Jump to content

Talk:Jiangxi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected

[edit]

Okay, the way this works folks, is that when you disagree with another editor, you come to this page and iron out your differences. I've protected the article for 24 hrs so you can get this sorted out. (I thought I was going to protect Symane's version, but by the time reviewed it and got to the protection window, LLTimes had reverted it again. No matter, we move forward with what makes the most sense to all the people who come here, not just the two of you. Symane, if you feel this is unfair, I can revert back to before either of you edited here.)

Since the article is currently at what LLTimes likes, Symane, why don't you present the changes you would like to make, and your reasons for them? For example, you changed the map: I rather like your map, which shows Jiangxi from a global perspective rather than just a Chinese one, but of course this is a matter of opinion rather than fact, so there can be no correct answer. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's too many error and random edits on his part. First and foremost, Hakka people are not an ethnic group but a subgroup of Han Chinese Majority and the placement of these information should be at the "Demographics" section, nevertheless, there are similar information there already. Second, his sources are mostly unreliable without no pages cited and no information through search (of course if it's academic studies then he should fill in the necessary information), then there's the linked sources that shouldn't be used such as this one www.jxrczpw.com which is similar to Yahoo Answers. It was used to cite how big Nanchang is but there are better sources to cite that one. Thirdly, you have to follow most Chinese province format, otherwise it's confusing and less organize, the question on the map [2] can be done through census but IMO it's not any better than the current one since the current one informs the disputed area and anything that follows while that one is all blank and even includes the disputed areas under PRC's line of control. Fourthly, on the template, please do not fill a template with 95% red links and if he want to merge the two template he identified as 85% similar, then do it. Last but not least, some of his edits are too controversial and disputed like the things he've written in culture of Jiangxi. --LLTimes (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's already conceded that he shouldn't be adding red links, so that's no longer an issue. You're right about coordinating things; the map and infobox format should probably be the same for all Chinese province articles. WP:Reliable sources should of course be followed. But let's see which things he wants to change and why, and we can discuss them specifically.
As for 'Culture of Jiangxi', that's an article he created. You can tag it for citations or merger if you think that's warranted, but we can hardly condemn him for not correcting things no-one has objected to. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late to this discussion. So my points are:
As for map, File:Kongse location.png is obviously much better because a global vision enables everyone to locate Jiangxi straightly at the first sight if he might not know much about China. And File:China Jiangxi.svg is completely duplicated with File:Location of Nanchang within Jiangxi.jpg where Jiangxi's location in China is already explicit. I don't know who fixed the Chinese province format and who gave him this right to impose his idea on all related articles, anyway, I don't think Jiangxi has the obligation to obey this rule, as each article works independently in my opinion.
The content I ask for restoring is: Ganzhou, Jiangxi's largest city, is home for Hakka people that are the second biggest ethnic group in the region, next to Gonnin (贛府人)[1]. Hakka people is an important ethnic group in Jiangxi and I don't feel any inappropriate to call them "ethnic group", because its equivalence in Chinese is 族群 which is adopted by all official documents.[2] It's LLTimes who should distinguish the difference between ethnic group (族群) and Nation (民族). As for the history part, During Jiangxi's more than three thousands years' recorded history, it has existed as a region of separate sovereign states, a single independent entity and as a political division of China. Jiangxi was firstly inhabited by Baiyue and then Wu, Yue, Chu peoples. Around 200BC, it was integrated into Han Empire and has been subordinate to China till nowadays, though some sovereignties were founded at times.[3] has been completely deleted. As it's narrating the historical events, I didn't give a detailed source. So I beg LLTimes to point out what offended you in it and then I'll try improving the source or doing some modifications. At last, it's not very skillful in accusing me of giving bad sources to prove "Nanchang is one of China's largest metropolis". I just found the link randomly on the internet which is a summary of "City Blue Book 2009"[3].Symane TALK 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map: Personally, I like the world perspective of your map better. But LLTimes has raised two important objections: (1) (and I agree) all Chinese-province articles should have the same perspective. It hinders comparison to have some on a world map and some on a national map. IMO this is therefore an issue for the Chinese infoboxes as a whole, not just this article. (2) the map promotes official PRC bullshit. It shows Arunachal Pradesh as part of China, when it's part of India. Imagine if we had provinces-of-India maps that showed Tibet as part of India!
  • Ethnicicy: Yes, the Hakka are often presented as an ethnic group. There are, of course, ethnicities within other ethnicities. I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum somewhere, and a general consensus reached as to which wording is appropriate. Perhaps LLTimes knows of such a discussion/agreement?
  • History: Yes, it would be useful if LLTimes specified what is problematic about your account. I know nothing of Jiangxi myself. I think, however, that he feels your Jiangxi history article is underreferenced and problematic on some accounts. Perhaps a discussion there would resolve any issues that carry over here. It may be a matter of how much time LLTimes can afford in invest in this. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st, Hakka otherwise known as Hakka Han is not an ethnic group in China and what you (Symane) did there constitutes an [research] I presumed. Also there are mentions of hakka in the Demographic section already.
  • 2nd, Gonnin, presumably is a term for people from Jiangxi or speaks Gan Chinese? you need a source backing that up. I will add a mention of Jiangxi people in demographic section later.
  • 3rd, Nanchang is one of China's largest metropolis is from a random link you found? that's definitely not an excuse. It's a fact that Nanchang is big since they reached top 25 in the largest city section of People's Republic of China page. The only problem is your source which i removed while I didn't remove the sentence.
  • 4th, History is important and I've seen people wrongly add stuff without proper sources. For example, native of Nanchang before Wu administration had a common ancestry with Xia Dynasty and Jiangxi with Nanchang was administrated by Qin Dynasty as part of "Jiujiang qun" (九江郡)[4][5], so that's an error in your input. The use of words aren't exactly good such as "subordinate", and you have to mention when and what about "some sovereignties were founded at times". So far, you haven't had a detail source to back those up.
  • 5th, Map is just unusable and we have to follow a certain format, not just you. It will make everything more organized and easy to understand.--LLTimes (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qin Dynasty
Even this Chinese map that shows the maximal territories of Qin China excludes Jiangxi from the Empire
  • Map: For this instance I haven't been told by anyone why "all Chinese-province articles should have the same perspective". I wonder since when totalitarianism has been taken as a golden value on Wikipedia? As for the indication of Arunachal Pradesh, this map derives from another map. Since it's a Jiangxi-related article, I think Chinese territorial disputes are irrelevant here. Moreover, Indian maps never show the dispute on Arunachal Pradesh, either.
  • Hakka: As I said above, "ethnic group" (族群) and "nation" (民族) are well distinguished on English Wikipeda though some users confuse them at times. In China, Hakka people are indeed defined as a 族群, not a 民族. Thus I find my interpretation correct. Nationalities of China is redirected to List of ethnic groups in China, so we shall rather rename the latter one to List of nationalities in China.
  • Gonnin: "Gonnin" (贛人) is a broadly-used name for Jiangxi people, especially for Gan-speaking people, for example [6][7][8] (first results by Google).
  • History: Xia is a legendary dynasty itself, what inspires you to conclude that "native of Nanchang before Wu administration had a common ancestry with Xia Dynasty"? Moreover, Jiangxi was never pat of Qin Dynasty, I may recite the wording of kwami that it just "promotes official PRC bullshit". As for "some sovereignties were founded at times", must I give you a list of sovereignties that were founded in Jiangxi? --Symane TALK 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the map, its useless to use old maps depicting the old dynastic boundaries, there are mistakes in other maps doesn't make you can do the same here. Chinese territorial disputes are relevant here.
  • unless you can move List of ethnic groups in China to List of nationalities in China, ande find a source backing Hakka as an ethnic group, then no.
  • I meant the term Gonnin, a search through google didn't have any jiangxi related things [9]
  • Common ancestry with Xia Dynasty was from the source and Jiangxi or northern was part of of Jiujiang qun under Qin in the source. Maybe you're promoting your own agenda here? --LLTimes (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Culture Of India.gif
  • About the map, no you still can't use it. Using the same concept, since there's some mistakes on other maps doesn't mean you can do it also.
  • The Hakkas are not a separate ethnic group: they belong to the Han Chinese majority. If you keep on insisting it is then we need more 3rd party suggestions in here.
  • On "Gonnin", from start to now, I meant the english term or pronunciation "Gonnin" need a source. From my memories, Jiangxi people are called 江西老表 or 江西人(?). The chinese term 赣人 is similar to 粤人 (People from Guangdong), however most "粤人" are refer to as 广府人 or 广东人 in Chinese while commonly known as Cantonese in English. But of course if you want to use Google book counts as references then "江西人" have 990 results. I'm just making sure there's no original research--LLTimes (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On history, Source of Jiangxi under Jiujiang qun (九江郡) of Qin --LLTimes (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sources & Cited sentences --LLTimes (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
漆身起, 黄源海, 吉林省地方志编纂委员会 - 1985 - 169 pages 战国初,周元王四年(公元前472 年) ,越灭吴)周显王三十五年(公元前334 年) ,楚败越,江西全境属楚。及秦灭楚统一中国后,改分封,设郡县,分全国为三十六郡,江西为九江郡的一部分。汉兴,改九江郡为淮南国,领九江、庐江、衡山、豫章四郡,江西则为豫章郡。
世纪之交的中国人口: 江西卷 2004 - 402 pages 局丈沿羊江西省古为。禹贡"扬州之城,春秋时大部属吴,战国时全境属楚,秦始皇分全国为36 郡,江西省属九江郡,西汉改九江郡为准南国,在境内设立豫章郡,至东汉、三国,豫章郡(治南昌)属吴,昔代改淮南国为江州,治豫章(后移武昌) ,隋置洪州总管府,废郡为州
江西文化 By 周文英 page 5 ...现在已知当时九江郡在江西境内所设的两个县的名称,一是位于今修水一带的艾县, 南坐为今江西最南部的大庚、南康一带,当时不一定晨九江郡
江西省地方志概述‎ by 漆身起, 黄源海, 吉林省地方志编纂委员会 - 1985 - 169 pages - Page 1 战国初,周元王四年(公元前472 年) ,越灭吴)周显王三十五年(公元前334 年) ,楚败越,江西全境属楚。及秦灭楚统一中国后,改分封,设郡县,分全国为三十六郡,江西为九江郡的一部分。汉兴,改九江郡为淮南国,领九江、庐江、衡山、豫章四郡,江西则为豫章郡。 ...
九十年代中国交通地图册‎ - Page 20 省会南昌·贯要坡市九江、说州、吉安、扯鸽镇、萍乡等。江西在一万多年前就有人类劳动生息。再治水分天下为九州,江西雇荆州。秦时为九江郡的一部分。唐宋年间,南货北上, 江西全境属楚。及秦灭楚统一中国后,改分封,设郡县,分全国为三十六郡,江西为九江郡
  • I never deny "Hakka ethnic group 客家族群" being part of "Han nation/nationality 漢民族". It's you that confuse ethnic group and nation.
  • "Gonnin" has not yet been a term in English, it's just a transcription of 赣人 in Gan language. If you insist, I may modify my sentence to "Ganzhou, Jiangxi's largest city, is home for Hakka people that are the second biggest ethnic group (族群) in the region, next to Gan people (贛人, Gan: Gonnin)".
  • To deny one thing's non-existence is always more persuasible than to ensure its existence. It's true that Jiangxi is often said to have belonged to Qin due to some reason, but these arguments always use the wording belong, never proclaiming that Qin had ever administrated Jiangxi[10][11]. And no administration of Qin in Jiangxi is confirmed by Xu Huanlin in 江西史稿, Mei Hua in 钟陵建置考, 江西行政区划古今发展演变略述 by Jiangxi Civilization, etc. and a big number of sources refer Yuzhangjun (豫章郡) of Han China to be the very first administration of Chinese dynasty in Jiangxi.
  • A new map is uploaded, I suppose there shouldn't be any more objection.--Symane TALK 11:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hakka - in order to avoid further debates, why not just settle for Hakka people? if you keep on insisting the otherwise, then we need a census or some 3rd party involvements here.
  • Gonnin - shouldn't be used since there's not a source citing it, so it's nonexistence in English. The term and translation might also be rough (due to various dialect in Gan Language), be cautious of original research which "Gonnin" might constitute as one, it would later be challenge again by other people. Preferably use Gan-speaking people, Gan Speaker or Jiangxi people.
  • Map - It's better not to use that map due to various reasons given.
  • History - If you already know there are "some" reasons for various scholars listing Jiangxi under Jiujiang qun then why are you taking one sided with what your sources says? Some of your sources stated that there were Commanderies in Jiangxi but it was ineffective since Qin was short lived. To resolve this, I prefer you to follow the steps in Zhejiang article,. For example the sentence can go, "Throughout the Qin Dynasty (221 to 206 BC), Jiangxi was under the control of the unified Chinese state, though it was a frontier area at best, and it was not until Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD),......". However, these are only my suggestions.--LLTimes (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My final proposal would be: "Ganzhou, Jiangxi's largest city, is home for Hakka people that are the second biggest Han ethnic group (族群) in the region, next to Gan people (贛人, Gan: Gonnin)". Gonnin is a universal pronunciation of 贛人 in all Gan dialects and it's helpful for foreigners to note this transcription. Please do not rashly label others with or, as far as I know, it's a widely-used convention on Wikipedia to mark a foreign name with its local pronunciation.
  • The final version of the global perspective map could be said to be flawless. It should be posted in the article as soon as possible if no more reasonable opposition be given.
  • My original edits never mentioned the relationship between Jiangxi and Qin[12], it's you that involved the controversial issues into the discussion. Why don't us simply skip it? As for Han, I accept to say "Around 200BC, Jiangxi was for the first time officially/effectively integrated into Han...".
  • I consider I couldn't make no further concession. If you still have disagreements on my last suggestion, I'd love to see you invite more users with constructive opinions into the discussion as you did last time.
"Han ethnic group" for Hakka is okay. Wikipedia is free for you to edit and contribute but to the point of changing an article and confusing its' readers is not okay. Most global vision maps are for countries, your map [13], does not go into detail and various reasons are given before to you, so preferably the current map. Gonnin is a non-existence term, rarely used by Jiangxi people to address themselves, as oppose to Jiangxi laobiao (江西老表) and Jiangxi ren (江西人) but of course (you would know even through google search), a 3rd party perspective would be better. Your edit here [14] were reverted by me was partially about the history while most are formatting. Your history sentence contradicts the current history section and article (for example here also [15]), while the "current" history are not yet sourced, nevertheless your lack of proper sources did not help you.--LLTimes (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I reverted the latest change. This isn't discussion, it's back to edit warring. Or appears to be--I admit I haven't read everything above.

The 3rd opinion below only states the obvious: if there's no set policy, then one isn't required to do something. That doesn't mean that one should therefore do the opposite. The consensus is to use the existing provincial maps: we have the same setup on every article, and they have been stable for a long time, which clearly demonstrates that consensus. Also I do like the global maps, IMO that is a topic for WP:China, and in any case we shouldn't use the existing global map, as it is factually incorrect. (Arunachal is part of India. China may claim it, but that doesn't make it part of China.)

As for the wording of Hakka vs. Gan, can't we agree on something? That should be quite simple to do. I'll try suggesting something if you two can't agree.

I do like having the Gan pronunciation of the name in the infobox. LLTimes, any objection to that?

As for the history paragraph, I copy it below. It's hard for me to evaluate it, as I'm not sure what the last sentence says. It would appear that the Qin problem has been solved? — kwami (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During Jiangxi's more than three thousands years' recorded history, it has existed as a region of separate sovereign states[4], a single independent entity[5] and as a political division of China. Jiangxi was firstly inhabited by Baiyue and then Wu, Yue, Chu peoples. Around 200BC, it was for the first time officially integrated into Han Empire and has been subordinate to China till nowadays, though some sovereignties were founded at times.[6]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Jiangxi and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: This is in response to the following request made at the Third Opinion project: "Disagreement about whether a specific format should be compulsorily used in all Chinese provinces articles." From reading the discussion, I would understand the request to only apply to the map question, and this opinion does not, for that reason, address any of the other various disagreements pending here including, but not limited to, either (a) the question of which map would be best for this particular article or (b) the question of whether uniformity of province map type for all Chinese province articles would or would not be desirable. I must presume from the discussion, above, that there has not been any discussion at the Manual of Style, some specific page concerning formatting of China–related or Chinese–province articles, WikiProject China, some policy or guideline about maps or maps of provinces or states, or some other policy, guideline, or general source which has established through consensus a particular map type to be used in this situation. (I have not looked for such a consensus decision, but I presume that if it exists that someone would have by now gone to the trouble of searching for it and it would have already been cited, above.) If that is correct, then the answer to the specific request must be, "No, there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles." (If someone wishes for such a policy, guideline, or convention to exist, then it should be proposed and decided by consensus in a location of that type. It must be noted, however, that even if it had been so established, WP:IAR and, if uniformity was not established as a policy or guideline, the fact that consensus can change, could justify the use of a different map in a specific case so even then it could not be said to be truly compulsory.) When there is no such established standard then the type of map to be used in a particular article must be established by article-by-article consensus.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Almanac was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Xu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Li Keyou, Jiangxi Gudai Wenming Tansuo, 1999/04/19
  5. ^ Dongzu Gaikuang
  6. ^ Xu Huailin (1993), Jiangxi Tongshi, P 154, 209

talk what?

[edit]

I'm losing my patience, honestly. The only tough problem is the map and it's solved now. What else bothers you guys? Tell me once, I don't work here 24 hours per day.--Symane TALK 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no excuse for losing your patience. You're the one pushing a particular POV; it's therefore up to you to demonstrate that it's correct. That's what working with other people requires.
The map is not solved. For one thing, it goes against consensus. For another, it is factually incorrect. You've addressed neither issue even to my satisfaction, and I've preferred your map from the beginning. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I shall make it quick for you by giving some of my options, hopefully we can have an agreement. *I've no objections for Gan pronunciations in the info box but please use the proper name of the language, not Gonni. (You can view an example of this in the Fujian infobox). *For the map, as explained to you before and various reasons are given, so I don't think i need to touch on that subject again (you can always take Kwami's advise). *Hakka is solved but I'm still quite unsure about the Gonnin part, It would be great if you would take all these and put it in the demographic section instead. *For history, i will give a quick reply as well but since it would be long and my schedule doesn't allow it, I will reply later.--LLTimes (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no substantial objections to two of the items, I restored them, though in my own wording, and with Hakka in demographics as suggested. (That section needs all the help it can get!) And I did tag the Gan pronunciation, as it's missing tone. Please adjust the wording if need be; I'm not trying to push my style. (Though I did copy edit a line in the lede which was anaphorically misleading.) — kwami (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not judge anyone here. Each of my edits was scholarly sourced and it's not up to you to lable it POV.
The consensus on the map is there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles. If you guys have any objection, please do go elsewhere to fly off the handle. And the Arunachal Pradesh part has been modified since a while, would you mind looking over the page before reverting? The same case for "Gonni", my last edit used "Gan language" deliberately in order to avoid problems, but here they are.
The demographic section only occupies one line on the head page while it introduces Ganzhou, Hakka and Gan peoples, these important information about Jiangxi, so it would be more appropriate to leave it there.
I've been waiting for your possible arguments on the history part. Still, I don't know exactly what you want, how would you contradict the historical facts? If you feel like talk of Qin again, that will just make us repeat what has been said above. Whatever, I still remain patient for your "quick reply" and I hope it'll be "quick".--Symane TALK 09:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami's propasal and edits are very balance and good, no objections here. On the History, there seems to be some disagreements whether Qin administrates Jiangxi or not, but since one of your source also mention jiangxi under Qin commandaries there yet there are problems with it due to the short lifespan of Qin and their ineffective commandaries in Jiangxi. Heres my proposal. "In 223, When Qin conquered Chu, majority of Jiangxi area was put under Jiujiang Commandary situated in Shouchun (寿春)[1]. However the commandary was ineffective and ended shortly when Qin falls." --LLTimes (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what he/she has restored exactly, just the transcription? Pity T.T
I accept your history part while it should be modified "...majority of Jiangxi area was recorded to be under Jiujiang Commandary...". And since it's long and not that important, I suggest putting it in the history section.
If you have no more particular thought on other parts of my last edits, I shall restore my version in a short while.--Symane TALK 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you two are in agreement then, apart from the map?
Symane, I'm not accusing you of anything. We all have our POV. But as responsible editors, we need to provide sources for our POV any time it is reasonably challenged. That's how it works around here.
Please review WP:Consensus. Of course, since there's no policy on the maps, we can use any encyclopedic map we want. But the clear consensus, from what been accepted at all of the articles, is the current map. We can go against consensus, but it's not generally a good idea. You want to change that, and that's fine. But of course when you go against consensus, people are likely to object, as LLTimes did here. "No policy" doesn't mean "I'll do what I want, and screw you guys". Best to have a centralized discussion, as at Wikiproject China. Otherwise people are going to continue to revert you. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right, I didn't take anything in heart.
I didn't and have no desire to look for your pretended consensus, what I clearly know till now is that "there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles." Above all, the advantages of File:Kongsi location.png are self-evident that anyone can locate Jiangxi on the earth at the first sight and it's also why this type of maps are more and more popular on wiki. Also information that the early map File:China Jiangxi.svg conveys is all included in the lower map File:Location of Nanchang within Jiangxi.jpg. Thus there oughtn't be any doubt using this global view map.
And please don't take the mickey out of me anymore in inviting me to enlarge the discussion. As I said on your talk page, I'm not engaged in modifying all Chinese articles and it's also out of my concern, I just try to contribute myself to Jiangxi-related pages. --Symane TALK 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but when you're going against consensus for all Chinese province articles, you're going up against everyone who edits any of those articles. That's why I think it should be discussed with everyone. I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Jiangxi map, though as yet there's been no response. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you yet again. This is getting annoying. You do not rule here. You need to learn to work with others. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the protocol in writing the definition or introduction of Chinese provinces. --LLTimes (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definition paragraph.

  • Put simplified characters, traditional characters, pinyin, Wade-Giles, postal pinyin. Please bold postal pinyin.
  • Neighbouring provinces and countries.
  • Etymology of name
  • Abbreviation, and etymology
  • Nicknames (if any), and etymology

References

  1. ^ http://218.65.88.149:8080/was40/detail?record=1&primarykeyvalue=%E9%A2%98%E5%90%8D%3D%E8%B1%AB%E7%AB%A0%E6%95%85%E9%83%A1&channelid=7274

rare earth mining

[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-candidates-promise-a-crackdown-chinas-advantage-erodes-in-a-key-area/2012/10/26/2363a766-1a18-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html?hpid=z2

i'd note that Jiangxi is noted for rare earth mining.....

--Patbahn (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jiangxi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka People in Jiangxi

[edit]

Are the Hakka People of Jiangxi natives of Jiangxi, or were their ancestors later (relative to the Gan Peoples) migrants into Jiangxi. I am under the impression that the Hakka language and Gan languages are closely related, which then would suggest that the two peoples are also closely related. 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:A40C:90C:8478:F5F0 (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jiangxi&oldid=1213345214"