Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive/December 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for thoughts on article title for Emperor Zhongzong of Tang's daughter

I am planning to (soon) write an article on the daughter of Emperor Zhongzong of Tang and Empress Wei, personal name Li Guo'er (李裹兒) and title Princess Anle (安樂公主). I would like some comments on whether "Li Guo'er" or "Princess Anle" would be the more appropriate title. --Nlu (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that "Princess Anle of Tang" or something similar should be used, because that follows the convention of naming this type of article with the formal name. Emperor Zhongzong of Tang is itself a formal name, isn't it?--Danaman5 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, although that's only because of consensus at WP:NC-ZH. Since other Tang princesses aren't referred to as "of Tang" in article titles (see Princess Taiping, Princess Wencheng, Princess Pingyang), I think, if we're going with formal titles, "Princess Anle" would be sufficient. --Nlu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With no other thoughts on this matter, I think for now (and I'm planning to write this article tonight unless something else ties me up) I'll go with Princess Anle as the title; it can always be moved later. --Nlu (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fake airline... article in Chinese!

I found a Chinese article of Metis TransPacific Airlines, which seems to be a fake airline that is notable for creating a booking site and having speculation about its true identity.

Anyhow, there is an incomplete Chinese article. Does anyone want to finish and fill it? WhisperToMe 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese swords

Chinese swords has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese swords 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese name for Min Chen, killer of Cecilia Zhang?

I understand that Min Chen has a Chinese name, as he is a native of Shanghai. What is his Chinese name? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the Chinese name to the article based on online reports in Chinese.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan was tributary state for China.

List of tributaries of Imperial China

Japan was tributary for China. 亲魏倭王. 汉倭奴国王. 大明属国日本国王.

not only Ashikaga Yoshimitsu but also 1596(Unified) Toyotimi recieved 册封 as Japanese King. Some Japanese want delete this.[1] so Chinese friend, watch out this page. HongKongriben (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good luck with that. Japanophiles significantly outnumber every other demographic group (except perhaps Americans) on Wikipedia. --Миборовский (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What is 册封? That's obviously a Chinese-only term; what's it in English or Japanese? If it's some sort of seal/stamp of investiture, as the Chinese Emperors granted to the kings of Korea, Ryukyu, and their other tributaries, I'd have to say I doubt that Hideyoshi received it. I certainly could be wrong about that, but I imagine that if he did it would not only cause trouble in his relations with the Court (being a "King" under the Chinese Emperor while there's a separate Japanese Emperor who he's supposed to be loyal to, etc) but would also go against his own desires and plans to create a more powerful Japan, extricated from the Sinocentric model and acting as China's equal in diplomacy and trade.
That said, I for one would not oppose the listing of Japan as one of China's historical tributaries, as the Ashikaga did indeed pay tribute to China. LordAmeth (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned a while ago that what we really need is an article on Chinese imperial tributary relationships. I think this will clear up a lot of the confusion that some people have about such relationships. Mostly, editors coming and going don't want to think of their pet country as having been a tributary to China. But what I do know is:

  1. At times, they are more like trade relations.
  2. It is only by accepting a tributary relationship with imperial China that the Chinese court was even willing to have a working relationship with a foreign country.
  3. The system was used by China's neighbours in the context of their foreign relations with each other. They expected China's military support, and tributaries considered each other as equals - most of the time anyway, depending on the ruler.

I tried to do some online searching on the subject matter, but nothing very substantial came up as sources. Unless someone else can find some good online sources, this may be something that will require some book reading/researching. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are sources out there, but I will have to wait until I get back to college to have access to most of them.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved 册封 as "日本国王", by china dynasty. Yoshimitsu united the Northern and Southern Court, then recieved 册封 by China. This 册封 represent to "Japan" country itself. and show China-Japan Diplomatic relation. moreover, after Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, this tributary relation succeeded. Japan recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china.[2](Chinese) it represent to China-Japan relation. Japanese try to hide this truth... Japan was tributary state of China, since Han dynasty("漢"倭奴国王). Japan paid tibute to Han, Sui, Tang(master dynasty of Japan), Song, Ming... Japan recieved 册封 by China dynasty also send tribute to China. Toyotomi recieved 册封 by china in Ming dynasty 萬曆 24年. (1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日 " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。"

Conclusion, In history, Japan Recieved 册封 by China. Japan send 朝貢 to China. It is reasonable for including tributary list. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Need help from JPOV

List of tributaries of Imperial China Need protect from edit war. Japanese want omit their country in List of tributaries of Imperial China. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really don't feel like diving into an edit war over that article. I've had discussions on the Talk page over there before. But what's ironic here is that I remember having an argument on Talk:Japan about Japan having been influenced by China and Korea in ancient history, and part of the argument I had to put up with was that "China" and "Korea" didn't really exist back then (which makes me wonder how it was that "Japan" existed). And now that we're talking about tributaries, apparently "Japan" didn't exist back then. The argument is ridiculous. Under the same logic, we might as well begin Japanese history articles on when the English term "Japan" became popular usage. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I am certainly not going to get involved in that. Honestly, I wonder sometimes if the list of tributaries of imperial China is really all that useful. Since all countries were required to officially be tributary in order to have relations with China at all, having this list is akin to having a List of countries with which the United States has diplomatic relations, or something like that.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the article is very problematic. I'm not sure what to do with it. Maybe one day I will sit down with some books and write an article that's actually about tributary relations of imperial China - an article like that would be much better. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to, you can edit the article on this subject that I have started in my userspace: User:Danaman5/Workshop/Chinese tributary system. Note that it is still very preliminary, because as I mentioned above, I won't have access to good sources for the next month.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 東北大學

東北大學 has returned to AfD. (didn't it just close?) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not trying to get the page deleted. I'm trying to make it into a redirect page, as it is a dab page with only two entries, one of them being the main topic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Famous pandas

Category:Famous pandas is up for renaming/splitting. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Christian users and Christianity in China

[edit] Opinions by sinologists and Chinese people

Hi, can you help me with this issue? --Esimal (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rape of Nanking (book) for peer review

I've listed The Rape of Nanking (book) for peer review. Please take a look. There's already plenty of criticism of the book mentioned in the article, but one editor is insisting on inflating the article with even more criticism. And surprised! He's heavily into editing Japan-related topics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is heavily editing Japan-related topics or you are heavily editing China-related topics is not relevant in this matter. I'll assume you didn't mean to insinuate anything negative by it, but you did appear to be saying that editing Japan-related topics is somehow a sign of prejudice in the subject area of the article.
If you do feel he is acting in bad-faith, etc then please discuss how he edits, not what the gepgraphical location of the articles he edits is. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You understand the controversy around the book. And I'm sure you remember the article's last FAC. It received three votes, all oppose, and all of them from members of the Japan military history taskforce, with none of the concern being of MoS problems, but that they dislike the content of the article. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith, but yes, I'm concerned about that. Now I'm trying to improve it for a second FAC, and a Japanese or Japan-interested editor goes and inflate the article with more criticism. So admittedly I'm a bit frustrated. I know I've expanded the criticism section of the article. When was the last time a Japan-interested editor expanded on other aspects of the article other than the criticism section? Anyway, sure, maybe I'm wrong in particular about Saintjust, and I entertained that possibility until he wrote That an editor from China has been lucky enough to edit the article all he likes on his own for the past several months is quite amazing[3]. There's mutual mistrust between me and him, with him thinking I'm trying to somehow cover up the controversy around the book. Except that evidence would seem to contradict that by the simple fact that the version I like introduces the book as being controversial and having been criticised, and already had a criticism section which I personally expanded. And you'll notice that he's trying to get the article delisted as GA based not on GA criteria, but on some unfounded assumption that I'm trying to cover up the controversy around the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Article content is important when assessing FA standard - MoS isn't enough. But you missed the fundamental point with the last FAC, which is that it failed for lack of interest. You can't get FA status with just a nomination, AFAIK. Hopefully you will get some useful peer reviews in the next few weeks.
As for this guy, I have no comment to make on his motivations, behaviour, etc as I'd rather not get drawn into that. But as I pointed out, the geographical orientation of what articles someone edits is not relevant - it's how they edit them that is important. If you're getting to the point where you're making assumptions about people based on the former then you probably owe yourself a wikibreak. At the very least you could set up a RfC or something. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know MoS isn't the only concern in a FAC - and I didn't say it was. What I said was that it got three votes, all opposing, all from members of Japan military taskforce, and all had only concerns about article content. Previous experience with FAC and FAR tells me that MoS are major concerns in FA assessment. I'm not so arrogant that I think I can produce an article free of MoS concerns, in fact I kept asking for MoS critiques. If the situation was different, like perhaps, others from Japan military taskforce voting to promote, or even opposing based on at least some MoS concerns, which are perfectly neutral, I wouldn't be concerned about the possibility of bias assessment. There were I think at least 2 other editors commenting that did not vote. Your average FAC is going to get about that many editors commenting and voting. The problem wasn't a lack of interest - there's plenty of interest from Japan-interested editors. Even having said that, I have improved upon the article since that FAC. I've put in a short summary of the book (one of the problems that you yourself pointed out), and I've expanded the criticism section since, based on the critique from the other two voters who thought there wasn't enough coverage on why the book was controversial. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Bin

I've filed an RFC on an anonymous user's insistence that "Sun the Mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II" be included as alternative names for Sun Bin. If anyone has an opinion on this, please discuss on Talk:Sun Bin. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I hope people can comment on this. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name for Wu Zetian's lover

I'd like some opinion on this: should an article on the first well-known lover of Wu Zetian -- a man named Feng Xiaobao (馮小寶) whom she later put into the disguise of a Buddhist monk, with the name Huaiyi (懷義), be entitled Feng Xiaobao or Huaiyi? (I am leaning toward the latter.) --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Given a lack of comment on this, I'm going to go with Huaiyi. The article can always be moved later if necessary. --Nlu (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Huaiyi does sound better, since that's how he is referred on formal texts anyways. Aquarius • talk 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lý Nam Đế

(Will also be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam.) There is an anonymous editor who insists on (without discussion) removing Chinese characters and pinyin of Lý Nam Đế. Now, before I am to treat this person as a vandal, I'd like to get some general feelings about this. If you can, please discuss the issue on Talk:Lý Nam Đế. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas Chinese benevolent associations

I'm guessing that someone who knows Chinese could greatly improve the descriptions of pictures in Commons:Category:Overseas Chinese benevolent associations. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there are pictures on Commons (or that should be on Commons) that belong in this category, but which I didn't find because I didn't know where to look. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)