User talk:Iwanafish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Iwanafish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

[edit] Your Creation of John Carpenter Town Clerk of London

Hi Iwanafish, The Article you just wrote, John Carpenter Town Clerk of London, has been tagged for Speedy Deletion, because under CSD policy, section A3, it is simply a rephrasing of the title, and is a candidate for speedy deletion. If you wish to contest this place {{hangon}} on the article, and the reason on the talk page. Thanks!

[edit] Stub notice

Your removal of the stub notice on your new article is outside of Wikipedia policy. It is standard procedure for short articles to be so tagged. If you want the tag removed, please expand the article. I am a Wikipedia administrator, and can assure you that I am not simply being difficult. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quote note

Thanks for the creation and information on the Gido Shushin article. I was just recently, over the past few days, doing an internet search for him and barely came up with anything. Whatever you can offer is greatly appreciated. Sayvandelay 10:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your creation of the Gao Lian (dramatist) article

would you mind formatting it properly? thanks Chensiyuan 14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Julie-and-Bruce.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Julie-and-Bruce.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Yiting 1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Yiting 1.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Yiting 5.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Yiting 5.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Juliet-and-husband-China-2006.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Juliet-and-husband-China-2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Song-period-green-Duan-inkstone.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Song-period-green-Duan-inkstone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Iwanafish! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean pottery vs Korean ceramics

Brit?? That's a laugh, although most of my great, great, great (etc....) grandparents came from Britain. No, I'm an American. I'm almost a Mayflower descendant - one of my ancestors was on the third expedition to New England. I live in the American West and spend a great deal of my time working with clay -- both as a teacher and as a producer of functional clay works. Yes -- I'm a potter and an archaeologist too! I've always got my hands in some kind of mud.

The differences we've long been discussing on this page are, from my perspective, based on a language preference in Asian cultures for "ceramics" and the western clay communities preference for "pottery." Korean contributors (see top of the talk page on the article) seemed to believe that "pottery" was a low-class term and denigrated the "art" ceramics of their country. Only tiles and industrial products were "pottery." Both of these communities appear to define the two words differently. But we aren't alone. When it comes to definitions, some contributors to other clay related articles in Wikipedia insist that vessels -- of whatever sort, from whatever culture -- are pottery, and non-vessels are ceramic items (see the talk page on Pottery). When people from art galleries and art academia show up, we often get a third perception. And historians and archaeologists may have a fourth viewpoint. And then the ceramic scientists chip in.

If you look around, you can see that the debate is broader than just this article, and that Wikipedia titles in this area are very inconsistent (see Chinese ceramics). I have a strong personal preference for pottery as the generic term, and use it that way in my writing. But I have an even stronger wish to come to some kind of consensus, some standards for clay related articles. You appear to be coming at this article from a different perspective, dealing with the history or art culture of Asia. But I suspect you can see the value to the Wikipedia reader of consistent terms for related topics. Would you be interested in working at common definitions of these terms? For many articles?

I won't move the article again, just yet. But I do wish you hadn't moved it until consensus was reached. Community involvement in decisions and consensus are considered among the highest of the Wiki-community virtues, and consensus is a Wiki policy. WBardwin 07:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have moved it to my User Discussion page, like this one. I certainly have great respect for Asian pottery traditions, and do think we should honor source definitions and compromise whenever possible. But internal consistency would be of great value to the English speaking/reading public for whom we are writing the encyclopedia. As of now, there is little consistency in vocabularly on the art and clay related articles.

English has great flexibility in vocabulary and usage, but that strength does lead to problems in translation from other cultures. The three (just three, initially, I hope) terms we are discussing come to modern English from three different sources. "Ceramic" comes from the Greek κέράμους "of clay, earthen" and κέράμος "things of clay". "Pot" and "pottery" come from the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language tree, in Old English pott and pottere simply meant "pots". And "porcelain" comes from a later language, Italian, porcellana "a type of shell" which I assume was adopted for the color and translucency of the final product. When I'm writing about pottery, I draw from my training in archaeology and art history as well as the practical experience I have as a potter. My working definitions are as follows:

• Ceramic: composed of or relating to clay.
• Pottery: an object formed of prepared clay and minerals, and chemically processed by controlled heat.
• Porcelain: a category of clay and clay products, a clay body chemically compounded to produce a finished white, translucent ware.

But, believe me, these definitions are not common to all English speakers. For example, during my lifetime, the word "ceramic" has taken on many shades of meaning. The academic community (fond of words of Greek and Latin origin) has given ceramics a somewhat exalted class oriented place. Sculpture, art, and objects made of clay are labeled "ceramic" if they are fine, beautiful, used by the elite, or considered to have great value; but are "clay figurines" or "pots" if they were used by common people or had more practical use. This carries over to modern art galleries, who like to show "ceramic artists" rather than "potters". However, in the basement of the archaeology building, all of these objects end up beling called "pots" or "potshards". In contrast, in the western US, a craft movement arose in the last fifty years that focused on low fired figurines made from slip clay (some a low fire porcelain) formed in molds . People could take the "green" figures, sand them, paint them with low fired glazes, and have them fired to produce a keepsake (generally not a work of art). This movement came to be known as "ceramics" and shops and classes emerged teaching "ceramic" processes and firing methods. My local clay supplier does about half their clay business with these kind of shops. Although this is a reasonable use for clay, and has been throughout the ages, the use of the term "ceramics" has become even more muddied. When people call my pottery studio to inquire about "ceramics", I have to question them about what they are looking for lest they show up at my door wanting to paint figurines rather than buy mugs, bowls, vases or my more art oriented work.

So, could you go into detail about the origins of the terms (Korean, Japanese, or Chinese?) that you are translating from? What do they really mean in modern usage? From my definitions above, you can see that I would consider Korean pottery and porcelain redundant as porcelain ware is also a type of pottery. And an article on Korean ceramics should include all Korean material made from clay - maybe even including ceramic computer components.  :-) A section on appropriate Korean vocabulary in the article itself could solve some of these problems, and be interesting too. Thanks for responding. WBardwin 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The western term "pottery", particularly with modern ware, has no implication of firing temperature. Pottery has been produced throughout history at ever increasing temperatures. In general, early pottery around the world was produced from residual, native clays which were rich in minerals and salts. This pollution of the clay lowered the firing temperature, so that these clays matured at fairly low temperatures and were quite brittle. Western archaeologists and potters call this type of clay "earthenware", i.e. I assume, your "pottery." Some modern ware is still produced from this clay at low temperatures - for example flower pots/planters often exported from Mexico (usually labeled terra-cotta) and tourist and art oriented ware by native peoples in the American Southwest and Mexico. Higher fired ware (the equivalent of your "hard" ware or "porcelain") is usually distinguished in Europe/America between ""stoneware" " and "porcelain," based on the amount of mineral content still in the clay. As iron is the primary mineral which can be present but still allow a high firing temperature, stoneware clays have a measurable iron content while porcelains or china clays (natural and commercially formulated) have almost none.

So, on a personal note, I produce in high fired ware, primarily in stoneware, although my clay closet does contain a supply of my favorite brilliantly white porcelain. So -- despite the color of the finished ware, would all my "pottery" be defined as "porcelain" in Asian terminology? If so, I can begin to see why Asian contributors to Wiki would attach a low fired or cheap label to the use of "pottery." This correspondence is helpful, if long. Again, this type of info/comparison of terms would be useful in an article, even if we don't place it in the Korean "pottery" article. WBardwin 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG_0096_night.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG_0096_night.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG_0197_pair.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG_0197_pair.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG_0237_long_.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG_0237_long_.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yi._Flw..JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Yi._Flw..JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Juliet_1.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Juliet_1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi there! I've noticed that you've uploaded some images to Wikipedia over the last few months and tagged them using the {{PD-self}} tag. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions/make a couple of comments about these images if I may:

• For some of the images in the image summary you've include the words "fair use". As you may or may not know this phrase has a specific meaning in copyright law (see Fair use) and on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Non-free content) which contradicts the meaning of {{PD-self}} license tag that you have used. Have you released these images into the public domain? Or did you mean to restrict their use? If you did mean to restrict their use you should change the copyright tag to a more suitable one - for a selection see WP:TAG.
• To be able to release an image into the public domain using the {{PD-self}} tag you must be the copyright holder and be willing to release all rights to the image. If this is not the case for all the images you have uploaded and tagged using this tag - the tag needs to be changed.
• If at all possible uploaded images should include a full image description. A template exists to help uploaders provide this - see {{Information}}. It would be really good if you could add this information to the images you've uploaded.
• Finally....it would be better if images released into the public domain were uploaded directly on to the Wikimedia Commons as Wikipedia is not an image repository and should only really host images that have licenses that are not compatible with the Commons which only accepts freely licensed images.

I apologise if you are already familiar with this information - but also feel free to ask any questions you may still have about what I've written. Madmedea 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image reply

I am　the copyright holder and release all rights.--Iwanafish 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree image

I have listed the file Image:IMG 0182 Wu.JPG at possibly unfree images (and it will probably be deleted), because you make mutually incompatible statements about its copyright status (fair use and public domain). If you are the copyright holder, some evidence that this is the case would be helpful. - Mike Rosoft 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Update: you seem to be mass-uploading images from some website; please stop doing that, immediately. Should you continue uploading images with missing or incorrect information on its source or copyright status, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, unless you clarify the copyright status of the images you have uploaded within a week, I will nominate all of them for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Mike

I must be doing something completely wrong. The photo in question is one I myself took. When I uploaded it on Wiki I typed in "fair use" and selected the "public domain" notice. This I thought was the correct process. I had thought that by doing this I had relinquished my rights to the photo. That is what I intended. Please inform. --Iwanafish 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair use means something completely different from what you seem to believe; it's a situation when the law permits you to use a work, whose copyright is held by somebody else, without the copyright holder's permission. An image cannot be both in public domain and used under fair use provisions. (See fair use, as well as Wikipedia policies and guidelines on fair use material.)

  I am sorry if I have been too harsh on you and falsely suspected you. You know, Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously. So, do you confirm that you have taken all the photos you have uploaded yourself (we have had a rather infamous user plagiarizing material to Wikipedia, claiming to have written it himself), and that you agree to release it into public domain (i.e. with no restrictions on its use and re-use, unless mandated by law)? If so, then I will take your word for it and won't pressure you further. Regards, Mike Rosoft 09:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply

"A few Chinese characters in an article are certainly helpful. However too many creates an ugliness of empty boxes for ordinary English readers. --Iwanafish 05:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)"

This is a China-related articles, a few Chinese characters are definitely needed, and pinyin is always prefered. For better consistency, uniform templates are required. You don't own the article, I hope you get that, unreasonable removal is not allowed and either is cap size font. The same goes with your silent reverting with the inappropriate edit summary. Don't complain too much, it will not do you any good, save it for your self flatter photo. Gallery box is good, because the article you wrote is not too long, other than the arsy-varsy make-up poems, it not the matter of aesthetics but allow readers much easier to read. Eiorgiomugini 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celadon pictures

Hi, my name's Eric, otherwise known as Pericles of Athens on English Wikipedia. I love the Longquan celadon ware images that you uploaded to wikipedia, and I am using the two Song Dynasty items in two of my articles I've created, Economy of the Song Dynasty and Society of the Song Dynasty. Although you have them dated to the Song period, I was curious if you knew the exact century (approximately) each item was made, since the Song era of China stretched from the 10th to 13th centuries. If you can remember, that would be very helpful.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

I dated the objects. One could argue that the vase was made a bit later, however the detail in the handles asks for 13th century. The warmer is very early Southern Song. --Iwanafish 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to date those.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ouyang Xiu

This article is currently a GA candidate, but there is information from sources you entered that needs to be properly referenced. See the GA review section of the talk page for details. I don't have those works, so could you please do it. Furthermore, could you also please use the complete template for referencing those works. Thanks. ludahai 魯大海 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celadon

Hi! If you have time, could you be bothered to improve the celadon article, because it suffers from some grammatical errors and short/brief contents. I know you have already contributed much to it, but it could have potentials though.

BTW, Do you also have other celadon or porcelain images (especially Ming vase would be great, because for such well-known items, I can't believe that it would be hard to find images of it around) that could be uploaded to Wikipedia, that would be fanastic. Thanks!--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A Ming Vase-celadon photo should show quality of glaze. Historical changes in celadon were in the etched designs and colors. They attempted a popular appeal with decorative devices. Underglaze blue was putting them out of business. Ming celadon can somestimes be awful, but at other times interesting with the 14-15th century productions still admired at middle eastern destinations. In other words a photo of one of those.--Iwanafish (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to the I Ching article

Iwanafish: Please stop inserting the current version of the "Westernization of the I Ching" paragraph into the article. Editorial decisions about an article are made on the talk page, by consensus. Concerns have been raised about the material in question, and, in its present form, the paragraph cannot stand. It is unsourced, and is from a particular point of view (that is, it is not neutral). If you wish to participate in the discussion on the talk page, that would be welcome. I believe that the paragraph could be re-written, sources found and many of the ideas included. However, as I have indicated in an edit summary, if you continue to insert that text into the article in its present form, it will be treated as vandalism and you could be blocked from editing. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nantoyōsō Collection

Hello, Iwanafish. I saw your pictures taken in Nantoyōsō Collection. I would like to know more about Nantoyōsō collection, but cannot find information about the collection in Japanse documents. Please tell me the Chinese character spelling of Nantoyōsō Collection, or in which museum the collections are. Thank you.--Mochi (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January, 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to I Ching, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sunray (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Iwanafish, I posted this on the WP:AN/I page:

Having been a victim of more than one setup in my history on wikipedia, and having an interest and expertise in Chinese, this post caught my eye. When I investigated I found Iwanafish was not alone in wanting some of his edits included, despite Sunray's portrait. Indeed Iwanafish sourced one of his edits to p131 of Needham's classic. Sunray's rejection of Needham is most unwarranted. Needham's is one of the modern classics of world and China related scholarship. If his views on Chinese mysticism are not relevant then it is a very sad day for wikipedia. Having said that, I do not condone Iwanafish's style - though I point out that Sunray equally shares a tendency for reversion, and further, a tendency for ownership of the page in question. I recommend guidance for Iwanafish and Sunray, not the penalty Sunray seeks. Mccready (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunray does not appear to be an administrator, so his posting of this message would appear unwarranted and a heavy handed tactic in an edit war. Nonetheless, you need to provide reliable sources for all your edits, not just the Needham quote. Mccready (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The only difference between administrators and other editors is tools. As long as I follow policy, there is no reason why I shouldn't warn someone who is violating policy. This is no edit war. Please refer to the talk page if you doubt this. Sunray (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which tag did you put on ceramic related images, fair use or PD-self?

Hello, Iwanafish. Thank you for sharing good images of yours to English Wikipedia, but I little confuse your image rationale. You wrote "fair use" in summaries, but put "PD-self" tag. If you want to claim that the images are all copyrighted, you should put either fair use template and provide fair use rationale or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} I you distribute them under PD (best for Wikipedians..), you need to clarify the summary. --Appletrees (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And someone proposes to merge articles regarding Dehua porcelain, some of which you created, so please participate in discussion at Talk:Blanc-de-Chine. Thanks--Appletrees (talk)

[edit] William Elliot Griffis

Your minor edit to William Elliot Griffis is unimpeachable, of course; but it caused me to wonder. As it happens, this word choice has remained unnoticed for more than a decade.

I checked the edit history in hopes that I might ask the original writer why the term "westernizing" was used rather than "modernizing," but it seems unlikely that the original Dutch Dedden contributor will recall. If you know, perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining your reasoning? Although I can point to no specific citation, I have the impression that Griffis himself would have understood his career in Japan as "Westernizing" -- and perhaps we can guess that others like Sir Rutherford Alcock and Sir Harry Parkes might have thought this term was sufficiently precise.

I myself prefer your word choice. I think "modernizing" is better, but I plan to remain on the look-out for a citation which would support a revert-edit to the use of "Westernizing" in this article and elsewhere. Do you see my point? "Modernizing" ≠ "Westernizing"? --Tenmei (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)