User talk:Rigley/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

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

Civil Rights Movement

Hi, in my comment at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) I've informally suggested Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968) (etc.) as an alternative. What do you think of that? (replying there, if you choose to reply, would be preferable to me - thanks). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject East Asia Scope & Ratings

Hello. This message is to inform you that I have called for a reexamination of the scope document and the ratings system used by the project. The ratings system especially has run into problems and could benefit from a simplification and generalizations. The scope, too, could be reexamined to the same end. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia and discuss the matters so that we can reach a community consensus. I'd like to have it done before Christmas, so I can spend the break making any necessary changes. The importance discussion is at the top of the page. The scope discussion is at the bottom, but we can move them together if we need to.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking down the Racism in the LGBT community page or the Race, Ethnicity and the LGBT community page

I took down the nomination. And it restored itself. I need abit of help.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I just realized we have not gotten permission to change anything. What I should have done is said I agreed with you and wished to withdraw if so happened but we should have waited to see if the others agreed with it. I hope we don't get into any trouble. Maybe we should consider revising our edits. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your removal

Your removal here [1] claiming that "Rm synthesis/distortion of sources. Nth said abt Li's actions having to do with him being a loyal Chaoxianzu. Plus, 'policy' not ascribed to him but to Wang Lequan" is half true. If you look down the source you will see this line, "第三个人是李德洙。他前不久还是中国民族事务委员会主任。文章称他为中共的民族政策理论家。根据人权组织人权观察的说法，李德洙是中国第一个领导人明确的说大量的汉族移民将最终解决少数民族问题。". Translated as "According to Human Right watch, Li DeZhu is the first Chinese politician Specifically said that large immigration of Han will solve the ethnic minorites problem. It clearly meant that Li even as a minority vividly supports the government and unity in the nation, and not afraid of using strong measures? I agree the line is a bit broken but i think rephrasing it would be much better --LLTimes (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Quigley, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Be kind to others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself
• Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not create attack pages as you did at Talk:Inner Mongolia. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Quigley (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

it's probably a failed attempt at TWINKLE. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

are you interested in rewriting sino-tibetan war

As you know, Sino-Tibetan War, which was written by me, is under the copyvio investigation, as are other articles edited by me in july, can you rewrite the main body paragraphs and shake up the grammar, and i will come back to it and change it even further, if they are changed enough so that the material does not resemble the source then it can be cleared of copyvio, you seem to be focused on tibet related articles so it would be great if you can assist in rewriting any content i added to tibet related articles in the copyvio investigation. If you can help, focus on edits i made during july, back from this editДунгане (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents on China

Hi, I noted that someone added the material from the Wikileaks documents to the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China article. [2]. Do you think the material belong there, or be better placed on articles regarding Chinese hacking?--PCPP (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Chinese Expansionism

The motivation to delete this redirect seems like POV pushing. Just like Chinese reunification is an extremely POV, offensive term, Chinese Expansionism is used to serve as a counterbalance to present the flip side of the coin. I didn't come back soon enough and it is now deleted. What's the proper venue to restart discussion?NWA.Rep (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You could go to deletion review, but you aren't addressing address the issue that lead to deletion. You can't just make your own POV neologisms on Wikipedia. Quigley (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Areas taken from the Tibetan Government following the Invasion of Tibet (1950)?

I had mentioned loss of territory from the TAR because of vague recollections from my readings on Tibet in the past few months. I may have been confused with ethnic Tibetan regions absorbed into neighboring provinces (e.g. Xikang into Sichuan). (I’m still somewhat unclear on how the political boundaries have shifted over time.) However, if I read the Wikipedia article on Kham correctly (last paragraph), Western Kham was under the control of the Tibetan government before the PRC took control of Tibet in 1950-1951, and it was then made a separate province called Qamdo afterwards, not to be reincorporated into the TAR until 1965. (I’ve moved this portion of the discussion off the article’s discussion page because it will be a while before I plan to put this information into the article, and the discussion of my 2 proposed small changes was getting pretty long. I hope this is correct etiquette.)Wikimedes (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That piece of unsourced information on the Kham article is contradicted by some other unsourced information on the Xikang article, which states that Qamdo was created from western Xikang. This idea jives more with some of the WWII maps that I have seen. Documents about this area are scarce—maybe a better place to look than in Tibet-centered histories is in histories of Chinese administrative divisions. In any case, Grunfeld says that Kham and the Khampas fought fiercely for and won autonomy from the government in Lhasa, and that the Lhasa government only had some secular authority at the administrative center at the town of Qamdo. Quigley (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo and his "reliable" FOTW site

i have totally debunked Kintetsubuffalo's claim of FOTW being "Reliable", at Talk:Flag_of_Tibet#Flags_of_the_World_is_NOT_a_reliable_source. The messed up grammar, mispelling, factually errors, and plainly wrong facts that appeared on this FTOW entry would just make one want to laugh out loudДунгане (talk)

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Flags_of_the_World where i have filed a complaint about the "reliability" of this "Website".Дунгане (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I saw some errors on FOTW's Tibetan flag page; commonly rendered ones about the definitions of Tibet, but I thought that was the cause of just one bad editor. This sloppiness seems to be systematic, and surprise surprise, the site itself is managed and edited by unpaid volunteers. Quigley (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Incident

There's a discussion over at ANI on a user. I would appreciate your input. You were one of the editors participating in the previous discussion, and I'm currently informing all the editors involved.--hkr (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Terracotta Army

Hi Quigley, you seems to have extensive knowledge on China-related topics, would you come to the article Terracotta Army and gave your input on some issues.

There have been anonymous user that are inserting content describing the Terracotta Army as "fake" and "inauthentic" to the article [3], and several anonymous users in the discussion on the talk page. The anonymous user based the claims on a book "La société du spectacle"/"The Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord (who according to the anonymous user calls it a "bureaucratic fake"), a 2007 book "L'Empereur jaune" by Térence Billeter, and "La Chine est un cheval et l’Univers une idée" by Jean Lévi (2010). I checked the book by Guy Debord on Google Books [4], which is the only one of these three that's available and on [5], and could not find anything related to the Terracotta Army in it.

Importantly, I haven't been able to find any scientific studies doubting the authenticity of the Terracotta Army, and did not find anything about this in any mainstream English publications and media.

I found several published articles from Scientific American [6] and Nature [7] about the restoration and preservation of the Terracotta Army, but the anonymous user insist these studies did not study the authenticity of the Terracotta Army and they did not show "any datation of them", though some of the articles clearly contains statements such as "this was triggered due to it having spent more than 2,200 years in water-saturated soil" [8]. There are also many sources from Google Scholar [9] about the Terracotta Army and its conservations, such as this article from International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation [10] and this from Conservation Information Network [11], that contains detail about the age and materials of the Terracotta Army. Thanks!--TheLeopard (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

an administrator is suggesting that you, kintetsubuffalo, and i should be subjected to a ban on ANI for "edit warring" with Arilang1234. I believed by not leaving a message on this page he has acted improperly since all users mentioned in an ANI discussion should be informed per policy.Дунгане (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. The accusation is certainly out of place and requires further explanation or a withdrawal from him. Quigley (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

philosophical discussion

(since this is interesting but doesn't really belong, I move it here)

Remember, Seb, when you reverted my edit to the Kalmyk deportations article because I pointed out that the official reason for the deportations were for alleged Kalmyk collaboration with the Nazis? If you didn't have any assumptions about readers' predispositions in mind, then that edit would be perfectly fine without modifications, but it wasn't, because you know that most readers have a strong anti-Nazi bias and anything associated with that also has a bad reputation. The CCP aren't quite Nazis for most people, but they're pretty close, thanks to the work of our Tibetan, Uyghur, and Falun Gong friends. We can't escape the fact that Wikipedia exists in the real world. Quigley (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do remember, and as far as I remember, I only reverted it once as it was unsourced; when you added a source I left it in place -- no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Another example, Geo Swan's creation of the redirect "Uyghur house" to the "Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy" article. You argued against that because you know that Islamist militancy leaves a bad taste in most readers' mouths, and that that might create a bad association in peoples' minds. So does the CCP with whatever it is associated with. Quigley (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That one I don't exactly recall, but I'd say there is a difference between the two cases. The CCP, for all it's flaws, is not officially "branded" whereas Islamist militancy is; after all, we trade billions with China, but not with Islamic militants. I think that was the reason for my opposition: not an assumption about readers' predispositions, but rather a knowledge of the official vocabulary. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is here, wherein you proposed a "biography of living ethnicities" policy. I think that's sensible, and one that is already effectively enforced for certain favored groups. Trading with China, as we all know, does not mean that China is more liked (especially if the trade in manufactured and not cultural products)—it often means that China is more feared. The bottom line is that the messenger that we choose to cite is extremely important for the credibility of the argument. And presenting certain facts as just "PRC says", or even any government says, but especially the PRC, only serves to discredit said facts. Quigley (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a good memory :). Yeah, I'd have to think about that argument; I, for one, know quite a few people who look at China as "a people of great culture" and when you say Uyghurs, they go "who the fuck is that?"... But then again, I am living in a part of the world where Native Americans are still called "Injuns" by a few people — it's true that maybe most folks around the world think noble, spiritual, proud... but in my neck of the woods, we're still confronted with "get that drunk sand-n*gger off my lawn". So it depends who you're surrounded by. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It does, but there are certain abiding cliches around the world. China is perhaps most known for its large population, and many myths have developed around that, such as the human wave attack. There is a persistent fear in Russia of China demographically swamping and taking over their eastern land, when in fact the opposite is true historically. The often-restated "fact" comparing Han levels in Xinjiang from 1949 to 2000 is misleading in more ways that I can count, but the biggest way is that it is not a constant increase as might be inferred; in fact it peaked around the Cultural Revolution and has been declining ever since. Statistics like these dehumanize the Han of Xinjiang into a shiftless mob, assessed in many media accounts as tools of government policy with no agency; compared to triumphalist settlers of the American west, when more often they were poor farmers or menial laborers who want a better life as many Mexican migrants want in the United States.

Callous accounts from "human rights" groups consider the Han to be perpetual migrants in Xinjiang, although many were born there, and have distinct cultural characteristics apart from their more easterly co-ethnics. And this unique population has been declining since the new freedoms of movement, because of the terror of Uyghur violence. Are the Han in Xinjiang not people too? Do they not also suffer under an autocratic government? Maybe they're less human because they're not as "Caucasian" as the Uyghurs, just slightly. When I was searching for information about this "Uyghur" girl plastered all over the Xinjiang articles, I found some statements on stormfront not far from the East Turkestan Strong vandalism on Wikipedia. As fellow white people, we have to defend the Uyghurs, because the yellow peril is coming. The thought exists in a milder, perhaps embryonic form, for many that contributes to the fascination with the Uyghurs over say the Zhuang. So if everyone who reads this automatically sides with the Uyghurs, why don't I? Because this is not a zero sum game. Quigley (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that insight. I can only say that I don't have any of those issues (stormfront, yellow peril, whatnot). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234's removal of referenced material

Hi, I'm trying to raise some concerns here. User Arilang1234 keeps trying to delete referenced material of Prof Mobo Gao (from Uni of South Australia) in the Great Leap Forward article. He claims that Prof Gao's material are fringe because of two "negative" reviews he found, which several other users noted that it's not the case [12]. I've also noted that Prof Gao has been found to be reliable in a previous decision in the Reliable Source noticeboard [13].--59.167.141.97 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The history for the article and the talk page are very convoluted. You are talking about Mobo Gao, but there is more material being contested. If you could provide diffs outlining major points in the dispute, that would be very helpful. Quigley (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained mass replacement at Flag of Tibet

This is perhaps one of the last things you wanted to hear after that nasty dispute, in which I was there only to troll Kintetsu, not to make substantive changes on something I know little about, but it is what it is. I don't think there is a point in massively, without explanation, replacing "Snow Lion" with "Tibet" when this article has already clearly established that the two are equivalent. Conversely, others may argue that my reverting was equally pointless, but one should note that many of the replacements are wordier and, as I put it, "idiosyncratic". Thanks much --HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is to push the POV that (1) the Snow Lion Flag was a state flag, and not a military flag; (2) the Snow Lion Flag has some legitimate historical basis rather than being a CTA invention, and that ultimately (3) the Snow Lion Flag is The flag of Tibet (Tibet-under-illegal-occupation, the implication is), regardless of the fact that it has no official basis there. You are right in that the blanket changes result in illogical and anachronistic constructions. However, Snow Lion Flag and Tibetan flag are not equivalent (nevermind "Flag of Tibet"; we established before that this was not used in the reliable sources). There are many flags used in Tibet, past and present (including the 1920–1925 one shown on the page), and this article only refers to one. You could probably concede "Tibetan flag" on the caption and the Wangye conversation, as it would only be a accommodating a POV shift, but to change both the "members of the public" sentence and the CTA adoption sentence really bends over backwards to defy logic, so they should stay as they are. Quigley (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of this, if you disagree with me anywhere, I will not re-revert, as, I said above, I do not know as much as I would like to on this subject... --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't take what I said as an endorsement of the IP's actions; if you didn't revert the changes, I would have (but much later; I am a slow editor). Disengaging from edit wars is always good for your stress levels, but please don't do it on account of disagreements with me: I'm not Li Hongzhi after all; I'm fallible! It is the philosophy of many editors to preemptively revert and to ask editors to justify their changes on the talk page in advance; it is just not my philosophy. Quigley (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The article is called Flag of Tibet. So the flag would be the Tibetan Flag.--121.220.41.102 (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it did not occur to you to click on the "discussion" on that page. And so what...the article is called that? Quigley, I, and many other users have the power to change the article title. You don't.

And I don't see how you cannot read what Quigley said. It is like the ROC. Commonly (falsely) known as Taiwan today, but it was the real ruler of the mainland for 37 years before Chiang was defeated. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong

You are invited to participate in discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Good work to both you and Benlisquare on detecting the SOCK --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  It is mostly to Benlisquare's credit that amidst the rapid-fire editing and discussion, he was able to take a step back and identify not only the puppet but the puppeteer, and to quickly act on it too so that well-meaning editors would be spared hours of endless cleanup. I trust that even if the SPI were not filed, your AN3 and ANI motions would have ended the craziness. Cheers to timely and judicious anti-vandalism intervention. Quigley (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aceh vs. Papua...

Interesting isn't it?. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)