User talk:Nlu/archive61

Hi, I noticed from the history of Xiang Yu that you are one of the major contributors to the article. I mean no disrespect to you and the others by giving the article a big "revamp" in the past few days. I've a habit (some consider to be a bad one) of rewriting articles that I perceive to be poorly written in terms of structure and language. I see that you've contributed significantly to many articles about the Chu–Han contention, so I believe that's one of your specialties in Chinese history? Check out the current revision of the article. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve it? Are you interested in working on a WP:WikiProject Chu–Han contention or something? Thanks. _LDS (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I don't consider the Chu-Han Contention a "specialty" of mine, but I do have an interest in it. Right now, I'm writing on a series of Tang Dynasty-related articles, but I'd have mild interest. --15:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for peer review here. Please do provide some suggestions for improvements. Thanks. _LDS (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do when I get a chance. I'm in the middle of a jury trial right now, so it might take a week or more for me to be able to get to it. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Please take your time. _LDS (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial is over, but I'm taking a bit of time to recuperate before doing much online. Will look at it when I get a chance. --Nlu (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlu! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Scot Shields - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Rolando Arrojo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Rick Distaso - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get your opinion and assistance on this article, especially since certain editors have appeared with a somewhat prejudiced agenda.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on military strategies or equipment, but I'd be happy to look at specific points. Do you have a few specific ones in mind that you want me to look at? (Please also keep in mind that probably the time periods of expertise that I would consider myself to have would be the time between the Sixteen Kingdoms period and Tang Dynasty, inclusive.) --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe your help in expanding this area will be useful. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, specific points on what you want me to look at would be helpful, with an article of this size. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps expanding the Sui-Tang and Era of Division period sections?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll take a look when I get a chance. I'm starting a jury trial, so I might not be able to do anything for a week, but I'll look at it then. Thanks for getting back to me. --Nlu (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's a bit late, but still, a happy Chinese New Year to you! I'm taking a break from Chu–Han articles at the moment and I'm currently working on a potential WikiProject Wuxia. Check out the sandbox page here. Maybe you'd like to join and help out in the construction? Cheers! _LDS (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry about not getting back to you on it. I'm actually in Taiwan right now, which makes it a bit difficult for me to find time. I'll be back in the United States on 2/19, and hopefully thereafter I'd be able to do so. --Nlu (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you mind doing an editor review for me here? Thanks. _LDS (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I've never done one, and I'm not sure that I'm qualified to... But if/when I have time, I'll look a bit at your edits. Thanks for asking me. --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I look forward to reading your review, doesn't matter whether it's formal or not. _LDS (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't done the review yet. It's just been one thing after another for me. --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, please take your time. But I hope that you can help me do the review within the 4 weeks or so, because I'll be going on a long wikibreak (about 2 months) after that. Thanks for your time, and I apologise if this has caused you some inconvenience. _LDS (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nice job on updating Chinese history articles! Do you believe it would be better if we Merge (?) -> Xin Dynasty with Wang Mang --LLTimes (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see plusses and minuses for both approaches; they really can be articles with different focuses, but since he's the only emperor for Xin, it may also make sense to merge. I have no strong opinions. --Nlu (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm because currently, most of the information on Xin Dynasty is in Wang Mang's page, well I guess we will need more inputs from other wikipedians on this matter, I've posted in Xin Dynasty's talk page. --LLTimes (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make the move ? Need admin rights. Thanks Nlu ;) Yug (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :-) But please check what printed sources use more, because Yan was an ROC general/politician as opposed to a PRC one or an ancient one. --Nlu (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no see, old friend. How are you?

What's your latest biography project? Recently I've been working on Parthian Empire. You should check it out; it actually has a decent amount of info on the Han Dynasty and Sino-Persian trade relations (or, to point to the obvious, the Silk Road). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you! I'll check out the article when I get a chance. Meanwhile, I'm working on some biographies that are approaching the end of the Tang -- which was a huge mess in term of determining who were sufficiently notable to be covered. :-) --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent! Share some links when you are finished. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple that I recently wrote/revised, which may interest you, would include Pang Xun, Gao Pian, and Li Guochang. --Nlu (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love your biography articles; these three men are such different characters and reveal so much about the chaotic conditions in society towards the end of the Tang Dynasty. Very cool stuff. I also hope you like the Parthian Empire article; in it, I mention the earliest tomes of the Twenty-Four Histories, as well as what Sima Qian had to say about the Parthians. In that article, I also inserted a fabulous image of Han-dynasty silk, which is very exquisite. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nlu, it's been a long time since I asked for your help. Can you take a look at Battle to the Southwest of Xiakou? It's supposed to be a precursor to the actual Battle of Red Cliffs but Sanguo Zhi and Zizhi Tongjian don't have anything more about this skirmish than one sentence. I am having serious doubts about this article and I suspect it is a hoax. I have tried to prod it but another editor became misled by the "Further readings" section, which I believe wasn't used to source the article at all, and removed the prod. (I can't check, but if those books actually support the claims put forth in the article, I'd be inclined to discount those as reliable sources.) So I guess what I'm asking is, do you think I should send this article to AfD? Thanks. _dk (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I could find is a brief sentence in Zhou Yu's biography in the Sanguo Zhi (vol. 54). I do suspect that it is a hoax, or, at best, educated speculation by the sources that the article cites, although not necessarily a "hoax" in the sense that the author of this article made it up, just that it is the result of speculation. I'd consider sending it to AfD. --Nlu (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nlu! =) For the moment I have redirected it to Battle of Red Cliffs. If that gets reverted then I'll try AFD. _dk (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there NLU, do you like to smoke some cigars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't smoke... --Nlu (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think like this you will be very healthy my friend. Do you like to be living in USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk • contribs)

Short answer: yes. --Nlu (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have been all over. In Germany, in London and now I am in Belfast but I have never been to USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

謝謝/谢谢 Takabeg (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, 謝謝 you! --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was browsing as an anonymous ip in Category:Chinese military personnel stubs when i came across this phony article. It looks to me like a prank, since there are no sources, there is no corresponding article on chinese wikipedia, and it was created by a banned account. since you're a chinese, i assume you'd know that this person is a fake, so i created this account and came to you, and anyway, even if hes not, the person isn't very notable and doesn't need an article here.False spotter (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have insufficient knowledge in this area to tell whether this is a fake article or not. I'd suggest submitting it to WP:AFD. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I though you might be interested in participation in this discussion Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#Restoring_this_article. There is a user that wants to merge all hybrid model specific articles with the article of the main model.-Mariordo (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you think about A & B. I know that the concept of 鍛奴 isn't used not only Anagui's personal view but also class issues. Takabeg (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not enamored with the view of equating 奴 with "slave" automatically, but I think both having the concept and not having the concept are defensible. What I think you should do is to discuss this on one of the talk pages, alert CenkX to the discussion, and invite him/her to join the discussion. Bo Yang, incidentally, avoided the "slave" concept and referred to them as blacksmiths only. Perhaps that is more neutral. (And if you want to do that, you can cite to Bo or to Zizhi Tongjian directly.) --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most of books and articles, "double quote" is used and I also use it. (e.g. 丁勇, 從「鍛奴」到汗國—突厥族的演進及與唐王朝的關係, 歷史月刊 Vol. 163: 北方遊牧民族與中原王朝的 / 歷史分合, August 1, 2001, pp. 22-28.) OK I'll control Zizhi Tongjian and add it to article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In which book or article does Bo Yang mention to this issue ? Takabeg (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you know this article which refers to the Rouran society as a slave-owning system. 木骨闾 was also "slave". Takabeg (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in school these days (haven't been for about 13 years now), so I don't really have the same kind of access to academic studies as I used to. With that being the case, I am not sure I am qualified to review the article for its reliability. I do agree that Rouran (as well as any Asian society at the time) was, at least to some degree, a slave-owning society. On the other hand, because of the double use of Chinese characters (for meaning and for sound) particularly in the context of the use of those characters to describe non-Han names, I am less comfortable with the idea of ascribing a meaning to every Chinese character that is used. In other words, I would be hesitant to directly translate 匈奴 as "savage slaves," for example. Further, while it was noted in Chinese texts that Helian Bobo's change of the surname from Liu to Helian (赫連) was intended to denote a grand (赫) connection (連) to Heaven, it has always been disputed, ever since Northern Wei days, whether "Helian" was actually intended for that use or was a transliteration of a Xiongnu term.

For the original text of the Zizhi Tongjian that I was referring to, see Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 159 -- specifically, this passage:

突厥本西方小國，姓阿史那氏，世居金山之陽，為柔然鐵工。

(What I would translate as, "Tujue was originally a minor state to the west, with the surname Ashina. They lived north of the Altai Mountains for generations, and served as ironsmiths for the Rouran.")

Given the general acceptance (both in Song and later times) of the Zizhi Tongjian as a reliable source with very little controversy, and given Sima Guang's general tendency to be careful in his descriptions, I would adopt it.

(As for Bo, he basically translated this into modern Chinese; I can look up his translation of this specific passage if you really want to, but I think a direct cite to the Zizhi Tongjian is sufficient; this is not a particularly arcane passage.) --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I used Zizhi Tongjian, vol. 159. And I found an explanation about blacksmith slave like this:

Larry W. Moses, Relations with the Inner Asian Barbarian, ed. John Curtis Perry, Bardwell L. Smith, Essays on Tʻang society: the interplay of social, political and economic forces, Brill Archive, 1976, ISBN 9789004047617, p. 65. 'Slave' probably meant vassalage to the Juan Juan confederation of Mongolia, whom they served in battle by providing iron weapons, and also marching with qaghan's armies.

And Helian Bobo is very interesting figure. 铁弗 = 杂胡 and according to Book of Sui Ashina was also 杂胡. See you. Takabeg (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xue Zongzheng said that the letter 率 (of Ashina Jiesheshuai) is a wrong use in 薛宗正《突厥史》, pp. 388-389. I want your oppinion too. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to disregard traditional sources on this without conclusive evidence -- say, a future archaeological find that conclusively use "結社爾" rather than "結社率." Since all traditional sources use "結社率," I feel that's more reliable than "結社爾," with all due respect to Xue. Again, if archaeological evidence overturns that in the future, I'd be willing to reconsider. (This is unlike the Xue Rengao vs. Xue Renguo controversy, where there is a split among the traditional sources themselves.) --Nlu (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understood. Takabeg (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realized that Book of Tang uses 結社爾. Still, I find 結社率 more reliable, but I am now less convinced than I was. --Nlu (talk)

Hi Nlu. Can I ask a question about Bumin ?

İbrahim Kafesoğlu] wrote that Still in 534, Bumin established political relationship with the government of Northen (Western) Tabgach (Wei) and in 542 he had been seen near the Yellow River.^[1]

Do you have historical sources about this issues ?

• 北魏孝武帝永熙三年=公元534年
• 西魏文帝大统元年=公元535年

Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think about

At the beginning of 6th century, the Rouran Khaganate was weakened during the war aginst Gaoche Fuzhiluo's tribe. Kök Türks took advantage of this chance, in 541 they moved south from the southern foot of Altay mountains. After the decline of Gaoche, Anagui made them aristocrat of the Rouran Khaganate. In 542, Kök Türks expanded its territory beyond the east of desert and reached to Ordos.^[2]

I found that

zh:s:周書/卷27 (大统)八年 (542)..........每歲河冰合後，突厥即來寇掠

But we can't say there was political relations.............

I must go home. See you. Takabeg (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi --

My thoughts are that, absent my having more reliable sources available to me, I'd rather rely on the Zizhi Tongjian. (Again, this doesn't mean that it actually is the most reliable or best source, just that I am unqualified to judge the other sources cited here to be reliable.) According to the Zizhi Tongjian, the relationship between Western Wei and the Tujue did not start until 545, when Yuwen Tai sent Annuo Pantuo to Tujue (not the other way around, as the Bumin article currently state) to establish relations.

As far as your reference to the Book of Zhou is concerned — it is my opinion that while the date is correct and appears to establish that there were Tujue raids from 542, that doesn't mean that there were political relations. Indeed, the Zizhi Tongjian's entry in 545 states:

至其酋長土門，始強大，頗侵魏西邊。

This suggests that when Bumin became chieftain (although not using the title of khan yet), he became strong, and was beginning to raid the western regions of Western Wei. So it makes sense that these raids were occurring before the 545 establishment of relations (which presumably decreased these raids, if not eliminated them).

For more of the chronology, also see Book of Zhou, vol. 50.

I do not believe Ibrahim's 534 date to be supported by any Chinese source, and given that it is an assertion about Tujue-Wei relations, I think not having a Chinese source to corroborate makes his assertion here unreliable. (The Book of Wei, for example, does not mention Tujue at all.) --Nlu (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

非常感谢 Takabeg (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Maybe An Noupantou is correct. Because of 安国. Takabeg (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]