Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 14

message: Based on comments found in the "Was asked to comment" section, the comment/mediation work SlimVirgin has done failed due the fact that SlimVirgin was biased to one party and unprofessional when Wikipedia policies are concerned, so the final result will be unfair, but still I thank SlimVirgin's work.
Proof of SLimVirgin's biased view:
:SlimVirgin wrote: They seem to be right that Middle Kingdom is more common; therefore we shouldn't give undue weight to Central Kingdom.
:Doningj wrote: As a matter of fact, all unpublished views should be removed from Wikipedia.
Proof for being unprofessional regarding Wikipedia policies
:SlimVirgin wrote:"The onus is on you to show that Chen Jian's view is not a tiny-minority one:"
:Doningj wrote: Please read NPOV: "It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view."
:Doningj also wrote earlier:
::SlimVirgin, senior scholar Chen Jian's view is the mainstream source, his book was published in 2001 by University of North Carolia Press, and no counter views can be found so far. The main idea in Chen Jian's quote is that Central Kingdom is a more accurate translation for Zhongguo than Middle Kingdom, and he explains why it's more accurate.
Since the main namespace has been changed without my agreement, I will take the text SlimVirgin put as a reference point, and make the improved version as I suggested earlier. If you would like to change the new text without any valid reasons on this discussion page, changes will be considered as obvious vandalism.
Here are the explanations for the changes I made based on the version
SlimVirgin put:
For the word Zhonguo, we only have 2 POVs
:POV #1: Senior scholar Chen Jian's quote which compares Central Kingdom and Middle Kingdom comparison.
:POV #2: The meaning of Zhonguo based on 2 reliable / verifiable / creditable sources.
These VOPs are unique and provide unique values to the topic Zhongguo, and based on the Wikipedia policy:
:"sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."
those other sources which only use the term "Central Kingdom" & "Middle Kingdom" should be removed since they don't correspond to the claim that "The term can be literally translated into English as "Middle Kingdom" or "Central Kingdom.", in other words, they are not the sources for that claim. And because of that, POV#1 and POV#2 should be listed in the main text.
Please feel free to put comments here, I'm also preparing for a formal content dispute resolution through Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee if people continue to try to negotiate the principles of Wikipedia, or present unpublished views on Wikipedia. I would like to mention again, Wikipedia policy states that
:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
:Wikipedia is not a democracy
These are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus. !! Doning (Blocked by Nlu & his puppets (JinFX(1698)/Intsokzen/Naus/Dto) who are abusing the Wikipedia privilege)
:Doning, the issue has been decided and a compromise agreed upon. That's the end of it for now, at least until a new set of editors arrives and changes everything (editors, I said, not sockpuppets :-) ). You're free to approach the ArbCom, of course, but my guess is you'll get short shrift at best, because they don't settle content disputes — and if they were to take the case, possibly an article ban because you're the only one causing the disruption. Therefore, think carefully before approaching them.
:You're welcome to continue discussing the issue here within reason, and particularly if you can produce new sources to bolster your point of view, but if you keep reverting the article, you're likely to keep on getting blocked. So, please, stick to the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, the text you put was not in an agreement, and again it violates Wikipedia policy. If you would like to be the other party of my content dispute resolution request, please confirm, otherwise, please put your reasons here please. !! Zusuki stupig 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to sound harsh, but Doningj, not a single user has yet agreed with you in this interpretation of policy yet, so I would strongly suggest that you take that as a sign that the current way things are going is not the best. The best route here would have to be a request for arbitration if you would like to suggest that other editors are not conforming to the policies as written, nonetheless, and we would be subject to punishment (and potentially desysopping if we are indeed abusing our administrator powers), so I would suggest that you file an arbitration case. Another note for the arbitration case would be Nlu's sockpuppets, which could be added as a piece of evidence. That would be the best way to settle this once and for all. Cowman109Talk 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here I would like to have those people who are willing to be the other party of my formal dispute request sign and confirm, then I will request immediately since those are related to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia !! Zusuki stupig 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The dispute is in fact settled, Kim. We found a good compromise and everyone but Doningj was fine with it; he seemed unwilling to compromise, and so we went with the version most people agreed with. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Nod* I should have put more clearly that I was in fact talking to Doningj. :-) Kim Bruning 23:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Kingdom: content dispute resolution needed