2314:
presenting fallacies, fabricating an obfuscation of unproven allegations and unsubstantiated claims, spreading malicious slander, making personal attacks, or foisting nebulous categorizations onto other editors with whom you happen to disagree with? It is certainly not a wondrous enigma that you've been blocked for your juvenile antics and comical gambits, which in my opinion should not only warrant criticism, but should also be subject to mockery. But I voluntarily choose not to engage in that kind of indecorous conduct as it may have a deleterious effect on my editing reputation, as I strive to maintain a humble and poised demeanor on this platform. Your poorly rationalized responses are replete with nothing but derogatory remarks, pejoratives, nebulous categorizations, fallacies, and erroneous allegations. Instead of taking me head on by rationally presenting a compelling counter-argument, you have the gall (considering the obvious weaknesses in your faltering argument, which is obviously collapsing on its own weight) to insinuate moral, but also racial superiority by suggesting that the
Burmese are purportedly more "superior" to the Chinese in terms of collectivism, altruism, complexion, and physical attractiveness? When the fact is, the subject of contention is about socioeconomic differences, not about how the Burmese are purportedly "better" than the Chinese in terms of collectivism, altruism, complexion, and physical appeal. The ineffective diversion tactics that you have cooked up, whether intended to distract me from the current subject of contention at hand or provoke a response isn't going to work on me as they will ultimately backfire and prove to have fatally damaging, deleterious, and detrimental effects that will not just consequentially harm your editorial reputation based on the unfounded accusations that you continually impute against me, of which are unwarranted and unsustainable in the long run. Moreover, your response would be far more credible if you were able to produce and supply the corresponding evidence (regardless of how politically incorrect it is) at will to substantiate such outrageously scandalous and spurious claims. Because last time I checked, it was the indigenous Burmans who have been expressing the bickering grievances regarding the alleged economic exploitation of Burma by the Chinese, often resorting to weak justifications to deflect attention in an attempt to conceal their own socioeconomic failures and shortcomings.
2360:
physical appearance of Han
Chinese in comparison to Burmans, such as the labeling of the former as "ugly Chinaman" or holding to the concept of "Ways That Are Dark," based on skin complexion are completely inaccurate and unfounded. It is erroneous (considering the significant quantity of erroneous information and fallacies emanating from an incompetent editor of your caliber) to suggest especially if you are debating whether Burmans are aesthetically superior or inherently more physically attractive than their Han Chinese counterparts based solely on their darker skin complexion, as Han Chinese, whether if they're Northern or Southern, typically have lighter skin tones than Burmans. Furthermore, it is worth noting that lighter skin is typically perceived to be more desirable in East Asian culture, so a preference for lighter skin is prevalent as lighter skin is generally considered more attractive than darker skin, though it is essential to acknowledge that perceptions of beauty are inherently subjective, subject to individual interpretation, and varies from person to person. Given the average physical differences of the taller stature and lighter skin tone among the Han Chinese compared to their Burman counterparts, I have never observed any notable media coverage in showcasing in how Burmans are at the forefront of reshaping global beauty ideals. Since it is rare to find any iota of significant recognition in the global press that can validate your spurious claims with regards to how Burmans are allegedly the pioneering trendsetters in redefining the benchmarks that shape global beauty standards. Because of this, I can also confidently state that the physical stature of Burmans is as unimpressive as their commercial business capabilities, as they certainly are not renowned for being particularly astute in commercial business matters. Despite this, it is rather a bold statement coming from a two-bit editor of your caliber, given your pugilistic and combative retorts, to insinuate moral and racial superiority. Irrespective of whether the ongoing discussion is related to my own editorial merits the contrast in physical attractiveness between the Han Chinese and the Burman counterparts, or being astute in commercial business matters. Your aimless meanderings and emotionally-charged outbursts, ultimately amount to nothing but a source of embarrassment from an objective standpoint and certainly by all reasonable
2378:
diverge from the current conversation and does not directly contribute to the main deliberations that are being made by you. In addition, while I do not wish in refrain from digressing from the current debate and get sidetracked by tangentially extraneous discussions, it may be prudent to save the debate on the physical attractiveness of Han
Chinese versus Burmese individuals should be addressed on another occasion and in a separate conversation, as diverting into a discussion on subjective beauty standards only becomes a distraction from the main issue. You would be wise enough to stay focused on the main argument at hand and refrain from digressing into irrelevant discussions about physical attractiveness, as your feeble attempts in either provoking a reaction and to distract me with your "ugly Chinaman" insult from the core argument at hand only reflects the lack of substantive argumentation that you have on your part to support your flawed positions. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions and certainly it is within your Knowledge rights to hold your own opinions, hastily resorting towards making derogatory remarks such as labelling an entire ethnic community of people as "ugly Chinaman" is not only redundant and unproductive, but also serves to detract from any valid points you may have been trying to make in the first place, if there were any and does not contribute to a constructive discussion and only serves to provoke unnecessary conflict. Such superficially irrelevant and off-hand remarks only serve as an attempt to either distract or provoke me from the core argument by instigating a reaction reflects poorly on the strength of your argument and only serves to weaken it, not to strengthen an unsubstantiated argument, despite the fact that your argument itself lacks substance from the outset. Your derogatory comments, such as the flippant "ugly Chinaman" remark, do not contribute to a meaningful discussion and instead serve as a distraction from the actual debate that both of us are supposed to have. Although it is important to recognize and respect differing opinions, it appears to me that you only resort to hurling derogatory remarks by only make such off-hand comments like the aforementioned "ugly Chinaman" in an attempt to either distract or provoke and solicit a reaction from me, instead of producing a substantial argumentation which you do not possess in the first place.
2549:
progress is beyond baseless. Therefore, it seems that your only chance in formulating a riveting argument at this point is only limited to merely resorting to invectives and pejoratives, which to me appears to be nothing more than another feeble and pitiful effort to salvage whatever credibility remains in terms of attempting to validate a purported argument on your part. If the discussion revolves around highlighting the accomplishments of a particular ethnic group, then I proudly consider myself the enthusiastic editor who takes pride in chronicling the economic successes, contributions, and the valuable inputs made by the Han
Chinese towards the economic development and progress of Burma. It is unsurprising to encounter such a phenomena from a disgruntled editor such as the likes of yourself, whose comments are consumed by bitterness and grievance, whose emotional insecurity is evident in their resentment towards the economic achievements of another ethnic group, one to which you do not belong and would wish to belong to; as it is evident that you harbor a desire to be associated with their accomplishments, since your dissatisfaction and envy regarding the economic contributions of the Han Chinese in Burma are quite palpable. So once again, please do not falsely allege that I am propagating Han chauvinism in my edits as a means to explicate your inability to come up with a rational counter-argument in relation to my edits. Moreover, it also seems that you are grappling with feelings of inadequacy, but does really persisting in dwelling on feelings of insecurity and resentment ultimately benefit you in the long run? Why don't you take responsibility for your own editorial actions and not place absurd insinuations on others if you are unable to progress, as you should not pin the blame on me for your lack of progress by falsely accusing me of insinuating
2449:
to formulate a logical argument appears to be limited to merely resorting to unsubstantiated accusations, insults, and vituperative attacks, especially one's that absurdly suggest that my edits somehow imply "Han supremacy" or misapprehensively regard "every major
Burmese historical figure as "Chinese" despite the fact that all my edits are thoroughly substantiated by reputable and authoritative academically sources. Your incessant rambling adduces nothing helpful to improve the article nor does hold any weight, rationality, reason, or substantive, especially given the fact that now since you are a blocked Knowledge user with no credibility and zero legitimacy to to merit such postulated (or from my vantage point, baseless and implausible) edits to be enforced within the contemporary context of the article. You utter out puerile responses resembling those no different from that of a drawling petulant juvenile in a schoolyard since you don't even have a riveting argument to begin with. And now that you are out of options when it comes to making a compelling counter-argument, the only strategy that you have left cooked-up now in your debate arsenal instead of rationally presenting a case is by resorting towards hurling insults, spouting personal attacks, and making unfounded accusations of me of being a "
2341:
warrant detailed documentation in an encyclopedia, as highlighting their commercial undertakings that are undoubtedly deserving of detailed documentation in an encyclopedic manner. Moreover, you seem to take issue with the facts and statistics provided in the trade and industry section, as the material content within it seems to stir up some deep-seated grievances or insecurities or trigger insecurities that you may harbor. Seeing your past behavioral patterns of needing to either slander, pose nebulous categorizations, or present fallacies (given the inept two-bit editor that you are without presenting any compelling counter-arguments on your own volition) on this platform suggests an intrinsic desire on your part to alleviate your feelings of insecurity and resentment, particularly when reading about the economic successes of another ethnic group that are being gloriously documented on
Knowledge. The content within this section seems to offend you personally, as it contains facts and statistics that you find
2118:," a term which by the way I vociferously deny nor harbor any nefarious motives of. Moreover, where are the respective sources that would postulate your unfounded accusations, whether they pertain to the merits of my edits, the evidence that I substantiate my edits with, or with regards to Chua's background? If my revisions are deemed by people such as the likes of yourself as substandard in terms of quality, I would greatly appreciate in observing your alleged superior writing ability in revamping the revisions I have proposed, as well as enhancing the entirety of the article, considering your supposed claims of your literary prowess may be exaggerated to make me second guess myself. However, based on your emotionally charged and lacking in substance responses, I have yet to witness any evidence of such literary prowess. As far as
2328:
while prolonging this contentiously fruitless debate any further beyond this point to avoid any additional embarrassment, especially considering now that you aren't just a blocked editor. But a blocked editor who has failed to present any credible argument to put forward when it comes to making a case as to why my edits should remain off-limits with regards or considered invalid in the "Trade and industry section." For starters, the trade and industry section is considered encyclopedic simply on the basis of the abundance of corresponding evidence that I use to substantiate my edits with, much of which comes from comprehensively reputable academic sources and is supported by strong scholarly-backed literature (including
2309:
your spurious claims as it is your only method of persuasion at this point when it comes to defending your unfounded assertions in an effort to demonstrate that you supposedly possess a sound argument to boot. Your puerile responses which are far from graceful, not only exemplify and reveal a deep-seated inferiority complex on your part, but also undermine the very essence of
Knowledge editing professionalism and represent a complete disregard for the qualities expected from a dignified editor of your subpar caliber should possess. It is rather hypocritical of you to demand adherence and call for
2152:
of suppressing what should be common sense, no how bitter and uncomfortable the facts and truth may be and regardless of the economic circumstances and realities that people such as the likes of you don't have the courage to face, let alone accept and swallow. As it should not be considered “Han chauvinist” or “racist” when there are there are glaringly obvious differences in socioeconomic performance that are objectively provable, backed by reliable and robust scholarly literature, and academically sourced by respected and authoritative scholars such as
1943:" that you falsely assert, purport, and insinuate. Furthermore it is sad that you confuse economic clout (grounded in robust, rigorous, and reliable academic research) with unrelated racial supremacist theories from the past (that you wish to impute and insinuate that facts that you disagree with) and that you are apparently not interested in getting into the topic. It is worrisome that well-documented information grounded in reliable, rigorous, and robust academic sources is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of
838:: The current title doesn't reflect the intent and content of the article. To me, it connotes foreignness; I take it to be about "Chinese citizens in Burma". Many Burmese Chinese have been in Burma/Myanmar for generations, and many of whom consider themselves fully Burmese, no holds barred. I suspect they'd find the current title which reduces them to just one aspect of their heritage quite insulting. As for Chinese-Burmese or Burmese Chinese, it's a question of style. I agree with "User cab" here that we need not adhere to American convention.
294:
389:
368:
284:
263:
1321:"Burmese Chinese" is ambiguous and could refer to "Chinese people in Burma" or "Burmese people in China" or those with mixed-blood. I don't think "Chinese people in Burma" could refer to "Chinese nationals in Burma" unless you take the term "Chinese(adj)" exclusively for PRC. Also, "Chinese (as a noun)" may mean "citizen of China." For the term like "Chinese Americans" is acceptable because it has both historical and popular usage. To me, both
2346:
prior comments indicate a strong undercurrent of harboring deep-seated resentment and insecurities. And given how your previous behavior on this talk page clearly indicates a consistent panoply of clues which strongly suggests that you don't only harbor deep-seated feelings of resentment and insecurity, but also possibly having a hidden agenda to promote or a personal vendetta to subtly convey them in a more nonchalant manner.
74:
2161:
how you're a blocked editor and your empty words amount to nothing of value other than a distant afterthought. Furthermore, I find very little credence in your poorly rationalized and emotionally-charged rebuttal since it is one that is not built on credence, evidence, rationality, and reason. What in my previous edits even remotely postulates a semblance of implication or evidence of the false accusation of me being a “
510:
53:
399:
22:
2134:”, which is patently false. Your sole hope of formulating a logical (let alone excogitate a winning) argument seems to be only devolving into insults (including one erroneously accusing me of being a "CCP Troll"), slander, derogatory language, unfounded allegations, and personal attacks which, in my opinion, is frankly comical, pitiful, and puerile.
808:
country doesn't use one of these "Fooian Barian" conventions, or if both countries have sent large groups of migrants to each other thus making the use of "Fooian Barian" conventions needlessly confusing. But neither of these seem to be the case here, and the proposed title can be found in many scholarly works about
Chinese migration, e.g.
144:
2169:.” I urge you not to create a straw man, fabricate extraneous arguments, or misrepresent my words; as it appears that insecure individuals like yourself with your emotionally-charged pejoratives find it difficult to acknowledge the facts I have presented, no matter how pleasant, inconvenient, or harsh they may be for you to accept.
2064:
cronies, all except two are not
Chinese: Serge Pun and Lo Hsing Han. Serge Pun's company is based on FDI, not a local investment. Lo Hsing Han became rich due to the heroin trade. Chinese own no telecoms. Most Chinese are "middle-class," not too poor, not too rich. But that's a far cry from "domination." 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
1137:). We have examples of all of the following patterns, and there's been objections to every single one. (Full disclosure: I'm not an unbiased informant here, I'm personally opposed to standardisation on the American-style model of "Ethnicity, then nationality" and have been going around arguing against it).:
2114:
speech and information, you would have the prudence and wisdom to acknowledge without reservation and concede by gracelessly admitting that you lack a logical basis to support your baseless assertions and allegations, even if it leads you in resorting towards derogatorily denigrating me as a so-called "
2453:." All your utterly asinine antics and risible gambits to provoke me through your petulant rambling and protracted meandering isn't going to make me change my mind nor prompt me to reconsider any of the changes that I previously made regarding the editorial matters that you have repeatedly questioned.
3004:
itself or split into the creation of a new article. But this should be a separate conversation aside from the current one that we're having because the bottom line within this current discussion is about upholding the facts and statistical abstractions within the article's trade and industry section.
2693:
The section still relies heavily on a few sources and is still incredibly long and needs to be condensed/moved to an separate dedicated article. Specifically, there are a few paragraphs that are just lists of businesses Sino-Burmese run/own. Furthermore, the section is very vague between
Chinese (the
2327:
I also don't wish to cast aspersions or impute any nefarious motives on your part, but your poorly argued and pitiful response unquestionably beyond doubt are entirely devoid of rudimentary logic and rationality. It would be advisable for you to acquiesce by discontinuing your petty bickering with me
1839:
policy? Is it possible to fix it somehow. I think it's fine to say that the ethnic Chinese have a disproportionate economic clout relative to their population, and that it has caused resentment among the indigenous peoples, but the section goes on towards blaming the ethnic Chinese for the poverty in
2285:
Your addition has been removed by so many users before. Stop adding the same thing. Tell me how that section is encyclopediaic. I can add 1GB about how Burmese are more collectivist, selfless, and superior to the Chinese (Ways That Are Dark, Ungly Chinaman, etc. etc.). But that won't be suitable for
2113:
on this platform in order to cater and placate your personal insecurities nor should such content be altered in order to appease and accommodate your emotionally fragile sensitivities. Furthermore, if you were an editor that was genuinely committed toward upholding the vital principles of freedom of
2063:
Amy Chua's books that claim the Chinese own everything and "dominate" the Burmese economy are factually incorrect. Her book does nothing more than illustrate her lack of exposure to the country. There are thousands of citations on the fact that much of the Burmese economy is under the control of the
1215:
some people complain that this is too unwieldy, and also it doesn't sufficiently distinguish between Chinese citizens of Korean descent, and Korean citizens living in China. Others assert (usually just based on their own opinion) that "Ethnic Abc" is clearly distinguished from plain old "Abc" (as in
2914:
and inconvenient, and which are backed by authoritative scholarly academic sources) are presented in a forthright, innocuous, neutral, and an unprovocative manner. If Knowledge is truly committed in proclaiming itself to be a free, open and transparent encyclopedic platform, it should not bend over
2548:
through my edits is unjust since you are nothing more than a blocked Knowledge user with no credibility or legitimacy to support your edits in the current context of the article. The unfounded assertion that I am insinuating Han chauvinism in my editing endeavors as a justification for your lack of
2448:
at this point given the fact that you're already a blocked editor either with a hidden agenda to promote or a personal vendetta to exact on. Furthermore, your emotionally-feeble replies and empty claims amount to nothing of anything of value here in this discussion. At this juncture, your inability
2418:
I didn't remove anything. The addition was not consensus-based. The problem is with the one who added it. Anyone who actually read that section would understand that it's not encyclopedic and relies on general sources written by non-specialists. Basically, the whole section is about how the Chinese
2359:
In case you haven't wondered and have not thought about it, I have had ample exposure and interactions with individuals from Southeast Asia, including Burmans. And based on my personal life experiences, I can confidently affirm that the unsubstantiated assertions coming from you with regards to the
2151:
If the content in this article, and even more so on Knowledge as an online platform as whole is grounded in the facts and reality rather than conjecture and ignorance, we will undoubtedly see a marked improvement in its aggregate quality. It’s about time we had more honesty in this article, instead
1858:
populations. In addition, many Chinese have a known reputation for greed which is a sin in Burmese culture. Burmese are less motivated by monetary stimulus. Instead, this article makes it look like there is some sort of inherent superiority within the Chinese which led to their so-called "success."
1053:
Chinese people in Burma to me refers to the Chinese nationals in Burma, not to the Burmese people of Chinese descent, which the article is about. I urge everyone to read the article. Many Burmese Chinese have lived in Burma for generations. Except for the recent immigrants, most Burmese Chinese are
2999:
weight that is needed per the sources on the topic pertaining to this article and the trade and industry section as supplied by such editors as needed within the Knowledge guidelines, even if it merits the removal of any previous additions that I have made. As such, for the purposes of maintaining
2419:
are great, how they are superior, how they dominate everything, and how they just decimate the Burmese. Nobody would find that to be suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, some paragraphs have 3000 words or 5000 words. It needs a major rewrite if it ever were suitable for a standalone section.
2255:
in which you restored an old version, complete with spelling mistakes and formatting errors which had since been corrected. The only "old" versions of the article I am restoring are the ones before your unjustified removals of content. If you have a good reason(s) as to why that particular section
2160:
and who have conducted extensive research into this matter. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a "Han chauvinist" when my only goal here on Knowledge is to educate and inform. All your hurled name-calling, ranting, spurious assertions, and pejoratives isn't going to change reality, seeing
2104:
Freedom of speech is not reserved for one side of a particular spectrum of opinions nor should it be exclusively applied as a different standard for any particular individual such as the bitter likes of yourself. Knowledge operates as an open and transparent platform that is not designed to either
1881:
so that is chinese fault? that's just blaming the hardworking for being successful. furthermore this isn't even true, there are many Burmese business in my country, many of the more entrepreneur Burmese just choose to leave their country. that statment feel more like prejudice against the Burmese.
950:
book. Of course, "Burmese Chinese" gets more hits, but they are mostly about international relations, (or lists like "Burmese, Chinese, Khmer, Vietnamese"). The examples given above are mostly not relevant. Two of them refer to people living in Hong Kong and another is about people in the U.S. Two
2423:
Don't wanna do the work? Then, don't force such an ugly section on an otherwise good article. Also, you repeat lies after lies that Ne Win was Chinese (he wasn't). Claiming every major Burmese historical figure as "Chinese", you probably aren't here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to spout
2308:
Yes, the edits that I made previously were indeed reversed; however, the editors responsible for the removal failed to provide a valid justification for doing so. But then again, your only recourse is indicated in your overreliance on derogatory language, personal attacks, and insults to support
2994:
are to be adhered to and certainly far outweighs the grievances, insecurities, and vendettas that one individual disgruntled editor (even though he's a blocked one now) may have against me. Furthermore, I have yet to see the evidence to the contrary supplied by other editors on this article that
2345:
and discomforting in terms of addressing your own grievances and insecurities, as it contradicts your own personal beliefs and feelings by not aligning with your own perspectives in which perhaps may even potentially exacerbate them. This is obviously reflective in your previous remarks, as your
1989:
They are NOT economically dominant. YOU think YOU are dominant. That's racist and Han Nazist. Most of the Burmese economy is under the control of the Junta's cronies. Your citations are ALL LIES! The source does not support what you are saying, except for Amy Chua, who has NEVER been to Burma to
1857:
To me, it's the opposite. It's rather anti-Burmese and has a disturbing tone of racial superiority. The truth is yes, many Chinese tend to favor one another for business and form a sort of bamboo cartel. This led to a rapid resource acquisition using foreign capital and the displacement of local
857:
The proposed title does not distinguish between Bermese nationals of Chinese origin/ethnicity and Chinese nationals of Burmese origin/ethnicity. The country does not use English as an official language, and we should not use British v American English to decide the title when something with more
2663:
Your inability to formulate a logical argument at this point seems limited to simply resorting to insults and personal attacks. What additional derogatory remarks do you possess in your repertoire that you wish to direct towards me? It is evident that you are nothing more than a disgruntled and
2377:
Yet despite your weak counter-argument, the issue of whether Han Chinese or Burmans are more physically attractive ought to be addressed separately from the main subject of contention at hand rather than delving into superficial discussions about physical attractiveness. As it is unnecessary to
807:
made on grounds of "consistency with other articles", which is a weak reason at best; some of these articles are at "Chinese Fooian", others at "Fooian Chinese", and others at even different titles. There is a precedent for purely descriptive titles like "Chinese people in Foo", but only if the
2553:
in relation to my edits. It is beyond erroneous to suggest that my edits hint at Han chauvinism as an explanation for your difficulties in moving forward, whether in terms of economic competition or in formulating a compelling and coherent counterargument regarding your stance on the editorial
2340:
that I rely on to validate my revisions. Second of all, the section is pertinent as it not only pertains to the Burmese Chinese community, but due to the article's extensive focus on the Burmese Chinese community, particularly in relation to their business activities that are quite notable and
2313:
that you yourself fail to meet, since you lack any credibility in addressing your own flawed and unfounded arguments, which have no substance and fail to uphold any rational basis. What other vacuous responses do you have prepared in your debate arsenal, aside from incessantly spewing insults,
2985:
also doesn't state that my previous edits are disqualified and somehow merit removal for the sake of generality or appeasing and accommodating the grievances and insecurities of one editor. The well-being of the Knowledge community and commitment to the truth, no matter how disagreeable and
777:
Also, citizenship is not really a good dividing line for deciding what name to use. Within any given community, especially one with more than a million people right next door to their ancestral country, some people may choose to take local citizenship, while others retain their ancestral
2477:
The whole section cheery-picks and exaggerates sources that are themselves not based on specialists on Burma. No researchers specializing in Burmese history would argue "the Chinese dominate Burmese economy." Even in Mandalay, many researchers have pointed out that Chinese influence is
1990:
begin with (her sources contain major errors about the country). Also, HAVE SOME SHAME! Don't claim to everyone with a name that sounds Chinese as Chinese. Amy Chua, for example, claims any famous person that includes "Yu", "Han", or any Chinese character is Chinese. Quite shameless.
1200:
Same problem as above, plus the possible accusation of racism because you're using the "mainstream" name instead of the ethnic group's name in their own ethnic language (Jaeil). Especially when the mainstream name doesn't make any distinction between foreigners and citizens. (E.g.
2909:
If the article (or specifically, the trade and industry section) need be does requires splitting, then so be it as I'm insouciant at this point with regards to such matters on the state of this article right now. As long as the facts and statistical abstractions (no matter how
2077:
It's also so poorly written that I am not sure it's English or some alien language. A paragraph with 3000 words? Not to mention COPYVIO? Oh my god. Unassimilated Chinese today have virtually no political power. If anything, association with them is political suicide.
2209:
The "trade and industry" is a eulogy about "how great our race is" or "how superior we are to the Burmans" style BS. Many sentences copy the source without attributions. I think it might be appropriate for Chinese Knowledge, but definitely not WP:MOS and not WP:DUE.
2014:
Nobody "can't handle it." Even the "rich" Chinese get rich via the heroin trade and other illegal or semi-legal businesses. Money is not worshipped in Burmese culture. Just stop spouting you are superior or other nonsense. Shameless and garbage of humanity.
2225:
There are many arguments why Trade and Industry don't meet quality standards, CPOVIO, and other criteria for inclusion. If it were a new article, it would surely be rejected. User:Yue is refusing to discuss or address the concerns and waging an edit war.
2260:
and "everyone's a pro-China editor but me!" Afterwards, remove that particular section instead of restoring an older version of the article because, again, you also restore all the typos and remove content which have nothing to do with your grievances.
817:
2690:, NPOV and duplciate/contradictory information. Unfortunately, I can't access many of the sources used to verify and remove much of the remaining information. Right now, I believe that it's a matter of content and want to open it up for comment here.
951:
use "Burmese Chinese" as an adjective. In order of adjectives, origin is last, whereas in the proposed name "Burmese" is an adjective modifying "Chinese." These are American sources, so how likely is it that they are using a British word order?
2588:. He's restoring the "Trade and Industry" sections in all articles about "Chinese in X"; the sections are basically a racist rant against whichever country the Chinese reside in. The "Trade and Industry" section here is an exact replica of
427:
on Knowledge aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please
2122:
is concerned, she boasts an impressive educational background, a sterling resume, and is well-respected lawyer and scholar within the American legal community in addition to boasting a catalogue of well-written books such as the likes of
2129:
that was received favorably in the American academic community. All my previous edits dating back to 2020 are academically sourced and scholarly backed and were certainly not edited out of prejudice or what my detractors characterize as
815:
813:
811:
809:
3000:
and upholding generality given the state of this article right now, I agree wholeheartedly with you that most of the current material content, whether if its pertaining to Mandalay's economy should be moved to a subsection within the
643:
which I have initiated. We want to avoid having the same debate about "ethnic group name first or country name first" on every single talk page relating to ethnic groups living outside their ancestral countries. Thank you in advance.
988:
2919:, prioritizing, or protecting certain forms of speech while excluding and shutting out the speech that other editors may find disagreeable or unpalatable in order to appease and accommodate their emotionally fragile sensitivities.
1189:
spelling "Goryeo-saram"). Also, how members of the ethnic group living outside their country of origin prefer to call themselves may be different from what their co-ethnics back in the mother country call them (in this case,
1246:. I presume that they didn't consent to this, and it appears strange because the comment is dated 2006. While quoting old comments might be OK, I'm not sure that this is an approach that should be followed on talk pages.
2165:?” In my previous revisions dating back more than four years, there is nothing that even remotely implies or indicates even the slightest suggestion or implication that support your unfounded accusation of me being a “
2482:. The whole section is irredeemable. Super-long paragraphs that repeat essentially the same thing. Seem to me the author was motivated by showcasing "How great we are!" instead of delivering content to the readers.
1173:
Some people complain this is inaccurate and try to standardize as above. Others also complain that this form overemphasizes the foreignness of the ethnic group in question (the ethnicity as a noun, modified by the
2497:
It's a curriculum vitae on "achievements of our race" and not a section delivering content. Nobody needs to know who owned which rice mill in colonial Burma. Knowledge is not indiscriminate collection of factoids
2109:, agreeable, politically correct speech, or speech that nobody such as the likes of yourself, want to hear. Even if you come across speech that you may find disagreeable or unpleasant, it should not be subject to
1058:
to Chinese people in America? The move was made, presumably in good faith, by some neophyte editor without any discussion. Restoring it is now a problem. What irony. Knowledge has to do something about this.
1184:
Some people complain this usage is not clear to English speakers. It also may lead to conflicts over transcription (e.g. the above spelling, based off of an old romanization, could be updated to use the
741:
If "Chinese Thai" and "Chinese Malaysian" are your models, then it should be "Chinese Burmese", at least if we are talking about Burmese citizens. If they are Chinese citizens, it's "Chinese in Burma."
3096:
1012:: Neither "Burmese Chinese" nor "Chinese Burmese" is intuitive, but both intimate an Overseas Chinese community, while "Chinese people in Burma" seems to refer to Chinese nationals in Burma.
1840:
other ethnic groups, which I think can come across as rather bigoted. After all, it is very similar rhetoric that Hitler against the Jews, and we all know what happened as a result of that.
1243:
880:
I'm not particularly interested in what the British versus American English conventions are so much as what reliable sources call this group, and, as demonstrated above, that seems to be
606:
2251:
If "there are many arguments", then make them. If "there are copyright violations", then provide evidence. Do not project claims of restoring to an old version of the article — this was
768:). Not every country in the world uses the American-style ordering of ethnicity first, citizenship second. In the rest of the former British Empire the opposite ordering is more common.
1220:). Also this usage does start to look excessively long if you try to think about how to title a page describing the reverse migration of said ethnic group to their country of origin.
227:
200:
190:
2944:
doesn't state that every line from every book must be on Knowledge. We give due weight as prevalent in general sources on the topic. This article does not follow due weight.
175:
2544:
Again, another insubstantial response masquerading as a false accusation coming from you of incorrectly attributing your inability to progress to my alleged promotion of
2625:
205:
195:
640:
1226:
Any suggestions? Can other readers here help us to write clearer guidelines regarding this to avoid having to repeat the same debate on every single ethnicity page?
3076:
2592:
with the same sources (Yos Santasombat, Amy Chua, etc., not a single specialist from the said country is included) and with the same unreadable massive paragraphs.
114:
804:
3091:
1777:
1773:
1759:
1549:
1545:
1531:
1439:
1435:
1421:
533:
424:
340:
124:
240:
1921:
Chinese are NOT "economically dominant." They are rich, sure, due to the KMT opium trade. But most of Burma's economic sector is controlled by Burmese cronies.
2195:
It's settled that Ne Win is not a Chinese for so long. User:Yue has been trying to revert to an old version and removed my edits about KMT invasion of Burma.
1671:
3086:
3081:
3071:
2364:
with which you hypocritically try to foist onto this platform. There's simply no sense in engaging in any rational conversation with you beyond this point.
185:
1963:
guidelines, especially when its well-sourced material backed by relevant and reliable academic scholarship based on your fallacious claims of so-called
970:
551:
3005:
As long as this request of mine is fulfilled and live up to, this article will continue to thrive and progress, regardless of its present condition.
3111:
2664:
blocked user without any credibility or legitimacy at this moment to justify and substantiate your edits within the context of the current article?
547:
463:
453:
236:
90:
89:, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2646:
which starts with, "Chinese dominate all sectors of Laos!" The section has been removed and readded by socks of Backendgamging again and again.
1939:
The fact is, Overseas Chinese economic dominance (not just in Burma, but the rest of Southeast Asia) is an economic reality and not related to ″
350:
1077:
and did that move because of the reasons discussed below. Restoring is not a problem. Perhaps, this discussion will bring a better title. See
3116:
3106:
1078:
429:
1637:
1282:
If there is a common usage term along the lines of "Chinese American", that should be used. Otherwise, it should be "Ethnic XXX in YYY".
3101:
1883:
148:
81:
58:
3036:
2957:
2892:
2865:
2810:
2704:
1715:
1627:
1387:
1517:
1755:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1527:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
943:
906:
859:
541:
1655:
2522:
which restored a very old 2019 version with trade and industry section. The trade and industry section was added by indef-blocked
639:
If you are going to propose that this page be moved to "Chinese Burmese" or something (a move which I would oppose), please join
316:
778:
citizenship. Quite often this is merely done for reasons of business or travel convenience and has nothing to do with identity.
2606:
Basically, he read three books, and every single sentence from those books has been rewritten into massive Knowledge sections.
1948:
1836:
1705:
1122:
1186:
764:(also the names which are used to refer to them in most reliable sources and the names which the people themselves use, e.g.
2852:
weight in the Mandalay article, given the context of everything else there, hence the suggestion for the brand new article.
2694:
government) business/trade/industry and Chinese (ethnically) business/trade/industry. The two are linked but not identical.
1151:. Some people go around trying to standardise all other usages to match this one, even when these are minority usages (e.g.
1695:
1672:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161229122056/http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html
3058:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2526:. The trade and industry section was added to similar articles about "Chinese in x" and had also been removed everywhere.
1260:
Yes, consent, see "What should this page be called?" above. I just noticed that based on the comments, no one was reading
765:
594:
415:
373:
2754:
2402:. You are disguising your removal of content with reverts. You can instead retore your ugly trade and industry section.
1820:
1592:
1482:
1130:
559:
522:
33:
1356:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
671:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
2444:
And inept two-bit editors such as the likes of yourself have no business in being the moral authority of establishing
1661:
824:
783:
307:
268:
1835:
I was looking at "Trade and Industry Section", and the tone comes across as rather anti-Chinese, hence violating the
947:
2739:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
1906:
CCP trolls are adding Han Chauvinist content to the article, often copying verbatim from books like Bamboo Network.
590:
529:
1675:
315:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
3023:
for the split, since whether to move most of the content should be moved is the primary topic of this discussion
1611:
1501:
1371:
693:
685:
2837:
1776:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1548:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1438:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2911:
2342:
2106:
2039:
By the way, YOU reverted to an edition in 2020. So many editors have edited this page. That cannot be allowed.
1251:
996:
978:
924:
889:
1264:
comments. It was reproduced since cab's original link no longer worked and an archive search was required. --
1054:
culturally Burmese (language, religion, etc.) and many have some Burmese blood too. What's next? Do we rename
858:
clarity is availabe that avoids using some dialect of English that is opaque to the other variety of English.
21:
1887:
2750:
2479:
1863:
1811:
1619:
1583:
1509:
1473:
1379:
1210:
1126:
1096:
1034:
704:
3032:
3010:
2953:
2924:
2888:
2861:
2806:
2700:
2669:
2563:
2458:
2383:
2174:
1972:
1745:
1615:
1261:
1227:
1134:
820:
779:
645:
576:
162:
2743:
2916:
2110:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1873:
1795:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1783:
1725:
1567:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1555:
1457:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1445:
910:
863:
39:
1618:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1508:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1378:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1638:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101006031921/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1
1301:
this particular proposal due to the proposed title's ambiguity. Am open to other options, though. —
2125:
1412:
1064:
843:
689:
681:
2558:
in my edits as the cause for your difficulties in moving forward are unwarranted and without merit.
905:
are those sources published in the US? The ones demonstrated above, are mostly published in the US.
713:— No precedence for naming articles "Chinese people in..." for articles about overseas Chinese (see
2991:
2825:
2651:
2633:
2611:
2597:
2531:
2507:
2487:
2445:
2429:
2407:
2361:
2310:
2291:
2231:
2215:
2200:
2083:
2044:
2020:
1995:
1926:
1911:
1716:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110722223003/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2
1628:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120314155426/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2
1388:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100920043536/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2
1334:
1302:
1247:
1086:
992:
974:
920:
885:
1735:
1518:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130825223730/http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf
2841:
2687:
2686:
I've gone through the section to try and remove much of the more obvious cleanup issues based on
2621:
2585:
2523:
1859:
1845:
1683:
1649:
1287:
956:
747:
1780:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1656:
http://realfoodchicago.com/index.php/tours/tours-vn/item/213-mandalay?tmpl=component&print=1
1552:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1442:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1796:
1631:
1568:
1458:
1391:
3024:
3006:
2979:
2945:
2920:
2906:
2880:
2876:
2853:
2798:
2696:
2665:
2559:
2454:
2379:
2170:
1968:
1641:
1156:
1152:
1074:
1017:
761:
718:
388:
367:
283:
262:
2848:'s section Economy. Even as it is right now, the large paragraph on Mandalay would itself be
1689:
3001:
2790:
2735:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
1706:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110818183335/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496
1269:
1146:
1108:
1100:
1042:
1029:
Both "Burmese Chinese" and "Chinese Burmese" are ambiguous. Chinese in Burma might suggest
727:
1803:
1719:
1575:
1465:
2996:
2849:
2829:
2643:
2337:
2157:
1521:
1195:
1168:
1060:
881:
839:
800:
583:
216:
1696:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111004082631/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127
2987:
2982:
2941:
2647:
2629:
2607:
2593:
2581:
2555:
2550:
2545:
2527:
2503:
2499:
2483:
2450:
2425:
2403:
2287:
2246:
2227:
2211:
2196:
2166:
2162:
2131:
2115:
2079:
2040:
2016:
1991:
1964:
1944:
1940:
1922:
1907:
1762:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1534:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1424:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1330:
1160:
1082:
570:
509:
404:
3040:
3014:
2961:
2928:
2896:
2869:
2814:
2758:
2728:
2709:
2673:
2655:
2637:
2615:
2601:
2567:
2535:
2511:
2491:
2462:
2433:
2411:
2387:
2295:
2274:
2235:
2219:
2204:
2178:
2087:
2048:
2024:
1999:
1976:
1930:
1915:
1891:
1867:
1849:
1825:
1802:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1597:
1574:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1487:
1464:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1338:
1311:
1291:
1273:
1255:
1230:
1163:). There's also conflict over whether usages of this form should be hyphenated or not.
1112:
1090:
1068:
1046:
1021:
1000:
982:
960:
928:
914:
893:
867:
847:
828:
787:
751:
732:
697:
648:
3065:
2833:
2724:
2270:
2257:
1841:
1283:
1217:
952:
743:
1709:
1662:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120215122240/http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm
1347:
1013:
757:
714:
662:
299:
86:
73:
52:
1967:. Facts are facts. Blow me if you can't accept, handle, and withstand the truth.
1103:. This is an old problem, and we need to decrease ambiguity, not increase it. --
2749:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —
2554:
changes that I have previously undertaken, as your accusations me of hinting at
2421:
The choice is yours. Want to add it? Make it encyclopedic and meet WP standards.
2333:
1769:
1699:
1676:
http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html
1541:
1431:
1265:
1179:
1104:
1038:
722:
2844:. The entire section on Mandalay should have its important portions copied to
2589:
1768:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1540:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1430:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
394:
289:
991:
is even better because it avoids potential confusion with Chinese citizens.
182:
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
1955:. It's obvious that your recent removals constitute a blatant violation of
1665:
609:
and make sure each article on the English Knowledge has one in Burmese also
176:
Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
2845:
2794:
2717:
2398:
The content has not been accepted by the community. In addition, you are
2329:
2263:
2153:
2119:
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
1749:
969:
Yes, perhaps "Chinese in Burma" is better. That seems to have plenty of
2832:
weight to economics in a article about an ethnic group stemming from a
1746:
https://archive.is/20041029031455/http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp
1121:
Currently there's a lot of conflict over this point (see, for example,
420:
143:
2256:
should be removed, then provide them here instead of falling back to
1726:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060507103249/http://newidea.nandaw.net/
423:
related articles on Knowledge. The WikiProject is also a part of the
2624:
is a massive sockpuppeter with dozens of accounts in his name. See:
1194:
Non-English names in the language of the country of residence (like
2995:
somehow refutes my previous additions. In that case, then give the
312:
919:
Perhaps, but I don't see why that makes them any less reliable.
210:
1736:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060423014826/http://mocsa.org.tw/
1202:
536:
on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages
15:
2836:
issue. Most of it should probably go to a new article called
1729:
1632:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2
1397:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1392:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2
1178:
Non-English names in the language of the ethnic group (like
1642:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1
1690:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=381&page=1
1622:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1512:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1382:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1329:
encompass all Chinese in Burma regardless of nationality.
2824:
The section on Trade and Industry meets both criteria of
721:, etc.). Title is unnecessarily wordy and not concise. --
1720:
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2
661:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
2519:
2424:
racist, "How we are superior to everyone" in articles.
2252:
1872:
What a load nonsense, it's obvious both of you exhibit
1739:
1522:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf
1505:
1375:
1239:
709:
498:
493:
488:
483:
2520:
mass reversal of edits by a probable sock of user Yue
1346:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
3097:
Start-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
2778:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
2105:
prioritize nor protect convenient speech, pleasant,
311:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
228:
Knowledge:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests
201:
Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment
191:
Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action
1772:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1544:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1434:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2400:REMOVING legitimate history about the KMT invasion
2626:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Backendgaming
1710:http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496
1037:deliberately refers to people not nationality. --
206:Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention
196:Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes
2473:None of the trade and industry is remotely true
1758:This message was posted before February 2018.
1530:This message was posted before February 2018.
1420:This message was posted before February 2018.
2781:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
1700:http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127
946:hits on Google books. It's also the title of
172:of articles within the scope of this project.
8:
1242:the above comment by CaliforniaAliBaba from
1209:Ethnic (Group name) in (Country name) (like
19:
1610:I have just modified 10 external links on
1500:I have just modified one external link on
1370:I have just modified one external link on
756:Actually, the articles in question are at
517:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
471:
362:
257:
186:Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
132:
47:
1876:sentiments while unequivocally violating
1666:http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm
2986:inconvenient it is should be upheld if
2580:It appears that User:SimeonManier is a
2191:User:Yue is restoring to an old version
589:offices, ministries and politicians of
528:offices, ministries and politicians of
364:
259:
49:
3077:High-importance Ethnic groups articles
2828:. It is extremely long and also gives
3092:Mid-importance China-related articles
2785:The result of this discussion was to
1750:http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp
1409:to let others know (documentation at
1079:Knowledge:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
641:this discussion on naming conventions
432:. All interested editors are welcome.
136:WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
7:
2772:The following discussion is closed.
676:The result of the move request was:
305:This article is within the scope of
79:This article is within the scope of
565:add photos of incumbent politicians
99:Knowledge:WikiProject Ethnic groups
38:It is of interest to the following
3087:Start-Class China-related articles
3082:WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
3072:Start-Class Ethnic groups articles
2644:Laotian_Chinese#Trade_and_industry
1167:Nationality, then ethnicity (like
1145:Ethnicity, then nationality (like
803:is where the article was until an
102:Template:WikiProject Ethnic groups
14:
1614:. Please take a moment to review
1504:. Please take a moment to review
1374:. Please take a moment to review
805:an undiscussed move two weeks ago
425:Counteracting systemic bias group
3054:The discussion above is closed.
2840:with important aspects going to
635:What should this page be called?
508:
397:
387:
366:
292:
282:
261:
142:
72:
51:
20:
3112:Mid-importance Myanmar articles
2253:your first edit to this article
1123:Talk:Ethnic Mongolians in China
605:If you know Burmese, go on the
458:This article has been rated as
345:This article has been rated as
119:This article has been rated as
2915:backwards by either altering,
1868:08:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
1850:05:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1205:, which just means "Chinese").
1155:) or not clearly established (
1:
3019:Alright, I'll mark this as a
2815:19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2590:Hoa_people#Trade_and_industry
1892:23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
1826:21:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
1488:14:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
1292:14:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
1274:16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
1256:18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
1231:04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1113:16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
1069:00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
1047:23:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
1022:03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
1001:18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
983:13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
961:03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
929:03:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
915:02:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
894:01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
868:00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
848:14:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
829:12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
788:12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
766:Malaysian Chinese Association
752:11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
733:06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
688:) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
649:10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
438:Knowledge:WikiProject Myanmar
319:and see a list of open tasks.
93:and see a list of open tasks.
3117:WikiProject Myanmar articles
3107:Start-Class Myanmar articles
2759:05:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
1131:Talk:Ethnic Koreans in China
441:Template:WikiProject Myanmar
2729:07:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2710:16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
2518:The edit is question is by
419:, a project to improve all
325:Knowledge:WikiProject China
3133:
3102:WikiProject China articles
2838:Bamboo networks in Myanmar
2682:Trade and Industry Cleanup
1902:COPYVIO and Han Chauvinism
1789:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1730:http://newidea.nandaw.net/
1607:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1598:08:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
1561:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1497:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1451:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1367:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1339:06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1091:06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1031:Chinese nationals in Burma
698:11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
464:project's importance scale
351:project's importance scale
328:Template:WikiProject China
125:project's importance scale
3041:18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
3015:18:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2962:03:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2929:02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2897:12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
2870:12:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
2674:21:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2656:05:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2638:05:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2616:05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2602:04:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2568:21:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2536:22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2512:22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2492:22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2463:20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2434:22:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2412:21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2388:02:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2296:21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2275:19:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2236:10:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
2220:10:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
2205:10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
2179:20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2088:23:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
2049:22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
2025:22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
2000:22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
1612:Chinese people in Myanmar
1502:Chinese people in Myanmar
1372:Chinese people in Myanmar
1312:04:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1238:Bejnar, you seem to have
989:"Ethnic Chinese in Burma"
470:
457:
411:Chinese people in Myanmar
382:
344:
277:
149:WikiProject Ethnic groups
131:
118:
82:WikiProject Ethnic groups
67:
46:
3056:Please do not modify it.
2775:Please do not modify it.
2620:It should be noted that
1977:22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
1931:23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
1916:23:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
1831:The Tone of This Article
1353:Please do not modify it.
942:"Chinese in Burma" gets
668:Please do not modify it.
1949:WP:I just don't like it
1603:External links modified
1493:External links modified
1363:External links modified
1327:Ethnic Chinese in Burma
1323:Chinese people in Burma
1211:Ethnic Koreans in China
1127:Talk:Chinese Indonesian
1097:Ethnic Koreans in China
1035:Chinese people in Burma
705:Chinese people in Burma
413:is within the scope of
2715:Thanks for your help.
1947:and a good example of
1135:Talk:Chinese Malaysian
577:Category:Myanmar stubs
331:China-related articles
105:Ethnic groups articles
28:This article is rated
1770:regular verification
1740:http://mocsa.org.tw/
1542:regular verification
1432:regular verification
1187:Revised Romanization
678:no consensus to move
2642:Another replica is
1760:After February 2018
1532:After February 2018
1422:After February 2018
1401:parameter below to
799:The proposed title
416:WikiProject Myanmar
241:discuss these tasks
147:Here are some open
2842:Economy of Myanmar
2751:Community Tech bot
2622:User:Backendgaming
2586:User:Backendgaming
2524:User:Backendgaming
2480:highly exaggerated
2258:"I don't like it!"
1814:InternetArchiveBot
1765:InternetArchiveBot
1586:InternetArchiveBot
1537:InternetArchiveBot
1476:InternetArchiveBot
1427:InternetArchiveBot
534:requested articles
224:Start an article:
34:content assessment
2980:User:EmeraldRange
2907:User:EmeraldRange
2286:an encyclopedia.
1790:
1562:
1452:
1157:Chinese Mongolian
1153:Chinese Malaysian
1056:Chinese Americans
762:Malaysian Chinese
731:
719:Chinese Malaysian
632:
631:
628:
627:
624:
623:
620:
619:
616:
615:
607:Myanmar Knowledge
361:
360:
357:
356:
308:WikiProject China
256:
255:
252:
251:
248:
247:
3124:
3028:
3002:Economy of Burma
2949:
2884:
2857:
2802:
2791:Economy of Burma
2777:
2722:
2708:
2268:
2250:
1878:
1877:
1824:
1815:
1788:
1787:
1766:
1687:
1653:
1596:
1587:
1560:
1559:
1538:
1486:
1477:
1450:
1449:
1428:
1416:
1355:
1309:
1308:
1147:Chinese American
1101:Koreans in China
725:
712:
670:
523:Article requests
512:
505:
504:
472:
446:
445:
444:Myanmar articles
442:
439:
436:
430:join the project
407:
402:
401:
400:
391:
384:
383:
378:
370:
363:
333:
332:
329:
326:
323:
302:
297:
296:
295:
286:
279:
278:
273:
265:
258:
170:on the talk page
167:
161:
146:
133:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
3132:
3131:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3123:
3122:
3121:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3026:
2947:
2882:
2855:
2822:
2800:
2773:
2766:
2737:
2727:
2718:
2695:
2684:
2578:
2475:
2338:Leo Suryadinata
2273:
2264:
2244:
2193:
2158:Leo Suryadinata
1904:
1833:
1818:
1813:
1781:
1774:have permission
1764:
1681:
1647:
1620:this simple FaQ
1605:
1590:
1585:
1553:
1546:have permission
1536:
1510:this simple FaQ
1495:
1480:
1475:
1443:
1436:have permission
1426:
1410:
1380:this simple FaQ
1365:
1360:
1351:
1304:
1303:
1196:Zainichi Korean
1169:British Chinese
882:Burmese Chinese
801:Burmese Chinese
710:Burmese Chinese
708:
690:Graeme Bartlett
682:Graeme Bartlett
666:
656:
637:
612:
591:current cabinet
552:High-importance
530:current cabinet
503:
443:
440:
437:
434:
433:
403:
398:
396:
376:
330:
327:
324:
321:
320:
298:
293:
291:
271:
217:Peruvian people
165:
159:
121:High-importance
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
62:High‑importance
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
3130:
3128:
3120:
3119:
3114:
3109:
3104:
3099:
3094:
3089:
3084:
3079:
3074:
3064:
3063:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3043:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2900:
2899:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2768:
2767:
2765:
2764:Split proposed
2762:
2747:
2746:
2744:Gen San Yu.jpg
2736:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2716:
2683:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2577:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2556:Han chauvinism
2551:Han chauvinism
2546:Han chauvinism
2539:
2538:
2515:
2514:
2474:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2451:Han chauvinist
2437:
2436:
2415:
2414:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2262:
2239:
2238:
2192:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2132:Han chauvinism
2116:Han chauvinist
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1965:Han chauvinism
1961:WP:NOTCENSORED
1957:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1953:WP:NOTCENSORED
1941:Han chauvinism
1934:
1933:
1903:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1879:
1874:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1832:
1829:
1808:
1807:
1800:
1753:
1752:
1744:Added archive
1742:
1734:Added archive
1732:
1724:Added archive
1722:
1714:Added archive
1712:
1704:Added archive
1702:
1694:Added archive
1692:
1678:
1670:Added archive
1668:
1660:Added archive
1658:
1644:
1636:Added archive
1634:
1626:Added archive
1604:
1601:
1580:
1579:
1572:
1525:
1524:
1516:Added archive
1494:
1491:
1470:
1469:
1462:
1395:
1394:
1386:Added archive
1364:
1361:
1359:
1358:
1348:requested move
1342:
1341:
1315:
1314:
1295:
1294:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1248:Cordless Larry
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1206:
1191:
1175:
1164:
1161:Korean Chinese
1139:
1138:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1093:
1050:
1049:
1024:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
993:Cordless Larry
975:Cordless Larry
964:
963:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
921:Cordless Larry
897:
896:
886:Cordless Larry
871:
870:
851:
850:
832:
831:
793:
792:
791:
790:
772:
771:
770:
769:
703:
701:
674:
673:
663:requested move
657:
655:
654:Requested move
652:
636:
633:
630:
629:
626:
625:
622:
621:
618:
617:
614:
613:
611:
610:
597:
579:
566:
555:
548:Top-importance
537:
516:
514:
513:
502:
501:
496:
491:
486:
480:
477:
476:
468:
467:
460:Mid-importance
456:
450:
449:
447:
409:
408:
405:Myanmar portal
392:
380:
379:
377:Mid‑importance
371:
359:
358:
355:
354:
347:Mid-importance
343:
337:
336:
334:
317:the discussion
304:
303:
287:
275:
274:
272:Mid‑importance
266:
254:
253:
250:
249:
246:
245:
237:edit this list
233:
232:
231:
230:
222:
221:
220:
213:
208:
203:
198:
193:
188:
180:
179:
178:
173:
138:
137:
129:
128:
117:
111:
110:
108:
91:the discussion
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3129:
3118:
3115:
3113:
3110:
3108:
3105:
3103:
3100:
3098:
3095:
3093:
3090:
3088:
3085:
3083:
3080:
3078:
3075:
3073:
3070:
3069:
3067:
3057:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3029:
3022:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3003:
2998:
2993:
2989:
2984:
2981:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2970:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2950:
2943:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2913:
2908:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2898:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2885:
2878:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2858:
2851:
2847:
2843:
2839:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2803:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2779:
2776:
2770:
2769:
2763:
2761:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2745:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2723:
2721:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2691:
2689:
2681:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2640:
2639:
2635:
2631:
2627:
2623:
2618:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2604:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2575:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2552:
2547:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2516:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2481:
2472:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2447:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2422:
2417:
2416:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2396:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2363:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2344:
2343:objectionable
2339:
2335:
2331:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2312:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2276:
2272:
2269:
2267:
2259:
2254:
2248:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2190:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2167:Han Chauvnist
2164:
2163:Han Chauvnist
2159:
2155:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2133:
2128:
2127:
2126:World on Fire
2121:
2117:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1901:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1884:101.127.8.197
1880:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:Lillyanna2020
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1838:
1830:
1828:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1785:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1761:
1756:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1691:
1685:
1679:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1657:
1651:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1602:
1600:
1599:
1594:
1589:
1588:
1577:
1573:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1557:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1498:
1492:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1478:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1447:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1362:
1357:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1316:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1229:
1219:
1218:Ethnic German
1214:
1212:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1197:
1192:
1190:"Goryeo-in").
1188:
1183:
1181:
1176:
1174:nationality).
1172:
1170:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:was moved to
1098:
1094:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:scholarly use
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
949:
945:
941:
938:
937:
930:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
901:
900:
899:
898:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
877:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
856:
853:
852:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
833:
830:
826:
822:
818:
816:
814:
812:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
794:
789:
785:
781:
776:
775:
774:
773:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
740:
737:
736:
735:
734:
729:
724:
720:
716:
711:
706:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
672:
669:
664:
659:
658:
653:
651:
650:
647:
642:
634:
608:
604:
602:
598:
596:
595:2015 election
592:
588:
586:
585:
580:
578:
575:
573:
572:
567:
564:
562:
561:
556:
553:
549:
546:
544:
543:
538:
535:
531:
527:
525:
524:
519:
518:
515:
511:
507:
506:
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
481:
479:
478:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
455:
452:
451:
448:
431:
426:
422:
418:
417:
412:
406:
395:
393:
390:
386:
385:
381:
375:
372:
369:
365:
352:
348:
342:
339:
338:
335:
318:
314:
310:
309:
301:
290:
288:
285:
281:
280:
276:
270:
267:
264:
260:
244:
242:
238:
235:Feel free to
229:
226:
225:
223:
219:
218:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
187:
184:
183:
181:
177:
174:
171:
164:
163:Ethnic groups
157:
156:
154:
153:
152:
150:
145:
140:
139:
135:
134:
130:
126:
122:
116:
113:
112:
109:
96:Ethnic groups
92:
88:
87:ethnic groups
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
59:Ethnic groups
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
3055:
3027:EmeraldRange
3025:
3020:
3007:SimeonManier
2992:WP:STANDARDS
2948:EmeraldRange
2946:
2921:SimeonManier
2912:disagreeable
2883:EmeraldRange
2881:
2877:SimeonManier
2856:EmeraldRange
2854:
2826:WP:WHENSPLIT
2823:
2801:EmeraldRange
2799:
2797:as relevant
2786:
2780:
2774:
2771:
2748:
2738:
2719:
2697:EmeraldRange
2692:
2685:
2666:SimeonManier
2641:
2619:
2605:
2579:
2576:WP:DUCK sock
2560:SimeonManier
2476:
2455:SimeonManier
2446:WP:STANDARDS
2420:
2399:
2380:SimeonManier
2362:WP:STANDARDS
2311:WP:STANDARDS
2265:
2208:
2194:
2171:SimeonManier
2124:
1969:SimeonManier
1905:
1834:
1812:
1809:
1784:source check
1763:
1757:
1754:
1609:
1606:
1584:
1581:
1556:source check
1535:
1529:
1526:
1499:
1496:
1474:
1471:
1446:source check
1425:
1419:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1396:
1369:
1366:
1352:
1345:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1305:
1298:
1244:another page
1225:
1208:
1193:
1177:
1166:
1144:
1055:
1030:
1026:
1009:
939:
902:
875:
874:
854:
835:
796:
758:Thai Chinese
738:
715:Chinese Thai
702:
677:
675:
667:
660:
638:
600:
599:
582:
581:
569:
568:
558:
557:
540:
539:
521:
520:
459:
414:
410:
346:
306:
300:China portal
234:
215:
169:
155:Meta-tasks:
141:
120:
80:
40:WikiProjects
2688:WP:CITEKILL
2334:Wang Gungwu
1413:Sourcecheck
1180:Koryo-saram
1073:I tried to
907:65.95.14.96
860:65.95.14.96
475:To-do list:
30:Start-class
3066:Categories
2111:censorship
1821:Report bug
1593:Report bug
1483:Report bug
1061:Hybernator
840:Hybernator
158:Place the
2917:censoring
2648:JordanKSM
2630:JordanKSM
2608:JordanKSM
2594:JordanKSM
2528:JordanKSM
2504:JordanKSM
2484:JordanKSM
2426:JordanKSM
2404:JordanKSM
2288:JordanKSM
2247:JordanKSM
2228:JordanKSM
2212:JordanKSM
2197:JordanKSM
2080:JordanKSM
2041:JordanKSM
2017:JordanKSM
1992:JordanKSM
1923:JordanKSM
1908:JordanKSM
1804:this tool
1797:this tool
1684:dead link
1650:dead link
1576:this tool
1569:this tool
1466:this tool
1459:this tool
1331:Soewinhan
1306:AjaxSmack
1083:Soewinhan
987:Or maybe
168:template
3037:contribs
2997:WP:UNDUE
2958:contribs
2893:contribs
2879:pinging
2866:contribs
2850:WP:UNDUE
2846:Mandalay
2830:WP:UNDUE
2811:contribs
2795:Mandalay
2705:contribs
2584:sock of
2330:Amy Chua
2154:Amy Chua
2120:Amy Chua
2107:likeable
1842:The dog2
1810:Cheers.—
1582:Cheers.—
1472:Cheers.—
1284:Kauffner
1095:In 2007
953:Kauffner
744:Kauffner
554:articles
3021:Support
2988:WP:NPOV
2983:WP:NPOV
2942:WP:NPOV
2582:WP:DUCK
2500:WP:PLOT
1945:WP:NPOV
1688:tag to
1654:tag to
1616:my edit
1506:my edit
1399:checked
1376:my edit
1075:Be bold
1014:Quigley
1010:Support
940:Comment
903:Comment
876:Support
836:Support
797:Support
489:history
462:on the
435:Myanmar
421:Myanmar
374:Myanmar
349:on the
151:tasks:
123:on the
2834:WP:POV
2336:, and
1680:Added
1646:Added
1407:failed
1319:Oppose
1299:Oppose
1266:Bejnar
1240:pasted
1105:Bejnar
1039:Bejnar
1027:Oppose
855:Oppose
739:Oppose
723:Hintha
593:after
584:Update
542:Expand
36:scale.
2787:split
1262:cab's
944:1,570
601:Other
571:Stubs
560:Photo
499:purge
494:watch
322:China
313:China
269:China
3033:talk
3011:talk
2990:and
2954:talk
2925:talk
2889:talk
2862:talk
2807:talk
2793:and
2755:talk
2701:talk
2670:talk
2652:talk
2634:talk
2612:talk
2598:talk
2564:talk
2532:talk
2508:talk
2488:talk
2459:talk
2430:talk
2408:talk
2384:talk
2292:talk
2232:talk
2216:talk
2201:talk
2175:talk
2156:and
2084:talk
2045:talk
2021:talk
1996:talk
1973:talk
1959:and
1951:and
1927:talk
1912:talk
1888:talk
1864:talk
1846:talk
1837:NPOV
1403:true
1335:talk
1325:and
1288:talk
1270:talk
1252:talk
1109:talk
1087:talk
1065:talk
1043:talk
1033:but
1018:talk
997:talk
979:talk
957:talk
948:this
925:talk
911:talk
890:talk
864:talk
844:talk
825:call
784:call
760:and
748:talk
694:talk
686:talk
550:and
484:edit
211:Iyer
115:High
2789:to
2720:Yue
2502:).
2266:Yue
1778:RfC
1748:to
1738:to
1728:to
1718:to
1708:to
1698:to
1674:to
1664:to
1640:to
1630:to
1550:RfC
1520:to
1440:RfC
1417:).
1405:or
1390:to
1350:.
1228:cab
1203:Hoa
821:cab
819:.
780:cab
680:.
646:cab
454:Mid
341:Mid
239:or
3068::
3039:)
3013:)
2960:)
2927:)
2895:)
2868:)
2813:)
2757:)
2725:🌙
2672:)
2654:)
2636:)
2628:.
2614:)
2600:)
2566:)
2534:)
2510:)
2490:)
2461:)
2432:)
2410:)
2386:)
2332:,
2294:)
2271:🌙
2234:)
2218:)
2203:)
2177:)
2086:)
2047:)
2023:)
1998:)
1975:)
1929:)
1914:)
1890:)
1866:)
1848:)
1791:.
1786:}}
1782:{{
1686:}}
1682:{{
1652:}}
1648:{{
1563:.
1558:}}
1554:{{
1453:.
1448:}}
1444:{{
1415:}}
1411:{{
1337:)
1290:)
1272:)
1254:)
1213:):
1198:):
1182:):
1171:):
1159:,
1149:):
1133:,
1129:,
1125:,
1111:)
1089:)
1081:.
1067:)
1045:)
1020:)
999:)
981:)
973:.
959:)
927:)
913:)
892:)
884:.
866:)
846:)
827:)
786:)
750:)
717:,
707:→
696:)
665:.
532:,
243:.
166:}}
160:{{
3035:/
3031:(
3009:(
2978:@
2956:/
2952:(
2923:(
2905:@
2891:/
2887:(
2875:@
2864:/
2860:(
2809:/
2805:(
2753:(
2707:)
2703:/
2699:(
2668:(
2650:(
2632:(
2610:(
2596:(
2562:(
2530:(
2506:(
2498:(
2486:(
2457:(
2428:(
2406:(
2382:(
2290:(
2249::
2245:@
2230:(
2214:(
2199:(
2173:(
2130:“
2082:(
2043:(
2019:(
1994:(
1971:(
1925:(
1910:(
1886:(
1862:(
1844:(
1823:)
1819:(
1806:.
1799:.
1595:)
1591:(
1578:.
1571:.
1485:)
1481:(
1468:.
1461:.
1333:(
1286:(
1268:(
1250:(
1107:(
1085:(
1063:(
1041:(
1016:(
995:(
977:(
955:(
923:(
909:(
888:(
878:.
862:(
842:(
823:(
782:(
746:(
730:)
728:t
726:(
692:(
684:(
603::
587::
574::
563::
545::
526::
466:.
353:.
127:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
