I am looking to write some “Big Picture” Chinese history. Why does so much of Chinese history parallel European history, but without a Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, or Industrial Revolution? Why did printing lead to upheaval in Europe, but not in China? I am collecting megahistory theories from H.G. Wells, Mark Elvin, and other popular historians. I have access to Encyclopedia of Modern of Asia, so I have a resource to debunk the theories or fill in the blanks. I have already written quite a bit, but it is still in a disorganized state. I don’t what to call the article. Do you have an interest in this sort of thing? The great huha (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The great huha! I'm very sorry for taking so long to reply (I was taking a short wikibreak). Your project sounds promising, and yes, I would be interested in seeing what you have. There are plenty of good sources for this kind of article, though I'm also at a loss about what it should be called. Maybe it could be placed under Western historiography of China, but that might be too broad for what you had in mind. You should probably consult a few articles that already touch on the issues you raise (if you don't already know them): most importantly Great Divergence, but also High-level equilibrium trap (since you mention Mark Elvin), Hydraulic despotism, Asiatic mode of production, and the like. These articles are uneven in quality, but they might give you some inspiration. If you show me what you have or ask me any kind of question, I'll be glad to help in a more concrete way! Madalibi (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can see what I got at Chinese history in a nutshell. I actually wrote quite a bit more, but it was all over the place. I cut it down to gain some focus.
@The great huha: I have read the two texts you linked to. To start with the short one, I think you should give just a bit more context to help readers who are not familiar with Chinese history. There should be a link to Ming dynasty at the very beginning, and it may be helpful to add the dates of the Ming and Qing as well. (And don't forget to correct "hovel", which should be "hotel". ) I see no reason why it shouldn't be presented for DYK, but right now it's a bit too short: 1,047 words of "readable prose size", while the DYK requirement is 1,500. Adding some context should do the job.
The second article is thornier to assess. The text sometimes reads like an essay (see WP:NOTESSAY) rather than an encyclopedic article. I think that as you try to analyze what these authors said, you're also presenting some of their opinions as fact. Modern historians of China, for example, no longer present Chinese "stagnation" and its "lack of a Scientific Revolution" as facts or even as issues that need to be explained. This is a very difficult topic to handle. What is the right frame for it? I'm not sure. I think a survey of "Western historiography of China" would be extremely useful, but it would have to be much broader than what you have now. Another helpful page would be Joseph Needham#Needham Question. And have you read Nathan Sivin's article "Why the Scientific Revolution Didn't Take Place in China—Or Didn't It?" (1982)? Madalibi (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Sivin represents the opinion "modern historians of China" on this issue? A lot of what he writes strikes me a lordly refusal to dignify the issue. But I did enjoy his portrait of Shen Kuo. IMO, it is a good illustration of Spengler's views. Shen was smart and knowledgeable about many issues. You can pull quotes from his writing that make sound like a serious scientist. But he did not focus on any scientific agenda, which is apparent from the way he drifted from one subject to another. Although Sivin presumably selected Shen as a representative of the best in Chinese science, he was no Faustian inventor. The great huha (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The great hula: Sivin's article is more than 30 years old, so it's a bit dated. He wrote it at a time when the Needham Question about why the most advanced civilization in the world (China) did not go through an Industrial and a Scientific Revolution was still prominent among historians of science. But instead of answering the question, Sivin just showed that it was wrongly posed and ended up refusing to answer it (as you rightly noticed). Historians of Chinese science, technology and medicine (STM) in the last 30 years have also spent their time not answering this question. The question "why not in China?" is viewed as a kind of counterfactual history, and all answers to it — lack of heroic inventors, the stifling effects of "Confucianism", lack of competition between states, no "Protestant ethic" to drive profit-seeking, no protection for intellectual property, lack of a system of rights, high-level equilibrium trap, etc. — are considered speculative or flawed. I encourage you to browse through Sivin's other writings for more thoughts on these issues, especially "Taoism and Science" (1995), which is a critique of the way Joseph Needham spoke of "Taoism" and "Confucianism" in his writings. The article starts with: "Was Taoism is some sense responsible for—or did it at least further—the development of the sciences in China? Whether there was some such relationship will concern anyone trying to understand religion or though about Nature in China. The character of this influence may also cast light on why the technical subcultures of China and Western Europe diverged so decisively in early modern times."
@King of all fruit: Thanks for the heads-up, and sorry about your hard drive. I'd also like to thank you for teaching me that interesting bit about Song industrial pollution. I had no idea! Anyway let me know how your work is progressing. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00: 44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I want to thank you specifically for your words of encouragement and your pre-GA review on the History of the Great Wall of China article. Without them I would not have had the confidence to think that it could be GA-worthy. I owe it to you :) _dk (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, _dk, this is very generous of you! I'm always glad to help, and I'm proud to have played a small role in what is obviously your achievement! Congratulations on the promotion! Ready for a pre-FA review? Madalibi (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a FA review since Battle of Red Cliffs got featured way back in 2007, and the standards then were far less stringent than what they are now, so I'm frankly shuddering at the thought of a FAR! I'm quite content with a GA for now, but I am curious to see what it's like if you're up for a pre-FA review. Your comments are always helpful and greatly appreciated _dk (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@_dk – Or you can see it like this: if you submit the article for FAC, at worse it doesn't pass, you learn a lot, you get lots of great comments to improve the article, and you can eventually submit it again later. At best it passes (after some revisions, as for all other FAs), you get the Four Award (which only 173 Wikipedians have received), and your work appears on the main page. Sounds like a win-win to me. I also think you're the most qualified editor to promote Great Wall of China to GA and eventually FA. Pushing it to GA would already earn you the rare Million Award!
Anyway I'll try to start the pre-FA review in the next few days. It won't be any harder than the pre-GA review, which was extremely thorough for the section I concentrated on. Cheers, and congratulations again for your excellent work! Madalibi (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Wall article itself is rather interdisciplinary that's it's even more daunting than just the history part! If I'm to bring the Great Wall article up to snuff I'm missing some crucial material on its construction and operations (namely William Lindesay's works - though Stephen Turnbull has written about those topics, Turnbull isn't, well, exactly known for his rigid scholarship). But the potential honours do sound tempting! Anyways, thanks again for your support! _dk (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
_dk: Knowing the Great Wall's history is more than half you need to know about the Great Wall. Great Wall of China is close to GA status, in my opinion. All that's missing is a few more details on the Wall's "Characteristics" and its "Condition", some work on the lead to summarize the content of the article, and voilà, Million Award! Same thing with the History of the Great Wall of China. I've re-read it from end to end for the first time, and it flows really well. The Ming section might be a little too long, but I'd say you're much closer to FA status than you think! Madalibi (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always hard to decide which bits to cut loose and which bits to summarize! Since the Ming Great Wall is arguably the most important Great Wall I figured I should spend more time talking about Ming's experience with the Great Wall, and so here we are. There's probably enough material to split off a Ming Great Wall article while summarizing the Ming section on the History page, but I'm not sure if I want to do that _dk (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Philg88. I took a look at the page and all I found was two bare urls that didn't need correcting. I will wait to see what Sunuraju has to say, with some apprehension that a WP neophyte with a weak command of English is editing pages about complicated and sensitive ethnic issues... Madalibi (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... Indeed, I deleted a further comment from my original observation above before posting. I'll leave it to your imagination to ponder on what it said ... Philg88 ♦talk05:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that North Korean defectors, who came to Japan who told families of japanese kidnapped victims about wheatbours of their loved ones and Japanese NGO Life fund for North Korean Refugess knew about famine in North Korea and help them to escaped to South Korea by --Sunuraju (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Madalibi. Sorry for the disturbance. I'm a Chinese Wikipedian who ran into User:Madalibi/Government of the Qing dynasty while googling the proper translation of the term 清廷 in my sandbox. I just want to know do you have any idea to expand the corresponding article in Chinese while working on the English one? I looked into the article zh:清朝政府 several days ago but the result was disappointing.
Also, I will be glad to help if you need any assistance (though it looks you have a great grasp of Chinese LOL).
Hi Kou Dou, and thank you for dropping by. I'm not planning to expand the Chinese article on Qing government, mainly because I want to work on the English version first, but also because I feel more confident writing in English than in Chinese. zh:清朝政府 could easily be expanded, though, simply by following the outline you found in my sandbox. If you're not sure about the facts, you're welcome to come discuss them here with me! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. It seems there are a lot of steps ahead before your finishing the English version, meanwhile I hope there won't be too many differences between the two Wikipedias, so I'll be focusing on this and may translate some parts of your article (if you would agree) into Chinese. Good luck! Kou Dou (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kou Dou: Yes, I'm far from finishing. Actually I've barely even started! Do feel free to borrow content from my sandbox to enhance the Chinese article if you want. You should know that the sections on the military have now evolved into Military of the Qing dynasty. Another article that might be fun to translate into Chinese is Shamanism in the Qing dynasty, which I wrote from scratch. Good luck in your endeavor! Madalibi (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kou Dou: Thanks for reading my shamanism article. Sometimes I wish there were deadlines on Wikipedia. That way I could be encouraged to finish at least a few of the dozens of articles that are sleeping in my sandboxes! Madalibi (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of the Jin–Song Wars
Hi Madalibi,
Thanks for notifying me that the talk page didn't automatically move when I moved this article. I have now moved the talk page.
Hello, Madalibi. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
All right, after such long time, let's continue the discussion.
"causing deep hatred from his mother" is correctly sourced, because "嫌隙屡起" means the gap between the mother and son got wider and wider, and even machine translation justifies my point. I will look into more point in your previous review later on, so let's discuss this first. HYH.124 (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you check whether the work on the article is completed? I made several changes to the article. Hope to go for a third round of GAN. HYH.124 (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HYH.124! Someone I had missed your message from May 21 (I only saw your reply to one of the discussions above). Sorry about that. I'm glad to see that you've come back from retirement! I still don't think "deep hatred" is a good translation for "嫌隙屡起", and machines are notoriously inept at translating classical Chinese. Xi 隙 means "rift", and, by extension dispute, disagreement. Xian 嫌 means something like aversion or disdain. One of my dictionaries (the very reliable Grand dictionnaire Ricci de la langue chinoise) translates xianxi 嫌隙 as "dissenssion, désaccord", which in English would be "dissension, discord". Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary gives " ill-will; a breach" for xianxi. My point was that "deep hatred" is too strong for xianxi 嫌隙. "Discord", "ill-will", or "aversion" would sounds great, though! Ok, I'll take a look at the article and get back to you after that. Best, Madalibi (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to debate on this edit. Access date is important when there are online resources, because a link might go dead. Also, adding "(editors-in-chief)" would result in technical error in the system, which is not necessary for a template, so it'd be better to delete it. What do you think? HYH.124 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@HYH.124: I added "editors-in-chief" because bibliographic entries usually include this kind of information, and I didn't see any way to make it display automatically. I think the new info makes the entry clearer, and I'm not seeing a technical error in that footnote, but I agree the new addition might cause problems for meta-data. Feel free to remove it if you want.
I think I'm right about access dates, though. WP:CITE explains that For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the webpage) should be included, in case the webpage changes in the future. The {{citation}} page states that the "accessdate=" field is only useful for content that does not have an identifiable and cited publication date. And both the {{citation}} and the {{cite book}} template emphasize that access date is mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date, and is not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change. In light of this, I think we should remove "accessdate=" from the remaining footnotes. Madalibi (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I replace the primary sources (i.e. historical publications) with secondary sources (i.e. modern sources), would it solve the problem? HYH.124 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is usually a good idea, but only if the modern source is reliable, of course. Sometimes the primary sources (which in our case are actually very old secondary sources!) include relevant information that is not mentioned in modern studies. For the timing of Empress Hu's edict, you should probably present the two competing claims — "a few hours later" and "a few days later" — with clear attribution, unless you find a secondary source that convincingly argues that one source is right and the other one wrong. Do you have other specific problems in mind? Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, NickPenguin! You've been the driving force behind TAFI in the last few months. I really hope we can propel the project to the main page to get it the attention it deserves! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the improving articles thing that we need to spend more time on. If everyone takes some time, then we can demonstrate the project can get results. --NickPenguin(contribs)00:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the warm welcome, Madalibi! Great to see the community spirit! I'm just going to be going around "auditing" (fixing grammar in) articles to make this wiki a better place. I don't have much knowledge to impart, but I'm going to do what I can to repay Wikipedia after all it's done for me!
Hi Thought Police Officer! This is a great initiative! Wikipedia needs people like you who like what they do and do it well. Some of the most respected (and in-demand) Wikipedians are members of the Guild of copyeditors. In view of your skills and enthusiasm, you should definitely consider joining them. Thanks again for your edits! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thought Police Officer: Great, then! I will look forward to seeing more of your contributions! I also note that you're starting to sign with a different name than your official username. This is of course perfectly fine, but if you want an official name change (if "Thought Police Officer" sounds too forbidding, for example ), you can always request one here. I've never done it myself, but the process looks very simple. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Madalibi for the suggestion, but I think I'll be keeping this. Maybe the amusement will wear off and I'll decide against keeping it, but I think it's just too amusing of a name. I use the different name when signing so people know what I do (I don't actually police anyone's thoughts!) A grammar-auditing person (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, A grammar-auditing person! It seems you've already found out how to make your signature automatic. If you haven't, you can do it under "Preferences" on the top right of the page. Then your desired name will appear automatically when you add four tildes (~~~~). Madalibi (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I decided to search and find some userboxes that fit me. Did I put them in correctly? I don't want it to look ugly, but I have no skill at formatting whatsoever. A grammar-auditing person (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A grammar-auditing person: As you can see from my page, I don't really use userboxes, so I'm not sure I can help much! Yours are clearly displayed and well formatted. If you like, maybe you could put them on top of your page? Madalibi (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, EMachine03! Why go to the tea house when I can get such good tea right here?! But you're right, I should go there more often and welcome all the new editors who join Wikipedia everyday, because you guys are the future of this encyclopedia. I hope you (and by this I mean *you*, EMachine03) stay around and keep improving the Wiki! Cheers,
Hah! Hi Madalibi. Yeah, I joined the Peace Corps and spent two years volunteering. I'm currently in Northern Ireland getting a Master's Degree in medieval and early modern history. I'm doing a little dissertation on medieval chronicles and how they were utilized by various rulers to shore up support and legitimacy for political actions such as conquest. In this case, it's Edward I of England and his referral to chronicles for justifying his invasion of Scotland and claim to the Scottish throne. In either case, I still love Chinese history and will gladly pop in and out of Wikipedia now and then to make an edit or two. I can't let my empire of knowledge and painstaking editing become tarnished by a bunch of amateurs, after all! Lol.
By the way, do you and all the old ChinaHistoryForum/"Grand Historian" forum folks still have a place to congregate? I tried checking on the forum a while ago and it seems to have been taken down. That's a shame, it was actually a great refuge following our mass exodus from ChinaHistoryForum. Cheers. --Pericles of AthensTalk19:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eric Longshanks, Hammer of the Amateurs! Your empire of knowledge, hmm? Scary, and it keeps expanding, if not on WP at least in real life. Good for you! As for the CHF folks, traffic on the new forum never went up, so we discontinued it. I think there are too many kinds of media for real historians for a half-scholarly forum like "Grand Historian" to survive without giving beginners a chance to ask questions. Any chance you'll get back to Chinese history professionally one day? In any case I'm glad to hear that you've moved on and that you're doing well! Madalibi (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the drink, Piotrus. Ten years on the Wiki!? Amazing that you started so early AND managed to last this long despite everything. You obviously deserve a "Tireless Contributor" barnstar for all this, but you already have it, so I decided to give you one of a new kind. I was pretty happy with my 300-something redirects until I used this tool to check out a few editors' contributions and found out that you had 7,500. That's an average of two a day for ten years. Amazing! Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
I see that you are an expert in chinese history! Anyways thanks for letting me edit your wiki page!
@Reddragonawakens: My first Wikipedia kitten! Thank you! I don't consider myself an "expert", but I'm good at finding information ("reliable sources", as they're called on Wikipedia), so don't hesitate to drop by my talk page if you need help with that. Thanks again for the feline! Madalibi (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your Mojokerto skullcap article is excellent - thanks for helping improve the quality of Indonesian topics, I am sure we have a barnstar somewhere, but hey hope you realise how much it is appreciated when articles of that quality appear !! satusuro01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi satusuro. I'm glad you liked the Mojokerto child! I created it because it was mentioned in Java Man (another Indonesia-related article) and I thought it deserved its own page. I've also done about 150 edits on Java Man recently, so you may be interested in taking a look at that page too. Thanks for the thanks, and keep up your amazing work! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Jonkerz! Fossils and evolution are topics I've only started to work on (see also Mojokerto child), but I'm definitely going to continue! That, and I love your collection of ant pictures! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reddragonawakens! I saw your message, but didn't immediately reply and then forgot to do so. Sorry about that! As an ordinary Wikipedian, I can't unlock the page myself. But I see that it's only "semi-protected". This means that all editors who have made 10 edits on Wikipedia are free to edit it. To reach 10 edits, you could simply make a few minor corrections to other articles you like, or even better, add content to them. Then History of China will unlock itself automatically. Have fun editing, and let me know if you need help with anything! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sharpestable! It's nice to see you back. With your broad interests and your eye for details, I hope you will decide to stay and become a prolific Wikipedia editor! Let me know if you need help with anything! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled into Yuxian-ology when I edited Taiyuan Massacre (it was pretty much Original Research and a patchwork of quotes, but that's another matter). Then I got a disambig notice on Yuxian; found that the link led to a disambig page; found there was no article on him; did a Google search which somehow linked to your draft article, which looks rich and useful, as usual.
Would you think of putting it up, even if in stub form? There are a number of references to him on the internet and on Wikipedia which are quite misleading, so it would be good to get a balanced view on the record. I put Roger Thompson's findings into the Taiyuan Massacre article, and Joe Esherick could be brought in: Role of Yu-Xian p. 190 ff.
I'd be happy to add those references if your time is short.
I changed as many mentions of Yuxian as I could find to "Yuxian (Qing official)|Yuxian."
Hi ch, and nice to hear from you! This is another draft article that I thought would be useful but that I never finished. Let me work on it in the next few days, and I promise I will move it to main space by next Monday so that other editors and a Grand Historian can work to improve it! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rajmaan, you are a superb web detective! My photo editing application is just the Microsoft image thing, so if you have one that's better, please go ahead. ch (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image, Rajmaan! The article will look better with a picture. ch: I wanted to improve the article further, but I'm suddenly caught in a maelstrom of real-life activities, so I have to launch it before it's ready. It's both coarse and detailed, so it might be annoying to work with, but that's all I can do for now! I think the proper title should be Yuxiantout court (the two "Yu County"'s would be sent to a redirect), or else Yuxian (Qing dynasty), because China pages consistently use this disambiguation format. I personally prefer "Yuxian", but I'm launching the page to Yuxian (Qing dynasty) because I don't have time to make formal move requests right away! Thank you again for pushing me to finish this page, ch. I should now work on all my other drafts, but that will have to wait. All the best to both of you! Madalibi (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Renewed thanks!! You have proved your status as sinology hero once more. My real life is also calling, but I might work on the article a little more, just to make it fit into Boxer Uprising and Taiyuan Massacre more smoothly, and maybe work in Thompson's conclusions. Cheers! ch (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qing articles which should be translated from Chinese wikipedia
The Chinese wikipedia article at w:zh:平定準噶爾 is about the entire Qing-Dzungar war up to 1758, but the corresponding First Dzungar–Qing War is only about the first war to 1697. The entire Chinese article should be translated into the English one to complete the article.
Thanks for letting me know, Rajmaan! It's true that there is a big hole between the First Dzungar–Qing War and the Zunghar genocide that deserves to be filled. The "Second Oirat-Manchu war" section in the Dzungar Khanate page has been empty since 2009! The Chinese page on the Dzungar wars, though, is basically unsourced, so translation may not be the best solution. The Chinese page on the Khojas is a good article with much better sourcing, but most of the article's sources are primary sources that were compiled by the Qing, so there may be a bias problem. In both cases, though, it would be better to have a draft to work with than nothing at all.
I've been spending less time on Wikipedia lately, so I can't really help right now, but I would be glad to make suggestions or recommend sources if someone starts working on such pages. There's a basic account of the Khoja uprising in Peter Perdue's China Marches West, pp. 290-91. That book is also the main source in English for the Qing-Dzungar wars. A rarer book called The Empire and the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations with Khoqand c. 1760–1860 (by L.J. Newby, published by Brill in 2005) contains lots of good info on the Khojas (see the book's index under Burhān al-Dīn and Khōja-Jahān). I hope this helps, and thanks again for thinking of me for this task! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil: an Ali who is as mad as my alibi? Sounds like my ancestor right there! Otherwise I don't know if there is an established name for this uprising, as Central Asian political events. It was emphatically not a luan 亂, because it took place in territory that had not yet been stabilized after the Qing conquest of Zungharia. Like ping 平, the term luan only makes sense from the Qing point of view. And "khoja" (和卓 in Chinese) is a title, so we should be careful not to make the title too broad. There is relevant material on the uprising at Khoja (Turkestan), but it is entirely unreferenced. One possible title for our new page would be Revolt of the Khojas, with a redirect from Khoja uprising (or something like that) for those who look it up from "Khoja". What do you and Rajmaan think? Madalibi (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Madalibi: Hmm ... it doesn't say anything about his sanity so we'll have to leave that one open for now . IMHO, the "大小" in the title refers to the younger/older members of the Báishānpài (白山派) sufis who were also part of the Khoja clan. Would you concur? That would give us Baishanpai Rebellion or, based on your suggestion Revolt of the Baishanpai Khojas. Redirects can then be created as appropriate. There were so many rebellions in Dzugaria and environs that I think it's important we use non-generic titles. What say you? Philg88 ♦talk15:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rajmaan and Philg88: sorry for again being so slow to respond! Yes, the two Khojas were the "Elder Khoja" Burhãn ad-Dīn and the "Younger Khoja" Khoja Jihãn, both of whom were sons of Khoja Mahmut, who died in 1755. They were the so-called Makhdūmzādas khojas, descended from Mahkdūm-i A'zam, a Naqshbandī Sufi shaykh of the sixteenth-century. (Note that there were other lines of khojas in the area, also descended from Naqshbandi Sufi notables, and that the Makhdūmzādas khojas were themselves divided into rival lines – hence Rajmaan's use of the term Aqtaghlik = Aqtaghlïq = Āfāqiyya – so this gets very confusing!) Basically, the Makhdūmzādas khojas, who ruled over the oases of southern Turkestan, had been kept under close control by the Zunghars, so the Qing tried to hire their help in administrating these regions, but the two brothers eventually refused (though only after the Zunghars were defeated) and led other local notables into rebellion. I'm fine calling this a revolt or an uprising, but "pacification" is too loaded and too Qing-POV to be acceptable. How about calling the article Revolt of the Altishar Khojas? This would be neutral, specific enough to identify the events we're talking about, and not so detailed as to make the title unintelligible. I'm really, really short on time these days, and will probably be very busy off-Wiki in the next few weeks, but I will see any message you send this way. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Philg88: sorry about the typo and thanks for your support! If Rajmaan agrees with this title, could we go ahead and create the page with a brief, one-paragraph account of the events and work from that? Best, Madalibi (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate any and all corrections and additions to the article as my sources are weak, and beside the genealogical information, the article as a whole needs more; however, I don't agree with putting information---relevant information regarding the subject---within the references as you have redone. Generally, when an article is referenced the specific fact that is being referenced need not be specified. If one feels the need it might be better to do as I did with the larger sentence and create a note subsection. I also am not sure why, after I fixed the references and standardized them to a easy to use, popular style (harvnb), that you changed them all the the (sfn) template and also the (citation) template. The cite web , journal etc are better and are more in use. I am merely trying to clean up an obviously needy article and fix what errors I could. Also, removing the accessdate argument seems to me to be detrimental. If there was no need for the accessdate on journal articles why is it there? Please don't take me the wrong way, and I will attempt to talk things over with you rather than just forcing my point of view down your throat. speednat (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Speednat, and thanks for coming here to express your concerns! You're right about the textual note. I worked from the version just before your edit, so I had to re-add everything by hand, and I forgot to restore the textual note. I'm sorry about that. I just restored the explanation about the date "1704/5" into a textual note. The rest of the info on that princess is more than footnote material, so I left it in the text, as for the other princesses.
I had merged some notes (and I merged them back again) because I've seen many FARs where reviewers didn't like to have a large number of notes at the end of a sentence. When you merge two or three references into a single footnote, it's good practice to specify what info comes from what source, hence the short brackets. I specified the chapter numbers to Draft History of Qing because there are several editions of that book, including unpaginated electronic editions, so a simple page number won't help readers find the information if they want to verify it.
As far as I know, {{harvnb}} and {{sfn}} display in the same way. I switched to {{Sfn}} because I find it even easier to edit than {{harvnb}}. E.g.: all you need for multiple pages is "pp=" (instead of "pages="), and you don't even need <ref></ref> brackets! Do let me know if you think {{sfn}} has drawbacks that I'm not aware of. I'm also not sure how {{cite book}} is inherently better than {{citation}} (or vice-versa, though I dislike seeing a period ["."] just before a lowercase "pp." in {{cite journal}}). I used {{citation}} in Shunzhi Emperor (a featured article), but since you prefer {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}, I just switched back to them in the article. As you will see, they work perfectly with {{Sfn}}!
Both {{citation}} and {{cite book}}) state that access dates are for web sources that have no obvious publication dates. I don't think they're necessary for printed sources available online.
Finally, I agree with you that reference format is not this article's biggest problem! We need to add lots of new content to make the page as good as Shunzhi Emperor, but that takes time. I have plenty of sources at home (the same as for Shunzhi), plus free JSTOR access (consider applying for it at WP:JSTOR), but I'm very short on time these days. If you're interested in developing the article, though, I'd be happy to work on it with you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your cooperative attitude, and will defer to you on the multiple citation per...citation, as what I have read either is acceptable and you are more vested in this article than I. speednat (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Speednat: Great, thanks! If you read my talk page, you'll see I'm actually a very cooperative person! I hope you decide to keep improving the article, as it needs serious work and very few editors have shown concern for it. Looking forward to collaborating with you in the future! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the "limited" improvement, but I did locate a chinese book in my library that had a couple of pages on Hong. Between that and my Military Encyclopedia I did have a bit of info to add. If I find more I will ad but I think anything else would have to come from my university library. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Speednat. Your "limited improvement" is the best addition this article has seen in months, so please don't apologize! I wish I had more time to work on all this. For now I've added a few titles to the bibliography. Maybe you can find them in your university library. In the mean time, don't forget to add the full reference for "Schirokauer 1978" in the new footnote! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During Qianlong's reign, he set up a project to revise and edit the History of Liao, History of Jin, and the History of Yuan. He personally took issue with the Chinese character transcriptions of the Khitan, Jurchen, and Mongol names, saying they were sloppily done and did not represent the accurate phonetic transcription in the original languages (and this may have actually been true since these histories were hastily compiled).
钦定辽金元三史语解
欽定遼金元三史國語解 (Qinding Liao Jin Yuan Sanshi guoyijie)
He set out to correct the Chinese transcriptions by returning to the source languages. He matched up Jurchen with Manchu, Mongolian with Mongolian (no name change there), and Khitan with something I can't remember. It was either something like the Daur language or the Solons (Evenki language). Do you know which specific language he matched up with Khitan?
I remember reading an English language source on this but I can't find it now.
Hi Rajmaan. That's an interesting question! Very short on time, here, but very briefly put, the answer is Solon, a Tungusic language that is not closely related to Khitan, and you must have found that reference in Pamela Crossley's article "Manxhou Yuanliu Kao and the Formalization of the Manchu Heritage" (Journal of Asian Studies, 1987). Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yuxian (Qing dynasty), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Yuxian was called the "Butcher of Shanxi", and blamed for ordering the Taiyuan Massacre – execution of Western missionaries in 1900 – but he probably only witnessed it and did not order it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yuxian (Qing dynasty). 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Java Man 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk. I've been fairly inactive on Wikipedia recently, so I didn't notice that you fleshed out the review after your first comment concerning the picture in the taxobox. Sorry about that! Thank you for the review and all the useful questions you ask. I will try to address them all in the next few days. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Returning somewhat to my old ways, I recently created this category, Category:Murdered Chinese emperors, after becoming interested in the topic of regicide. I'm astounded at the amount of Chinese emperors who were simply executed or assassinated, and that's not even including those who died fighting in battle or committed suicide that wasn't obviously forced.Pericles of AthensTalk06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[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!
Thank you for saying that, - my latest alleged quality was groupie, which I try to take with humour, but haven't quite succeeded yet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution, or concept that stands in, or represents, opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend.
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Hi Madalibi -- good to see you back in action! Hope all goes well.
I've drafted an article Hoppo (Qing dynasty official) in my userspace, which I will soon move to main space. Would you have time to look it over and maybe make a few comments or edits? It's part of the effort to bring the articles around Opium Wars up to snuff.
It's called "Hoppo (Qing dynasty official)" because Hoppo is already taken.
Hi ch -- Nice to see you again, and thank you for thinking of me as a reader for your new article. I'm constantly impressed by your indefatigable work on these difficult topics, and I will be glad to take a look at the article! Just let me know if you would prefer me to do it before or after it moves to main space. Speaking of which, I would recommend moving it to main space over the Hoppo redirect (with the help of an admin, perhaps?), because Hoppo the official is clearly more important than the outdated postal Romanization of an obscure county in Guangxi! I also see there is a redirect at Hoppo (official) that leads to a subsection of Thirteen Factories.
Searching through JSTOR for articles that mention the Hoppo, I found, among many other things, an article by Johnathan [sic] A. Farris called "Thirteen Factories of Canton: An Architecture of Sino-Western Collaboration and Confrontation", Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum 14 (Fall 2007): 66–83. Page 67 shows, in black and white, a late eighteenth-century watercolor painting titled "View of the Hoppo Returning". The painting by an anonymous Chinese painter is kept at the Hong Kong Museum of Art; it shows boats in front of the Thirteen Factories and would make nice illustration for the article if we could figure out how to download from a reliable source!
It's getting late here in China, so I will stop here, but I will come back to the article in the next few days. Thanks again for thinking of me! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! I will go ahead and move the article to mainspace as soon as I make a few more nips and tucks. You can look at it then, esp. from your point of view as a Qing specialist to see if it can link better into the web of QIng articles.
It strikes me as a little long but I want to represent the argument of the Cheong book that the Hoppo and the Canton System were more reasonable than has been charged (e.g. by Morse and even FAirbank). I searched Google pictures for "Hoppo" but didn't come up with anything, so the reference to the Hoppo painting is very welcome. I'll give it a whirl.ch (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Baogao: Once I had the name of the painting, it took only few minutes to track it down at Hong Museum of Art: where I found two paintings when I searched "Hoppo." I'm saying this only to say that there is no need to search further. Cheers! ch (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops -- when I checked the link, it seems that it doesn't go to the paintings. You have to click "search," though I'm not sure that you want to look at them here. The MIT is a higher resolution, which we may not need. I will ask the HK Museum for permissions.ch (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ch! You may not need to ask HKMoA for permission as you would for a print publication, as from Wikipedia's point of view this painting is already in the public domain, its author having (presumably!) died more than a 100 years ago. All you need to do is download it from the MIT website and then upload it to Wikimedia, where you would indicate where it is held. If you need help with that, I could do it in the next few days. Just let me know! Madalibi (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. When I move the article into mainspace, I'll take care of the image (my understanding is that we need to wait until then), and if there's a problem I may ask for help. I'll see if there's a better version of the second painting on the MIY site or somewhere.ch (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Madalibi. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yellow Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qishan. 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.
Much kudos for your expansion and barnacle-scraping at Yellow Emperor!!
I've had a curiosity about Sino-Babylonianism since grad school many years ago, so I took the liberty of following up your suggestion and drafted an article on the topic: User:CWH/Sino-Babylonianism. I hope that you will feel reciprocally free to edit or expand.
I will edit and adapt the material that I moved from other articles, and try to find my ancient reading notes (they're on "paper"), but probably not in the near future. You could move it to mainspace when it seems ready.
@ch – This sounds like a great initiative, and I'm impressed that you still have reading notes from grad school! It should be possible to develop a beautiful little article out of this. Interestingly, as I was looking at Édouard Chavannes's translation of the passages concerning Huangdi in the first chapter of the Shiji earlier today I found this comment by Chavannes on Terrien de Lacouperie, appended to his translation of this passage: 自黃帝至舜、禹，皆同姓而異其國號，以章明德。故黃帝為有熊... :
"C’est dans ce texte que M. Terrien de Lacouperie a trouvé la preuve que Hoang-ti n’était autre que Nakhunte et voici comment il arrive à ce résultat : le mot Hiong [xiong 熊] est donné par le Dictionnaire de K ang-hi comme se prononçant, dans certains cas (mais non pas dans celui où il est le surnom de Hoang-ti) Nai ; M. Terrien de Lacouperie prend ce mot Hiong, prononcé à tort Nai, et le place devant le nom de Hoang-ti, créant ainsi une expression Nai (lisez Hiong) Hoang-ti qui n’existe, à ma connaissance, dans aucun texte chinois ; c’est ensuite un jeu d’établir les équivalences Nai = Na, Hoang = khun ; ti = te. Cet exemple suffit à expliquer pourquoi nous ne croyons pas nécessaire de surcharger nos notes en réfutant point par point les prétendues concordances sinico-élamites de M. Terrien de Lacouperie."
Chavannes was most likely referring to Terrien's work The Onomastic Similarity of Nai Kwang-ti of China and Nakhunte of Susiana (1890).
The full reference for Chavannes's note is Les Mémoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, volume 1 (Paris : Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1967 [a reprint]), p. 123. Chavannes's entire translation is available here, and volume 1 here, all for free.
"Mr. Terrien de Lacouperie's pretended Sinico-Elamite concordances" is an elegant put-down that would make a wonderful quote in your new article. Now I wonder what Chavannes would say about those many articles from Sino-Platonic Papers that try to show (also based on phonetic reconstructions) that Huangdi was an Indo-European god or a Sun god (like Nakhunte). Maybe our old Terrien de Lacouperie was up to something after all!
Hola! I finally decided "something is better than nothing," and pulled some of the material together and put it into mainspace Sino-Babylonianism. I am shamed that I haven't done a better job of fitting it into the richer articles on Yellow Emperor etc., so please have a go. Maybe even move to a better title? I looked through the online Lacouperie but couldn't find anything to turn into an image to illustrate. Hope all is well with you.ch (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Madalibi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I came across your name on one of the Wikipedia articles. Like you, I am interested in ancient Chinese history. May I ask you, what are the precise words used by Liu Xin (Chinese: 劉歆; c. 50 BC – AD 23), the famous Chinese astronomer and historian, for asserting that the Shang Dynasty began some one-thousand and seven-hundred years before him, that is to say, in the years 1766 to 1122 BC? What is the basis for this claim? What is Chinese traditional chronology? I understand from the Wiki article that Liu Xin's calculations were refuted by the "current text" of the Bamboo Annals, which places their reign from 1556 to 1046 BC. The Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project dated them from c. 1600 to 1046 BC. Any information and insights which you can give to me on how chroniclers fixed these ancient dates will be much appreciated by me.Davidbena (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Араси: Thank you for your explanation. I hadn't looked at the Manchu carefully, because the "letters" appear garbled on my browser. Two questions:
Is there a way to make Manchu script display properly instead of having letters stacked sideways and not connected to each other? :)
Are you sure that the proper Manchu pronunciation of his name is "Nurgaci" rather than "Nurhaci"? Based on this article — Martin Gimm, "Nurgači versus Nurhači: An Annotation by P. Adam Schall", Central Asiatic Journal 49.2 (2005): 204–212 — even in the very early Qing, his name was pronounced Nurhači ("Nurhache" in Schall's notes) rather than Nurgači. So the issue is not about the difference between Manchu and Mongolian script: it's about some people's (including some scholars') decision to take Nurhaci's name from sources pre-dating the reform that added "dots and circles" to the Manchu script around 1630 [before which time the Mongol-based Manchu script made no graphic difference between "g" and "h"] and then to disambiguate ga/ha as "ga" when it could be either. Based on the pronunciation of his name in Schall's time (Ming-Qing transition), shouldn't the proper spelling in New Manchu Script show "h" instead of "g"?
First of all, make sure your OS support Complex Scripts, for example, you should "Install files for complex script and right-to-left languages" in Control Panel if your OS is Windows XP or older, however, normally you don't need to do anything unless your OS is too old.
As for vertical writing, you need a browser supporting writing-mode of css3 (Comparison of layout engines (CSS)). In a word, you can use Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Edge or IE (IE 8 or later version). As for Android, try Firefox or Chrome. I know little about iOS.
It's probably pronounced as "nurhaci" and it's also written as "ᠨᡠᡵᡥᠠᠴᡳ" (nurhaci ) sometimes. Both nurgaci and nurhaci in Manchu are correct spell.
A few names (of people or places) translated into Chinese as "哈" (Pinyin: hā), but the syllable in Manchu is "᠊ᡤᠠ᠊"(-ga-)，Nurhaci and his younger brothers: ᠨᡠᡵᡤᠠᠴᡳ nurgaci → 弩爾哈齊 ᡧᡠᡵᡤᠠᠴᡳ šurgaci → 舒爾哈齊 ᠶᠠᡵᡤᠠᠴᡳ yargaci → 雅爾哈齊 ᠪᠠᠶᠠᡵᠠbayara → 巴雅喇 ᠮᡠᡵᡥᠠᠴᡳmurhaci → 穆爾哈齊 ("šurgaci"," yargaci" written as "šurhaci","yarhaci" in Manchu in some manuscripts.) And some names of places: ᠴᡳᠴᡳᡤᠠᡵcicigar → 齊齊哈爾 ᠰᡠᠪᠠᡵᡤᠠᠨsubargan → 蘇巴爾罕 I don't know the exact reason, maybe it pronounces as "-ha-", maybe follows the usual practice of translating, maybe influenced by the way of translating from Mongolian to Chinese.
In fact, I don't know how it pronounced since I can't know, what we can see is how it writes in literatures and manuscripts written in Qing Dynasty. Nurhaci's name was written as "ᠨᡠᡵᡥᠠᠴᡳ" (nurhaci ) sometimes in 崇謨閣藏满汉合璧本《滿洲實錄》(《滿洲實錄》with Manchu and Chinese text which was held in 崇謨閣 in Mukden Palace), a unique edition of《滿洲實錄》unlike other editions with Manchu, Chinese and Mongolian three kinds of text. In other editions, it left blank where the real name of emporers and their close ancesters ("nurgaci"/"nurhaci", "hong taiji" and "taksi", "giocangga", "fuman", "mengtemu") should have been written, then attach a small yellow silk on to cover the blank because of naming taboo"避讳". However, these names were written exactly under the yellew silk in the unique editon. What's more,《滿洲實錄》is much formaller than other unformal manuscripts that are unconvincing. So peeling the silk away, we can see how the names write:
Vol. 1. When introducing Nurhaci and his brothers, it mentioned "ᠨᡠᡵᡤᠠᠴᡳ " (nurgaci ) and "弩爾哈齊" twice.
Vol. 2. In direct speech of Nurhaci's praying before the battle of "g'urei alin"(古勒山), he called himself "ᠨᡠᡵᡥᠠᠴᡳ ᠪᡳ…" (nurhaci bi… ) "我弩爾哈齊…" ("I, Nurhaci…")
I just updated the article "努尔哈赤" in Chinese Wikipedia yesterday for the article was protected last month (It's half the reason for late reply). If you know Chinese, you may read the difference I made, with references offered there.
What I mean by "the difference between Manchu and Mongolian" that day is, the difference between two transliteration systems like "c" to "č", "j" to "ǰ", it's no business of our issue.--Араси (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
August 2017
Hello, I'm Edaham. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chinese food therapy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.
@Edaham: Could you please explain what you are referring to? The only content I removed from Chinese food therapy is a criticism section that discussed herbalism, not food therapy per se. And I did so before our exchange on the talk page, where I thought we agreed on pretty much everything. Also, if "the removed content has been restored", it might be because the editor who restored it ignored the point I made in my edit summary and is assuming, wrongly, that herbalism is the same as food therapy. Are you talking about something else? Or is this just a mistake? Madalibi (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the criticism section about herbalism needs to be rewritten, but your edit summary didn't clearly state a reason for its removal. In this case it might be better to follow wp:brd. I left you the note on your talk page to alert you to this fact. Edit summaries have to be pretty clear, especially when whole sections are removed. Edaham (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edaham: I would never blank a section for no reason and the reason for deletion I stated in my edit summary was that, "a criticism of herbalism, no matter how well-founded, has little to do with the dietary habits promoted by "Shiliao", ancient or modern". I thought this was at least fairly clear. :) But sure, let's go to the talk page... Madalibi (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sure thing - maybe I didn't read the correct edit summary. I was using the mobile UI. I've already started a thread on the talk page. Edaham (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Baomi: Thank you for letting me know! I just left a reasoned opinion and a comment on how to format your requested move to attract more people to the discussion. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Madalibi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Madalibi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Madalibi! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk17:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
