User talk:Keahapana/Archive 6

CI

Are you going fix the CI article, or do you want me to? The consensus in the discussion has been to reduce the size of the article and the repetition.--JeremyMiller (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see my answer on the article Discussion page. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

research request

Hi Keahapana,

In June you posted a request for the following article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request:

Hu Shih, "The Concept of Immortality in Chinese Thought," Harvard Divinity School Bulletin (1946):26-43. ISSN 0362-5117, OCLC 1982866

Are you still interested in this article? I can probably get it, but it will take a few days.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted the article here. Please let me know when you've had a chance to download it so I can take the link down. GabrielF (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've got the article and it looks useful. Thanks again. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation of Video games developed in Japan

The dispute about romanizations for katakana words of non-Japanese origin has now entered mediation and is currently being talked about in this discussion page section. If you still wish to participate, please join the discussion. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Shenxian zhuan

In this article and others I note an absence of inline citations. Could you please add these? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, this might just be an overactive Friendly, but did you mean for INLINE to link WP:ILC instead of WP:ILT? For most articles, I find inline citation through parenthetical referencing (which Shenxian zhuan uses) preferable to cite.php-style footnotes. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was doing it manually but yes, a bad link. Parenthetical referencing has the issue of not linking up to the sources you're using, and detracting from the text. In addition, citations should go after the text based on them, and some paragraphs ("Present day ten-chapter versions of the Shenxian zhuan exist in various editions, two of which are commonly available. The 1794 Longwei bishu 龍威秘書 edition, which stems from the 1592 Guang Han Wei congshu 廣漢魏叢書 version recompiled from sources including Taiping guangji 太平廣記 quotations, contains 92 hagiographies. The 1782 Siku Quanshu 四庫全書 edition, which stems from the 1641 Jiguge 汲古閣 edition published by Mao Jin 毛晉, contains 84 hagiographies. Penny (2008:888) concludes, "Neither of these is entirely satisfactory". In addition, there are several one-chapter Ming Dynasty abstracts of the Shenxian zhuan, including the ca. 1620 Yimen guangdu 夷門廣牘 and 1646 Shuofu 說郛 versions." as an example) appear to be entirely without referencing of any kind. Ironholds (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning those unclear refs, which I've corrected. Yes, parenthetical references have both advantages and disadvantages. Since the MoS allows any ref citation system, the preference question is moot. I've noticed usability difficulties with the cite.php links on tablet and mobile computers. Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

I just replied to you on the talk page. You couldn't have been more wrong. How is it that you actually believed what you wrote?Griswaldo (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my faulty memory. Thanks again for correcting my mistake. Have you studied mythology? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have studied mythology, and I also study religion more generally. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was curious. My background is in Asian languages and linguistics. Cheers, Keahapana (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chinese protests

I would refer to this edit. I would draw your attention to WP:WEASEL. For such a wording to be acceptable, we would need at least one prominent and reliable source to categorically state that it is commonly referred to as the Chinese Jasmine Revolution, and referenced to the article accordingly. I do not believe such sources exist, and thus I have reverted your change. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Answered on Talk page. Cheers, Keahapana (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong English

I see you're into linguistics... Perhaps you would like to lend a hand at Hong Kong English? Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be glad to help. Thanks for mentioning it. Keahapana (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

resource request

Hi Keahapana,

In case you are no longer watching the page, I wanted to let you know that I found the article you requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and posted links to it on that page.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi GabrielF, That's excellent! Thank you very much. Best, Keahapana (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious source

Hi I have left a message for you below your note on my Talk page. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Three Treasures

Hello Keahapana,

It seems that you have Three Treasures on your watchlist. So have I.

You reverted "caring, saving and sharing" as the three treasures of Taoism. Actually, I think that these, more usual, words are not such a bad idea. Caring corresponds to compassion, saving corresponds to frugality.

The third treasure (described *here* as "daring not be at the world's front") is slightly vague, and humility doesn't describe it very well anyway.

To be sure: I am not 86.155.6.229

Regards, --MrGardiner (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello MrGardiner. The source for the DAB page "compassion, frugality and humility" is the consensus among these English translations. I'm curious. What is the source for your suggested "caring, saving, and sharing"? Best regards, Keahapana (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Keahapana, thank you for showing me this list of English translations. Actually, it wasn't me who suggested "caring, saving, and sharing" – this was done by user 86.155.6.229, who I am not. The simplicity of it struck me as sensible; that's why I reacted. But having read the material you pointed out to me, I am quite happy to comply. Regards, --MrGardiner (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Regards, Keahapana (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

CI 2

Seeing that very little has been done to fix the CI page, I've went ahead and edited it. With the exception of one source from a Free Tibet affiliate (which admits upfront that it's not a WP:NPOV source), I've retained all the sources that you have used. My main focus was on reducing repetition, which the previous edition of the article was full of. So, instead of saying "Sweden sees CI as soft power", "India sees CI as soft power", and "Japan sees CI as soft power", I've condensed it into "Various organizations see CI as soft power". In consideration of your views, I've kept all the points and arguments made in the original article, while focusing on making the article neutral.

If you have any concerns with the new changes, let's discuss it first on the talk page. And if we need to, we can invite in a third party user to evaluate the improvements, someone who hasn't dealt with China-related articles but is familiar with NPOV.--JeremyMiller (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll respond on the talk page. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In regards to general shared interests not necessarily for article talk pages....

Keahapana, we do indeed seem to have some shared interests, such as Chinese character etymology, and I am interested in reliable sources (although since my library's on a low budget plan, and I don't really care for Google Books due to its tendency to just about freeze up whatever computer I'm using and even more because it seems untrustworthy in terms only making the contents of currently copyrighted books only partially available -- it may take a while before I get a get a chance to really read them). I'm contacting you on your talk page because I don't want to make some already lengthy and long to read through article talk pages even longer with possibly irrelevant material, such as about myself. I do think that when Beckwith, says in the epilogue of his Empires of the Silk Road (an epilogue entitled "The Barbarians"!), that scholars should deprecate the use of the term barbarians, that this is a bit like the old "'ain't' ain't a word because the teacher said, 'it ain't!'" I also realize that K. C. Wu was much the diplomat, which is something to keep in mind when considering what he says about Chinese character interpretation. Still, I find both of them most interesting and certainly qualified as reliable sources (perhaps even better than average for Wikipedia). One of the things I have come to realize about the history of Chinese culture is that almost all sweeping generalizations are wrong. I am mostly interested in Wikipedia as a reliable reference resource for topics that I am interested in, like Classical Chinese poetry, and if I have an agenda that's it (although I wish that this benefit may extend to other sentient beings as well!). Obviously you and I have a somewhat different take on the best way to translate the words which certain old Chinese characters stood for, but maybe this will prove to be an evolving process. For example, in regards to 夷, I find Richard Sears' take on it to partially support some of the things we have said and partly to contradict them (see http://chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%A4%B7), where he gives the character etymology for 夷 as

"Etymology (文字來源): Remnant Primitive, those people 大 who dress in wraps 弓 not sewed cloths - barbarians"

Dcattell (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dcattell, I've requested and am waiting for Beckwith's and Wu's books. Sears has done an incredible amount of work, especially scanning the early graphs, which we can convert to SVG and add to Wikimedia. The website's information is sometimes useful, but it's not really Chinese "Etymology". Two preliminary questions. How long have you studied Chinese? Have you read DeFrancis's The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I realize that there is a difference between character etymology and word etymology (and also that there is a "folk etymology", like what kids in school use as mnemonic aids, which is very real from a sociological standpoint, but not scientific from a linguistics standpoint). As far as the word etymology of /yi2/ (夷), a good Internet source may be: 夷 at "The Tower of Babel" started by Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin. I have not read DeFrancis, but if you're referring to "character-splitting", I've read A. C. Graham's trenchant criticism of this practice in his introduction to his Poems of the Late T'ang. As far as how long I've studied Chinese? I guess you could say I've studied it a little, on and off, for a little over forty years, if you count Kanji; but, over the last few years I have mostly concentrated on Classical Chinese, and out of that my main interest has been Tang poetry, and what is related to it. How 'bout you?

I've also been studying Chinese for about 40 years. I'm a retired academic with a PhD in Asian languages and linguistics. Starostin was very prolific, and the website is often useful, but linguists disagree with some of his etymological theories. For Chinese etymology, I first check Schuessler's ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese. It (564-5) defines yí 夷 as "The name of non-Chinese tribes, prob. Austroasiatic, to the east and southeast of the central plain (Shandong, Huai River basin), since the Spring and Autumn period also a general word for 'barbarian' (Pulleyblank 1983: 440). It also notes that the ancient Yue (Viet) word for "sea" was yí, and "the peoples name might have originated as referring to people living by the sea." For Wikipedia editing, my favorite C-E dictionary is Wenlin. Have you used it? I just checked the Pulleyblank ref, and it's highly relevant to "barbarian" names. "The Chinese and their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Historic Times," in Keightley's The Origins of Chinese civilization, 411-466. Keahapana (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Exonym and endonym edits

In your recent edits to the article you removed (inadvertantly I assume?) the fact that an exonym also can be the name for a person. You also removed the cited source for that fact. Would you please put that important fact back in, and the source? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting my personal name omission, which I've corrected. The deleted Geocities ref is a deadlink, also found on the Wiktionary entry. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the good work you do! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. Keahapana (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Shenxian zhuan

There is a link to your requested information at WP:RX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetteDoe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help. Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Barbarians"

Hi Keahapana, thanks for your excellent work towards balancing the "Barbarians" article. I truly admire your academic erudition; which, along side of your carefully considered citations and factual detail have been immensely improving this article (which, indeed, quite needed it). Your work towards developing a chronological dimensionality is particularly welcome, at least to me. Thank you, Dcattell (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for your sense of humour! Dcattell (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dcattell, Thanks for your kind words and compliments, which I appreciate. Actually, I have you to thank for adding Beckwith's hypothesis, which led me into days of enjoyable research, resulting in improvements of the Barbarian article and others (like this). Yes, some WP editors don't think we should have fun. I think the acronym is FEITCTAJ. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chinese views on sin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sutras (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)