Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Gong Shi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Gong Shi

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that there was once a phenomenon called Gong Shi during the Tang dynasty of ancient China that enabled the eunuchs from the imperial palace to purchase goods by force at a very low price in the civilians' markets?

Created/expanded by Panzer VI-II (talk), Kou Dou (talk). Nominated by Panzer VI-II (talk) at 05:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC).

  • It was translated from the Chinese article zh:宮市, the author of which is Panzer VI-II. Then I made a little modifications to the translation in Panzer VI-II's sandbox, so my name can't be seen in the earlier revision history of this article. :D We mainly contribute on Chinese Wikipedia so this is quite a new attempt for us. Thanks in advance for reviewing it! Kou Dou (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah.My English is not very good. I'm just a senior school's student.So,if I made mistakes in this article,please figure out it,thanks.XD-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂留言於民國103年暨 11:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (not a review) - I'm not sure "phenomenon" is a correct word, as much as "Imperial practice" or "Imperial policy". If I understand what you translated, the practice started as an Imperial practice that involved Imperial envoys purchasing retail goods at below market prices and paying for the sales at the time of the transactions. Also, the envoys carried documentation, a type of official purchase order. The "by force" I take to mean that the merchants had no choice - sell to the envoys at the lower price. Subsequent emperors substituted eunuchs for the envoys. No documentation was required, and payment was often not made. Eunuchs sometimes exerted a form of extortion to get what they wanted. Is that correct? — Maile (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for paying attention, Maile66. I'm replying you on behalf of the main author, who is busy and thinks it's kind of hard for him to directly talk in English. Actually I'm also wondering if the word "phenomenon" precisely describes the article's title, however, whether Gong Shi is a phenomenon or policy is somehow vague in the references cited. I've also searched its meaning on Chinese websites and it seems Gong Shi is both a "phenomenon" and a "policy/practice". But, please don't hesitate to make any improvement if you feel that calling it an "imperial practice/policy" is better. Meanwhile I'm going to ask how does Panzer VI-II think about your doubt. By the way, what you've understood are all correct. :D Kou Dou (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough (for 24 May) and long enough. No QPQ required from this nominator (no previous DYKs achieved). Both hooks are referenced to Chinese-language citation #1, accepted AGF. No disambig links found, and no access problem with external links. Re copyvio and close paraphrasing checks: I have already written a long explanation on Template:Did you know nominations/The Idolmaster One For All, to show that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to commit copyvio offences by translating Japanese and Chinese characters into English, and I believe that several of our experienced reviewers saw my explanation; it was accepted and the nom was passed. In conclusion, I am happy to accept AGF that it is highly unlikely that there is copyvio here. Of course post-1944 English translations of Chinese texts are, as I understand it, still in copyright, but I am not aware that the cited texts have previously been translated. The text is objectively written from a neutral point of view. Issues 1-3 below are part of this initial review. --Storye book (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Issues: (1) The original hook has 213 characters excluding ellipses. The limit is 200 characters, so this hook is too long. It also needs to be rephrased in Standard English, e.g. by replacing "phenomenon" with "practice", and replacing "civilians'" with "citizens'". (2) ALT1 is within size limit at 199 characters, but is too wordy and could be shortened. It needs to be rephrased in Standard English, e.g. "tremendous" is the wrong word and might be replaced with "valuable". (3) The article needs to be copyedited for correct Standard English before it is exposed to the WP front page. Its editors have worked hard to give us this useful article, and a decent Standard English presentation will help to ensure that this article gets the respect it deserves. If these 3 issues this issue can be resolved satisfactorily, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Native speaker of English needed to copyedit this article so that review can be completed. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We really appreciate your suggestions. According to what you pointed out above, I have added ALT2, which is shorter, clearer and more grammatically correct. While waiting for further reviews, I will find time to reread the article carefully. Thanks! Kou Dou 14:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Kou Dou for ALT2. (I have struck the original hook and ALT1.) ALT2 is short enough at 178 characters, it is grammatically correct, and it checks out with Chinese-language citation #1 accepted AGF. The article still needs to be copyedited for correct English language before it can be passed. --Storye book (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have copy-edited it a little. The article has a problem though in that it does not say how the traders were forced to sell their goods cheaply. Was it through a threat of violence, by decree, or some other means of coercion? Belle (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Belle for kindly copyediting the article. It is acceptable now, and although you have questioned the form of enforcement, you have not tagged the article, so I'll pass it. In my opinion (and I accept that it's only my opinion) the answer to your question is obvious. The eunuchs would have threatened anything that came into their heads, because they were in a position of great power, and could do or say pretty well anything to the little guy in the market, in the name of their great emperor. China has produced many historical films, and they all show the same type of social structure of (among other things) all-powerful emperors and corrupt officials exploiting downtrodden peasants in ancient days. The article already gives an example of a eunuch being able to force a peasant to do just about anything, because although the eunuch was out of control, he was understood to be an arm of the law. --Storye book (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All issues resolved. Good to go with ALT2. --Storye book (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the efforts you made. I guess the author did his best to gather information about this practice, and specific examples showing a detailed process of the traders' suffering might be scarce - we may keep working on this if Panzer VI-II would like to include more in the corresponding Chinese article. Thank you again. Kou Dou 09:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem for me is that the one example of a eunuch attempting to force a merchant to sell his goods at a low price ends with the eunuch dismissed and the merchant compensated. I don't see any explanation of how Gong Shi operated (I realise that if the first source is all there is to go then there is no explanation available, but if this is the case it should be made clearer in the article) Belle (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough, Belle, I have messaged the nominator. Let's hope we can sort this out soon.--Storye book (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Belle. Update: the nominator has messaged me to say that this issue will be dealt with tomorrow --Storye book (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have rearranged some paragraphs and added more details about the history and enforcement of this practice (though the Internet Censorship in China goes stricter that even using Google to find supporting materials becomes difficult :D). It may still need to be proofread to make sure its accordance with standard English, but I guess it is more easily to be understood now, since its origins and method to operate were included in my recent expansion. Would you like to give me more advices, Belle and Storye book? Thanks! Kou Dou 13:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Kou Dou for adding more details of history and enforcement of the practice. I think the enforcement method is clear enough now. The article still needs a little copyediting, but it is clear to understand. Good to go for ALT2. --Storye book (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Per DYK rules, the hook fact needs to be cited in the article after the sentence in question. Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Yoninah, for noticing this.--Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Kou Dou. Sorry, there is one more thing to do. Please would you kindly add citation #1 to the end of the first sentence of the article header. Thank you for your patience. --Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for pointing out, you may check it again. Kou Dou 09:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Gong_Shi&oldid=613611735"