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 70.112.178.121 (talk) at 02:22, 6 August 2012 (→DYK for Byron Christopher: Dnag wikignomes!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lin Biao

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]

Peng Dehuai

Well, speaking about Peng Dehuai, I found out that the English edition may contain at least four mistakes:
  1. The article states that Mao Zedong dedicated a poem to Peng after the Battle of Shachiatien, but according to [1] and [2], Mao dedicated it to Peng in October 1935.
  2. The article states that Peng shouted "You have this and that problem... You should go to the front and see with your own eyes what food and clothing the soldiers have! Not to speak of the casualties! For what are they giving their lives? We have no aircraft. We have only a few guns. Transports are not protected. More and more soldiers are dying of starvation. Can't you overcome some of your difficulties?" The atmosphere became so tense that Zhou was forced to adjourn the conference. Zhou subsequently called a series of meetings, where it was agreed that the PVA would be divided into three groups, to be dispatched to Korea in shifts; to accelerate the training of Chinese pilots; to provide more anti-aircraft guns to the front lines; to purchase more military equipment and ammunition from the Soviet Union; to provide the army with more food and clothing; and, to transfer the responsibility of logistics to the central government" to some government representatives on February 24, 1952. However, according to [3] he shouted so on February 23, 1951, which is during the Fourth Phase Offensive (zh:第四次戰役 (抗美援朝)).
  3. The article states "Lin implemented these reforms in order to please Mao, but privately was concerned that they would weaken the PLA (which they did).". However, Lin Biao did practice measures which highly modernized the PLA, such as emphasizing navy and air force, focusing on developing special forces and developing nuclear weapons (see zh:林彪), so the statement which states that Lin's measures weaken the PLA may be wrong.
  4. The article states that "Peng worked energetically until March 1966, when the beginning of the Cultural Revolution had him recalled to Chengdu and the first Red Guards began patrolling the streets, violently attacking their perceived enemies.". However Cultural Revolution occurred on May 16, 1966 (see zh:文化大革命).
I found out that except mistake 3, all mistakes are "referenced" with Jurgen Domes, which may be Wikipedians' mistake for not clearfully reading his book and thus mis-restating the facts presented in it, or may be it is the book's fault. If so, then the book is unreliable and should never be referenced. Also the article neglects many useful and reliable Chinese sources, such as books listed in [4] , 彭德懷與朝鮮戰爭 and 秘書日記裡的彭老總. I understand that WP:V does not highly encourage using non-English sources. However, we must acknowledge that many non English-speaking Wikipedians here have some proficiency at English, and many English-speaking Wikipedians here have some proficiency at one or more non-English languages, so they can verify some non-English sources, so I think that to make this article a good article you'd better utilize these books, as you have certain proficiency at Chinese.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Peng's article, and I appreciate your interest and suggestions. I won't have tome to address them until the end of this month, so please give me a few weeks to review my sources and the sources that you have provided. Let me briefly address your suggestions:
  1. There is some disagreement in the English sources that I have found about when Mao dedicated his poem to Peng, but I decided to take Domes' position because I believed that it was more reliable than the other sources I had available. I will review the source that you have provided and probably change it when I have more time. You are probably correct about the date, but I want to find another scholarly source in English to confirm this.
  2. This is sourced from Barnouin and Yu, which I consider reliable. I'll review my source and the source that you have provided when I have more time. If the date is wrong, it might have been my error in entering it. If not, I will seek a third source for clarification.
  3. The section of the article that says that Lin's reforms weakened the PLA is not meant to be a general summary of the overall effects of Lin's other reforms (including China's nuclear program or anything related to special forces), but only the effects of reversing Peng's reforms (things like abolishing ranks and making soldiers work as farmers and industrial labourers). The content of the section is my attempt to paraphrase its source. If you want, I can quote the source below, and you can tell me if you believe that the content of the article reflects the content of the source.
  4. I'll review my source when I have more time. It looks like I may have made a mistake in interpreting the source.
Thanks again for your review of the article. I probably won't have time to review the sources and revise the article until the end of this month, so please have patience until then.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! By the way, I found out that Chinese edition of Peng Dehuai is much shorter than English edition, as Chinese edition does not mention Peng's conflict with Mao during 1954-1959, Peng's military reform during the defence minister period, and his guard's warning about Red Guards, and English edition contains them (though maybe somewhat imprecise and incomplete). Also it does not fully utilize many reliable books about Peng, such as 彭德懷全傳. I'll post this issue on its talk page and let Chinese Wikipedians thoroughly discuss these issues.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back to the version of the article that existed last December, you will find that the English article was also very brief until recently. I am interested in reading 彭德懷全傳; but, as a primary source, information from that book could only be included carefully, as per WP:PRIMARY.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 彭德懷全傳 is a good book, but it is not just a primary source, since the book not only records interviews but also organizes many files, autobiographies and memoirs. 彭德懷自述 is a primary source.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have more time now than I have had over the last few months, and I want to address the issues that you brought up. I will update this list as I turn up more research.
  1. I got in touch with a Chinese history professor that I had for the last year of my undergrad (he's working as a law professor at Shantou University right now). He confirmed for me that Mao wrote this poem in 1935, following the last major battle that the Red Army had with the KMT during the Long March. I will rewrite the article to reflect this information, and use the citations that you have provided.
  2. I looked this up in your source and in Barnouin and Yu, and it's true that the two sources disagree. I believe that Zhou Enlai: A Political Life is reliable and scholarly, so I don't want to change the article until I can find a (more academic) third source to confirm the date of this conversation. I will consult that old professor of mine to ask if he knows anything about his event. I've consulted another Wikipedia editor who has done alot of research on the Chinese side in the Korean War, and he is also not sure which date is correct. You can view (or take part in) the discussion at Peng Dehuai's talkpage.
  3. I think that this issue has been addressed. Please let me know if you think that the prose that discusses this issue needs to be altered.
  4. I need to find Domes' biography again and look this event up before I change the article. I'll update this list when I do. I consulted my source (Domes), and changed the month to August: I was interpreting the source wrong before. I don't think that the CR had been formally declared by this time, but Mao and his supporters were already mobilizing Red Guards and sending them throughout China. Please let me know if you believe that the article's prose is at all misleading.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:04, 3 May 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]

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]

I appreciate your concern for potential plagiarism, and it's good to know that it's nothing personal, but I think that a lot more words would have to be in the exact same order in order for a cited paragraph to be "close paraphrasing". I'm going to request some clarification on what constitutes Wikipedia's policy on "close paraphrasing", and the exactly how close paraphrasing differs from normal paraphrasing. The only example that I can find is here: in this example, the entire paragraph is exactly the same as its source, except for one sentence, and this isn't the same as the issue that we are dealing with.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hey, I've created a new article on History of Sino-Korean relations, please take a look if you're interested.--PCPP (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re Grass Mud Horse

Sorry, I had to fail it for GA, as no improvements have been made since nomination in February. Don't give up! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time since last February to fix up that (or any) article. I would have done the same thing as you, under the circumstances, but I appreciate your letting me know about your decision on my talk page. When I have more time this summer, I'll look at the article again, fix it up as much as I can, and re-submit the article if I believe then that its issues can be acceptably resolved.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, I know I am getting back to you late but things have been busy in my life. However, I should be quite free during the summer at the end of May so if you would like to suggest I focus my attention certain places let me know! My interests in Chinese Hisotry are as follows: History of Chinese Philosophy, Oral history, Classical history (Zhou-Qing, but I am most knowledgeable on the Song, Tang, Ming and Qing), the development of Chinese literature, and Chinese Political history. More modern-wise, I am interested in Chinese politics and the development of Chinese film (especially adaptions of literary works, and Wuxia films). I hope this helps!--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Peng Dehuai

The article Peng Dehuai you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Peng Dehuai for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forced evictions

I noticed that your edit here[5] to Protest of Wukan included a statistic from the Chinese Academy of Sciences asserting that 50 million people were forcibly evicted in 2011, and that the rate was accelerating by ~3 million annually. This caught my eye because it doesn't square with statistics I've seen elsewhere. For instance, this report[6] by CFR's Elizabeth Economy notes that about 4 million rural citizens are victims of land grabs annually. Other statistics I've seen support an estimate of 40 million over the span of a decade, from the mid-90s to mid-00s. Would it be possible to find additional corroboration for the claim that 50 million were evicted in 2011 alone? Homunculus (duihua) 05:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the article that I got this statistic from, and I believe that I must have interpreted it wrong. The article states that "50 million farmers had their land seized last year [2011], and the number is increasing at a rate of three million farmers per year." When I compare it with your statistics it must mean that, by 2011, there was a total of 50 million displaced farmers across China (from all preceding years), and that an average of 3 million farmers were displaced per year.
I think that this information is more logical and much closer to your data, and I will amend the article to reflect this. If you think that the numbers from this source are still imprecise, please let me know. I would be open to changing these numbers if you have a source that you think is more accurate.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial contribution was an earnest reflection of the source; I actually think the reporter may be to blame. But yes, I think it's clear that the intended meaning was that, as of 2011, 50 million had been evicted, with 3 million more per year. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 05:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I am very busy. I found links and filled out reference templates for creating articles for four people relating to Republican China, three Xinhai revolutionaries and one warlord. They are at my userpage User:Lemazha. Click edit on my userpage to see the referenecs because they are hidden in the ref template and you can't see them if you just look at the page. If you can kindly create the articles and use my references and/or translate from the corresponding articles at Chinese wikipedia it would be appreciated. I am too busy to create any articles from scratch, even if you write a skeleton or a stub article first and fill in an infobox and categories I can finish it later.Lemazha (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly are very busy. I just completed creating those articles, and the links are on your userpage. Let me know how your work progresses. I'll try and help you if I can. I want to continue this discussion on your own talk page.Ferox Seneca (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Byron Christopher at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Byron Christopher

Hello! Your submission of Byron Christopher at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Byron Christopher

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the [Edit] links are out of order. Worse, the very first [Edit] brings up a section that is not displayed at all, Byron_Christopher#Biography. Oh wait, now it does. But now the misplaced [Edit] is on the header Byron_Christopher#Career. Oh wait, now it does work. Hmmm, maybe this edit fixed everything? Dnag wikignomes! 70.112.178.121 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferox_Seneca&oldid=506004124"