User talk:Lds/Archive1

Articles on novel characters

Hi, there is no reason whatsoever to create separate articles on all these novel characters. They are all discussed in the articles on the novels. In addition, none of these articles cites even a single reliable inependent third-party source, so I would not expect a single one of them to survive AfD. In fact, even the articles on the novels are completely unsourced and therefore unencyclopedic. They also have way too much plot information. I suggest that instead of creating myriads of unsourced articles on all these fictional characters you try to improve the articles on the novels. Sources such as book reviews, scholarly articles on these books, etc. would be most welcome. Cutting down the plot summaries to something more reasonable would be helpful, too. --Crusio (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• PS: I see that you are also creating redirect pages that you then link to from the pages that they redirect to, such as: The Legend of Chu Liuxiang and The Chu Liuxiang Series which both redirect to Chu Liuxiang, where they then are both cited and wikilinked again. Such circular redirects do not serve any purpose and should be avoided. I have placed a "welcome" template just above this section and advice you to read through the articles linked in that message to see how you can create useful Wikipedia articles. --Crusio (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can't really find credible sources for many of my contributions. Most of the information I've added are largely translated text from the page in other languages or from other websites. I would greatly appreciate it if you could render me any assistance. Lonelydarksky (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but if there are no sources, the case is rather hopeless. WP has a strict policy that every article needs to be sourcedd or be deleted.... You seem to be very knowledgable about these novels, so if you don't know of any sources, chances are that there don't exist any... --Crusio (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If an article is about a work of fiction then obviously the work itself is the source, provided that the assertions are directly supported by the text and not simply speculative. If you are taking information from a Wikipedia in another language, it is helpful to provide a link. Xanthoxyl (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that most of the Wuxia novels don't have any sources or references in the English language. A large part of the information comes directly from the work of fiction itself, which makes it the source, as Xanthoxyl mentioned. However even so, the novel, including its title, has not been officially translated. As such, the people editing pages on these novels have to provide their own translations. This makes the information more ambiguous and sometimes the editors even pen in their own thoughts, making the information become more like a personal reflection. I also found that many editors of the Wuxia novel pages have a poor grasp of the English language and the information they've added is poorly translated, with a lot of spelling and grammatical errors and inappropriate use of vocabulary. It's really a pain editing these pages, when the source itself is hard to cite, because it's not translated and the information is all over the place. Besides, there is a lack of really good book reviews for citation. Lonelydarksky (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this sounds like the biggest part of those articles is original research, which is a definite no-no on WP. Perhaps the best solution at this point would be to stubbifgy those articles and start from scratch using whatever sources can be found. Given the cultural importance of these books, I would be amazed if there are no scholarly studies on them and their influence.

Are you aware of the Wuxia Wikia? Xanthoxyl (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd prefer to have one on Wikipedia rather than a Wikia by itself. A number of the articles there are unsourced. Since Wikipedia adopts a policy of requiring references and citations for each article, it'd be better to have it here and I believe that if such a project was initiated with a large number of participants, we can work out a list of common references quoted directly from the work of fiction itself, making it the source. As a note, Wikipedia has more content than those articles there. Lonelydarksky (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Qiu Xiaoyi

A tag has been placed on Qiu Xiaoyi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Razorflame 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Qiu Xiaoyi is a minor character from the Water Margin. He should be merged into the List of minor characters from The Water Margin. Thanks for informing me. Lonelydarksky (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WM project

As it stands I've not encountered many WP editors who have knowledge of WM. But no harm trying, of course. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WPWaterMargin Banner

Hi, When you add project banners to articles, the should be placed on the talk page rather than the article page. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that mistake I've made. I'll undo that mistake as soon as I can. Thanks for informing me. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Redclifffan, award Lonelydarksky with this barnstar in recognition for initiating WikiProject Water Margin and doing an excellent job on improving the quality of articles within the project. Great effort! Awarded by Redclifffan (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You've done an excellent job on Wuxia articles as well. Lonelydarksky (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

You really did wonders with the summary at Swordswoman Riding West on White Horse. To be commended. 121.7.140.97 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You can check out the summaries for the rest of the Jin Yong novels I've worked on in the past months. Some of them really do need revamps. Lonelydarksky (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jinyong edits

With all due respects, your contributions are generally fine. But why are you so obsessive with wording it your own way? IMHO if there isn't much difference between edit 1 and 2, then leave it as it is, because an article is not the exclusive property of one person, if you trim and edit again you are just inviting the other party to waste time scouring for mistakes. Certainly, the whole point that Louis Cha is the name the writer is known in the West (and which the writer always refers to himself, in English) is well lost. Also, the use of AKA is sloppy and highly informal. 121.7.185.239 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions very much. Some of the article's plot summaries have been tagged "too long" before and I do not wish to see that tag there again. Thus, I'm trying hard to keep those plot summaries as short as possible, preferably without leaving out the important details. Your edit regarding the secrecy behind Duan Yu's birth is repetitive. Please see List of characters from Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils and you'll see what I mean. The edits you've made to Flying Fox of Snowy Mountain are really too long and unnecessary to some extent. I'm not against your suggestion of changing all "Jin Yong" into "Louis Cha". Please feel free to change but please ensure that the author's name in the infobox tallies with the one in the introduction. I apologize if you're offended. Lonelydarksky (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is natural to feel a little offended if your edits get rewritten for no good reason. I see no difference between "in disguise as" and "disguised as" - they are just stylistic differences. If in rewriting, more grammatical or factual mistakes crop in, then it defeats the purpose of editing. Also, a couple of lines wouldn't get too long. In fact, I totally agree that the earlier edits were far too long, and appreciate a cutting-down. Concerning Duan Yu's birth, I must say many people (like myself) don't bother to read character list. Plot summary is meant to summarize plotpoints, and I would say Duan Yu's birth is important, at the very least, to reflect the fact all three protagonists have secrets concerning their births.

I hope that summaries read coherently. At least, that someone who doesn't know the novel wouldn't get confused reading it. Some ironing out is inevitable. Just be assured I wouldn't keep adding details - I am satisfied with the lengths as they are. 121.7.185.239 (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, but please don't go into too much detail. Lonelydarksky (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional organisations in Wuxia fiction

Hi, I'm impressed with how you've managed to expand the article since its creation. Your efforts are commendable. Good job! But I'm afraid that the article's too long with all those lists of martial arts and whatevers. By the way, we can try to include more information from other writers to make it less "Jin Yong-ish". I'll help you on that. Thanks. Redclifffan (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do about that. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that we are working well together with editing Wuxia related articles. Can we start a "Wikiproject Wuxia" or something similar together? Thanks. Newfraferz87 (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I had that in mind before, but some users have brought Wuxiapedia to my attention so I dismissed that idea. That page seems like it hasn't been updated for some time. I guess we can proceed with WikiProject Wuxia but we'll need more members. By the way, are you interested in joining WikiProject Water Margin as well? Check out the previous discussions on Wuxia articles I had with some users here. Thanks for your help. Lonelydarksky (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Debate on Ming vs. Qing China

14 September 2009

We can't say Louis Cha distorted those historical figures. Maybe it's just purely coincidental that those fictional characters in Cha's novel have the same names as these figures. In fact, I do agree with what Zha Jizuo said. The Ming Dynasty was indeed labelled as "one of the darkest periods in Chinese history". Zhu Yuanzhang was a tyrant, scoundrel and probably a greater brute than King Zhou of Shang or even Qin Shi Huang. It is also very true that many of Zhu's descendants were foolish and incompetent rulers (except maybe the Yongle Emperor). The Ming emperors' use of harsh punishment, most notably the Tingzhang (廷杖), speaks everything of how they rule with brutality. Is that any better than the Manchurians' persecution of Han Chinese? China did become more prosperous in the early Qing Dynasty (reigns of Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong) than it ever was during any of the Ming emperors' reigns, except for Yongle. I think whoever can rule and govern the nation well with the best interests of the people at heart deserve to be the ruler. Chinese history draws a clear distinction of good and bad rulers between the Ming emperors and the three Qing emperors. We can't say Louis Cha is siding with Manchurians just because he may be a Manchu himself or he's being disloyal to Han Chinese (if he's one). Lonelydarksky (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

15 September 2009

Are you kiddin' me Lonelydarksky? You don't seem like you know much about Chinese history. Read the Ming Dynasty and Economic history of China (pre-1911) articles. Historians generally agree that the Ming was one of China's greatest golden ages, perhaps more than the Han and Tang. The Ming saw an economic revolution and intellecutal enlightenment that many people believed to have been the beginning of capitalism. The Ming's taxes and government was much more efficient and lower than the Manchu government, who monopolized taxes and virtually banned foreign trade. The Manchu government also prevented merchants from developing and arbitarily seized their property, a far cry from the laissez-faire of the Ming. How could you say with a straight face that teh Ming economy was not as prosperous as the Qing? The Qing did not recover til 1700 and by 1800 China was already in warfare and ruins; in contrast, Ming China prospered for 250 years at a better rate than the Qing. It's also ironic that you refer to Ming rulers as brutish, considering the Ming emperors had the least power out of any dynasty(see Zhang Zuzhen, etc...) and that the Manchu rulers were much worse. Kangxi put every man who rebelled against him in 1673 that he promised to save. Yongzhen and Qianlong had officials arbitarily put to death and burned thousands of books(correction:thousands of volumns of books). Which Ming ruler did that? In short, the Manchu Era was one of the darkest in Chinese history, comparable to the oppression of the Wu Hu, Mongols and Mao. If the current free-market developments in China persist, China might get back to the glory of the Ming.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good on you Teen, well you have to forgive those readers who had been brain-washed by Mao Zedong's followers, because they are too content to be Nucai, and they like to live the ways their masters force them to live. In short, the Manchu rulers treated all Han Chinese as cattles, because only cattles owners would Brand the cattles, by forcing Han Chinese to shave off the frontal hair, was equivalant to cattle branding. Arilang ^talk 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Existence brain-washing's effect is never confirmed by the American Psychological Association. Ad hominem can not be used to prove validity of anything other than the credibility of the person who use it. --Skyfiler (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

17 September 2009

Well, the Ming Dynasty's golden years only lasted from the Yongle Emperor's time to the early Wanli Emperor's time, including the Renxuan era, (see zh:仁宣之治). The period when Zhang Juzheng was in power as Grand Secretary was a period of prosperity for China. Zhang's reforms did bring prosperity to China and so did the early Ming emperors' reigns. But if we look at incompetent Ming emperors such as the Zhengtong Emperor, Zhengde Emperor and Jiajing Emperor, how can we say that Ming China prospered for 250 years? That's wrong, because the Ming Dynasty only lasted slightly more than 270 years and the above-mentioned emperors' reigns took up about 80 years. Some Ming emperors, especially Zhu Yuanzhang, favoured the use of harsh punishment such as the Tingzhang. Zhu Yuanzhang was a tyrant. Can any Qing emperor be labelled as a tyrant as well? The Ming emperors had the least power as compared to those of other dynasties is true to some extent. However, the power went to the hands of the eunuchs (Wang Zhen, Wang Zhi, Wei Zhongxian etc) during some emperors' reigns. The 44 years starting from the late period of Wanli to the eventual fall of Ming in the Chongzhen Emperor's time was a period of chaos. Effectively, the golden years only lasted less than 200 years (not including the "dark years" of Ming). Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong were autocratic rulers, but they did bring prosperity to China. They made Chinese, not only the Han Chinese, but the entire China's population and its various ethnic groups, proud with the large empire incorporating Mongolia, Taiwan and the present-day China. Yes, we can also say that China's most humiliating years were in the late Qing Dynasty, but if we look at Qing's early years, it was comparable to the Ming Dynasty's golden years. Having elements of capitalism and "liberty" (capitalist-like economic system, intellectual enlightenment etc) in Ming China may not necessarily mean it's better. We can't compare historical China with Mao Zedong's Communist China and other modern systems of the economy, government etc. We really shouldn't go into some historical debate about Ming and Qing on Louis Cha's page, try the talk pages for the two dynasties instead. Anyway, this is not the correct place to post negative comments about Manchu and use some absurd reason to bring Cha and his works into the picture. It's an insult to Cha if these comments are unfounded. This is the wrong place for you to post your anti-Manchu tirades and "discreetly" incite racial prejudice against Manchus. I think this Ming vs. Qing or Han Chinese vs. Manchu discussion should end here for this page. We can go and debate somewhere else.Lonelydarksky (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to clog up the Jin Yong page, so I'll respond here.

Even in the reign of the "incompetent" Ming emperors, it doesn't mean the golden age had ended. Even during the reigns of these emperors, the economy prospered and the people lived well(best in the world). The emperors did not deal with the affairs of state. So what? Neither did Emperor Wen of Han and Emperor Jing of Han, who practiced the same Wu wei policy that was in place during the Han. In both cases, the country prospered and that is what mattered. It is ussually when the state DOESN'T intervene that the economy and country prospers. In fact, the only reason the Ming fell was because of the Little Ice Age.

Under the Qing, on the other hand, Han Chinese scholars and merchants were constantly persecuted and executed, new ideas were stifled and the people who came up with them executed, and the people's lives suffered. Sure, the economy recovered after 1700, but reached teh level of Ming only around 1780(with three times the population), and then started to decline. Hardly an era of progress! As for Xinjiang, Tibet, manchuria, etc.., these areas were already largely under the control of the Ming; they were only strengthened during Qing.

I also disagree with you completely about the importance of the market economic system and the freedom of intellecutal thought, which existed and prospered under the Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and China after Deng Xiaoping( although the Tang, Song and post-Mao China did interfere much more than say, the Eastern Han or the Ming). IT most certainly matter whether the common people can increase their intellect and get what they want, instead of what the state or some mad despot wants. Although the Mao Era's technology was much superior to the Ming Dynasty, I'll wager the lives of the average Chinese probably weren't even as good as the Ming, which says much for Mao. If compared by the standards of his time, Mao is truly the biggest and most destructive despot in Chinese history (With the possible exception of Later Zhao's genocidal regime). If it weren't for Deng Xiaoping, China today would probably be in the same position, of say , Zimbabwe.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

18 September 2009

Well, there has to be a certain degree of the government's intervention in the economy to correct problems which may crop up. Ancient China's economy is not as modernized as the current ones in the world. Those problems which occur were usually consequences of the government's failure (extravagant expenditure on the emperor's personal pleasures, dysfunctional fiscal policy and taxation system etc). We can't deny the fact that China's economy did suffer a heavy blow in the late Ming Dynasty, starting from the late period of the Wanli Emperor's reign. Peasant uprisings were rampant and the main cause was the probably the change in climate (Little Ice Age) which you've mentioned. The changes in climatic conditions led to crop failure, which in turn caused famines throughout the nation. We can also assume that besides the famine, other natural disasters such as floods may have also occured as well. The government should have intervened to address these pertinent issues by sending relief aid (as would the United Nations in the present-day) or reduce taxes or whatsover to relieve the burden. Uprisings and rebellions were usually caused by discontent within the population and this implies that the government is incompetent. If the emperor and government did intervene in the economy within their capabilities, Ming China's prosperous era could have been revived. If China imported demerit goods (harmful drugs etc) by being very open to trade, would that benefit the economy? The Opium War says everything of how the Qing government failed to curb the flooding of opium in the market and its ill effects on the people. Is being very open to free trade and new ideas necessarily beneficial? Should the government not intervene when demerit goods flood the market and cause the nation to "rot"? Hence, some form of state intervention is required for general maintenance and ensure that everything runs smoothly with good progress.

Take the Chongzhen Emperor for example, he was hardworking but the empire was already on the verge of collapse and he could do nothing. If he had listened to honest advice and be less stubborn, the Ming Dynasty probably had a chance of revival. The Lingchi execution of Yuan Chonghuan was a big mistake. Why did the Later Jin (Qing Dynasty) turn their attention towards invading the Central Plains? There's some extent of "power-hunger" and wild ambitions to "rule the world" and whatever, but if Huangtaiji or even Shunzhi were to replace Chongzhen, China would have been better. The prosperity enjoyed by China during the reigns of Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong is comparable to Ming China's golden years, nonetheless. We can say that Qing China prospered better than Ming China in terms of expansion of the empire and military conquests. Ming China's military conquests were not as significant as Qing's. In my personal opinion, Ming China's best military achievements were Qi Jiguang's defeat of the Wokou and the success in driving away the Mongolian invaders.

I do agree with you that the economy has to be open to free trade and for economic growth. Acceptance of new ideas is important to the intellectual development of a nation. Prince Gong of the Qing Dynasty did attempt to open China and modernise China in the face of strong pressure and oppression from the Western powers. It was because of the later Qing emperors such as Daoguang and Xianfeng that China could do little to counter the foreign threat. The Opium War is a good example of China's "backwardness" and how it failed to deal with the Western powers and their more advanced and better equipped military forces. Mao Zedong's Communist regime was similar to Stalin's Russia as everything was under state control. I do agree with you that the persecution of intellectuals (Cultural Revolution etc) is unacceptable. Don't take me wrong, I'm not a supporter of Communism or Fascism. We cannot link these 20th century systems of government to Ming China or early Qing China. It's not something like Capitalism vs. Communism or Democracy vs. Fascism

Your reference to Zimbabwe is quite interesting. Even without Deng Xiaoping's reforms, China would not have ended up in a serious and problematic state as Zimbabwe's. Mao is better than Robert Mugabe in my opinion, in terms of how they governed their respective countries. At least inflation in China under Mao's regime was not as serious as in present-day Zimbabwe. You seem to hate Mao a lot. I do not agree with some methods in which he governed China, but I still retain some respect for him as a revolutionary leader and politician.

Please don't get too personal on this debate. Lonelydarksky (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

reply

In terms of the late Ming collapse, I don't think the Ming government shouldered any of the blame. They did all they could to relieve the crisis, but the little ice age was too severe. From 1620's to 1650's, North China had no ability whatsoever to plant grain. In short, it was a crisis that would have toppled any government. In addition, it was not as if Chongzhen bore any faults; I think his only fault was not fleeing to the South with his army. He courageously remained in Beijing and committed suicide, but I think if he had went to the south, he could have organized no contempible resistance against both Li Zicheng and the Manchus. The only reason Manchus were able to overrun the south was due to its disorganized resistance.

Perhaps the 18th century's economic development was comparable to that of the 16th and early 17th centuries; so what? That would represent a massive stagnation. China's economy had been going forward all the times pre-Qing, but because of the Manchus' destructive policies of Hai Jin, Wen Zhi yu, banning gunpowder, etc..., China stagnated and fell behind the world. If the Ming or some other Han dynasty had been in place, this would not have happened. In fact, the industrial revolution would have probably occured during the 18th century in China. As for Qing's military success, they were made by crops that came in through the Columbian exchanges, such as potatoes and corn that allowed military garrisons in MOngolia and Xinjiang to be self-sustaining. Ming did not permanently garrison troops there because it would be too exepneisve to bring food(it was a massive burden during Han & Tang eras to hold xinjiang); the corn/potatoes solved this problem. If another dynasty besides the Manchus had been in power, they would have done the same thing.

Mao and his revolution? What, exactly did his revolution create? You are well aware that Deng reversed ALL Of his policies, right? The only thing that happened during the Mao era is that the Chinese were forced to live through the despotism of the Great Leap forward, in which 20 million starved and died despite full state granaries, and the tyranny of the cultural revolution, which did as much to destroy Chinese culture as the Wen Zhi Yu?Teeninvestor (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

19 September 2009

I don't think that the Little Ice Age or any other natural disasters were the only causes for the Ming Dynasty's downfall. Your view that the Ming government shouldered no blame for Ming's downfall is far too absolute. I do agree with you that those natural disasters were crucial reasons for the downfall on nature's part, or term it as "Tian Yi" (Heaven's Will) if you believe that everything is predestined by God's will or whatever divine forces at work. You have completely ignored the causes for Ming's downfall on the government's side. The Chongzhen Emperor was hardworking and trying his best to salvage the situation, but there was little he could do. Why? That's because his predecessors (Wanli, Taichang and Tianqi) left him with a crumbling empire which has low chances of recovery in the short term. Wanli's early reign was fine but he became more "hun" (昏) in his later years. Taichang and Tianqi were weak rulers. In fact, peasant uprisings had already started even before Chongzhen ascended to the throne. The saying "得民心者得天下, 失民心者失天下" (those who win the hearts of the people win the empire and vice-versa for those who lose the hearts of the people) is very applicable in that situation. The natural disasters leading to the famines were not the only causes for the Ming rulers to lose popularity. Another reason would probably be corruption within the government or the ineffective policies (if there were any) implemented to reverse the situation. Why did Li Zicheng rise in rebellion and how did he manage to rally so many supporters? It just implies that the Ming government had already lost the support of its people. Chongzhen was hardworking, but he was also stubborn and suspicious of his subjects. Yuan Chonghuan was put to death wrongly because Chongzhen distrusted him. If Yuan was still alive, he could have successfully kept the Later Jin away from Ming and hopefully buy some time for Ming to recover. I do not agree that Chongzhen's suicide was an act of bravery. But I still respect him for his last words. At least he still had his people in mind before his death. I agree that the Southern Ming Dynasty stood no chance against Qing because most of northern China had already been taken. Even Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong) would not have been able to drive away the Qing with the limited power of the Ming remnant forces. He targeted retaking Taiwan from the Dutch instead and he deserves great respect for his success.

I do not agree that the Qing Dynasty's "backwardness" was entirely due to the "destructive policies" of Hai Jin, literary inquisition, banning of gunpowder and so on. The Qing government made the greatest mistake in trading silver and other relatively more valuable goods for opium and other demerit goods from the Western powers. Lin Zexu was courageous enough to protest and fight to defend Qing China's sovereignty and so did other heroes in the wars between Qing China and the Western powers. Why were the Western powers so bent on "bullying" China then? Maybe you're right in a sense that Qing China had indeed fallen behind the other countries, but it was also because the government was just as corrupt, or maybe worse than it was during the late Ming Dynasty. I'm not very sure of the Columbian exchanges and the food imports but that's very interesting and I'll find out more about them.

Actually it doesn't really matter whether Mao Zedong created a Communist China or capitalist China. Like what Deng Xiaoping said, "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, it's good as long as it catches mice" (不管黑猫白猫,能捉老鼠就是好猫). I'm not sure whether Deng did reverse ALL of Mao's policies but I know for sure that he opened China to the world and improved the Chinese's standards of living with his reforms. The negative impacts of Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are unacceptable to me, as I've mentioned before. Were there really no successes at all for China when it was under Mao's rule? Perhaps you can enlighten me on this? You seem to be labeling Mao's Communist regime as a total disaster for China. Anyway, we're talking about Ming and Qing so please don't side-track from the main discussion and start talking about Communist China and so on. I've this feeling that if we continue side-tracking, this debate may lead us to the Tibet and Xinjiang conflicts and maybe even China's issues with human rights. Lonelydarksky (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

明朝宦官问题

Reply

I'm pleased to see that you seemed to have abandoned that idea that the Qing's rule was comparable to the Ming's rule. The period of Manchu rule was a massive regression for China, and Chinese living standards did not improve at all from that period, in contrast to the Ming. In fact, I'd be inclined to believe that the Chinese during the late Ming is better than the Chinese during the 18th century, oppressed by foreign rule. The Qing's economic decline began long before opium. By 1750 the Qing economy had began to decline because of the emperor's arbitary policies of shutting off trade, seizing Chinese businesses, banning gunpowder and other Ming technology, etc... The Qing emperors also banned most techonological advance, which causes the economy to stagnate while population was growing. This was the main crisis of the late Qing that led to Taiping and N'ien rebellions, because of the economic stagnation.

In terms of the late Ming, the Ming government was actually relatively popular in the provinces not afflicted by the littel ice age(e.g., the south). Only in the famine-devastated areas of the North were there many supporters of rebellion. Also, rebellions only started after 1627, when the little ice age began. The peasants, I believe, rebelled against the Ming because they would have died of famine if they didn't, so they became bandits and stole food from others(such as landowners, etc..). However, even this wouldn't have been the end of hte Ming because Ming's armies were the best in the world, they could have easily crushed the peasant uprisings(and they did; Li Zicheng was nearly killed in 1638). However, the atacks of Later Jin in the early 1640's forced Ming to position their best armies on the northern frontier, which let Li Zicheng make a comeback and a surprsie attack on Beijing that resulted in Chongzhen's death. Chongzhen's death ensured that the various Ming princes all claimed to be emperors, which split up the Ming's armies into numerous pretender regimes that battled each other as well as Li Zicheng and the Manchus. This was the real cause of Ming's collapse. But if Chongzhen had remained alive, Ming government would have maintained its unity and they could have easily made a comeback with the armies in the Northeast and south and expelled Li Zicheng as well as fighting off the Manchus, because the Ming armies were the best in the world.

As for the "corruption" and "taxes" of Ming, it was, I believe, a non-existent problem. The taxation levels of the Ming were very light, especially compared to Qing and other dynasties. Ming's taxes were 1/30 of agricultural output only, equivalent to a 3.3% income tax and a 1.5% tax on commerce, very light. Although Ming later increased taxes by about 20% during the war with the Manchus, the effective tax level never exceeded 5%. As for corruption, I do not believe corruption was a major factor in fall of the Ming; The current CPC is more corrupt and imposes higher taxes on the people than the Ming(ironically, CPC is more capitalist than west now; western governments impose even higher taxes and waste even more money), but they still remain relatively popular. Only when the people have no more livelihood(like during the Little ice age) will they get angry and try to overthrow the government. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

20 September 2009

That's a wrong interpretation of my view on Manchu rule in China. I'm more inclined to have a balanced view on the Qing Dynasty rather than labeling it as absolutely bad or good. I'm not very sure about how Qing China had prospered during the reigns of Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong but there are historians who agree that these emperors did bring prosperity in some way to China. You may be right that the magnitude of the "prosperity" was not as great as the Ming Dynasty's golden years. But every dynasty has its successes and flaws so we cannot be too absolute in our views on any dynasty in the history of China. Rather, I'm more inclined to think that the Taiping Rebellion and other uprisings in the late Qing Dynasty were more likely to be consequences of corruption in the government rather than economic factors. Hong Xiuquan did permit trading with the Western Powers in his Taiping Tianguo and so did the Qing government. The Qing government traded with the Westerners for more advanced weapons such as guns and cannons, but at the same time, demerit goods such as opium as well, in return for "national treasures" such as silk, porcelain and silver. I'll find out more about the economic state of the Qing Dynasty. Sun Yat-Sen's Xinhai Revolution to overthrow the Qing Dynasty was the last straw and a clear indication of how the Qing government had "rotted" to beyond redemption. To use this quote from Confucius to describe the situation is most appropriate: "朽木不可雕也, 糞土之牆不可圖也" (a piece of rotten wood cannot be used for carvings, a wall stained with filth cannot be painted) or something to that extent. Maybe the late Ming Dynasty under Chongzhen Emperor's rule was similar in a sense.

Actually, there was some form of corruption in the Ming military during the later years of Ming. The soldiers behaved like bandits rather than protectors of the common people. One of the reasons why Li Zicheng rallied so many supporters, including some surrendered government troops was that everyone wanted a better life. That situation would be more or less similar to the Russian Revolution and why the Russians overthrew Tsar Nicholas II. Anyway, I still strongly believe that if Yuan Chonghuan was still alive, he could have kept the Later Jin invaders away while buying time for Ming to put down Li Zicheng's rebel forces and reverse the situation. But every government has its constraints, so how was Ming able to split its military forces well to deal with the Later Jin threat and the rebel forces when its military was already so weak (maybe due to corruption, incompetent military leaders etc)? I find your claim that the Ming armies were the best in the world very amusing. In Yongle Emperor's time and the early years of Ming, maybe, but certainly not in the later years.

Again, you're trying to link Communist China with the Ming and Qing again by drawing a comparison on corruption in the Ming government and CPC. I don't think I'm in a position to criticise the CPC's policies since I'm not a Chinese citizen myself and I'm not very familiar with them. I'll find out more about the Ming Dynasty's taxation systems since I'm quite interested in your claim that Ming's tax levels were good. I don't read a lot about ancient China's economic systems so I'm not as familiar as you. I hope that you can come to a less biased conclusion about the Qing Dynasty and Mao Zedong's Communist regime, rather having absolute views that they were totally bad for China. Even historians need to have some form of balance in their views on history. By the way, if you think that I'm pro-Manchu or pro-Qing, then you're wrong. I'm a Huaqiao of Han Chinese descent. I strongly advocate the notion of having balanced views on history. Lonelydarksky (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I never thought you were pro-Manchu, nor am I anti-PRC(just Mao). In fact, I am a supporter of the PRC, because it has more free market policies than the west, even the more liberal western countries I live in(its a good thing i dont live in Europe).

I think we have agreed somewhat on the Qing(its prosperity was not as high as ming, so it stagnated), as to Ming's military, it was, actually, the best. It won almost every battle it fought against the Manchus and the peasants until roughly the 1640's when the Manchus launched a surprise attack on Liaotung in 1641 when Ming's main armies were suppressing Li Zicheng. This forced Ming to pull back these armies, giving Li a revival. Ming's armies were equipped with muskets and cannons, very advanced for that time. You are right some of the Ming armies did behave like bandits; however, this is because of Ming's light taxes, which were inadequate for large scale warfare; as a result, Ming could not pay its soldiers. Many times the unpaid soldiers revolted and joined the rebels or the Manchus. But as I said, this was mainly in the north; my opinion was that if Chongzhen retreated to the South and raised armies there, he could have certainly held out like Southern Song and Eastern Jin, and eventually reclaim the north, because Ming was more advanced than Song or Jin(even Jin was able to reclaim most of Northern China after the battle of Fei). I agree that Yuan's death was a mistake; however, it was not as if Yuan was the only general that Ming had that could hold back the Manchus. Wu Sangui, for instance, did a good job holding back the Manchus til his surrender in 1644.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right that the Ming military was weak due to poor government financing. I don't think that Chongzhen's chances of recovery if he retreated south were great enough for him to reclaim the lost land. The Southern Song Dynasty might not be able to take back the north, even if there were thousands of Yue Feis and Han Shizhongs and not a single Qin Hui or Emperor Gaozong of Song. Like what I've said above, even Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong) might not be able to drive away the Manchus given the limited power of the Ming remnant forces. I agree that Koxinga's decision to retake Taiwan from the Dutch was a better option than prolonging the battle with the Qing forces. Perhaps Chongzhen would have done the same if he survived and retreated to the south. Wu Sangui was labelled as a Hanjian by some people. He received a title of nobility after defecting to the Qing Dynasty but rose in rebellion later during Kangxi Emperor's reign and his rebellion was crushed. That just simply reflects his "fan fu wu chang" (反覆無常)-ness, which is worse than being a Hanjian, in my opinion. But ultimately, Li Zicheng also has to bear some blame for Wu Sangui's defection. If he didn't take Chen Yuanyuan for himself he would not have provoked Wu Sangui into doing that. Lonelydarksky (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason the Southern Song could not have reclaimed the north is because of The Song's policy of deliberately weakening their generals because the Song founder's desire to avoid a situation like the Fanzhen of the late Tang(When he was killed, Yue Fei had retaken all of the Henan and Shandong and could have easily driven Jin out of Hebei as well). Even Eastern Jin, which was much much weaker than Southern Song, was able to reclaim all the terroritory south of the Yellow river during the Wu Hu period and held on to it til 453 CE, when a civil war allowed the Xianbei to retake that area. Considering this, the Ming could have easily retaken the north in my opinion, especially since most Chinese hated Manchu rule and would welcome the Ming army's liberation.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yuan Chonghuan discussion

崇祯也没有责任（草稿）Ⅰ袁崇焕问题（四、崇祯杀袁无可指责）

Quote from Lonelydarksky:

Yuan Chonghuan was put to death wrongly because Chongzhen distrusted him. If Yuan was still alive, he could have successfully kept the Later Jin away from Ming and hopefully buy some time for Ming to recover.

If editors read the above essay, a different conclusion may be reached. According to the owner of the essay, who is a well known and highly respected independent historian, the Manchu did invade Ming Dynasty sucessfully, one of the crucial reasons was the death of Mao Wenlong, killed by Yuan Chonghuan. However, it is quite difficult to verify it because it happened so long ago, plus the Manchu were notorious in burning books and alterring historical records.

Again this discussion take us back to the question on Jin Yong, because Jin Yong was/is very much a supporter of Yuan Chonghuan, and advocating the theory that he was exceuted wrongly, and I think it is very helpful if editors can go on discuss these different view points on Yuan Chonghuan, since he was a real life figure, not a fiction one. Arilang ^talk 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please don't "dump" entire articles on pages? Some people like me don't have a lot of time to read entire articles which are so long. Please provide a short summary of the main points of an article if you intend to use them in your argument, preferably in English. I'm fine with the summary in Chinese, as long as it's not too lengthy, just maybe three paragraphs or less will do fine. Who's this "well known and highly respected independent historian" you've mentioned? Please name him (or her) and provide a link to the historian's page. Like what you've said, it is quite difficult to verify this due to lack of evidence. Besides, this article is written from the writer's personal point of view. However, there are some who would agree that Yuan Chonghuan is a "min zu ying xiong" (民族英雄). Yuan did achieve some success in holding off the Manchurian invaders. Louis Cha probably enhanced Yuan's heroic image in Sword Stained With Royal Blood but I don't think he exaggerated Yuan's heroism too greatly. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This historical fact regarding C.H.Yuan is both very complex and controversial, and like you said, among others, Jin yong and others are ardent supporters of him. To understand the puzzle, let alone to solve it, is quite difficult, to say the least. Just to understand this complex issue, readers must accept:

1. There are two schools of thought on this issue, one is the official governmental view point, bodies such as China CCTV, Yan Chongnian, and of cause, Jin Yong. Another school of thought is independent Chinese historians.
2. Official Communist China's view point is Qing Dynasty was good, and all the Manchu emperors were good emperors. Just look at the number of TV dramas with Manchu theme, produced by China CCTV, you would appreciate how powerful this pro-Manchu force is.
3. Like you have stated before, the more we discuss the Ming Qing issue, the more readers would link up Qing and PRC, and readers would begin to compare PRC and Qing Dynasty, and the present PRC government would not like it. Arilang ^talk 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. Yuan Chonghuan is also called a "suspicious ethnic hero" (可疑的民族英雄) by some people. Allow me some time to read both sides of the view on Yuan before I give you a reply.Lonelydarksky (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Another must read article

• 袁崇焕杀毛文龙是对是错?
• 毛文龙是什么人？

Arilang ^talk 15:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time and patience to read these lengthy articles. Please stop posting articles here. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Helpfull points to keep in mind

1. At the end of Xinhai Revolution, Yuan Shikai made a promise to the Manchus, that none of the Aisin Gioro family, plus all the eunuchs and Qing dynasty Eight Banners people, all of them were spared of their life, unlike the French Revolution, when royal families were subjected to the gillutine. The direct consequence of this unfortunate act, is, since PRC, China's education system plus it's movies-making-industry(Culture section) had fallen into the control of Chinese of Manchu ethnicity. The end result, as everybody knows, Communist China movie industry had produced large number of film and TV Dramas glorify Manchu rulers, and real Han Chinese national Heros, like Koxinga, Wen Tianxiang, barely got mentioned.
2. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, massive numbers of ancient books were burn, or turned into paper pulp; this cultural destruction is comparable to the Manchu's burning of books during the compilation of Siku Quanshu
3. So it is natural that PRC government would brain wash all the Chinese into Nucai, so that none would ever begin to even compare PRC, Qing and Ming Dynasty Arilang ^talk 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll need more evidence to substantiate your claim that the Chinese education system and film industry (cultural section) are controlled by Chinese of Manchu descent. I'm not very familiar with the education system but I don't think it's dominated by Manchus. When you mention the film industry, do you refer to the film producers, directors, actors etc? Certainly some big names in that industry (Zhang Yimou, Ang Lee, Chen Kaige, Gong Li, Zhang Ziyi, Jet Li, Zhang Jizhong etc) are not Manchu. How many TV dramas and films glorify the Manchu rulers? Kangxi Dynasty (康熙王朝), Yongzheng Dynasty (雍正王朝) maybe? Do you regard Towards the Republic (走向共和) as a pro-Manchu TV drama series? But not that many, I believe? From what I remembered, there was a film about Koxinga and the Sino-Dutch War. It was directed by Wu Ziniu and starred Vincent Zhao and Shui Ling. To the best of my knowledge, I don't remember any films on Wen Tianxiang or even Yue Fei. Maybe you're right in some way.

I agree that the Cultural Revolution was a disaster for intellectuals and books. People like us may become victims of the Red Guards if we lived during that period. The term "brain-wash" is not very appropriate. "Propaganda" would be a better word. But that is not exactly tantamount to turning every Chinese citizen into Nucai! What you've said sounds very odd to me. Maybe because I've not experienced China's education system so I don't really understand what you mean. By the way, you seem to hate Manchus a lot. You seem to hint that the Manchu nobles should also be massacred after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, just as the aristocrats and nobles lost their heads at the Guillotine in France during the French Revolution. Puyi didn't end up the same way as Louis XVI or Marie Antoinette. He ended his life as a commoner peacefully. I just hope that you would refrain from being so anti-Manchu. Whatever the Manchus did in the past is history and they're now a recognised ethnic group of the Chinese population and we should respect them just as we respect our fellow Han Chinese. Lonelydarksky (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Must watch video

我的团长我的团 The best Chinese TV drama I have ever watched, even better than Towards the Republic. Arilang ^talk 08:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Characters in Jin Yong books pages

I'm divided. On one hand, yeah, that page is a bit OR.

On the other hand, as a wuxia fan who can speak some Chinese but who is largely illiterate in that language the list of characters guide pages has been a useful tool for reading comprehension when reading these books.

But then... they probably wouldn't survive an AfD.

Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there're some references available for citation. I've been using Baidu Baike or Chinese Wikipedia as references. However, a large part of the information came from my personal knowledge and readings, so OR is the big issue here. One problem, I haven't found any references in English. Maybe you can help me out on this? Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The main ref I have is an article I wrote and which I am currently polishing before shopping around to a few magazines. That probably counts as WP:OR... Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you show me the article? It may become a good source of reference. Lonelydarksky (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not done yet. If all goes well it may be published in an upcoming issue of Kungfu Magazine. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wish you luck on that. I look forward to reading it. Lonelydarksky (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can start pages for the main characters in some of the novels. It is strange and ridiculous to find, for example, that Zhang Wuji has a long article on him, while Zhou Zhiruo and Zhao Min have none at all. Can we work together on this? Thanks. Newfraferz87 (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Timelines

Hi, I've found a good guide for the timelines in Jin Yong's novels, at http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kz=599418040 . Although I would not say it is completely accurate, but it certainly helps in giving us a rough gauge of time flow in the book and it can undoubtly help us in writing timelines for the novels. Hope you like it! Newfraferz87 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very busy these days as I need to prepare for exams. I'll also be going on a holiday after that so it'll be a very long time before we can get back to work. Why don't you start first? I'll drop by when I can to take a look. I'll also need your help with protecting Wuxia articles from vandals. Thanks. Lonelydarksky (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The page is here, hopefully most parts of it can be finished before next year. Do help if you can. Newfraferz87 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections

We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to happy-melonlive.com, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.

For the election officials,

Happy‑melon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My email's enabled in my preferences now. Please try again. _LDS (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fang La/Fang Xi

I have to check old books in the lib., please wait for 2 days. --刻意(Kèyì) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Wish you a Merry Christmas! _LDS (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)