph says that Philippines have a newer claim as against the Chinese. As you see, it is stated in the Philippine claim that the Panatag Shoal is included in Washington Treaty in 1900. It also says there that: "The Philippines also claims that as early as the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, Filipino fishermen were already using the area as a traditional fishing ground and shelter during bad weather." Same as with: "In 1957, the Philippine government conducted an oceanographic survey of the area and together with the US Navy force based in then U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay in Zambales, used the area as an impact range for defense purposes. An 8.3 meter high flag pole flying a Philippine flag was raised in 1965. An iron tower that was to serve as a small lighthouse was also built and operated the same year.[30][31] In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights." If we will include the removed paragraph it will only destroy the thought of the whole Philippine claim in that page - it runs contradictory. More so, the basis of the contention of the said paragraph is a statement made by an ambassador(or foreign affairs secretary) which is in contradictory with the other paragraphs stated in Philippine claims section. I suggested that the subject paragraph be move in Chinese claims section because such paragraph jives with their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markxvi (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi, please can you take a look at this? I'd appreciate your input. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Philg88! As you must have seen by now, I have posted my views here. Best, Madalibi (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. Too many instances of this type of thing lately … and never try to use a Nexus 7 to edit Wikipedia :(, 祝好， ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi The new information is from the official website. The English are all written not transformed by google. If some thing wrong, I hope you can help change it.Most of it I think is good with fluent English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihalper1942 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly suggest that you close the nomination for the Emperor's daughter's article as not promoted. Firstly, you are quite inactive these few weeks. Secondly, you are the reviewer, and you are not supposed to be a significant contributor to the article. Thirdly, it has been more than a month since the start of the review. Lastly, I plan to semi-retire from Wikipedia. HYH.124 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HYH.124. Hmmm... I haven't written much on the review page because some issues have not been addressed, but I've kept an eye on your progress in solving them. I've also tried to restrain myself from editing the article too much (because, as you say, reviewers shouldn't be important contributors), but it's often easier to do it oneself than to wait for outsiders to do it. Anyway, if you confirm one last time that you want me to archive the review, I will do it. I might then improve the article more actively, and will let you know when it's ready for a third GA review! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have tagged citation needed templates to the article, which made it more tedious for the review, and I thought it was best for the nomination to be closed. GA nominations are not worth the trouble when I can write more articles. So you should close the review, or I will close it if you do not do so.

By the way, from your user page, I saw that you are a native speaker of French language. So you are a French? Which country do you come from? I can see that you are knowledgeable about Chinese. Are you ethnic Chinese? HYH.124 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HYH.124. I'm not ethnic Chinese, but I know Chinese because I study Chinese history professionally. My mother is French, but I'm Canadian and I got my highest degree from the US. I live in China with my family.

You're right that your time is probably better spent writing new articles than improving Daughter of Emperor Xiaoming of Northern Wei. My review may also have been too demanding. But I will definitely let you know when the article is ready to pass, so that you can present it again! I have closed the GA review. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you see the http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking? I really doubt why you just 吹 a univ and 黑 a univ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liuyg (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I give up。 好的，你想怎么写就怎么写吧，中山大学吹牛的人的确挺多的，一所学校不会因为被黑而变差，一所学校不会因为被吹几次而变好，但却会因为一些浮夸的人而变差，这几年校风怎样，今年的小三事件应该足够了。随便你怎么写，群众的眼睛是雪亮的。你时间多，我不奉陪。今年科研经费如果你看看，就会发现广东政府因为浮夸，已经开始不支持某校了，无恶意，只是希望你能更加客观，谢谢! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liuyg (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 注意，我之前说的中国是大陆地区，因为高校属性上，大陆地区才是一起比较的Reply[reply]

Liuyg – Assume good faith (Chinese version: 善意推定), please. I have no reason to dislike South China Institute of Technology or to like Sun Yat-sen University. But your additions to the former are badly formatted, badly referenced, badly written, and promotional.[3] And you removed a lot of referenced information from the article on Sun Yat-sen University.[4] I had to revert in both cases. You may not have noticed, but I also removed promotional language from the lede of SYSU,[5] and I checked the sources concerning SYSU's rankings to make sure they were not inflated. They were not. You don't have to "give up": just learn how to discuss your additions with others, and others will help you to improve the page on SCUT. Finally I have no idea why you think I'm from Sun Yat-sen University. I have PhD from a US university. Madalibi (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Liuyg:, no one is asking you to give up and I have no doubt that you can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. To do that, you need to understand that there are guidelines and policies to be followed that prevent articles undermining Wikipedia's integrity and credibility. These are not rules that I, Madalibi or anyone else made up to annoy you, rather they are a synthesis of many thousands of people's input over a long period. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 08:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need to expand, update, and properly source these articles plus add a table of all the Khans/Jasak/Princes and possibly a family tree for the Kumul Khans, showing their descent from the Chagatai Khans. I compiled several sources (including several baidu links and blogs we aren't going to use, those are for finding more references one of the blogs had a photo of the Turfan dukes that must by in public domain by now). We also need to clarify their titles. The Kumul Khans and Turfan chiefs were both given the title of "Jasak" by the Qing and the Kumul Khan had their rank upgraded to prince of the first rank while the Turfan monarchs were called "junwang".

Both the Kumul Khans and Turfan Junwang submitted to the Qing (Kumul in 1696, Turfan in 1720s) and fought alongside the Qing against the Zunghar Khanate, and that is when the Qing gave them their titles and formally established their vassal states.

Talk:Kumul_Khanate User:Rajmaan/Turfan Khanate

Do you have any sources which can help us trace the ancestry of the Kumul Khans back to the Chagatais? They need to be added to List of Chagatai khans. We are also lacking a complete list of the Turfan Junwang, all I know is that they began with Amin Khoja and I could only find a few refences to Le Coq meeting one of them in the early 1900s but they didn't even mention his name.

Rajmaan (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are conflicting sources, some say that the Kumul Khans are descended from the Chagatai Khans, others say it was from the Sufi Khojas, Chinese wikipedia and Baidu claim both are the ancestors of the Kumul Khans.Rajmaan (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rajmaan, and thanks for these interesting questions! I don't know the precise answers offhand. My impression is that the sultans of Turfan were Chagatayids, but I'm not so sure about the rulers of Kumul/Hami. I gather that they claimed descend from Chagatai's great grand-son Chübei, but I don't know how solid their claim was. I'm having trouble finding online English-language sources on this issue. I will keep searching among my books and let you know if I find anything. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liu Shiduan, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Liu Shiduan used secret kung-fu techniques to make himself invulnerable and was executed for an anti-Christian incident in which he didn't take part? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liu Shiduan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

First China, now the world. After the success of the "dynasty" RFC/RM, my next move is to try to top it. All comments appreciated. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Taekwondo Panda! These are ambitious moves you're trying. I like that! I'm not completely convinced, though. If you want to be even more convincing, you will have to anticipate the arguments of potential opponents.

1. One thing you should explain better is why the current guidelines are mutually contradictory (you call them "six paragraphs worth of conflicting advice"). This will preclude "Oppose" votes by people who didn't see where the contradictions are and who won't bother to change their "vote" after you've explained it to them.
2. Another objection you should expect is that some WikiProjects have their own conventions. Pages on Japanese history, for example, usually put the family name last (just like in English), and don't include macrons. That's why we have Hideki Tojo instead of the more correct "Tōjō Hideki" that is supported by the sources you propose to rely on.
3. Cases like Lübeck are easy, because all your sources support the same form, but what would your guideline be for when the sources are in conflict, as in the case of Napoleon?
4. In the case of Napoleon again, wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME trump whatever your dictionaries say about him?
5. Have you checked why Kinmen is named "Kinmen" rather than "Quemoy"? (I haven't checked it out myself, but there might be arguments out there that are worth looking at.)
6. What would you say to an editor who said "let's go at it case by case", in the sense of "sure we have guidelines, but they're not binding and they can be trumped by other concerns"?

Well, that's about all I can think for now without taking too much time. Come back at me if you have other ideas or questions you'd like me to look at! Madalibi (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view is that the online version of Merriam-Webster is first among equals. It corresponds closely to the Collegiate edition, which is recommended by CMOS. I have no argument with anyone who wants to use one of the other references I list. "Kinmen" is Taiwanese English. This name is used in tourist brochures and whatnot. Officially speaking, the island is "Jinmen Dao" (pinyin spelling), and it is administered by "Kinmen County." The vast majority of RS references relate to the island's status as a Cold War flashpoint. In this context, it is generally referred to as "Quemoy," as in "the Quemoy and Matsu crisis." See this ngram.

No published style guide would recommend the current system of doing a Google Book search counting up how many books have the diacritic and how many don't. If you just count whatever happens to be in GBooks, there will almost always be more books that leave off the diacritic. (Copyeditors don't want to make additional work for themselves.) So the guideline is far out of sync with current practice. I have revised the proposal to take you comments into account. The titles will be decided case by case whatever is done with the guideline. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to remove Napoleon as an example. A lot of people are likely to have strong feelings about it, so I think it would be a distraction. On another issue, it looks to me like Britannica has approximately the same name set as M-W Geographical combined with M-W Biographical, and it generally uses the same spellings. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have posted the RFC now. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Taekwondo Panda. I've suddenly stopped all my WP activities to work on urgent real-life pursuits, so I neglected to reply to your message. Sorry about that! I couldn't find the RFC, though. Am I missing something? Madalibi (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I see. This is unfortunate... All best wishes in your other pursuits! Madalibi (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'd appreciate your input here when you have a spare 小时. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 17:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philg88: I've just left a few comments on that talk page. Thanks for thinking of me for that! Madalibi (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, Madalibi. Much as I hate to keep pestering you, can you see a DYK here? It's a long while since I submitted one and your experience would be a great help. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 08:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, Philg88. I only have two DYKs under my hat, but I like the challenge! A simple DYK would be:

• "...that the Opium War between Great Britain and Qing China started after Lin Zexu destroyed more than 1,000 tons of British opium?"
• "...that the Opium War started after a Chinese official flushed more than 1,000 tons of smuggled British opium into the sea".

...or some combination thereof. What do you think?

As you know, DYKs are for new content, that is, for new pages and articles that have been expanded at least five-fold in the last 5 days, but the rules specify that content imported from other pages doesn't count. I'm not experienced enough to know how strict reviewers are about this. Best, Madalibi (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destruction of opium at Humen is a brand new article that I have been working on for a while and contains no merged text, so it qualifies. I like the second suggestion. Can I leave it to you to submit it? Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 09:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Philg88 – I assumed, after seeing that page right after reading your proposal about splitting the Chinese-history section of Opium, that you had moved content from over there! My bad for not reading the opium page before commenting. As the page author, you're the one who should get credit for the DYK, and the only way to do that is to submit it yourself. Of course I'll be happy to do it if you want. Meanwhile, congratulations and thanks for that excellent new page! Madalibi (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why thank you! :) I will make the submission — let me say sorry now for shamelessly plagiarising your suggestion with a slight modification. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 10:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! The point of making a suggestion was so that you could use it, so do as you see fit with it! Best, Madalibi (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Philg88: I've seen your DYK nomination! I won't review it formally (never done that before!), but I think you should add an "ALT" version that will not imply that Lin Zexu single-handedly "started the Opium War" by destroying British opium. Some reviewers won't know better and may accept your nomination, but this is the kind of historical inaccuracy that shouldn't appear on WP's main page. Note that in my second version, I purposely said that the Opium War started after (not because of) the destruction of the opium. I also mentioned the Opium War at the beginning of the sentence in order to attract the reader's eye, but that's a matter of taste. All right, signing off for the day! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm ... Actually it is true. After Lin's action and as a direct result, Jardine lobbied Lord Palmerston who ultimately dispatched the British fleet to engage in brutal suppression of a weaker nation that wasn't happy with foreigners flogging drugs on their soil the First Opium War. There is also a reference in the lead that says it was the cause so I'm happy to leave as it is for now until if and when someone queries it. Sleep well! ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 15:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Philg88: – Well, Lin Zexu could not have started the "brutal suppression of a weaker nation that wasn't happy with foreigners flogging drugs on their soil", right! The British declared war on China, not the opposite. And the war was not preordained: it was declared only after long debates and a narrow decision by the British parliament. Lin may have been naive, but his actions only provided a casus belli. I find the verb "start" far too active for someone whose actions unwittingly resulted in somebody else's declaration of war almost a year later. Unfortunately the nomination has already passed. Maybe there's still time to modify it (if you agree with my points), but otherwise, albeit on a very small scale, another myth beautifying western imperialism in China will be shown to the readers of Wikipedia! Madalibi (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have thought of this earlier, but another good hook could have been "... that Britain started the First Opium War after a Chinese official flushed more than 1,000 tons of British opium into the sea?" Madalibi (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the further input Madalibi, but now that the submission has been reviewed I don't want to change it. I think that Lin (and Daoguang for that matter) were well aware that destroying the opium might start a war but they weren't that bothered. Don't forget that they believed the forces of the Celestial Empire were unbeatable and Lin had such a sense of moral superiority that he felt fully justified in his actions whatever the consequences. More than anything the Chinese position was "attack us if you dare" and the British called their bluff - theirs was a response to an action by the Chinese, which I think justifies use of the verb "start" for the behavior of the latter. All that aside, the reference says Lin's action started the war and that's sufficient from the DYK perspective. Cheers ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 04:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On second thoughts, I've changed it to: DYK ... that in 1839 a Chinese official flushed more than 1,000 tons of smuggled opium into the sea, causing the British to declare war?, which kind of incorporates your comments. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this sounds like a fairer representation. Congratulations on a new DYK! Madalibi (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

非常感谢您,. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Madalibi,

Thanks for your thanks. You may be interested to learn that I'm now working on this.

Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sardanaphalus. I've been taking some time off WP, and I'm sorry for taking so long to acknowledge your message. The edit I thanked you for was both impressively detailed and technically proficient, so I had to mark it! And adding collapsible lists to ((History of China)) has improved display on a large number of pages. Thanks a lot for that, and keep up the good work! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An April Fools' Day hoax marking the construction of the Copenhagen Metro in 2001. Hello, Madalibi. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: April Fools' Day Previous selections: Injury • Assassination of Anwar Sadat Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]

Lobamba is the traditional and legislative capital of Swaziland. Hello, Madalibi. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Lobamba Previous selections: April Fools' Day • Injury Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]

See this discussion at User_talk:Nlu/archive75#Ming_dynasty_descendants, and if you know anything about the issue or have any sources can you reply here?Rajmaan (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rajmaan: I'm taking time off the Wiki, so just a quick message to let you know I saw your message, and that I will notify you if I see sources that are relevant to your query. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Khereid's edits on Mongol related articles. This guy is spamming pan-Mongolian nationalism everywhere on how the evil Qing and Russians conspired to divide the Mongols and destroy their nation and why Oirat and Buryat and Inner Mongolians should rejoin the great outer Mongolian State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khereid

Rajmaan (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, Rajmaan. This editor's last contribution dates to January 24, almost three months ago, so there doesn't seem to be any crisis at hand. When I come back to active editing (and I will, though probably not in the short term), I will put all these pages on my watchlist and keep an eye open. Thanks for the notification! Madalibi (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entertainers at a festival Hello, Madalibi. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Festival Previous selections: Lobamba • April Fools' Day Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]

Kazimierz Nowak on exploration through the Rwenzori Mountains in Africa Hello, Madalibi. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Exploration Previous selections: Festival • Lobamba Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]

Fresh produce in a grocery store Hello, Madalibi. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Grocery store Previous selections: Exploration • Festival Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]

Hi my friend, I'd appreciate your input at this discussion. Some interesting potential changes in the wind.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Philg88. This sounds like an interesting proposal! I will take a closer look at it tomorrow. Best, Madalibi (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your expansion and improvement of Chinese food therapy, which saved it from deletion. Keep up the good work! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, FreeRangeFrog! It's very nice to wake up to a barnstar, especially one from such an outstanding Wikipedian! Madalibi (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filming of a travel documentary Hello, Madalibi. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Travel documentary Previous selections: Grocery store • Exploration Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructionsReply[reply]