Talk:Battle of Sincouwaan/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of Sincouwaan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Sources
Talk:Malayan–Portuguese_War#China.27s_involvement
http://books.google.com/books?id=1AAVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Wareno's deletions
@Wareno:
Please provide a proper reason and sources for your deletions of my edits. Being "very pro-Chinese" is not a suitable reason. All the changes made were to provide directly quoted passages to support content that had already been in the article explaining why the conflict occurred in the first place. The source that was deleted had been tagged for months because it is one, non-English and hard to verify, and two, published by the Academia de Marinha, the cultural agency of the Portuguese navy, which actually would make it partisan. Furthermore sections such as the conduct of piracy and preventing other ships to land are part of the charges the Chinese levelled against the Portuguese, provided in the source. You deleted this as well. Why? Qiushufang (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Wareno has not since engaged in the talk discussion but has continued to omit information based on his issue with depicting the Portuguese party in question (Simao) as "pirates." See his removal of the related categories here: [1]. Existing sources in this article already describe the activity of the Portuguese party as piracy. However Wareno has prevented any additions to the article reflecting that view, labelling it as pro-Chinese. I have provided multiple sources reflecting that view from sources not written by Chinese, reflecting similar sentiments regarding the Portuguese activity. Qiushufang (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps others who have previously dealt with Wareno such as @Ravenswing: and @Jayron32: could mediate: [2]. Not sure what to do here since Wareno does not seem interested in communication. Qiushufang (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
To avoid repetition, both Wareno and my views have already been outlined: [3], and [4]. Qiushufang (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm yet to understand exactly what Qiushufang problem is, but anyone except someone in bad faith like Qiushufang - as I have already proven time and time again - can see the categories removed are clearly inadequate. I have already demonstrated how how the user Qiushufang started editing this article only to make it as pro-Chinese as possible and anti-Portuguese as possible. The user Qiushufang seems to have a particular obsession with calling the Portuguese "pirates", and since he shares that trait with the recently created Narjeete I'd like to request @Ravenswing: and @Jayron32: to see if we're not dealing with a sockpuppet user! Wareno (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- My problem is that you originally removed mentions of kidnapping and piracy in the lead years ago without any reason or changes to the sources in 2020: [5]. The version had been stable for years so I assumed that either the source was wrong or the changes were not warranted. I checked the source, which states that the Portuguese involved did engage in piracy and kidnapping, so I reverted your changes: [6], because the body of article and its sources support that statement. Even prior to my edits, the article literally said the Portuguese engaged in piracy. Furthermore I added supporting quotations from the source on the source of the conflict, which you reverted, and lied about my removal of statements such as buying slaves or children, which I had added back in with supporting quotations: [7]. Of course Wareno never mentions this. Despite this, you reverted me multiple times, breaking WP:3RR, with accusations of being very pro-Chinese or editing in bad faith, without any communication or engagement in the talk page. You accuse me of having a particular obsession with calling the Portuguese pirates, yet that is what is stated in the article itself, and was reflected in the lead prior to your removal of content. The changes you made and wish to be kept merely omit that from the lead whereas I offered both viewpoints from both the Portuguese and Chinese side: [8]. This was reverted by you as well. So who is it here that has an obsession with Portuguese piracy? Where have I acted in bad faith? Qiushufang (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the version prior to my changes:
Portuguese such as Simão de Andrade had been conducting piracy and purchasing slaves along the Chinese coast to sell in Portuguese Malacca, and blatantly ignored the Ming emperor's authority by building a fort at Tunmen, after his request for Tunmen was denied.[1] Even children from well off families were sold and found years later at Diu in western India. Rumors that Simao and other Portuguese were cannibalizing children for food spread across China.[2][3] Simao's pirating activities greatly angered both the Chinese people and the court, which led Ming officials to order the eviction of the Tunmen Portuguese.[4]
- Here is the version prior to my changes:
- The version reverted by Wareno:
Portuguese such as Simão de Andrade had been conducting piracy and child kidnapping along the Chinese coast to sell in Portuguese Malacca. Simão also prevented ships from Siam, Cambodia, Patani, and other places from landing their cargo before the Portuguese had sold theirs. The Portuguese were said to have "robbed passengers and ships of other nationalities."[5] They blatantly ignored the Ming emperor's authority by building a fort at Tunmen, after his request for Tunmen was denied.[1] Considered the worst of their behavior was that they "kidnapped and bought a large number of children, many of whom had been stolen from respectable families."[5] The Portuguese claim that the children were "bought"[5] while the Chinese claim they were "seized."[5] These children from well off families were found years later at Diu in western India. Rumors that Simao and other Portuguese were cannibalizing children for food spread across China.[2][3] Simao's pirating activities greatly angered both the Chinese people and the court, which led Ming officials to order the eviction of the Tunmen Portuguese.[4]
- The version reverted by Wareno:
- Both versions claim that the Portuguese party practiced piracy, which I added a supportinq quotation for. Wareno's version claims only purchase of child slaves occurred, but the source is Chang 1978, which makes clear that the Chinese considered it seizure of slaves while the Portuguese did not. I put in both perspectives.
- I've added multiple other sources since:
Where is the bad faith editing? Qiushufang (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Portuguese such as Simão de Andrade had been conducting piracy and purchasing slaves along the Chinese coast to sell in Portuguese Malacca, and blatantly ignored the Ming emperor's authority by building a fort at Tunmen, after his request for Tunmen was denied.[1] Although buying and selling children was common practice in the region, the Portuguese chronicler João de Barros concluded that they had been seized without knowledge from their parents and even came from noble families.[6] Even children from well off families were sold and found years later at Diu in western India. Rumors that Simao and other Portuguese were cannibalizing children for food spread across China.[2][3] Besides aggressive trading through force of arms and abducting and selling Chinese men, women, and children into slavery, Simao also encouraged "robbers, kidnappers, and all sorts of wickedness."[7] Other foreigners such as Malays and Siamese were prevented from conducting trade until the Portuguese had finished their own business. They refused to pay customs duties and abused an official who had complained about their behavior. The Portuguese were also accused of robbing foreign ships.[6] Simao's pirating activities greatly angered both the Chinese people and the court, which led Ming officials to order the eviction of the Tunmen Portuguese.[4]
- I've added multiple other sources since:
- I'm not sure you understand... You can try and fill as many walls of text as you like, without that changing the basic facts that are clear for everyone to see: you engaged with this article with a poor reason in mind, removing any facts that might cast the chinese in any bad light and adding anything that would make the Portuguese look worse, whether that was related to the article or not, and now you demand that people communicate with you. But see what the verdict will be if you want to insist on this matter, I want to see if it's a coincidence that two accounts line up so neatly as these two do. Feel free to continue posting walls of text. Wareno (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wareno does not engage with the sources, the content, or try to communicate whatsoever as seen here again. Any evidence that goes against his version of the article is pro-Chinese, anti-Portuguese, fad faith, and now "walls of text." This is gaslighting and WP:OWN. To make clear, I am not a sock of Narjeete nor are they my sock nor have I ever used a sock. Go ahead and investigate. This is very frustrating. Qiushufang (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's also telling that he repeatedly mentions making Portuguese seem bad or Chinese look good. It doesn't seem to matter to him what the source says. Let me ask, if the sources make the Chinese look good and the Portuguese look bad to him, does that make the inclusion of such content unacceptable to him? I also ask, what did I remove to make the Chinese seem good or the Portuguese seem bad? As outlined, I included the POV from both sides in terms of slavery. If his concern is that it makes the Portuguese look bad and the Chinese good, then no amount of sources or direct in line quotations will satisfy him, because their intention and purpose here is not to provide information in an encyclopedic manner. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- And to make it clear, this new sudden overreaction by the user Qiushufang is because he resents that I removed two categories that are inapproriate in the context of this article, I changed nothing else and nothing more. You should feel frustrated. Wareno (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can you explain why they are inappropriate? The article says that the Portuguese party under Simao engaged in piracy. The categories involve piracy related to China and Portuguese Macao. Is this article not at least related those two subjects? Qiushufang (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, yes, I most certainly can... to the two administrators you summoned, when they ask me, not to you. Until then, please avoid instigating arguments if you think they are so frustrating. Wareno (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- ^ a b c Chang 1978, p. 57.
- ^ a b c Wills 2011, p. 28.
- ^ a b c Twitchett 1998, p. 338.
- ^ a b c Dutra 1995, p. 426.
- ^ a b c d Chang 1978, p. 48.
- ^ a b Keevak 2017, p. 43.
- ^ Antony 2017, p. 270.