User talk:PalaceGuard008/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi. Why did you remove my comment? I wanted people to check the webcam because there appeared to be a demonstration at the time. The information might be useful to the article. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you come to the 2008 Tibetan unrest article and comment on a statement by User:Rédacteur Tibet. The source cited by Rédacteur Tibet on the statement is in the French-language. It is talking about how in an interview with Canadian journalists, according to the Dalai Lama, over 400 people were killed in the Tibetan unrest. However, I couldn't find any English-language sources to correlate with this statistics, including the Tibetan exile government's.--Sevilledade (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please come to the 2008 Tibetan unrest talk page to comment on a dispute User:Yunfeng and I are having. Yunfeng insisting on placing links such as Chinese nationalism and Han chauvinism onto this article to empthasize that it is related to the Tibetan unrest. I haven’t seen any references cited in this article that covered these issues. Please come to the talk page and comment on the dispute. Thanks!--Sevilledade (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Protest image
I NPOV-ed the protest image again. Equally, there is no credible assertion of protester's sympathies. However, there is evidence to raise doubt about them.
See well documented and discussed photographic evidence of the related activists mingling and standing with Chinese demonstrators.
Personally, on the basis of that alone, the propagandic value and dubious license, I would pull the image straightaway but I suspect that would cause too much contention and so a neutral toning down is a fair compromise. Obviously there is a fairly well invested propaganda war happening on both side of the dispute. I think we should avoid taking sides if or until the facts come to light. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your well reasoned and balanced response. Just out of interest, have you attended any of these rallies? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I promise you, I am no Yellow Hat supporter, am under no illusion about the state of Tibet pre-WWII and abhor any form of rabid nationalism but I have to admit I am becoming fascinated by the brouhaha being brewed up around what is becoming an increasingly ridiculous torch ritual. And, for sure, olympic are political.
- So where do we read that this individual was "a self-professed Tibetan protester"? Presumably police charges were made. Have they been publicly reported yet? What was his name? I'd love to know.
- Personally, I do not think that any of the protestors have attacked the torch bearers. The target has been the torch itself. If they had wanted to whack the bearer, that would have been much more easily achieved. This is another perfect example of where the title was being hyped up to promote one side of the polemic.
- What makes it interesting is both that the Chinese photographer had such good access AND that the demonstrators were so clear photographed along side other Chinese supporters. I mean, the real life odds of that happening by accident are so miniscule that they reasonably raise suspicion. As the stories of the Chinese embassies funding the attendance of local student associations and encouraging Chambers of Commerce continue to come out, I'd want to see more definitive evidence before I accepted either POV. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, did you see the other photographs of the individual marching with Chinese protestors? They are scattered over the blogosphere and usual sources but I dare say I can find some links for you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I am not getting involved in this one because it is not important enough but the photos I mentioned are also here (it happened to be the first copy I found on a google search this morning);
- I am not presenting this as the original source, nor a reliable source, nor getting involved in any pedantic wiki lawyering BUT the fact they exist creates sufficient doubt to require ANY assertion made to be backed up. If democratic protests have offended some Chinese people, I guess we can call that quits for the Tibetans being offended by having monks made to rape nuns, homes and monasteries razed to the ground, land being stolen and being made victims in their own land ... We really have to keep these topics away from all the kneejerking simplifications and not accept any propagandic material on face value. The truth is, "China" is not going to win in that area and no amount of government sponsored flag waving is going to hide the facts.
- Speaking personally, it looks more like a Han thing than a "Chinese" as a whole with the Uighurs, Mongolians and Taiwanese empathizing with the Tibetans and the Lais, Buyei etc keeping out of it thankful it is not them this time ... in fact, it appears to be more of a CPC thing with ordinary folk afraid to speak independently about the matters for fear of imprisonment or their families back home have to go into hiding.
- Re "mugging", you are not talking logical or precise sense and it is not good enough for the wiki. A theft is a separate crime from a physical assault. Somewhere in between you have aggravated robbery etc. It is all very specific. It is remarkable that none of the attackers actually went to harm the torch bearers. To have done so would have been a lot easier, and more successful, than grabbing the torch. A symbolic and politically motivated gesture without intent to harm.
- To be honest, is someone's headgear significant enough to denote their political stance or MO? ... No way, Jose! You need more than that too. In an exaggerated situation like this; a name, a police statement or some other identifying reference. You are jumping to a big and far too obvious conclusion too.
- Anyway, give it a few days and it will all be yesterdays news but the principles stand and are worth discussing. --03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, in case you ask, the actual "reliable sources" I have are for Tibetan nuns being raped with electric cattle prods ..., (monks being held, and tortured for 30 years for the crime of sticking up a poster). As these women are in effect, by that government's argument, Chinese, do the Chinese people not feel equally offended by that? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Bai Yang
First, we are discussing at Talk:Bo Yang and Talk:Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong). Please continue to discuss there, not my talk page. Second, I have provided source from National Library of China to prove that Bai Yang is an alternative spelling. Please see Talk:Bo Yang. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Good edit
Hi.
Good edit, here [1]. I respect it when someone takes on board a difficult issue and incorporates in in their editing. Credit due where credit due, and criticism likewise. Personally, the exchange between the Han, Manchu and Mongol in the creation of modern China interest me a lot.
All the same, I am concerned about human rights. If it is true that TIbet is part of China, then those monks and nuns were still Chinese and any state persecution to that extent is a step too far and is of international concern.
My backyard is your backyard.
Best wishes --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Big Six law firms
I have nominated Big Six law firms, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Six law firms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Damiens.rf 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, and I apologize. I didn't really think about the fact that GZ and HK speak the same dialect. Yunfeng (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Karl Dönitz
Hello. I'd like to talk to you about this edit you did to the Karl Dönitz article. I disagree with your contention that his attendance was irrelevant to the paragraph and that it included weasel words, but I'd rather discuss with you rather than simply reverting. First, the note is entirely relevant to identifying whether he knew about Nazi plans to undertake a Final solution. That is worthwhile on its own merits, I think, and balances his assertions later in our paragraph that he "knew nothing" about the situation. Second, I can't identify any weasel words in the excised text; claims are cited, people are identified, etc. You can reply here or on either my talk page or the article talk page. Matt Deres (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Carrying a Torch for China
Forgot you existed. How's London? I'm going to Taiwan for six months soon, got any recommendations? Here's an article you'll appreciate, I think: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/986himak.asp . Shalom.--Asdfg12345 04:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and this.--Asdfg12345 02:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I put a lot of work into that article, but it was really an entire year in the making. Since I've also bumped the articles for Tang Dynasty and Ming Dynasty up to featured status, I kind of wish I had the time to make six different Tang and six different Ming articles, but my real life responsibilities won't let me! Lol. Oh well, I'll leave that up to someone else. As for now, Han Dynasty needs major improvement. I've edited it in the past and added pretty much every inline citation that exists in that article, but it still needs major attention. Anyways, thanks for the compliment.--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested move of ume
You previously participated in a move request of ume. I have revived the request so please visit Talk:Ume#Requested move if you care to contribute. — AjaxSmack 16:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I made some comments - let me know what you think. enochlau (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Former accounts
I'd say just stick {{FormerAccount}} on the User:Sumple page to go with or replace (at your choice) your existing comment there. Having the actual template might clear up the disagreement. Note that there seems to be no explicit reciprocating template for that, supporting the assumption that no such identification is really required. If you want to do so anyway, though, there's always {{User Alternate Acct Name}}, I see some other users are using it that way. Please see my own abandoned account at User:GreyKnight if you want (cannot remember the password for the life of me). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
boxer image, banner translation
The edit you made at Boxer_Rebellion&oldid=123460894 seems strange. You changed the translation for the banner, to read "By Imperial Order - Boxer commissariat". Can you verify that translation - only it seems strange as the boxer bit comes from them using a name including the word fist and was a western nickname, anti-imperialists aren't usually keen to adopt the (belittling?) names given them by their aggressors. Or did you make it up? Pbhj (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks PalaceGuard008, I'd go with the full translation - I think to use "Boxer" is too much interpretation; can I quote you as the translator on the talk page and use your translation in the article then? Pbhj (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Beijing
Hello, I'm in the process of trying to improve the article of Beijing right now. Seen the article's quality is in pretty bad shape. However, User:Nikkul, who hardly contributes in the Beijing article (except removing others contributions and adding Tiananmen square and pollution pictures of Beijing; although which in some cases are necessary) keeps removing parts of the content I guess he sees as "unencyclopedic". I re-organized the opening section with contents and references from the "Peking (Beijing)" article from the Encyclopædia Britannica's Macropædia, however, he keeps reverting it. Could you gave your input and come to the article for assistence.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks for response! I have been fixing these statements in Beijing quite a bit around yesterday and today.
At first, the paragraph went like this:
"Very few cities in the world besides Beijing have served for so long as the political and cultural centre of an area as immense as China. The Britannica describes "Beijing has been an integral part of China’s history over the past eight centuries, and nearly every major building of any age in Beijing has at least some national historical significance." The Encyclopædia Britannica notes the importance of Beijing makes it impossible to understand China without a knowledge of this city."
However, I agree that the repeated mentions of the name Britannica was reductant and I fixed the structure of these statements a bit, changed their order, and reduced the mentions of Britannica. Is there any specific ideas or suggestions that you could gave me in regards to this paragraph?
I don't mind other's comments, however User:Nikkul, who did not contribute to the article much at all, mostly he removed contents and pictures that he did not like, also removed several sections of content without even given any edit summary. Considering the Encyclopædia Britannica is regarded as the most prestigous general encyclopedia, I think using contents from this encyclopedia should be helpful to the article.--TheLeopard (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog continues to push his POV that this kind of attack is not terrorist attack, even though the organization of the perpetrators is classified as terrorist organization by United Nations. I am exhausted just to keep up with his "definition" of terrorist. Want to help me out and try to explain? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
October 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Feitian space suit. Thank you. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 05:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I left a message at Talk:Feitian space suit regarding the sources you've added to the article. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Special non-state-to-state relations
Hello, I just noticed that you moved the article and your reasons. I have renamed the article back. I would like to let you know of my reason here so if you have issues with it, we can discuss.
You said that Ma never specifically mentioned the term "Special non-state-to-state relations". He didn't, but similarly, Lee never said "Special state-to-state relations (特殊兩國論)" and Chen never named what he said "One Country on Each Side (一邊一國)" either. All these are commonly used terms coined by others to describe the theories. In Ma's case, the term is used by Taipei Times, and it matches the Chinese counterpart of "特殊非兩國論" or "非兩國論". You can see that "非兩國論" a very commonly used term by looking it up in google (in quotes).
If you wish to discuss this further, we can do that in the discussion page of the article. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You have previously contributed to the debate on the article, and may like to express your views on the deletion of this article here. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
More appropriate title for 2008 attack at Beijing Drum Tower during Olympics
- I have set up a poll to vote on the new name of the article. Please go to the talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Great photo! :) - Gobeirne (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Claims
Yes, that is better. Thank you.
Shanghainese requests
Hi, can you help with my requests at Talk:Shanghainese? Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, can you add Shanghainese for kowtow as well? Badagnani (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, can you restore the parts you removed about the alternative term being used in modern Mandarin, and about the literal meaning? Badagnani (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't added that but it just seemed like very basic, uncontroversial information. You know more about Chinese culture than I do and can search about it--is that alternate term not really used? The literal meaning does seem important (about the knocking of the head, or whatever it means) Badagnani (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, they're quite similar, just different kinds of knocking/things knocked on. Badagnani (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
korean editor kuebie is preparing a vote to change name to a korean one, and canvassing korean editors, vote no on name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.158.150 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
renaming an article... Central Bank of the ROC (TW) to: Central Bank (Republic of China)
Central Bank (Republic of China): 中央銀行(中華民國) is what appears in the official site IN CHINESE, ur POV? Cheers Gumuhua (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
pro mongol editor has been canvassing to delete important chinese article
pro mongol editor has been canvassing to delete the article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolia during Tang rule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.248.69 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Gao Zhisheng
Have you read this??
If not, you owe it to yourself to read it. Found here.--Asdfg12345 00:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) This debate between Minxin Pei (naysayer) and Jonathan Anderson (sycophant) is also worth reading. Going through it though, one thing troubled me: the utter contradictions between the data that each raise, like about export as a factor of GDP, the productivity of SOEs and their mode of operation, the status of non-performing loans, and more. There seems to be an element of talking past each other. It's a good read though.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a Falun Gong discussion forum--PCPP (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A human rights lawyer is tortured half to death for fifty days, eyelids burnt, beaten senseless many times, electrodes on the genitals, threats to the children, other acts too hideous and tragic to describe, all for standing up for Falun Gong practitioners, and you just say that this shouldn't be discussed? One's stance on this is precisely the sort of issue that every Chinese person needs to come to terms with. It's not like you can just shrug this stuff off. Everyone needs to actually work out where they stand. Palaceguard has studied law, too, so he's doubly drawn-in to Gao's case. Did you even read the letter?--Asdfg12345 07:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Not just Gao.--Asdfg12345 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember Guantanamo Bay? Abu Ghraib? CIA black sites? People gets tortured all the time, even from so-called democracies. Stop acting that China's the only country that tortures people.
And user talk pages are about discussions related to article editing, not outside activism. Go email him if you got problem.--PCPP (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Need Shanghainese
Please help at Myrica rubra. Badagnani (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Nguyễn An
Hi PalaceGuard008, could you come to the Nguyễn An (an architect of the Forbidden City) article and look at it. It is a newly created article by User:Sea888; User:Amore Mio and I are editing it as well. You seems to be knowledgeable on this topic, and you should come to look at it as well.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic RD discussion
I have removed your comment in part because the thread was off-topic and potentially attack-ish, but also because your response was a more direct personal attack. I don't particularly care for political correctness run rampant, but please do refrain from name calling. Thanks. – 74 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Palace Guard
A while back, I left a message on your talk page (still seen above) promising to turn my focus onto Han Dynasty. Well, have a look. :) You won't be disappointed. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)