Jump to content

Talk:Hongyipao

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expansion

[edit]

I've taken a crack at expanding this and added some of the early history of the cannons, but there's still lots of stuff missing. If anybody has any information about the history of these cannons and their adoption in Korea, that would be much appreciated. For example, when were they first adopted in Korea? Imjin War? Later? How were they used? Also, the article needs references for the technical details of the design -- I don't know where the stuff currently in the infobox comes from, and in fact I think the term hongyipao probably refers to a category of weapons with varying stats. Thanks. Difference engine (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hongyi pao from Dutch of English ships?

Some sources say the Portuguese dredged up the cannons from a Dutch ship at Macau. Others say it was an English ship. The Unicorn, an Egnlish merchant ship, was sunken near Macau and the Portuguese dredged up sakers (cannon) from the ships and apparently sold those around 1620. There were in 1626 Battle of Ningyuan 11 sakers 21:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Rajmaan. Tonio Andrade's new book says that many cannons were dredged up on different occasions by different people in the area of Macau. It seems unlikely that they were all of the same type, but possible that many or all were called hongyipao. I think the information in the infobox is too precise given how much variety there must have been in the cannons called by that name. We should add more information about the various instances of dredged up guns, since I only mentioned one when I expanded the article. --diff (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit war - anonymous contribution and sources

[edit]

A recent edit war began on 11 June between myself and an anonymous user with the IP address of 198.46.126.2 resulted in temporary blocks on both of us.

The following is a list of my reasons for reverting his changes and my problems with the way in which he conducted editing on this page:

1. Aside from the additional material contributed, anon. directly removed content with citations including author name, title, publication date, and publisher information without providing a valid reason for doing so. He seems to take particular problem with the effectiveness of the "composite metal cannons" which are described in the section "Chinese improvements". His sources also do not refute the material which he removed. For example http://nautarch.tamu.edu/Theses/pdf-files/Hoskins-MA2004.pdf which says nothing about the effectiveness of Chinese composite metal cannons.

2. In addition to removing properly cited content without refutation, anon. replaced it with a link to an article written in 1861 archived on the NY Times website. Aside from the age of the article and the fact that it lists no author (not entirely surprising as this was written in 1861), the link itself takes you to a pay gated site, which requires the user to subscribe for a fee to view additional pages.

3. Anon. adjusted the range parameter without explanation. As far as I know, none of the sources he used had any information on Chinese cannons, so I'm not sure where he got that info.

3. Original research and highly biased contributions. For example one of his additions was this unreferenced statement: "In metallurgy, Europe had since medieval times led in metal craftsmanship (e.g. machine, instrument, clock, and gun making)." Also "However, by the early these cannon were already far inferior to the West's." None of his sources, whether implicitly or explicitly contained any info on China, Chinese technology, Chinese weapons, or Chinese cannons.

4. When confronted in the edit summary with these problems anon. willfully remained ignorant. For example in pointing out his pay gated article, he retorted that the original citation used was also pay gated since it was a book. Anon. had no response to other questions about the validity of his sources other than that they were valid without providing any other reason.

5. The creation of multiple different accounts to provide additional support for his edits. Nova1Nova1, Sosa97, and 66hester as well as IP address 108.35.224.118 are all recently created accounts with no history other than contributions supporting 198.46.126.2.

198.46.126.2's history of contributions is also highly suspect. His talk page history prior to the past two days contained seven warnings of edit warring, and two blocks, now three for disrupting pages Trebuchet, Hongyipao, Harpy Eagle, RSM-56 Bulava, and also Crossbow on his alts 66hester and Nova1Nova1.

198.46.126.2's behavior on Trebuchet is even more obviously trollish in nature. Anon. changed pre-existing statistics for the siege weapons listed to figures with an 100% increase of their original value. The same behavior of willfully ignoring questions in the edit summary as well as removing pre-existing material was also prevalent.

In short, 198.46.126.2 seems like a clear cut troll to me. However, if after his block period, he would like to dispute or challenge the content with relevant and properly cited material, I encourage him to come to the talk page and discuss how he thinks the wikipage might be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiushufang (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Yi-long

[edit]

I have reverted a section doubly referring to scholar Huang Yi-long again, as I warned editors not to restore it without discussing, and I'm disappointed that someone took it upon themselves to simply restore the section with all its obvious problems. In case it's not obvious to anyone else reviewing this page, the article cannot have two back-to-back paragraphs both quoting the scholar in different ways. I'm fine with picking one or the other, but this section has clearly been in dispute for some time. This topic is well outside my area of expertise (I'm a pacifist Canadian accountant, though I appreciate metalworking arts and traditional weaponsmithing in particular) so I'm expecting that editors more closely involved with the topic will discuss here and decide on what should be included in the article. Please do so. Any edit warring in the article will result in blocks, probably long ones. Courtesy ping recent significant contributors: Qiushufang Underbar dk Imminent 77 Denver20 Denisarona. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, but 198.46.126.2's alt Special:Contributions/Sosa97 hasn't posted anything yet, and he's still able to edit unlike his blocked account. So how long should I wait for? Qiushufang (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Sosa97's contributions today have also been in the same pattern as his other blocked IPs and accounts User:198.46.126.2, User:108.35.224.118, User:Nova1Nova1, and User:66hester. Same topics, same distortion of referenced material in the same vein as his spiel on Trebuchet, same usage of sources such as outdated century old texts and a Chinese tv series. He hasn't come to the talk page to discuss anything and doesn't seem to have any intention to. Other than the usage of the previoius sources on Hongyipao, which I support either having either the quote or summary, whichever is fine to me. But at what point can we just assume 198.46.126.2 is not intent on discussion considering that he can clearly still edit on wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk)
Oh ya, and same removal of cited quotations on Onager (weapon). I don't think he's coming here to have a discussion. Qiushufang Underbar dk Imminent 77 Denver20 Denisarona. Qiushufang (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since there apparently is some sort of bureaucracy being imposed here when the opposing party is clearly not here to contribute (and rightly blocked), I will paste my edit summary here: "There is no reason not to use a reliable modern author's research over a dated nytimes article from 2 centuries ago, paygated or not." I agree that we cannot quote someone at length twice, and as I have noted on another article Qiushufang has worked on: this is close to a copyright violation. For that I apologize for reinstating the section without modification, but I am honestly annoyed at the patronising passive aggressiveness shown by the reverting admin. _dk (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your annoyance, and apologize for my aggressive tone (which was not meant to be passive, fwiw, I was and am ready to block if edit warring starts up again). I'm here to support whatever consensus develops. If I can offer my uninformed opinion, I think you could get away with simply removing the second instance of "Scholar Huang Yi-long describes the process:", and then the section is fine as-is. As for what the IP editor is doing on other pages, Qiushufang, if you're concerned then you should file a sockpuppet investigation (see instructions at WP:SPI). I can help with that if you like. But you needn't wait for any editor who does not participate in a discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Idk how to report him so if you could help me with that that would be great. He's doing the same thing again at Onager (weapon). I made one revert with reason in edit summary and he changed it again with the reason being an exact copy paste of mine. I've posted on the talk page and he hasn't responded. Qiushufang (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hongyipao&oldid=1199286703"