User talk:Rigley/Archive 2

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)

Hui

mainly because well respect scholors used the term Chinsee Muslim to describe Hui people, and by the way, the term "Han Hui" used by the Qing dynasty to describe Hui, literally means "Chinese Muslim". On the other hand, other people, such as the Salar people, who were also muslim, were called "Sala Hui", which means Salar muslim. They were not called chinese. This etymology is written into the Hui people article and it is referenced.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

in addition to that, most people don't know who Hui people are, and might get confused, so i want to clarify which religion.

By the way, Uyghurs have explicitly rejected the label "Chinese" to refer to them. I will not falsely label a person as Chinese. It doesn't mean they aren't a part of China, just like Yakuts are not Russian, but they live in Russia, and they don't have any separatist movement.Дунгане (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of content on Tibet

I've reversed your most recent edit, and have doubts about some of your earlier material. The films removed were nonetheless notable, your opinion that they are "obscure" does not matter - and Nat'l Geographic films that have won awards are NOT "obscure" (except perhaps in China) - and your re-wording of the first changed paragraphs had political overtones, unintentional as they may have been. The entire section blanked you may think is too much, but it's all cited material and you have no business removing it because you don't like it. Removing pictures also is dubious, especially on such a sweeping scale....Skookum1 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The section was an "in Popular Culture" section. Partly because of the Dalai Lama article, which has a "Introduction of the Dalai Lama into popular Western culture", I assumed (rightly, I think) that the intention was "in Popular Western culture". Kekexili, being made in China, probably has had more impact there, though that is difficult to assess. Awards are not necessarily indicators of public culture or opinion. In contrast, the impact of movies like Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun are widely accepted as influencing popular Western perceptions of Tibet.

Every edit on every controversial issue can be interpreted to have "political overtones". If you have specific problems rather than just general concerns, you need to enumerate them one-by-one, and then we have something to work with. As for the "blanking", please don't call it that, because it was a carefully discussed removal of material inappropriate for the article. That it is "cited material" does not mean it gets to stay if it otherwise violates policy; otherwise we would have paragraphs of polemical garbage on the global warming article. The article Tibet is about the "ethno-cultural region", and hence is about the ethnics and the culture, and not about political Tibet and its divisions and politics.

My "removing pictures" was not on a "sweeping scale". I removed two flags in inappropriate sections of the history section: in the span of Tibetan history, they were used for a very short time, and their actual purpose is disputed; they are overemphasized in pro-independence literature. The other things I did with pictures were moving them: moving the picture of downtown Shigatse to the "economy" rather than the "towns" section, because the towns section was short and already had a picture of Lhasa; the Shigatse picture was conveniently taken in a market and helped balance out the picture of the yak, which is archaic. I moved the picture of the nomads from "economy" to "demographics" section, since the caption was more suited to it, and did not make the connection to economics. I moved the Dalai Lama picture from "culture" to "religion", because it is more specific.

What I just did—explaining my minor edits and implementations of already-discussed proposals individually—I should not have to do. Reverting my edits with the justification that they are "sensitive", "suspicious", or "needless" is not the way Wikipedia works. Editors boldly add text to articles, and if you want to challenge it, you must have independent refutable reasons. I am not a newcomer to Wikipedia, but if I were, your disdainful tone ("you have no business removing it", "you don't like it") would have scared me away. Quigley (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

didn't notice this discussion until now, but I whole-heartedly support Quigley here. human rights belongs in a discussion on politics, not there. --HXL 何献龙 13:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Quigley, I had to stop for a day to think about your "Editors boldly add text to articles, and if you want to challenge it, you must have independent refutable reasons.". That is rather a far notion from the way Wikipedia works, have a read here. It is up to you to justify your proposed changes. I'm not able to verify your "already-discussed proposals" as it's been some months since you last edited Talk:Tibet. Please restate here which changes you wish to make and why before making any more article edits. Franamax (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A full day of contemplation, and yet you give me no specifics of your conclusions? I did justify my proposed changes; the most important ones anyway. I already posted (in this discussion, the second reply) extended justifications beyond my adequate edit summaries for all of the small and relatively noncontroversial edits that Skookum1 alluded to. I will initiate a second round of discussion sometime on the "human rights" section and try to coax more editors into giving input before again trying to tame that beast. But for the rest of the edits, like the survey of 1980s in Tibet, that Skookum1 removed either as collateral damage from the stuff he most wanted to revert, or just from the "overtones" he doesn't like and won't explain, allowing those arbitrary and unjustified portions of the reversion to stand is, in your words, "a far notion from the way Wikipedia works." Quigley (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

the "political overtones" under the history section are non-existent. as far as I remember Quigley transformed what was rather vague ("Tibet...suffered during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, but in the 1980s...") into something specific ("...cultural relics were destroyed... Hu Yaobang brought brief liberalisation to Tibet, until 1989"), and still overall neutral. What would be an "overtone" is the bullshit 1.2 million deaths figure that deserves a caustic rebuttal if ever placed within the article. --HXL 何献龙 20:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Spaniel

I've reverted your edit to the Spaniel article which replaced the country of origin of the Tibetan Spaniel from Tibet to China. On the Tibetan Spaniel article, it lists Tibet as the country of origin and I have changed it to reflect that. Please discuss any such edit on that article as it needs to be reflected there as well as on the Spaniel page. Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamWater for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for bringing up a sockpuppetry case. It seems that Wikipedia rules about blocks are more subtle than I realized and you weren't doing anything wrong after all. Please accept my apologies. Elizium23 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I'm sorry too for being jumpy and for not assuming good faith of you as much as I should have. Overall, this worked out well, and the case will be informative for anyone who is confused by my disclosure notice, and hopefully preventative of any future bureaucratic grief on this subject. Quigley (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging East Asia Articles

First of all, thank you for joining the Wikiproject.

Please stop tagging articles with the importance section for a few days. We have yet to clearly define out scope, so right now, the only pages we have been tagging with importance are countries, which are sure to receive top rating. I am about to put some things up on the talk page where we can discuss importance and scope, so for the moment, I'd appreciate it if you left importance= blank. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Quigley (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't mean to step on your toes, so to speak, it's just that I'm a very orderly person, and I wanted to have everything clearly defined before we started tagging, so that theoretically, everyone was working from the same page.

I left a response to your response at the project talk page, and I will continue to clarify things as they come up. And again, thanks for joining the project. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyberespionage

I disagree. Cyberespionage is a subset of cyberwarfare, much like conventional espionage is part of conventional warfare.--hkr Laozi speak 20:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the removed sections weren't original research, I referenced the wrong Washington Post article. This is technically my mistake, but still, adding it back with the corrent reference.--hkr Laozi speak 20:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cyberespionage can be a component of cyberwarfare if, say, done by a government for the purpose of obtaining military secrets. Some random company in China trying to gain an edge by snooping around a competitor's computers in some other country? Not so much. We should recognize the former, but not conflate the two. Quigley (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section on Huawei that was removed? Huawei has links with the Chinese government, which is precisely why India was afraid of espionage. And it's difficult to evaluate whether the government is supporting commercial espionage as well, since the operations are clandestine and official lines between civilian, corporate, and government directed are often very fluid.--hkr Laozi speak 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware about that about Huawei. It should be included then, I agree. And operations' being clandestine meaning that the origin of an attack is often not discernible is why I put that quote from the WSJ saying just that that in the lead. Quigley (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, I should have made that clear in the article, so I can see why it was removed. It's been added back, but with an explanation describing the military links.--hkr Laozi speak 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Google Books links in cite templates

Aye, after your recent undo on Lhasa article with the issue of shortening cite template links, I'd give these discussions a quick glance:

• https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Question_about_inline_citations
• https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:CITE#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages

Seeing the examples I'd vouch that excessive clutter in cite template links is generally not appropriate. Google Books seems to divide editors' opinions if they should exist in the first place, judging from the discussion it seems Google Books links are here to stay, however, if some information tidbit is visible only in the snippet preview of Google Books - as seems to be the case in Lhasa article - it would be much better to really obtain the book in whatever format appropriate i.e. not just scavenge Google Books previews alone.

I'd like to suggest to keep the citation templates punctual, perhaps using this tool: http://reftag.appspot.com/.

Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussions. I think that whether or not a citation is 'cluttered' is totally dependent on how and what you're using to edit Wikipedia: some people oppose citation templates on the same grounds. What I got from the discussions is that of course it is always better to really obtain the book, but Google Books provides a quick means of verification for the masses, and therefore better quality control. The outcome of the discussions seems to be that editors should maintain the format of the original citation: not to add pagelinks or anything else, but also not to remove them.

But on the specific matter of Lhasa, I won't resist if you revert my revert. I was not the one who added the citations in question, and I avoid linking to Google Books in my own citations for all the reasons listed in the discussion. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for the reply. I'm of the "use the source, Luke" persuasion, like to keep under-the-hood side clean as well. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problem you tried to help resolve with a recent edit at Senkaku Islands.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

you might be interested in participating in the discussion, Arilang1234 is continuing to push hardcare POV on the talk page, accusing me of using nonexistent Communist sources and continues to insist that his own opinions that Boxers were "bandits", and "Barbaric" should be inserted into the article. He filed a case here at Wikipedia:Third opinion.

in addition, he earlier attempted to canvass several users a week ago to join him in pushing POV on the article.Дунгане (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Kalmyk deportations of 1943, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars, especially with an edit that you should know is not vandalism or "libel" in the sense that is traditionally understood. Do you want to start a content dispute about the extent of Nazi collaborationism in Kalmykia? Or do you dispute the tone? In either case, it's not libel nor is it vandalism! Quigley (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's defamation. Stop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's mentioning Stalin's justification for the deportation whereas the article did not mention any reason before, making it seem extremely arbitrary. What you're doing is wikihounding. Stop it. Quigley (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work

for improving the neutrality of articles on Wikipedia, especially with regards to China. If I could make a barnstar for this, I would post it on your user page！--HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate comments like these very much, because of the vitriol I get for it sometimes! You've been here for longer than I have, and dealing with the same intractable issues as I see from the talk archives; I could not continue to improve difficult articles without the example of perseverance from users like you. Quigley (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks! I've actually purged parts of my current user talk and old user talk, which redirects to my current user talk anyway, so I've dealt with much worse than what appears from first glance. Meh. People will tend to believe their viewpoints are right, leading to...well...you know. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

quote from KMT official on slave holding among tibetans

quote from Kuomintang officials on slavery among tibetans-

• Quote- "In the past, the Mongols and Tibetans were divided as lords and slaves, but the two chairmen [Ma Qi and Ma Bufang], insisting on the principle of equality of all nationalities in our country, corrected the absurdity and astutely reformed it, which is really a perceptive measure greatly significat for the frontiers. Better still, in September when the cattle and sheep are plump, people cheerful, making the lake worship ritual is reall a celebration, analagous to the Mid-Autumn Festival in agricultural society, celebrating the harvest. The nomadic nationalities can now all rejoice without division in land and region."

Uradyn Erden Bulag (2002). Dilemmas The Mongols at China's edge: history and the politics of national unity. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 54. ISBN 0742511448. Retrieved 2010-06-28.

The attempt by certain users to claim this was communist propaganda is clearly ridiculous, when anti communist KMT officials document its practices.Дунгане (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, we should be skeptical of any such claims of slavery or serfdom that are recently applied to Chinese history, as Marxist historiography does tend to overemphasize and stretch those concepts. But as you said, the many non- and anti-Communist officials that have documented social conditions in Tibet prior to Communist control make denial pretty difficult. It's always interesting to read content from you, by the way, as the 1911–1949 period in China was not well documented on Wikipedia, and the KMT viewpoint is often lost in the sweep of history. Good job countering systemic bias! Quigley (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gaden Choeling Nunnery

I have removed your PROD on this article. The subject is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "clearly" notable to anyone; it wasn't even clear what was the subject of the article was, with the article apparently covering multiple unrelated monasteries that share a name. As the PROD noted, the only source or information given traced back to a self-published and promotional source. We should both appreciate that this PROD resulted in some useful content being added to the article. Quigley (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

PROD is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate. Before nomination, consider your reasons for deletion and the alternatives to deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the basic deletion policy and processes. Remember yourself to assume good faith; same goes for Dr. Blofeld, whose recent disputes and block are apparently the cause of this hypersensitivity over anything Tibet-related. Quigley (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_18#Template:Islamic_terrorism

Thanks for your comments, but could you please go back and address the issues of POV and CIVIL which are serious issues. Its all very well to say "keep" because it does not replicate anything but you appear to be ignoring the main issues that I have raised. Either these collections and associations are POV or they are not. And what about the point that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism because it is an oxymoron? And the issue of whether it is very encyclopedic for Wikpedia to categorize articles (tho in fact many of these are but subsections of larger articles) under a heading which is both POV and self contradictory. If you disagree with my assessment please at least have the courtesy to say why. Thanks --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on RFC/YellowMonkey

Hi. Could you please email the Audit Subcommittee with the full details of this issue? The Audit Subcommittee handles reports of misuse of advanced permission tools (such as CheckUser and Oversight). I've been made aware of your comments, and will be bringing it up with the other members of the committee, but it would help to have a formal submission from you. SirFozzie (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I will submit an email to the subcommittee between today and tomorrow. Quigley (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

vandals are crying "50 cent" at talk page of Boxer rebellion

208.64.63.176 and his account Binesi are vandalising the Boxer Rebellion article again, and using the CCP as a straw man to attack, he is bent on adding POV to the article. ip is claiming the article was written by pro communist editors. The most disturbing thing is that Benisi is not acknowleding that his ip's edits constituted vandalism, when he was clearly warned by an admin at User talk:208.64.63.176 for vandalising. User:Hongkongresident is congragulating Benisi for his personal attacks against me, we need more non biased editors like you to review the situation.Дунгане (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My 50 cents, so to speak, are that early Binesi/208.64.63.176 made a number of mistakes, such as not providing edit summaries when removing information and making bad faith accusations of 5CP-itude. Those are forgivable because he says he is a new editor. Middle Binesi, regardless of the facts of the content dispute, generally reacted more calmly than you did, and thus looked better, although he was quite intolerant of your idiosyncrasies. As for the content dispute; if he is "adding POV" or removing it, you haven't given me any diffs, but I looked at two of the issues that were talked about. The having tea with the enemy thing: it's common on Wikipedia to write "x happens all the time" and then give one example of x as a source, but that's not good practice, so removing it was fair [and specifically with that incident, the tea party was not as benevolent as portrayed]. On the issue of whether the Kansu Braves indiscriminately looted or not, you vindicated your position with sources, but allowed Binesi to sidestep the issue because of your zeal. Hongkongresident should not have praised Binesi for being cool after Late Binesi stopped doing that and made a number of baiting and condescending comments. If I were you, I would withdraw this last comment, because it could be construed as an attack. You don't have to refute every charge made against you. Quigley (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#BBC_ref_in_first_paragraph

Hi, when you have a chance could you take a look at Talk:Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima#BBC_ref_in_first_paragraph and let me know what you think? Thanks A13ean (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)