User talk:Alexjhu

Welcome!

Hello, Alexjhu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monguor article

Hi,

Thanks for your extensive contributions to the Monguor article. Please remember, however, to provide an edit summary every time you make an edit, especially such a large one, to an article. Without edit summaries, it can become very difficult for other editors to see what you've done with the article, and there is even a risk that someone will revert your good faith edits because they can't tell if you've helped or hurt the article.

Thanks, --Politizer (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Nadun Picture 2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Nadun Picture 2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Guanting, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Sanchuan. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have recently offered to mediate the discussion regarding Donghu, as listed on WP:MEDCAB by User:John Hill. I would appreciate your opinions if you have the time, as it is a subject you are obviously passionate about. —Matheuler 17:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to our discussion of Donghu. The matter is clearly one that you have a sincere interest in. I am concerned however, that you may inadvertently be discussing the article in a way that does not lend itself to clarity. Specifically, your posts on the article talk page appear to be overly lengthy. This verbose pattern of commenting may detract from a thorough discussion. It is important to make short and clear comments that cite scholarly references to support a specific change to the article. Thanks again for your efforts. —Finn Casey * * * 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with you that, since I have been working on a journal article, my writing style reflects more of an academic discussion, rather than fitting the WP standard. Alexjhu 10/21/09

Within the next couple of days, discussion on the Donghu article will begin. The approved Commencement Version of the article has been established by me. As a reminder, starting immediately, please do not make any edits to the article. We will be discussing all proposed edits first and gaining general agreement before making them from here on out. Thanks again. —Finn Casey * * * 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Zu

Hi, Alexjhu. I saw you had created an article "Tu Zu". But it's just another name of Monguor. I think maybe it's better to make "Tu Zu" a disambiguation page. Do you think so?--Icesea(talk) 15:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The Wikipedia rules are rather complex and I don't have time to figure everything out. Your help would be appreciated. Alexjhu

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the info. I didn't realize it was so simple. --Alexjhu (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for legal threats. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Per this diff: [1] (added) and this diff [2]

Legal threats - or insinuations of legal threats - are not tolerated. You are free to use the unblock template for another admin to check out, but please proceed carefully. Thank you, Xavexgoem (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to request to be unblocked for reasons stated below. The most important is that I should not have reacted emotionally and indicated the intent of a lawsuit.

My emotional reactions came from two reasons. One was that “Hu” was my last name. Based on my personal experiences and knowledge in the U.S. and China, I have never encountered an occasion in which my last name “Hu” was perceived in any derogative ways. When I came across with the interpretation of “Hu” as meaning “barbarian” and “foreign” on the WP page for “Donghu,” initially I thought it was a joke or a gross mistake. As the discussion continued, I consulted with the Chinese scholars who confirmed that the character “Hu” did not carry any derogatory meanings. The information from the Chinese sources validated this. The first usage of the character “Hu” was recorded in the name of a king, Hu Gongman, as the 33rd generation of descendant of the ancient king, Yushun, more than three thousand years ago. This indicated that the “Hu” clan descended from Huang Di, the Yellow Emperor, who came from the northern nomads and laid the foundations for the Chinese civilization. There was no basis to translate the character literally into “barbarian” and “foreign.” There are more than 16 million Chinese people today who bear the character in their names.

The other reason that made me react emotionally was my ethnic background. Since this is a public space and ethnic identities are sensitive, I have been reluctant to reveal it. My ethnic group was classified into “Tu” in China. Western scholars had perceived it to be derogatory as it equated with “the indigenous peoples” and used “Monguor” instead, based on the self reference of some of our people as “Chaghan Monguor” (“White Mongols”). Ethnically we are Xianbei and came from the Donghu. The Chinese reference of “Tu” was derived from the first khan, Tuyühu, who led us to separate and migrate westward from Manchuria to the northwest in 284. The multiethnic environment and relative detachment from the Chinese political centers enabled us to preserve our language and culture until today. In order to clarify our origins and history, I have spent most of the last two years to review the Chinese and English literature for an academic article. I have posted some of the key findings in the WP article “Monguor.” When I saw the others imposing such derogatory interpretations as “barbarian” and “foreign” on the name of Donghu, from whom we had come, I could not help but react strongly. As the debate continued, I became increasingly charged with emotional reactions. In the world today, I could not see why there would be people who seem fixed with trying to impose terrible names on my or any other peoples. When my effort to reason came to a vain, I thought of resorting to a lawsuit in order to clarify the name of my ethnic group.

Now I realize that my counterparts and I had crossed each other in debating over two different issues. One was whether “Donghu” meant “Eastern Hu,” which is a legitimate one given the complexities associated with the name, and the other was whether the character “Hu” could be translated into “barbarian” and “foreign.” While they principally focused on the first issue, I was preoccupied with the second. I should have separated the two, instead of becoming emotionally driven.

I have appreciated Wikipedia as an effective platform for people from around the world to learn about every subject of interest. My discussion with the others helped me to broaden my knowledge and enrich the article that I have been working on. Because of an overwhelming amount of Chinese and English literature, I had no time to review how the Western scholars have studied the Donghu and other northern nomads. I also had some confusion on the ethnic complexities in the earlier parts of Chinese history. Through these discussions, I was able to clarify the ambiguities and broaden the analysis in the article that I am working on for final revisions before it comes out in print. For these reasons, I am thankful of the others who have provided feedbacks and discussed with me.

Thank you. --Alexjhu (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. I've left you an email as well. Just remember: no legal threats! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Requested

I am writing to request for WP mediation on the wrongful translation of “Donghu” as “Eastern Barbarians”. In the end of last year, I debated with a couple of others on the subject. Outraged by their racist assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarian” in the name of “Donghu,” I indicated intent of a lawsuit, which resulted in a block on my account. Although it was later removed, the issue remained unsolved.

I now refer to my recent article that addressed the history of the Donghu and Xianbei, entitled as: “An overview of the history and culture of the Xianbei (‘Monguor’/’Tu’)”, published in Asian Ethnicity (2010):11 (1), 95-164. With the analyses presented in the internationally reputed academic journal, I hope the dispute can be resolved and the derogatory assertion of “barbarian” be removed from the name of “Donghu.”

Below is a section from Page 145 that addressed the origins of the Donghu and Xianbei:

“Whereas ‘Donghu’ was a Chinese transcription, the first character ‘Dong’ in Mongolian language was ‘Tüng’ and meant ‘forest’, and the second character ‘Hu’ may have been a variance of the Mongolic term ‘Khun’ which meant ‘people’.241 The Xianbei were traditionally presumed to have descended from the ‘Donghu’, but this was unsupported by the sequence of emergence in their names in historical records. The earliest Chinese record of the ‘Donghu’ occurred in the ‘Chapter on the Meeting of Kings’ or ‘Wang Hui Pian’ in the ‘Book of Yizhou’ compiled during the Warring States from the fifth to the third century BC, indicating that the Donghu were active during this period.242 However, the earliest record of the Xianbei was found in the oldest Chinese classic, Guoyu, which indicated that the Xianbei had contact with King Cheng, who reigned from 1042 BC–1021 BC during the Zhou Dynasty.243 In the ancient Chinese history as it is today, the ethnic groups were noted in the historical records only when they accomplished prominences. The different sequence in the emergence of the names of ‘Donghu’ and ‘Xianbei’ indicated that the Xianbei had existed long before the Donghu federation was destroyed by the Xiongnu. This suggested that ‘Donghu’ was originally an ethnonym of a group who along ‘with the Wuhuan belonged to the Xianbei series’.244 As the Donghu were distributed closest to eastern China and became active, the federation that they formed with the Wuhuan and Xianbei were referred to as the ‘Donghu’. By the thirteenth century when the Mongols emerged as a mighty power, the ‘Monguor’/‘Tu’ were the only ethnic group who remained as having come from the Donghu. This explains why the Mongols referred to Western Xia as ‘Tangut’ to represent the ‘Donghu people’.”

241 Hao and Qimudedaoerji, Outline of Comprehensive History of Inner Mongolia, 17. 242 Lin, The Donghu History, 1–2. 243 Lü, The Tu History, 7; Zhu, The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups, 93. 244 Zhu, The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language, 75.

References cited in the above section:

Hao, Weimin [郝维民] and Qimudedaoerji [齐木德道尔吉] (2007). Neimenggu tong shi gang yao [Outline of Comprehensive History of Inner Mongolia] 内蒙古通史纲要. Beijing [北京], Renmin chu ban she [The People's Press] 人民出版社. Lin, Gan [林干] (2007). Donghu shi [The Donghu History] 东胡史. Huhehaote [呼和浩特], Nei Mengguo ren min chu ban she (Inner Mongolia People's Press] 内蒙古人民出版社. Lü, Jianfu [呂建福] (2002). Tu zu shi [The Tu History] 土族史. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中囯社会科学出版社. Zhu, Xueyuan [朱学渊] (2004). Zhongguo bei fang zhu zu de yuan liu [The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups] 中国北方诸族的源流. Beijing [北京], Zhonghua shu ju [China Book Group] 中华书局. (2008). Qin Shi Huang shi shuo menggu hua de Nüzhen ren [The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language] 秦始皇是说蒙古话的女真人. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern China Normal University Press] 华东师范大学出版社.

Below is a section from Pages 148-9 that addressed the wrongful translation of “Hu”:

“In the name of ‘Donghu’, the second character ‘Hu’ has been conventionally presumed to represent the northern nomads.257 In the Western literature, the character ‘Hu’ and ‘Di’, the latter of which was also a summary term for the northern nomads as ‘Northern Di’ or ‘Beidi’ (北狄), were often translated into ‘barbarians’. This is unfounded,258 since both Huang Di and Yan Di, whose names are translated as the Yellow Empeor and the Flame Emperor, came from Shaodian as a branch of the ‘Northern Di’.259 The reference of ‘Di’ seems to be related to the Shang Dynasty founded by the nomads from Manchuria, which was accounted to be established under the special blessings of Heaven. The founder of the Shang was Qi, whose mother was named as ‘Jiandi’ (简狄).260 The summary term for the northern nomads as ‘Di’ likely came from her name. Since Huang Di and Yan Di established the foundations for the Chinese civilization, and the Shang Dynasty gave rise to the oracle-bone inscriptions of the Chinese language, to translate the northern nomads as ‘barbarian’ would be equivalent of treating the very founders of the Chinese civilization as ‘barbarians’. Likewise, there is no ground to translate the character ‘Hu’ into ‘barbarian’. Its first usage was recorded in the name of a king, Hu Gongman, during the Western Zhou era about three thousand years ago, indicating the Hu clan was the authentic descendants of Huang Di.261 Today it is one of the most common last names, with more than 16 million Chinese people who bear it in their names around the world. The transformation of ‘Hu’ to represent the northern nomads occurred from the Xiongnu, who after destroying the Donghu federation, self proclaimed to be ‘powerful Hu in the north and the proud son of heaven’.262 After the Xiongnu expanded to control the northern and western territories, the reference of ‘Hu’ was applied to all the nomads in these areas. The change in the references alternated in the subsequent history. In the first century, after the Xianbei defeated the northern Xiongnu, the Xiongnu remnants self proclaimed to be ‘Xianbei’. After the Mongols emerged as a mighty power in the thirteenth century, the Tuyühu Xianbei proclaimed to be ‘White Mongols’, a reference that still persists. The transformation of such ethnonyms is also evident in that the dominance of the Mongols gave rise to the historical reference of the Asians, including the Chinese, as the ‘Mongoloid’.”

257 Liu, History of the Five Hu. 258 In the Chinese language, the only character that can be literally translated into ‘barbarian’ is ‘man’ (蛮). Its derogatory connotations are manifested in its structure: on the top is ‘yi’ (亦) meaning ‘also’ or ‘remains’, and on the bottom is ‘chong’ (虫) meaning ‘worm’ or ‘bug’. Combined together, the character suggests ‘remains to be worm or bug’. The other character presumed to mean ‘barbarian’ is ‘yi’ (夷), which originally meant ‘people’. The character is made up of two parts: a person, ‘ren’ (人) standing through a bow, ‘gong’ (弓). Its pronunciation, ‘yi’, was a variance of ‘yin’ for ‘ren’ meant for people. The pronunciation of ‘ren’ as ‘yin’ remains seen in the eastern and northeastern dialects today. Its usage to represent people came from the historical reference of the eastern Chinese in Shangdong, the homeland of Confucius. They were referred to as ‘Dongyi’ (东夷) which represented ‘the easterners who carried bows across their shoulders’ and referred to the eastern Chinese who traditionally carried bows across their shoulders and used them in hunting and war. Its derogatory connotations as ‘barbarians’ were presumed from its traditional association with ‘man’, as ‘manyi’ (蛮夷) to mean ‘the barbarian people’. 259 Liu, Legends of Shennongshi in Shangdang and the Origins of the Chinese Civilization, 203–10. 260 Gu, Classic Theses Collection of Gu Jiegang, 28–30. 261 Huang, Comprehensive History of Chinese Surnames: Hu; Yuan and Zhang, Population Genetics and Distribution of Chinese Surnames, 423–7. 262 Fei, The Framework of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality, 258; Lin, The Donghu History, 5.

References cited in the above section:

Fei, Xiaotong [费孝通] (1999). Zhonghua min zu duo yuan yi ti ge ju [The Framework of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality] 中华民族多元一体格局. Beijing [北京], Zhongyang min zu da xue chu ban she [Central Nationalities University Press] 中央民族大学出版社. Gu, Jiegang [顾颉刚] (2003). Gu Jiegang jing dian wen cun [Classic Theses Collection of Gu Jiegang] 顾颉刚经典文存. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai da xue chu ban she [Shanghai University Press] 上海大学出版社. Huang, Qichang [黄启昌] (2003). Zhonghua xing shi tong shi-Hu xing [Comprehensive History of Chinese Surnames: Hu] 中华姓氏通史-胡姓. Beijing [北京], Dongfang chu ban she [The Eastern Press] 东方出版社. Liu, Xueyao [劉學銚] (2001). Wu Hu shi lun [History of the Five Hu] 五胡史論. Taibei [台北], Nan tian shu ju [Nantian Press] 南天書局. Liu, Yuqing [刘毓庆] (2008). Shangdang shen nong shi chuan shuo yu hua xia wen ming qi yuan [Legends of Shennongshi in Shangdang and the Origins of the Chinese Civilization] 上党神农氏传说与华夏文明起源. Beijing [北京], Renmin chu ban she [The People's Press] 人民出版社. Yuan, Yida [袁义达] and Zhang Cheng [张诚] (2003). Zhongguo xing shi qun ti yi chuan he ren kou fen bu [Population Genetics and Distribution of Chinese Surnames] 中国姓氏群体遗传和人口分布. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern Chinese Normal University] 华东师范大学出版社.

Thank you for your attention and assistance.

Sincerely yours, --Alexjhu (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Summary of Findings Presented in the Article

A Summary

Since my article entitled as “An Overview of the History and Culture of the Xianbei (‘Monguor’/‘Tu’) published in Asian Ethnicity 2010, 11 (1): 95-164 is very long, below I will highlight some of its key significances or discoveries:

1) The article clarifies the ambiguities and controversies concerning the ethnic origins and history of the Xianbei (“Monguor”/“Tu”). Although they have been extensively studied and reported by the Western scholars since the mid-1800s, their history has been misunderstood, especially following the misconstruction of the Flemish missionary Schram. The article reviews the latest research findings and sets the record straight.

2) The article takes a new view on the complex history of China, which has been systematically rewritten or distorted in the past two millenniums. Whereas the post-Yuan history after the Mongols of the thirteenth century has been better known, the earlier dynasties were not, especially the important role of the Xianbei, from whom the Mongols were accounted to have descended by the Chinese scholars. The article reviews the earlier Xianbei dynasties, and also briefly touches on the importance of the northern nomads in developing the pre-historical Chinese civilization.

3) The article points the ethnic background of the founders of the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the latter of which led China to reach the peak of its civilization, to the Xianbei based on the genealogies of the emperors and the cultural characteristics of these dynasties. They inherited the political structure laid down by the Northern Wei of the Xianbei, which in turn was inherited by the subsequent Chinese dynasties. This indicates that the ancient Chinese social and political structure was developed by the Xianbei, whereas the territory of China as one of the largest in the world was accomplished by the Mongols of the Yuan and reinforced by the Manchus of the Qing. This means that China would not be what it is without the northern nomads.

4) The article presents an alternative view on the functions of the Great Wall. It was conventionally claimed to have been constructed to protect China from the invasions of the northern nomads. From historical perspectives, it was built for offensive functions to carry out military campaigns to subjugate the northern nomads, and defensive functions to protect the troops for retreat.

5) The article presents the origins for the English reference of “Tibet,” which had perplexed the international scholars. It came from the reference of “Tiebie” used by the “Monguor”/“Tu,” which in turn was derived from the Tuofa Xianbei who had founded Southern Liang. The Tuofa were of the same descent as the Tuoba Xianbei who founded Northern Wei in China proper. After Southern Liang fell, a small fraction of the Tufa Xianbei went into the Tibetan areas and gave rise to the reference “Tiebie”, which evolved into the ethnonym. Both in the Tibetan governance and religion, the Xianbei “Monguor”/“Tu” played substantial roles and their elites had considerable mergers.

The above findings represented mostly a synthesis of the Chinese sources, especially the latest publications that saw an increased openness and a shift toward the post-modernistic deconstruction of the conventional presumptions made of the Chinese history.

Below is a summary of the original discoveries presented in the article:

A) The article interprets the genetic relatedness between the “Monguor”/“Tu” and the Xi’an people as further genetic evidence that the Sui and Tang Dynasties were founded by the Xianbei. It suggested that the Xi’an people were the descendants of the Xianbei, who from the Northern Wei through the Sui and Tang Dynasties made Xi’an as one of their dual capitals. This is the only explanation for their genetic relatedness.

B) Based on the cultural and linguistic characteristics, combined with historical research, the article points to the fact that those who were classified as “Han” were not of the same ethnic group, and that “Han” was a political identity imposed upon diverse ethnic groups. Since more than one billion people have been labeled as such and indoctrinated with blatantly chauvinistic ideologies for over half a century, the article warns potential dangers embedded in it. As a political scheme perhaps necessitated by the domestic and international contexts when PR China was founded, the rapid development of the country now indicates modifications. The article espouses a new ideology of Ethnic Relativism to advocate that no ethnic group is inherently “superior” or “inferior” and to grant each ethnic group with equal dignity and decency which, combined with the effort to narrow the economic gaps, may help to make China become more “harmonious” as so aimed by the Government.

C) The research discovered an interesting link between the “Monguor”/“Tu” and the relocated Hmong/Miao, in that the latter formed the majority of the population in the Tuyuhu and Western Xia Kingdoms founded by the Xianbei in the northwest. This led to a new interpretation for the national title of Western Xia as “Bai Gao” (or “White and Mighty”). Within it, “Bai” (“White”) represented the founding ethnic group, the “Monguor”/“Tu,” who were historically referred to as the “White Section” and “White Mongols” due to their lighter skin, and “Gao” (“Mighty”) represented the majority of the population who were summarily referred to as “Qiang” and comprised the relocated Hmong/Miao from central China about four thousand years ago. Previously, “Bai Gao” was interpreted to represent a religious symbol by the Western scholars, whereas the Chinese scholars attributed it to a phantom river.

D) The article makes a new interpretation for the Mongolian reference of Western Xia as “Tangut” that it represented “the Donghu people” from whom the “Monguor”/“Tu” had come from in Manchuria. This corroborated with the theories of the Outer Mongolian scholars who have held that the Mongols had descended from the Xiongnu whereas the Chinese scholars attributed their origins to the Xianbei. The differences reflected alternations in the self references of the Xiongnu and Xianbei through history.

E) The article also makes a new interpretation for the name of “Xiongnu” as having come from a combination of the clan name “Xiongxiong” and personal name “Nunu” of their highest leader at a shift of political power, based on the reference of the clans with Xiongnu descent as “Xiongxiong” and the common name of “Nuernuer” among the “Monguor”/“Tu.” Historically they were referred to as “Hun” in the Western literature. The second character “nu,” meaning “slave” and “servant” in their name was believed to be inserted for derogatory purposes by the Western and some Chinese scholars.

F) The article presents a new discovery that the name of “Chiyou,” from whom the Hmong/Miao were believed to have descended, was pronounced as “Chiyi” in archaic Chinese phonology. This resonated with the Hmong shaman’s god in the U.S. as referred to as “Shiyi” or “Shee Yee.” The latter spelling was used by Ann Fadiman in her book entitled “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.” This corroborated with the assumption that the Hmong/Miao had descended from Chiyou, the mighty leader who was defeated by Huang Di, or the Yellow Emperor, who had come from the northern nomads and laid down the foundations for the Chinese civilization.

The above finding in F combined with C corroborated with the oral traditions of the Hmong that they had founded a powerful kingdom that lasted four to five centuries. The account was presented in the Hmong history written by the earlier Western scholars but doubted by recent researchers. After the fall of the Tuyuhu and Western Xia kingdoms, some of the Xianbei (“Monguor”/“Tu”) seemed to have migrated southward into Yunnan and Guizhou through the “ethnic corridor” in Sichuan. Likewise, the original “Qiang” from these two kingdoms may have migrated to join the other Hmong/Miao settlements and brought the legends of the kingdoms with them. This will be elaborated more in my upcoming book to be revised from the doctoral dissertation entitled as “Under the Knife: medical ‘noncompliance’ in Hmong immigrants” to be published by Russell Sage.

Sincerely,

Alexjhu (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]