Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 17 March 2009

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

==

公即為漢傢傳人，華夏子民，孫先生擁護者， 何不思光復華夏文明，反認同蒙元滿清為中國耶？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.166 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A translation, for the sake of transparency (nothing against you Arilang: I know you didn't write this):

This message was written in classical Chinese to make it more difficult to read for machines or for those whose Chinese is not so good. Anyway, this kind of political motivation for editing would clash directly with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Sincere cheers to you, Arilang, for not falling for it. Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you complimentary comment Madalibi. Well, according to Hua-Yi distinction, we really have no choice. My argument is, if we reject Mongols and Manchus, and kick them out of the Chinese formula, we should then also kick Tang Dynasty out, because of their Xianpei stock, kick Ming Dynasty out, because they were a bunch of Hui muslim. What have we got left? Arilang 06:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I DO generally disagree with people who say that the Yuan and Qing dynasties were "China" in the same sense as the Han, Tang, Song, or Ming. The Qing, for example, was much more of a multi-ethnic empire than the Ming, because Manchu rulers governed large regions of their empire in clearly different ways. And depending who they were talking to, the Qing emperors were also Khans of the Mongols, reincarnations of Buddhas, etc. I just don't take this kind of observation in the spirit of "restoring Chinese civilization to its lost grandeur," as the anonymous poster seemed to imply. I wish I had time to integrate all these views on the Qing dynasty wiki... Anyway, talk to you later! Madalibi (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof that zhu yuanzhang was a muslims, stop slandering people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.147 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

THe mongol and manchu rulers had no chinese blood. Tang emperors did and so did ming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.147 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arilang, you said Tang's emperors are Xianbei origin, it's not totally true. I know Li Shiming has Xianbei blood, but only one of his ancestors was Xianbei, and was a matriachal ancestor. okay, if Li Shimin's mother is Xianbei, he is 1/2 xianbei, is his grand-mother is xianbei, li is 1/4 xianbei, 1/8.1/16 and so on. So, li's xianbei origin is minim. You know, a ethnic origin is marked on Y chromosome, so we herited our ethnic origin from our father. Li's father is Han, so in theory, Li is a Han. And you can see Li speak Han language, wear Hanfu, have Han customs... All this told us that we can consider Li is a Han, not really Xianbei.

Zhu Yuanzhang, the first emperor of Ming, is a real Han, not Hui muslim. Zhu is Hui, is only a rumour, certain persons told this because only Zhu has constructed some muslim 'churches' for Hui peoples, according to this logic, you can also say Zhu is a european, because he has also constructed some catholic churches pour europeans who came to China!

I'm a Han, and I'm often disappointed and frustreted when I see some chinese of other ethnic groups insulted Han people by using violent actions and nasty words, and the most of Han don't rebut them. And the gouverment traits us as second-rank people, just because we are numerous. And some Han don't know the real history, they said like, 'our hero Gengis Khan is a great king, blabla...' They ignore that Gengis khan killed so many innocent Han people! I'm not against mongols who like their heros, but for us, he's only a atrocious butcher. And in the history books used by school, they said almost all that mongols et manchus invaders are our heros, and Yue Fei is a flunky who disturbed relations between peoples! Whose fault, dusting the eyes of ignorant Han? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.166 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish you could understand my explanations. (oh, my poor english) 67.204.2.166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.166 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My answer is please read Hua-Yi distinction, that is all I can say Arilang 01:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Fixed it a bit for you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 10:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Arilang 10:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hu Jintao is A LOT Better than Wang Mang

He got his position Legitmately. And he ruled a lot better than Wang Mang who wanted to restore feudalism.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hu and others were able to handle the 2008 Sichuan earthquake situation fairly well (although it revealed corruption such as many buildings not being built according to professional standards and thus collapsed). Compare this to Wang Mang's inability to handle the crisis of the flooding of the Yellow River. However, he shouldn't be entirely blamed for this, since he did make efforts to dam the river. In any case, thanks for giving me the link to the article.--Pericles of Athens 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Teen and PoA, it is a very common practice among Chinese historians to compare contemporary rulers with historical rulers, and of course, no rulers would be happy when their names were put alongside killers or mass murderers, which is what Wang Mangs name conveyed. Chinese like to classify the rulers as 仁君 or 暴君, my impression on Wang Mang 王莽 is that he was a killer, a 暴君, am I correct in saying so? Have to sign off for now. Arilang 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wang Mang was not a 暴君. He was a reformer who wanted to restore feudalism of Zhou dynasty. He failed and was kicked out by baixing who restored Han.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wang Mang on Baidu Baike

王莽还想借对外战争来缓和国内的矛眉，这一来又引起了匈奴、西域、西南各部族的反对。王莽又征用民夫，加重捐税，纵容残酷的官吏，对老百姓加重刑罚。这样，就逼得农民不得不起来反抗。

1. 从历史的惯性来说，胡温之后很可能出现王莽类型的乱世：随着中央权威因丧失公义而衰落，各路想当皇帝的人就会陆续粉末登场，于是中国进入轮回的乱世. I kind of agree with this comment, beside using para-military police to squash all the anti-government protests, the Hu/Wen government do not know how to deal with the people .

1. The Boxun article using Wang Mang to compare Hu/Wen government, seem to imply that China may be facing popular uprising from the Baixing
2. 由于他看不起边疆藩属，削王为侯，不断挑起对匈奴和东北、西南各族的战争。

In the light of the most recent USA ocean survey ship incident, when Chinese fishing vessels were harassing unarmed USA ships, seems to reflect 借对外战争来缓和国内的矛盾, meaning creating international crisis to cover up domestic troubles, is the real reason and motive behind this Boxun article. May be we shall be seeing a more aggressive China in the near future? Arilang 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it VERY HEAVILY. If anything, its more likely the US Empire will crumble than the Chinese. Hu/Wen are able rulers. Under them and their successors, following Deng's path, China will eventually be restored to her ancient glory. You may not like the CPC of Mao, but I can assure you the CPC Of Deng is 100X better. Also, note China is the least aggressive of the great powers.Teeninvestor (talk)

Oh ya, and you need to go to some neutral forums. Boxun.com is not neutral. In fact, I suspect they may be funded by the US(aka dissidents).Teeninvestor (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"kind of agree with this comment, beside using para-military police to squash all the anti-government protests, the Hu/Wen government do not know how to deal with the people." At least China isn't in a deflationary spiral + hyperinflation, like much of the west will soon be in. Complaints aside, no Chinese today would think of bearing arms against the government.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD

What's the best way to counter an AfD? Should I add more English sources to Zhang Ya? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the CPC

Just wondering what issues do you have with the current CPC that you think are so bad that the CPC will collapse later????

Deng's reforms have improved Chinese lives in this way: 1. China now has the biggest industrial sector in the world. China produces the most ships, cars, steel, and others. 2. Chinese are more prosperous than ever before. Average wage has risen 24k Yuan, inflation is under control. 3. Hu/Wen government has introduced reforms to help the people(Some of which I didn't like very much, but we'll get to that point).

So what's the problem???? Teeninvestor (talk) 20:58, 13 Marc亦h 2009 (UTC)

the problem is that the stupid CCP bulldozed the entrances to beijing's underground bunkers, and refuses to build further bunkers and fortifications to protect the chinese people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.129.45 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You are too young

1. You may have done a lot of research works on Han, Tang, Song, Yuan history, but how much history of the CPC you have read? The current form of government is a mutant(a mix of Oriental and West), because the real functioning is inside a black box, the decision makers, or CEO, are a bunch of mysterious Dr. Fu Manchu kind of characters. How much do we know of Hu Jintao? Wen Jiabao? Xi Jinping? How much do we know of 太子党? 古語:水能載舟,亦能覆舟, if a regime is hated and fear by it's Baixing, and only use para-military to squash any kind of protest, what will happen if Baixing begin to act like 陳胜吳廣?
2. Under the present form of government, China will never reach Han/Tang glory, because China is lack of Soft Power, because none of it's core,核心, or CEO, are of world leader quality. Back in the ancient time, the whole world went to China to study, to learn, to clone it's system. Now, Teen, you tell me, what has China got to offer to the world? Secret police? Nuclear bombs? Corrupted officials? Polluted air, water, and soil? Millions and millions of workers who are paid US$ 10 per month? poison milk?dead students? The list is very long. Arilang 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

China has a lot to offer the world. The world'd biggest factory????? China produces steel, cars, ships, planes, and other things for the world. The world loves CHinese products. That's why they're produced everywhere. - - And no you cannot get workers in China for $10 USD per month. The average wage for rural workers in China is about 20,000 yuan which is about 3300 USD per year. That's more than 200 USD per month. That's not a lot, but its respectable. - - "#Under the present form of government, China will never reach Han/Tang glory, because China is lack of Soft Power, because none of it's core,核心, or CEO, are of world leader quality." - - And you tell me the US, who is going bankrupt and going to hyperinflation on a bullet, has that quality of "world leader". The country who has subsidized its industries for 30 years, whose bullets reduce millions of souls to earth, has that "quality". - - And besides, with the way CPC is going, China wont have this form of government in 10-20 years. CPC has already allowed elections at county level, and county comissars now directly elect city comissars, and so on. There are some very encouraging developments.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"if a regime is hated and fear by it's Baixing, and only use para-military to squash any kind of protest, what will happen if Baixing begin to act like 陳胜吳廣? "

I can assure CPC is not nearly as hated as you think. Minyuen is hated much more, for selling out China.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arilang, without nuclear bombs, russia and india will find it easy to bully china. and its exactly why hu jintao is so weak of a leader, that he has TOO MUCH soft power and not enough "hard power". even with nukes, the way jiang zemin folded to the russians show how easily they can be bullied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.129.45 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please answer my questions one by one

Teen, I still say your China impression is extremely one-sided, or POV, to borrow a wiki term. Now I shall list my questions one by one:

1. Secret police?
   
2. Nuclear bombs?
3. Corrupted officials?
4. Polluted air, water, and soil?
5. poison milk?
6. dead students?
7. Black kiln slaves?
8. Illegal harvesting of body organs?
9. Why put Hu Jia in jail?

Teen, to convince me, or to win me over, you need to present a reasonable answer to all of the above questions. Can you do that? Arilang 22:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

3-7 is the natural development of capitalism. Evolving a country from agarian roots to industrial superpower is no piece of cake. And besides, most of these are getting better, not worse. West had it worse during their development, I assure.

Hu Jia/secret police is also a natural development. Chinese government's first priority is to maintain order- many countries have collapsed during the transition.

Hu Jia I have no sympthay for. You can complain, but don't collude with foreigners!!!! "Using a web camera, Hu participated in a European parliamentary hearing in Brussels in November 2007 about human rights in China. At the hearing he said: “It is ironic that one of the people in charge of organizing the Olympic Games is the head of the Bureau of Public Security, which is responsible for so many human rights violations. It is very serious that the official promises are not being kept before the games.”" This guy is being a propanganda tool by the Western countries, AGAINST China.

"# Illegal harvesting of body organs?" BS. That is FLG propanganda.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Teen, your answers are not specific enough, or rather, your answers cannot be called answer, because you are simply avoiding a main issue. What is the main issue? The main issue here still is the relationship between Rulers and the ruled 君 and 民, or 君民关係. In the past,there were very few 仁君, when 仁君 came along, then there was 天下太平 peace under the heaven, everybody happy, because the rulers were 愛民如子. The opposite is 暴君, whose policy is 暴政, they treated people as 草民,蚁民,賤民, and you and me know that, 暴君 would most often got overthrown by the revolting Baixing, if not, they normally would have a lot of ugly words associated with them in the book of history. In fact, Wen Jiabao openly said a few times, he would like to go down in history as a 清官, as is apparent in his quoting of poem:春?到死絲方儘, 蠟燭成灰淚始乾. But no matter how hard he tried, there are accusing fingers pointing at his wife and his son(who were reputed to have changed his name to avoid being detected as Wen's son). Teen, nearly all the communist government officials are heavily corrupted, including the sons of Hu/Wen. This is unprecedented and unheard of in all the Tang, Yuan, Ming Qing history. PRC government would have to be ranked the most corrupted government in the world. PRC officials are like clowns and stooges standing in front of Han/Tang golden eras. Arilang 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

CPC has heavy corruption, but I would argue Late Han, Tang, and Ming were just as corrupt. Remember, none of these dynasties had to deal with the problem that the HUA XIA WERE ACTUALLY BACKWARDS FOR ONCE. Also remember CPC may be corrupt, but so is the west; all their politicians are funded by "campaign contributions" which is just legalized bribery in my opinion. I mean look at GWB and Enron.Also, you forgot Ming was a golden era as well. Anyways, my opinion is that DEVELOPMENT IS RELATIVE. Look at western history from 1800 to 1900 and you will know what I am talking about. The west sure didn't have any qualms in doing things CPC would be overthrown for.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you forget one thing. PRC IS THE ONLY CHANCE CHINA HAS OF REVIVING ITSELF. The last 150-ish years, 350 if you count Manchu Qing dynasty, have been one of the most darkest eras in Chinese history. Only the PRC can take China out of this period. And right now if CPC can survive the challenge of holding a country together, they will be positioned perfectly to overtake other countries after this depression. For the sake of the Huaxia, I would support the PRC.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, Teen. CCP do not have the 天命 Mandate of Heaven anymore, soon will be game over. From historical point of view, PRC is 苛政, or 暴政. and soon there will be 官逼民反, there is noway that this PRC shall last very long in its present formation. Arilang 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... sorry to butt in and be all rude... couldn't help but to make a statement. Regarding corruption, back during the 1931-1949 era, the KMT was just as corrupt. I personally view that both the CCP and KMT are neither "the perfect party", however the CCP was the lesser of two evils, to a point. Before the end of the Civil War, the KMT was so corrupt that even Truman had trouble trusting Chiang Kai Shek.

1. KMT did little to fight against the invading Japanese. They were more worried in killing communists. They could not place all their effort on the war with Japan; while some generals fought the Imperial Japanese, others openly avoided combat, to "sell space for time", hoping that the Allies would finish Japan so that there were enough men to fight the CCP.
2. The Communists engaged in guerilla warfare against the KMT and Japanese, and did so well, that some US generals questioned the strength of the KMT. The US saw that corrupt KMT officials were selling US-donated weaponry on the black market.
3. The modern view on "reds" and "commies" is due to McCarthyism, this plays a major factor in all our points of view.
4. KMT was supported by the rich, so they helped the rich.
5. CCP introduced Land reform, industrialization measures, reunified China and shot the landlords to their graves, and treated their troops with respect. The KMT army was made of conscripts who were poorly treated and beaten by their officers. The CCP did not maltreat the peasants like the KMT.
6. After nationwide control, yes, there was the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. This was only because of one thing: Mao. Now, I never said that all Chinese loved Mao, did I?
7. Chiang was a dictator, was he not? The ROC only obtained democracy in the early 1990s, and that was in TAIWAN only.
8. KMT was corrupt - during WW2, for every 10 million USD of aid given to purchase weapons from the US, only one million made it into the army as proper weapons. Officers pocketed the money for themselves.
9. "Red" China is now open, rich, and prosperous, is it not? 2nd largest GDP (PPP) in the world, is it not? This is all thanks to the venerable Deng Xiaoping.
10. Think about it. If Sun Yat-Sen were alive today, would he rather see a dictatorship under Chiang? I'd doubt that, if the KMT had won the war, that Greater China would be democratic today. Taiwan is small and naturally rich, it would be much more difficult even for the KMT after 100 or even 200 years to introduce democracy in all of China. There is a vast countryside of poverty. With poverty comes hardship, with hardship comes corruption. With area comes military might.

Had Chiang Kai-shek actually fulfilled the San-Min Zhu-Yi (Three Principles of the People)? No. People still lived in poverty. The KMT had the support of the upper class, why should they help the poor? They opposed the CCP becuase they promised land reform for the peasants. Overall, the evils of the KMT outweigh the evils of the CCP. Sure, neither were good, but can you honestly say the KMT were better? They did not reunify China. They gave autonomy to the warlords. The CCP shot all the landlords, on the other hand. The CCP did not introduce democracy, but neither did the KMT. Chiang's regime was still a dictatorship.

What happened later, on the other hand, was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which completely ruined China. However this happened much afterwards, after the era of KMT/CCP struggle. Not forgetting the White Terrors of the KMT on Taiwan, such as the 228 Incident, the KMT still clung to their authoritarian ways.

My conclusion: The death of Sun Yat-sen resulted in the harsh reign of Chiang Kai-shek, destroying the people of China. The rule of Mao over the CCP caused economic and social destruction. If Sun had never died, China probably would have never been on its knees as a Republic. Probably. Sun Yat Sen loved China, we can all see that, for he wrote the San Min Zhu Yi and was concerned with the plight of the people. Chiang didn't give a damn about the people, Mao never gave a damn about proper governance. Now, regarding the modern era, can you honestly state that you are absolutely sure that the KMT would do a better job? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

@李博杰, I think it is wrong to talk about what if, it is useless, and pointless, since nobody can go back in time and wind back the clock. That said, we should all look to the future, and try to guess what future historians might write about 21 century Chinese history, and try to guess what kind of yard sticks, or norm, the future historians might use. For me, if I am still alive, say 100 years from now, I would use 孟子 as my norm, my yard stick.

1. 民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻 Translation:Baixing is paramount, is top; the country, or the society, come second; rulers, King or emperor, come last. If I am to put forward this question to Hu/Wen during their internet video chat, I seriously doubt that I would get an answer. Arilang 13:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

name one period in last 350 years better than current period & one leader better than deng xiaoping

Arilang, Name ONCE in the past 350 years of Chinese history that is better than now. Name ONCE. NAME ONE RULER THAT WAS BETTER THAN DENG in the last 350 years. Tell me Who will overthrow the CPC???? The workers whose wages rise day by day??? the capitalists who just earned their wealth due to CPC???? the students whose education is subsidized by the CPC???. NO CHINESE, IN HIS SANE MIND, would choose an american-dominated Mingyuen government over the CPC! Unless you want to hand all of China's freedom and wealth to the anglo-saxons, go ahead, try to overthrow the CPC. Thanks to Deng Xiaoping, CHina is now a major power and back to recovery. That is supported by every worthy Chinese. The first duty of every Chinese as a citizen is to hope for the motherland.

As to KMT's point I believe Chiang might have ruled better but since CPC won, we should stick with it. Under the venerable Deng Xiaoping, CPC has changed to a good government(compared to Manchu, Republic, and Mao).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heart of iron and stone

Tragedy portrayed in folk song 鐵石心腸

@Teen, when I was listening to this song, tears just would not stop surging out, possibly this is the saddest, and hopeless song I ever heard, so I decided to do a translation. You know what, I could not stop weeping while I was working on it. 1994 Karamay fire#Tragedy portrayed in folk song

A popular Chinese folk singer (周雲蓬) has compiled a list of Chinese man-made disasters and turned it into a song, and the Karamay fire incident was mentioned in the song, so was the internet catch phrase: 讓領導先走 (translit. Let the leaders walk out first.)

不要做中國人的孩子

不要做克拉瑪依的孩子，火燒痛皮膚讓親娘心焦
不要做沙蘭鎮的孩子，水底下漆黑他睡不著
不要做成都人的孩子，吸毒的媽媽七天七夜不回家
不要做河南人的孩子，愛滋病在血液裡哈哈的笑
不要做山西人的孩子，爸爸變成了一筐煤，你別再想見到他
不要做中國人的孩子，餓極了他們會把你吃掉
還不如曠野中的老山羊，為保護小羊而目露兇光
不要做中國人的孩子，爸爸媽媽都是些怯懦的人
為證明他們的鐵石心腸，死到臨頭讓領導先走

English translation:

Don't want to be Chinese's children

Don't want to be the children of Karamay, the fire that burn their skin also scorch mother's heart
Don't want to be Salan town's children, under the water so dark, he can't sleep
Don't want to be the children of Chendu, drug addicted mother seven days seven nights no come home
Don't want to be Henanese's chidren, HIV virus is laughing HaHaHa in his blood
Don't want to be Shanxi's children, father's body is covered by black coal dust
Don't want to be Chinese's children, you will be turned into food during famine
Even old goats in the wild, will send eyes of staggers when their young were being hurt
Don't want to be Chinese's children, Papa Mama are a bunch of cowards
With heart made of iron and stone, shouting let the leaders walk out first when their children were burnt alive.

In Chinese:盲人歌手周雲蓬《不要做中國人的孩子》Translation:Chinese folk song:Don't want to be Chinese's children

The west went through the same thing durign development

???? West is not exactly perfect. Drugs and AIDS is much more prelevant there. Government taxes are so much more heavy than China. Corporations regularly make the people pay money into their pockets. THe money supply is privatized.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Arilang1234, I think your fundamental problem is that you don't realize all comparisons are RELATIVE. YES PRIMITIVE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITALISM IS BAD. BUT EVERYONE HAS TO GO THROUGH IT. IT is like you have cancer. You don't want to go through chemotherpay. But you have to, or else you die. Which one is better????Teeninvestor (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Teen, please cool down, you seems to be working for the China Ministry of propanganda. What is wrong with you?

1. Wiki editors are here to record verifiable sources
2. Wiki editors should stick to NPOV
3. Wiki editors should be like zh:司馬遷
4. 《孟子·滕文公下》：富貴不能淫，貧賤不能移，威武不能屈，此之謂大丈夫, Teen, I may not be 大丈夫, but at least I would try to be one.
5. 战国时代的孟子，有几句很好的话：“富贵不能淫，贫贱不能移，威武不能屈，此之谓大丈夫。”意思是说，高官厚禄收买不了，贫穷困苦折磨不了，强暴武力威胁不了，这就是所谓大丈夫。大丈夫的这种种行为，表现出了英雄气概，我们今天就叫做有骨气。http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/15926049.html

Arilang 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For readers who cannot read Chinese

• 富贵不能淫 Translation:When I am rich and famous, I would still keep my conduct clean.
• 贫贱不能移 Translation:When I am down and out, I would still keep my principle.
• 威武不能屈 Translation:When I am facing brute force, I would not bend down and kiss ass. Arilang 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

王何必曰利？亦有仁義而已矣。

《孟子》 梁惠王章句上·第一章 孟子见梁惠王。 王曰，「叟，不远千里而来，亦将有以利吾国乎？」 孟子对曰，「王何必曰利？亦有仁义而已矣。」

@Teen, I know you are angry, but you need to cool down first. 仁義道德 is the fundamental of any Han Chinese society. When Chinese society disregard 仁義道德, according to Hua-Yi distinction, the whole society would become Barbarian, the obvious explanation is that Chinese society is not governed by Rule of law, because Chinese society do not have Ten Commandments, until the Han Chinese culture incorporate the western idea Rule of law into it's core value, Chinese society would simply turn into a barbarian society, regardless of who the rulers were, CCP or KMT, or even the Pope of Vetican, is of no use. I am not particularly pro-KMT or pro-CCP, I am using 仁義道德 as a yardstick, as simple as that. Arilang 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CPC Propanganda???

Terribly ineffective in China. In fact, none of us here on wikipedia love the CPC, you should realize that. But What will replace the CPC??? you tell me. Would you rather guys like Liu Xiaobo, who don't have 1/30 of Deng's skill and who want China to go through "colonizatioN" to be in charge???Teeninvestor (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

仁義道德 & rule of law is much more respected in China than west. Yes, invading Iraq is rule of law. Taking the Americas/killing all of its population is rule of law. Shipping OPIUM to China is rule of law. Burning all Roman books(Christianity's greatest feat) is rule of law. As far as I can see, Westerners need rule of law just as much, if not more. YOu still haven't answered my question. What will replace CPC???? Will China not be world superpower, when it has largest GDP & most competitive industries??? Is that not what China is aiming for???? Basically, what part of China as of now is worse than West was during the industrial revolution???Teeninvestor (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wiki editors are here to record verifiable sources Wiki editors should stick to NPOV " Exactly. Then please show me why you think rule of law & ten commandants is more beneficial to Chinese& Chinese are now "barbarians".Teeninvestor (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Should put PRC, Qing Dynasty Ming, Song, Yuan on the same platform

Teen, I know the West had done heaps of terrible things to others, but it is a very poor excuse to be used to justify whatever mistakes, or social evils, that are being created onto Chinese society in general. And these social evils are created by Super Greed (暴利), or Super Profit. To me, this is one of the main cause of majority of the China's social evil.

1. Historians when talking, or writing about Qing Ming Song Yuan, would simply say which emperor say what or did what, and the consequence was what and what. I have yet to read proper history books, which are written just to find excuses for some emperors, to justify whatever evil things they did, saying it's OK, some body else did more nasty things. We are not that nasty yet.
2. When doing comparison between Yuan, Ming, Qing, we not only focus on nasty things, we should also focus on Good things. Just read all the articles written by PoA, all those featured articles. Nearly 100% of the content is about the Good of the Han Chinese culture. Now, PoA is a Westerner, a bright American university student, who will be a great sinologist, give him some time. Souldn't you learn something from him?
3. I know for 350 years China had suffered a lot, but the backwardness was not caused by the West, to be fair. Not even by Qing Dynasty, as proposed by you and your internet blogging friends. Some historians point the fingers at Confucianism, I kind of agree with this kind of explanation. For example:劳心者治人,劳力者治於人, basically, the people is being divided into 2 classes: the rulers and those being ruled. Another example is 成王敗寇, an extreme form of them and us.
4. We can keep on blaming others for our own problems for another 500 years, but that is not going to do any good for the Hua Xia, I am quite sure. Arilang 16:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a way to skip this stage???

There's something called Capitalism, remember??? Put it this way. Can you find a way to skip this stage."We can keep on blaming others for our own problems for another 500 years, but that is not going to do any good for the Hua Xia, I am quite sure. Arilang talk 16:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)"

This is the solution. Its called free market capitalism.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Now, as children of Hua Xia, shouldn't we feel sad about the children of children of poorer Chinese, who have no choice but to stay back to live among all those poison, after all, they are just like us, children of Hua Xia. "

Well, I'm sorry. But the point is, its better than starvation(which would be the result of their unemployment).Oh ya, and please read Du Zhebie's stuff and you realize what I am talking about. Qing/Mao is two causes of China's Backwardness. I would rather have some social problems than starve(which is the ultimate evil)Teeninvestor (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The evil of Super Profit 暴利

Teen, please check E-waste village, an article I created. Now, you and me, plus other editors, we all live happily(hopefully) in the West, in a relatively cleaner enviorment. Now, as children of Hua Xia, shouldn't we feel sad about the children of children of poorer Chinese, who have no choice but to stay back to live among all those poison, after all, they are just like us, children of Hua Xia. 孟子:人皆有側隱之心. Teen, where is you 側隱之心? Arilang 17:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Now, you and me, plus other editors, we all live happily(hopefully) in the West, in a relatively cleaner enviorment. " I live in the west but my relatives in China, as far as I can see, is not less comfortable.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Teen, whatever system, or political agenda you believe in, 民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻 remains my motto. I hope you will agree with me one day. Arilang 20:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why we must have free-market capitalism, as Deng Xiaoping has instituted.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Arilang, i suggest you try cleaning up every piece of grabadge in china. you should blame it on the people who are picking up the e waste and melting them down. those villagers are as stupid as they were 500 years ago, blame everything on heaven, and got lead poisoned.

@teeninvestor, free market capitalism blows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.129.45 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First you call me a communist and now this. The point is, guys, you have to go through this "five-year old coal miners, lead poisoning" stage to get to the fruit of developed capitalism. That will be the Hua Xia's destiny. i am confident when historians look back they will say "Oh, Qing and after was just a tiny dark age of China's history(like North & south dynasties) and Deng Xiaoping revived Hua Xia, now its great again."Teeninvestor (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of E-waste village

I have nominated E-waste village, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/E-waste village. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Killiondude (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning

stop pushing pro cantonese POV. cantonese are not the "only" chinese descended from the "oiriginal" han people. Min-nan, wenzhou, xian, other dialects have even closer connection to middle chinese than cantonese, and are ethnically closer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.129.45 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty

Tag team of biased editors trying to delete the article. Please take a look and help me argue them off.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation Teen, I would try to understand the cause of the problem then I will help you. Arilang 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I plan to withdraw from WP:3RR because it is ineffective and no uninvolved editor has shown the willingness and temerity in wading into this escalating dispute.

Instead, the dispute resolution processes of formal mediation are necessary. If that fails, the resort to arbitration may prove helpful.

We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. In my view, the the words and actions of what Teeninvestor wrongly characterizes as a "tag team" have been consistently informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes— and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality.

As I see it, your participation has not been reliably focused on aspects of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which would lead to a stable, credible article.

What seems to be missing is a method by which a determination on whether content policies are being followed can be made authoritatively. Mediation may help resolve the issues which mark this minor article as a battlefield. --Tenmei (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This guy is out of control, man.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good News!

User:Teeninvestor/sandbox/Economic history of China is almost complete. We finished all premodern sections except Han, Song and Qing which Madalibi and Pericles Agreed to do. Why not take a look?Teeninvestor (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ran Min article shows why he had to kill all the Hu in that era. Teeninvestor (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, some more good news- Chinese auto production is scheduled to surpass American this year. If this comes true, this will join ships, steel and other commodities in which China now produces several times. China's steel prdocution is 5X that of US.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)