Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Category:Chinese thought

Category:Chinese thought has been nominated for deletion -- `65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Joy Luck Club and The Joy Luck Club (film)

I nominated the film article to be part of the "Did you know..." project. I need your help on expanding either the novel or the film article (or copyediting it). There are sources to look at: [1] and [2]. To Google it, type "The Joy Luck Club" (film OR movie) in Google Books. --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We need a Chinese Diaspora task force to properly tag things like this. Some editors remove WPCHINA from diaspora articles as they are not "in China" --- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Qing Dynasty History

Category:Qing Dynasty History has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Please join the discussion on Talk:Nanjing Road (Shanghai)#Requested move. -Zanhe (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

China Pollution Map Database

This article appears to need either massive cleanup or deletion.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Providing Chinese perspective

It seems that there's a lacking of balanced perspective in History of Siberia. Hopefully there will be someone who has more knowledge on Siberian history from the perspective of native Siberian (Manchurian, Mongolian, Xiongnu, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.243.174 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Qingdao MTI International School

The title of this article has to be changed into "International School of Qingdao (mti)" since this school has officially changed its name into International School of Qingdao in the fall of 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara sooeun (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Zanhe (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion about removing non-Roman script names from lede sentence

Copied from WT:JAPAN -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about amending Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section to discourage listing non-English names of subjects in the lede sentence of articles, and to encourage moving them to an infobox or footnote. As I understand it, the current practice of WP:JAPAN is to use {{nihongo}} to include the Japanese name in the lede sentence, so this change may affect a large number of articles under your project. Your comments are welcome on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: move most translations and transliterations from lead sentence to footnote. Thanks, quant18 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This also concerns usage of Chinese, so you may be interested -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies in names in North China Daily News

In North China Daily News I see a discrepancy in the English names

In Talk:North China Daily News I noted "This says 李德立 was R.W. Bob Little but the Chinese article zh:李德立 says it was "Edward Selby Little""

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hong Kong

Hong Kong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Macau

Macau has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

List of political parties in the Republic of China

List of political parties in the Republic of China has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

transliteratn

neds2b i/HANYUPY.[idunkar owtwas50yrs.ago-dinosauurs!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.117.120.229 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG

commons:File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG has been deleted, so, articles using File:Jiuquan Satellite Lauch Center assembly tower, China.JPG will need to be fixed either by replacement image or removal of the image link. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR

History of Hong Kong (1800s–1930s), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oracle bone script characters

Several variants of the Oracle bone script characters have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 18 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinese family names

See discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Chinese names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Chinese names -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Aisg.history.jpg

file:Aisg.history.jpg has been nominated for deletino -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Geography of Tibet categories

Some Geography of Tibet categories are up for discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_23 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese names in Chinese

Do you know of any sources that discuss Japanese names as they are rendered in Chinese? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My watching of CCTV shows names that solely use kanja are converted into their equivalent hanzi form and read accordingly. GotR ^Talk 06:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes- the Japanese kanji are pronounced with Chinese hanzi, like 山田 太郎 is pronounced Shāntián Tàiláng in Chinese. And AFAIK the Chinese pick characters if part of the Japanese name is kana. But what I need is a reference that says it explicitly. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Fang Xianjue.jpg

File:Fang Xianjue.jpg was nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Military of China

The usage of Military of China is up for discussion, see talk:Military of China -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Li family and various homophonic family names, and various spellings

See Talk:Lì (chinese surname) for a mess regarding various Lee/Li surnames. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone fix all the incoming links to Li (surname), now that a couple of the articles have been renamed? They need to be repointed to the correct Li/Lee/etc article, instead of the overview article. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Li (state)

Li (state) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Li"

See Talk:Li (surname), where a (new) merger discussion has been opened concerning the various Li's -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The older discussion is still going on at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"of China" renames

See Wikipedia:Requested_moves#July 03, 2013 where "Constitution of China", "Parliament of China" and "Politics of China" are up for renaming, reusing or overwriting. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also talk:Military of China where that is also up for renaming/reusing/overwriting -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Qin family and various homophonic family names, and various spellings

Right now Qin (surname) and Qin (last name) lead to different articles, Qin (surname meaning "ash tree") and Qin (surname meaning "zither") respectively. So, this is another set of articles, with the same problem as "Li" -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make us go back to that again. _dk (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Qin (surname meaning "zither") has been prodded for deletion, see talk:Qin (surname) for the discussion related to that -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding inadequacy of current policy with regard to Chinese names

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Inadequacy of current WP:UE guideline with regard to Chinese names. -Zanhe (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese objects

Category:Traditional Chinese objects has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"南山"

南山 has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Temple of Madam Xian.jpg

image:The Temple of Madam Xian.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Maoming

Can someone examine Maoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? Whizze1991 (talk · contribs) has been adding things to it, including pictures that are not of Maoming, but which he has named as being Maoming. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

file:Sinopec Corp in Maoming.jpg

Can someone fix the information on this? I keep getting various different results when I try to search for this image at tineye.com and images.google.com -- the uploader claimed it came from Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Va people.

A requested move is ongoing at Va people, which aims to move the page to the more conventional spelling, "Wa people". Please comment there. RGloucester (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese emperors

{{Infobox Chinese emperor}} and {{Chinese Emperor}} have been nominated for discussion into merging with other monarch boxes. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

PLA soldiers 1962.jpg

image:PLA soldiers 1962.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Imlek"

The usage of Imlek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Imlek (company) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mohawk hairstyle

It seems that around 10% of boys aged 1 to 5 have this hairstyle. I'm guessing that means over 10 million kids. That may be more than the rest of the world combined. So, I want to add something to the article about it. But what is the name of that style in China. My friends don't know. Can anyone find some media sources about this? I can get photos. It would be a nice little section in for the article, which gets 1000 visits a day. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I will try to get some reliable source, but my son, who is Chinese, says he and his friends always say "Chicken Hair". He adds that this really can be a greatly implied large insult because it is closely related to the term "chicken boy", which is the name of a kind of boy prostitute. Of course, reliable sources may differ in this. I will see what I can find, though it may take a month or so.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Divorce law in China

Divorce law in China should be deleted or substantially improved. Discuss at Talk:Divorce law in China. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. I didn't think there was any substantial material to improve it anyway. Alex Shih^Talk 16:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all but the first sentence was copied from another website, so it was speedy deleted.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Province of China (PRC)

As a heads up, {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} is up for discussion. GotR ^Talk 21:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

New article series

i hope this is the right place to talk about this. i want to do a series of articles related with the phenomenon of chinese companies coming to US capital markets and being discovered to be frauds. firstly, does this violate npov? secondly, i want to list the articles that would be included:

• main article: US-listed Chinese companies through reverse take-over [or another title?]
• Short sellers of US-listed Chinese companies (including Muddy Waters Research, Citron Research, Alfred Little, &c.)
• certain companies that were frauds, like RINO, CCME, LFT, should all get an article and discuss what the fraud was, auditor resignations etc. SEC is investigating the auditor Deloitte in the Longtop (LFT) case.

does this seem like a good idea and should i just make them? where can i go for help with it from more experienced people?

also there seems to be no articles on Chinese SOEs. is that for a reason or should i make that a project as well?Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 10 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Adding timestamp so the bot actually auto-archives this section. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Golden Rooster Award for Best Director for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Golden Rooster Award for Best Director is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Rooster Award for Best Director until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Adding timestamp so the bot actually auto-archives this section. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a WP:C mentor

Hello,

I've been living in Shenyang for 6 years and would like to start contributing to WikiProject China. I've only ever done very minor edits to Wikipedia (under another account, this is a new one) and would be grateful if WP:C could assign me a mentor to help me get started. I've read the main project page but didn't see much in the way of guidelines for Chinese content. I'm particularly interested in what Chinese media sources are considered reliable, as I am able to translate from CHN to ENG. Looking forward to hearing from someone soon! DrewHeath (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! WP China really needs more editors as there are so many poorly written articles to clean up or expand, and so many important articles to create. As for sources, most government publications and media articles are considered reliable, except when controversial topics are involved which may attract attention of government censors. Feel free to post on my talk page if you have questions. -Zanhe (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaohuaide 1858.jpg

image:Gaohuaide 1858.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Drive towards GAs?

Out of these four core articles that are of significant importance to WikiProject China:

• China
• Taiwan
• Chinese language
• Chinese character

Which one(s) are the closest to becoming eligible for a GA assessment? I'm hoping on getting some work done on at least a few of them, to get them up to GA standard. Given that these four topics are quite central to what this WikiProject covers, I think that it's long overdue that a few of these are reassessed (some of them are former FAs). There are many country articles out there that are GAs and FAs, and surprisingly at this stage none of the ones covered by our WikiProject are. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. I think the quality of China and Taiwan are equivalent at this point, although the stability of Taiwan article might be questioned. Perhaps a task force should be organised to renovate these two articles for submission to peer review in the coming months?Alex Shih^Talk 05:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The rationale behind demoting Taiwan was due to the ROC to Taiwan article rename, since it was argued that the page would become unstable, however that was all the way back in April 2012, which is more than one year ago. I'm quite certain that the dust has settled by now; we rarely do get major problematic edits or heated discussions on the talk page these days. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am working on getting the China article to GA status. The quality of the article right now is pretty close. The modern portion of the history section and the Foreign relations section need to be trimmed. Other than that, I believe the article is ready.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sze Yup

See talk:Sze Yup about a Mandarin Pinyin, Mandarin Wade-Giles, Cantonese transcription issue for naming the article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

HTTPS and being blocked from Wikipedia

Tomorrow, I think, https:// will be forced. What does this mean for those of us in China?

I'm in Hainan Province using China Unicom. I cannot visit English Wikipedia pages using https://

I can login at https://login.wikimedia.org/ but when I try to go to https://www.wikipedia.org/ I am blocked.

Please tell us where you are and if https://www.wikipedia.org/ works for you.

Is there a way around this, or is this the end for people in China accessing English Wikipedia?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this does seem to cause a problem for editors of the English WP in China. There is a discussion about it in the comments of the blog post on this, [3], but it offers only fairly technical solutions and the reminder that http in China is far from secure.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in Beijing and I only edit on the english wikipedia. I'm also an admin. I'll have to look into it. For other reasons, I use a VPN service. May be I can get around this problem using that?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the comments on the blog John linked, HTTP login will remain for the foreseeable future, they are simply defaulting to HTTPS. How that works in practice I guess we will wait and see. HTTPS for Wikipedia is blocked in China. This is well-documented because by forcing HTTP connections the Gov can selectively filter Wikipedia as opposed to outright blocking the entire side. VPNs, of course, solve these problems... but introduce costs that some users may not be able to bear. DrewHeath (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Beijing Dream album to Thin Man (band)

Not my proposal. Noting it here so other project contributors can give input. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese style name

The "style name" or "courtesy name" article is up for renaming, see talk:Chinese style name -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Teochew romanization

How do you romanize 鸭母稔 in Teochew?

Ah-bó-nìm I believe. Alex Shih^Talk 05:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

• image:Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit.jpg
• image:Double Dragons Carry Pearl.jpg

have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Improving the "China–Cornell–Oxford Project" Stub

Hello everyone,
I recently watched "Forks Over Knives," an American documentary that advocates a whole-food, plant-based lifestyle. To me, the most influential piece of evidence in support of this diet was the explanation of the findings of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project. I went to the Wikipedia page for this project to learn more about the study, and found a stub articles. I realize this was ranked as low importance for the China WikiProject, but I would like to improve this article and would appreciate any contributions.
Thank you! Stephanie3460 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Shizu aka Liu Chong aka Liu Min

See talk:Liu Chong (Northern Han) where the name of the first Emperor of the Northern Han is being discussed -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Liu Min (military official) is also being discussed at talk:Liu Min -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

{{States and territories of East Asia}}

Template:States and territories of East Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Countries and territories of Central Asia}}

Template:Countries and territories of Central Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yu people

Can someone check if this page Yu people is real or made up? It puts it in the category of ethnic groups officially recognized by China, but I don't see it in the list of ethnic groups in China. I suspect it's a clan name rather than an ethnic group, but even if it is real it might not be noteworthy enough to have its own page and deletion should be considered. Hzh (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

{{UN Security Council}}

Template:UN Security Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation}}

Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese/Japanese expression Revere the King, Expel the Barbarians (尊王攘夷)

I like your opinions on this move request here. --Cold Season (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Australia history

See WT:AUSTRALIA where there's a request for help. -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Turpan-gold.jpg

File:Turpan-gold.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Problems relating to File:Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg

The image in question

I'm anticipating that we might have future problems with a certain image, namely File:Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg - on the articles Second Sino-Japanese War, Chemical warfare and Chemical weapon, a certain user has been altering the image captions from

• "Japanese soldiers wearing gas masks and rubber gloves during a chemical attack in the Battle of Shanghai"

to

• "Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask to avoid poison gas attack of Chinese Army, to defend the front until the arrival of reinforcements (Chapei, Battle of Shanghai)" diff1 diff2 diff3

...which completely changes the meaning and contents of the text, and implies that it was the Chinese side, and not Japanese, that used chemical weapons during the war. These unexplained, stealthy edits haven't been justified with verifiable, reliable sources, so I have partially reworded or reverted them, however is someone able to verify the authenticity of the claim that the Chinese Army used chemical weapons during the Battle of Shanghai? Finally, having a look at this certain user's history of Wikimedia Commons, it appears that he has a history of making unexplained image description modifications or deletion nominations to various photographs related to the Second Sino-Japanese War. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think he should be warned formally about this? If you can give me some pointers, I will see what I can do.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See: Commons:File talk:Shanghai Naval Landing Force defending their position, 1937.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(Copying the following text from my Commons talk page, because this is the correct discussion venue): -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Benlisquare. Please stop your Chinese nationalist POV pushing edit. This image was taken by the reporter of the Japanese Navy and published on the album of the Japanese Navy. They are soldiers of the Shanghai Special Landing Force. They were afraid of possible chemical attack by the Chinese Nationalist Army (There is no mention about whether the Chinese 29th Route Army used chemical weapon or not). Shanghai Special Landing Force is nothing but small garrison unit and they don't have chemical weapon. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stay at the top of the pyramid when engaging in discussions, thanks.

Do you have a reliable source that affirms this? You have changed various descriptions on the English Wikipedia that have existed there since 2006; the source for your image also happens to be a BBS discussion board, according to the file description that you have provided. Also, cease your ad hominem allegations, if you want to discuss something with me, do not behave like an elementary schoolkid and call me names. Refer to WP:NPA, it is policy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that, unless there are very good reliable sources to back up any slanted description, and they are cited in full, then any description should be a neutral as possible to avoid issues blowing up into unhelpful exchanges. Perhaps people need to refresh their ideas about what an encyclopedia should do, and what is meant by Reliable Sources here. I don't think a BBS will often be viewed or accepted as a reliable source.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Aformentioned user has reverted my edits on Commons, and has persistently reattached "poison gas attack of Chinese Army" to the file description. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How does the picture's source [4] describe the picture? Is this a reliable source? (and can the picture be accessed from this page? unfortunately it is in a language I can't read.) Were chemical weapons actually used at the Battle of Shanghai? Dupuy and Dupuy's (one paragraph) description of the battle (p.1229) mentions a "savage air bombardment" but not chemical weapons. Barbara Tuchman's description of the Battle of Shanghai (pp.212-214) in her biography of General Stilwell does not mention chemical weapons. The use of chemical weapons by Japan in the three articles linked using the picture is very poorly sourced. I'll see what else I can find.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That URL leads to a BBS message board, an internet discussion forum where people share images and talk about them. The image also does not appear on the page that has been linked, which suggests that it has been shuffled around. As for whether chemical weapons were used during the Battle of Shanghai, this is something that I am unsure of, which is why I've requested assistance from anyone who might know a bit more about that battle, or would have access to quality books on the topic. At the moment, I'm finding the claim that these soldiers were at risk of being attacked by Chinese chemical weapons dubious, because one the source being a BBS forum, and two the Chinese Army wasn't very advanced to begin with; if they were desperate enough to employ child soldiers, how did they gain the technology to develop chemical weapons? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I confirmed the caption from the book source described in the commons.

• 平塚柾緖 (Masao Hiratsuka), ed. (1995). 日中戦争: 日,米,中報道カメラマンの記録. 翔泳社(Shoeisha). p. 38. ISBN 4881352652. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

The caption is "増援部隊の到着まで戦線を死守しようと、中国軍の毒ガス攻撃を避けるため防毒マスクを着けて突撃命令を待つ陸戦隊 (上海・閘北)" as described in the commons. See the scan copy of the page.[5] The translation "Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask to avoid poison gas attack of Chinese Army, to defend the front until the arrival of reinforcements (ChapeiZhabei District, Shanghai)." is also correct. Whether chemical weapons were actually used at the Battle of Shanghai is not important because they prepared for the worst as US citizens prepared for the chemical warfare.[6] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case, wouldn't a wording like "...wearing gas masks to avoid any potential threat of poison gas by the Chinese Army" or "...wearing gas masks in anticipation of a potential poison gas attack by the Chinese Army" be more neutral and correct? After all, the wording currently implies that the Chinese Army, definitely without a doubt, has chemical weapons and intends to use them, and not that the masks are there as a preventative safety precaution due to anticipation that the Chinese Army might use poison gas. It is the wording I am worried about - the current wording can definitely be interpreted the wrong way. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You like it or not, the Japanese caption is "中国軍の毒ガス攻撃を避けるため" which is better translated to "to avoid poison gas attack of Chinese Army".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a hoot about what the caption says in Japanese. I also can read the Japanese to begin with. Using it as an image caption, like in here or here or here is problematic, because it takes the claim for fact, which is a POV issue. There has been no documented use of chemical weapons by the National Revolutionary Army, or by the Chinese Red Army. Just because a certain magazine has written something doesn't mean that we should state it as fact within an article here. It's not one of those "like it or not" things, it's one of those "it's wrong until proven otherwise" things. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming here from request on MILHIST talk page as a neutral. I think there is a general point that we should not just repeat the caption of a propoganda photograph from any combatant without some assessment of POV or accuracy. Without a proper assessment of whether Japanese forces genuinely entered this battle prepared for gas attack, whether it makes a more impressive staged photo or whether the intention was to smear China in the world's press, just using the original caption seems unwise. However, the original caption is important to the source photo and should be recorded (perhaps as original Japanese caption translates as...) in the file as both sides in this discussion agree what it said.Monstrelet (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Well, if the picture is of Japanese troops preparing for a chemical attack by Chinese forces, it doesn't belong in articles and sections describing use of chemical weapons by Japanese forces.

Sure, the caption should be accurately translated in commons, but it might be worth putting a note on the talk page that some guys on the internet (us) are reasonably sure that China did not use chemical weapons during the Sino-Japanese war, and that it is unlikely that chemical weapons were used at by either side in the battle of Shanghai. All mentions of chemical weapons use in China during WWII in "A Higher Form of Killing" by Harris and Packman (which is somewhat authoritative on chemical and biological warfare) are about Japan's use of chemical weapons. As Benlisquare has mentioned, China was not very technologically advanced at the time. Use of chemical weapons against a less advanced enemy is a recurring theme in that book. They are both less able to defend themselves and unable to retaliate in kind, which makes chemical weapons particularly effective. I also think it unlikely that Japanese military leaders credited China with having chemical weapons, though a Japanese unit could be prepared for such an attack due to faulty intelligence or garbled orders or simply as a drill.

I'm becoming reasonably certain that chemical weapons were not used in the Battle of Shanghai. According to Tuchman, there was quite a lot of international outrage over Japan's conduct in the battle. There were a quite a few foreign residents in Shanghai who observed and described the battle and even an iconic photograph of a crying baby on bombed-out railway tracks. She does not mention chemical weapons being used, and given the taboo against chemical weapons among the western powers at the time, news of chemical weapons use would have been used to inflame public opinion (news of other chemical attacks was used in this way according to Harris and Packman). I suppose it is possible that chemical weapons were used away from the city itself, but Chiang Kai-shek used the Battle of Shanghai to enlist foreign support in the war, and if chemical weapons had been used, he probably would have shouted it from the rooftops (an expression). But I'm always open to new evidence proving otherwise.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the source cited is not in English and is not available online, its reliability is difficult to assess, but History.com states that "Japan had first used chemical weapons in China in 1937 during the Wusung-Shanghai campaign of the Second Sino-Japanese war", Sanderson Beck states that "an imperial order transmitted by Prince Kanin deployed chemical warfare units in Shanghai", and page 16 of this theses states that the Japanese used chemical weapons attacks at least nine times during the first six months of the war. I have never read any source that suggested that the Chinese army ever used chemical weapons. The suggestion that Japanese soldiers were using gas masks during a battle in which they repeatedly used chemical weapons against an army that did not use chemical weapons for any reason other than to protect themselves from their own chemical weapons is not supported by any reliable sources. I do not see any reason why this conclusion should not be reflected in this picture's description.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Japanese chemical warfare units in the area is the most plausible reason for the troops to be wearing gas masks. I still doubt that chemical weapons were actually used in the Battle of Shanghai, in spite of the units being deployed there. Britain, the US, and Germany kept chemical weapons stock piles near several fronts during the war without using them (Higher Form of Killing, Kindle location 2292) and I expect Japan did not always use the units on hand. I seem to be running into the Russell's teapot problem in trying to prove that a chemical attack did not occur, and have been unable to find a statement to that effect or a list of all Japanese chemical attacks (1000-3000 of them according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative [7]) to definitively rule it out.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

According to other sources outside Wikimedia, during the same period of time, the 88th division of the ROC Army also had photos showing that soldiers worn gas mask during the battle. It was also possible that due to the battle area within a big city, the smell from burning houses and other things (including bodies) could generate some concerns and used gas masks to protect Japanese soldiers.

In addition to this, some Japanese sources mentioned that the chemical weapon used in this battle by the ROC armies came from the Soviet's source. However, in those years, Chinese government did not have any agreement to get support from the Soviet Union, instead they had some tensions in their relations.

So the photo itself cannot explain that chemical weapons were used by Chinese side. Hopefully this can help a little bit.-Cobrachen (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To add to the above, in 1937 the Republic of China had close relations with Nazi Germany, and was militarily at odds with the Soviet Union (during that time period, there were various ongoing border and regional wars, e.g. Soviet invasion of Xinjiang, Ili Rebellion, Islamic rebellion in Xinjiang (1937), Kumul Rebellion). Thus, it is highly unlikely that during this time the ROC received military assistance from the Soviet Union in the form of chemical weapon supplies, which is something that various Japanese sources claim. There are also no records on the ROC side which document stockpiling of chemical weapons, nor records from both the Soviets and Germans that they ever exported chemical weapons to China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So, having now weighed the different sources and largely decided on the most reliable source, can a reasonably accurate caption be proposed and decided upon for the image in question? If we can do that, then any arbitrary change back to the biased one can be dealt with speedily. How about "Japanese soldiers wearing gas masks and rubber gloves during the Battle of Shanghai", since my reading of the above discussion is that there is doubt about the entire chemical attack claim. and to put it in is pure guesswork because they could have been wearing the masks and rubber gloves for reasons other than a chemical attack. What do people think?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one of my concerns is in regards to how the file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons are to be written, not just the captions on EN Wikipedia articles. Currently, the same problematic string of text is being used as the image description on Commons, and User:Phoenix7777 is strongly insisting that the description should be an unedited copy of the original writing from the source text, irregardless of POV or how factual the description is. He does not want the caption to be fixed for factuality (i.e. there being no evidence that China actually had chemical weapons), nor there to be a clarification afterwards explaining that the original caption is non-factual. I believe that this is a bad thing, because anyone can stumble across the image on Commons, and take the description for truth. He keeps saying how "this is how things are done on Commons", but never actually points out to the exact Commons policy. The current Japanese caption used on Commons, which is also the original, unedited caption from the source, insists that the Chinese definitely did use chemical weapons, and not that they potentially had them. The wording that is used is definitive ("they did"), not speculative ("they may have"), which can only imply one thing. Phoenix7777 wants to restore the English description as a direct, 1:1 translation of the original Japanese text. See the discussion at Commons:File talk:Shanghai Naval Landing Force defending their position, 1937.jpg. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate and totally accept and understand your concern about this. I wonder if the matter needs to be taken up in a place more suited to deal with Commons issues.? I am not now sure what power we may have over Commons matters like that. I suggest a large part of this discussion, including the relevant reliable sources, be reproduced or summarized on the discussion pages for the images on Commons and steps be taken to seek consensus to edit the image summary. Otherwise, in cases of this kind of intransigence, is it necessary to have such an image at all? and thus a possible proposal for its deletion if the current caption stays should be considered. For now, what we can do on this page is, at best, editing the caption and perhaps giving a footnote explaining why it differs from the description given in Commons. Does that sound at all reasonable?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the caption you proposed above: "Japanese soldiers wearing gas masks and rubber gloves during the Battle of Shanghai", descriptive and NPOV. -Zanhe (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think that this caption is appropriate for use in Wikipedia. In commons, this information, as well as the date (1937) and location (Chapei) should be mentioned in the description. The original title also should be mentioned in the description in commons and designated as such: "Original title ... (Kanji): ...(English)". Also, there should be an English translation of the source (日中戦争: 日,米,中報道カメラマンの記録) as well as the Japanese original. I also agree that this discussion should be reproduced on the image's talk page in Commons.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Benliaquare talking about. I already accepted the Benliaquare's edit to revise the English translation except for the removal of "Chinese Army"[8] which was added back by Takabeg.[9] What I edited after the Benlisquare's edit is to remove a fabrication "日军施放毒气后" (After the Japanese Army spreading gas) made by Benlisquare.[10] Therefore even if China didn't have the poison gas, current file description "in anticipation of a potential poison gas attack by the Chinese Army" is not factually incorrect. The description doesn't say China actually used the poison gas, instead the Japanese army was preparing for a possible gas attack by the Chinese Army regardless of whether the gas attack by the Chinese Army was actually possible or not. Although I don't think this description is biased, handling a biased statement is described in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Removing an inconvenience word in the reliable source is not the right way of dealing with it. Please add an attribution such as "According to a Japanese book caption, ..."

note The file File:Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg was merged to File:Shanghai Naval Landing Force defending their position, 1937.jpg recently. So the revision history was almost broken.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"I already accepted the Benliaquare's edit to revise the English translation" - the posts you made on the file talk page gave me a 100% different impression. What you said on the file talk page affirmed that you wanted the translations to be an exact carbon-copy of the Japanese description obtained from that book source. Let me remind you that this is what you said: "The file description in the Commons should be a faithful translation of the Japanese caption written in the book regardless whether it is a Japanese POV or not. The actual caption to be used for Wikipedia is under discussion at Wikiproject China." In other words, "it's perfectly fine that the English file description on Commons is wrong, because it's how a book wrote it, which means it is A-OK! Please don't make the description better, because that means that it's no longer a faithful translation of the problematic Japanese description!"
"What I edited after the Benlisquare's edit is to remove a fabrication" - It wasn't a "fabrication by me", it was the old file description that existed since September 2009, which was placed there by User:Arilang1234. I was well within my rights to restore it, after it was removed without an explanation (no edit summary justification). The wording has been altered now so that it no longer mentions chemical weapons, but may I remind you that there is no reason whatsoever for you to remove a Chinese file description for the reasons that you have given. It's slightly different from the Japanese description - so what? It's not a carbon-copy translation - so what? It adequately describes the image, and that's all that matters.
"The description doesn't say China actually used the poison gas" - the way the description was previously worded in English did imply that China, without a doubt, used chemical weapons. I don't know whether your English ability is the cause of the misunderstanding, or whether I am to blame, because I'm not explaining it clearly enough. Take a closer look at the sentence "waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask to avoid poison gas attack of Chinese Army" - let's break this sentence down: Why are they "waiting for attack order (whilst) wearing (gas masks)"? Because of "poison gas attack of Chinese Army", they want to avoid it. From the syntax of the sentence, it can be implied that if there was no gas attack by the Chinese Army, there would be no gas masks - one results in another, linked by a "x, thus y" logical progression, as demonstrated by the structure of that sentence.
"Removing an inconvenience word in the reliable source is not the right way of dealing with it" - Your source is not a "reliable source". It contains a factual error, as demonstrated by the discussion above. Just because it is a print text does not mean that it is 100% truth. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Some authors wrote in books or publications don't mean they are reliable sources, it only means some sources have this information but may not be true. If a book or publication has something like a US Navy ship fired at a Japanese fishing ship near Japan sea, so Japan military decided to attack Pearl Harbor, is this a reliable source to prove anything? I don't think so.-Cobrachen (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed at your knowledge of the Wikipedia content policies, WP:V (WP:RS), WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:RS. You don't seem to know the basic concept of the policies: a reliable source may not necessarily be a neutral source. The Xinhua News Agency is considered as a reliable source but not necessarily neutral. In order to attain the neutrality, you shouldn't alter the biased description written by the Xinhua News Agency on Wikisource. Instead, you should attribute the biased description as a material written by the Xinhua News Agency on Wikipedia. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In this case, you are trying to alter the translation on Commons allegedly in an attempt to attain the neutrality instead of attributing the translation as a caption in a Japanese book on Wikipedia.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is a reliable source if you're writing an essay about Hitler's ideology. However, is it a reliable source if you're writing about the physical fitness and intellectual ability of the American negro? The reliability of a source fits the circumstance, and is not set in stone. Reliability is a fluid concept, and is not something that is fixed like 1+1=2. I believe that you are the one that is misinterpreting what reliable sources are, especially with your interpretation of Xinhua. If Xinhua says "Mr. Chang won the Gold Medal in the men's track and field", then we can treat it as a reliable source; if it says that "Taiwan is undeniably a part of China", then we cannot treat it as a reliable source. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You demonstrated that you are confusing RS and NPOV. Xinhua is a reliable source (RS). "Taiwan is undeniably a part of China" is a biased opinion of Xinhua (POV). In this case, if you apply attribution to this opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the claim clears NPOV issue. "Xinhua claims Taiwan is undeniably a part of China."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how you interpret things, I interpret things, and Joe Bloggs down the street on the 2nd floor interprets things, there is definitely a problem with taking the current image source's claims as fact. There is no argument about that. Let's not go on about who's interpreting what policies in what way, and address the problem at hand. I'm not going to withdraw what I have said (because I do not believe that my interpretation is incorrect), and even if you don't want to go by what I've written, that's fine - let's assume that you are right. We still cannot use a POVed file description from a "reliable" (cough) source. We cannot take the current source's claims as a definite fact, because it has major issues with how it describes the image, that goes against the spirit of how we do things on both Wikipedia and Commons projects. We don't call lynch victims "niggers" because a "reliable source" from the Ku Klux Klan says so. Hence, all this arguing over Xinhua and whatever is for naught, because it brings us back to my original point. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Commons is concerned in such cases its okay to use the original caption and state that this is the original caption with Template:Original caption, the source of the caption, if it is deemed to be biased or erroneous and why it is inaccurate can be stated in the subsequent fields. We have lots of Nazi era filesfrom the German Federal archive and the original captions form part of the historical documentation of the file, this file would appear to be similar.--11:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand the point here: something published on paper or in other format does not mean it is reliable. Before you use the source, you should compare with other sources to make sure it's a creditable, even not agreed by all sides, information. What if there is an typo or misinformation from the author? If a book said Korean war was never happened in 1950 but in 1960, it is still reliable? I don't think so and one should not even use it when there are other sources to provide better cross reference. That's the spirit of writing credible articles.-Cobrachen (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

From this source: Rising Sun in the East, the actual description is this, "IJN Special Naval Landing Forces troops in gas masks prepare for an advance in the rubble of Shanghai. Chemical weapons were utilized against the Chinese during the battle." - Imperial Japanese Navy photo from Brent Jones collection. STSC (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice that they have a better quality image that has fewer grainy artefacts and has greyscale ink colour which is less washed-out than the one that Commons currently has, and is of similar image resolution. It also looks like it wasn't artificially enlarged/zoomed in, and there aren't as many JPEG artefacts either. Pity about the ugly watermark in the corner though. I'm not a big fan of cropping things out just because of something in one corner, because it ruins the rest of the image. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The image you uploaded may not qualify as Public Domain because the web site requests a credit of "www.ussastoria.org".[11]

The site is a personal web site, so it is not a reliable source. We cannot use the caption for Wikipedia. The caption resembles that of the Japanese book. So it must be a translation of the same caption in Japanese which means the caption in the Japanese book is likely to be authentic. As for the description "Chemical weapons were utilized against the Chinese during the battle", IJN never disclose such an information because it is against Geneva Protocol. So it must be written by the web owner Brent Jones.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And that request is null and void from a legal standpoint, becuase he is not the copyright holder of the image, the Imperial Japanese Navy is. Note that he is asking for attribution out of kindness and good will for his work in remastering the image, and not because it is a legal obligation on our behalf ("Please provide a credit... as the result of my efforts and personal expense with this project"). We can provide attribution towards his efforts in providing the image in the file description out of good will, however the license will remain as Public Domain regardless of what we do. Remastering, scanning or archiving an old photograph does not grant artistic originality or ownership, see originality, threshold of originality, sweat of the brow, derivative work, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. ("In the U.S., reproductions of two-dimensional public domain artwork do not generate a new copyright... Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights—they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing"). Per PD-Japan-oldphoto, the image is PD, as it was taken before 1946. As for the caption, you are aware that the 1995 Japanese book is definitely not the first print reference to feature the image, right? Why are you so certain that Brent took the description from that book, and not somewhere else? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying Brent took the description from the book. Brent and the book took the description from the same (not physically) source. Because the picture of Brent does not have halftone dots while that of the book has.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have applied an attribution for Brent Jones, the person who has remastered the image, out of good will within the file description. As for the watermark, instead of cropping the image, I have erased it as best as I can, and it is pretty much invisible now. This is done as per policy, refer to WP:WATERMARK and Commons:COM:WATERMARK. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that ¥, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

History of Chinese in Australia

There's a request at WT:AUSTRALIA for the improvement of the article History of Chinese in Australia -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wives of Chinese monarchs

See talk:Princess Fu where the title for the wife of a monarch is being discussed. Is it "princess" or "queen"? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cancer villages

A Norwegian article by a famous broadcaster's website is called China's cancer villages. I have tried to find our article's about Cancer village, Cancer villages, the Wuli village in question, Cancer in China, Environmental protection in China. Do we have nothing about these topics? --Cornealslide (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China. The term "cancer village" is a neologism introduced by the media in recent times, and there have yet to be any scientific studies that make statistically significant correlations between certain villages and the likelihood of cancer. Remember that anecdotal evidence is not accepted as definitive evidence in scientific literature. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Cancer villages are examples of cancer clusters. I've created a redirect from cancer village so that cancer clusters can be found more easily. The cancer cluster article is pretty short and could probably use mention of the phenomenon in China.

There is also list of cancer clusters, which also does not include any entries from China. Looking at several entries, I see that the references tend to be to medical journal articles or governmental reports. Examples from China with high quality references could be added there.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Stale draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zhuang Xueben (ethnographic photographer)

If anyone is interested, there is a close-to-done bio of this photographer at AFC, which is untouched nearly a year. If someone can improve the sourcing a bit, we can go ahead and publish it. Anyone want to help clean it up? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to article space and cleaned it up. Still needs a lot of copyediting. -Zanhe (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Situation in the Ideological Sphere

I have created Concerning the Situation in the Ideological Sphere which I'm almost sure exists under some other title or section of an existing article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese article User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Template to display a Chinese calendar date through a list of Gregorian calendar dates

Hi, I wanted to ask this group first, but the Mid-Autumn Festival#Dates shows a list of Gregorian dates that are associated with Mid-Autumn Festival day. I thought that this might be a commonly used format across all Chinese holidays that are based on the Chinese calendar. Is there a template that would neatly put this information in a sidebox, and heck, even better if it can automatically generate the dates as needed given the Chinese calendar date? yellowtailshark (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a thought... we have {{convert}} for dimensional units... we should have another one for different calendar systems. If it doesn't exist, we should ask for the people who maintain Template:Convert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to help build one. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese military articles

FYI, there are two notices about Chinese related military articles at WT:MILHIST -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Chinese noodles}}

template:Chinese noodles has been proposed to be merged into template:noodle -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute

For several weeks I've been involved in a content dispute with another user over a number of articles related to the Sino-Indian border dispute. I just found out that an Indian-based IP (117.195.122.22) has been canvassing on the India noticeboard [12], so I thought it would be fair to also post a notice here. (Update: the IP is now suspected of being a sock puppet of an involved user. See investigation page.)

The dispute involves two related issues:

• Whether various sources cited in Lanak Pass and Kongka Pass are neutral and/or reliable (see discussion on Talk:Lanak Pass).

• Whether Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War is neutral and whether a number of articles should be included in that category, including Lanak Pass, Khurnak Fort, Galwan River, Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Sirijap, Dehra Compass, and Chip Chap River.

Also see the discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard and on CfD. -Zanhe (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD discussion: Unmanned aerial vehicles of China

Please see this CfD discussion.Comments welcome. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing help for info on how Japanese names are written in Chinese

Does anyone know of sources that talk about how Japanese names are written in Chinese?

I need sources for Japanese_name#Japanese_names_in_Chinese_languages WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I might not be able to help you find a source, but I do know that Chinese Wikipedia has an article somewhat related to what you're describing: zh:漢字使用國間專有名詞互譯. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese firefighting tank

This stub appears to be dead since 2008, with the exception of a few minor edits here and there every few years (e.g. categories). Is anyone interested in improving this article? I think that the topic is notable, but as the article currently stands, it's quite low quality. I don't even think this article is at the correct title - if we ever find out its official factory designation, it should be renamed to that. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Plan to edit healthcare reform article

As part of a class assignment for a course at Rice University, I plan to revise and edit the existing article on Healthcare reform in China. The article on Health care reform in the United States is very thorough and represented well. For a country as large and prominent as China, healthcare is incredibly important and the information on healthcare reform should be represented better. The article is underrepresented in several crucial areas that could offer a more comprehensive picture of the topic, such as a broader overview, health insurance laws, the Healthy China 2020 Project, and public opinion. This will provide a better picture of how healthcare currently stands as compared to in the past, since there is currently barely any information on the current state of healthcare. The section on history has a lot of information, but lacks sufficient in-line citations and resources to make stated facts valid. Past users have noted poor citations and lack of sections; I not only hope to fix these issues, but also to add more information from credible sources. I intend to use well-respected journals such as Health Policy, Feminist Economics, and New England Journal of Medicine as some of my sources to aid me in expanding the article. I hope to increase the article's quality from Start Class, since it is rated as High Importance on the importance scale. I welcome any advice, tips, and criticism as I work to develop this article! Deniselee26 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Er Wang Dong

I created Er Wang Dong (currently just a stub) for this treasure. Please feel free to help expand! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Article request: Tanci song

Is anyone interested in starting an article on Tanci (zh:彈詞), a ballad type from Suzhou? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Human flesh search engine needs to be globalized

The article at Human flesh search engine really needs to be globalized. The article essentially describes what is known as "doxxing" in English, however focuses entirely on Chinese examples. It originally claimed that human flesh searching is "an exclusively Chinese concept" and a "Chinese invention", which is completely non-factual and nonsensical, and has since been changed slightly to reflect reality. The topic is notable, but hardly warrants an article dedicated to China and nothing else. I think the article should be renamed, and the content completely revamped to represent a more worldwide view of the subject, reliable sources willing. "Doxxing" is a notable concept; exclusivity to China only is not. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd argue this is a common problem in discussing Chinese (but not exclusively Chinese) concepts. It's like how American sources often talk about "Allah" when discussing god and religion in majority Muslim areas, but then use "God" in other contexts. Chinese topics suffer from a pattern of over-exoticization. I would like to note however that searching doxxing leads to a very general article about Personally identifiable information. The distance between the topic Human flesh search engine and that topic is pretty big. Given that situation I would argue against a merger (which seems to be what you are proposing). I would recommend if you still want to propose a merger that you do so on the two concerned articles and then post here to invite people to join the discussion on PII talk page. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not exactly a merge as you've described. I think "doxxing" should be pulled out of the PII article (where it currently forms a single sentence at the end of the first section), and made into an article of its own, since it is a topic that is notable enough for its own page. Then, Human flesh search engine should be merged with this new article, which would be a globalized article that doesn't focus on any specific country, but a general worldwide view on the topic. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Taikonaut Corps

I notice there's articles for NASA Astronaut Corps , Canadian Astronaut Corps , European Astronaut Corps ; and we have List of Chinese astronauts , several lists of NASA astronauts also exist. Shouldn't we also have a Chinese Taikonaut Corps / Chinese Astronaut Corps article to complement the list by illustrating what we know of the structure of the taikonaut organization? -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)