Confusing naming conventions of Chinese rulers and people have been observed even though there are some guidelines on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese). Please apply those ideas if one wants to write a new article of Chinese history, considering the enormous number of people and information about China. kt2
Mosstoh reverted a whole lot of legimate editing I did earlier today. To Mosstoh, please do not revert major edits without discussion or comment! Clearly English is not your first language, you should accept that others may make legitimate changes to your text. Another gripe: all of your changes have no comment! This is very frustrating for those editing the same wiki, particularly as you make tens of changes in a row! (also posted to Mosstoh's talk page). I would like to propose a revert of the first section of the article to that which I edited. Could some others take a look and give their opinions please? -- prat
Hate to sound like I'm whinging, but User:Mosstoh has just made a second silent revert to the original version. I overwrote it, and copied & pasted to preserve other data added in the meantime, but this is getting tiresome! -- prat
Same here. Mosstoh, can you incorporate your interpretations instead of wholesale edition of the article? kt2
What has happened to this article? It needs dramatic rewriting, and probably a wholescale reversion to a much earlier version to make it salvageable. It seems as though one user has effectively highjacked this article and turned a superior article into an inferior one. I have every sympathy with prat, kt2 and others over their complaints, going by what has happened to this article. Maybe the starting point should be to suggest what was the latest best version of this article and revert to it, or should a wholescale rewriting of the text start from the version here. Either way, something has to be done to this article. We should be rewriting articles to improve them, not disimprove them, though it does appear that the disimproving in the work of one or two individuals who have been ignoring the advice and work of everyone else. FearÉIREANN 07:19 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I suggest a revert to this version (/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_China&oldid=986842) and then to merge-in useful bits added by other users and even from the user who did the dramatic rewrite. Also, 202.156.2.91 reverted my revert without comment the day I left on holiday and Mosstoh (who almost certainly is the same person) began editing from that version again. This is not at all in the wiki spirit and this person's prose is terrible - not to mention that he removed a good deal of material that was here before and very annoyingly makes dozens of edits in a row which makes the edit history useless. --mav
Im not 202, please dont make such hypothesis on me, its cruel. And if you have any problem with reading Chinese fonts on this revert version, please use the encoding instead of complaining, btw, that revert version u shown is ludicrous. I think we should all start it with the current one. -- reply[?]
I dont do that for personnal attack, Yellow Emperor was based on legend before it was written down into historical accounts, we're still refering to these account instead of recently folk tales among Chinese. Technically it should be Yellow Lord, emperor refer to huangdi which was conined by Ying Zheng 2,000 years later. First, Noah was born before the beliefs of Christianly hence he had nothing to do with that and secondly the beliefs reached europe much lately. -- reply[?]
This page has now been reverted back to the community-edited version of the 31st of May last. It is regrettable to have to do that but the version created since is inaccurate, littered with mistranslations and is poorly written. It also was the work of one person who ignored the contributions of others and make major changes against their wishes. Apologies to all those who added in spelling corrections, etc in the meantime but from talking to people who worked on this page, there really was no choice but to go back to the last most widely worked on page, which reflected the consensus of contributors and had english of a standard that an english-language encyclopædia could stand over. FearÉIREANN 02:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've been going through this article starting from the bottom and so far it looks like most of the work Mosstoh/202 has done is to obscure widely-known transliterations with another transliteration system. For example Sun Yet-Sen was changed to Sun Zhongsan. I've also noticed a great deal of needless and distracting use of Unicode after nearly every Chinese term and name. This is not desirable in an overview article like this and that information is best suited for the first line of a biography or a term and not here (a great many browsers will render this is a series of question marks or boxes). Another thing that I've seen is embedded links to Google searches that are in Chinese. I fail to see how that is useful and it certainly is not a standard thing to do here in wikiland. Well, back to copyediting. ---mav 03:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I merged-in all the non-Mosstoh/202 edits that relate to the current text. I tried to find things I could salvage from Mosstoh/202's version but I couldn't. Boy is this page's history a mess. --mav 03:21 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Removed statement about common writing system bridging accents and dialects. This is a bit misleading since the current accents and dialects formed a very long time after the writing system.
Also the relationship between the dialects and Chinese writing is much more complex than that statement makes appear. After the Tang dynasty or so, the form of Chinese using in formal writing was not very similar to the spoken Chinese.
--- Roadrunner
This generalization also bothers me....
The Mongols managed to retain a distinct identity.
So does the Manchus with their pigtails... -- reply[?]
Sorry this sound pretty non-standard history....
People have also noted the similarities between Chinese and hieroglyphics, Mayan writing and everything else that they don't understand. This is not a mainstream view of history among historians of China. I strongly suspect that historians of the Middle East probably don't think much of it either.
Who are you, I hope you understand the Sumerian is just a figurative example. -- reply[?]
Oh well, I do understand your job mav, so please revert that back to MAY 28 2003, before I did the prose. -- reply[?]
Oh mav, could you please remove these links from that revert, I do not like my Maps to be included. -- reply[?]
Thanks mav you such a nice person, I had seen your pic. :) -- reply[?]
A paragragh was devoted to explain how the Qin conquest fitted nicely with the ideology of Jiuzhou, which was promoted since the Period of Warring States. Does it imply that Qin Shihuangdi unified China based on this ideology? Shihuangdi has been known for his zealous support of Legalism, which was observed in executiions of Confuscianists and burning of books. Any Confuscianist view was unlikely to be adopted even if the Confuscianist Shangshu had quoted Jiuzhou. kt2 22:46 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|