Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology, legend, cultural symbology, and fiction

Sources

Please add sources to the assertions made in this article. It is hard to tell what is mentioned in sources, and what is original research, or what exactly is meant in the article. For example, the article said something about cash swords - is this a sword mentioned in Chinese mythology, or is this the coin sword used to ward off evil spirits meant here? The coin sword may or may not be part of any mythology, or just some folk practices, I can't tell from the wording here (I'm not aware of it being used in mythology, and no source is given for me to check). Is the flame of Yandi mentioned in mythology used as a weapon? Again it's not clear why it is mentioned here. It's also not clear why some of the battles are mentioned here. It's hard to tell whether some of the content are original research or just something randomly thrown together. Hzh (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No original research. There are some characteristics of random throwing together, primarily due to the fact that I have been working with various sources, rather than a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Basically an Aristotelian approach: assemble relevant data, and then see what we have. Regarding the coin sword, a Venn diagram including mythology and folk practices would show a lot of overlap. I am not aware that the flame of Yandi was ever considered to be a weapon (although it's an interesting idea!): the flame seems to be more related to agricultural practices, along the lines of slash-and-burn; however his name (炎帝) suggests flame. This topic probably does not belong in the article, unless to clarify this, and is probably unnecessary. The battles included provide some mythological context for the use of arms and armor, and some specific mentions of magical implements are mentioned in the mythology; for example, the South-pointing chariot of Huangdi is a type of war vehicle, in mythology. At this point, the article is barely in the Start class, and would obviously benefit from more work -- but at least it is a start. Dcattell (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you really understood what I said. The coin sword is a talisman or a charm used to ward off evil, probably something started in Southern China during the Qing dynasty. It is not, as far as I know, a weapon or armor in Chinese mythology, therefore to include it here is original research if you can't provide a source that say that it is a weapon or armor in Chinese mythology. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that mention coin sword, but we need one that specifically says it is a weapon or armor in Chinese mythology. It's same for the other entries in the article - for example the "legendary swords" mentioned in the table, were they ever part of Chinese mythology? We need sources that say there were. Hzh (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate your suggestions into the article. I have some materials about mythologically/religiously/fokelore-istically derived talismans and perhaps stories thereof. I will try to locate these or something else. If you or anyone else cares to provide such it would move things along faster. In fact, coin sword talismans might be a good subject for a new article, if someone wants to undertake such. Dcattell (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that you still haven't given any sources for the sword table, note also that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source per WP:CIRCULAR, even more so as the category in Chinese wiki is not specifically about swords used in mythology. If you won't give proper sources, then an original research tag will be added because that it what it looks like at the moment. You also write in such an odd way, for example why write "dispel the noxious presence of nine of ten over-heating suns", when you can just write that he shot 9 of the 10 suns down? Also please don't rate your own article, let others do it. Hzh (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, User:Hzh, your fixation on this article is at the point of merely being disruptive (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing):

"Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia."

You, User:Hzh, are not being helpful, and instead you have impeded development of this article. Please stop. Find something else to do than putting your energy into trying to nitpick apart an article only two months old and under active development. You have not been acting like a proper Wikipedia editor, and instead you are violating Wikipedia policy and norms, and thus impeding work on collaboratively developing an encyclopedia. I am attempting to assume that you are operating in good faith, but personal attacks on me -- for example gratuitously calling my writing style "odd" -- are simply unacceptable on Wikipedia. We are trying to develop an encyclopedia, not editorial conflicts. Thank you, Dcattell (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid insistence of WP:V is not disruptive, it is the primary policy of Wikipedia. If you insist on refusing to add material that are properly sourced, or keep adding material that are likely original research, then you could be blocked from editing. The edits I made there are primarily requesting verification of assertions made in the article, there is nothing contentious about those, therefore it is wrong to throw random accusation of disruptive editing. However if you are convinced that I have been disruptive, then take the matter to the administrators, and we can let them decide. Hzh (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I should also say that I came across the article in my role as a reviewer of new articles, it is my job to assess whether a new article passes the criteria for a new article. In this case, there are concerns with the sourcing, and I added the tags to allow you to show that the content can actually be sourced. It the content cannot be sourced, then they may be original research that is specifically disallowed per WP:NOR. The unsourced content may be deleted if sources are not forthcoming, and if the problem is too serious to be solved by simply removing some content, then the whole article may be deleted (which does not seem to be the case at the moment since only some of the content need to be sourced). Hzh (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Article sourcing and verifiability

To the readers or future editors of this article:

This article as of now is basically reasonably and verifiably sourced, as any one willing and able can determine by consulting the sources. However, it has been unreasonably, relentlessly, and disruptively attacked for lacking verifiable sources by a certain one user who is unwilling or unable to actually consult the sources and perform a verification, or else unwilling to admit to having done so. Certainly, the article has plenty of room for improvement, however please do not be discouraged by the grossly erroneous scare tags with which the article has been strewn, if it is still defaced by these when you read it. Since the article is cited with reasonably verifiable reference sources, material from this article should not be removed. However, it may be worth consulting an older version of the article from from around this date: Dcattell (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There are still no sources for the table, and it will be removed. You may see it as an attack on the article, but verifiability is a central policy of Wikipedia, and unsourced content can be removed. If you keep insisting on adding unsourced material, you may be blocked. Hzh (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)