User talk:CWH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello CWH! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I think its very important for you to browse through some of the links below so as to become familiar with how Wikipedia works. If you need any help you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and another Wikipedian will show up shortly. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you're already loving Wikipedia and plan on becoming a Wikipedian you might consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor, just paste {{Adoptme}} into your userpage and you will gladly be adopted! You might also consider joining a WikiProject so as to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just H 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do


WP:Films Welcome[edit]

Film reel.svg

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
  • Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

May You Live in Interesting Times[edit]

The Wikipedia entry for May You Live in Interesting Times has been updated. It now incorporates some of the information from the discussion page as you suggested. Garson (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


I hit save before removing the dates from the infobox, thanks for finding it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop?[edit]

You're making POV changes without discussing them first. We have things like sandboxes for a reason - or are you quite happy if I just start undoing your changes also without discussion first? John Smith's (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not all POV, but talking about "heroism" is somewhat irrelevant (as well as POV in my view) as that isn't challenged by the authors. The point I was making was more that you were making a lot of changes and then discussing it on the talk page - I would have preferred it if you had done it the other way around.
At some point I will make some changes myself. It will be a partial reversion in that not everything will be kept. However I will not make a universal revert and will keep some changes. Then I hope we can work from that new version as a starting-point if you want to make other edits. That might sound slightly selfish, but please understand it is merely to find some middle-ground to start from. Thanks, again, for your interest in the article. John Smith's (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking help[edit]

Hi, thanks for your disambiguating edit on Rewi Alley. With regard to your comment in the edit summary, to make the link text appear different from the linked target, you use a piped link thus: [[target|linktext]]. And to make your life even easier, the wiki software offers a shorthand if the target contains a comma or parentheses: [[George Hogg (adventurer)|]] (note the pipe character before the closing square brackets) becomes George Hogg when trh page is saved, and [[Hamilton, New Zealand|]] becomes Hamilton. This is known as a "pipe trick". The final pipe trick is that you can link to a singular article with a plural text by typing [[donut]]s which results in donuts. dramatic (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections[edit]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Please discuss on the talk page before you do any more revert on Boxer Rebellion.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think my editions are not up to scratch, you are always welcome to talk about it on the talk page until we come to some sort of consensus, what you have done is rude, to say the least.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Needham[edit]

I wonder if your edit of Joseph Needham represents the best choice from amongst a number of options? You were correct to notice that something didn't look right; and indeed, I was a bit unhappy with what you encountered. The problem is that so much information needs to be presented in the introductory paragraph; and I'm persuaded that the British post-nominals probably need to come before the Chinese name by which this international scholar is well known .... For now, I'm not sure how to resolve this minor conflict. The best I can do for now is to raise a red flag, encouraging you to keep your eye on this article and others like it, e.g.,

If I we are both correct, there still needs to be some kind of consensus about which is the better of two entirely "correct" ways to handle this. A useful model may be

If there is a better model that Satow, I suppose we'll discover it together in due course. --Tenmei (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Righteous Harmony[edit]

On the discussion page you wrote "has misleading material about the original rebellious nature of the group". Could you suggest some changes?--Editor2020 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Righteous Harmony Society to Boxer Rebellion.[edit]

No one responded to my posting of the mergeto tag, so I've done the redirect. Thanks for your patience.--Editor2020 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire[edit]

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Pacific Relations[edit]

As an OTRS representative, I have helped Paul Hooper leave a lengthy commentary on talk:Institute of Pacific Relations; he is looking forward to seeing contributors' responses. DS (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read the response. DS (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to MUS[edit]

What links did I remove that had been there a long-time? I thought you said they had been duplicated. As for the others, sorry I wasn't paying attention. But I don't see how Bush recommending a book is relevant to reactions that are mostly academic (in that section).

I'm not sure what adding a throw-away reference to a book adds to the article. It's almost like marketing. John Smith's (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not sure that it is ok for you to revert. If you don't agree with me then please start up a discussion on the talk page and we'll take it from there. John Smith's (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Song salt industry[edit]

The first chief concern here should not be adding content or creating new articles, but gathering a list of credible sources that someone (maybe me) will gather, read, and research in order to take notes and then write a comprehensive paragraph or two in Economy of the Song Dynasty which summarizes all the material. This is the most scholarly and professional approach, while at the same time takes into consideration the article's existing size and size constraints (see WP:SIZE). I checked my university library catalogue and found nothing useful in regards to Song-era monopolized industries, let alone salt. I checked journal articles at JSTOR, and although that database seems to have some decent sources on Ming and Qing era salt production and administration, there are no articles which specifically tackle the Song-era salt industry.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, I'm still busy with creating and rewriting Han Dynasty articles at the moment (check the main links on the left for history, society and culture, science and technology, economy, and government, the latter of which I am working out in my sandbox, but three of them are already GA level articles):

Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; I'll take a look at the finished product once you are done.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "Civilisation" is the correct British spelling and the sources should reflect this. However, as for the Needham volumes which you think are pirated, those are books that were given to me as a Christmas present a few years ago, purchased on Their copyright page says:

This edition of Science and Civilization in China is published by arrangement with Cambridge University Press. Licensed for sale in Taiwan only. Not for export...First Printing, April 1986...Published by Caves Books, Ltd. 103, Chungshan N. Rd., Sec. 2, Taipei. Tel: 5414754, 5371666.

On this edition I'm looking at (Volume 4, Part 2), it also gives the ISBN 0521058031 and Library of Congress Catalogue Number 54-4723.

Is this truly a pirated version of the text? If so, I feel dirty! Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Don't worry; no matter is too small to bring up. Especially when it is a matter of properly citing sources. As for using "Cambridge University Press" instead, the book I have dually cites Cambridge University Press alongside Caves Books Ltd., but wouldn't it be dishonest of me if I cited my source as the Cambridge-only edition, and not the 1986 Caves Books volume which I'm actually using? I don't think it should matter too much, but that is something to consider.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't taken a look already, you should see what I did to the main Han Dynasty page. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


For you comments on Salt Monopoly on Song Dynasty. I think is good topic too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Needing an opinion[edit]

Hi, CWH. Having seen your name on the Joseph Needham article, I thought you might be a good editor to ask for an opinion. Could you take a look at East West dichotomy? I ran across it on new page patrol. Despite the long reading list, it appeared to me to be entirely based on Thorsten J. Pattberg (a bio that also was just created) and was a weak attempt to provide notability for Pattberg. However, I am not familiar with the subject matter. Is there anything of actual substance in this article? Thanks. CactusWriter | needles 11:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate your help. CactusWriter | needles 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Dixie Mission[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and found several unreferenced statements which need addressing. Details at Talk:Dixie Mission/GA1. The reassessment is on hold for seven days after which it may be delisted if it does not meet the GA criteria. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Frogs in a well[edit]

Your suggestion was appreciated. I have begun to follow through by creating the following:

In due course, I will ensure that the data does metastasize. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Labour Corps[edit]

Hello and thank you for your comment on my talk page. I have worked on the article mostly in order to learn about the topic myself. I knew about the cemetery in Noyelles-sur-Mer and found an interesting article of the RASHKB, so I decided to go ahead with the article expansion. At this point, I am not planning to do much more work on it, so if you feel like expanding the article, please go ahead. There is a lot of material in this article that can be used. Also, the Corps were recruited by the British, but there was another large group recruited by the French. I have virtually no detail about this second group, but if you have information in French that you would like to use but cannot really read, I can help with that. Cheers! olivier (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Karl August Wittfogel[edit]

Thank you for improving the Wittfogel article. I am not happy with my sentences about the Asiatic Mode, but cannot do much about it right now, I think I have pretty much used up the resources at hand and I really want to read Ulmen's biography next. There is some interesting (but minor) stuff online, Joachim Radkau's book Natur und Macht (on google books) has 1 interesting note about Rudi Dutschke and Lawrence Krader. There are also important essays on the web: A reader on the Asiatic Mode by Anne Bailey and others is on google books with a lot of essays. I like the Wolfram Eberhard best, but there also is a Lawrence Krader piece and more. Vidal-Naquet's very fair Annals review is also available online. --Radh (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New dispute at Mao: The Unknown Story[edit]

Hi CWH. If you've got the time your views would be welcome on the talk page for this article. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Please have a look and give some advice, thanks. User:Arilang1234/Comparison between written English and written Chinese Draft Arilang talk 08:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Please have a look at Talk:Boxer Rebellion if you are still interested in that subject. Arilang talk 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

you can remove all the nianhua images in the Kansu Braves section in the Boxer Rebellion article, i was the one who added then, and i will not object to their removal.Дунгане (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The following paragraph was also added by me to the kansu braves section, and you may also remove it, since it is exclusviely sourced from nianhua, unlike the other material i added.
"Dong Fuxiang's Muslim forces defeated the Westerners led by Seymour on August 1 outside of Tianjin at the Battle of Beicang. They bombarded the city and mined a Russian paddle steamer at the Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900), inflicting many casualties. At Shanhaiguan the Chinese Muslims also torpedoed Russian ships with torpedoes"Дунгане (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Arilang1234's removal of referenced material[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to raise some concerns here. User Arilang1234 keeps trying to delete referenced material of Prof Mobo Gao (from Uni of South Australia) in the Great Leap Forward article. He claims that Prof Gao's material are fringe because of two "negative" reviews he found, which several other users noted that it's not the case [1]. I've also noted that Prof Gao has been found to be reliable in a previous decision in the Reliable Source noticeboard [2].-- (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

First Opium War[edit]

Hi, nice work on the First Opium War lead. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 07:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


I would appreciate your input on the talk page on anything you have a view on, especially how to deal with atrocities. As for the article title, we should go with what is the most common usage in English. You could always open a formal page move request and seek outside views. But I have a feeling that it will stay with "Boxer Rebellion" as that's by far the most common reference. John Smith's (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Please have a look:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol and your comment is highly appreciated. Arilang talk 04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your valued suggestions on ways to improve the translation:1900 National Upheaval 庚子國變記 (李希聖), thanks. Arilang talk 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

old material[edit]

do you mind telling me whats wrong with this primary source?

the author of the passage viewed things that no modern author can ever do without a time machine. a direct copy and paste of a passage onto the Imperial Examination article would not violate policy, as long as it is indicated where it came from.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you after seeing all your good work on a number of pages. We have a lot of interests in common, so I am happy to explain myself. I apologize for being picky, but many of our articles are filled with sloppy sourcing. This is not an extreme example, but I think it should be avoided.
The problem is precisely that this is Wikipedia:No_Original_Research#primary source, which Wikipedia policy discourages for very good reason. One is that Wikipolicy calls for Verifiability, not Truth. Next, it is difficult to tell when something from the time of the event is actually based on whether the author "viewed things" which no modern author could see, whether they made it up, whether they misunderstood what they saw, or whether they later changed their minds. Using their testimony would be like using the testimony of only one witness in a trial without cross examination and without further documentary or circumstantial evidence. Later scholars have several advantages which compensate for the fact that they were not there. They can read the testimony of conflicting witnesses, use sources (such as documents and archives) which the eyewitnesses did not have access to, and must submit their findings to the judgments of other scholars who have experience in the field. It is true that later scholars have their own points of view, but they have to convince readers who do not share it.
In this case, Andrew Sibbald, who is not further identified, does not claim to have "viewed things," and he does not cite any sources, but he probably used an article by SW Williams on the Chinese army in Chinese Repository. Using Williams' Middle Kingdom is barely acceptable, but he is a respected scholar who used Chinese sources. In any case, there are better documented works and we need to find and use them, as you have so often done.
Since your question applies to many of the suggestions and edits I have made recently, would you mind if I posted it on other pages (without your name, if you so wish)?
ch (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
post it without my name. Regarding the Royal Asiatic Society's works, some of the information in there is translation from old Chinese texts, or old historical accounts, the modern professor of asian history, Shih-shan Henry tsai, who wrote "The eunuchs in the Ming dynasty", included the same information as one of the Royal Asiatic Society's publications
this and this are the exact same incident. the Royal Asiatic Society's version was even more detailed.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If the information is the same, then Wikipolicy is to use the secondary source. Again, the policy is not Truth but Verifiability. An older source will sometimes be perfectly true, but the ordinary reader has no way of knowing whether it is or not. A monograph by a respected and reviewed scholar such as Prof. Tsai has a higher percentage chance and is less subject to question. If the Royal Asiatic Society translation has better details, then I agree that you are right to use them because the actual source is the original document. But the citation should list the original document and the translator, eg "Qing Annals" Book 1 Chapter 1, translated by George Smith, Royal Asiatic Society (1884) pp. 1-2. ch (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


I understand that treating primary sources like secondary sources is a mistake when editing, what I am talking about is copying and pasting passages in narrative blockquote format and saying, the following passage comes from XXX primary source: ".......".DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you want to get nominated as admin?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

accept nomination[edit]

You need to indicate acceptance of the nomination here. Just type "i accept this nomination" or something like that under the paragraph where i gave my reason for nominating you.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
THanks -- sorry -- I didn't read the fine print! ch (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You may want to reconsider the RfA. Statistics have shown that in the past 2.5 years, only one editor has passed with less than 3000 edits and many editors will oppose simply on that basis. Also, "not reading the fine print" isn't something that's a good trait for an admin ;) - That's not to say that you'll never be an admin, but I have a feeling that now may not be the best time. Have a read of some useful advice and a lot of stats. WormTT · (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


China barnstar.png The PRC Barnstar
To CWH, for China-related articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to CWH by Axl ¤ [Talk] on 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, CWH. I don't think that you have the experience and motivation to be an administrator. However you are a good editor and you deserve a barnstar. Best wishes, Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hi there. Don't be disheartened by what happened. The people opposing your RfA think that you're good at what you do, and that you should keep doing it, however they don't believe that you're ready for Adminship, which is very different from writing articles. Wikipedia needs and values article contributors, so keep up the good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Acutally I'm the one who is getting chagrined, my nomination statement should have been better wordered.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

Based on what I'm seeing in your RfA right now, I'd like to suggest you withdraw the request. The number of statements in opposition, and the common theme of their positions, appear to outweigh those in support, and I do not foresee a successful outcome. Please don't let it dishearten you, though; some administrators have made as many as four or five separate attempts before being "handed the mop". Review the comments being made, bolster your knowledge and skills, and give it another try in three or four months. It's the same thing I'm having to do! Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed RFA[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to leave a note here. I closed your RFA per WP:SNOW. Please don't let this discourage you from editting, but the discussion had taken a turn for the worst and there is only so much criticism any of us can take. I see you are a very good editor with a lot of support and I think you'd make a great admin someday but just not today. I think if you participate in more administrative areas of Wikipedia and maintain your activity that someday you may have a successful RFA. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help coach you in a few admin areas such as WP:CSD, WP:UAA or WP:AFD. Good luck.--v/r - TP 02:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Peiho river[edit]

somethings may be mispelled on Boxer articles. Due to some odd spelling by western sources of the Peiho river (which should be Pai ho river in Wade Giles), I mistook it for Beihe in pinyin.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment about my edits on the Boxer article. I'll continue to poke at the article now and then, but the overall redraft you've undertaken was essential. One thing that we might take up at some point is the transliteration of Chinese. Right now some articles relating to the Boxer Rebellion use pinyin and some use the old Wade Giles system. Should we strive to use only one or the other? Is there a wikipedia policy on this? Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Monguor people[edit]

Can you take a look at Monguor people? A User has raised concerns over what may be imagined connections with various ancient ethnic groups.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a fascinating page -- lots of solid material -- but it does seem too long and complicated for most readers. I looked at the History of the article, and it appears that a number of people contributed to it, so I don't think that's a problem. I imagine that there are more contributors than potential readers, since only two or three people in the world might know the topic enough to search for it. Maybe the title should be changed to make it more clear to the general reader, and adding links to other articles. I'm also not knowledgable enough to evaluate the use of the sources. Is it important to you? If so, I'll try to check some of the references to see if they are accurate and balanced. I'll put a comment on the Discussion page. Cheers. ch (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New section at Dream of the Red Chamber[edit]

Hi, I really appreciate your work, but I'm actually kind of against adding section about "Reception and influences" to it, for various reasons. First, the novel's status and enormous influence in China is very hard to convey in terms of Western text, so the section I'm afraid would read very trivialized and kind of all over the place, and almost "sensationalized" and "gossipy". Second, I'm oppose to list pop culture related stuff (albums, tv series) to this, as there are too many to note. But, great work nonetheless! I edited and modified the new content quite a bit, correcting grammatical mistakes and make sure the prose reads smoothly and the clean-up on the appearance of the paragraphs.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

russian invasion of manchuria[edit]

I will start the article as a stub the next time I edit. I was doing the article from memory, from sources I read a long time ago, and trying to look up the sources now, I will have to fill in the blanks later.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back! An important topic, too. Would it be possible to sort through the various articles on Russia (and the Soviet Union) in East Asia and coordinate them? Maybe make sure that the main article on Outline of Russia and the Timeline of Russian history have links? It's a fascinating story and one that I'm not qualified to work on. ch (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Herman Melville bibliography peer review[edit]

I know you have has shown some recent interest in the article. I wonder if you'd participate in coming up with a kind of laundry list of things to be done to bring it up to FL? Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alcmaeonid -- Thanks for asking. I'm interested in HM but I don't rank as a specialist. I lived for some years with an HM fan so I absorbed some knowledge (I also have a number of the NU-Newberry volumes). My view is really just that of a general reader who would like to see useful information without extensive random detail that turns people off, but with links and references for people who want more. So far I think you've done a great job of expanding on the list from WL PInder and Associates (the link is at the bottom of the page). I like the way you've set up the table, which makes the information a lot more accessible. But we should correct the listing of Typee and Omoo as "novels" and maybe figure out a better way of listing the stuff under the headings below the table. The classification from Pinder is not too reliable. Your info on the publication history seems interesting and well done to me, so maybe more of the same for other works? My feeling would also be that this article should not duplicate from the main HM article but instead put your good thoughts there, with links to them here on the bibliography page. But I would imagine that the background on his poetry writing should go there. Another project for somebody would be to deal with the translations, at least in a general way. A lot of them appear on WorldCat. Cheers. ch (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:CWH/Edward Charles Bowra has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. Petan-Bot (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear CWH, I can't quite remember why I have your page on my watchlist, but I couldn't help notice this discussion about Edward Bowra. It turns out that there is an entire book on Bowra's life: Charles Drage's The Dragon Throne: Being the Lives of Edward and Cecil Bowra (London: Peter Dawnay, 1966). Bowra is also mentioned in Patricia Lim's Forgotten Souls: A Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery (2011). (See this). I hope these sources will help you to establish notability so that your article can quickly move to article space! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. First, I'm sorry for not seeing the "Further reading" section where this very book already appears! And yes, I'm a member of the AAS. I attended last year's conference in Hawaii, but I will not be in Toronto because I am not presenting and I have other conferences in north America in the first half of the year (not to mention that Toronto in the winter is a bit less attractive than Honolulu!). Attracting more scholars to WP would indeed be a wonderful idea! I remember reading your post concerning WP on H-Asia a few years ago (and the excellent article it linked to), but I don't know how many people followed your exhortations. I suspect many scholars are turned off by the ban on "original research," but once they understand it, they may realize that Wikipedia still leaves much room for creativity, and even learning. One motivating factor could be that some Wiki pages get more readers in one day than most scholarly monographs do in one year! In any case, I truly hope your initiative succeeds. (Incidentally, a review of my dissertation has recently been announced on H-Asia, so you can probably trace who I am. Let me know if you can't and I will email you.) All the best, Madalibi (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So now you know who I am! :-) Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean when a message I just wrote gets posted to the place where you just posted about the article where you just thanked me. If you see what I mean... :) Madalibi (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
North by northwest! ch (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"That fellow's dusting crops where there ain't no crops!" Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
But can he tell a hawk from a handsaw? ch (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
...or turtles from jayes? Madalibi (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Words, words, words....with a bare (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The redlinks are because I have moved it into mainspace. DS (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Inviting you to comment[edit]

Dear CWH. I just submitted a proposal to un-capitalize "dynasty" in the titles of all wikis on Chinese dynasties (Han Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, and the like). I don't know whether you will agree, but I (and, I'm sure, other editors who are interested in China pages) would be interested to know what you think of this issue. Thank you!

On a different note, I recently noticed that User:Keahapana is a retired scholar who edits articles on ancient China (Huang-Lao, for example, is his or her creation). I don't know if he/she attends AAS meetings, but he/she might be a good person to contact about your initiative to encourage China scholars to edit Wikipedia. Just a thought! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More on "dynasty" vs. "Dynasty"[edit]

Hi CWH. I'm contacting all the editors who have commented on whether we should un-capitalize "dynasty" in wiki titles. I have just proposed a new and simple way to make a final decision on this issue. Could you go to this new section to say whether you support my proposal? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting! Madalibi (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your article The Imobile Empire has been moved to AfC space[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:CWH/The Immobile Empire has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Immobile Empire, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action edit add.png
\The Immobile Empire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Arash Shah[edit]

user Arash Shah has added fake information to the Ma Fuxiang, Ma Hongkui, Ma Hongbin, Ma Bufang, Ma Qi, Ma Zhongying, Yihewani, and Ma Clique articles.

He has been switching the ethnicities from Hui on Ma Fuxiang and his family members to Dongxiang people without any source, and the ethnicities of Ma Bufang's family from hui to Salar people. He has also added racist material against Dongxiang and salar on the Dungan people article, accusing them of pretending to be Hui, but somebody, thank god, reverted his edits.

This guy is basically switching the ethnicity of anyone he considers to be unpleasant from his own (hui people) to other muslim groups in China (dongxiang and salar).

He also keeps on deleting the word "arab", and replacing it with "religious", and writes everywhere that Hui people originate from "persians, turkish, and jewish origin", but leaves out arab. He then suggested that the muslim brotherhood (terrorist organization) was responsible for replacing persian with arabic in hui communities in China.

On the Yihewani article, he falsely claimed that this religious organization in China is linked to the middle eastern Muslim Brotherhood just becasue they have the same name in Arabic. They are not related at all. The Yihewani was a religious movement founded in China in the 1800s by Ma Wanfu, the Middle eastern muslim brotherhood is an organization founded in 1928 by Hassan Al-banna, an Arab. Linking them is extremely libellious, considering that the muslim brotherhood is considered a terrorist group in countries like Syria, while the Yihewani was supported by the Kuomintang, he is suggesting that the KMT is a terrorist supporter.

Can you just do a blanked Revert on all of his edits on these articles?

He is basically adding racist stuff against Arabs, Dongxiang, Salar, Han chinese, while glorifying persian, jews, and uighurs.Blseki (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article[edit]

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png lol cheez! Joephillip (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Qing Languages[edit]

Hi. Well, it is simply a matter of preference over how it is presented. Guanhua is the native name for it while Mandarin is the English name, however, it may sometimes also refer to Standard Chinese instead. I think for the template, which describes the entity of a state, Guanhua is perhaps more suitable. Thanks.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Nathan Chinese Name[edit]

Let me clarify first hand, I am not being racist or have anything against you per se. The link you posted me was a Chinese website and I cannot make head or tail about it. I assume when you put a traditional name against a person's English name, like the Mandarin name you put against Andrew's name, it points out that either he is Chinese or has Chinese lineage or intensive Chinese connections. But in this case he is only a scholar in Chinese matters. Supposedly if I translate your name in Arabic and put against your or my name, a reader may assume you or me as an Arab or have some Arab lineage which is totally wrong. Hence I wanted to stop people from getting the wrong impression. If I go to Jackie Chan's webpage and put his name's translation in French what thought would cross your mind first, when you visit the page. And I questioned the fact that Andrew has a Chinese name, but I checked from Google there wasn't any where where the fact could be corroborated, hence I removed it. If you can post a link where this could be verified, you can go ahead and revert my changes. The Chinese translation is there, but does Andrew use a Chinese name, that is the point.

Pranabnaik (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources and original research[edit]

I deleted a paragraph in violation of synthesis and original research over here.

Can you explain to User:ServicableVillian over here at Talk:Taiwanese_aborigines#Cannibalism the original research policy on primary sources? He seems to think that since he likes what a primary source says, it can be used in any manner. He also doesn't comprehend synthesis after I showed him a link to the policy. He still thinks its okay to use primary sources like secondary sources. The paragraph I deleted also contained information not even found in the primary sources, saying that the Qing were oppresive, and comparison by the editor between two primary sources.Rajmaan (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Unequal treaty[edit]

In your recent changes to the lede of the article, most of which I consider an improvement, you removed text I had just inserted saying that the term is a literal translation from Chinese. I think that is essential information for understanding the way the term is used and should be re-inserted either in the lede or in the ""overview" section. However, I do not want to start an edit war and I am not certain I know why you deleted it, so I am asking here instead. Pashley (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion, Pashley. It's good that we are giving attention to this important article, but there is more to be done in focusing and clarifying on the basis of the references. Wang Dong is the key reference for China, since she has done the spadework and thought most carefully about the question. Although I may have missed it in a quick search, I don't see that she gives the origin of the English language term as such, though she does give a number of similar terms in 19th century usage. So though your supposition that it was translated from Chinese (whether "literally" or not) seems entirely reasonable, I'd be hesitant to state baldly where the term came from in the absence of a reference. It could well have come into Chinese from the Japanese, for instance, from a common source. So could we let it ride, pending a specific reference?

BTW, Wang also comments that most treaties are unequal, that the phrase lacks a "clear and unambiguous meaning," and that there is no agreement as to how many "unequal treaties" there were. (Introduction). I'd be happy for you to add comments along these lines if you have time. ch (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up and adding citations. LK (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, LK! I took a look at your User Page and am much impressed with your work -- the Barnstar means a lot coming from an editor like you. ch (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion (Opium Wars -> First Opium War)[edit]

I have motioned to merge Opium Wars into First Opium War with the posting Talk:First Opium War#Merge discussion. I picked out your name in the existing Talk:Opium Wars#Disambiguation page thread, which I believe this was a merge discussion in substance already underway, even though it was couched in terms of a "dab page". I noticed that you contributed substantial pieces of the article as well, so I'd like you can weigh in on this, and hopefully with consensus reached, I or someone else can perform the merger. Thx. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Photography in China[edit]

Photography in China needs your attentention. I wrote something at the talk page for you and others refference. Have a nice day anyway112.118.204.196 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

MfD nomination of User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period[edit]

User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:CWH/Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ch (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Albert Feuerwerker[edit]

Hello, CWH, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Albert Feuerwerker, appears to be directly copied from Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Albert Feuerwerker if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lenin's article on the Boxers in Iskra[edit] has an English version of his article, "The War in China". It says the article in Public domain as long as its credited to "Marxists Internet Archive".Rajmaan (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead with the quote, there should be more added on the people's own articles themselves. Tolstoy had more to say about the rebellion. He published an open letter or "epistle to the chinese people" criticizing the Allies. He also corresponded with Gu Hongming and agreed with him that Kang Youwei's reforms were foolish. There are sources for this at Talk:Leo_Tolstoy/Archive_2#Tolstoy.27s_anti_imperialist_stance_on_the_boxer_rebellion.Rajmaan (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yuan Shikai's anti Boxer campaigns in Shandong in Zhili[edit]

Yuan Shikai engaged in a brutal suppression campaign in Shandong and used extremely harsh tactics, I remember that one of them was possibly executing male family members of suspected Boxers. He killed thousands in that campaign and then joined the Eight Nation Alliance in Zhili after they took Beijing and killed several thousand more people. The information needs to be expanded and separate articles created for each campaign.Rajmaan (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

some sections don't have their own main articles. The main article on General Nie's Tenacious Army needs to be created. There are sources listed at Talk:Nie_Shicheng, we need to write more articles. We also need to create a separate article on the siege at Tientsin, see sources at Talk:Battle_of_Tientsin#Siege_of_the_concessions_in_tianjin.Rajmaan (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I'm thinking that we should split the Boxer article, which is over the suggested size for splitting. This would make it easier to read and also create room for detailed discussion of the topics you mention. We should be careful to build the links and references clearly into the Boxer article.
You are doing great work in finding these sources! But most people will be scared away from a long list of bare links, since the links usually do not show what they are. You will multiply the use by many time if you add brief descriptions. Also remember that Wikipedia policy discourages primary sources. ch (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wilt L. Idema[edit]

Hello, CWH. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Wilt L. Idema, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. GregJackP Boomer! 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wilt L. Idema for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wilt L. Idema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilt L. Idema until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Agnes Smedley/ Edgar Snow[edit]

Apologies -- I should have explained more clearly. I have nothing against Agnes Smedley, whose works I have read with pleasure and profit. But:

A) They were not as influential either among the American public or with later scholars as were those of Snow and Buck. B) The source in the footnote says the opposite: Smedley had "a certain vogue among the party faithful but not very far beyond" p. 162. Isaacs mentions only one other author, Lin Yutang. So unless you can find a source to back up the addition of Smedley, I hope you will agree that your well-intentioned sentence should be removed from the lede. But I do think it would be a good idea to add a later paragraph mentioning some of the other 1930s writers on the CCP.

Cheers ch (talk)

If it helps, I found another source that Red Star and Good Earth are the two most influential books is Mao's Journeys to the West: Meanings Made of Mao. in T. Cheek, (ed.), A Critical Introduction to Mao (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p 316. Unfortunately, the online Google Book doesn't include this page, but there is some discussion at [3]. I added a little more at George Hatem. ch (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)



First, thank you for your kind note. All too often, I receive notes from other Wikipideans that are very high-handed and self-righteous, while yours was anything but.

If you have read Smedley, then you know that 1) Smedley's Daughter of the Earth (1929) has been a long-time best-seller and 2) Smedley was blacklisted after allegations that she had been involved with communist spy Richard Sorge. Let me spell both points out a bit further, please. According to the New York Times, Daughter became much better known when reprinted in 1935 ("Book Notes," NYT, April 3, 1935, p. 21). According to the Library of Congress, the book has been reprinted four times, including 2011. According to biographer Ruth Price, HUAC investigation led the a blacklisting, of all Smedley's books except Daughters. Thus, almost any source writing after 1950 is likely to dismiss Smedley's importance, either due to anti-communism or its simple consequence that her name passed into censure and her books out of print. (Snow's experience under McCarthyism was far lighter by comparison.) Oh, and who reviewed her book Chinese Destinies in 1933 for the New York Times? Just Owen Lattimore ("A Long Way From the Whole Truth About China," by Owen Lattimore, NYT, December 10, 1933, p. BR9): also tainted and also investigated far more famously during McCarthyism). So, good CWH, I challenge you: show us credible sources that pre-date, say, 1945 (before American concerns turned from Hitler to Stalin -- and Mao), that show that Snow's book was more important than Smedley's two pre-1937 China books.

Here's a quote for perspective:

A second, perhaps even more important element in magnetizing the Chinese people and turning their passions against the Japanese, were the communists. Readers of the books of Edgar Snow and Agnes Smedley are familiar with the details. (The Dragon Wakes: A Report from China, by Edgar Ansel Mowrer. William Morrow, 1939, p. 173)

Thus, when Snow's book came out, Smedley's was the name associated. Just before his book came out, the names were Smedley and Buick, as this 1937 book on Google Books shows: Living China: Modern Chinese Short Stories. Just search on Smedley, Buck, and Snow and see how Smedley and Buck come out the big names.

One of the beauties of Wikipedia is the opportunity to correct historiographical inaccuracies: that is why I am trying to do here, as in many cases.

Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to reply

THanks for your great reply! I've left a long winded reply to your reply on your (talk|User Page). Hope it helps and that you go on to many happy edits. ch (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Military history of the Qing dynasty[edit]

Greetings, CWH. Sorry for being a busy-body, but I noticed you're working on splitting out this section into a separate article, and I just wanted to point out a little niggle. Wikipedia's licence requires a chain of attribution for all the text, and copying the section into your userspace, developing it there and then copying it to a new article would break that. That could be avoided by just copying the original section to a new article in mainspace and working on that – then all that would be needed for attribution would be an edit summary like "split from Qing Dynasty#Military". (There's much more at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.) Best regards, Kanguole 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the (most appropriate) heads up and your (renewed) patience! ch (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)



There´s a discussion here [3] about moving Isle of the Cross in the "Works by Herman Melville" template, if you want to voice an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I took a look at this edit. Even if the document itself is in English, it's a good idea to post the author's name in Chinese. That means somebody can find more documents written by the same person in another language. Andrew Lih, a Chinese American, has his Chinese name in his Wikipedia article (I put it there since it's the de facto standard to include Chinese names of Chinese Americans - see Anna May Wong and Gary Locke), and he only wrote in English.

I stated "Document in English, with two-page extract in Traditional Chinese." to make it clear to English speakers what the last two pages are, and that they aren't missing some kind of content. I also would like to include the Chinese version title as per the extract.

If the citation format absolutely does not allow "original script" names of article authors who do not have Wikipedia articles, please link to the guideline pages.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this message, which gives me a chance to say hello back to you! I took the opportunity to look at your page, and I like what I see -- if you're into chili, speak Chinese, and are owned by one or more cats, then I can forgive you for not being left handed!
But to business. Although I'm glad to see your message, I wonder if you've thought through what you're saying, namely that the name of every author of a reference in a footnote should be given in .... what? Their "native" language? Why only Chinese authors? Many people who are not Chinese have Chinese names, so should we give their names in Chinese too? What about Russian or Norwegian? Giving Chinese names in Chinese-American bio articles is not the same at all as giving the Chinese characters for the author of an article in a footnote.
Second, this is not a "document," but an article. Many articles in scholarly journals have abstracts, sometimes in French or whatever, and this is simply part of the article and does not need to be indicated any more than the fact that the article has page numbers in Arabic numbers.
You ask, "If the citation format absolutely does not allow "original script" names of article authors who do not have Wikipedia articles, please link to the guideline pages." The relevant section is WP:CITEHOW.
BTW, Wikipedia style: we do not have a section of "References" which lists items which are already in the footnotes. See GENREF, Footnotes and References, Further references.
I also have questions about the WP:NOTABILITY of the article De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes, which is showing up in a number of other articles where it's certainly not notable. But that's for another time.
Hope to see more of your work in this area. Thanks again for the message. ch (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I am very much right handed :)
The native names of Norwegian, Spanish, etc. tend to be written the same way in English as they are in the Latin script so it would be redundant to write them write. But for Russian I do try to include Russian names also. For instance I put one author's name here: Sergei_Safronov_(Hero_of_the_Soviet_Union)#References (the Russian name showed up in a Google Books entry). Same goes for Arabic, Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc. In WP:CITEHOW it says to include "the name of the author" but it doesn't give specifics on when one should indicate the other-script spellings of a name.
I decided to include the information because this particular article has an abstract in Chinese. While many articles have abstracts they're usually in the same language. I didn't want a non-Chinese speaker to get confused about the final two pages. I believe that by giving as much information about the article as I can it can help the reader make the fullest use of this article.
The way I've been using WP:GENREF is putting the book name in the "References" section (WP:GENREF states that the general book names go there). The example Wikipedia:FNNR seems to indicate that "Notes" go before "References" but "Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose" seems to give individual leeway on exactly what sections are called. It seems like the format can differ a little bit between articles. But regarding the point to not mix up the GENREF and specific footnotes, in which articles did this occur? As for Wikipedia:FURTHER What I do with "further reading" is list specific books that are not currently cited in the article but may be useful to the reader. If it's alright, may I see specific examples of ways my edits have not kept up to the format?
Even though you did want to save it for another time, I do want to get a few things out of the way about De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes, the basis of notability I'm using is WP:GNG. I did a search on an academic database and found two book reviews, which count as reliable, secondary, independent sources. That's the basis of the notability. If you'd like I can check for more. Keep in mind this one book has many articles on different subjects, so there are a lot of articles in which this book is relevant. I post the relevant child article from the parent book depending on the article. If you have a question about why I posted a certain article in an article's further reading section I'll be happy to answer it :)
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A number of points!

  • Nobody said anything about Spanish names, but in fact they are, like French or Norwegian names, often different from English language usage even though they are written in "Latin script." You are doing a fantastic service by adding names in Russian for books published in Moscow and presumably translated from the Russian. I appreciate that you are trying to help readers, but it is 1) Not Wikipedia policy to ask for all forms of names for the author in a footnote any more than for the Chinese title of an article in English. 2) Perfectly easy for any reader who wants Liu Wu-chi's other articles to find out his name by looking at the Abstract. Or, if you are concerned, start a stub article for Liu, who is a very distinguished scholar. It is not a good use of your brains and time to try to supply names for every Chinese in every reference in every footnote in any case.
If you don't believe me, please ask at the Help Desk. Also whether it is needed or even allowed to include the presence, much less the language, of an Abstract.
  • Notability for books is not given by WP:GNG but Notability (books). Two reviews do not make a book notable or else every book in every university press catalog would be notable. I am not raising the question on the De l'un au multiple page because you have put so much work into it, but in future you might look at other book articles to see what is the general practice rather than the letter of the law. The Immobile Empire, for instance, is to my mind notable because it has been cited and debated as representing a set of ideas, but it has been challenged for not being notable. Go Figure!
  • Liu's article is not even a good reference for the Antoine Bazin article aside from the one point. Why is it in General References? And... um, if, as you correctly say, you have your choice of whether to call a section "General References" or "Further Reading," then you can't object that I apply the same standards to both interchangeably. That is, if something is cited in a Note or Footnote, it should not be listed in General References or Further Reading.
  • I will take you up on your offer to explain listing Fogel's review as a (Further) Reference in the Jacques Dars and Water Margin articles. It is wrong to list journal articles, much less book reviews, which only mention the subject of the article in passing and give no useful information not already in the article. Please remove these additions and those from other articles which I have not found.
Again, please look at some well done articles in this area to see how these rules work in practice. You will save yourself time in the long run!
Cheers and warm breezes to you! ch (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications! I am happy to explain my decisions, so I'll answer your points here:
1. I just used Spanish as an additional example along with Norwegian. Sorry, I should have clarified that. As for "Perfectly easy for any reader who wants Liu Wu-chi's other articles to find out his name by looking at the Abstract." that's not the case with many non-Latin script languages. I would say the average English speaker would have no idea on how to type that name. Unlike many PDF documents where you can hover over and copy the text, it cannot be done with this source. An English speaker may not even recognize that as his name. I understand that not everyone understands to to find Chinese characters, or use radicals. Therefore I try to include as much as possible in regards to Chinese names, Japanese names, and other similar language to cater to English speakers. Anyway I will be happy to ask about the issue over at the help desk. As for Liu himself, I would be happy to write an article on him if I find sources about him. I also want to write one about Issei Tanaka (ja:田仲一成) who is also a Sinologist.

::::With all respect for your energy and talents, why in the world would anyone who could not read the characters be looking for articles in Chinese?

2. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The word sources is plural, so AFAIK that means two or more. I also found two more journal articles about this book, so it brings it up to four. As for why I would go out of my way to write a Wikipedia article about an academic book, it's done because in those book reviews (I can send them to you if you want) state possible things that would be of interest to someone using the book as a source. I included some examples I found here: Talk:De_l'un_au_multiple:_Traductions_du_chinois_vers_les_langues_européenes and for another book I wrote some notes here: Talk:Deng_Xiaoping_and_the_Making_of_Modern_China#On_accuracy_of_material. The Immobile Empire may be more widely reviewed than this one, but using GNG I feel one can cover several of the lesser-reviewed titles.

::::As pointed out, 1) The relevant guideline is Notability (books). 2) I think the article is borderline, but I'm happy to defer to you.

3. I cite Liu's work on the Antoine Bazin exactly because of that one point. The inclusion on the list of "General citations" is there simply because I am citing it for that one point. It's not implying that Liu's work has a masterful treasure trove of info about Bazin. I'm showing proof that "Joining the Shirt" has been used as a translation of the book title in a published work (I like to avoid Wikipedia:Original research as much as possible). Now, if someone wrote an article on the book itself I would likely move the information to that new article. The user who typed in some Chinese characters I couldn't copy and paste, User_talk:Wctaiwan#More_Chinese_questions, himself stated "Using an established translation might be preferable to inventing our own."

:::: I'm not sure why you cite the proper guideline but then do not follow it. The guideline is that sources in the notes are not listed elsewhere. That is, the full citation goes in the note, not in whatever you (quite properly) can choose to call Further/General/etc. Reading.

4. On Jacques Dars, this was why Fogel is in the general reference's page. Fogel's essay was not being used as a further reading (the section where it's listed is titled "References" not "Further reading": Jacques_Dars#References and in the articles I write I use "References" to mean "General References"). It was being used a reference stating that Jacques Dars translated the Shuihu zhuan (I didn't recognize "Au bord de l'eau" as being "Shuihu zhuan"). That's why I cited it. If it's no longer being used as a reference, or not necessary to, it may be removed. :) - And for Water Margin, Fogel's essay is being used here Water_Margin#cite_ref-26 as a reference to prove that Jacques Dars translated the book into French. That's it. I did not edit the Water_Margin#Further_reading for Water Margin.

::::Good -- but it should not have been in General References to begin with!

5. In regards to the naming of sections, it leads to Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR which states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." - I can understand on why one should not accidentally confuse "general references" (books which are being cited) with further reading (books which are not being cited but can be a further resource), but as long as the titles don't confuse readers, I can understand that some variation happens.

::::Well put, but not the point. "Citation style" means inline vs footnotes, author/(year)/title, etc. Not whether individual items cited should be listed in a separate section, whatever the section in called.

6. I consulted Wikipedia:FNNR#Notes_and_references further. General references is, defined here Wikipedia:CITE#General_references "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." - The reason why I was citing Liu in the Bazin article and Fogel's essay in the Water Margin is because I was calling up specific information from those works, but the page numbers belong in "Notes" and the book titles belong in "References". Now, Further reading is for works which are good references for the subject but aren't being cited. So it would be inappropriate to put Liu in the further reading of Bazin, and Fogel in the further reading of Water Margin. However I am calling up specific information from those books for those articles.

::::Again, you cite the right guideline but do not follow it: "a general references is, defined here Wikipedia:CITE#General_references "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article." Using Fogel and Liu in a note means that it is "linked to a particular piece of material..." They should not be in General Reference!!! Please remove them and put the full reference in the note. (CWH)

1. Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (books) it's a supplementary guideline. An article can pass WP:GNG without having to pass any of the supplementary notability guidelines, while an article can fail GNG but pass a supplementary guideline (this allows notabilities of academic journals and certain publications which may not be reported on in reliable sources). It seems like WP:Books acknowledges GNG by having, in its guidelines "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." (which is what GNG says). With the Books notability guideline one criterion needs to be satisfied for the book to be notable.
Again, I am happy to defer to you on the article, which you have turned into an ambitious piece, but I wonder if book reviews are "independent of the book itself."
2. I think the matter at hand is whether a book that is used once in the article should be in the General References section. The way I interpreted that passage is a general reference "a reliable source, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article" - Meaning it doesn't include page numbers, with the page numbers being linked to the particular pieces of material. So citing "Liu in the Bazin article and Fogel's essay in the Water Margin" or including Liu in the general references in the Bazin article and Fogel in the Water Margin is showing that those books support content in those articles. But the General References do not include the page numbers which are linked to the specific material. Now, what I could do is ask, in this instance, if there are editors who include the entire citation information in "Notes" if a book is only being used once in an article but using "General References" if a book is being used more than once.
1) It makes no difference if the page number is included or not, since in either case it is "linked to a particular piece of information."
2) In the first place, it is not necessary to have a citation for every piece of every aspect, only those which you think there is a 50% chance that someone might challenge. In this case, it is not necessary to have a note to Fogel documenting that the translation by Jacques Dars was done by Jacques Dars.
3) I continue to admire your hard work to help readers, but in this case telling a reader to go find the Fogel review will not help because there is no information added and you will be wasting the reader's time.
Thank you. I am aware of the principle of only citing information you think will be challenged. For instance I don't need to cite that Paris is the capital of France. But I've seen people go around and remove information "because it's unsourced" in a drive-by manner. I believe the reality is that the vast majority of things needed to be cited, partly to protect them from drive-by removal and also to show that I didn't make it up. In the case of the Water Margin, the info is that "the French translation of this series was done by Jacques Dars" or that "Jacques Dars is the person who did the translation of The Water Margin", not that "Jacques Dars wrote his own translation of the Water Margin". - I cite that because it's not "common knowledge" to an average person and a more overzealous editor may see it without a citation and wipe it away. Maybe I'm being too overzealous with citing in this case, but for years I've had the idea that I need to cite the vast majority of things I put in here. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_a_book_is_cited_once_or_twice... proposing that if a source is being used once or twice in the manner in the Bazin and Water Margin articles that the whole book citation go in "Notes"
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you,
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I started the discussion about whether Liu Wu-chi's Chinese name should be included in the article here: Wikipedia:Help_desk#In_citation_templates.2C_including_non-English_names_of_authors_who_wrote_articles_in_English - I also notified User:Wctaiwan (the person who found the source mentioning "Joining the Shirt") and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Should_non-English_names_.28such_as_Chinese_names.29_of_authors_be_mentioned_in_citations_of_articles_that_are_written_in_English.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese character(s)[edit]

Hi. I think your move was hasty and misguided, and have given my reasons why on the talk page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies -- the policies were clear and the advantages obvious, so I went ahead. ch (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a fight. I can see that you're drafting a respnse in your sandbox—please don't post that stuff to the talk page there. I meant everything I wrote, and still do—I'll make no retractions. I don't demand an apology—I demand respect. Apologies are expressed with mere words—respect can only be demonstrated through action. Please return to the discussion and we can all sort the titling issue out by giving due respect and consideration to each other's concerns. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Good enough. I have offered you an apology on the Talk Page and, as you may or may not have been able to see on my Sandbox (depending on what point in the drafting you looked at it), I also planned to admit that I was wrong to say that I expected one (I didn't "demand" one, however).
Here, more or less between ourselves, I will only say that if you want respect, you should offer it. I never impugned your motives, I never accused you of being "hasty," I never accused you of not taking issues seriously, I never referred to your "attitude," I never accused you of "mind and word games," I never dismissively said you should go back and think about it again, and if I gave offense, I apologize, but it was never intended. Your remarks were personal and hurtful. Can you say that they were not intended to be so? At the very least they were not WP:AGF. I am deeply disturbed by them. I will say here, not there, that I think it would be appropriate for you to acknowledge this on the Talk Page in some way, however indirect. That said, I will make no further mention of this or anything but the issues. I continue to have high respect for your work as an editor. ch (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it'd be easier for you to understand my position if you went back and read the discussion up to the point where I responded with the "fingers in ears" remark (a remark I stand by). I've read it over and over and still can't imagine myself responding in any other way. You shut me down—you didn't give my concerns the time of day. How would you have responded?
As for "hasty", this is the first time I've been told calling an action "hasty" was in any way impertinent. Anyways, to put the comment in context, just remember that I waited nearly a week after soliciting comments before I made my move—in contrast, you made your move, and then left a note about it, with a fingerpointing note naming myself: "Curly Turkey with no discussion moved page "Chinese characters" to "Chinese character"". I did solicit discussion, and it took eight months for anyone to bother to reply.
"if you want respect, you should offer it": honestly, I'm plenty respectful, and I see it as one-sided to be accused this way—and, seriously, if your offense begins with the word "hasty", then who is it really that's ignoring AGF? As it stands, I don't recognize that I have been disrespectful. Perhaps we have differing definitions of "respect"—in the world I live in, dismissing another's concerns as being unworthy even of discussion falls squarely in the "disrespect" category, if not outright "contempt".
But seriously, it was never my intention to get into any sort of fight. People can vigorously disagree with each other and still maintain respect. I've already offered more than once to bury the hatchet, but I won't do with conditions—I can (and have) read and reread that talk page and stand by every word I've written (except where I was wrong about bots). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I've said what I have to say and you've said what you have to say. I'm happy to leave it at that. But I notice that you do not deny intending to be hurtful, while I have publicly apologized. ch (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
My intention was to put a stop to behaviour that was shutting down the discussion (whether intentionally or not). If you were hurt, it was through no intention of mine. You've had the option all along to rejoin the debate in a respectful way, which to me would be far more meaningful than any apology. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bible translations into Chinese[edit]

Hi, any idea why RedPenofDoom did this?, I note you and he/she have been exchanging edits on the page for Bible translations into Mandarin which the tribal languages after being blanked was redirected to. At first sight I can't see why your edits are being reverted. Am I missing something? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. As you can tell from the exchange on the Bible translations into Chinese Talk Page, we didn't see eye to eye (not even the blink of one!). After a while I decided it just wasn't worth my while to push things any further, and went about other revisions. I can't recall that RedPen and I have had any previous exchanges.
I assume that blanking the page of translations into tribal languages was a misunderstanding. Maybe it seemed that the material was included on the List of Chinese Bible translations -- but then why redirect to the wrong page? Don't know. If you think it's appropriate, you can revert the blanking, however. ch (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Alleged Cixi statement - urban legend/propaganda?[edit]

I believe that there is an false statement attributed to Cixi by anti-Manchu people, it goes along the lines that Cixi said she would rather give up the country to foreigners (Eight Nation Alliance) than give up a single city to her slaves (the Han civilian population of China) after the Boxer protocol was signed.

宁予於外盗, 不予於家贼.

This was actually attributed to Grand Secretary Gangyi, a Manchu bannerman and confident of Cixi, by Liang Qichao in a anti-Manchu essay he wrote after the failed 100 days reform in 1898, since Gangyi was a member of the conservative party and opposed reforms. And considering that Gangyi was one of the most ardent pro-Boxer supporters and anti foreigner individuals during the Boxer Rebellion itself, his execution was demanded by the Eight Nation Alliance (but he had died of natural causes), this alleged statement is most likely to be false for him too.

Liang Qichao attributed the statement to him after the failed reform in 1898.

Yet Gangyi was the among the ringleaders of the anti-foreigners and a major Boxer supporter in 1900 and he ended up on the death list of the Eight Nation Alliance....

Rajmaan (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention why I posted this, I was wondering if you know the essay which Liang Qichao wrote the alleged quote in?Rajmaan (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but the first place to look would be Liang's "memoir" of 1898, 戊戌 政变 记 Wuxu zhengbian ji, which is in his collected works and widely reprinted, most conveniently (I think) in the old Peking collection of documents on the 1898 reforms. Does this help? ch (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your 3O request for Joseph Schereschewsky[edit]

Just a head's up: you're probably better off listing your proposed name change at requested moves where a number of editors very familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions can weigh in and an admin can close the discussion rather than using the 3O process. Cheers! Wieno (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. I wasn't sure what the best place was. ch (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK -- but I'm not sure what the procedure is. Am I allowed to/ supposed to vote? Am I supposed to respond to the comments on the Joseph S. discussion when they don't seem to be aware of policy or to have read the discussion or the arguments? Am I allowed to place a neutral notice to the effect that this discussion is under way on the talk pages of admins who have ruled on naming questions of articles I have worked on, but with whom I have had no other contact? (I've had battles with some of them!)ch (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Any editor can weigh in. An administrator's opinion has no more weight on content issues than any other editor. You can certainly respond to/discuss the points other editors raise, but you wouldn't cast your own vote in the poll because the nomination itself is considered a vote in favour of the move. Unlike some dispute-resolution processes, a requested move nomination is not neutral, but is a clear request for the action (much as a nomination for deletion) and can be worded as such. When you are responding to others, make sure to be respectful. Remember that as Wikipedia operates by consensus, it's not a vote. The closing administrator is going to give more weight to policy-based arguments than mere statements of preference, though numbers do make a difference. Sometimes it can involve coming to a compromise that everyone accepts (even if no one's completely happy with it.
In terms of contacting editors, you can contact editors who you think might be interested in an issue, but it's best to use Wikiprojects and the like to contact editors based on interest or expertise in the topic rather than past experience with you. For more information, check out WP:CANVASS. Wieno (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again -- I want to do what I can within the norms, not just the formal rules. ch (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Foo Dynasty" or "Foo dynasty"?[edit]

There's an RFC here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Just so there's no confusion, I didn't want you thinking I was talking about you when I was talking about editors acting deceptively. Since that initial blowup we've persistenly and vigorously disagreed with each other, but I appreciate that you've taken my points seriously, even if you've disputed them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood! ch (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Salt and China[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you were working on User:CWH/Salt in Chinese History, and was wondering whether you would like to help out with fact-checking, referencing and any general fixes needed at China National Salt Industry Corporation, an article I recently started, since you seem to know a fair amount on the topic regarding the history of salt in China. Currently the page is still a bit rough, so any assistance would be great. --benlisquareTCE 19:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi B -- flattered that you would ask. I'll try to look at it ASAP and also to take your interest in salt as a motivation to just finish my own $%#@! article, which has been stewing for far too long! ch (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few points that might be considered for the article that you're working on?

From here
  • After the Tang Dynasty, rebel leaders began as salt traffickers, e.g. Huang Chao and Zhang Shicheng, directly led to the fall of the Tang and Yuan dynasties.
  • Officially produced salt was both expensive and of low quality; remote areas also did not have access to salt due to regional restrictions
  • Every dynasty enforcing a salt monopoly cracked down on private salt trade which still was able to persist with the aid of local people organizing armed salt traffickers to oppose legal enforcement
From here
  • Salt was in short supply during early times, therefore becoming a commodity tied to national security and social stability

Just a quick brainstorm on a few points that come to mind. --benlisquareTCE 05:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points -- thanks again! I have notes about salt rebels from Frederic Wakeman and Elizabeth Perry, but I was worried that the article was getting too long. Wang Gungwu's book on the late Tang talks about Huang Chao but doesn't make salt sound like a major big thing. So it's good to know that you think these points belong in the article. I suppose it would be good to use these English language sources, though the ones you suggest must use some of the same original source material. ch (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

China barnstar.png The PRC Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent new article Salt in Chinese history ► Philg88 ◄ talk 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to CWH by ► Philg88 ◄ talk on 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I second! This is a great thematic article, of too rare a kind on Wikipedia. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Soo Yong[edit]

Sorry, I forgot to remove the template! I've removed it now. Good work! --Slashme (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mass Education Movement[edit]

Hello CWH. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mass Education Movement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Sorry, I didn't know how to indicate that the problem was not that the page did not exist but that it had nothing to do with "Mass Education" as linked to the name "Y.C. James Yen" at List of Yale University people. I am working on a page "Mass Education Movement" which will describe Yen's work, which has nothing to do with Compulsory Education, which is where the Redirect now leads. The redirect was created in May 2013 in order to link to Yen's entry on the Yale page. Apologies, I should have explained it better, but didn't know how (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you like the page deleted so you can write a new article about the Mass Education Movement? I can do that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. The new page will be National Association of Mass Education Movements, which is the formal name, but with a redirect from "Mass Education Movement," which is what it was commonly called: e.g. a search at WorldCat for "Mass Education Movement."
Right now I'm working on another page on James Yen's activities which included a link to "Mass Education Movement," which is how I saw that it led to a page that had no connection. So it would be good to delete the present (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for writing the article John Calvin Ferguson. It was on my to-do list, and now I don't need to do any work :-) I've nominated the article for DYK. You may wish to keep an eye on the nomination page. Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Zanhe:: thanks for the cuppa -- just wish we could sit down and sip one together. Many thanks as well for applying your sharp eye to this and other articles! This makes me think that I should clean up my messy Sandbox and make a list of things I am actually working on so that you and others could see. Then you could warn me not to duplicate any efforts on projects you are developing and could see if I have something in progress. There's more than enough to go around! I should be more systematic. ch (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for John Calvin Ferguson[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Liu Xucang) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Liu Xucang, CWH!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:


To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
After stumbling upon four or five of your new articles, including Lang Jingshan and Yang Lien-sheng, in the last few days alone, I thought I had to give you another barnstar. Thanks for your tireless contributions! Zanhe (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm especially tickled to have this from an editor whose work I admire so much, Zanhe, and I appreciate your patient and knowledgeable edits and (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Tang dynasty ancestry[edit]

I have tried adding this to the article before, and for some reason people kept rejecting it- the Tang Emperors were from the northwestern military aristocracy of mixed Han and Xianbei ancestry. They aggresively emphasized that their paternal ancestry was Han, deliberately tracing it to prominent Han figures like Li Guang and Laozi to secure their claim to the throne since it was a patrilineal society, in the face of accusations of being Xianbei. One monk even tried to accuse them of being Xianbei but the Tang rejected it and said their patriline was Han, even if they had Xianbei ancestry in the maternal line. They even came up with a family tree listing all the generations of their ancestors all the way to Laozi. This is important information which needs to be added to the Tang dynasty article and I need consensus from other users to stop it from getting deleted again. I have sources with which to reference it.Rajmaan (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, Rajmaan. I looked at the Tang dynasty article, and I thank you for adding a good and important point, namely that "Han" identity was negotiable. Maybe there is a little too much detail for that particular place in the article. Ebrey et al just say that "the Tang imperial family presented themselves as Chinese by descent." (p. 91) but Latourette (1934) is out of date to be a good source even though what he says about "Li" is true. BTW, wasn't "Li" Laozi's family name, not his given name? There was talk earlier that actually Laozi didn't die but went West to India, where he became the Buddha. But for the moment let's wait and see what happens. We can adjust things later if anybody objects. ch (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you comment on the discussion here? Talk:Chinese_emperors_family_tree_(middle)#Line_of_Chinese_emperors. Rajmaan (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Lang Jingshan) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Lang Jingshan, CWH!

Wikipedia editor Rahaeli just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is a great new article! Well written, well referenced, well organized. Thumbs up.

To reply, leave a comment on Rahaeli's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for the quick review and much appreciated feedback, Rahaeli, though much of any credit should go to Zanhe for major edits and improvements. ch (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, there's plenty of credit to go around. :) --rahaeli (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lang Jingshan[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Quantangshi[edit]

Hi, just in case, I replied at User_talk:Dcattell#Quan_Tangshi. Dcattell (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Just to add to my reply to you on my talk page (and contrary to what it may seem on the article history page), I'm not really making substantive changes to the QTS article, I'm just trying to get the infobox code to work, which I commented upon at Talk:Quan Tangshi‎. (I did move "ChTS" to Infobox & add QTS explanation). I'm thinking about reformatting infobox (prob as generic), with traditional before simplified, unless you object. Cheers, Dcattell (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

C. T. Loo[edit]

Hi CWH, I've nominated your article C. T. Loo for DYK, see Template:Did you know nominations/C. T. Loo. He's such a fascinating character, I think he deserves to be better known. Unfortunately, I'll be travelling for most of the summer and likely won't be able to follow up on questions that may arise. But fortunately, the article is quite well written and I don't foresee too many issues. Currently, the first paragraphs of the "Career" and "Controversy" sections are not referenced, nor is the sentence about his death in Nyon. Do you happen to have sources handy that can be added? -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to make a macro which says "Many thanks to Zanhe" because I need to say it so often! I had thought of nominating the article (which of curse you did a great deal to improve) for DYK, but was out of town myself and thought I had missed the five-day deadline. I will be happy to follow up any questions and supply (I think) the references needed. Happy travels and hope to see you again in the fall. ch (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Luckily, a recent discussion on DYK reached the consensus to extend the nomination window to seven days. -Zanhe (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of C. T. Loo[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of C. T. Loo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Shiji.jpg The Grand Historian Barnstar
You are the first recipient of this home-made – some will say shanzhai SFriendly.svg – barnstar, for your recent creation of Chinese History: A New Manual, but also for dozens of new pages and thousands of useful edits on countless aspects of Chinese history over the years, and for staying level-headed and focused when others lose sight of WP's spirit. So here you are, Grand Historian CWH! Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! This is especially meaningful coming from you, from whom I have learned so much! Now I can reveal that far from being a Grand Historian, in fact I am a doberman pinscher. ch (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're very welcome, ch, and thank you for your kind words. I have myself learned more from WP and its editors (especially its prolific content editors like you) than I have contributed. But we've known from the start that you are a PinscHer Doberman! That makes your refusal to bite all and willingness to help the more admirable. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wilkinson Chinese History A Manual Cover.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Wilkinson Chinese History A Manual Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for C. T. Loo[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taiyuan Massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuxian. 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) 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Joseph R. Levenson
added a link pointing to James Cahill
Wu Zhihui
added a link pointing to Zhang Ji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erwin von Zach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Peking|url= |isbn = |ref = none}} [[ Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK on Yuxian[edit]

Hi ch! I have just received notice of this: Template:Did you know nominations/Yuxian (Qing dynasty), but I have to pack for a trip tomorrow morning and I plan to be off WP for a few days, so I don't have time to take care of it. If you have time and, like me, you feel that the "hook" is a bit misleading, could you please say so on that page? As a hook, I was thinking of something more like ".... that Yuxian, whom foreigners nicknamed the "butcher of Shan-hsi" after the Boxer Rebellion, may not have executed the Oberlin Band after all?" (or something a little smoother SFriendly.svg), but that would require a new reference on the "Oberlin Band" that I'm too short on time to find and add in! So if you have time and feel inclined... All the best! Madalibi (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Madalibi, for thinking of me. As we're refreshed and just back from a visit to the sea and seafood, I'll follow this up and do my best. I agree that "the Butcher of Shanxi" says as much about foreign mythologizing as it does about the (very real) crimes on the Chinese (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Zhang Renjie) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Zhang Renjie, CWH!

Wikipedia editor Fiachra10003 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you. A very interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment on Fiachra10003's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moby-Dick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Starbuck, Stubb and Flask. 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) 09:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fu Shanxiang[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Fu Shanxiang at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)