User talk:CWH

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

The Community
Things to do


May You Live in Interesting Times[edit]

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


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

Can you please stop?[edit]

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

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

Wikilinking help[edit]

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


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

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

Joseph Needham[edit]

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

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

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

Righteous Harmony[edit]

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

Redirect Righteous Harmony Society to Boxer Rebellion.[edit]

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

Institute of Pacific Relations[edit]

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

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

Edits to MUS[edit]

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

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

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

Song salt industry[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Needing an opinion[edit]

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

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

GA reassessment of Dixie Mission[edit]

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

Frogs in a well[edit]

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

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

Chinese Labour Corps[edit]

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

Karl August Wittfogel[edit]

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


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

New dispute at Mao: The Unknown Story[edit]

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


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

Hi again[edit]

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

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

Arilang1234's removal of referenced material[edit]

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

First Opium War[edit]

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


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

Hi again[edit]

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

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

old material[edit]

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

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

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


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

accept nomination[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

Your RfA[edit]

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

Closed RFA[edit]

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

Peiho river[edit]

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


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

Monguor people[edit]

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

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

New section at Dream of the Red Chamber[edit]

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

russian invasion of manchuria[edit]

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

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

Herman Melville bibliography peer review[edit]

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

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

Your article has been moved to AfC space[edit]

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

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

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

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

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

Inviting you to comment[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

User:Arash Shah[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic of China article[edit]

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

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

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

Qing Languages[edit]

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

Andrew Nathan Chinese Name[edit]

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

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


Hey all :).

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

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

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

Primary sources and original research[edit]

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

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

Unequal treaty[edit]

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

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

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

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

Photography in China[edit]

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

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

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

Albert Feuerwerker[edit]

Hello, CWH, and thank you for your contributions!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Wilt L. Idema[edit]

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Wilt L. Idema for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Agnes Smedley/ Edgar Snow[edit]

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

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

Cheers ch (talk)

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



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

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

Here's a quote for perspective:

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

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

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

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

Reply to reply

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

Military history of the Qing dynasty[edit]

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

A number of points!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese character(s)[edit]

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

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

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

Bible translations into Chinese[edit]

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

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

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

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

宁予於外盗, 不予於家贼.

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

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

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

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

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

Your 3O request for Joseph Schereschewsky[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Salt and China[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Barnstar for you![edit]

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

Soo Yong[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined: Mass Education Movement[edit]

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

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

A cup of tea for you![edit]

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

DYK for John Calvin Ferguson[edit]

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

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

Thanks for creating Liu Xucang, CWH!

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


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

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Tang dynasty ancestry[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for creating Lang Jingshan, CWH!

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

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

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

Learn more about page curation.

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

DYK for Lang Jingshan[edit]

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

Re: Quantangshi[edit]

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

C. T. Loo[edit]

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

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

DYK nomination of C. T. Loo[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of C. T. Loo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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


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

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

DYK for C. T. Loo[edit]

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

DYK on Yuxian[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for creating Zhang Renjie, CWH!

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

Thank you. A very interesting article.

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

Learn more about page curation.

DYK nomination of Fu Shanxiang[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Fu Shanxiang at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Novel versus book[edit]

Hello, CWH. I noticed you changed "novel" to "book" in two of the Melville articles I recently edited. With the exception of The Piazza Tales, the books Melville wrote from Typee through The Confidence-Man are considered novels by the reliable sources, they're listed as novels in the navbox, and they're categorized under Novels by Herman Melville. Why the distinction? Regards, Bede735 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bede735, good to hear from you. I put a quick note on your TalkPage explaining what I saw as the question. But to keep this discussion public, I probably should have posted it first at Herman Melville, so let's open it there instead. See you there! ch (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Li Shizeng) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Li Shizeng, CWH!

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

Very interesting article

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

Learn more about page curation.

DYK for Fu Shanxiang[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Huachung University[edit]

As part of my work in clearing up old Article for Creation drafts, I rewrote the copypasted content and accepted a draft article for United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, and tried to fill in the red links. I therefore started this article , based on your draft at User:CWH/Boone University, but it is obviously only a sketch. It's not clear to me what the title and organization should be for this related group of schools--normally we write the article under the latest title of the amalgamated entity, but the situation here is obviously not straightforward. Sometimes we do need in such cases to write articles under each successive name. You're an expert, and I'm not, so please deal with it further as you think best. My own feeling is that it is advisable to get at least preliminary articles in Wikipedia for all of the Chinese colleges,so proper links can be made, and people can add to them, rather than wait for a full completed treatment. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, DGG, and also thanks for bringing up this topic. You set a good example, which I will try to follow.

You are right that the problem is that after 1949 the private colleges and universities founded before Liberation were amalgamated into state universities and effectively no longer existed, but in the period of Opening and Reform the universities claimed them as part of their historical legacy, sometimes extending back to the Han dynasty. Huachung is a good example (I visited there in 1981 and as an American academic was welcomed as a tie to the old days and introduced to faculty who had been there in the 1930s!). So I will try to create articles, if only stubs, to fill out the thirteen Christian colleges, working from List of Christian colleges in China and Category:Christian colleges in China.

My feeling is that there should be independent articles on the pre-1949 institutions linked, of course, to the main articles on the present day ones. ch (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wang Ruofei[edit]

Hi CWH, how are you? I see that you've been continually producing high-quality new articles. Thanks for your great work! I just nominated one of your recent creations, Wang Ruofei, for DYK. See nomination page. Cheers, Zanhe (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zanhe: -- you're too kind! I didn't see DYK material in that article, but your eye is sharper. You could well be right that a plane crash might be worthy. I also thank you for cleaning up things in several recent articles that I should have caught. I try to understand what you do and to follow your good (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Funny thing is, I was just adding some basic info about the plane crash, with a red link to Wang Ruofei, to the stub Deng Fa, and wondering how many years that link would stay red. And two days later, you turned the red link a fully developed article. It was like miracle! -Zanhe (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Father Mapple[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Father Mapple at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see new note on DYK nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Wang Ruofei[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Li Shizeng[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Huangtiandang[edit]

Hi ch, in your review of this nomination, you said that the article had already appeared on DYK. I asked for a diff (that's the URL link at the top of your browser, beginning "https// ...", of the previous DYK nomination template. If there was a previous nomination, you would have been able to find it using the "What links here" tool to the left of the page (Battle of Huangtiandang) in question. Diffs are often used in DYK and AFD discussions when you want to point out what someone said or a revision that someone made to a page. For more information, see Help:Diff. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

THanks, @Yoninah: I'm beginning to get into the swing of the DYK process and I appreciate your patient help. I've already left further comments on the Battle of... template -- see, I was actually using diffs all along without knowing that's what they were called SFriendly.svg Cheers, ch (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Father Mapple[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Meng Jiang[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi CWH, did you know that Lady Meng Jiang was one of the most viewed DYKs of October 2014? I've added it to WP:DYKSTATS. Cheers! -Zanhe (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, once again, Zanhe, both for your general example and your specific help in sharpening the article and holding it up to high standards, as I have seen you do in other circumstances, as well. I'd like to work over the other Four Legends sooner or later; this statistic shows that there is interest in these topics. ch (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Yes, my mistake, I didn't see the "|" there. I was trying to simulate the previous formatting, which had the quote in the footnote, rather than expressing a preference about where it should go. Kanguole 23:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem -- I think I'll move the text up to the main space in any (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

He Zhen[edit]

Hello! First of all, thank you for creating He Zhen (anarchist). I really appreciate it. Secondly, do you think we could rename the article? I'd prefer it not to have "(anarchist)" in the title, due to the clutter factor of it, and while the name "He Zhen" is slightly more used "He-Yin Zhen" was the name preferred by the writer herself, and for example The Birth of Chinese Feminism: Essential Texts in Transnational Theory make note that they use that name out of respect to her personal preference. Stamboliyski (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stamboliyski, and thanks in return for creating the Xin Shiji article, which goosed me into finishing the He Zhen/ He-Yin Zhen article, which had been sitting in my sandbox for far too long. I went with "He Zhen" for the reason you say, that there are more references, but you are right that the Liu/ Karl/ Ko volume probably trumps them, and in any case that she herself preferred He-Yin. So if you'd like to make the move, it's fine with me.
BTW, I hope that you might consider making a few more articles in the China area. I looked at your list of articles and you have a nice touch -- just enough detail without getting bogged down, nice clear writing, good sources. Are you on the Anarchism task force? I suppose I should be, but I come more from the China side.
One dirty-work task might be to add sources to the Anarchism in China article, which now is pretty bare. I think you are familiar with the sources. There are also some red-links that might be turned into articles. If you start things off, I'd be glad to pitch in. If it becomes a Good Article, then it's eligible for Did You Know mention, which greatly increases the number of visits (at least for a day!).
Cheers in any case ch (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like a move, yeah. It seems like the best option, I feel. As for task force - no, I am not. Didn't know one existed, actually. And as for redlinks and what not, yeah, I'm going to work on some. I got at least two related to He Zhen / He-Yin Zhen lined up (the group she started, and the newspaper related to her). Hopefully, we can eventually improve the overall Anarchism in China article, once there are sufficient "backup" articles to provide extra material. Stamboliyski (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Stamboliyski there's a group under Portal:Anarchism, which also has a bunch of lists and listings. I agree that that there should be more articles in this area, but don't think that the main article Anarchism in China needs to be longer, just more tightly written and better noted. When articles get too long, readers don't read them, so I think your strategy of "backup" articles is a good one.
The old Scalapino/Yu article is outdated in relation to Dirlik, Zarrow et al, but still very useful partly because it mentions all the major people and themes, usually with enough detail for most purposes, but also because it's available for free online, which is good for many readers who don't have access to a major library. ch (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Awarded for your excellent rewrite of the Herman Melville lede. Neonorange (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to you, Neonorange for the suggestion that started it off!ch (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Brook Ziporyn[edit]

If the Afd comes out as deletion, I recommend that you continue to do your research on Brook Ziporyn, write a good solid article on him that clearly makes appropriate claims to notability which are supported by reliable sources, and then create the new article on him. I suggest that you work on and write the article either off-line, or in your own Wikipedia sandbox. If you want to save anything from the existing article, please copy it to your workspace before the end of the Afd. My own experience suggests that you will have a difficult time, but go for it. Remember it will face the same rigourous standards that it does now, and that new objections may be raised. (It has happened to me.) Good luck, but I cannot support an extension of the Afd, since the article has been around since 1 February 2011. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and good advice. I looked around a little and find that the notability bar for academics is much higher than athletes in, say, Notability Basketball where they are notable if they "appeared in one game as either a player or head coach" in, among other leagues, the Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto. This obviously not the place to debate policy, though I do find it hard to understand the rush to (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Music, entertainment and athletics (bread and circuses) have a large popular following, hence their demand for a lower bar. The best that could be done in those cases was a "bright line rule" so that obvious cases could be eliminated and most gray ones weren't endlessly argued over. (But see the current debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Millay.) There are not so many bright line rules for academics, even fewer for bureaucrats. The joys of a collaborative universe! --Bejnar (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Because things can be brought back, and are (sometimes it seems endlessly) Wikipedia has relatively short decision times for many of its common processes. Others, like RFCs have no such structure and often reach no resolution. The debate over towns in the US being in the form "name, state" comes up about every six months. --Bejnar (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Your observations make a lot of sense, but it is also true that Wikipedia aspires to be more than "bread and circuses." Please look at my list of contributions to see if I am a responsible editor (BTW, technically I would pass the criteria for Academic Notability). Can you explain to me why I should continue to give a shit about Wikipedia when good editors like you will not support me in a reasonable request? I simply want to treat a widely published and influential scholar as of equal importance with someone who has played one game of basketball in Spain. I will not retrieve the article from the trash-heap. I submit that it is your responsibility to make distinctions such as (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, stand on the form and neglect the substance. That works well (sarcasm). It is not a trash heap. While only about half of the articles that I've seriously worked on and that were subsequently deleted, have been successfully, albeit with changes, reinstated, I've found that the results have contributed to balanced, reliable information being readily available on the web. Most recent was the article on Ong Kean Swan. You ask an existential "why". The answer is All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. I encourage you to continue to contribute to the Wikipedia. By the way concerning "reasonable request": Given the Wikipedia rules regarding Afds, requesting a few weeks delay in an ongoing Afd debate is not only not reasonable, it is not possible. Results may be possible, but violations of procedure usually are not. --Bejnar (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion, please![edit]

Hey, ch. I'm working on an unfinished draft article in my userspace and I'd like your opinion on what it should be called. There is no generally agreed-upon English language name for the subject. I have been considering Autumn Hunt (the current name in the draft, translated from the Chinese name), Qiuxian (the Chinese name), Imperial hunt of the Qing dynasty (a descriptive name), Imperial hunt (Qing dynasty) (a variant of the previous name), just Imperial hunt (since the name is not currently being used), and Mulan hunt (after the name of the hunting site). What do you think is the best name? Feel free to suggest alternatives I haven't thought of. Thanks! --Difference engine (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I'll put my comments on the Talk Page of your terrific draft, however, so others can chime (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies[edit]

Hi CWH! I have added a new section called "List of Presidents" in the Association for Asian Studies article not long ago. But I just happened to find that you seemed to be trying to do a very similar thing, as demonstrated in your WIP page User:CWH/List of Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies. So do you think the list should be in the section of the article (as it is now), or in a separate article? Thanks! --Evecurid (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have plans to expand the section further, I would gladly defer to you. But if you don't plan to expand the section beyond a list, I might keep constructing a table, which would be easier to sort, and maybe eventually (not soon) move the AAS section to a list article. The advantages of a list are explained at MOS:LIST. One is that the presence of red links shows what articles need to be created. You'll see that I also created a category Category:Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies.
But if you have plans to expand the section with more information than could fit into the list format, then the list article might not be so important, and it's perfectly fine to embed a list in an article.
Still another option would be for you to develop the Table I have set up. I would welcome the chance to partner with you. As far as I know, there is no problem with your editing my workspace page. Feel free to use it as a test space for finding out how to make an effective table, which was part of my own motive in making it to begin with.
What do you think? ch (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Later -- well, Evecurid, I've worked a little more on the AAS section, and made a new article, Paul Wheatley (geographer), which I hope you can visit and touch up if you feel like it, and started a draft on Robert B. Hall/ Robert Burnett Hall (I found that there was more than one ""Robert B. Hall"!! I'll keep you posted. ch (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The current presentation is excellent! I like it. Thanks for your work! In this case there seems to be no need for a separate article. Your new article on Paul Wheatley (geographer) is good too. (sorry if you have expected me to reply earlier, but it was really too late last night so I could not reply it earlier; we probably live in different parts of the world). --Evecurid (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I really appreciate your invitation for a partnership for developing the table in your earlier message. However, we will probably have a chance to do so next time when we are going to do something similar, and I will be looking forward to cooperate with you. Cheers! --Evecurid (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Originally I had thought I would list the areas of specialization, home university, and such, which would be easier to do in a table, but this was more of a vague intention than an actual plan. Thanks to your work, the section already does most of what is useful, so maybe I'll leave it alone for a while and do some "stub" articles on the presidents who are redlinked. Would you be interested in doing some?
Let's continue the further discussion at Talk:Association for Asian Studiesch (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I will help eliminate the redlinks too. --Evecurid (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Laura Hostetler[edit]

I have replied your message in my talk page. Thanks for it. --Evecurid (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have instead created a template Template:New Qing History. How about this one? --Evecurid (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

War film[edit]

Hi, I've had a go at War film - basically, shocked at its WP:ORishness. I've added the beginnings of a proper discussion of the genre, rearranged the material to describe a few subgenres at least briefly, cut the worst of the listcruft, and found some nice images from Commons (Capra liaising with the British Army!). I'd be delighted to hear what you think. Even better, you might know some people who might help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, Glad to see that you are on the job! Lots of work, but becoming an extremely worthwhile article. My own interest is in Chinese and Japanese war films, and to some extent Hollywood representations of wars with China and Japan. When looked at the article for some help, I basically threw up my hands. Didn't see even where to begin except to add the labels.
For further discussion, let's move to Talk:War film, where you have already begun. Cheers ch (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. Something on what the Chinese and Japanese critics think of their own nations' films would be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Useful material: the article is looking far better globalized, and more balanced. I have copy-edited the new sections to have roughly the same style and format as the rest, I hope that is all right with you! I'm also vigorously cutting down the old OR-ish stuff, and by moving more of it into new subsections (like Comedy) I'm starting to give it references as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Chiswick Chap (once again!) for your smarts and perseverance. You are to be congratulated that the article is now "far better globalized and more balanced." We still might reorganize the global aspects slightly and move some sections around. For instance, it would be more helpful in making comparisons to group the Japanese material under an "Asian" section rather than "Axis." Japanese film doesn't have much in common with German (and Italian?) war films. Also, the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean chronology doesn't quite fit under the WWII rubric, and it would help the reader to see the differing views of the same events expressed in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean films together in one section.
Your copy-edits are thoughtful and clarifying, though I might re-tweak some places where a nuance got lost. For instance, the sources did not say that the ROK films were "pro-communist," only that they showed DPRK soldiers in a "humanist" light ("humanist" is an important technical term in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean critical discourse, evoking Confucian ethics). The films mentioned do take somewhat different stances, however. Cheers! ch (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, please go ahead. I'm making some progress on the post-WWII films, but since it seems to be pure OR it's proving quite a job - really, it just needs to be replaced. Oh, and I found a published book based on the uncited article! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. It might be worth wikilinking "humanist" (not to western Humanism, I think) as it has a specialist meaning; that might be to Confucianism, I don't know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do -- but not for a little while, maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow. ch (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've now more or less rewritten the article, and have removed whatever I couldn't cite. I've added short discussions of usually just one film of each kind, with ref; this seems to me far preferable to making an uncited claim, followed by a list of films. I'd be curious to know what you think of the result. The "subgenres" could clearly be moved to follow immediately after the "Genre" section, if anyone thinks that would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chinese war films[edit]

Hi again, I've added something on War film#Chinese war films which I'm sure anyone with any knowledge would laugh at, but at least it's a start. Could you take a quick look and maybe suggest any improvements? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, your section is a great start and I am filled with admiration, not laughter! The "real world" is pressing me at the moment, but I will return to the War Film article as soon as I can to make a few nips and tucks.
Thank you, by the way, for using the word "humanist," which is a useful one we should be able to thread through the article, hopefully with a reference. I see it used in the scholarship on Chinese & Japanese film to mean something like "showing the enemy as human beings" or "not demonizing the enemy." It's more complicated so we should think about it. Cheers ch (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Gansu Flying Horse) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Gansu Flying Horse, CWH!

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

Good to see articles on unique works of art. Good job.

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

Learn more about page curation.

New articles[edit]

Hi CWH, many thanks for your new articles Tsien Tsuen-hsuin and William Hung (sinologist). I read about William Hung's sabotaging of Warner's Dunhuang expedition a while ago in Karl Meyer's Tournament of Shadows, and when I checked Wikipedia, all I could find was the clown performer! Thanks for getting that fixed. I've nominated Tsien Tsuen-hsuin for DYK, see nomination page. I'll nominate William Hung as well, unless you plan to do it yourself. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks right back at you, Zanhe, for your many contributions of all sorts and your constant encouragement for so many editors! Hung & Dunhuang is a great story, and I will have to get the Meyer book (I read it in Fan's book, which is more academic). I'm happy to have you nominate the DYKs, and will make any improvements needed in the articles. There are a few more tidbits I want to add, for instance that Hung created the translation yinde for "index" on the basis of the pronunciation in Fujianese, yindek and probably the relation with Cleaves and the Secret History of the Mongols. ch (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I just read the Cleaves article, an interesting read. I've now nominated William Hung, see nomination page. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As you can see, Zanhe, I feel a responsibility for starting to Wikipedianize (Wikipedificate?) this generation of sinologists and Area Studies scholars, some of whom were at odds with each other, but all of whose work should be on record. As a grad student and junior faculty member I knew quite a few of them. The skill and attention you and other editors give to the articles is terrifically helpful to a common endeavor I'm glad to be a small part (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

County magistrate[edit]

Did you mean to make this in your userspace? In the edit summary you said "creating userspace draft", but you made it in the mainspace. Just wondering. Pishcal 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops -- thanks, Pishcal, you are right! Can I move it or should you? ch (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I've moved it over to User:CWH/County magistrate, the redirect should be deleted soon. Pishcal 17:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William Hung (sinologist)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of William Hung (sinologist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yunshui  12:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work and encouraging words, Yunshui. I made the suggested changes, and went on to a few more improvements, so you may find that it's now ready. Cheers. ch (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for William Hung (sinologist)[edit]

Allen3 talk 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi CWH, just to let you know that William Hung (sinologist) was one of the most viewed DYKs of April 2015. I've added it to WP:DYKSTATS. Thanks for writing the article about this remarkable scholar! -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Good news! Much gratitude! ch (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed copyrighted text[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Joseph Levenson Book Prize has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Opencooper (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up," Opencooper. Would it be OK to put the text which was cut into quotes, maybe a block quote, introducing it with something like, "in the words of the announcement, "the prizes are for English language books....."? Otherwise, it would be hard to paraphrase. Thanks for your help!ch (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping straight to deleting it, but I wasn't sure if it would fall under fair use for quotes. I just tried and you're right about the hard to paraphrase part. Please look my attempt over and if it loses too much information from the original you could blockquote it using a template like {{Quote}}. Opencooper (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me -- thanks again! ch (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tsien Tsuen-hsuin[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck Page[edit]

While I appreciate your working to protect Pearl S Buck Legacy from the parts of her history that don't easily complement her work as a 'humanitarian' you should not and other wikipedia editors should not be whitewashing her 1. direct involvement and involvement via her Welcome House adoption agency in the Canada Scoops, and 2. should not be allowing others to lay blame, to essentially scapegoat an Arthur Murray School dance instructor, for Pearl S Buck's Welcome House adoption agency's involvement in the Canada Scoops, in 'trafficking' the children of Canadian Indian birth families from Canada to USA.

What's more the information that I provided is based on the same information that is allowed, has been allowed on other Wikipedia pages, i.e., I'm just pulling it all together on this page. So what's the problem? WV NYC (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch with me here, as I'm always glad to have a conversation, and you might well have new things to say. But I do ask you to Assume Good Faith, which is a basic Wikipedia policy and also the courteous thing to do. That is, please do not continue to say that my motivation is to protect anyone's reputation when I have repeatedly and sincerely explained that my only motivation is to follow Wikipedia policies about Reliable Sources.
A little background about myself in addition to what you can see on my User Page. My sister is a Canadian who has for many years been involved with and supported metis activism. Among the outrages that she also told me about was the abduction of aboriginal children, though she did not use the term "scoop." I am in entire agreement with her absolute condemnation of the program and your efforts to expose it.
But the point here is different. Wikipedia policies have to cover a wide range of cases, and the policies sometimes produce ridiculous results, as in the case of an author who wrote in to report that Wikipedia was wrong in reporting that he had died. This was not acceptable. They could not take his word that he was alive, since they had no way of knowing who had sent the email. They needed a Reliable Source!
Even though these policies can sometimes be frustrating, on the whole they are necessary and it would be dangerous to make exceptions. I as an editor have no more power over an article than you do, since all editors have equal rights. The only reason other editors can change your edits is if those edits do not meet Wikipedia policy.
Coming to the matter at hand, as I and several other editors have explained, including Chris troutman, Zero0000, and Paul Barlow, we have no objection whatsoever to adding information about her if there are reliable sources. In fact, both I and Zero0000 spent time trying to find those sources.
The Pearl Buck article now has the sentence "Welcome House has since been accused of facilitating adoptions of aboriginal Canadian children taken without consent of their biological families in the Sixties Scoop.[citation needed]." This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, as it lets readers know about the controversy and that a citation is needed.
If you have put this information on other Wikipedia pages without Reliable Sources, it should be removed. I looked at your "Contributions," however, and the only page I could find was Sixties Scoop, where this incident is not mentioned. Could you let me know what other articles are involved?
All the best, ch (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: new articles[edit]

Hi CWH! Honestly I was a little surprised to see the wording of your comment in my talk page, since I think we have cooperated well before (as User:Evecurid when I had an alternative account at that time). As for the new articles themselves, I did mention "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule" etc (see [4] and [5]), and I do have good reasons for the move. So your comment is not accurate, since I did acknowledge the part that I moved (not copied, as mentioned above), and the new articles are not a simply copy(cut)/paste either. For example, in Names of the Qing dynasty there is a comprehensive list of names for the Qing dynasty in English. None of the existing articles contained such a list. So it is obviously not a simple copy(cut)/paste from other articles, and I did not violate the WP policy (I think). I believe there must be some misunderstanding involved. Thanks for your understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To give you an example, Cartakes, yesterday you cut 4,102 bytes from the Goryeo article and pasted it into your new article. That is a cut and paste move and a policy breach.  Philg88 talk 14:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Philg88: Thanks for your example. But I did provide an edit summary of "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule" for that edit to acknowledge the source of move, right? The reason for the move should be obvious (I think): Goryeo is a summary article about the state, the part of Yuan overlordship should certainly not that detailed in the section. The materials existed in that article probably because there was simply no Korea under Yuan rule article before (that's why I was creating it). The article Korea under Yuan rule now exists, so the excessive details for Yuan domination in Goryeo should logically be moved to the Korea under Yuan rule article. But the new article obviously does not simply contain this information; it contains more materials used to make up the article, so it was not simply a cut/paste for establishing the new article. --Cartakes (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cartakes: You're missing the point. Cut and paste moves require the attribution to be maintained.  Philg88 talk 16:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Philg88: Sorry but just to ask that is it not enough to mention "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule" in edit summaries as well as mentioning that some contents are moved from other articles in Talk:Korea under Yuan rule? It is not Wikipedia:Moving a page anyway, but only some text from one article to another. According to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well." I have essentially done both by now (in source page and destination talk) as a matter of fact, so I can't see how I did not follow the WP policy. --Cartakes (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Call (novel)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadajirō Yamanaka[edit]

I see that you've done excellent work on C. T. Loo, and wonder if you might have a look at my stub for Sadajirō Yamanaka of Yamanaka & Co. Back in the day, Loo and Yamanaka were often mentioned in the same breath, and sometimes described as rivals, but for some reason I'm unable to find much good online sourcing for Yamanaka today and worry a bit that my two meager references (so far) may not pass RS muster, as they go back to museum and archive sources. Perhaps you can help direct me to better references? I'm also wondering if my Kanji for his name is correct (like you, I can read Mandarin, but unlike you, never lived in Japan). Anything you can add would be of help! This all started b/c of a beautiful old object I'm researching which I'm told once passed through his galleries, but climbing the ladder of provenance has been difficult given that the records have seemingly been dispersed! Thanks for all your good work here — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this suggests Yamanaka also sold textiles - note that the birth/death dates are different but I'm pretty sure it's the same guy.  Philg88 talk 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm a little handicapped reading and referencing Google books references right now, thanks to a recalcitrant iPhone and an obscure location—which doesn't cure me of my Wikipedia addiction, alas!—but ultimately I'm trying to locate these and other references which essentially identify Yamanaka & Co. as the era's seminal expert on all things related to Japanese fine and applied arts (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Chinese and other East Asian antiquities). He's basically credited with giving a first generation of American and European curators their introductory schooling, advancing Western taste and understanding beyond mere connoisseurship of "Japanoiserie". But there seems to be precious little in terms of reliable or readily available biography, and the disputed birth year (I chose 1866, deferring to the Met and its recent exhibit, but other sources say 1865) kind of surprises me. There was a time when "Yamanaka" was ALL you needed to say to assure someone that a particular purchase was wise, astute, and far-sighted. (Complicating this, of course, is the fact that not everything that passed through Yamanaka's hands ultimately proved to be genuine, whether he was aware of it or not.) But given the breadth of his business, not to mention his once-authoritative reputation as "the Japanese Duveen", I'm very surprised he's lacked a Wikipedia entry until now. Still working on it, of course... Thanks again for stalking.... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words on CT Loo, Vesuvius Dogg, a fascinating and influential figure. At the time I searched briefly for more on Yamanaka, especially in connection with Charles Freer, but couldn't find much. I started a userpage article which was simply the text of Yamanaka & Co (Biographical details) British Museum, but your article is already much better, so I will happily delete that draft.
There was a mention in a book on Osvald Siren here, which referred to an article: Thomas Lawton, "Sadaijiro Yamanaka: Advocate for Asian Art," Orientations 26.1 (January 1995) that should be useful if you can get hold of it. There's also brief mention of YS here, here, here, here, and here. There seems to be a fair amount scattered through Karl Meyer's book The China Collectors.
Your article is already quite useful. One aspect that you might add is that Yamanaka, like all the collectors, dealers, and museums at that time, was quite ruthless and freebooting in their methods, as here. Of course, they saved a lot of Chinese art from being destroyed, so there's a certain irony.
There seems to be enough for a decent article, one way or another, and I think it would be a great service to this area if you could piece things together. Maybe not as easy as having a full-strength biography to rely on, but all the more valuable! ch (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


The Signpost
6 September 2016

"Xuegin" to "Xueqin"[edit]

Thank you for correcting the article--- I guess I must have read it wrong the first time. Friendlybanana6192 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also thanks to you for checking things out and contributing to the Wikipedia spirit of cooperative work! ch (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey[edit]

Hello CWH, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

Wuqi333444 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

C. K. Yang (sociologist) has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Hey, the bot beat me to it! Anyway, just want to say thank you (again) for writing the article about this important scholar! -Zanhe (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for C. K. Yang (sociologist)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies[edit]

Category:Presidents of the Association for Asian Studies, which you created, has been nominated for another editor nominated purging and renaming to Category:Association for Asian Studies. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ji Chaoding[edit]

Hi CWH, thanks for another comprehensive new article! I've nominated it for DYK, see here. I'm not sure if I've chosen the best hook. If you have better ideas, please feel free to add them to the nomination page. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks right back at you, Zanhe. I took up your suggestion to tweak the hook (now 131 characters).
BTW, I found another rich source last night, almost by accident, trying to see how often Ji used the pseudonym Richard Doonping. This turned out to be "very seldom," and there are no Wikipedia uses of "Doonping" except for the Ji article and this page, so I moved Doonping to the Infobox and added another pseudonym. I couldn't get the "alternate_names" line to show. I checked the template for the Scientist infobox and found that it should be "other_names". Is there a better way to indicate that these were pseudonyms?
Also realized that Wittfogel was an "influence," not an advisor.
Thanks for creating the Redirect for Doonping (I went to create it and found that you were once more a step ahead!).ch (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good, thank you. I don't think there is a specific infobox field for pseudonyms, but "other names" is good enough, IMO. -Zanhe (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ji Chaoding[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Philip Jaffe[edit]

I feel a bit stupid. I saw you made a redlink for Philip Jaffe in Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy three days ago, and thought you were probably going to start an article. Then when it stayed red I decided to start one myself, since the subject seemed interesting. I tend to start articles in mainspace and then expand in mainspace. It did not occur to me to check if you had been doing an article in userspace. I will merge your draft into the mainspace article, maybe add some more, then submit it for DYK. Not sure what the hook should be?

I edit quite randomly, with no particular area of interest. I see articles a bit like verbal jigsaw puzzles where I fit together what I can find from the online sources. I started Heliconian Club in July 2014 and since then have being fixing redlinks in that article, redlinks in the linked articles and so on, which has led to articles a very long way from the Heliconians. A week ago user:Dr. Blofeld asked if I could help fill some redlinks on Maud Russell and that led to the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy and a few others.

Yes, I would strongly support the idea of professional societies like the Association for Asian Studies curating Wikipedia articles. There must have been discussion about this general concept in the past, e.g. the American Medical Association curating articles on medicine. Obvious issues would be that the association would not want to take responsibility and the Wikimedia Foundation would probably not want to give it any special authority. But with suitable waivers there must be a way to arrange some form of curation. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, as they used to say in the NBA, "no harm, no foul" (or sometimes "no blood, no foul"). I'm glad that you started the article, since who knows how long it would have taken me to! I have a few more sources, but I'll defer to you to set the shape of the article to see if they are even needed.
BTW, Field was an actual member of CPUSA. Though he did not advertise the fact at the time he also did not deny it. In his memoirs, he says that the more conservative members of the Amerasia board claimed that they didn't know of his red connections, but he says they never asked him about his associations -- and he never asked them about theirs!
Jaffe never was a CPUSA member, as I guess they thought he was too unreliable. The Commentary review of Jaffe's history of CPUSA you found is very helpful in making clear Jaffe's admiration for Browder.
Another point is which raids on Amerasia were conducted by the FBI and which by OSS -- at the moment I can't remember, but I know that I've seen it wrong in some places.
As to the curation, I'm not at all sure what would be a reasonable way to get professional expertise without the professional hangups. I would be dead set against making special concessions or handing special powers over to particular groups. But my feeling is that it would be fine to get more editors involved. ch (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you marked User:CWH/Philip Jaffe for deletion, I have zapped it. In some cases, drafts like that are kept to preserve the edit history of the merged material. Now that it is gone, your only credit is this edit summary. I take it you are happy with that? JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, JohnCD, and sorry to trouble you -- this is fine with me. I'm, just glad to see the article get (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Great work, Aymatth2, pulling all that information together! Jaffe was involved in so many fascinating things over such a long period that it's hard to leave anything out. I will go through and make a few tweaks to see if they work for (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Philip Jaffe[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:CWH/Sha Fei[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:CWH/Sha Fei, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TJH2018 talk 16:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: That's a ridiculous deletion request. CWH has created dozens of well developed articles from his userspace. I've removed the speedy tag. -Zanhe (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi CWH, thanks for your timely creation of the article. I've nominated it for DYK, see here. It'd be cool if it could run during the Harvard conference on him. I've also uploaded dozens of his photos to the Commons, see Commons category. There are hundreds of nice photos available. I'll upload more when I have more time. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Good to have your help once again, Zanhe. I put the article up rather speedily precisely because of the Harvard conference and exhibition, so I did not have time to do more and your input is more than ordinarily crucial! The photos you added are fantastic.
I was taken aback at the well-intentioned but ungrounded speedy deletion tag. The justification for the tag had no connection to the article (and it was added within an hour of my creating the userspace draft). I also need to thank Neonorange for putting in a sensible word in support of the (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Carl Whiting Bishop[edit]

Hi CWH, thanks for creating yet another much needed article! I have a question about his early years though: I couldn't find in Newmeyer or other sources anything about his being a silver assayer during the Yaqui Wars. Are you sure that's correct? Thanks, Zanhe (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry -- the info was in the Arlington Cemetery cite, which I (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting it sorted out. I checked the Arlington Cemetery article, but they misspelled "Yaqui", so my search for the word didn't come up with anything. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I've copyedited the article and nominated it for DYK, please see here. Thanks again! -Zanhe (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sha Fei[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 22 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sha Fei, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Harvard University is holding a conference today on Sha Fei, "The Photographer Who Shaped Modern China" (sample photograph pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sha Fei. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sha Fei), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

WormTT(talk) 22:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mentioned that I found the article through DYK and really enjoyed it! Cheers! --Falcorian (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Falcorian. The article could not have made DYK without the hard work and good eye of Zanhech (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Whiting Bishop[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 25 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carl Whiting Bishop, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tokyo-born archeologist Carl Whiting Bishop served in U.S. naval intelligence during World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Whiting Bishop. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carl Whiting Bishop), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Small Memorial Stele China.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Tank Commander Nishizumi Film Poster.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tank Commander Nishizumi Film Poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for David Tod Roy[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 19 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Tod Roy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Tod Roy, the son of Presbyterian missionaries to China, produced the first unexpurgated English translation of the Ming dynasty erotic novel Jin Ping Mei? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Tod Roy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Tod Roy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK prose size counting[edit]

Hello! You may try the tool mentioned here to check prose size adequacy and such things. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dharmadhyaksha! I finally figured out that I could go to the history page for the article in question and use the DYK checker on the earlier version, though it's still not clear which version. ch (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are using Shubinator's DYK tool, the link of which I mentioned above, it tell you from when the expansion started. You then have to only check if that date fits in the 7 days period before which nomination should be submitted. In case you are really confused about any nomination, you can take it to DYK's talk page case by case and someone will guide you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again -- I did use Shubinator's tool, but indeed was not clear about what date to use it on. Sorry to put you through all this bother for such an interesting hook and exemplary (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Javare Gowda[edit]

Please see note on your DYK review. Also, if you have any questions about DYK, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Information icon

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aircraft, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, BilCat, I made my reversion of that nonsense without seeing that you had beaten me to it (the same editor had made a number of similar edits and I went from that editor's Contributions page and carelessly did not check).ch (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, I've made that kind of mistake myself. - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!ch (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


You're welcome! Although, if you're watching them, both articles still need a lot more work, not least to differentiate them between the military actions (rebellion) and the state (kingdom). It also currently omits or quickly skips past rather major parts of the event, like how it bounced from Guangdong to 'xi to the Yangtze. Tian Wang could also use a section mentioning its use under the Taipings.

Day day up up... — LlywelynII 04:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I especially wanted to thank you because it was my edit that you correctly called "overly verbose and pedantic" -- I must have been suffering from sleep deprivation when I made it!
As to the TP articles, you are so right that they need work, as do many China articles. It's more exciting to start a new article than drudge through one that looks OK. I include myself among the guilty! But if you start fixing up those articles, I would probably feel shamed or inspired by your Lei Feng-ish example and follow suit Just maybe say on the Talk Page whether you have such plans and I won't step on your toes (as I did recently and got tangled up in cross-editing).ch (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)[edit]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 03:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Iris cedretii[edit]

Hi, I came across this nomination while building prep sets. I found it very hard to follow what was going on because you didn't sign any of your posts, and things weren't in chronological order. Next time, please sign each post and put it after the previous one, like the page creator did, so we can follow it. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 17 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1993 book Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China alleges that victors in a factional battle ate the flesh of losers in Guangxi during China's Cultural Revolution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)