en User talk:Philg88 Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Philg88. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DYK nomination of Five Punishments

Hello! Your submission of Five Punishments at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Xiongnu

Hi, please do not add speculative categories to articles as you have repeatedly done in Xiongnu. There is no evidence that they were of "turkic origin". There is just one speculative theory (among several competing ones) that they might theoretically have spoken a pre-turkic language. "Pre-turkic" (not actual "turkic") because the real origin of the turkic family of languages, the Gökturks, only came into existence quite some time later. --Latebird (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you had checked your facts you would find that I have not added any categories to this article. All I did by reverting your edit(s) (for which you do not have a concensus), was in line with the WP policy of not deleting information without justification. I'm afraid that until you have a concensus otherwise the category remains. Philg88 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the requirement is the other way round. If you want contested information to remain in an article, then it is up to you to show that it belongs there (eg. by citing reliable sources). The category in question contradicts the sourced text content of the article, so there is a very good reason to remove it. In such a situation I don't need an artificial "consensus", but I can just follow WP:V. If you want to add it again, please first discuss your reasons on the talk page. Thanks for your understanding. --Latebird (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

用英语太麻烦，我就不费那个神了

劳烦您去了解一下姓氏的基础知识，姬是氏都给你说出来了，姬是古姓之一，秦汉之前只有女子用姓，如王姬、伯姬、子叔姬、卫姬、蔡姬、雍姬、庄姬，男子绝对不可能有姬某某这种称谓，不信可以自查《左传》和《史记》。—星光下的人 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Graveney Marsh

On 2 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Graveney Marsh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

私人对话，为什么不可以用中文

好，条目讨论页上不用英语，可以。私人对话，我就不客气了。你对春秋历史没有基础认识，又拿不出可以支持你说法的证据，居然还要共识才能修改，这又符合维基哪一条？春秋时期子爵国基本都是边族，这些边族要么直接称王，如楚国、吴国；要么是在国内称公而国际上称子，如邾国、小邾国、莒国，后面这种情况的国君称谥都是谥+公，从来没有谥号+子爵之子这种称谓。如果你要说韩的这些首领是子爵，是不是要把孔子孟子的子也翻译成子爵呢？—星光下的人 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do I use English and not Chinese? As I have told you politely several times, this is the English version of Wikipedia and that is the mother tongue of the majority of users. Please read the relevant policies on concensus amongst editors - you cannot undertake carte blanche changes without agreement between a number of editors, especially when they would have an impact on hundreds of articles and the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. You copying the template that I placed on your talk page to mine is to say the least disingenuous. Sorry, but these are the rules. Philg88 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability.The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.Where is the "hundreds of articles"?Please show these "hundreds of articles"。A mere verbal statement has no binding force. —星光下的人 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you do a search for Viscount China if you don't believe how many articles are affected by a change of viscount to zi. You need to understand that this is not an issue between the two of us, you must have concensus before you can make such a change as you have also been told on the Han (state) article by User:Hanfresco. Philg88 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Legalist

Thanks. I didn't want to remove the "famous". I thought I'd let you do it. On any other page, I would zap it on the spot, but considering the past edit war, I thought I'd better leave it for someone else.

Legalist is all caps in its article. Should I search and replace them to lower?. Please see that article's talk. An editor already capped them some time ago. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is that it should be lower case in the Legalism article too. Maybe put a note on the talk page first and get a consensus before proceeding? Best, Philg88 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Zhou Family Surname

《日知录·氏族》

《礼记·大传》正义：诸侯赐卿大夫以氏，若同姓，公之子曰公子，公于之于曰公孙，公孙之子其亲已远，不得上连于公，故以王父字为氏。若适夫人之子，则以五十字伯仲为氏，若鲁之冲孙、季孙是也，若庶子妾子，则以二十字为氏，则展氏、臧氏是也。若异姓，则以父祖官及所食之邑为氏。以官为氏者，则司马、司城是也，以邑为氏者，若韩、赵，魏是也。凡赐氏族者，比为卿，乃赐有大功德者。生赐以族，若叔孙得臣是也。是公子之孙，若有大功德，则以公干之字赐以为族，若仲遂是也。其无功德，死后乃赐族，若无骇是也。其子孙若为卿，其君不赐族，子孙自以上父字为族也。氏、族，对文为别，散则通也。故《左传》云：“问族于众仲”下云：“公命以字为展氏”是也。其姓与氏散亦得通，故《春秋》有姜氏、子氏，姜、子皆姓，而云氏是也。　　　战国时人大抵犹称氏族。姓也。汉人则通谓之姓，然氏族之称犹有存者。《汉书·恩泽侯表》“褒鲁节侯公子宽，以鲁顷公玄孙之玄孙，奉周祀。元始元年六月丙午，封于相如嗣，更姓公孙氏。后更为姬氏。”公子公孙，氏也，姬，姓也。此变氏称姓之一证。　　　《水经注》“汉武帝元鼎四年，幸洛阳，巡省豫州，观于周室，邈而无祀。询问耆老，乃得孽子嘉，封为周子南君，以奉周祀。”按《汲冢》古文谓卫将军文子为子南弥牟，其后有子南劲。《纪年》“劲朝子魏，后惠成王如卫，命子南为侯。”秦并六国，卫最后灭。疑嘉是卫后，故氏子南而称君也。据此，嘉本氏子南，武帝即以其氏命之为爵。而《汉书·恩泽侯表》竟作“姬嘉”，则没其氏而书其姓矣，与褒鲁之封公孙氏更为姬氏者正同。　　　姓氏之称，自太史公始混而为一。本纪于秦始皇则曰姓赵氏，于汉高祖则曰姓刘氏。　　　先生《原姓篇》曰：男子称氏，女子称姓。氏一再传而可变，姓千万年而不变。最贵者国君，国君无氏，不称氏称国，践土之盟，其载书曰：“晋重鲁申、卫武、蔡甲午、郑捷、齐潘、宋王臣、莒期。”荀偃之称齐环，卫太子之称郑胜、晋午是也。次则公子，公子无氏，不称氏，称公子，公子驱、公子益师是也，最下者庶人，庶人无氏，不称氏称名，然则氏之所由兴，其在于卿大夫乎？故曰：诸侯之子为公子，公子之子为公孙，公孙之子以王父字，若溢、若邑、官为氏。氏焉者，类族也，贵贵也。考之于《传》，二百五十五年之间，有男子而称姓者乎？无有也。女子则称姓。古者男女异长，在室也称姓，冠之以序，叔隗，季隗之类是也。已嫁也，于国君则称姓，冠之以国，江羋，息妫之类是也。于大夫则称姓，冠之以大夫之氏，赵姬、卢蒲姜之类是也，在彼国之人称之，或冠以所自出之卧若氏骊姬、梁赢之于晋，颜懿姬、鬷声姬之于齐是也。既车也称姓，冠之以溢，成风敬赢之类是也。亦有无溢而仍其在室之称，仲子、少姜之类是也，范氏之先，自虞以上为陶唐氏，在夏为御龙氏，在商为豕韦氏，在周为唐杜氏。上会之帑处秦者为刘氏。夫概王奔楚，为堂溪氏。伍员属其子于齐，为王孙氏。智果别族于大史，为辅氏。故曰氏可变也。盂孙氏，小宗之别为子月民氏、为南宫氏。叔孙氏，小宗之别为叔仲氏。季孙氏之支子曰季公鸟、季公亥。季寤称季不称孙。故曰贵贵也。鲁昭公娶于吴，为同姓，谓之吴孟子。崔武子欲娶棠姜，东郭偃曰：“男女辨姓，今君出自丁，臣出自桓，不可。”夫崔之与东郭氏异，昭公之与夷昧代远，然同姓，下世而婚姻不通者，周道也，故曰姓不变也。是故氏焉者，所以为另别也；姓焉者，所以为女坊也，自秦以后之人以氏为姓，以姓称男，而周制亡而族类乱。

Ji was the clan name？—星光下的人 (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your articles

Nice job. You are very productive. I'm going through some of them and spacing out the paragraphs per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Paragraphs. I'm also going to put a line space between sections, and do other tweaks. I thought I'd tell you here so that I can simply add "formatting" to the edit summaries. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)~

Why thank you. No problem with the formatting edits, go ahead. Best Philg88 (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deng Guangming

History cleared thanks to the marvelous JoJan.

As I suspected, he suggests using a fresh sandbox for articles to be moved into the mainspace. (Also, it is fine to use an old one, provided that the last thing that it was used for was an article that got moved. Moving to mainspace clears the history.)

I often use sandboxes for storage. If I do make an article in one, I usually cut and paste. That's why it was fully of old history. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Shang dynasty talk page

Hi Philg88, this is Zar2gar1. Thanks for helping out while I've been editing the Shang dynasty page. I've started working on reorganizing the talk page, and I'm about to start overhauling the sections. Most of the comments will fit cleanly in one of the sections, but I will probably have to divide up some of my comments (the ones with lists). I know that maintaining context is important so I was going to make a note that my divided comments were originally one post. One of your replies addresses two separate topics that I brought up in one comment, and I thought I should ask how you would want that comment handled before I change the page. Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome :) I assume that the comments you refer to are those in the Early & Late Shang section:

As for the capitals, Chinese WP just says that Pangu moved the capital to 殷 and that its other locations are not known. I wonder what the original source of the data here was?. A reflection of the relationship between Xia, Shang and Zhou would be useful as this is a commonly referenced in Chinese with 夏商周 so maybe change the section heading.

I've copied the first comment to a section that is more relevant to the topic which I think solves the problem. Best, Philg88 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese States

Thanks, Philg88, for letting me know. If you could be more specific, I will gladly correct it. Note, however, that some links are intended to bring attention to missing info, when a stated subject hangs up in the air without explanation what the article refers to, and the red link allows more informed editors to add that missing info. Regards, Barefact (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly my point :). In the Liao article you added "non-red" links for states that don't yet have an article. See the history of that page for what I mean. Best, Philg88 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tang code

Please see my answer. This article was largely wrote by myself using Gernet. If you have more reliable source, just go ahead, delete content, and put a better one instead : ] Regards Yug (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yug, I replied on the Talk:Tang Code page as it seems more appropriate to have the discussion there. Best Philg88 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Odysseus

When I demanded a source, I was demanding a source that made the comparison between the episode in the Ramayana and the Odyssey. So what if two stories have similar elements? Plenty do. You need to find a scholar that makes the comparison. Otherwise it is original research. I'm going to keep deleting the entry until you do. Ekwos (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not have time to waste listening to your "demands" and I do not "need" to do anything. If you wish to remove a perfectly valid cross cultural comparison that is referenced then carry on. Sadly, Wikipedia becomes a poorer place when we have editors with such a "slash and burn" mentality. Philg88 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the validity of cross cultural comparisons. It has everything to do with original research and laziness. There are all sorts of similarities that exist in the world, and all sorts of similarities that some editor is going to think is interesting. If we applied the standard you proposed every article could overflow with comparisons someone thinks is interesting. That is why reasonable sources are required and items without sources deemed original research.

I honestly don't understand how you can think a reference is so important, but not important enough to take some time out of your busy schedule to do some due diligence. Hell, all you probably had to do was google "Odysseus and Ramayana." Ekwos (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. Instead of commanding me to find a reference you could have googled "Odysseus and Ramayana" yourself. Anyway, the references are done now. Conversation closed. Philg88 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I went through the history and found that the editor who first inserted the paragraph referencing the alleged Hindu parallels, in September 2005, is a now-inactive IP user, so there’s not likely any help to be had from that quarter. However, some Web searching (after digging through a zillion hits that were just copies of the article in question!) turned up some evidence that the Odysseus : Penelope :: Nala : Damayanti notion is not without scholarly backing, in Splitting the difference: gender and myth in ancient Greece and India by Wendy Doniger, ISBN-13 978-0226156415, browsable at amazon.com, pp.157ff in particular. That ought to cover the first sentence; I’ll see what I can find on the trial-by-bow business. Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For Rama & Odysseus: in Harry Fokkens et al., “Bracers or bracelets? About the functionality and meaning of Bell Beaker wrist-guards”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 2008, University of Leiden, p.122.

“Odysseus himself was the only one who was able to strain his bow … he beat his competitors and regained his wife after his long absence due to the Trojan War. We can discover the same theme … for example in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata ….

“In these epics the bow is a recurrent motif, often intertwined with human values such as bravery, strength, and accuracy. Sometimes the central figure has a godlike identity. Like Odysseus, the Indian prince Rama proved his strength and skill by being able to lift and strain the bow, which originally belonged to Shiva, and eventually to break it, something none of the gods had been able to do, not even with their powers combined. By passing this test Rama gained the hand of Sita, daughter of king Janaka (Narayan 1972). In addition to the thematic similarity regarding the straining of the bow and (re)gaining a wife … both King Rama and Odysseus received the bow from a ‘special person’, who could be either a dear friend or a mighty god. This theme can also be traced in many other stories that include bows.”

I’m sure more citations could be found; less scholarly references to this parallel (among others between the Odyssey and the Ramayana) are all over the Web. Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Odysseus1479, I really appreciate your efforts. I've updated the page accordingly. If you ever need help in a similar situation just shout :) Best Philg88 (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Warring States Maps

Howdy. I'd be glad to help, but I don't know what GFC is. All I have here is the Cambridge History of Ancient China which I am slowly feeding in. I don't have any administrative rights or fancy tools. But I will do whatever I can. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response :) GFC is a form of control on Internet usage imposed by a certain country in which we both have an interest that prevents image uploads amongst other irritating things. All I need is to be able to email you the images and for you to upload them to commons. You can email me from my user page so that you don't need to give out your email publicly. Best, Philg88 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I just sent some email (didn't see this before) Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Received it thanks, I will reply later when I have my ducks in a row. Best Philg88 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Pomegranate

Hi. Thank you for adding the information about China, Korea, etc. on this page. Do you by any chance have a source for this? Whether a source is already used on a page or not, you can still add it to another section of the article. If you ahve trouble finding a source, I can help you find one or two that would support the statement. Please let me know. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)