User talk:TheLeopard/Archive 2

Hi TheLeopard. I understand your concern and thinking behind this edit as there could be some uncertainty about the accuracy of the source. However, the Verifiability policy does allow for cases like this - the relevant section is here: Wikipedia:Sources#Non-English_sources. There is a translation of the article title, and a translation of part of the text alongside the original Chinese. Readers are also able to go to the source and use an online translator if they wish to read the whole article. If you are still unsure let me know and we can discus it further or ask for a Third opinion. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think sister cities on the main article is purely a thing of choice, I looked at Featured Articles on cities such as Seattle and San Francisco and they have sister cities on a different page. I'm just trying to get Beijing to GA then FA, if you think it's better on the main article then that's fine, it's only a minor thing :-) --Joowwww (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk it to the talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, TheLeopard. I noticed you made a change in the order of temples in Beijing, relative to Bailin Si. I put Bailin Si just after Yonghegong because their history is closely related, but you moved the first after Big Bell Temple. May I ask you why (you provide no explanation in the Edit Summary). I may have failed to see the order which is followed (I see none, actually) and I was actually thinking the it should be adopted an alphabetical order. What do you think? Regards --Krsnarupa (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Should Chaoyangmen be placed into Template:Old Beijing? Badagnani (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are doing now, you are prepared to sacrifice context and appreciation of a topic for the no doubt vital sake of avoiding whitespace. But at least you could use a less dishonest edit summary, you aren't removing images and maps because they are "not necessary", you are removing them because they don't look nice to you. Juzhong (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In April you reverted my edits with the comment that "This paragraph was vandalized from previous revisions. It drastically changed from its original source.".

Whether the changes are justified or not, they were not vandalism as they were explained at the discussion page for Manchus ("Manchus and political football"). Before reverting edits on the strength of charges of vandalism, I would be grateful if you could check the talk page and first address arguments made there.

My objection to the statement that "Much recent scholarship in ethnic identity emphasizes that ethnic categories, rather than being static and objective, are fluid and subjective" is the fact that this could apply to ANY ethnic group, and could thus be placed at any article on any ethnic group. Making this specific point only at the article on the Manchus sounds like a rationalisation or excuse. It sounds highly defensive, as though there is no real basis for asserting Manchu ethnic identity other than the over-subtle distinctions of academics. We know that Crossley argued from this point of view, but that is, I suggest, because her point -- that the Manchus were, in spite of everything, a separate ethnic group -- flies directly in the face of the broad consensus that has been adopted in the modern Chinese state, namely that the Manchus long-ago disappeared as an ethnic group and became completely "Chinese". In the face of this pervasive and heavily politically motivated Chinese viewpoint, Crossley argued very deliberately and very carefully from the modern definition of nations as "imagined communities".

In fact, the Qing dynasty was based on an apartheid-like situation where the Chinese and Manchus were kept apart. During the Qing the Manchus retained a consciousness of being a separate ethnic group, even after they mostly switched to speaking Chinese. There are still Manchus today who retain a consciousness of the separateness of Manchu culture, quite apart from the state-sponsored ethnic categories. So my point is, why do we have to bend over backwards to try and justify a viewpoint simply because it is at odds with the current State orthodoxy? Is there a need to be so pointedly defensive just in the case of the Manchus?

Bathrobe (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your recent edit to Manchu people, he did leave a message on your talk page. There is also discussion of the issue at Talk:Manchu#Manchus_and_political_football which is where you should make your replys - edit summaries are not discussion pages. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I reacently found that you have rewrited a section. But I got confused about what it says. How can Dream of the Red Chamber fits in perfectly with Buddhist and Taoist beliefs? Most people agree that this book gives tit for tat about it. 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi TheLeopard, you recently reverted the Chinese history template and wrote: This is not Chinese Wikipedia, the template "does not" need Chinese characters. It distorts the entire format of the template. I would counter:

• On your first point, characters were only added as additional information for Chinese names. There is no accurate way of writing Chinese names using the Roman alphabet. For example the Jin Dyansty and the Jin Dynasty are spelt the same in English but have completely different names in Chinese: 晋朝 and 金朝. Similarly the English names Zhou, Chou and Chow all refer to the same name: 周.
• On your second point, I took care not to distort the format of the template. The template was no wider after making the changes.
• Finally, you reverted to a version further back than the one that added Chinese characters. You also reverted the fixes to double-spacing formatting bugs that are now again visible on the current version of the template.

Cheers.--Cowrider (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Look to the talk page now. Apparently, the sutra found in Korea is not the oldest confirmed printed document; two documents found in China after 1966 have been confirmed as dating to 650–670 and 690–699, respectively.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I received your message, but I think these photo is not important for illustrate the TanZhe Temple. But I will upload these picture on to wikicommons. but I can't write the english comment. --用心阁 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your improving in article Dream of the Red Chamber. By the way, what is "commentary"? (I do not understand the meanning even after looking up dictionaries, how bad is my english) Does it mean that my tone of voice of editing is like casual talking, not solemn encyclopedia article? 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 05:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not a native speaker of English. And now I don't have difficulty accessing Wikipedia since the Olympics began, at least. :)百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 05:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you and all the editors for improving the Beijing page. I was doing the same thing too. I came across the Beijing page and found the ecconomy description of Beijing is weak so I decided to make some contributions. Beijing, after all, is the 2nd largest city in GDP and the only post-industrial city in China (See reference below). All my statements and numbers are based on official data that is widely available. That is why I didn't include the references at the first place but I agree with you adding them helps. Some are simply calculations using data from Wiki directly, such as 71.3% of Beijing's GDP is from tertiary industry. I'd like to start with the economy section again, which is the field I am familiar with and heavily involved. Below is exactly I'll added to the section with all the references. Please let me know your opinion and thank you again for your time. --CobbleCC (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Beijing is the most developed city in China with tertiary industry accounting for 71.3% of its GDP, making it the first, and the only so far, post industrial city in mainland China. ^[1]

Beijing is also the financial center of China. Financial industry is the most important industries of Beijing. By the end of 2007, there are 751 financial organizations in Beijing that generated 128.6 billion RMB revenue accounting for 11.6% of the total financial industry revenue of the entire country. It is also accounts for 13.8% of Beijing's GDP, the highest percentage of that of all Chinese cities. ^[2]

--CobbleCC (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

>>>

Thanks Leopard for the quick response.

1. I'll start with the economy section first. I see the old introduction of Beijing touching its political/educational/cultural side but no word about its economy at all. Considering Beijing's economy importance as I put in the economy section, there should be at least one sentence briefly describing this. I probably added too much info there at first but no word about it seems inadequate too. I'll try to come up with just one sentence summarizing it.

2. I understand the language concern and I intended to quote the official data because we are talking about GDP and economic stats here. No other source is more accurate and reliable then the data from the national/local statistics bureau. I'll see whether there are any English versions.

3. The uploaded photos are my own work. I believe I chose the right license when I uploaded them to make them free to share.

--CobbleCC (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

>>>

I'll see what I can do and help. I simply love photography - my lifelong hobby.

(off topic) By the way, do you work full-time at Wiki? I always thought there is no editor at wiki. All the wiki info is from regular people. Wiki is a free/open info place that everyone can contribute and edit etc. It seems not the case? Just curious.

--CobbleCC (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you ustifying your removal of all the paragraphs while the necessary sources are presented?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)