User talk:Niohe/Archive 1

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

 ~ clearthought 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the nonsense article Chen Pao Shen. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please also see Wikipedia:The perfect article to learn more about appropriate article creation. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: nonsense article Chen Bao Shen

Actually I was intending to expand my "nonsense" article on Chen Bao Shen today, but you deleted it before I had a chance. Pls give people a chance to finish their projects before you call them nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niohe (talk • contribs) .

Chen Baochen was not deleted. It still exists. On a related note, I cannot delete articles. I am not an administrator. If you article gets deleted it's because an administrator deleted it (and sometimes it is first nominated for deletion by a non-administrator). Also, please sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end of messages you put in talk pages. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial City (Beijing)

Hi there, just one question. Are you sure the Manchu name is what it is? I'm asking because, in Chinese, there was the Forbidden City, then outside it the Imperial City, which is a part of an Inner City, to the north of the Outer City. Just wondering if the "Inner City" might refer to the Inner City and not the Imperial City?

I don't know Manchu at all so will defer to your judgment. --Sumple (Talk) 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was expecting a message from you! Yes, I am pretty sure that Dorgi hoton is the proper name for the imperial city. In front of me, I have no less than three Manchu dictionaries, and the give the following translations for Dorgi hoton: "the imperial city" in the English one, and "皇城" in the Chinese. In imperial China, anything referring to "inner" in the capital referred to the emperor and his court. There was no concept of "inner city" as we think of it today; the inner parts of Beijing were reserved for the Emperor and the Eight Banners, in theory being sealed off from ordinary people.

On a more general note, Manchu names and expressions often give us more direct access to what Qing emperors were thinking, since they were less prone to use flowery and poetic language when they used Manchu. There are many interesting examples of this.--Niohe 13:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your additions on Manchu names and meanings is very helpful. I wonder if it is possible to add text in Manchu script? --Sumple (Talk) 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on fonts, but I know that there is a font maker somewhere out there, which some people have used on Wikipedia before. On the other hand, the lack of Manchu script is not a big loss, because Manchu writing is almost 100 per cent phonetic and romanized Manchu can easily be reconverted into Manchu script. --Niohe 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: meaning or Tiananmen

Yes, I have no doubt thats why they named the gate as such. Nonetheless, the literal text does not mean "conquest" or "pacify" - it means to "stabilise" or "keep the peace" in the country, and to administer the state. --Sumple (Talk) 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that ān 安 literally means conquest, only that it implied conquest and that we need to take that into account when translating place names. I agree that the "original" meaning of the character may very well have been "peace", and that when it is used as a transitive verb it often means "to make peaceful". But how do you make a country peaceful? Not only with the pen but with the sword, hence the word also means "to pacify," or even "suppress". Some of these meanings have been transferred to the cognate verb àn 按, which have a number of coercive connotations. Unless I am mistaken, these two characters were used interchangeably in classical Chinese.

(Note that I used quotation marks around original meaning, we should not stare ourselves blind on the appearance of characters. I am not a historical linguist, but it may very well have been the case that the original meaning of the syllable ān/àn was "to press", and then the word evolved into meaning "peace".)

Anyway, this cluster of meanings have direct implications for how place names should be translated - and that is not something I just made up. For instance, until very recently Vietnam was called Annam in most European languages and Ānnán 安南 modern Chinese, but the name was changed to Vietnam/Yuènán 越南. The reason is very simply the fact that the name literally means "pacifying the south," and many Vietnamese were not happy with that. Another example is Āndōng 安东, on the border to North Korea, which, I believe, was changed to Dāndōng 丹东 in 1965 to avoid possible imperial connotations.

To return to Tian'anmen, I am not suggesting that we change a well-established, if mistaken translation, "The Gate of Heavenly Peace", even though the translation of the name is sometimes disingenously used to make a contrast with some less than peaceful events that took place there. But I think that we should set the record straight and tell the readers of Wikipedia what Tiananmen really means.--Niohe 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent vandalism on China-related pages

~~That's okay. I'll just revert to my version (with your stuff in it) where appropriate.~~ Doesn't look like I need to do anything. Cheers. --Sumple (Talk) 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Heimstern Läufer 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this because I don't think you should be accusing User:67.2.149.125 of vandalism. I think it is important to assume good faith in this case. Note that the user did in fact add a comment to Talk:Forbidden City explaining his or her actions. Accusing a user of vandalism in such a case is just a bad idea. I hope you understand. Heimstern Läufer 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further on Talk:Forbidden City

As I've posted on the talk page, I misunderstood your comments as an accusation of racism because we were discussing races and ethnicities. I might be over-sensitive in that regard because of an unpleasant incident a few months ago involving a vandal who conducted a smear campaign on my talk page... anyway. --Sumple (Talk) 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this...

It's claimed in Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 that "愛新覺羅", the surname of the Qing emperors, is Chinese meaning "Love Silla". I thought it was "Gold" in Manchu. Given your knowledge of Manchu, could you verify this claim?

No, Sumple, that is not true. Aisin means "gold" in Manchu and Gioro is just a clan name, as far as I know. Who said that? --Niohe 02:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234#History: "Even Nurhachi, who founded Qing 凊 dyansty (1636~1912) after Jin, had a last name written as “愛新覺羅.” It literally means ‘Love 愛 Silla 新羅 and be conscious of it 覺" --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Chinese characters are indeed beautiful, but this is just a transliteration. What has Silla got to do with this? It's a an ancient kingdom in southern Korea, quite removed from historical Manchuria - whatever that is. This claim smells fish and you are right in doubting it. --Niohe 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the relevant paragraph at Silla as well. The final claim about 愛新覺羅 seems lamost definitely wrong. The rest of the paragraph doesn't seem that credible either - there are sources cited without any information beyond a title, and (possibly) dodgy interpretations of historical documents. =S It would be hard to sort credible from non-credible claims without expertise in that area. --Sumple (Talk) 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, I have come to the same conclusion. Ambula baniha. Where did you get that cool Manchu writing? --Niohe 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aisin Gioro (Manchu:

) which is transliterated into as 愛新覺羅 (àixīn juéluó) is a Chinese transliteration, nothing more than that. "Gioro" is a clan name and "Aisin" means "gold". You have to be really reading these characters out of context in order to get "love Silla" since 愛新覺羅 is only a transliteration. Abstrakt 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right Aisin means gold. But there is another family name of Korea, which means "gold." The family name of "Kim" means gold. Because korean and jurchen have no their own script, they usually borrow to represent their languange at ancient days. There are two ways for other people to borrow the chinese character. One is to borrow the chinese sounds, and the other is to borrow the meaning of the script. So "Aishin" is to borrowing the sounds of chinese character to represent "gold" because the sound of 愛新 is exactly same with the word of jurchen that have a meaning of gold. In addition, "Kim" or 金 is to borrowing the meaning of chinese character to represent the gold whatever the sound is different.

That is to say.

1. Jurchen borrows the sounds of chinese script, so it is called as Aishin.

2. KOrean borrows the meaning of chinese script, so it is called as Kim

Eventually they are the same.

Vandalism in Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 & Jurchen articles

Hi, Niohe, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that user Breathejustice and his possible allies User:69.210.209.211, User:68.250.52.50 & User:68.252.34.42 have been vandalize these articles related to Manchuria, Jurchen, and Jin Dynasty, 1115-1234. If you check the discussion page and the history section of each article, you'll notice that he/she has written and paste the same contents over and over again. Its really getting tedious and tiresome. Please, help and fix these vandalism, thanks.--Godardesque 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once I have time, I will sit down and do it. I have looked at some of the sources Breathejustice have used, and I do not interpret them the same way as he does. For instance, a book from the 18th century (Manzhou yuanliu kao) is not a particularly good source on how a dynasty called Jin chose its name seven hundred years earlier. More importantly, what he is engaging in is stumblingly close to orginal research, because he is forcing us to interpret the sources he quote. Wikipedia is not the place for these kinds of debates and I think we can take action against him because of that. For the time being, we can block the site from edits from non-registered users in order to prevent unnecessary reverts.--Niohe 23:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you read 金史. In addition, the history concenred with Jurchen is well described by the book written by Jurchen not by Han race.

Republic of China

No, the constitution defines what a state is called. And no, most other countries of the world call themselves what they are actually called. Taiwan is peculiar, because the Constitution defines the state to be "Republic of China", but the government would like it to be called Taiwan. However, they cannot change the Constitution. So instead, they are legislating by stealth, through administrative orders which declare "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to be the customary name. However, a customary name is just a customary name. For example, just because everyone calls Myanmar Burma, it does not mean that the state is actually called "Burma".

I have no problem with calling Taiwan "Taiwan" or "Repbublic of China (Taiwan)" for clarity in other contexts. But if you are defining the two states which control China, then the proper (i.e. official) names used. --Sumple (Talk) 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what POV you are trying to push, but the government and people of mainland China would prefer to be called "China", or at least "mainland China". If you are going to label ROC as "ROC (Taiwan)", are you going to label PRC as "PRC (China)"? No. It's a matter of consistency and NPOV. --Sumple (Talk) 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niohe. I wasn't clear in my previous post, I think, and I apologise. I have no problems about what the government of Taiwan wants to market itself as. Nonetheless, Wikipedia policy dictates that we follow NPOV. It's okay to label ROC (Taiwan) when the context calls for it. However, let's consider the sentence here: (from memory) "China is ruled by two different states, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China". In this context, we are (1) using the official name, not the customary name, for the People's Republic of China; (2) listing the two states in parallel; (3) labelling them both as states.

Bearing that in mind, then both names should be (1) the official name; (2) in conformity with each other; and (3) be the name of the state.

As I have said before, and you don't seem to dispute it: the official name of the state customarily known as Taiwan, Republic of China (Taiwan), Republic of China on Taiwan, Chinese Taipei, Taipei, or Taiwan, China, is the "Republic of China". As I have said before, until the people of Taiwan vote to change the name of their state, the official names is the Republic of China.

It's fallacious to argue that the name has not been changed because of the threat of war from the Communists. It doesn't matter what the cause is - the fact remains that the people of Taiwan have not decided to change their name. We are here to state facts - not to pass judgment on the volition or lack thereof of an electorate.

Finally, no comparison should be made with the FYROM. In that case, the Republic of Macedonia calls itself the Republic of Macedonia constitutionally and officially. FYROM is just the name it uses when participating in international organisations.

If you want to draw a prallel with Taiwan, then Republic of Macedonia corresponds with Republic of China (the constitutional name), FYROM corresponds with "Chinese Taipei" (the name used to participate in international organisations). Republic of China (Taiwan) is really like Congo-Kinshasa, an unofficial name used by the government to differentiate (disambiguate) itself from another state.

To summarise my argument:

The "Republic of China" is the official name of the state sometimes known as Taiwan.
In the sentence concerned, we are listing states, and since the People's Republic of China is listed under its official, not customary, name, so should the Republic of China. --Sumple (Talk) 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one final, semi-off-topic point. I can see you have a problem with the Wikipedia policy of separating China from the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan and the Republic of China. I don't think it's the ideal arrangement either. Nonetheless, that's the way things are, and it doesn't look like changing any time soon. --Sumple (Talk) 04:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not dwell on the cross-strait political situation since it has no relevance to the article at hand at all.

But I assure you that the "Republic of China" *is* the official name. The official name of a state is the one defined by its laws. The Republic of China is called so by its Constitution. Until the Constitution is changed, it doesn't matter what it's being marketed as.

Even if no-one knows what IBM stands for, International Business Machines Corporation is still its official name and if, let's say, they are sued that's how they will be named. --Sumple (Talk) 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, your argument sounds like an exercise in polar opposites to me. Just because the International blah blah is the official name of the company, that doesn't mean it's its only name. But surely you will agree with me that the only "official names" that a thing can have are those which are defined as such?

Anyway, I'm not going to repeat the sentence about the Constitution for the umpteenth time. I don't touch the China article much myself, because every edit you make will displease somebody. --Sumple (Talk) 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it should always be referred to by the official name. It's a matter of judgment about context, really, which I appreciate is subjective. --Sumple (Talk) 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimation in Imperial China: Discussions under the Jurchen-Chin Dynasty (1115-1234).

I looked this up on amazon.com. Does this book focus on Jurchen law and history? Would you recommend it for someone focussing on a doctorate in Song Dynasty history? (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, why not? It's a thoroughly researched book with many primary documents in English translation. --Niohe 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRC map

Were you serious with your comment in the edit summary? Or were you frustrated with some discussion somewhere? If the later... lease keep calm and assume good faith... It's not worth it damaging your own reputation just because others are acting stupid. --Sumple (Talk) 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was more serious that you might think. Since it seems that constitutional Irredentism has such a large following among Wikipedians writing on China, it is only natural to take it to its logical conclusion, extending it to maps. Whether that will be accepted in the large Wikipedia community I don't know, but it's worth testing it out.--Niohe 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Since all attempts have been made to reach an agreement with User:Breathejustice (and his sock puppets) regarding his countless reverts and incorrect info, I've started a straw poll survey here. It will be used to determine whether the info should stay or be deleted. If, in a week or two, the problem is not resolved, I will be asking for mediation from administrators. This will eventually lead to arbitration! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yamen

Re: Zongli Yamen: does the Manchu correspond with the abbreviated name or the full name? I ask because it seems quite long. On an unrelated note, I can see you getting frustrated with all the China topics. I apologise for my part in this, if any :D. But welcome to the wonderful world of China-related articles, where even a comma leads to an edit war. --Sumple (Talk) 02:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Just put it under "See also", or leave one short line explanation? --Sumple (Talk) 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amban

I did not 'just revert' your edits, I kept a good deal on board, in fact most data - it is you who simply reverted the whole thing to 100% your version. I like nothing better then to see additional data added, some are highly welcome, but do not intend to hand over the entire thing on blind faith either, even alternative transliterations of claerly idetcal titles. Fastifex 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Chang

I left a message on the talk page. Can you agree to find a mutually acceptable version between the two of us? John Smith's 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Council

I'm starting to (gradually) translate material over from the zh-wiki article. [irrelevant boast] One of my ancestors was a Councillor :D --Sumple (Talk) 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Yingpu (钱应溥) was Councillor under Daoguang and Guangxu. --Sumple (Talk) 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. thanks! --Sumple (Talk) 05:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been thinking, perhaps we should refer to the thing as the "Junjichu" in the article, or some parts of the article, because Grand Council is not a very good translation - it's not a) Grand (officially speaking), and nor b) a Council (in the sense of a bunch of people having meetings to decide things - like a Town Council). On the other hand, the literal translation "Office of Military Secrets" is a bit awkward and uncommon in English. What do you think? --Sumple (Talk) 12:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the name "Junjichu" is also used, and more so in recent years as people begin to realise the inaptness of "Grand Council". I'm not advocating changing the article name - just that "Junjichu" could be treated as a principal term alongside "Grand Council". This is how I envision the lead to read:

The Grand Council or Junjichu (simplified Chinese: 军机处; traditional Chinese: 軍機處; pinyin: Jūnjīchù; lit. 'Office of Military Secrets'; Manchu: coohai nashūn i ba) was an important policy-making body in Qing-dynasty China, which the Yongzheng emperor established in 1733. The Council was originally in charge of military affairs, but gradually attained a more important role and eventually attainted the role of a privy council, which is why it has become known as the "Grand Council" in English.

This thought came about when I was writing up the history section, and it just didn't feel right writing "The Grand Council was at first a very minor/temporary body" - which is why I opted for "Office of Military Secrets" in those contexts. However, "Office of Military Secrets" is by no means a common or even citable translation.

So I guess what I'm saying is, inside the body of the article, whenver the context conflicts with the connotations of the "Grand Council", such as in discussing its early history, use "Junjichu". What do you think? --Sumple (Talk) 23:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that most uses of "junjichu" occur in translated chinese works. --Sumple (Talk) 11:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast China

Please stop reverting other people's work on Northeast China. The name of the article is Northeast China. Don't change Northeast China to Northeastern China in the article. It is a well known fact that "Manchuria" is considered offensive. There is no need to put that word in the article. Besides technical speaking, these two doesn't refer to the same territory. Zhang Qiang 15:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Zhang Qiang's talk page. See also relevant discussion on the usage of the Manchu name for Shenyang. --Niohe 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole Gando thing

I suppose Wikipedia is really vulnerable to massive, concerted efforts of vandalism and POV-pushing. -- ran (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Resort

Omg Mountain resort redirects to Ski resort. Terrible. How about Chengde Mountain Resort or Mountain Resort, Chengde? And, going back to "inapt" translations, ski resorts or mountain resorts are usually public recreational facilities. The Mountain Resort is more like Sandringham or Balmoral Castle - seasonal royal residences. --Sumple (Talk) 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsinghua

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - "use common terms" - if something can be expressed in different ways in different national varieties, it should be expressed by a term that means the same, as much as possible, in different varieties. I accept that the university was founded by Americans. Nonetheless, the current song is not written by an American; the university is not in America; and this is the English wikipedia, not American.

Look, I don't see what's the problem with calling it a "university song/anthem". Everyone, American or not, will know what that means. But few, except Americans, will understand what "Alma mater (as a song)" means.

The issue is not whether the university is American enough for an American term to be used. The issue is that this term is not use by non-Americans at all. See, for example, the Oxford English Dictionary, which lists as the definition of Alma mater only 1) Greek goddesses and 2) a "nourishing" univeristy, or, to a lesser extent, high school.

I give up on reverting. I'm clearly outnumbered here and this is becoming WP:LAME. --Sumple (Talk) 23:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Tsinghua University.

Taiwan is a different issue: that was "common terms" in the sense of the commonly used term. This is "common terms" in the sense of terms common to different varieties of English. I have no problem with identifying the university's anthem as the "Alma mater", if that is indeed how it is called. I object to the use of "alma mater" to identify university songs in general. And yes, a bracketed explanation could be acceptable.

I very much doubt the university officially calls it an "alma mater", but I await eagerly what User:Manchurian Tiger will pull out of his yearbook. --Sumple (Talk) 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I thought this discussion was about Alma mater, not Taiwan. There's no point arguing with me about Taiwan: I would have no problem with relabelling the country article Taiwan, provided it is made clear that the name of the state is the Republic of China. But that's irrelevant - I am not the Powers That Be.

On the Alma mater question, yes my initial objection was to the use of Alma mater in this particular case, because I had thought that the term was used there in the generic sense of "a school/university song". However, I now realise that the original contributor may have used the term to mean this song in particular. Nonetheless, the present form of the paragraph does not make it clear.

Again, to someone who isn't American, the paragraph

The school's Alma Mater with Chinese lyrics (by Mr. Wang Luanxiang) was composed by Mrs. Zhang Huizhen around 1923 and became the school's official Alma Mater.

would mean something like this:

"the school's original university, wich Chinese lyrics [etc] became the school's official original university".

This is not an ideological question. It's a simple matter that the paragraph makes no sense for someone not from an American background, and that a simple re-wording can eliminate that confusion. --Sumple (Talk) 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further on this issue, notice that User:Manchurian Tiger has pointed out that "alma mater" is not being used as a proper noun in this context, but as a "common noun". I give up on arguing with him. Any minute now he's going to pull the "We Americans saved ya Australian arses in the second world war, so smarten up and shut up" line. --Sumple (Talk) 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan question

On the Taiwan question, if you remember my objection was to use of the term "Republic of China (Taiwan)" being used as the name of the state, which was when I dragged out the Constitution. I maintain that objection: the name of the state is the Republic of China. I can accept "[the state] Republic of China (Taiwan)", but not the two together as the name of the state. I should declare my bias at this point: I really hate dodgy English (?weasel words?) being used for political purposes, like "Republic of China on Taiwan", or "[the National Unification Board] ceasing to function", or "democratic dictatorship [in the PRC constitution]".

In any case, I wouldn't mind the country article being renamed Taiwan, provided that it is made clear that the state is the Republic of China. At the same time, I think it would make sense to rename People's Republic of China as China. If you make that a renaming proposal I'd be happy to support it on common names grounds. However, whether it will succeed is another point entirely. The biggest obstacle is the orthodoxy around here that "Chine =/= People's Republic of China", which, since it denies the common names policy, natually implies that "Taiwan =/= Republic of China". --Sumple (Talk) 01:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cixi

A lot of edits to the Cixi (and other China-related articles) by Highshines have felt questionable to me for a while. The user isn't terribly communicative, and seems to be pushing their version of things. I've been particularly concerned because it feels like a continuation of the edits made by Geisha1021 and several IP editors - I've felt there's a sock puppet at play for a while, but haven't wanted to stir anything up unless I was sure. You might want to put up a checkuser request if you think any of the edits warrant it.

Of more immediate concern, though, is this edit by Highshines: [1], which has the edit summary: (References does not apply. User's original work). Aside from showing an obvious agenda in pushing his work's results, it's a clear violation of Wikipedia's No original research rules.

Those are all more long-term conerns, though. If you just want to get the page naming back together, you should be able to move the page back to Empress Dowager Cixi using the "Move This Page" link at the bottom. Since Highshines properly used the page move option, leaving just a redirect behind, you should be able to move the page back there without a problem. Checking Highshine's edit history, though, does reveal another problem: They've spammed a whole ton of page moves for articles on various Chinese figures. This whole thing might call for a Dispute resolution, given the nature of what's been going on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanzzibar (talk • contribs) .

Hello Niohe. Please post all new comments to the bottom, not the top, of talk pages. Please expect new comments to be there.

I've posted notes at the talk pages of Highshines and Geisha1021 asking them to discuss the naming conventions at Wikipedia talk:History standards for China-related articles. I've also posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Imperial_consorts:_mass_reverts_are_needed alerting interested users of their moves.

I think that these moves need to all be reverted in the meantime, at least until there's consensus to move them.--Jiang 05:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, it's pretty obvious. I was going to go to checkuser, but mikka beat me to it. —Khoi khoi 17:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]