Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:20, 13 December 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Arilang1234, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

September 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Boxer Rebellion has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://chinarains.blogspot.com/2007/12/112007yuan-weishi-historical-perpective.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion edits

Hi, and welcome to Misplaced Pages.

I believe that there are various issues with the new section you added to the Boxer Rebellion article. I have moved it to the talk page temporarily for discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiyuan, etc.

Arilang1234; your edits on the Boxer Rebellion article aren't, I'm afraid, up to scratch. The sentence structure is poor, their are numerous misused words, your date format is not consistent with the rest of the article and much of the information is presented elsewhere are is not really needed within the article.

I refer particularly to Boxer_Rebellion Revision as of 07:20, 5 September 2008. I wrote a large chunk of the article on the Taiyuan Massacre, your copy in the Boxer Rebellion article contradicts some of the spellings used there, is not as clearly written IMO and is better placed outside of the main page on the Boxer Uprising. Perhaps you could post any further additions on your suer page and then ask for assistance on the Talk:Boxer Rebellion page? You also appear to have added a lot of info on the Dowager Empress, which duplicates what is in the article about her.

Lastly a factual point: it seems strange to focus on the BMS, especially concerning Taiyuan, as Taiyuan was not a major posting for the BMS prior to 1900 as far as I'm aware. The_Sheo_Yang_Mission (later absorbed into the BMS) and the CIM appeared to have been the main protestant groups in Taiyuan Fu at the time. If you have more info (I was aware of but haven't yet included the details in the Taiyuan Massacre page - then please add it to the talk page and I'll try and incorporate it when the page gets converted from the simple quotes it holds now to being proper prose. Thanks. Pbhj (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Transparent1

I understand the importance of eunuchs in Chinese politics but your section on the chief eunuch is not relevant in relation to the Boxer rebellion. In that section, you introduce the chief eunuch but he is not subsequently mentioned and is not seen to play a role in the event. Therefore I removed that section as being irrelevant.

Additionally, I suggest the section entitled 'Diane Preston' should also be removed. Diane Preston is simply an author and you're using her book as a source of reference. It would make better sense to move the information she's contributing into the main body of the article, e.g. into the section 'Results' and add her book as a reference.

Finally, please take note of the comments from Pbhj. I believe your additions are making the article less coherent than it was previously.

Transparent1 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your new sections

Hi Arilang,

Your contributions need to be added under a different approach. Currently, you are adding new sections prior to the main body of the article. For somebody reading the article for the very first time, it makes it very difficult to see what is going on. You need to analyse the information you have and see how it can fit into the existing text so that the article as a whole tells a connected story.

Thanks for moving the Diana Preston info into the 'Results' section. However, the style is still not quite right. Have a look at how I've now changed it. Basically, you shouldn't need to mention Diana Preston in the body of the text at all. Just put down the key information and add a reference using the <ref> tag. The reference will automatically appear in the footnotes below. See if you can do the same with the other new additions you've made, e.g. Yuan Weishi, Alessandra Stanley.

Transparent1 (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion page

Hi Arilang1234,

Have a look at the discussion page for the Boxer Rebellion article. Click on the 'discussion' tab at the top of the article. Various users have commented on your contributions. Have a look at the comments. There is basically something very wrong with your additions which makes the article look terrible, so people are trying to restore it to a better state.

Read various sections from here before making any more changes so your style is consistent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Contents

Transparent1 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Arilang1234.

If you need help finding out how to edit Misplaced Pages, you can ask me on my talk page. On my talk page, click "new section" at the top to add a message. You can also get help at the help desk.

I see you're adding a lot of material to Boxer Rebellion. I guess you're doing a lot of work! But articles on Misplaced Pages are written by many editors, not by just one editor. On a different website you can write things and just put them up. On Misplaced Pages, you need to talk to other editors, and when many people agree that a new paragraph is good, then it can go in an article. At least, that's the way it usually works. On some articles where many people edit, it can take weeks of discussion to change a few words!

I'm sorry: I'm confused about the talk page of Talk:Boxer Rebellion. For some of the words, I'm not sure whether they're a comment by you, or part of what you want to put into the article.

Sometimes people add things directly into an article. But apparently many of your changes have been reverted. You need to take this as a sign that when you add something, there's a good chance that it doesn't have consensus: that others don't want it. So, I think it would be better to post your new material on the talk page first. You could, for example, write at Talk:Boxer Rebellion "(start of draft paragraph)", then put the material you want to add, then "(end of draft paragraph)", then write some comments that explain why you think it's a good idea to add that to the article. Then, people can help you fix the grammatical errors and punctuation errors and other problems. But please don't be surprised if people don't want to add your paragraphs. That happens a lot at Misplaced Pages: what one person wants to write in an article, others don't want. We have to discuss and compromise. Maybe instead of writing paragraphs, on the talk page you could say something like "I think the article should say more about ..." and talk to people about how to change the article.

You can ask me to fix errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation. I like doing things like that. I don't promise to do it because I might be busy, but you can ask.

It's not easy to write in a way that meets the neutral point of view policy. That's one reason to discuss things on the talk page.

When you edit, please use the "preview" button more. Instead of making many edits to an article, one after another, please use "preview" instead of "save page" for a while, and click "save page" when you're finished. Or, you can write things in a file on your computer, and copy it into the article when you're finished. It's harder for people to read the article history if you have many edits. You can find the article history by clicking "history" at the top of the page when looking at the article. It shows all the edits everybody did. There, you can find edits you did and you can click on the date to find the article the way it looked when you edited it. So you should be able to find any material you wrote and edited in.

You might want to create a page in your userspace. You can make pages with names like User:Arilang1234/Sandbox (or change the last part of the name to what you want). You can edit a draft article in a page like that, and then ask other people to look at it.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! About creating a page or pages in your user space: please remember that all pages on Misplaced Pages, even in your user space, must be part of the work to make an encyclopedia. See for example my page User:Coppertwig/Sandbox. I have lists of things to do, and I have some sections which are articles I'm working on; some of them I've already turned into articles, for example I-message, but I wrote them there first. I have other pages in my userspace, too. You can write things in a page in your user space, and then later maybe put parts of it into an article or make it into a new article. You can get other people to help you edit it. If it's in your user space it isn't part of the encyclopedia yet. To create User:Arilang1234/Sandbox, just click on it right here in this sentence, and it will say that the page doesn't exist, but it will also give you a link called "create this page". Click there, and type in some stuff, and you create the page. See Help:Starting a page.

You can write some stuff in your user space and then ask me to look at it, or ask other users, or post a message on an article talk page asking people to look at it. Then we can help decide whether it's good to put that information in an article or not, and help fix mistakes in it.

I don't know much about the subject you're writing about. Maybe I can learn a little, and help you figure out how to write in a neutral-point-of-view way.

If the material isn't good for that article, it might be good in a different, related article, or a new article. It has to follow the policies, though (WP:V WP:NOR WP:NPOV etc.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You posted material to Misplaced Pages:Sandbox, which is one sandbox for everyone, but things will be reverted there very quickly. I moved it to User:Arilang1234/Sandbox, which is your own sandbox. I'll try to find time to look at it in a few hours. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What sources is it based on? (i.e. what books or what web pages etc. did you get the information from?) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right: you can't use Misplaced Pages articles as sources. You have to use books, magazines, newspapers, reliable websites, etc. Only good, reliable sources: not all books are good. See WP:RS. Where did you find the information? Did you get it from other Misplaced Pages pages, or from books or what? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the Catholic encyclopedia is probably OK as a source; I'm not sure. The other source you're using, the review of books, I'm doubtful about: I think it's probably not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. I don't know anything about it.

Every source has a point of view. The Catholic encyclopedia may have a Catholic point of view. That's OK, but to write a Misplaced Pages article we need more than one source, with more than one point of view. You can look for other sources, or you can work together with other editors who have other sources.

These parts of your writing look to me as if they're from a particular (Western) point of view: "great scholars" "the words of Christ" "modern weapons making" "two great cultures" "whose ancestors were primitive tribal nomads" "systematically killing", "in the end causing the downfall and collapse of their own empire" "when Britain was on its way to becoming the Empire that the Sun never set." (possibly OK as colourful language, but probably not NPOV enough) "the primitive Manchu Dynasty" Having quotes from two British people: how about quotes from Chinese people? "old and tired Manchu Dynasty" "humiliating defeat" "which lasted only 260 years" (seems like a long time to me!!)

I don't understand why you mention Harry G. Gelber: is he the author of one of your sources? Is the sentence about him supposed to be part of an article?

It would be good if you could find sources that give a different point of view, especially an Eastern point of view.

Do you have an idea about which article this material could go in, and which part of the article? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Learning how to edit

I am a learner on wiki,and I wish to have as many editors as possible to help me.Please feel free to criticize me and help ne to improve.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been reported at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Hello Arilang1234. I'm leaving you the official warning about revert wars. There will be no block issued this time, but you should try to obtain consensus for any future edits on Boxer Rebellion. You may respond to the 3RR report if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial feedback

Hi Arilang,

Some comments on the sections found on your user page:

• There's no need for a bullet point on the first paragraph of 'Long Term Causes of the Boxer Rebellion'. Too much details on the missionaries: I think you're trying to say the missionaries facilitated cultural exchanges between East and West?
• As this is really an English article, there's no need to include the Chinese characters for any of the names.
• You need to have a space added after the punctuation marks such as the full stop and the comma.
• When mentioning people like Matteo Ricci and Johann Adam Schall von Bell, there's no need to mention their dates of birth. Since these names to linked to their own Wiki pages, this information can be found there if the reader needs to find out.
• The writing needs to be more objective. For example, you say 'great scholars' but 'great' is somewhat subjective. You should leave out the word 'great'.
• There are a number of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes which need correcting. I can give you a hand if you need it.
• From reading the section 'Long Term Causes of the Boxer Rebellion', it's not clear the section is making a good argument... so what exactly were the causes?
• Under 'Short Term Causes...', you quote two British men who made their comments in the 18th century, more than a hundred years before the Boxer Rebellion. I wouldn't consider the impact of these comments as 'short term'.
• Again, no need for bullet points in the 'Short Term...' section.
• Too much details on the Opium Wars (which are described elsewhere on Misplaced Pages). Perhaps the details should go on those pages instead?

I'm not sure what you've written ties in with the Boxer Rebellion. Looking at the existing Boxer Rebellion article, it says that the 'uprising began as an anti-foreign, anti-imperialist peasant-based movement in northern China'. Perhaps you ought to write a section which explains where this xenophobia amongst the peasants comes from. I think that's what your 2 sections 'Long Term Causes...' and 'Short Term...' are trying to do indirectly.

Transparent1 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback,it is very useful to me,I really need all the advice I can get. What I am trying to say is, Ming Dynasty was already a World Power on many ways.(1)World's largest Navy 郑和七下西洋 Zheng He's ocean going fleet was No.1 of the world. (2)Ming's army were using rockets,cannons, hand grenades,land mines, etc, 200 years before Manchu came along.Why did they stay with bow and arrows is beyond me. (3)If Manchu could not produce modern weapons, they could always buy, but they didn't. (4)It is a big mistake to say China=Manchu.Majority of Chinese were, and are, Han ethnic. And Manchu was, and is, a tiny minority group. (5)Ming was ultra strong in her time. There were wars(big one)with Japan three times, and Ming won three times. (6) Ming had many brilliant scholars,scientists,many advance inventions.Manchu had none. (7) Manchu deserved to be crushed by the western powers, because it was backward, primitive, and barbaric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think the argument you're trying to put forward has anything to do with the Boxer Rebellion. You're making a comparison between the Ming and Qing dynasties and saying that the Qing dynasty was not as good as the Ming dynasty. Whether or not the Manchu 'deserved' to be crushed is very subjective. I think you have dug up some new facts that can be put into Misplaced Pages but they need to go on the relevant pages. Transparent1 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you,Transparent1.May be "Christainity In China,from Ming to Qing". What you think?Arilang1234 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuesday01

I presume you've seen this page already? http://en.wikipedia.org/Christianity_in_China Transparent1 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To Transparent1, not a problem, my perspective is entirely different. My emphasis is on missionary point of view, from Church point of view. I believe it can be developed into a big project, with lots of help, of course.Arilang1234 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an answer for you on my talk page, with some questions for you. If you would like me to fix grammar on your user page, you can ask me to. You can also ask me to fix the spaces around the comma and period.

Is what you wrote on your user page supposed to be all for one article? I think it may be better to put small parts of it into different articles. It will need some changes, too. I can help better with the changes when I know where you're thinking of putting it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied at my talk

Discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Arilang1234 asking for help.

I fixed some grammar and punctuation.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Insertion of Chinese characters. It tells when to put Chinese characters in an article and when not to. If there's a wikilink to a page that has the Chinese characters, then it says not to put them.

I asked you some questions on my talk page; I don't think you've answered all of them.

I think that before your material is ready to go into an article or articles, it needs these things:

• After you tell me where you're thinking of putting it, I'll comment on organizing it. It will probably need to be changed: putting things in a different order, deleting some parts maybe, etc.
• The references should be formatted, or at least clearly indicate what book or what web page etc. they're referring to. Full bibliographic information is needed, as I told you before.
• It must be neutral. An article can't be from the Ming perspective. It can describe the Ming perspective and also describe some other perspectives.

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No links in headers please

Hi, please don't link items in the title or headings, as you did in this edit. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links. NJGW (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just be sure to have a look at the Manual of style when every you have a formatting question, and you can also check out wp:help for all sorts of questions. Don't be afraid to ask questions, as most editors are happy to help and can show you where to find any answer you're looking for. I'm off to bed right now, but let me know if you need any assistance along the way. I'll put a list of helpful links at the top of this page for you. NJGW (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang, just want to point out that you haven't been using the summaries. You should put at least a couple words to indicate what you're doing ("adding incident", "better source", "moving text to better location", etc.) so that other editors have an easier time following the evolution of the articles. Otherwise, keep up the good work. NJGW (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back overlinking

Hi.

I've rolled back your edit here, which looked like WP:overlinking to me. In particular, please note Misplaced Pages:MOS#Section_headings: "... Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones which link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems." Thanks for trying to improve the article, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi. I noticed you are using an incomplete referencing format for citing news stories in 2008 baby milk scandal. Instead of using a malformed {{cite web}}, may I suggest using the appropriate parameters in {{cite news}} for news stories? For example:

{{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}

For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Citation templates. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out my mistakes, I am new here, and only beginning to learn. I use the {{cite web}} because it is on the tool bar. I can use {{cite news}} but I do not know where to get it. Can you help me?Arilang1234 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• What toolbar are you using? Is it the gadget you activated in preferences? You can find the cite news template at the Misplaced Pages:Citation templates link. You can keep using the cite web if you like, but make sure you fill out the right parameters. I noticed that they being lumped together instead of being used separately. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think I have found (cite news)template, please have a look at ref 10.Have I done the right thing?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you did the right thing, but make sure you place the references after the punctuation (not before) and usually, at the end of the sourced content. It looks like you can place the reference at the end of the quote. Also, notice that the byline appears at the end of the article, so you can add the authors name to the citation. Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I want to create a page for Zhu Yonglan, but I do not know how, can you help me?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:PROF? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I find it hard to understand all those words. Anyhow, thanks for you help, I need lots of them, simply I am at the elementary level.Arilang1234 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. This is easy. You want to satisfy Criterion 1 of the academic notability guideline before you create Zhu Yonglan. Go to Misplaced Pages:PROF#Criteria. Choose 1 of the 9 items. That's it. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang, just a note on citations, be sure that the ref goes at the end of the sentence (after the period), unless there's some important reason to have the ref earlier in the sentence (like multiple references in a sentence. This makes the articles a lot easier to read, and shows that the whole sentence is referenced, not just the first part. NJGW (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you find an English version of this ref? It's very hard for readers to verify that all the information you wrote there is in that article, and also hard to tell how reliable the source is when it's not in English. NJGW (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit introduces a blog as a source. We can't do this as it violates wp:v (the ability to easily verify where the info comes from) and wp:RS (the need for a proven reliable source). Blogs are actually strictly not allowed in almost all cases. What we need is a trusted news outlet or a journal article. NJGW (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out my mistake NJGW, I will continue looking for an acceptable translation of the article. I think the info presented in the article is valuable, pity that right at this moment is only in Chinese.Arilang1234 (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: China Media Project

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as China Media Project, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://jmsc.hku.hk/cms/content/blogcategory/1/6/8/32/, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:China Media Project and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:China Media Project with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:China Media Project.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:China Media Project/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:China Media Project saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! V. Joe (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on China Media Project

To answer your concern, I don't know. You may be right... but I will have to find out at a later time V. Joe (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Arilang1234! It's nice to see you. I put a message for you at Talk:China Media Project. If you tell me which sentences are copied from a web page (which web page?) and which sentences you wrote yourself, I may be able to help you re-write the article so there are no copyright concerns. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No time... I don't have enough knowledge or time to go over your article as far as creative commons. Sorry and good luck V. Joe (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hello. You have a reply to your note on my talk page. --Moonriddengirl 12:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also replied on my own Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion edits

Hi Arilang -- I'm not clear about what you mean when you add "citation needed" just before a citation! I'll wait for you to let me know, but will undo in a little while unless I misunderstand. All the best. ch (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yangzhou massacre

People have suggested that you create an article on the Yangzhou massacre, but for some reason you have continued to resist this. Instead you added a whole section to the article on Wang Xiuchu and you keep adding information about the massacre to the already very long article on the Qing dynasty. The result was messy, and instead of one single, easy-to-understand article on the massacre, you scattered information (in greater than necessary detail) among other articles. Can you tell me why you continue to do this? I'm really not sure what is so hard to understand about the idea of putting detailed information in an article specifically devoted to the topic, and putting less information in the main Qing article!

Despite the fact that I pointed out that the Macartney embassy material is already covered at its own article, you have also added a new and very big section on the Macartney embassy to the Qing dynasty article -- in fact, it's even longer than the article about the Macartney embassy article itself! You keep asking people to help you become a better editor, and people tell you, but you keep ignoring their advice and making the same mistakes! I can only think of one reason why you might want to pack the Qing article with information that belongs in detailed separate articles: you are absolutely desperate to add anti-Qing information and sentiments to the Qing article. That is why I keep hammering you about your POV. Your POV and absolute determination to add as much anti-Qing sentiment and information as you can are causing you to make these mistakes. Only when you stop thinking "I've got to tell the world about the Qing!" can you start becoming a good editor.

The Yangzhou massacre material and the Macartney embassy material should be covered in detail at their own articles, where you can add as much information as you like. But the main Qing dynasty article should be kept as "brief and clean" as possible. That means you can refer to the Yangzhou massacre and the Macartney embassy, but you shouldn't make these into long detailed sections. If people are interested in more information they can click on the wikilinks -- that is what they are for.

I'm quite busy in real life and I don't have time to be constantly cleaning up after your poor edits. If you can't understand what good editing is about, I suggest you cool down and stop editing for a while.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang, I put a message for you on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

There's a discussion that concerns you at User talk:Coppertwig#User Arilang. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchus and Mongols

There is an interesting article on the web that discusses the way the Mongolians see China, giving quite a bit of perspective on history. It touches on the Manchus as well as the Chinese, Russians, Turks, etc.

I'm referring you to this article not so you can judge whether the views of the Mongolians are "right" or "wrong" -- from the Chinese point of view they would be considered "wrong" -- but so that you can get an idea how a different perspective on history can give rise to a completely different POV. (Incidentally, I have personal experience being picked on by Mongolian nationalist youth at Metropolis disco).

Hope you enjoy the article.

I've also added a note at User_talk:Coppertwig.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the power of emperors, I'm rather confused. The quote you give talks about the Ming. My rather superficial understanding is that the breakdown of communication between emperors and bureaucrats was one factor in the fall of the Ming (based on Ray Huang's book and the Misplaced Pages article on Wanli). But I'm not sure what that has to do with the absolute powers of the Qing emperors.

I think what we need is a source stating explicitly that the Qing emperors had greater and more untrammelled powers than previous dynasties -- not merely the Ming. This kind of information should be available somewhere, possibly in some treatise on the governmental structures of the Qing.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just looking round, thought you might find this interesting:

Bathrobe (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ray Huang's book only covers limited section of Ming history. As I mentioned before, Ming's history suffered the most sever distortion in the hand of Qianlong. He not only burned tens of thousands of books, he personally made sure that for those remaining books he didn't burn, any single words that touched on misdeed done by Manchus, Mongols, Jurchens, or Tartars, all those words had either been deleted, or modified. This is the reason why Qing and other Manchu related articles were so lacking in opposite POV, because history books(or most of the history books) had been modified, words had been changed. And the communist China education and propaganda department made the situation worst. I know you were saying ROC and PRC wanted to keep those territories inherited from Qing, but that is not the full picture, because you forgot to look at the problem from a different perspective. Look at it this way, Xinghai revolution's main slogan was "Lets get rid of the Tartars, lets resurrect Chunghua". PRC defeated ROC and took over China, enemy's enemy is your friend, so PRC has to put Manchus under glorious light. It is more politic and less history, my friend. This is the real reasons why all the Manchu related articles are singing a similar tune composed by editors educated under communist China educational system. If you read Yuan Weishi you will understand more. I consider myself lucky because I didn't grow up under that draconian regime, and wasn't brain-washed like many others. You cannot imagine how distorted a person can become if that person was subject to 20 or 30 years of 'thought control', or brain-wash.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yan Lianke

Though it's been a while since your changes, I'd like to express my thanks. Your additions have improved the entry quite a bit in my opinion. I made some small changes to the language to make it flow more naturally, and made a modification to a translation of the quote from Mao Zedong, changing "heavy" to "important" (为人民利益而死，就比泰山还重). It's good to have users like you who can help bring Chinese language sources to English speakers. Stevendaniels88 (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Arilang. Thanks for the information you've put on my talk page. But I would like to know where all these texts come from, so don't forget to give me the references!--Madalibi (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ROC flag

Here is a photo I took of my 96x144cm flag I got last week. It's only dark in the middle because of my shadow. It was taken in my room. I want to take some photos outside with it, but not sure where I can do it. User:Zscout370 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can see that it is quite dark. However, when it appears on monitor, you can use lighter color, otherwise it is just look like Black. Can you tell me where can I find a tutorial on how to make .gif ?Arilang1234 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. The format of the image, SVG, is more technical to do, so I will make the changes. I just want people to agree to the changes. User:Zscout370 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I mentioned the dark part in the middle is my shadow. I need to photograph my flag outside. User:Zscout370 07:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Arilang. I replied to your messages at my talk page.

Personalized signature

Hi, To personalize the appearance of your signature using the 4 tildes (~~~~) for preferred colors and style:

1. Click on "my preferences" at top of page
2. Open "User profile"
3. Check "Raw signature"
4. Enter the html code you desire in the "Signature:" box.
5. Save and close

There is no template to do this, so you have to type in your own html code. As an example, mine is:

<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> ^]</font></b></i>

which produces  JGHowes  10:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) The color green is #008000, a chart showing code for all colors is here. Hope this helps!

The "Anti-Qing sentiment" page

Hi Arilang, I know you’re very busy collecting new material for many pages at the same time, but I think you need to spend time addressing issues on the Anti-Qing sentiment page. For one, try to be more careful about the structure of your edits. The "Famous anti-Qing persons" section is very messy: it has no order that I can detect, it looks like a collection of citations (never a good idea), and it mixes Western commentators (Macartney) with 19th-century rebellion leaders (Ma Hualong), intellectuals who lived under the Qing (Lü Liuliang), and modern historians (Yuan Weishi) without explaining why.

The inclusion of some other people is dubious: Liang Qichao worked for the Qing government during the Hundred Days' Reform and Zheng Zhilong surrendered to the Qing in 1646 almost as soon as he was asked! Lu Xun was very critical of traditional society (and of literary inquisitions), but I don’t think he stood out as an anti-Qing figure.

See also my comments in the talk page, where I proposed to merge Anti-Manchuism with Anti-Qing sentiment and to discuss only examples of anti-Qing thinkers or social movements during the Qing, presented chronologically. You could also design thematic sections like "Anti-Manchu intellectuals in the early Qing" (Wang Fuzhi, Gu Yanwu, Lü Liuliang, etc.); "Anti-Qing rebellions" (White Lotus Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion, etc.) and "Revolutionary rhetoric in the late Qing" (Sun Yatsen, Zou Rong, Zhang Binglin). To send the right message to other editors, I think it's important that you make the changes on your own. Be confident: I know you can do it! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that you don't need to engage in another long debate with Bathrobe in the talk page, and I know how tiring it is to be engaged in conflicts that sound personal, especially in a "foreign language" like English. So let's forget about that and let's discuss the Anti-Qing sentiment page instead! I think it is promising, but it can be vastly improved. Thank you for reacting to my suggestions, by the way. Now what do you think of my proposal to divide the article into three sections: 1. "Ming loyalism in the early Qing"' 2. "Anti-Qing rebellions"; and 3. "Late-Qing revolutionaries"? The current content would be easy to integrate (Sun Yat-sen in 3; Hong Xiuquan and Ma Hualong in 2; Koxinga in 1) and the new structure would be a convenient frame to add new material (Wang Fuzhi in 1, White Lotus Rebellion in 2, etc.).

You could also rephrase the lead paragraph after reading the following short article, which defines the issues and would be a good reference for any discussion of Wang Fuzhi's anti-Manchuism:

• Gasster, Michael (1998). "Anti-Manchuism." In Modern China: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism, edited by Ke-Wen Wang, pp. 11-13. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities. New York: Routledge. ISBN-10: 0815307209.

Maybe Gasster's article will also convince you that anti-Manchuism is difficult to distinguish from anti-Qing sentiment. Would you agree to merge the two articles under a single title? I could do it if you want.

Anyway, do your best, and don't be discouraged by other editors!

Madalibi (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be at loggerheads again.

Actually, I'm quite happy that you replaced some of the Fact tags at anti-Qing sentiment with citations from sources. I feel that one of your citations actually proves the opposite, and I therefore removed the sentence, but that's not important. The fact that you went in and put up citations for your edits is a great advance.

I'm sorry for comparing you to a child scattering toys. I've sometimes felt exasperated that you keep marching ahead with new edits when there are big problems with what you've written. When you go back and try to fix up problems with your edits it makes a very big difference, and I hope you will keep it up.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang. I think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not sure I agree with all of your points. First, you may not embrace the term "anti-Manchuism" and its racist overtones, but the anti-Manchu phenomenon certainly existed in history: it has not been "made up by people." Look at the writings of Lü Liuliang, or at Zou Rong's 鄒容 "Revolutionary Army" (革命軍) or Zhang Binglin's revolutionary pamphlets: they are clearly and unambiguously anti-Manchu. And I'm sure you agree that Lü, Zou, and Zhang were also clearly anti-Qing. I am NOT saying that all criticisms of the Qing are examples of "anti-Manchuism," but at least it seems clear that anti-Manchuism and anti-Qing sentiment are not "like fire and water." Of course, discussing anti-Manchuism in the past does not mean labeling modern people as "racist" or "Han chauvinistic" (and I agree that Han chauvinism is a very POV wiki, by the way).

I proposed redirecting anti-Manchuism to anti-Qing sentiment because I see anti-Manchuism as a part of anti-Qing sentiment. We could then explain the distinction between the two in the merged page. And once again: this would not imply that all anti-Qing sentiment is "anti-Manchu" in a racist way.

What I now understand that I didn't before is that you want to talk about a resurgence of anti-Qing sentiments today. This is why you wanted to discuss Yuan Weishi's views of history, and perhaps the whole Yan Chongnian incident. If this is so, why not create a wiki called "Anti-Qing sentiment (modern)"? I personally would be interested to learn more about people calling the PRC government the "Later Qing" and the current elite the "new Eight Banners." (A side question: is this really anti-Qing, or more anti-CCP rhetoric?) But I still think this topic is distinct from the activities of Koxinga or the writings of Sun Yat-sen. For one, I see a big difference between being anti-Qing while you live in the Qing state, and being critical of the Qing dynasty's role in Chinese history from today's point of view.

To summarize, my solution to this whole problem would be as follows:

1. Redirect anti-Manchuism to anti-Qing sentiment.
2. Explain in anti-Qing sentiment that not all expressions of anti-Qing sentiment were "anti-Manchu," and that some "anti-Manchu" rhetoric was used as a political tool in anti-Qing movements, but dropped as soon as the movements had succeeded (as claimed in the article by Gasster that I linked to above).
3. Let anti-Qing sentiment be a historical discussion on both anti-Manchu and anti-Qing movements.
4. Create a new page called Anti-Qing sentiment (modern) (or something like that) where Yuan Weishi's points of view as well as current blog discussions on the PRC government can be addressed.
5. Finally, add a short section called "Modern resurgence" to the page on anti-Qing sentiment, and link to the wiki on Anti-Qing sentiment (modern) as the "Main page."

I think all these changes (which are actually not very hard to make) would clarify the issues and get rid of most disagreements between editors. What do you think? --Madalibi (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good suggestion. However, I don't agree on the need for a page on Anti-Qing sentiment (modern). I feel it would be better to just have a section on "Modern resurgence" at the page on anti-Qing sentiment, without a separate page on the modern resurgence.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was proposing a new page so that the section on "Modern resurgence" doesn't become the largest one in a page that should be devoted to historical discussions. I still can't pinpoint it right now, but I think we need something on modern controversies surrounding the historical significance of the Qing dynasty (Manchuness vs. sinicization; role in "decline of China"; role in leading to the modern boundaries of the PRC; etc.). All points of view should of course be presented even-handedly and in non-POV language. Pandora's... hope? --Madalibi (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are great!

You are the best! I wish there are more editors like you. Go ahead and do it. I hope one day you will become a famous professor of East Asia History.Hehehehe Arilang 07:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous assessment! I was about to sign off for a few hours, so maybe you can go ahead with some of the changes: I will help when I come back. Let's keep improving Misplaced Pages together! --Madalibi (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Another comment from Bathrobe

I notice that you have found another source for saying that Koxinga was worshipped as a god. I think it is fine to find sources. However, it has produced a situation of imbalance: 3 of 5 citations on the page about anti-Qing sentiment are there in support of one statement in the article -- that Koxinga was worshipped as a god.

Unfortunately, the fact that Koxinga was worshipped as a god is almost completely irrelevant to the article itself. My feeling is that directing fully 60% of citations at this one statement verges on overkill.

As two other editors have already suggested, this information would really be better placed at the page on Koxinga himself. Rather than hunting for three citations to support a single point, wouldn't it be better to spend some effort moving that particular section to the article on Koxinga?

Bathrobe (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever-Victorious Army gallery

Thanks for the gallery! I think you should add some of these pictures (not the pictures of Hong Xiuquan, but the other ones) to the page on the Ever Victorious Army, which is a bit dull right now. And speaking of galleries: I proposed removing the "Ming arsenal" gallery from the page on the Southern Ming Dynasty because all the weapons are too early. If you agree, could you remove it on your own? (I'm very busy with other things right now.) Thanks! --Madalibi (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Madalibi (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary answers to some of your questions

I've tried to answer some of your queries here on my talk page. I'll try to find time to write more in the next few days! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just posted a new message on my talk page regarding your questions. I will try to discuss Wang Yangming in the next few days. Cheers, --Madalibi (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Another new message. --Madalibi (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu Qing

Hi Arilang. Glad to see you've been active, but I'm afraid this title won't do! "Genocide" doesn't apply to the events you describe, as Qing armies only killed the population of cities that did not surrender. Maybe "atrocities" is better, but I (and other editors) would certainly prefer "massacres." Also, some of the events you note don't seem to fit in here: how is the Taiping rebellion a "massacre" ("genocide," "atrocity") committed by the Qing? Also, most of the decline in the population of Sichuan is usually attributed to banditry (Zhang Xianzhong, etc.), not to the Qing. And you can't attribute the decline in population from 1600 to 1650 entirely to the Qing conquest. How about banditry, epidemics, famines, etc.? They all took a heavy tool in the 1630s and 1640s before the Manchu conquest. Another problem: not a single reference for the casualties. Notes 1 and 2 say things completely different from what you claim, and note 3 only confirms a date. And how about dates: when did the Jiangyin and Chaozhou massacres take place? If you don't want to give a misleading impression of strong POV, you probably need to mention that the Qing explicitly ordered its troops not to plunder cities that surrendered. Massacres only took place when cities resisted (Yangzhou, Jiangyin, Jiading), and then the massacres were committed mostly by Han-Chinese troops (I can find scholarly references for this claim), not "the Manchus" or "Manchu soldiers": this seems like an important fact to point out. Also, "Manchu Qing" (probably a direct translation of "Man-Qing" 滿清) does not exist in English, so you need to remove that phrase from the title. In the text, you'll have to say something like "the Qing," "the Manchu-led Qing dynasty," "Qing troops," "Banner troops," etc. Finally, as far as format is concerned, you should avoid inserting links in section titles. Ok, I'm out of time for tonight! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Genghis Khan quote

“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”

@Madalibi, how much differences is there between Genghis Khan and Manchu emperors? Arilang 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Destruction under the Mongol Empire#Historical accounts

@Madalibi, what Mongols did to Baghdad, is similar to what Manchu did to Ming, and Han Chinese in general, would you agree? Arilang 10:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Arilang. To answer your question: no, I don't think the Manchus did to the Ming (or to China, or to Han Chinese) what the Mongols did to Isamic civlization. First, the Manchus did not sack Beijing or Nanjing, which would have been the equivalents of Baghdad at the time. On the contrary they ordered Banner troops to be particularly careful not to plunder these cities, because they wanted to convince the residents that the mandate of heaven now belonged to the Qing and no longer to the Ming. After Li Zicheng took Beijing, the Qing officially presented themselves as the avengers of the fallen Ming. As Jerry Dennerline said, Dorgon listened to advice from recently surrendered Ming officials Fan Wencheng and Hong Chengchou, and adopted a strategy of pacification rather than one of "marauding for land, loot, and slaves."
• Li Zicheng was the one who plundered Beijing with his undisciplined Han-Chinese and Muslim troops, tortured officials, and set fire to the imperial palace. He would have become the emperor if the Manchus and Wu Sangui had not defeated him. I'm not saying he would have conquered southern China, but northern China would have been devastated even without the Manchu intervention.
• Even more than Li Zicheng, Zhang Xianzhong brought utter devastation to the Sichuan area. Unlike the Manchus, who did not force anybody to serve for them (former Ming officials in Beijing were happy to surrender to the Qing after what Li Zicheng had done to them), Zhang Xianzhong tortured officials, killed their families, etc. But his most terrible deed (certainly an atrocity by any standard) is that he conducted a thorough scorched-earth policy throughout Sichuan. The only reason why people today (including you) don't hate him is that he was a Han Chinese. He was a dangerously unstable, violent, and uneducated tyrant, and it was great for Chinese people that the Manchus got rid of him, even if they didn't do it "for Chinese people" per se.
• There were massacres during the conquest, of course. In Yangzhou, Jiading, Jiangyin, etc., Qing troops used terror tactics against the civilian population, which was also atrocious. But I would like to remind you that those who actually killed people were not Manchu soldiers themselves, but mostly Han-Chinese Bannermen: surrendered Ming troops. The entire campaign to conquer the south was also put in the hands of the future "Three Feudatories" (三籓) and their Han troops. They were the ones who massacred the population of Chaozhou and Guangzhou.
• Very importantly, the point of all these massacres was not to commit "genocide" against Han Chinese, but to terrify the civilian population of other cities into submission. By contrast with the early-13th-century Mongols, who systematically razed cities wherever they went and simply left afterwards, the post-1644 Manchus actually established a civilian administration in the cities they seized. And whereas the Yuan dynasty never developed strong control of the Chinese countryside and never really cared about Chinese peasants, the Qing developed stable rule that allowed the countryside to prosper (by pre-modern standards, of course). Wouldn't you say that this was a completely different approach to governance?
• The only part of Qing rule that I would call "genocidal" was the Qianlong emperor's policy toward the Dzungars in the late 1750s. The Dzungars were eliminated not because they were Buddhists, of course (the Qing emperors were Buddhists too, and they also sponsored Tibetan lamas), but because they were an enemy that kept bringing trouble to the Qing on its northwestern border. This is a little-known aspect of Qing history that deserves to be discussed more.
• I'm out of time for today, but we can keep discussing all this if you want! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is Genocide?

Genocide

Madalibi, you and me need to look closely at the definite meaning of 'Genocide'. According to the above quote: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part," and" causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Well, I can cite plenty of verifiable historical facts to support my argument that Manchus were 'Genocidal' in what they did to Han Chinese and other ethnicities, that is if you and me we both agree on the difinition of 'Genocide' according to the 1948 Geneva Convention. Arilang 09:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08 is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I moved the page to User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08 to salvage the content, and deleted Arilang1234/Sandbox/Charter 08. --Efe (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

While I welcome your efforts to contribute to wikipedia, perhaps you should let others contribute to the article you've created on Weiquan. I've added it to WP:CHINA, so hopefully others will. This is because according to your userpage, you have a predisposed inclination in favor of one side, and I've twice removed material that fails wikipedia policies on NPOV, and V. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi

Nice to know you. Thanks for your contributions to Charter 08 and Liu Xiaobo (intellectual).--Neo-Jay (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you upload any image, please be sure to not violate copyrights. For further information, see Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the articles Ming and Qing of course need to be expanded and modified, just as every other article at Misplaced Pages. I can understand your nationalist position as a Han Chinese. I am also a Han Chinese and also sympathy with the fall of Ming. But, I hope that our edits can meet Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View Policy. We might be more objective if we are not Han Chinese. Actually, Ming also did genocide to other ethnic groups such as Bo people (僰人). The history of Han Chinese is also a history of colonisation. With the expansion of its territory, how many other ethic groups were massacred and then extinct? Do we really care what crimes Qin Shi Huang and Han Dynasty committed to Yue peoples? Just because we were born as Han, we call Han's conquest of others as epic, and others' conquest of us as crime. Fair? As an individualist, I am first a human, then a Han Chinese. The value of individuals is higher than that of a nation. For me, Ming and Qing should be equally scrutinized and, if applicable, equally condemned. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom Arilang 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)