Jump to content

User talk:Ferox Seneca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.205.120.39 (talk) at 21:18, 31 January 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Zhou Enlai

I'll have a look, as you requested. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are really quick! I am actually still in the process of adding the information to the article. You might want to wait another twenty minutes.Ferox Seneca (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mid-importance" label for Li Desheng

I freely admit that I don’t understand the classification system, so can only go by what else is rated “C-Class” and “Mid-Importance”. There seems to be a lot of one-off events (East Asian Games Opening Ceremony – does that even warrant an article?), which doesn’t fit with this article. Li Desheng was one of China’s 20-30 most important post-1949 generals. Would you please explain how you arrived at this ranking? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I don't believe that there is a completely objective way to rate the biographies of historical Chinese politicians and generals. I also don't believe that the ranking system is universally interpreted the same way by the various editors of WP:CHINA. I am sure that my interpretations will contradict those of some other editors, but also I believe that my interpretations are logical, defensible, and clear.
This is my interpretation of how to rank the importance of various twentieth-century Chinese politicians and generals, according to WP:CHINA's scale of importance:
  1. Top: People who are so important and well-known that they are basically household names. Their contributions to the course of Chinese history was so great that the narrative of Chinese history texts will closely follow their activities. (i.e. Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Zedong, and Sun Yat-sen).
  2. High: People who are slightly less well-known, but who are still extremely important due to their contributions to Chinese history (either positive or negative), and are so important and well-known that anyone with a basic understanding of modern Chinese history will at least be somewhat familiar with them. They came very close to exercising the highest levels of power. They are so important that general history books on China will go into great detail to describe their activities, which changed the course of Chinese history in some major way (i.e. Zhou Enlai, Peng Dehuai, and Lin Biao).
  3. Mid: People who may have been important and famous, but who are not well known to the public. Although they may have been important, their contributions were often under the authority of others, and/or obscure. They may have achieved a degree of power and success, but usually this level of power was not at the highest levels, was only in a very specialized area, was clearly overshadowed by more powerful and successful figures, and/or was only for a limited period of time before they fell into relative obscurity. Because these figures will be given only a cursory description in general Chinese history texts, editors will need to access specialized and/or academic resources in order to research them in detail. Most biographies will fall into this category by default. (i.e. Yan Xishan, Song Jiaoren, and Jiang Qing).
  4. Low: People who are generally unknown to any but the most specialized historians. They may have made contributions to Chinese history, but only under others. Many ended their careers in failure and/or obscurity after coming into conflict with more important characters, and/or are generally mentioned only in passing as part of these other figures' biographies. General Chinese history texts will not mention them in any more than name; or, if more than that, in no more than a single paragraph. All but the most resourceful editors will have difficulty researching any but the most cursory details about their life. (i.e. Sun Chu, Wang Jingguo, and Li Dazhao)
This is my interpretation of WP:CHINA's quality scale. I interpret it in terms mostly of quality and quantity of information.
  1. A: No twentieth-century biographies exist that are rated by WP:CHINA as A-ranked. I would expect that such an article would completely cover all aspects of the person's life from a variety of perspectives, and would include a very standardized, academic, thorough system of referencing. (i.e. = none, at present).
  2. GA: I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and have never promoted an article to GA status on my own. (I think that I need to submit it to a ratings committee or something?) I expect that a GA-ranked article would cover all important aspects of a person in detail, with no noticeable gaps in time, and support it's information with inline citations. I have a long-term goal of promoting the articles on Zhou Enlai and Yan Xishan to GA-ranked status, but some gaps still remain in my research. (i.e. currently only Caleb V. Haynes and Jane Zhang).
  3. B: The article is well-organized and researched, but still requires further research to fill in gaps in the person's life. It should be well-organized and written, and should not contain any unsourced information that could be challenged by other editors with a "citation needed" tag. (i.e. Zhou Enlai and Wen Jiabao).
  4. C: The article gives a reasonably well-researched overview of a person's life and career, but many of the details will be cursory, challenged, and/or unsourced. A C-ranked biography mentions that person's involvement in major battles, power struggles, or events in that person's life, but will not go into great (reliable) detail. The system of referencing for a C-ranked article may be distinctly un-academic. Most articles which are clearly the result of reliable research but do not go into great detail, or which are detailed but greatly unsourced, should be placed into this category by default. (i.e. Yan Xishan, Wang Jingwei, and Chen Duxiu).
  5. Start: The article has a modest body of information, but is extremely cursory, disorganized, and/or unsourced. (i.e. Sanzo Nosaka and Xu Xiangqian.)
  6. Stub: The article contains almost no information at all. It may only consist of a short definition or paragraph of information. (Sun Chu and Wang Jingguo).
According to this criteria, I believe that Li Desheng's biography should be considered "mid importance": he was important in the sense that he won several successful battles in the late Chinese Civil War and was recognized by the PRC for his efforts. He was one of the more senior generals in the Korean War, and was a powerful general (although not the most powerful) until the end of the Cultural Revolution. I believe that his biography should not be considered "High" because his successes in the Civil War were overshadowed by Lin and Peng (the only two of the Ten Great Marshals whose articles I believe should be considered "High" importance). In the Korean War, he served under the overall command of Peng, and was therefore less important. After he was politically demoted at the end of the Cultural Revolution, he never quite regained the same level of prestige (even after being rehabilitated). Like the other Great Marshals (besides Peng and Lin), most students of Chinese history will not be familiar with him unless their studies have focused specifically on the late Civil War or the Korean War.
I believe that Li Desheng's biography should be considered "C" class. It is too well-organized and well-cited to be considered "start"-class, but is far too cursory to be considered "B". Editors desiring to raise the article to "B" status could do more research on: Li's background and education; a description of his activities and battles during the Civil and Korean Wars; what his specific efforts to reorganize the PLA were; the circumstances under which he was eventually demoted; his life during and after the Cultural Revolution; and, his relationship with the other major Chinese personalities who influenced China during his career, including Mao, Lin, Peng, Zhou, Deng, and (his possible mentor) Chen. At present, the article's treatment of all of these areas is extremely cursory.
Please let me know if you disagree in any way with the way that I am interpreting WP:CHINA's ratings scale, if you disagree with my interpretations of Li Desheng, and/or if you disagree with the way that I am placing Li within this ratings scale. I appreciate your request to explain my own interpretations, and I hope that I have made my thoughts on the subject of your inquiry clear.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note

Hi! Just wanted to drop a note to say hi to a fellow Chinese history researcher. I have been trying recently to flesh out articles such as the Cultural Revolution and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, if you have some time, do take a look. Colipon+(Talk) 15:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually taught a class on the events in Tiananmen Square to my most advanced class while I was still in China. Isn't that funny? It hasn't been a major topic of research for me besides that, though. I do own a copy of Zhao Ziyang's memoirs, so I might be able to edit in some information from that. I once memorized the speech that Zhao gave right before the crackdown for an oral assignment in a Chinese class that I once took: I used to be able to make people scared and nervous just by saying his name when I was in China, so I figure that his words must have been important. I'll take a look over the article and add facts where I can.
Honestly, I try not to dwell too much on the Cultural Revolution, because it makes me feel sad. There is some overlap between some of my other interests and that period, so I will take care to include any relevant information when I come across it.Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Cultural Revolution was indeed a very sad event. When I edit I try to put emotions away and focus on the facts in the dryest manner possible. The fact that the nature of the CR hasn't even been accurately defined, even by the most comprehensive work by MacFaquhar and Schoanels in 2006 (Mao's Last Revolution), shows that more work needs to be done in terms of research. As for Zhao Ziyang, I didn't think his name was so taboo inside China. I've heard his name uttered many times when I was there. In regards to Tiananmen I have read both Zhao and Li Peng's memoirs on the matter, and it's interesting to piece events together hearing both sides of the story.

So is your main area of interest biographies then? I read your segment on Zhou Enlai and think a rework of his article should probably take precedence. Colipon+(Talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the area of China where you were living was more liberal than where I was? I didn't even know that Li Peng had an autobiography published. Has it been translated into English? The period of Zhou's biography that I still need to do the most work on is the period from about 1958-1976, the period of his career for which he is most criticized.
Looking over our article on Tiananmen, it seems quite well-sourced and detailed (compared to, say, our article on the Cultural Revolution). What areas of the article do you believe need the most attention?
I am mostly interested in biographies right now, and I seem to have gravitated to the period around the early twentieth century. My first edits were on ancient literature. I might get back to that someday.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any area of China, save pockets on the coast, is any more 'liberal' than any other area given the political circumstances. But it's true, Zhao Ziyang is largely unknown to the current generation - most of them can recite that China's greatest leaders were Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, and that's about it. Few know or talk about Hu Yaobang or Zhao Ziyang (or even Hua Guofeng, for that matter). The Li Peng book is not an autobiography, rather a diary specifically depicting the events of Tiananmen from his point of view. It is simply called Li Peng diaries and you can find Chinese PDF versions lying around on the internet.

The Tiananmen article at its face value is quite good, but once you dig deeper you find that it has a lot of inadequacies. Prior to my major edit in March, the article barely contained any content on the 4-26 Editorial, for example. It is a very "outsider-looking-in" type of narrative, which I guess is understandable given that most sources used are Western. These Western sources usually have a fairly poor understanding of the dynamics of Chinese politics. I think it would be nice to flesh out the events some more and give more light to some of the competing personalities, such as Zhao Ziyang and Li Peng, who were very pivotal figures and whose importance is understated. The majority of CR's content is good, I think it just needs to be cited. I also think it is too focused on chronology and not enough on how the chronological events fit the bigger picture. That is something I hope to rectify, and it would be great if I could enlist your help. Colipon+(Talk) 03:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only experiences talking with people in China about Zhao Ziyang is based solely on the conversations that I had with my students and with my Chinese co-teachers while I was there. The general, uniform consensus from the people that I discussed him with was that he was a sort of opportunistic villain who supported, protected, directed, controlled, and/or used the Tiananmen protests as a tool to increase his own power at the expense of the nation. I generally interpreted this view as being a product of the Chinese media and the Chinese education system (but of course I would never say that). Because of the emotional reactions that I personally received after bringing him up, I generally learned to avoid discussing him while I was there. I accept that my students and co-teachers might not be an accurate reflection of the population of China.
I'll do my best to look into our articles on the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen protests: I am sufficiently interested now. Following the patterns of my previous research, I will first attempt to source or fill in obvious gaps using more general sources (primarily Spence), and then comb through JSTOR for some good articles on these topics. I'll use information from Zhao's account of the events, but I may need to leave the inclusion of Li's account to other editors until I become more confident in my Chinese, or until that account is published into English.
Looking over them again, I generally find your critique of the two articles accurate. The Cultural Revolution article is somewhat frustrating in the sense that someone has clearly included content that is the result of research, but didn't feel the need to do any sort of footnoting. As it is, the content of that article is very largely plagiarized.Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption?

Let's Work Together

Hello there, Ferox Seneca. I noticed you're currently seeking adoption on Wikipedia. I've been around for a while, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes. (To learn more about me, visit my userpage.) If you'd like to have me as a mentor, just click here to leave me a message, and we'll take it from there.

Welcome to Wikipedia! – Scartol · Talk 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You've got mail! Scartol • Tok 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mail call.. Scartol • Tok 03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got stuff! Scartol • Tok 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got things! Scartol • Tok 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got items! Scartol • Tok 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff! Scartol • Tok 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Liang Huazhi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Congrats! Scartol • Tok 11:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon etc

I answered you anyway.. Scartol • Tok 11:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sun Weishi

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long March

I want to express my appreciation for your recent contributions to & references for the Long March article. The material that you added really expanded the detail in many of the sections, and makes it a great read. Regards, Ryanjo (talk)

I appreciate your appreciation. Most of the feedback that I usually get is negative: people disagreeing with my interpretation of sources, or the quality of sources that I use. I'm glad that you appreciate my work.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Revolution

You may wish to keep a closer eye for edits such as this when the sources used in that edit have been deemed to be unreliable. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you should advise someone about your concerns, but I have never made any edit about cannibalism in China during the Cultural Revolution. I hope that you find who you are looking for.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if copied text is not in quote format its copyvio

The paragraph was actually fine as a quote you inadvertendly turned it into a copyviolation by removing the quote template. see Wikipedia:Copyvio for details. text from sources that are not in public domain have to be quoted in order to be used.

You are welcome to put the paragraph back if you put the quote template back around it.

In other words, before User:Redthoreau removed the quote, it was not copyvio since it had the quote template around it. I appreciate your work on all these articles and your efforts and cleaning them up.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool that you are so conscientious about keeping Wikipedia free of copyright violations. I don't have any particular attachment to that information, I but I don't think that it should be deleted without good cause. If you notice me doing something like this again, please just replace the template.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image response

As ye ask, so shall ye receive.. Scartol • Tok 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another one.. Scartol • Tok 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, but kinda related. Scartol • Tok 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Hi!

I live on the West side, specifically Lymburn. The user mentioned "phising" in the edit summary meaning that she musta assumed you used software to try to extract information from me for identify theft. I guess maybe those editors are no longer around. Thanks for watchin my page!Curb Chain (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom for Sanzo Nosaka

Hi Ferox, I have reviewed your nomination of Sanzo Nosaka and there are some issues. Could you please see them at the nomination page and reply there? Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the way, you posted your nomination incorrectly. That stuff is supposed to be saved on its own page, not at T:TDYK, like the instructions say. Crisco already fixed that for you and moved the nomination to its own page; in the future, please make sure to follow the instructions when posting new nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The things you learn, eh?Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sanzo Nosaka

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Wikimedia Canada now exists. Feel free to join. I know one of the board members is from Edmonton. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Photographs In Edmonton

I would love to do that. I don't have my own camera, but I do have a vehicle. I'm not sure how you want to arrange it.Curb Chain (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Wu

Hi. Could you double-check the references in Chinese about the death of Bruno Wu? I've read the various sources equivalent to the one you posted on the article and this really seems like a case of mistaken identity. For one thing, they all refer to a man who is 39 years old, whereas the Bruno Wu in the WP article is 45. None of the articles refer to his wife which seems more than a little strange given her starpower. The articles describe him as the COO of BesTV but I have yet to see any link between BesTV and Wu's Sun Television Cybernetworks. Note also that the job of COO is actually below Bruno Wu's normal paygrade. And finally the Birmingham FC still list him as the board's vice-chairman (and therefore number 3 in the club's hierarchy) which would be almost inexplicably outrageous since he supposedly died 5 months ago. Pichpich (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. There are a number of Chinese-language sites which have discussed this topic over the last month or so, and have concluded that it is indeed a case of mistaken identity. The Chinese wiki article on Wu has already been corrected.Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra info. Pichpich (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Free This Sunday

Hey, I'm free this Sunday. If you can email me, that would be cool so I can give you my phone number and my regular email/skype and we can set something up.Curb Chain (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also checkchecked with my mom and I'm allowed to use her camera. She came back to Edmonton this week.Curb Chain (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More on "dynasty" vs. "Dynasty"

Hi. 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) 01:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Peng

I've been reading your recent edits to Li Peng, and wanted to commend you for the great work that you did. I wanted to ask which sources you use to access scholarly articles on topics as specialized as recent Chinese politics. There are a few good books out there, Spence's The Search for Modern China being one of the best in its class, but there are also a large number of academic and informative journal articles. Do you have LexisNexis access or any other account that gets you into academic databases? Colipon+(Talk) 03:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you appreciate Li's new article. There are alot of Wikipedia articles right now on very important modern Chinese politicians which really need some focused attention. And yet, our article on the Caonima is basically perfect...
When I am looking for academic articles on China, the best source that I have found is JSTOR, and I do make use of actual print sources now and then. I can get access to most academic databases from my university. Since I started regularly editing Wikipedia last year, I have been surprised by the amount of good sources that are readily available just by doing a detailed search of Google. I have found alot of good sources accidentally, just by using Google to attempt to source data that I have suspected was plagiarized.
I've been surprised that so many editors seem to consider Spence to be (apparently) a completely unreliable source. The text is abit weak in the sense that it is clearly intended to be a general history, and it often presents information broadly, according to the most common interpretation. More detailed examinations of topics covered in that book can generally be found elsewhere, but I don't think that Spence's conclusions are generally spurious. Because of other editors' serious dislike of that book, I try not to rely on it too much these days, unless it covers something that I can't find in other reliable sources for.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanzo Nosaka

I would review this article for GAN, as I really like it, but what I am unsure about is the formatting of the references. Many of them don't have page numbers, and there are a whole lot listed under "References" that aren't referenced in the article. (I'm not clear about those rules about citations.) Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed in the article are formatted according to MLA style. The facts cited in the article are listed by author (or source title, if anonymous) in the "Footnotes" section, and the books written by the authors cited in the "Footnotes" section are listed in full MLA format in the "References" section.
I don't believe that there are any articles listed in the "References" section that are not cited in the article. If you believe that there are articles listed in "References" that are not cited in the article, please let me know which sources those are, and I will identify the sections of the article that are explicitly attributed to those sources.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just very confusing. Isn't there a way that the citation can link to the proper place in the Refereces? What about:

Also: "Nosaka Sanzo". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2011. Retrieved August 14, 2011 is considered a tertiary source, rather than secondary as required.

I don't want to give you a hard time, as I found the article very interesting. So if you can clear up my confusion, I'd appreciate it. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address these concerns on a point-by-point basis.
- In order to find which sections are attributed to the article written by Pace, you need to lookup the author's name, "Pace", in the "Footnotes" section. Nosaka's article currently cites "Pace" at four different locations, found at footnote #4.
- I just realized I made a mistake listing the Japan Times article, (I listed it according to the article's name, not the name of the publication), but this has since been fixed. Because the article's author is not given on the newspaper's webpage, the article is effectively anonymous, and you need to find the name of the paper (The Japan Times Online) in the Footnotes section in order to find what areas of the article are sourced from the Japan Times article. This article is currently cited twice, at footnote #6.
- To find the article written by Whitney, you need to look up "Whitney" in the Footnotes section. This article currently cites pp.105-106 of Whitney's article in two different places, at footnote #16.
- I admit that one of the weaknesses of Nosaka's article is that it relies heavily on other tertiary sources, and I understand that citing tertiary sources is sub-academic. Universalium is also a tertiary source, and you can find the many times that Universalium is cited in the article by looking up "Universalium" in the Footnotes section: it is currently listed at footnote #2. I don't believe that the article's reliance on tertiary sources might disqualify it from Good Article status because the tertiary sources cited are still reliable. The article would be less informative if I did not incorporate information from those two sources into the article.
If this attempt to explain the footnoting system used in Nosaka's article does not address your concerns, please let me know.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify further, the footnotes are listed in the order that they appear in the article, and are listed by the author's name (or, if anonymous, the name of the publication), plus the page number (if applicable). The full MLA citations for the articles cited are given in the "References" section in alphabetical order. Some articles on Wikipedia don't split "Footnotes" from "References", but I prefer to do this in order to avoid having to give full MLA citations every time that a different page number is cited from the same book.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I've decided to review the article (see below) but I'll be having an experienced reviewer supervising me with these things that I'm not sure about. As I said, I find the article extremely interesting. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sanzo Nosaka

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Sanzo Nosaka that you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. This is the first article that I have submitted for GA status, so I'm curious to see how the process goes.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added a few more things and may add a few more. The lede looks much better! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Great job, and thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Xu Haidong

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferox. I saw that you did some substantial work over at Lin Biao! Very nicely done. I've been doing some substantial work myself - mostly starting new articles, as you have seen over at June 9 Deng Speech, I would rather cry in a BMW, and April 26 Editorial. If you have time and want to take a look at any of these, feel free. I was also thinking of embarking some sort of project involving the Lin Biao incident, which is arguably one of the most important events in PRC history that still does not have a standalone article. I believe we can use the outline already drawn up over at Project 571 Outline as a skeleton, and merely move that page to "Lin Biao incident", then fill in the gaps. The other project that I would like to embark on is an article about the Third Plenum of the Eleventh National Congress (十一届三中全会). Let me know what you are up to! Colipon+(Talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm rewriting the biography of Peng Dehuai: a very important general whose article was/is very cursory and almost completely unsourced. I'm just going to summarize a short, standard biography of Peng, and then supplement it with some academic articles. After I'm done, I want to do some work on that article you started, "I would rather cry in a BMW". I'll look at those other articles of yours. The Third Plenum of the Eleventh National Congress is a very important historical event, and I'm sure that I could find reliable sources on it. If you are referring to the session where Deng rose to power, Wikipedia already has an article, but it is translated as the "Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee". There is alot of room for growth on that article. Is this the article that you are looking for?
There has been enough scholarship on the Lin Biao incident that I could always do more research, but the section in Lin's biography has gotten big enough that I figured I covered most significant perspectives, and I basically just stopped where I was. I found that the most logical way to organize that section was: examining the official Chinese narrative of events (it needs its own section because it is different than any other perspective and standard enough that all other perspectives must be compared to it); examining the Western/non-Chinese perception of the Chinese perspective (mostly criticism and skepticism); subsequent (non-official) scholarship on the incident; and, the Chinese reaction and after-effects of the incident. My thoughts on how to create a separate article would be mostly to move most of the current "Lin Biao incident" section from "Lin Biao" to the new article, and leave a shorter summary in its place.
I rewrote most of the Project 571 article last month, and I organized it mostly in two sections: on the details/contents of the plot; and, the history of its creation and how it was supposedly attempted. Most of the events described in the article's "history" section of "Project 571" are based solely on the official Chinese version, and are discussed in more detail in the current "Lin Biao incident" section of "Lin Biao".Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, the approach that you are talking about at Lin Biao may be a good way to do this - although personally I see no problem with leaving the content where it is, if you regard it to be 'too much effort'. Also, much thanks for linking me to the Third Plenum article. It would save me a lot of work. I will link that article to the existing articles on the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping, etc., to make sure it gets some airtime. Colipon+(Talk) 14:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Shangkun

Rather than just undo your work, I'm going to ask you to reverse your change in Yang Shangkun's importance from Middle to High. I'm not sure what your criteria might be, but he was easily among the top couple of dozen Chinese leaders of the last 30 years, critical to the survival of the reform movement and the only survivor of the 28 Bolsheviks. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK: I don't have any problem with changing that. I'm sure that you are more familiar with Yang than myself.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Peng Dehuai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The East is Red (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Enlai

Hey I didn't mean to bust your balls over the Zhou Enlai thing. I think your edits on Chinese-subject articles are quite helpful, and it was because I was so intrigued by the 'memorial' section that I looked up the Spence book in the first place. I do think, however, that if you are counting the number of words that are different between your writing and a source, then this is a close paraphrase and needs to be cited appropriately.69.205.120.39 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferox_Seneca&oldid=474280674"