User talk:Teeninvestor/Archive Sept.2009-Dec.2009

I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if the CIA were involved at some level on the ground, but I wouldn't go as far as to call these protests the beginning of an astroturf Velvet Revolution. This is not like 1953, when a limited amount of people in Tehran were coerced by the CIA to stage what looked like a protest in order to oust Mohammed Mosaddeq. This event in 2009 is not just some local, ad hoc event; it is taking place in every major city across Iran and involves every age group and social class (even some of the clerical elite are taking verbal potshots at Ahmadinejad and Khamenei). People across Iran, especially the urban middle class, are legitimately pissed at the current regime's policies and the unemployment rate (over 10% of the pop!). The alleged vote rigging was just the brick (I wouldn't go as far as to call it a straw) that broke the camel's back.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you're right, it's no mystery who Mousavi is. If he was an outside-the-establishment guy, then his actions would be a little easier to predict. But that's not the case. It will be interesting to see how he will continue to "thumb his nose" at Khamenei.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how much Mousavi would be able to steer Iran's economy into a different direction, even if he does come out on top. However, if his plans were to implement further liberalization of the free market system, at least he would be in a better starting position to do so than Deng Xiaoping in 1978 (who had to work from scratch, considering that he had to reverse much of the Maoist planned economy).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Check this out. I uploaded the image just yesterday, along with other invaluable paintings from the Song period (most of them painted by Su Hanchen, one from Liu Songnian, a couple of anonymous ones too).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For your amusement, here are some lovely images I've uploaded to Wiki recently.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Song Dynasty funerary jar.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Teen, have a look: Arilang ^talk 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/pubvp/2009/06/200906232321.shtml Arilang ^talk 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another must read article

Teen, this one is about Chimerica http://news.boxun.com/forum/200906/boxun2009a/71934.shtml, this article give a very good explaination why China keep on buying US Treasury Bonds. Arilang ^talk 08:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I read your message but forgot to respond (been busy lately). Egypt's economy was very tightly controlled by the central government, which set standard prices for commodities (in bartered units, of course, no standard coinage in ancient Egypt). The royal family and regional nobility (the nomarchs) who governed semi-feudal territories also relied much on slave labor and local dependents. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say Egypt was entirely "feudal", since individuals were allowed to own and farm land. Private owners of land who offered grain and agricultural foodstuffs to the government represented the tax base of the government's treasury. This is similar to the Chinese government's reliance on the agricultural tax imposed on the owner-cultivators by Han times.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All your base are belong to this painting. It simply competes with Along the River During the Qingming Festival.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Panorama of Departure Herald, painted during the Xuande Emperor's reign in the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). Just use the scroll bar to scan the entire image.

I would be glad to copyedit the article now that I have the time. I will start on it later today, once I am done with work. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun there, and I am certainly not offended. I just did not see a relevant connection to the economy being drawn within the section, and was trying to address some concerns that have been expressed — namely that some of the information in the article seems to be general history, and economic history. I hope I did not offend you either, and that you will be satisfied with my copyediting job once it is finished. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1937 video-cast of Soong Mai-ling address to the world in English
• 1943 Soong May-ling address to the American Congress

Arilang ^talk 06:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Teen, there are many Sino-Japanese war images on the net. Arilang ^talk 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China is looking very very nice. The last time I looked at it, it was a terrible mess. I want to thank you for the excellent work you have put into it. I think it's ready to go for a GA or a FA review. LK (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could draw some very obvious parallels between the two. Of course, not all jiedushi were non-Han-Chinese, but much of them were. For the various non-Roman allies that Flavius Aetius employed, the article on the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains provides a list (and further down the page it provides some scholarly input on which peoples chose to ally with either side, i.e. Aetius or Attila). Besides a Late Tang Dynasty/Western Roman Empire comparison, I always found it intriguing that the Han Dynasty split into Three Kingdoms in roughly the same time slot that the Roman Empire split into three states during the Crisis of the Third Century, only to have the Chinese/Roman empire reunited in the 280s AD by Emperor Wu of Jìn/Diocletian. Lol. Strange, huh? Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a very fitting term for the present, I agree, but as long as the regime itself (i.e. the Government of the People's Republic of China) retains its old structure and trumpets the ideals of this so-called new form of communism (very bizarre, considering how Deng Xiaoping utterly reversed everything "communist"), then people in the West are still going to take verbal potshots at China by calling it "communist". It's a very easy target. The economic structure has completely changed, but the flag and window dressing are still red. The regime in Beijing obviously doesn't mind being called "communist"; how else would they retain their legitimacy or claim that their regime is a continuation of Mao Zedong's revolution? This label, "Communist China", might be considered a jab at China in the West, but in mainland China it would be a compliment and reaffirm the regime's communist credentials in the eyes of all Chinese cab drivers everywhere who proudly display Mao idols on their dashboard. Lol. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My history professor at GMU, Dr. Chang, told us how he once went in a cab that had a middle-aged cab driver with a Mao Zedong statuette on the dashboard, and said that the presence of it blessed him. No joke. If most people in China reviled Mao as you say, then the official historical outlook on Mao the man and his era would not be "30 percent bad, 70 percent good", the official historical analysis accepted by authorities. This analysis would be extremely unpopular if things were as you said, but people accept this interpretation of Mao! Mao's portrait still hangs high at Tiananmen Square. If he was so reviled, it would have been removed, yet it remains. People still honor the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong. I don't think the majority of people on the mainland, especially those who lived in the cities, truly understand the extent of death in the countryside caused by Mao's policies during the Great Leap Forward. On the other hand, people in the countryside still don't know too much about the chaos in the cities that occurred during the Cultural Revolution (apart from what they were told by traveling bands of impressionable kids going around the country in their own mini versions of Mao's Long March). I think heavy censorship of historical facts has much to do with this. I also think a lot of people are simply afraid to ask the type of questions which might get them into trouble.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question about Scapler, don't know where he went. I haven't talked to him in a long time. Leave another message on his talk page; perhaps then he'll get the point.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some Chinese bloggers and forum frequenters who have no reservations about nailing Mao to the wall, so to speak (although I've never seen one of them outright disown Mao altogether...then again, disowning him altogether might be a bit unpatriotic). And of course no one who is a party official these days truly believes that, in practice, Marxism-Leninism actually works. They retain the image for political reasons, in part to appease the Maoists still clinging on and hanging around the halls of government, as you've mentioned. But they also do it to appease a wider audience amongst the common people who still adore Mao and attribute to him the making of modern China. For me, I fault Mao for all the suffering and destruction he had caused, but I also feel he is slightly exonerated by the fact that he was a true believer, not just the power-hungry cynic that he is often portrayed as. I think he truly believed that he was creating a utopia; well, at least until the "continuous revolution" started getting out of control. After that, then you could probably say that he was just an old man trying to hold onto power for as long as he could.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm surprised I never took the initiative in my two years here at Wiki to create an article on Qin's wars. I edited your article a bit to provide some more links, added a category, and added a banner to the talk page. The militaristic ideal and legalistic philosophy of Qin was harsh but perhaps not as brutal as Sparta. At least Qin was somewhat cultured, although the later Han writers would never grant them this (as usual, for political reasons). The Spartans were, by all accounts (although perhaps incredibly biased since they were written by rival city-state) a mixed democratic-oligarchic society of warrior-citizens who, after a certain age, grew up in the barracks and learned how to deceive and kill. They trained boys not only to hunt animals, but to hunt, steal, kill, wound, and terrorize Sparta's slaves. Unlike Athens and other highly-cultured city-states, Sparta could boast of no great philosopher (besides, of course, their original lawgiver, Lycurgus of Sparta), no great mathematician or astronomer, no refined literature, brilliant architecture, or dramatic theater playwright. They could, however, mash the hell out of enemy infantry when facing them on land. This of course was matched much of the time by the incredible resources, smart diplomacy and alliance-building, and naval might of Athens. On the other hand, Qin did not have a democratic society with political and social equality for its citizens like Sparta, but Qin also did not have the brutal barracks and warrior society that was the hallmark of Sparta. The Qin Legalists suppressed other philosophies under their rule and had little use for historical studies that the Confucians treasured. They also found nothing useful in the golden age precepts of Zhou. However, the Qin did have a strong literary corpus to speak of, an orderly society, beautiful artwork and grand monuments, and fostered significant technological achievements. Sparta simply cannot be compared to Qin on these terms. As for Qin creating one giant Spartan-like society to fend off the northern nomads, this is not the social reality on the ground during Qin. For one, not everyone was a soldier (especially since the Qin outlawed the use of arms in private hands). The Qin would have had the same problems as Han with buying and breeding enough horses for their cavalry to match the nomads. And their justice system was clearly too repressive, as evidenced by the multitude of malcontents who overthrew Qin on a widespread and massive scale that involved not only the aristocratic well-to-do (who had a vested interest in reestablishing their old kingdoms), but also commoners who were fed up with Qin rule. As for Mao comparing himself to Qin Shi Huang, that's a laugh! One could argue that, for a while, Mao remade China, but he can't compare himself to the man who made China. Lol. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the Ancient Egyptian literature article, I'm still compiling notes in my sandbox pages. You can have a look if you want (User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Ancient Egyptian literature and User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Ancient Egyptian literature2).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sparta had hundreds of thousands of slaves (i.e. helots) who were treated like dirt (no argument there), and had many non-citizen free men (i.e. perioeci), but Spartan citizens (i.e. those who endured the agoge "education") were all equal before the law and all could directly vote on matters of state affairs in the Great Rhetra. This was a comparable institution to the Athenian Ecclesia (although a high-minded ancient Athenian, considering the Spartans to be barbaric, would be deeply offended by this comparison for sure!). Yet, unlike Athens, Sparta had a mixed governmental system. Legislation to be voted on by all citizens in the Great Rhetra had to be drafted and presented by the Gerousia, a Spartan senate of 28 elected members who had to be at least 60 years old and more often than not were relatives of the two Spartan kings (mere figureheads who conducted military and religious affairs). According to foreign accounts (perhaps biased), the Gerousia acted as an oligarchy. So much for a truly free and totally open society. As for Qin, their society was not built on slavery, but let's not kid ourselves, the Qin government and wealthy elite still had plenty of slaves to speak of (but perhaps the slave population was no higher during Qin than in Han, i.e. 1% of the entire population in China). Like Sparta, Qin also had a political elite, but thanks to the reforms of Shang Yang, this was based much more on a system of meritocracy, not inherited positions of aristocracy (it was a wise decision for Han to inherit this model and improve it with China's fledgling examination system and regional quotas for fairness, perfected later during Song with a true open system of civil servants). Unlike Sparta, Qin had no room for a governing body of oligarchs or even an assembly of citizens involved in government, since the emperor was the final decision-maker (although a smart emperor was one who followed the consensus of his advisers and ministers, an idea brilliantly institutionalized during Han with the court conference 廷議 where free debate was encouraged and each minister's input was equally tallied). I wouldn't say that Qin's system of absolute Legalism would have disciplined the people any better than Han's mixed system of political precepts pulled from Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism. In fact, the few Qin-prescribed punishments of grotesque mutilation and torturous capital punishment that were inherited by early Western Han were eventually deemed too barbaric and cruel to remain in the law books (commuted to lighter sentences of whipping with the bastinado, hard labor, or monetary fines). Although you argue on my talk page that China would have been better off with Qin in place longer, consider this: the system of Qin was alive and well during Han, a dynasty which was merely a hybrid of Qin's system and Confucianism/Huang-Lao Daoism. The Han inherited the administrative and legal model of Qin; yet, being practical, the Han left much of the commoner's business to the workings of Confucian morals that would govern family life. You are right that the fall of Qin was a fluke, but even if Qin's armies had remained loyal, they still lost the loyalty of the aristocracy (if they ever had it in the first place) and the vast swath of commoners who had enough of Qin's brutally hard labor demands and excessively severe punishments. The Qin would have succumbed to the rebellion of malcontents sooner or later than 206 BC. As for the curtailing of the rise of the Xiongnu, yes, it is possible (hypothetically speaking) that the Qin could have avoided this altogether, but this says nothing about the steppe peoples who later became powerful during Han: the Qiang and Xianbei. The Qin would have had the same problems as Han did with them.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, anyone can be a GA reviewer, but unfortunately I cannot review this article, as I am one of its contributors (i.e. to much of the Han section, plus adding pictures). Don't worry, there's plenty of reasonable guys/gals out there who will treat your nomination fairly. Best of luck! Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the copyedit. Sorry for the apparent lack of activity; I had copied the text onto my laptop, and was copyediting it offline. I pasted the copyedit in all at once. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL THIS FTW. S Korean hams it up as Kim Jong-il - Yahoo!7 News Anyways, happy editing :D -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah! The guy's name is Kim Young-sik. Here's a picture of him at flickr! Pretty uncanny, I'd say. And funny!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard negative reports about British-government run health care from a friend who lived there (poor service, long waits, though medicine was cheap), but often hear nothing but satisfaction from Canadians who have government-run health care. I have no complaints with my private insurer, Aetna; they charge decent rates, so I feel no need to switch to another private insurer or government one for that matter. Then again, I'm a young buck with no preexisting medical conditions. We'll see how nice Aetna treats me when I become 80!

I really have no strong ideological position on this either way. If a business or institution provides good health care, fine, then it clearly deserves to be in place (people will vote with their feet, so to speak). I have the same attitude with Obama's "public option"; if people come to like it, they'll obviously keep it. If it turns out to be a shoddy bureaucratic mess, it will crash and burn (like Wen's "reforms"). If that happens, it will be a death-nail to Obama's political career. It's a risky game for him.

For the left wing of the Democratic party, the "public option" could be a means to an end for them (i.e. eventually establishes their argument for full nationalized healthcare, which is a laugh as of now, considering the power of the health insurance lobby in Congress). The argument coming out of the White House at present is that a "public option" indirectly forces health insurance companies to lower their premiums because the government's prices for health care will supposedly be much lower and competitive. They argue this will occur because their costs wouldn't be dictated by what for-profit insurers need to constantly spend money on: running commercial ad campaigns and lobbying congress. Sure, the lobbying part is out of the question, but I already see government commercials advertising the public option! Hah.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, it's always good to get a different perspective from a Canadian who knows how it really is up there. Changing gears, take a look at this new picture I've uploaded to commons! It's a great picture; plus, before this, Wiki had absolutely NO pictures of Han-era rammed earth ruins. Now, Wiki does! Heh. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor please note that you are in danger of violating WP:3RR on the socialist economics page. In a previous edit summary you falsely claimed that there was a consensus for the attempt to place your chosen content in the lede of the article when no such consensus exists.BernardL (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you get bored and want to look at some new material I've been working on, see these two new articles: Instructions of Kagemni and Loyalist Teaching. They are part of my ongoing project to rewrite the Ancient Egyptian literature article. After that, I might set my sights on a possible "History of the Tang Dynasty" article. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks is pretty long, but one time I had to wait three weeks, so don't think it is so unusual. Good article nominations usually take longer than Featured article nominations.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That does sound rather outlandish (even for Iran's present regime); let's see if this is independently confirmed elsewhere. If more news outlets pick it up, that means something is afoot. However, I have heard a news story recently about Iranian women being raped by guards and then, after being released, being ostracized by their family and community for being raped (and thus losing their purity before marriage). Very sad.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a lead section in any article is to briefly summarize the main points discussed in the entire article (i.e. the body). The criticism of socialism section of the article seems rather small compared to the rest of the body; that's probably why they are removing your paragraph from the lead (see WP:WEIGHT). If you expand the already-existent section on criticism of socialism with relevant material (Ludwig von Mises is certainly a credible and well-known figure to mention), then they have no excuse to remove that topic from the lead of socialist economics.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a huge job. I'll give you some help, simply because you've put a lot of work into this and I don't want to see this GAN fail. It's a good thing you ran this through peer review first, but I'm guessing none of the guys at peer review told you about adding more citations. Let's be clear though: I am not going to do the bulk of this work for you. I will add some new sources, some new citations, but fixing the entire citation system to fit a new standard? I've done it before for large articles like this (for example, adding publication date, plus "pp." for every page range). Sometimes that type of job takes four hours just to wade through everything (and standardize it). I like helping you out Teen, but I'm not going to spend four hours helping you! Lol. I'll leave that monstrosity of labor to you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned up your reference section, which was in a pretty bad shape. I placed the sources in alphabetical order and standardized them to the best of my abilities. However, you have a few more things to do there (for example, some sources are missing their year of publication, some of them the city where they were published, and some of them even the publisher itself!). I also added a new source —The Opium War— which I have used in one instance to replace a Li and Zheng statement about silver outflow leading up to the First War.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll help out more later tonight after work. In the meantime, going back to our discussion about land ownership in ancient Egypt, I recently found this from:

• Wente, Edward F. (1990). Letters from Ancient Egypt. Edited by Edmund S. Meltzer. Translated by Edward F. Wente. Atlanta: Scholars Press, Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 1555404723.

• Page 54-55: QUOTE: "The most important of these documents are the Hekanakht correspondences (Nos. 68-71 [from the Eleventh dynasty of Egypt (c. 2134-1991 BCE), see pages 58-63]), two of which are among the longest letters surviving from ancient Egypt. Also translated and discussed by Baer (1963) and more recently by Goedicke (1984), these letters, three of which (Nos. 68-70) were written by the gentleman farmer Hekanakht, throw considerable light on the subject of private ownership and rental of land. Shrewd in his business dealings, Hekanakht appears as a miserly individual. Considering the number of people he had in his household, it was more profitable for him to rent than to purchase land for cultivation, and thus he accumulated fluid capital reserves which he could ultimately use for his burial expenses. Being himself a mortuary priest in the Theban necropolis, Hekanakht was fully aware of the cost of a decent burial, which was, in the long run, more important to an Egyptian than social status in this life."

An interesting commentary on private ownership and leasing, from this, a very early period in ancient Egyptian history (i.e. turn of the 2nd millennium BCE)...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a peek at the GAN on the talk page. You're right, he did have a positive assessment for everything but the citations. Excellent work so far; you just need more citations!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I filled in a few publication dates where they were missing in the inline citations. However, I've noticed another problem. You can choose either one and make it the standard, but you really should use just one model for the entire article in regards to numbering pages you cite. For example, you use "pp", "pages", as well as blank space to indicate the page range (e.g., "Li and Zheng (2001), pg 878-880" versus "Li and Zheng (2001), page 877" versus "Embree (1997), 339-340."). Something to consider.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That's a huge step forward in getting this GAN passed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking my suggestions into consideration. I see that you have made a large number of edits and improvements, especially regarding citations and footnote style. Props to your hard work (and swift response!). I have updated the GA review accordingly, please take a look.

Sidenote: the reliance on Li and Zheng (2001) is for the more obscure subsections is understandable, but I would still advise a more diverse variety of sources in those sections if the article is to qualify for FA.

Keep up the excellent work! ~ AMorozov (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first GA! I'll talk more about this later (i.e., on getting it to FA status), as well as talk about the importance of the Battle of Fei River, but I have no time and I need to go. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Forgot to get back to you. After looking over the article, if you want it to pass the FA candidacy, you are going to need a lot more citations, with perhaps only a few more references. There are some whole paragraphs in the article that do not have even one inline citation. Ideally, every sentence that contains an important, specific assertion should have a proper inline citation at the end to allow the reader to know where the material is coming from. If you have to stop and ask yourself at any point in reading "hmm...does this need a citation?" ...then it most likely needs a citation! (Lol.) This may take you a little while, but with 198 citations so far, I think the bulk of the work is already done. You just have a few loose ends to tie.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a vast improvement after User:Scapler gave the article a run-through copyedit, but you're right that the prose needs to be cleaned up a bit. Another excellent copyeditor who I would trust with any article is User:Baffle gab1978; along with Scapler, he was the one who scanned through three of the four Han Dynasty articles that are now Featured (all except for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty, I really didn't need help there).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad that he's taking a Wikibreak. Hopefully you can contact someone else from that list at Guild of Copyeditors. As for kilobytes per citation, it is a good indicator of how much more citations you will need, but this indication does not account for sentences that don't really need citations, and sentences that certainly do! Especially if they are entire paragraphs that are not yet cited.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buckingham Palace, there was not a 100% consensus to keep the article, as some called for it to be delisted. One of the main issues was its lack of citations. This can be clearly seen in the last section of the article, where whole paragraphs are uncited. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that article passed its latest review at all. The argument there was that current information on Buckingham Palace should be "common knowledge" and therefore doesn't need a citation. In this regard the reviewers were being extremely lenient, perhaps due to their affinity towards the subject. Economic history of China (Pre-1911) is certainly not common knowledge to an English-speaker, especially since it is not about modern economics. FA reviewers will give your article hell if you do not add more citations, trust me. As for areas which are uncited in your article:--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The new technological advances prompted rulers to reform their governments, discarding the old feudal system. The most extensive of these reforms was carried out in Qin by Shang Yang. His reforms included:

1. Abolishing the old feudal nobility. Nobility, as well as land, was now based on military merit.2. Discarding the old Jintian system and privatizing land to farmers, who paid a tax in grain to the state.3. Encouraging the cultivation of unsettled lands.

4. Established a strict legal code with harsh punishments and stressed efficiency.

The initial devastation of the Wu Hu uprising was immense. Large areas were depopulated. Records from the time declared that:

hundreds of miles of land are empty and without trace of human habitation. The Han only live in forts that are hundreds of kilometers apart. In between, is nothing but scorched earth and subject to the rule of the Hu(barbarians).

When Jin fled to the South in 316CE, the southern provinces were still an undeveloped periphery of the Chinese empire. Jin rulers tried their best to develop this region both as a center of rule and as a launch pad for the reconquest of the Chinese heartland.

Faced with defeat, Liu Song quickly collapsed and was replaced in 479 CE by the Qi dynasty. The Qi, and its successor state the Liang, brought about relative civil peace by giving the royal family higher status than the rest of the population and implementing a system of honest governance. These measures resulted in a period of prosperity called the rule of Yongming. The economic prosperity of the south reached an apogee during the Liang dynasty, and briefly reconquered the north with 7,000 troops under the command of the able general Chen Qingzhi. It is recorded that the Liang emperor, Wu Ti, made a grant of 400 million coins to Buddhist monasteries. However, the southern dynasties started to decline after this point due to the popularity of Buddhist temples, who took on at one point half the population as tenants and resulted in a massive loss of tax revenue for the southern government. Towards the end of Liang, the barbarian Hou Jin rebellion devastated southern China. One record reportedly said that:

The areas which had formerly hundreds of families to the mile now are devoid of human life, having nothing but smoke and charred earth.

Surprisingly, the north saw a great economic recovery under the alien administration of Wei that it had not seen even during the prosperous era of Yuanjia. Most of this recovery came under Emperor Xiaowen of Wei, which introduced several important reforms including:

* Moving the capital to Luoyang, which caused that city and the surrounding provinces to be revitalized.

* Banning Xianbei language and customs and introducing Chinese law, language, and surnames. Xianbei officials were now paid with salaries rather than with whatever they looted. * Implementing the Juntian system, in which the state rented land to the peasants who worked on it until death, then returning the land to the state. A smaller, private plot that could be inherited was given to peasants also. Cattle and farm tools were also rented or sold to the peasants. The support that the state gave to agriculture brought massive recovery. * Implementing a system of local officials appointed by the state, rather than relying on local landowners. * Introducing the Fubing system, in which soldiers would farm along with training militarily, and would be called up in times of war. This military system was used until the Tang dynasty, and empowered Han Chinese, as they now made up the majority of the army.

The Sui Dynasty was established over the Northern Zhou, whose throne was usurped by Yang Jian in 581 CE, restoring native rule to north China. Yang Jian quickly enacted a series of policies that restored China's prosperity. His reunification of China marked the creation of what some historians call the "Second Chinese Empire", spanning the Sui, T'ang and Northern Song dynasties. Despite its brevity, the Sui reunified China, and its laws and administration formed the basis of the later Tang, Song and even Ming dynasties. The Sui dynasty had a population of about 45 million at its peak.

A Golden age again came with the Tang Dynasty. The Tang started off in the ruins of the Sui, but rapidly ascended to the top ranks of power. By 630, it had defeated and destroyed the powerful Gokturk Khagnate, removing any threat of China's borders for more than a century. A series of strong rulers, beginning with the founder and including a woman, ruled China well and expanded the Tang Empire massively, to the point that it rivaled the later Yuan, Ming and Qing. The Tang was also a period of rapid economic growth and prosperity, as well as technological advances such as gunpowder. Tang rulers issued large amounts of currency to facilitate trade and distributed land under the Juntian system. Although the state weakened and withdrew from managing the economy in the 9th century, this had the effect of encouraging economic growth and helped China's economy begin to develop into the mercantilism of the Song and Ming Dynasties.

In 960 CE, Zhao Kuangyi led a coup which established the fifth dynasty in half a century. The dynasty that he established, the Song Dynasty, would bring an economic revolution to China.

a figure that would not be matched by Europe until the 18th century.

Economically, the wars in the North proved a burden on the Song economy. Up to 75 percent of Song revenues were devoted to the army, which performed poorly in comparison with earlier Chinese armies.

In 1069 CE, Wang Anshi, a famed Chinese reformer, become chancelor. His ideas resembled the modern welfare state. Believin that the state must provide for the people, he initiated a series of reforms that proved highly controversial.

* The government would directly transport goods in abundance in one region and bring them to another area, without the need for merchants.

* Several industries, including tea, salt, and liquor, were nationalized. * The government would provide loans to peasants in need. * Abolishing forced labor and replacing it with a tax. * The government would give its horses to peasants in peacetime as livestock and recall them in wartime. * Peasants had to participate in military training during lulls in agricultural activity.

The development of new technologies allowed trade and investment on a large scale. Developments in shipping technology, facilitated by the invention of the compass, allowed the Song-era Chinese to engage in large amounts of trade with the outside world. Song-era commercial enterprises became very complex at this time. The accumulated wealth of merchants often rivaled that of the scholar-officials who administered the affairs of government.

The Ming's overseas trade began with Zhu Di, who launched massive expeditions to Southern India and Africa, greatly enhancing China's contacts in those areas. Shortly after, the Ming dynasty established a state-regulated trade in those areas.

his was especially useful in dry, northern regions like Xinjiang and Shanxi. The introduction of these crops may have contributed to Qing military success in the northwest, where the earlier Ming dynasty had been unable to establish firm control. These crops sparked a gigantic increase in population. The population increased from roughly 150-200 million during the Ming to over 450 million during the Qing.

Our land is so wealthy and prosperous, that we possess all things. Therefore there is no need to exchange the produce of foreign barbarians for our own.

he resulting treaty saw concessions given to European powers in China, undermining Chinese authority. The Opium Wars began a pattern of war, defeat, concessions, and silver payments to foreign powers, which further weakened the Chinese government and economy through outflow of silver.

I noticed that in some sections with multiple paragraphs, you simply have a citation at the very end of the last paragraph. If your intent was to have that citation cover the entire section, unfortunately this will not be enough, as you need at least one citation per paragraph to clearly indicate where the material came from.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, someone at the FA review might complain about the size of the contents box in the intro, due to the numerous sub-section titles. I noticed that some sub-sections have only two or three sentences, while many that are placed together have subjects that are much in common. Try merging a few of these together and see if you can cut down on the amount of sub-sections a bit. Just a suggestion.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. And just to be safe, I would place a citation after each bullet point.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The prose is technically proficient, but I can't say it is "brilliant" or "engaging". I am no brilliant writer myself, so I cannot offer much help here. You should try to maintain a more professional, detached tone, imagine as though you were writing an entry on Brittanica. For example:

"The good days of the Song were interrupted by the..." could be rewritten as
"The prosperity enjoyed during the Song dynasty came to an end when..."

"After losing to Japan in 1894..." to
"After its defeat in the first Sino-Japanese war..." etc.

And it's little things that make up unencyclopedic language, like:

"...Northern Wei went downhill." could be changed to
"...the Northern Wei dynasty began to deteriorate."

Try to limit "sensational" words like crushed, disruption, etc.
It might be a good idea to tone down the "native" vs "foreign" rule aspect a bit, and simply let the evidence speak for itself. For example, under "Reunification of China":

"Now that both Chinese regimes were native, the southern dynasty of Chen no longer had an advantage over Sui."
(This might need rewriting, or a source that firmly asserts foreign rule was at a disadvantage to native rule)

You should ask copyeditors to help with prose when they look over the article. Also, remember to link every important person, tribe and concept the first time they're mentioned in the article. Non-english terms should be italicized (juntian, jiedushi etc), with the exception of place names and dynasty names. Also consider merging some of the subsections together. If a section is unlikely to be expanded in the future on this article, some reviewers might want it condensed and put together with another section.

Above all, listen to Pericles of Athens, he knows what he's doin'! Hah! Good luck with FA. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 00:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all very sound advice, Morozov! Well done. Sorry Teen; the only copyeditors that I know belong to the Guild of Copyeditors. Outside of their group, I don't know anyone who would be interested. That is, except for maybe User:Nlu, but he's a loner who likes to do things by himself and doesn't always want to collaborate with others on articles (which is just fine, since he's damn good at writing Han/Jin/Sixteen Dynasties/Sui/Tang/Five Dynasties/Song biography articles). Maybe the editors are being non-responsive because they took a look at the size of your article and ran for the hills! Lol. I hope that's not the case. I wish you the best of luck. As for now, my Wiki energies are full-throttle towards writing the draft for Ancient Egyptian literature.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I can add a few pictures. I like the layout so far, but in the meantime you should gather more sources, since it looks like there's only four of them (overall, though, not a bad start at all!). I have now moved my draft to Ancient Egyptian literature, if you want to take a look.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Arilang ^talk 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Ctrl-click)">http://www.han5000.com/viewthread.php?tid=9335&page=1 Arilang ^talk 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check commons:中國遠征軍 and zh:中國遠征軍, need a proper name for an new en:wiki, please suggest a good one. Arilang ^talk 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I really apologize if I seemed rude in not responding to your posts in a timely manner. I was quite engrossed in my latest project. I would be happy to copyedit the article again, and will start tonight. However, since I did the original copyedit, and one is more likely not to recognize mistakes in their own work, I would suggest that someone else from the guild copyedit it further after I finish. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's done. Ancient Egyptian literature that is. Have a look and tell me what you think! I've spent a lot of time on it, and I think it turned out very, very well.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You make good points; I can't seem to refute anything you've said right off the bat in terms of Classical Liberalism (I will, however, get to laissez-faire in the paragraph below). You were careful to note that premodern Chinese philosophies had incorporated "important elements" of Classical Liberalism, as opposed to Classical Liberalism being an original product of China.

Although the Eastern Han regime could be said to be much more laissez-faire than Western Han, some Eastern-Han rulers, such as Huan and Ling, did act in despotic ways and often with no regard for the state treasury. Even though the Western Han from Emperor Wu's reign forward is characteristically known for its monopolies over salt and iron, one must remember that in these premodern economies, government regulation was haphazard and most things were done privately. Much the same could be said for the Tang, although the economy tilted much more in favor of the laissez-faire model after the An Lushan Rebellion, when the central government could no longer afford to maintain its various bureaucratic regulations to control private markets. I would say that the Song economy was far less restricted than Tang's. For example, there were no arbitrary night curfews imposed on the urban markets managed by the government. The Ming could be said to follow in the Song's footsteps in regards to free-for-all domestic trade, except for Hongwu's reign, which put serious restrictions on the merchant community due to his paranoia about the merchant class. Yet when it came to foreign trade, for a long time the Ming established a choke-hold where only a few selected ports would deal with specially-designated foreign traders at carefully timed intervals. That was hardly laissez-faire. Of course, this policy was wisely disestablished in the middle of the 16th century, and was only established after Yongle's reign as a means to halt the ambitious elements at court (the eunuch faction which had sponsored Yongle's monumental tributary fleet sent abroad to trade and collect tribute).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2625923.htmThere is a video link on this page:Experts discuss China's rise, click on it you can watch the whole TV episode.

HUGH WHITE: Well, I think we are facing something very important here - that is that we are starting to work in a world in which very big and powerful states are governed in a way very different from ourselves. We have been a very lucky country. For a long time we have lived in a world where the rules are set by our big and powerful friends. We are now moving into a world in which, Australia in particular and for the world in general, very powerful countries like China, immensely influential in the international system and the global economy, are governed in very different ways.

Teen, this is what I mean by Tianchao Daguo, what you think? Arilang ^talk 08:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "What is international law? International Law is the law of the strong. The weak has no say in it. Was there International law when the British shipped opium to China? When Europe uses carbon taxes as protective tariffs? When the Americans subjugated Iraq and Afghanistan and killed over a million people? When the US denied CHina was a market economy? In international affairs, the only thing that counts is your strength. There is no law. Of course, I don't advocate an aggressive foreign policy(China should keep to her own affairs and develop), but when the west criticizes China of not respecting international law, they are blatant hypocrites."

Isn't China just as much of a hypocrite when it complains about foreign colonialism 100 years ago while today attempting to re-acquire colonies such as Taiwan for itself? Readin (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

@Readin, every nation is full of hypocrites; everyone just has an uncomfortable time admitting it or denying reality. It's part of our human nature I suppose, although I should hope that my cynicism is checked by a sizable portion of humanity who does not follow the rule of "do as I say, not as I do."--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course every nation has hypocrites. But I think it would be helpful if people who in their hypocrisy are threatening to kill others (as China is threatening to do in Taiwan) would recognize and perhaps turn away from their hypocrisy. If enough Chinese can do that, perhaps the government may be persuaded to do so as well.

The civil rights movement in the United States wouldn't have succeeded without pointing out the hypocrisy of preaching equality while practicing segregation and disrimination - "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" I have a dream that one day China will turn away from colonialism and empire. ("Readin (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "Taiwan as a Chinese "Colony"? Note the state on Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China and has never renounced its Chineseness. The inhabitants of that region are wholly Chinese, speak Chinese, and elected a government that supports reconciliation of the mainland. Not only that, the government of the ROC recognizes that there is only one China, which includes Taiwan. "

How many Taiwanese were asked their opinion before a million Chinese showed up with guns and took over? How many Taiwanese were asked whether their land should be governed by the "Republic of China" and whether they should have a constitution the claims that Taiwan is part of China? All these decisions were made by people from outside Taiwan - a classic example of colonization.

The KMT government wasn't elected because it supports re-annexation. It was elected because the DPP executive had been incompetent. Most democracies (and Taiwan didn't become a democracy until long after it was stuck with the misnomer of a name and the anachronistic constitution) - most democracies bounce back and forth between parties. For 12 years Taiwan supported independence supporting presidents. It has elected a pro-annexation president only once - and only after he repeatedly promised to "safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty".

The residents of Taiwan speak Chinese - of course they do. They were sent to colonial schools where they were punished for speaking anything other than mandarin Chinese. And yes, Taiwanese is a language that originated in China, so too is English a language that originated in England. Is every English speaking land rightfully part of England? I do recall learning about America's "colonial" period even though the inhabitants were speaking English.

You say the Taiwanese have "never renounced their Chineseness". Would you clearly state something if someone right next to you who happened to be 50 times bigger than you was threatening to kill you if you said it? Colonial empires rule by force and threat of force. Readin (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Readin, that is only one perspective of a wide number of perspectives in Taiwan. Just like how in Australia you have the immigration conservatives who want to "kick every Gook Asian out of Australia", and those that support immigration, there are a variety of viewpoints in Taiwan; otherwise we wouldn't have a Pan-Blue and Pan-Green. Simply arguing that the Pan-Green view is the view of all Taiwan is sheer nonsense. Consider the viewpoints of Li Ao, Ma Ying-jeou and other well-known Pan-Blue figures and Pro-reunification writers - are they not Taiwanese? They are clearly of Taiwanese identity, yet they do not share the view that Taiwan is "being colonized by the reds". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I argued that all Taiwanese support the Pan-Green view. I argued that Taiwan has been a victim and is still a victim of Chinese colonialism and Chinese colonial attitudes, and that Chinese who on one hand decry colonialism while on the other hand supporting Chinese colonization of Taiwan are being inconsistent. So please drop the straw-man argument.

As for Ma Ying-jeou et al., there are clearly reasons for calling them Taiwanese, but it is not clear that they consider themselves Taiwanese. Chiang still waits in his mausoleum for the time when he can be buried in China far from Taiwan. Was he Taiwanese? Readin (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In Response

In response to your lengthy comments on my talk page:

Where did the "Taiwanese" come from? They came from China. In fact, Taiwan was a province of China since the Imperial Era,

the word "imperial" comes from "empire". And yes, Taiwan was colonized by the Chinese empire.

and was until its illegal annexation in 1895 by Japan. When the illegal annexation was overturned,

How was Japan's annexation - achieved by war and treaty, any more or less illegal than China's annexation - achieved by war and treaty?

it returned to Chinese soverignty.

And this transfer was again achieved by war - again without the consent of the people living in Taiwan.

When, in all of this, did the "One million chinese with guns" come and take it over?

After WWII, approximately 1 million Chinese immigrated with Chiang Kai-shek after they lost their war in China. Accompanying and supporting these Chinese was the well-armed ROC army, portions of which had already paved the way by massecring some 28,000 Taiwanese.

When the Chinese first settled the island, it was a desolate island populated only by aborigines,

I wonder if they considered their land as desolate as you do.

there were no "Taiwanese" to speak of, unless you count the aborigines as Taiwanese.

Are they not Taiwanese? I thought they were.

And if you refer to the aborigines of the island as "Taiwanese", that further undermines your case as these aborigines do not support Taiwanese independance. You also claim that "all the decisions were made by people outside Taiwan"; yes, so? All the decisions in the United States are made in Washington and all the decisions in Canada are made in Ottawa. Does that mean that a state of the U.S., or a province of Canada, has the right to independance? The answer is uneqivocally no. The terroritory is part of the nation and therefore has to respect decisions made by the national government(even though these governments are often wrong). Constitutions and laws are made on a national basis.

In the United States, the people in Wisconsin vote directly for the president, and they vote directly for representatives in Congress. No law is made without their directly elected president and their directly elected representatives having a vote. Further, the people of Wisconsin voted to become a part of the United States. Other regions ruled by the U.S. that did not choose to become part of the United States have either become independent (the Philippines and some other Pacific island countries) or remain locked in popular debate about the future status of the territory (Guam, Puerto Rico). The U.S. and Canada have not been perfect- they both imperialistically expanded into American Indian territories, but it is the bad behavior that China has emulated. If China is going to emulate the bad behavior, it is hypocritical of them to also criticize that bad behavior.

In no period of history has Taiwan ever been an independant nation(it was a part of either China or Japan).

It is hard to be independent when you keep being colonized by imperial powers.

And your position of Taiwanese independance isn't even supported by the population of Taiwan itself; opinion polls in Taiwan regularly favor maintaining the status quo, instead of independance.

The status quo is de facto independence. And why do they favor that? It is fair to assume that great many prefer to maintain a real independence from China rather than risk it by declaring de jure independence when China has threatened to invade killing thousands of Taiwanese and ruining their lives.

So even using the liberal principle of terroritorial self-determination, Taiwan would not become an independant state. As I stated earlier, even the government of Taiwan explicitly recognizes itself as the "Republic of China", and this was not changed ever under the pro-independance administration of Chen Shui bian, further proof that this current name is supported by the population of Taiwan.

Did Chen have the power to unilaterally change this? He did not. Reforms to the ROC constitution were opposed by Taiwan's allies like the United States. In the face of threats from China, Taiwan is not totally independent from the United States. Taiwan relies on the U.S. for defense from her foreign enemies and as such has to listen to the U.S..

You mention that many English-speaking countries have become independant from the English Empire. However, this independance was supported by the majority of the population of these areas, and in some cases the English government as well.

Why was China so afraid of the proposed referendum that would have asked whether Taiwan should apply to join the U.N. under the name "Taiwan"? It is clear China knows how Taiwanese really feel, and they oppose any forum that might expose that truth. The U.S. is similarly afraid of being drawn into a war with China and pressured Taiwan not to hold the referendum, and in the face of that pressure from the U.S. most Taiwanese chose not to vote.

During the era of Maoist rule on the mainland, no Taiwanese would wanted to become a part of China due to Mao's heinous crimes and atrocities against the the nation, but now China has largely restored a market economy and adopted free market policies that were its tradition, it is again prospering after three centuries of barbarian rule and warfare. If Taiwan was peacefully reunified with China, it would not only not suffer any harm but also prosper economically as it would be able to access Chinese markets without any barriers.

I'm sure China would enjoy the same benefits and more if it were peacefully reunified with Japan.

There would also be no cultural or ethnic conflicts(which make countries unstable and states based on one nation more prevalent than multiethnic ones).

I have personally observed the cultural and ethnic differences. They exist and they do make it hard for them to get along even in non-political situations.

As free market economists know, rational self-interest is the prime motivator of society. You'd be hard pressed to think how independance could be in the self interest of the inhabitants of Taiwan, or how reunification could be against it.

Then Taiwan should be allowed to choose without the gun to her head. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, for Taiwan will surely choose self-interest.

Readin (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Response

You wrote

You refer to "Taiwanese", but you have yet to define it. What are Taiwanese? Do you refer to the aborigine inhabitants? To all pre-1949 Chinese who immigrated there but not to those after 1949? To the Hoklo, but excluding other groups? Or to the inhabitants of the island themselves? Clearly the latter is the only assumption.

And how did Taiwan "Suffer" as a Chinese "colony" and "colonialism"? From a barren island, Chiang developed Taiwan into a great center of industry and trade that enjoys one of the world's living standards. He bought much treasure and gold from China, as well as modern industry and knowledge. Now without this "colonialism", I ask you, How would Taiwan have developed? Could it have prospered under the rapacious rule of the Japanese? or would it languish in third-world conditions as an "independnat state"? How, in any way, has it suffered from Chinese "Colonialism"?

Not to mention you refer to "Chinese" as if they were foreign. Are not the inhabitants of Taiwan all ethnically and culturally Chinese? Have not the island been a part of China for almost all of its civilized history? It is a wonder that you refer to some category of Chinese on Taiwan as "Taiwanese" and others as "Chinese". Such arbitary judgements cannot withstand any scrutiny.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked if President Ma considers himself Taiwanese. I did not define the term. How does Ma define it?

The Japanese developed Taiwan into a prosperous region and built much infrastructure and increased literacy. Chiang tore part of it down to send to China, but much still remained.

According to "A short history of Taiwan: the case for independence" By Gary Marvin Davison, page 64."Basic literacy came to most of the school-aged populace by the end of the Japanese tenure on Taiwan. School attendence for Taiwanese children rose steadily throughout the Japanese era, from 3.8 percent in 1904 to 13.1 percent in 1917; 25.1 percent in 1920; 41.5 percent in 1935; 57.6 percent in 1940; and 71.3 percent in 1943."

Your claims about the economic growth of Taiwan as an ROC colony are only partly true. You neglect to mention that the real difficult groundwork was laid during Japanese rule.

Not to mention you refer to "Chinese" as if they were foreign.You have referred to Europeans as if they are foreign. Did Europeans and Chinese all come from Africa? Aren't they all the same ancestry? Do they not practice similar cultures of respecting ancestors, forming families of parents with children? Do they not all use written and spoken language? Sure there are some minor differences, but so what? Shouldn't China have submitted to their English brothers long ago? Doesn't being family mean you have the right to enslave your relatives and tell them how they can use their land?

In the U.S. white Americans refer to all Europeans as "foreign", even the English who speak the same language and have the same culture. black Americans refer to Africans as "foreign".

Similar ancestry and similar culture do not grant you the right to boss others around. Readin (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Last Word

I'll let you have the last word. Wikipedia is not a forum. I'll read what you write but will likely not respond to it. Readin (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems really keen on screaming out about the Human Rights Torch Relay. Despite being told numerous times that such a minor event is irrelevant to the article, which is based on the events which occurred during the 2008 Relay, stubbornness prevails. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/intl/2009/08/200908162113.shtml 访海外首座二战海外中国阵亡军人陵园的创建者. Arilang ^talk 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen your edits and it looks like we share similar interests. I too enjoy video games, Chinese history, and Chinese politics. Hopefully we can collaborate in articles in the future.--PCPP (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you like this one:

Arilang ^talk 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, how's it going. I've been poking in and out of Wiki over the past two weeks, but have not been very active lately. To answer your question about Byzantium, no, the Byzantines never adopted the feudal socioeconomic system of Western Europe during the Middle Ages. Byzantium, having a strong central imperial government for much of its existence (with notable exceptions), did not heavily rely on a multitude of lords to rule semi-autonomous fiefs, regardless of the existence of an aristocracy. There were no serfs and no real form of serfdom in Byzantium. Like Han China, however, there was a strong base of small independent landowner-cultivators, along with wealthy estate owners who collected rent from farming tenants and wage laborers. From what I gather, there were many more wage laborers in Byzantium than there ever were in Han China.

About the Second Sino-Japanese War article: if that person is still making trouble, let me know. I've put the page on my watchlist just in case.

And I wish you the best of luck in your nomination of Economic history of China (Pre-1911)! You've put a great deal of effort in writing that article and it deserves to be featured. I just hope no one gripes too loudly about the size of the article, but that should be expected. My nomination for History of the Han Dynasty was derailed for this very reason. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created alt text for the first several images, with fifteen more to go - they are all yours. If you read what I've already done, as well as the alt text I used for Ancient Egyptian literature, I think you will learn fairly quickly how to write alt text. You simply describe in the most explicit terms what is seen in the image. For example, the Han-dynasty pottery dog image has a caption which describes its importance in the funerary industry, while the alt text specifically states that it is a green-glazed dog standing upright on all fours with pointy ears, a curly tail, and open eyes. If you have any questions about alt text, leave a message on my talk page, or simply look at more examples from Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too, although I think this is not a problem with delay, since I just went back to Ancient Egyptian literature and it is doing the same thing. I know as a fact that the alt text for Ancient Egyptian literature was fine and readable as of just yesterday when I reread the article. It's probably some sort of technical problem with Wiki. It should be fixed soon as others will no doubt recognize the problem. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Teen, a happy chap among happy girls. Arilang ^talk 22:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For examples:

• "Chinese civilization began in the Yellow River valley region. According to Chinese mythology, the area was unified by Huang-di (c. 2600 BCE), who is regarded as the ancestor of the Chinese. According to traditional Chinese history, the Xia Dynasty founded the first organized Chinese state, reputedly around 2100 BCE.[8] Some historians question its existence"
  • If this article was detailing the "History of China pre-1911" then this would be necessary. As it is, I expect an article on the economic history to begin with the economic history, not begin with the birth of Chinese Civilization.
• "Towards the end of this era, the newly invented crossbow replaced the chariot as the weapon of the nobility. The Warring States Period followed."
  • What's the relation to the economy? Why does the Warring States Period need to be mentioned when it is included in a logical way straight after the chapter?
• "As rulers competed with each other to take control of China's states, they implemented various reforms."
  • Economic reforms?
• "Most states were centered around large cities, allowing governments to organize armies of unprecedented size."
  • Too generalised, and non-specific of the economy.
• "Iron made earlier bronze weapons, and the old military system, obsolete."
  • This personifies the great number of mentions the military receives in the article. I realise it is connected somewhat to the economy, but this isn't touched upon especially, it's just assumed.
• "He also issued a uniform code of laws throughout the empire"
  • Many of which covered the economy...?
• "The Qin Emperor also built a lavish palace complex, which was eventually destroyed by fire."
  • If this was an article on "History of Chinese Dynasty Palaces" it would barely deserve as much of a mention as this. It's just not that important, and isn't notable in an article on the Economic History of a country.
• Han Dynasty (206 BCE – 190 CE) - all of it, exempting the mention of the Silk Road and economic boom, is rather unnecessary. The article needs to refer to the Han Dynasty with regards to the economy.

Perhaps it's just my style, but I don't consider excessive background on each and every era and statement to be good for an article. If I had been carrying out the GA review, I would have brought up my concerns earlier. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Teeninvestor, long time no see. First I congratulate your successful GA (a bit belated) and achievement to get the article to the current FA nomination. I wish you best of lucks. And the reason I'm visiting here is that I want to ask about copy-editor. I vaguely recall that you requested help for copyeding, and a couple of editors came to help you. It is not Chinese WikiProject, so if Wikipedia has some venue to help editors find copyediotrs, I want to know about the place. Because I have copyeditors for the article of Gyeongju (I've been working on the article for 2 months to prevent from FA delisting). So your input would be appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Gyeongju is a great article and reads very well indeed. I may tinker with it a bit - perhaps a few sentences could be simplified - but I really don't see a need for any changes at all. All the best. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

@Hi, Teeninvestor, the page you directed me to visit is really a good resource that I would've never known without you! Thank you and what's up with the FAC? It was closed too early. I thought that would have been open for at least one or two weeks given other FACs' duration for reviewing. However, I think you can easily fix the problems since I'm one of people who would know how hard you've been working for the article from almost nil. Best regards.--Caspian blue 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, thank you for the wonderful copyediting! I have to still expand the article, and your insight is really helpful to shape up the article. Thanks!--Caspian blue 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Teen,

Like CaspianBlue, I think the FAC was closed too early. It feels like we were only getting started! I don't think the article would have passed in the end, but at least we were improving it fast.

I feel bad for not having helped at all in the last few months, so I'll try to make more suggestions in the next few days. For one, try to work on entire paragraphs instead of adding sentences here and there (like you did with the Xia, for example). FA's need to hold together better than other wikis, so the structure of paragraphs is important. It's good to have guiding threads and recurrent themes, but there shouldn't be too many repetitions. For example, the decline or end of the "feudal system" or the "well-field system" is announced at least four different times in the "Spring and Autumn" and "Warring States" sections.

You'll find great info on the economy of the Spring and Autumn period in Hsu Cho-yun's article in the Cambridge History of Ancient China. Another book you could find is Hsu's Ancient China in Transition, which he cites a lot in his CHAC article. Mark Edward Lewis explains Shang Yang's reforms very well, saying that many of these reforms had already been adopted in other states before Shang Yang promulgated them.

You could contrast the agrarian economy of the Qin with the more commercialized economy of some other states.

I agree with MasterofHisOwnDomain that some passages focus too much on politics and not enough on the economy. He gave you good examples above on this talk page. Another good example is that the Qing section says more about the queue order than about the economy of the entire eighteenth century! I doubt you'll find any reliable source saying that the queue has anything to do with the economy.

As usual, scholarly sources are what you need. The clearing of the shoreline has something to do with the economy, and maybe massacres in general do to (though we need a reliable source making this link), but the queue and Hanfu seem totally unrelated to the wiki's topic even if they are well referenced.

Incidentally, the Qing dynasty was founded by the Manchus (a people), not by "the Manchu tribe," and even less by the Jurchens (which is not Jur'chen, which sounds like Jem'Hadar).

When you need historical background, good wikilinks can do the work. For a great lead section that focuses on the topic at hand while giving background at the same time, see PoA's intro to List of Chinese inventions. It's packed with information on inventions. But I suggest you work on the core of the article before you improve the lead, because the lead will be based on the content of the article anyway. When you're done editing all the content, you'll probably agree that you don't have to mention the historicity of the Xia and Shang dynasty in the lead, because this is not an issue in economic history.

Gotta stop, now, but I can give more specific advice if you need. Have fun editing! Madalibi (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than create a new header for the same issue, I am just going to say it here. I am willing to give feedback to the article, although don't expect any after Monday (though I may fit it in), as I start Sixth Form then. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You can find the CHAC here on Google books. Click on "Preview this book." Hsu's article starts on p. 545, his section on "Economic developments" on p. 575. And I'll be glad to support the article as soon as I think it's up to FA standard, but there's still a lot of work to do on content! I don't have time for detailed comments right now. You can start by going through the article to eliminate long sentences (and even entire paragraphs) that have nothing to do with economic history. This way you'll save a lot of space for economic info. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...at Talk:Republic of China#Proposing Article Title Change. Thanks! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested, there's a dispute here over the naming of the party [1].--PCPP (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

CEDEC 09: Keynote - Gundam Creator: 'Video Games Are Evil' - ""I think that video games are evil," says Tomino. "[Gaming] is not a type of activity that provides any support to our daily lives, and all these consoles are just consuming electricity! Let's say we have about three billion people on this planet wasting their time, bringing no productivity at all. Add 10 billion more people, and what would happen to our planet? Video games are assisting the death of our planet!"" Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

支持 全國政協委員潘慶林建議恢復使用正體字 Arilang ^talk 07:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, my Facebook friends list? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just created an article for Xi (surname) because it had been redlinked from Xi Jinping until now. I have very little knowledge of Chinese, however, and would appreciate if someone who speaks the language can look over the article and correct any mistakes I've made. I apologize if this seems random but you are the only person I know on Wikipedia who is active and can read Chinese. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So for my future reference, is it generally true that a Chinese surname has the same meaning as the character it's spelled with? I wasn't sure. I was especially suspicious that there would be a surname "crack/opening". But so it is. Thanks again for your help. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Eric here; how's it going. About modern Chinese people's preference today for the Yuan and Qing and not so much the Ming: I wouldn't know how to explain this phenomenon either. Perhaps they are interested in the exotic culture (i.e. not Han) of the rulers of these dynasties? Lol. In any case I wouldn't perceive it to be so much as an insult to Han culture as it is merely acceptance of Mongol and Manchu culture. However, the difference here is that these were militarily imposed cultures rather than ones where attributes of one culture were freely adopted by another via trade contact, religious missions, and other natural cultural exchanges. In light of that, I could see where offense is warranted. As for "white" people (specifically Westerners) immigrating to China, surprise, I'll be one of those soon! Well, at least for a couple of years as a volunteer, since I have submitted my application to join the Peace Corps! I will probably teach English to Chinese youngsters and I am aiming to finish my Masters out there via an international Masters program while working for the Peace Corps. When I come back to the States I'll also have non-competitive eligibility for employment in government office. As for the Chinese diaspora to places like Canada and the United States, such was the natural result of warfare six decades ago, tightly-controlled communist rule up until Mao Zedong's death, and the economic growing pains over the past three decades of China's massive transition towards a capitalist economic system. You're one of many who left, so don't feel too unfortunate. Besides, by the time you're 30, China should certainly look attractive enough for you to move back to. That is if the PRC takes much more drastic measures to curb deforestation, poverty (= societal unrest, especially among minority ethnic groups), and pollution, which are foreseeable crises for the future, and not just in China. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Economy of the Han Dynasty is front-page news on English Wiki today. Check it out.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

http://hi.baidu.com/02708002/blog/item/f3bf1e62caf349d58db10d92.html

I like the Homer Simpson-Chairman Mao's body bit. Arilang ^talk 07:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

http://uradio.cybercampus.hku.hk/player.php?1=1&programid=256

Arilang ^talk 16:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• My Chief and My Regiment
• 我的团长我的团
• Episode 39 I like the way she speak Sichuen dialact.

the best Chinese TV drama I have ever watch. Arilang ^talk 08:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I seen (not read XD) you article Economic history of China (Pre-1911)... Good ! And I later understood you are still teenager ! Amazing ! Very strong ! For some other points :

• I'm for the independence of Taiwan, because it's always better to have your own, local government. I spent 3 years in Taiwan, speak a fluent Chinese, talked with many people here, read about this history. I think Mao and Chiang put all this into trouble. That's a sad story.
• I think the states may be welcome to check the free market in some cases : minimum wage, national health care, etc. But tools should be provide to watch the government too.

Any way : all my encouragement ! you do a great job ! Keep in touch with PericlesofAthens and user:Nlu: theire are the best ! bye Yug (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (台中，台湾)：Please, also note that there is a new system to make references :

Text.<ref name="ebrey 1999 147">{{Harvnb|Ebrey|1999|p=147}}.</ref>{{reflist|colwidth=20em}}*{{citation |last=Ebrey |first=Patricia Buckley |title=The Cambridge Illustrated History of China |year=1999 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |location=Cambridge |isbn=052166991X }} (paperback).

Bye --Yug (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, economic integration is nice. But Taiwanese are affraid by political integration. A common market should be, I guess, ok for them (will be hard the first years, but then better).

But follow laws vote in Beijing, policies think in Beijing or Shanghai, host armies from Sichuan, or any other province, have governors from mainland, is not what they wish, and, in my opinion, not the best for a locals. The best is when your leaders live here, that their family, sons, great sons, live and will have to live here. Thus, they will manage to increase the life standard of all local people, in the same time insuring freedom of speech, liberty, and health for their own sons and grand sons. A fact is that Taiwaneses don't trust mainlanders, and don't want mainlanders' leaders.

No worry, I don't think this only for China. I'm French, and I think the same for France. "France" is actually a joke: there were many people before parisian people came and teach them to be FRENCH, to SPEAK FRENCH (Parisian dialect), and if tomorrow France get split into 5-6 self governing provinces working smoothly, I would be really happy !

The only important thing is the people's life standard and happiness. This also need freedom and cultural protection, but mainly advised economic, politic, infrastructural choices. For the full picture, I think small scale governments (leaders coming from the area !!!) with strong integration-cooperation, is the best.

That's currently my opinion, and that perfectly apply to Taiwan : an isolated island.

For the Chinese plain and the whole China, it's an other story : peace is need, and peace likely need a strong centralized power.

In short, I think the question of the Taiwanese unification is not that easy. O.ô Regards, Yug (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• October 6, 2009, Norway is best place to live, China moves up: UN, AFP (Yahoo!7 News)

Where would this belong? Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On a lighter note, Wierdest and wackiest items sold on eBay -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CAPS I moved this page because it was miscapitalized. I don't know what you mean when you say that I messed up the intro, as I did not actually amend the text. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From only four contributions he has made so far, none of them are obvious vandalism. Please assume good faith. The first two could be misguided attempts to comment on the article (not knowing the presence of the talk page). The 3rd edit is iffy, but the fourth one seems to be in good faith, though poorly worded and irrelevant to the article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please have a look at Lou Jing, may be you can add some comments? Arilang ^talk 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Teeninvestor. You have new messages at Talk:Peasant War.
Message added 02:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Teeninvestor. You have new messages at Talk:Peasant's War.
Message added 02:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Teeninvestor. You have new messages at Talk:Peasant's War.
Message added 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a quirky sense of humor, or perhaps you are unaware that Lawrencekhoo is a rather committed and active opponent of the Austrian School here on Wikipedia. In any case, I wanted to make a few quick points to you:

• Rather than there being a consensus for any one or two theories of the business cycle, the real consensus amongst economists is that none of the major explanations seems to work very well. (That's one of the reasons that such a small share of economists are macroeconomists.) One could not find a majority amongst subscribers to any one theory, nor in combining the subscribers to two theories.
• The case for the business cycle being somehow founded in what happens to money is very strong, but the theory of v. Mises and v. Hayek isn't the only theory that looks at money. Take a look at Scott Sumner's 'blog, for example. (V. Mises's theory isn't even the only theory amongst Austrian School economists that looks at money!)
• Commonalities are not necessarily essentials. Although there may be some common elements across recessions, we shouldn't presume that all recessions are alike in essentials and focus only on the commonalities.
• We should almost certainly be pluralistic about explanation. Some explanations are surely just rot, but you'll probably find real insights across rival schools (especially if we don't presume that all recessions are essentially alike).

—SlamDiego_←T 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this look NPOV to you? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@benlisquare, that looks NPOV because it cited multiple reference from reliable sources. It is also interesting you acted so quickly to ask your friends to help you to removed referenced material from the LEDE. Da Vynci (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who added the references from 1)Associated Press; 2) ABC News (Australia) and 3) BBC news, all stating the film is a propaganda film, other propaganda film such as The Eternal Jew also include the words "propaganda film" of that in the LEDE. We could certainly have a "criticism section", but creating such section is not a valid reason to remove the word "propaganda film" from the LEDE. Da Vynci (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have engaged a procedure for amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty.

• See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty.

Naturally, the process requires me to notify you. --Tenmei (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What you think of this image?

Arilang ^talk 03:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean my reverting the unexplained mass deletion of section Military at Ming Dynasty on November 24? The content was not inserted by me. I just reverted the mass deletion because Yongle the Great did not provide any reason for his/her deletion. The content was re-deleted by PericlesofAthens, and an explanation was provided in the edit summary: "This content was not vetted for the FAC process, nor is it even cited. For all I know, it came directly from an online source. Anonymous IPs do that. It's called vandalism." This deleted section Military was actually added by Kungkang at 04:20, 11 November 2009. You may ask him/her for sources.--Pengyanan (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak found that this section was probably from this page. --Pengyanan (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Kungkang (talk · contribs) is a problem. He's doing copy and paste and creating articles without understanding our need for reliable and verifiable sources, and I am planning to take at least one of his articles to AfD, Wu Sien as I can find no sources. I suspect it is a matter of the English spelling but I searched using various relevant keywords and spellings. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

If you feel like doing so, you are allowed to contact every single person who participated in the last AFD. Canvassing rules say you can't just contact some of them though, you having to do it with everyone. Those who wished to participate last time, will surely want to participate again, since it is the same AFD is before. Dream Focus 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have put a note about our notification on the AFD. Dream Focus is 100% correct, but he didn't mention that you maybe severely harangued for doing so, as we both have. As in Dream's case, it was by editors which regularly get notifications themselves of the AFDs. I don't think that this will happen in this case, simply because another editor with different views contacted almost all of the editors of the past AFD already. Ikip (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you can also selectively contact "major contributors" to the article. (It can be any editor you wish, unlike AFDs) Here is the relevant policy in the ANI on this issue I was involved with.

Really nice article by the way. If it gets deleted, you can go to WT:ARS to ask for the next step. There is WP:Incubator and

		The article you created was just deleted?
		All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now:
		Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles‎ (empty) no pages or subcategories Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

Ikip (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

As a fellow editor who has seen your well referenced hard work faced with deletion, I think you maybe interested in our 300+ strong wikiproject,

Hello, Teeninvestor. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

From user:ikip.

Thanks for your help! I am already a member of WP:ARS, which did help this article get saved from deletion a year ago. Unfortunately the same group is back. However, I can't say this hasn't been beneficial in a way as the article has been improved as some redundant sections were deleted and new ones sourced from scholarly ones added. If you're interested, can you also take a look at Economic history of China (pre-1911), which is up for FAC? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

that is good to hear you are a member. RE: 1911 article, I am not very active on wikipedia lately. But thanks for the invitation. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor - I understand you're a little amped up on the issue of deleting the Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires article, but please try to use proper indenting and bullet points to keep the discussion structure from falling to pieces. if you don't know what's needed, I'll happily advise you, but throwing your comments in at root level all the time makes things really difficult to read. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

From user talk:ikip:

Based on the number of deletes and keeps made at the AFD, do you think the article will be kept? Teeninvestor (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

that completely depends on the editor closing the discussion. If the editor tends to delete, no amount of "keeps" will keep the article.

I am thinking of protesting the tag on the top of the page in general, it is often used by veteran editors to dissuade newer editors from commenting, and it works. WP:AFD used to be called "votes for deletion" the name has changed, but the concept is still the same, regardless of how many editors complain when naive newbie editors call it "votes" Same concept, different name. Ikip 18:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help further, I welcome emails. Ikip 19:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I will leave my comment to the FAC, but that would take some time for me to read the whole and really lengthy article. I have some issues with the article, so well...just keep editing if some reviewers point out something to be fixed. Good luck! --Caspian blue 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest curbing your rhetoric so as not to get too many editors angry with you. I know it is frustrating to see all of this bickering about something you think should be covered in Wikipedia, but please be careful. For instance the "crying" in your last comment. That approach may give more momentem to an actual delete. Thanks, 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Economic history of China (pre-1911).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

• ANI
• RFC

I told you to simply be happy with the close you have. I told you that if you took this to DRV, it would be upheld, now you have opened a ANI and RFC about this? *Sigh* Have you made any changes to the article since the AFD?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, your tenacity in getting the article moved to the incubator is not going to magically stop once the AFD is closed. But I think you are now pushing this way to far.

I for one, am worried that since you are the face of ARS in the newsletter, this behavior will look badly on ARS has a whole. Ikip 18:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Stepping into my role as an administrator, I am officially warning you not to canvas. Your opinion is clearly that the article should be restored and you are attempting to force the issue.Consensus is not yet on your side and informing only a handful of people, who voted keep at the AfD, of the RfC and the preceding petition is not acceptable [2] [3] [4]. I have previously warned you informally and persisting is not acceptable. If you continue, you will be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If there was no RFC, or no petition, your comments soliciting other editors would be okay.

The smart thing to do is to close this RFC now, accept the decision of the AFD, and work quietly on the article.

But that doesn't seem to be your personality. Sigh. So you will ignore even the wise advice of your new friends. Ikip 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, I now see you have opened a DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_25, if I would have known this, I wouldn't have asked you to be interviewed in the newsletter. Your continued behavior is putting me in an awkward position. Ikip 19:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your getting a little antsy about the Comparison of Roman and Han empires. Why don't you let the article sit for a handful of days and see if anyone adds any more edits. Sorry I didn't do very much this weekend. Sadads (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[5][6][7] I think it is safe to say that at this point everyone knows you are unhappy about the AfD close of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Jumping from forum to forum in an attempt to get the close overturned is inappropriate. You need to stop focusing on getting your desired outcome and start focusing on improving the article. Any more attempts to shop this issue to another forum will result in a short block. AniMate 21:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Teen, if you stop now, you lose a little face, and the article is still on wikipedia.

If you don't stop several admins will happily block you, and there will be a strong backlash against your article.

I am afraid you will not only ignore these admins, you will ignore those editors who once strongly supported you too.

Close the RFC, close the ANI, close the DRV, and apologize. Ikip 21:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip is right (a statement I never thought I would type). Honestly, the AfD outcome isn't nearly as awful as you seem to think. Let it go. AniMate 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) yeah, Teen, when two editors who were at each others throats earlier this month strongly agree on something, you better stop and think about what those two editors are saying.

They say insanity is trying something new, and expect a different result.

You have several editors in a million different ways saying, stop teen, this is not going to work.

I have been on wikipedia for four years, I have been indefinitely banned, I have gone up against some of the most powerful editors on wikipedia and sometimes won, usually lost; I have written over a hundred articles from scratch, have over 40,000 edits (#320 last I checked), and been involved in hundreds of AFDs/RFCs/ANIs; I have seen countless editors like you ignore good advice, and eventually get indefinitely banned; I have seen how unfair, biased, and ruthless this site can be numerous times; I have changed policy for the better, despite insurmountable odds.

You need to listen to us, respect my knowledge of wikipedia, and listen to me.

Why are you so open to suggestions about the article content, but so closed about suggestions on how wikipedia works?

Only a fool would carry on despite universal condemnation, and I know you are no fool, because your interview answers were incredible well written and showed a level of intelligence beyond your years. Ikip 21:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've had to warn you about personal attacks. This one is about calling an editor a hypocrite. I'm sure you know that this isn't acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller is a really good editor, he is an arbcom clerk, who is very helpful. You would be smart to listen to him.

oh teen, at this point, it doesnt matter that editors call each other hypocrites all the time. What matters is that there is a critical force welling up against you, which when fully released, will result in your block

If you are listening, delete these talk page sections and add "thank you for your comments" in the edit summary, (this is after you have tried to close the RFC, ANI, DRV).

I have some work which you can help me with if you like. Ikip 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's advice (thanks, Ikip) is good (and it is regrettably true that editors call each other names, but that's no excuse, right?). Why not leave the article alone for a few weeks at least? It wouldn't be the end of the world, Nev1 seems to have some good things to say, and at the very least you appear right now to be in opposition to most of the editors about the article's content and problems, and a demonstration that you don't feel you own the article would help your get out of the situation you've created for yourself now. People, including me, have gotten very frustrated over what they see as your intransigence. If you carry on the way you are going, you might find yourself topic banned from the article, and you wouldn't want that. Take up Ikip's offer, work on other articles. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

could you answer this simple question? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you've answered. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)