Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture)

You are confusing Asian architecture with Chinese architecture when you copy/past info from one article to another

You are mixing terms that do not belong together when you copy paste information from specific articles on Chinese architecture like Dougong. You are misusing the term. I don't think you understand Chinese architecture. --Mattisse 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The content here are consistent with the references you added at Zaojing. Personal attacks are not helpful. FYI I did not copy and paste content from Dougong - this article existed long before you made dougong.

If you do not remember, when you created dougong I congratulated you on your talk page saying that "I now have something to link to on Caisson (Asian architecture)". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you were going to copy the article, including the sources and put it into another, unrelated article. --Mattisse 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dougong

Is there evidence that Dougong was used in the Forbidden City? --Mattisse 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See the references cited, and see references on Forbidden City.

If you are unsure about whether the dougong is used in the Forbidden City, the epitome of palatial Chinese architecture, then really it is you who don't understand Chinese architecture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The books I have, and some online sources quoted in zaojing say that by that period dougong was purely ornamental and not structural. Even by the time of the Songyue Pagoda, dougong was becoming ornamental rather than structural. --Mattisse 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Western bias in Chinese architecture articles

The Forbidden City is the only site I have seen the Caisson term used in Chinese architecture articles. Most of my interest are in the history of Chinese architecture, and I have zero interest in the Forbidden City.

My interest starts about 10,000 BC, hence my interest in the traditional Chinese terms, rather than the Western terminology of the colonists who in the last couple of hundred years have tried to make Chinese architecture fit into the Greco-Roman architectural tradition. That attempt is probably why Chinese architecture is of so little interest on Wikipedia and perhaps accounts for the large interest generated by the articles I write using the original Chinese terms as well as those written by User:PericlesofAthens, who introduced me to the use of Chinese wording , who also uses Chinese words. The Indian articles have been very successful in this regard. See Hoysala architecture

We all know that Wikipedia has a Western bias that we all have to work on eliminating. I am also working in conjunction with editors who are creating and enlarge other Chinese articles on history, technology, art etc. who are also using Chinese vs Western terminology. --Mattisse 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for eliminating systematic bias on Wikipedia, and as I have said before, I have immense respect for your work on Chinese architecture and history pages. However, as I said on your talk page, in this case the caisson is an oft-used term, not just in the sources I cited, and not just in sources relating to the Forbidden City, but also in more general sources, including ones you cited at Zaojing.

Also, as I said on your talk page, the caisson or zaojing is found, in identical form, not just in China but throughout East Asia. Given this, the common English name is preferrable because it may not be known as (or at least pronounced as)the zaojing in those contexts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references and examples of the "oft-used term". If it is oft-used, then that should not be difficult. --Mattisse 14:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All the sources quoted. Cheers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They may be referenced but not well referenced. For example, the OED would never be accepted as a source for articles on Indian architecture, so why should it be accepted for Chinese architecture? Cheers. --Mattisse 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED is being cited to support this sentence:

"The caisson is a general name for any sunken panel placed in the ceiling."

Pray tell what that statement has to do with Chinese architecture per se, and even less, Indian architecture.

It is a statement as to the usage of a word in English. The OED is much more authoritative as to linguistics than any source you would care to pull out, guaranteed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing incorrect citations

I am going to remove my citations from another article that you incorrectly applied here in a way that is misleading. The sources are not essential to your article. --Mattisse 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed information and citations that are at odds with this article and is incorrectly included. --Mattisse 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated these sources since I do not see why they are irrelevant. Please specify how they are irrelevant. Please stop referring to Wikipedia articles as "yours" and "mine", because they are not. If you do not agree to licence your contributions under GFDL you should take them elsewhere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed other meanings of the word caisson since they are irrelevant to this article, and are dealt with by the dab page Caisson. The OED is online and is in every academic library in the world, so it is easily verified. See http://www.oed.com/. Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you seem to be removing sources on the basis that they refer to Zaojing. This seems to be based on a presumption that zaojing and caisson are different things. Please stop doing this, as they are clearly different names for the same thing. If you continue to do this, then out of consistency you sould remove all references that use caisson at Zaojing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed sources from a book I have that do not support the statements you have attributed to them. You must find sources that do support your statements. My book does not mention either zaojing or dougong in reference to the Forbidden City. Dougong almost certainly was not used in the structural sense there, as after 700 CE fasteners and adhesives were increaingly used, especially when you get to the relatively recent time period of the Forbidden City's building and rebuilding. --Mattisse 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Err.... no. Any standard reference work on the architecture of the Forbidden City talks about zaojing or dougong. What kind of book are you using? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The architectual books referenced in zaojing that you removed from the article and put in the caisson (Asian architecture) before you set up the #REDIRECT from zaojing to caisson (Asian architecture). --Mattisse 14:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of caisson

Please find definition in an online source, preferably an architectural glossary. There is no need to use a source not accessible to most readers when there are plenty of online sources available. --Mattisse 14:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• here is one I found by Googling the word "caisson" + architecture: [1]

"Coffer. Also called caisson, lacunar. Architecture. one of a number of sunken panels, usually square or octagonal, in a vault, ceiling, or soffit." --Mattisse 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. The OED is the authoritative source on the English language. No online source can be more authoritative than the OED, save http://www.oed.com/. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. We are talking about ancient traditional Chinese architecture, and no, the OED is not an appropriate reference for that. I do not think the OED pretends to be an authority on architecture. Would you look up a term in Psychology or Engineering and expect to obtain more than a lay definition there? It's not even a good source for any in depth architectural article. I do not think you will find serious architectural articles on Wikipedia using the OED as a reference. --Mattisse 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean about your habit of opening up lots of little threads? You keep on picking on the OED as if it is the only reference for this whole article, when in fact it is a reference for only one sentence. As I posted to the topic above:

The OED is being cited to support this sentence:

"The caisson is a general name for any sunken panel placed in the ceiling."

Pray tell what that statement has to do with Chinese architecture per se, and even less, Indian architecture.

It is a statement as to the usage of a word in English. The OED is much more authoritative as to linguistics than any source you would care to pull out, guaranteed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First para not supported by Peoples Daily source

[2] does not mention much of what you state in first para. --Mattisse 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And nor am I presenting it as the reference for the entire paragraph. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I suggest that you be clear in the way you reference so the reader will know. --Mattisse 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and any manual of style you care to cite, you will see that the reference for the sentence is placed at the end of the sentence. What would you prefer? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your description of caisson ceiling is not supported by my sources

You make many statements that are not supported or are directly contradicted by my sources. Those are the ones I am removing. --Mattisse 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me edit the article

There is no need to rush in and immediately change or remove anything I modify. This makes it seem like you own the article when you do this, not allowing other editors to edit unless you approve of the edit. Since you want to merge the zaojing article into this one, I want this one to be correct. From my point of view, since I am interested in the history of Chinese architecture, I want the history in the article to be correct. The article flings together disparate periods. I am trying to correct the misperceptions that this causes. --Mattisse 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not "merging" anything. I am adding contents relevant to this article, which I am obtaining a variety of sources, including the "Zaojing" article.

I am not reverting anyone else's edits, just yours because you insist on removing contents based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the subject matter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith. That can be considered a personal attack. Please stop. --Mattisse 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. You are displaying bad faith, for example by starting some weird merger proposal when you haven't addressed my challenges to your edits to this article. Please address them. If you fail to address them, I will revert all of your edits. Thanks, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Centralised list of issues

Your practice of opening a new paragraph for every sentence you write is making the discussion difficult to follow. I am challenging each of your edits below. As is the practice on Wikipedia, the onus is now on you to justify each of the edits, otherwise they will be removed.

1. Opening paragraph

1.1 Chinese vs East Asian You cite chinainfoonline.com as showing that the Caisson is unique to Chinese architecture. This is plainly false. See the following Japanese sources for mentions of Japanese usage of caissons:

• [3]
• [4]. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1.2 Location at centre of building You dispute this. Why? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1.3 Various shapes You have put an additional fact tag on this. The various shapes of the caisson are described by both the People's Daily source and the ChinaInfoOnline source: from the latter: " polygon or a circle ,decorated with elaborately cared or painted designs "; from the former: "square, a polygon or a circle". Specific examples of the polygons - i.e. octagon etc, can be seen from the specific instances mentioned in the rest of the article, especially the images.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I rely more on my architectural book that I do many online sources. On line sources will do when you have nothing else, but books by experts on the history of Chinese architecture are superior sources, from my point of view. --Mattisse 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So which shape are you disputing? Does your "architectural book" say that it is only square or circular or what? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Names

2.1 OED You have put a dubious tag on the OED reference. As I have said before, the OED is the authoritative source on the English language. I don't know what more I can say about your dubious tag without verging on personal attack. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles under discussion are on Chinese architecture and like the articles on Indian architecture, it would be preferable to use the Chinese terminology as other editors have been trying to do on Chinese architectural articles. You are taking a narrow view to quote the OED, hardly an architecture source for Chinese architecture. You are not taking a {{globalize}} view. --Mattisse 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So are you disputing the authority of the OED on linguistics? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Structure

3.1 Forbidden City You inserted: "Dougong was not used in the Forbidden City in a structural sense as by that time Chinese architecture, influenced by outside sources, had evolved more complex structural methods."

This is problematic in several ways. 3.1.1: it lacks citation 3.1.2: how is the construction of the Forbidden City more "complex" structurally than earlier structures? 3.1.3: there are plainly dougongs in the Forbidden City. The cited source (Yu) clearly discusses it. Unless you can provide a citation for your assertion, Yu, as the authoritative source on the architecture of the Forbidden City, will prevail your inconsistent statement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

3.2 "Completely different" You said: "This type of zoajing is completely different in nature from the ancient Chinese architectural zoajing which were related to water and the fear of fire."

Both are called caissons, zaojings in Chinese. How are these completely different in nature? You have no citation for it, and it sounds like an original assertion (not even research) on your part. All zaojings are related to elemental superstition. The dragon is a creature of water, and thus dwells in the water-well. I see no inconsistency. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No scholarly references I have mention zaojing in connection with the Forbidden City. In any case, the essential connect of zaojing to water and fear of fire in wooden structures does not seem to be featured in the descriptions of the structures of the Caisson article (other than in the sense of general past history not pertaining to the Forbidden City). --Mattisse 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor argument. As I said, I have cited sources which talk about the caissons in the Forbidden City. You are arguing "omission in one book denies mention in another book" - not a valid argument. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Use in other structures

You made mass deletions from this section without explanation. "My book is different" is not an explanation. Please provide a full explanation below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are not in a position to complain, since without consulting any other editors, and without a {{merge}} discussion, you emptied out the contents of one article, posted a #REDIRET and stuck the contents in another article, mostly in incorrect places. I removed the sources I had put in one article where you had moved them and incorrectly applied them in the second article. I removed those as I do not believe in using incorrect sources. If you have the source material, then use yours. --Mattisse 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are taking a proprietary attitude to "your" source again! As I said before, if you don't agree to licence your contributions under the GFDL, you should take them elsewhere and not place them on wikipedia.

"I put up these sources so no-one else is allowed to use my material" is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.

It would help if you could instead point out how they are being "misused". As far as I can see, "your" sources are directly on point for this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied from thread below) The sources that I used in another article that you took and put in this one (when you did your unauthorized merge of that article into this one) do not support the material in the article you used them to reference. That is why I removed them. If caisson is a generally used term for what you are describing, then it should not be hard to find reference sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Adding material and sources to an article is not an "unauthorized merge".
2. You deleted material and sources from this article without discussion.
3. Please point out exactly how these sources do not support the material in the article, because I assert that they are directly on point.
4. You are right that it is not hard to find reference sources - I found them in the article you wrote, and I added them to the article. That is how Wikipedia works. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Received third opinion on merge

I asked for an honest opinion from an editor who writes many articles, including several Feature Articles, on Chinese history and Chinese architecture. His reply:

If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

--Mattisse 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See further reply from Pericles on my talkpage. I have posted a new message on your talk page. Cheers, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest merge to Coffer

• Merge Since the term Caisson is not used in Western architecture in the way it is used in this article, it seems like this material would fit better in the article Coffer which currently lacks much information now but is the right term. This article would help the article on coffer out by beefing it up, plus it would change the title of this article to the correct architectural term. --Mattisse 13:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Caissons in Asian architecture. An Asian caisson is structurally different from a classical coffer. Please do not try to change the topic. The Zaojing issue needs to be resolved first. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see last several entries on your talk page. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to close this discussion as a no consensus. Nobody else is even interested and there is no prospect of consensus being reached between Mattisse and myself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide some reliable architectural sources for your definitions

You do not have sources other than online travel and publicity pages and a general dictionary source. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yu, Zhuoyun (1984). Palaces of the Forbidden City. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-53721-7. , pp 253ff is not an online travel and publicity page, nor a general dictionary source.

The sources which were in this article but removed by you were not online travel and publicity pages, nor a general dictionary source.

The people's daily is not an online travel and publicity page, nor a general dictionary source.

There were previously sources quoted in this article, which you have now removed, that are not online travel and publicity pages, nor a general dictionary sources.

It is rather disingenious of you to remove sources from the article for no good reason and then attack its supposed lack of sources.

If you had good reasons for removing the sources, you still haven't provided them. Saying "these sources are mine", as you have, is not a good reason. The discussion threads are still open above. Please comment there.

Please see your talk page on further comments about sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page for discussions of this article. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My sources did not support the material in the article they referenced

The sources that I used in another article that you took and put in this one (when you did your unauthorized merge of that article into this one) do not support the material in the article you used them to reference. That is why I removed them. If caisson is a generally used term for what you are describing, then it should not be hard to find reference sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please centralise the discussion in the thread above. I am copying your response to that section. Please respond there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you need an admin to come in and discuss?

I'm not an admin, but it does look like someone else needs to straighten this out. Frankly, I agree with PalaceGuard's position, per Pericles' comments here: "After reading the Caisson article (which I really didn't before, I only went on Mattise's word that it focuses solely on the Forbidden City) it is plain and obvious as day to see they are the same exact thing, only using either English terminology or the exact Chinese terminology. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why don't you guys draw straws or play rock paper scissors or something, because there are articles on East Asian topics that have English originated titles or exact renditions of East Asian terms." Considering Mattisse's trouble with teamwork, I definitely think some kind of arbitration is necessary. - Cyborg Ninja 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotta add... another important thing to point out is that the Caisson article was created (and edited by multiple users) before the zaojing article was created. And funnily enough Firefox's spellchecker (which has a low number of words) recognized caisson but not zaojing. - Cyborg Ninja 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyborg Ninja, thanks for the offer. I haven't edited this page for a week or so because there are now multiple issues:

There's the merger issue with the "rival" zaojing page.

In addition there seems to be a content dispute running now between myself and Matisse on this page - notice that I still haven't reverted his last batch of edits. I don't want to push for a merger (and get a second rate page) until those content issues are solved.

The reason I haven't moved on this for a while is because I am busy in "real life" - and am likely to remain so for at least the next month. Your offer of bringing in an admin or third party is very welcome - sorry for not doing more about this. If you could arrange for some more third party input, your help would be much appreciated.

Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse repeatedly states on ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_little_request.3F) that the discussion has closed.

("Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) [78][79] This dis cussion was settled and over. Cybor Nina adde a post that was a repetition of a direct quote from of PereclusofAthen." and "the Caisson (Asia architecture) was over before she entere")

As User:Mattisse believes this discussion to have closed, and he has not replied to my posts in the centralised issues discussion above, I must take it to mean that he concedes on all points which I raised.

As such, I have reverted the article to the last good version before User:Mattisse started messing with it. Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not true that I stated this was closed. I do not know where you got that idea. You cannot that text and citations from another article on Wikipedia. --Mattisse 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

responded in thread below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PalaceGuard for the reply. I'm not entirely certain of the whole mediation/arbitration process, but I'll try to see what I can do. Hopefully this isn't called a "personal attack" again. I think I'll try to gather a basic history of the articles so it's clear to any admin or editor who mediates. I'll be busy today but feel free to add any comments on my talk page or email me. - Cyborg Ninja 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The early history of this dispute was detailed by me in an AN/I thread, as a response to Mattisse's typically misquoted and misrepresented accusations ... I'll dig it up later. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

you cannot copy from other Wikipedia articles

The text and citations that you took from zaojing I have removed. You cannot copy other Wikipedia article, that is, you cannot lift the text and citations from another article as you did. Thanks! --Mattisse 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted back to before you unilaterally merged two articles - you must discuss a merge first ==

You cannot copy another wikipedia article and take references you have not used. Therefore I have reverted back to before you merged the articles. This was discussed on the ANI and you were told to do a merge. You have not done that. You removed the merge. --Mattisse 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have merged your two topics as I am replying to both. Stop opening multiple topics when you are posting one message.

1. You have not responded to my last messages in the centralised discussion above.

2. you stated yourself on ANI that the disucssion had been finished. ("This dis cussion was settled and over" is pretty clear and unambiguous, imo.)

3. Neither of the above facts have changed. As a result, the discussion, as you said, has been closed with you conceding to all points raised by me.

4. I can lift text and references from other Wikipedia articles. It's called the GFDL licence. Go and read up on it you don't udnerstand this.

5. I expanded this article in accordance with its subject matter. I did not "merge" any other article.

6. If you continue to remove contents and make unconstructive edits, I will report you to ANI. I think you know and I know where the merits of this discussion lie. Please cease and desist.

7. If you want to re-open the discussion, respond to all my points in the centralised discussion above. If you continue to make reverts while failing to discuss, your edits (being mass blanking and other edits generally lowering the quailty of the article) are considered vandalism, and you will be reported.

8. I cannot open a mergers discussion when this article does not have a stable version. A fortiori, you continued attempts to mass blank sections of this article and making other edits lowering its quality makes it impossible for me to open a merger proposal based on stable versions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot merge articles without discussion

I am repeating this from my posting from the article talk page. On that page I fully discussed my objections and no resolution was arrived at. It was suggested that a third party be consulted by the person I consulted (you have removed it from you talk page so I cannot cite it) as he said each was equally valid a title for the article in his opinion and that we should draw straws or consult another third party. You cannot copy material and references from another Wikipedia article. I will take this up on ANI. Regards, Mattisse 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot remove a merge suggestion without discussion as you have done

The merge request was a way of getting new input. You cannot remove a merge suggestion unilaterally without attempting to get input first. I will respond to the issues you raised above further since you complain about that. I did not respond further before because I did not know they were there.

I was busy responding to attacks from User:Cyborg Ninja. She was warned and threatened with a block in part for stalking me to this page and entering comments here. [5] to which you responded and appeared to act on her advice.

Please take the whole picture into account before you act unilaterally and without consulting me. --Mattisse 11:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI was clear that a merge procedure was required

That was the answer from ANI. Is there anymore to discuss about that? I believe it is clear that ANI said it was required. However, if you do not consider that over, I will ask again on ANI to revisit that response if that is what you want. Or do you consider the first response from ANI a closed case? --Mattisse 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please revert the page to the original merge request without the material copied from the other Wikipedia article. --Mattisse 11:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Posted this issue for clarification on ANI

Since my input has been misunderstood, and the MERGE removed from the page without consensus (although as of this morning I notice that it is back) I have posted this issue for clarification on ANI. When I indicated the issue was closed, as you stated above, I meant that since ANI said merge was the way to go, that issue was closed. I have noted the ANI discussion on your talk page, as well as the matter that Cyborg Ninja was warned by admin for stalking me to this discussion page and entering comments. Cheers! --Mattisse 12:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from talk pages since this discussion is going on in several places

(copied from PalaceGuard008 and/or my talk pages - it is getting very confusing having this discussed so many places)

To repeat from my posting on your talk page, I don't care about the #REDIRECT on zaojing. I care that you copied text and the references from the article and put it in yours. If you look under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE etc. you will see that you cannot cite sources that you have not consulted directly. That means you must access the source before you reference it. As someone else suggested, it can also be consider WP:NOR, WP:POV if you include information that you have not researched yourself.

Referring to another post on my talk page: As I have explained to you before, when I said "my sources" I mean sources I own and can consult. The sources that I own and can therefore verify by looking are quoted incorrectly in your article. You have used the copied sources incorrectly when you copied from one article to another. In one instance I could not find the source cited in the book so I must have been mistaken. In another instance, the lady whoever's tomb, neither a caisson nor a zaojing is mentioned. These books are very difficult for me to read and understand, and I do at times make mistakes. Cheers. --Mattisse 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked at the Village Pump (policy) and the answer is that you cannot use the sources copied from another Wikipedia article - providing diff of answer

[6] Here is the diff with the answer. Please follow policy and remove the sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus here is link to Wikipedia policy regarding sources

(copyied from the Village Pump (policy)

• Plus link to go to read about it copied from Village Pump (policy):

See more specifically the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it. GRBerry 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers. --Mattisse 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:V
• WP:RS
• WP:CITE
• WP:Footnotes

--Mattisse 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the issue. I have asked for a clarification on Village Pump. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Clarification
• [[7]]

Taking a properly sourced statement from one article and copying it into another (along with the citation to the source) is perfectly fine... with a caution: if you are going to change the context of the statement, make sure that the source supports the new context. If the statement is a simple statement of fact like "Joe Blow was born in 1925 <cite to a biography of Joe Blow>" then I don't think there is any problem copying the statement with its source. If the statement you are copying is something more complex (and especially if it is controvercial), then there is a good chance that context will have to be considered ... In which case, be more hesitant to simply copy the statement and source... you should get a copy of the source to make sure it says what you think it says. Blueboar 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• [8]]

Right, what he said. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. --Mattisse 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump (policy) answer to your question

[9] Since the references you copied from the Wikipedia article are in books that are trying to remedy the impression that Chinese architecture is limited to the Forbidden City, the references and text copied are inappropriate for your article.

In Asia as well as the West, the architecture of China is often defined by a single image, the Forbidden City. Even the best-known features of Chinese construction ... have not been brought together in a common vocabulary to illuminate the distinctive Chinese forms and styles

This quotation is from Nancy Steinhardt. She specifically does not want to talk about the Forbidden City. Cheers. --Mattisse 00:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why the reference sources I choose to use as references focus on ancient Chinese architecture only. None of the references you copied reference anything later than the 7th century A.D. Therefore the information and sources you copied are not relevant to your article, so please remove them. Cheers. --Mattisse 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop opening multiple threads on the same issue. I'm finding it hard to keep up with your multiple threading. I sincerely and formally request that you post multiple messages on the same issue under the same heading. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Does this article talk only about the Forbidden City? no.

2. Does this article talk only about post-7th century construction? no.

Your argument here is incoherent and confusing. Please return to the structured discussion above in the Centralised Discussion thread. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A seconding of the answer to the sourcing question at Village Pump (policy)

[10] Here is a second opinion agreeing with Blueboar. -"you should get a copy of the source to make sure it says what you think it says". Cheers. --Mattisse 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Village Pump (policy) (emphasis added)

Taking a properly sourced statement from one article and copying it into another (along with the citation to the source) is perfectly fine... with a caution: if you are going to change the context of the statement, make sure that the source supports the new context. If the statement is a simple statement of fact like "Joe Blow was born in 1925 <cite to a biography of Joe Blow>" then I don't think there is any problem copying the statement with its source. If the statement you are copying is something more complex (and especially if it is controvercial), then there is a good chance that context will have to be considered ... In which case, be more hesitant to simply copy the statement and source... you should get a copy of the source to make sure it says what you think it says. Blueboar 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, Mattisse, show me how the context has been changed in the present case. Your selective reading to suit your own purposes appals me. Taking things out of context is precisely what the respondents on Village Pump (policy) are warning against, and it's precisely what you are doing in this thread and the above.

PS. I again request that you stop opening multiple threads to post one message for no good reason. It's discourteous, confusing, and against good discussion etiquette. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to me to show you. The burden of proof is on you. Did you read what I said above about the sources? For one thing my sources stop at 7th century A.D. Cheers. --Mattisse 00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't expect me to follow these cryptic remarks like "my sources stop at 7th century AD". I'd assumed - from your citations - that your sources were published in the 20th century, not the 7th. You also can't expect me to follow all of the 10 threads you open every day. If you would care to explain more fully in the Centralised Discussion - and respond to my points, that would be helpful.

A reminder: you still have not responded to my last posts in the centralised discussion. As a result, I will again revert your unilaterial changes to the article for failure to discuss.

This is what you need to do, write a coherent argument about why you think your changes should be made in the centralised discussion thread. Surely it's not that difficult.

And yes, the onus is squarely on you. You made these edits, I disputed them, you have not responded to my last comments. You have not satisfied your burden of proof. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You have reverted my edits - I have explained why they are incorrect -

I have explained everything in the above posts. Please read. Cheers. --Mattisse 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No you have not. Since my last posts in the Centralised Discussion thread, to which you have not responded, you have posted two cryptic remarks:

one, a quote from Steinhardt about how her focus is wider than the Forbidden City.

the other, a cryptic remark about your sources stopping at the 7th century.

Neither of which bear on any of the points we were discussion above, as far as I can see. I request you to return to the Centralised Discussion, in order to avoid escalating this issue to arbitration.

I look forward to your prompt responses to my last posts in the Centralised Discussion thread. Please make no further posting of cryptic remarks with no context and no connection with the edits in question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where you want me to post as you post out of time sequence & in too many places

I do not know where you are talking about. You began by posting on my talk page, sometimes you post here. I have not idea where your posts are on this page as there are too many section and I cannot follow it. I have asked at the Village Pump (policy) again. and I will go to ANI if the Village Pump (policy) people say you are wrong. I refuse to engage in a revert war. However, I have the sources and I know what they say and you are misapplying them. Cheers. --Mattisse 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that you think there are too many section and I cannot follow it, since you were the one who have opened multiple threads to post the same message.

It's very simple: just go to #Centralised list of issues and respond to my posts. You can't just abandon a discussion midway and start posting random comments and call it "discussion".

It's also disingenious of you to keep on shifting the goal posts. First you say caisson and zaojing are different. Then you abanoned that argument and started saying your books are not about caissons at all (without presenting any evidence, despite the strong prima facie case against your contention). Now you misinterpret the policy as to sourcing to say that one cannot copy statements with sources from one article to another. Work out exactly what you are arguing, and present arguments on that, please. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Offering to help settle the issue

Since both of you have quoted my replies to you questions at the Village Pump, I offer my services as an informal mediator in your current debate. Please note that I am not an administrator or anything official... I am simply a normal editor who is willing to act as a neutral third party. That said, I am an experienced editor and do know the policies and guidelines. So if you are willing to give informal mediation a try, I will be happy to see if we can reach a compromise.

So, if you are willing to let me help, please outline the dispute for me and point to the sections that are of concern. Blueboar 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, and I am grateful to take it. I will outline the dispute shortly (might take a couple of days)... stay tuned! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008's outline of issues

(this subsection is under construction) I see two basic issues.

Issue 1: Merger.

Caisson (Asian architecture) is the earlier article. Mattisse later created Zaojing, which, as far as I understand, is exactly the same subject matter but titled by its Chinese name rather than the common English translation. The view that zaojing is simply the Chinese name for Caisson as used in Asian architecture is supported by a number of sources cited in this article, e.g. .

When I discovered the article Zaojing, I feld that merger between this article Caisson (Asian architecture) and Zaojing was required. I hold that the two articles deal with an identical subject matter, and therefore should be merged. Mattisse has disagreed . An independent 3rd party who is knowledgeable on this area, and whom both Mattisse and I consulted, also believes that the two articles should be merged.

Initially, I moved hastily to merge the two articles by a copy-and-redirect, because I saw it as such an uncontroversial move, and when I approached Mattisse he initially gave no objection.

Mattisse later objected, and recreated Zaojing at a different location. Upon being pressed by me, he gave some arguments for why they should not be merged - some of which, it seems to me, are a misapprehension of the nature of Wikipedia along the lines of WP:OWN. That is, he argued (and still argues; see below) against my "copying" of "his" material, as if he had a proprietary title to it.

As Mattisse objected, I let the separate article stand, with a promise to run a full merger poll. However, two events intervened. First, I have become busy in real life. Secondly, a contents dispute developed between myself and Mattisse after he began editing this article, apparently with a view towards thwarting a future merger. (see below)

There is, of course, still a naming conflict issue between the titles of the two articles to be merged - but we never got that far.

Issue 2: Contents of this article.

Soon after my initial attempt to merge by copy-and-redirect, Mattisse began editing this article. I believe that he is motivated by a desire to make this article as different to "his" Zaojing article as possible, in order to stave off a merger.

For example, he tried to add a bunch of (false and uncited) claims about the Forbidden City, in order to support his claims () that this article is "all about the Forbidden City" - which it is not.

He also tried to add a bunch of (false and uncited) claims about the Caisson not being used in later classical Chinese architecture, in order to support his claims () that this article is about "later" architecture than "his" Zaojing article.

He attempted to remove material added by me from his Zaojing article. I believe that this material is relevant to this article, and have synthesised them, responsibly and in context, along with the attendant citation. Mattisse repeatedly removed them, without clearly stating the reason why. He simply repeated his claim that I was using the sources "incorrectly" - which I didn't see how, since I copied the statements with the citations as he had written.

Mattisse also began to deface sections of the article. He reserved a pet hate for the Oxford English Dictionary, which I had cited to support a statement about the more general meaning of the word Caisson outside the Asian architectural context. He continually alleged that this article is for the most part "based on a general dictionary source", when the OED was being used to support precisely one statement, a statement on general word usage, and not architecture. His objections on this front appear to have died down after I pointed out that the OED cited as its source a major authority on architectural terms.

In any event, I attempted to discuss the issue with Mattisse. Due to his penchant for opening multiple threads to post the same message, the discussion quickly became confusing and spread across several pages. I attempted to rein this in by opening the centralised discussion thread above (#Centralised list of issues), and continually pushed Mattisse to centralise our discussion there. Nevertheless, he continued to open multiple threads everywhere: just have a look at the state of my talkpage. Mattisse's topics, all about the same issue, take up about 1/3 of the table of contents. He began making false or misleading claims on user talk pages and administrative pages (such as the Village Pump and AN/I) in order to solicit favourable responses, which he could then quote out of context at me. Fortunately, in every case I was able to obtain a response based on a more accurate statement of the situation.

That, however, is a behavioural issue and not immediately pertinent. After one round of comments in the centralised discussion thread, Mattisse stopped posting. I waited for a while for him to answer my last comments. Eventually, I happened upon some statements by him on AN/I that the discussion had "closed" . Seeing as he did not respond to my last comments, and had stated that the discussion had been "closed", I naturally took it to mean that he conceded on all the points, and so reverted the page to remove all of his edits which I had disputed.

That, I believe, is the state of the matter now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the details on your side of the debate. Obviously, I will wait until Mattisse has had a chance to tell his side of the story before I make further comments. One question, however, I see that the article on Zaojing is now redirected to Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, does this help or hinder the discussion here, as far as you are concerned? Blueboar 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure of Mattisse's rationale there. As far as I am concerned, Caissons/Zaojings are the same thing, and they (however named) are notable enough to deserve their own article. My preference is that this article should be titled "Caisson", but that's a separate naming issue. I will try to fill in all the ""s as soon as possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the Ancient Chinese wooden architecture, I find it a little disingenious of Mattisse to shift the caisson/zaojing material into the section discussing ceilings, while omitting all references to that name. Shifting the goal posts, in my view. However, this is not the issue here, and it can wait for another day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

List of specific inaccuracies to this article's use of references

• Issues

PalaceGuard008 copied text and references from my DYK articles and rearranged them in Caisson (Asian architecture) to meet the needs of his article. Please clarify these inaccuracies so that the material in the article will be correct and the sources acccurate. Thanks. --Mattisse 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue One

• Para one

The Caisson (Chinese: 藻井; pinyin: zǎojǐng; lit. 'algae well'), also referred to as a ceiling caisson, caisson ceiling, or zaojing, in East Asian architecture is an archiectural feature typically found in the ceiling of temples and palaces, usually at the centre and directly above the main throne, seat, or religious figure. The caisson is generally a sunken panel set into the otherwise largely flat ceiling. It is often layered and richly decoracted. Common shapes include square, octagon, hexagon, circle, and a combination of these.

My objections: The reference is to http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/features/architecture/zaojing.htm Here is the entire text of the People's Daily reference:

The Chinese name for the caisson ceiling, zaojing, means "aquatic plants" (zao) and "well" (jing). The two terms are relevant to water because there was constant worry about fire destroying the palace buildings. With water from the zaojing, the ancients believed the threat of fire would be averted. It is usually in the form of a sunken coffer bordered in a square, a polygon or a circle, decorated with elaborately carved or painted designs. This architectural decoration has been found in Han Dynasty tombs which dates 2,000 years ago.

Nothing else in the first paragraph does it reference, even though it looks like it does.

Issue Two

• Para two:

The caisson is a general name for any sunken panel placed in the ceiling. For other meanings, see Caisson. In the case of East Asian architecture, however, the caisson is characterised by highly developed conventions as to its structure and placement. It is known in Chinese as zaojing, a name which is a combination of zǎo (aquatic plants) and jǐng (well).

Reverences: wiki dictionary link; The Oxford English Dictionary; book by Nancy Steinhardt

My objections:

• The link to wiki dictionary definition does not define caisson as a ceiling or anything else relevant to this article. The rest of the para is referenced by a book that I used in an article. The paragragh: "In the case of East Asian architecture, however, the caisson is characterised by highly developed conventions as to its structure and placement. It is known in Chinese as zaojing, a name which is a combination of zǎo (aquatic plants) and jǐng (well)." is not in the reference cited in the footnote. The Steinhardt reference does say jing means "a well", that is the only part relevant to this paragraph. The People's Daily referenced discussed above would more correctly reflect the meaning of zao as described in this article.

Issue Three

• Para three:

The caisson is a sunken panel placed in the centre of the ceiling. It is raised above the level of the ceiling through the use the dougong (斗栱) structure, which, through interlocking structural members, creates successive levels of diminishing size. Beams may also be used to create a hexagonal or octagonal caisson surrounded by a square border. These beams, and the dougong members, are usually visible, and richly carved and often painted. The zaojing resembles an intricately carved or painted dome, coffer or cupola.

• The reference is to Zaojing ceiling

My objections:

• The reference he cites at the end of the paragraph says nothing about the various ceiling shapes or borders except to say that this type of ceiling is also known as “spider web ceiling” because these ceilings resemble spider webs, and that Lungshan Temple has a zaojing with counterclockwise spiral structure. It does not mention dougong, does not mention rich carving or painting. It calls the zaojing a "type of domed structure" which suggests dome or coffer would be more descriptive than caisson which is not defined in an western books on architecture I have nor in other architectural sources I have looked through. Further, see Architectural glossary on Wikipedia.

Issue Four

• Para Five:

Caissons were originally used to support skylights. However, they became increasingly intricate and formalised, and were in later periods a standard item of interior decoration in formal buildings.

My objections:

• This statement is unsourced. According to my references it is not a correct statement for zaojing. Since PalaceGuard008's whole justification for copy pasting the articles I wrote for DYK into his and setting up a #REDIRECT from zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture) was that zaojing and caisson have identical meanings, so this sentence should be removed.

Issue Five

• Para Seven:

In traditional Chinese architecture, every facet of a building was decorated using various materials and techniques. Simple ceiling ornamentations in ordinary buildings were made of wooden strips and covered with paper. More decorative was the lattice ceiling, constructed of woven wooden strips or sorghum stems fastened to the beams. The most decorative and the most complex ceiling was the caisson. Because of the intricacy of its ornamentation, the caisson was reserved for the ceilings of the most important Chinese buildings such as imperial palaces and Buddhist temple altars.

My objections:

• The reference is again to a book I used. This reference does not discuss caissons. It mentions zaojing once in connection with the structure of each well-shaped panel with the central panel painted with water flower patterns, and calls it a coffer ceiling. Again, it is referencing a much older time period than the Forbidden City. In fact, the author, Nancy Steinhardt, wants to correct the impression that to Westerners, the single image of Chinese architecture is the Forbidden City. The purposed of her writing is to clarify this narrow conception and to bring together a common vocabulary to illuminate distinct Chinese forms and styles that so far has not occurred because, in her opinion, of the narrow focus on the Forbidden City.

• The sources I have make clear that although we use the term "alter" for some archaeological findings, in reality we do not know what the religious beliefs were of ancient Chinese. What is called "alter" in Chinese archeology could actually be called "tombs" as there were no religious figures but there were burials there.

• The descriptions the Chinese propensity for decoration and ornamentation is a general statement and does not just pertain to ceilings, but also to walls, screens, and other architectural elements. It is referencing the evolution of Chinese architecture in the context of two thousand years ago.

Issue Six

• para Eight:

The tomb of Empress Dowager Wenmind of the Northern Wei Dynasty has a caisson in the flat-topped, vaulted ceiling in the back chamber of her tomb. The Baoguo Monastery in Yuyao in Zhejiang has three zaojing in the ceiling, making it unique among surviving examples of Song architecture. Sanquing Hall (Hall of the Three Purities) is the only Yuan period structure with three zaojing in its ceiling. Zaojing are frequently found in Han Dynasty tombs.

The references are to two authors I used. The last sentence is referenced by the Peoples Daily.

My objections: Neither of the books references mention either caisson or zaojing. In the first reference it does mention a simple barrel vault in the antechamber near a connective passage in a mound near tomb of Empress Dowager Wenmind, but there were no adornments to the vault. On the second book reference, I must have been mistaken on the page numbers as the pages referenced do not mention "The Baoguo Monastery in Yuyao in Zhejiang" or "Sanquing Hall (Hall of the Three Purities)". (I have gone through this before trying to find that page reference and gave up.)

References

OK Lets see if I have the issues right

OK, I think I have a good idea of what happened from each perspective. But to make sure, let me summarize. PalaceGuard copied several statements from one article and pasted it into this article. Along with the statements, he copied the sources that accompanied those statements in the original article. PalaceGuard feels that the there is nothing wrong with this. Matisse disagrees, and feels that in doing so, something changed, to the point that the sources no longer accurately support what is now being said. Is this a fair summation of the arguments? Blueboar 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I no longer care about zaojing as I have given up on that although I do think "caisson" is not standard nomenclature, but I don't care anymore about that. I do want the copy paste of my material and sources to be correct though. That is my issue now as I outlined above. Thanks! --Mattisse 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, it is a minor point, but I have to quibble with how you phrased that... once something is posted to Wikipedia it becomes our material, and stops being "my material". I do understand, however, what you were trying to say ... as the original writer, you don't want something you wrote to end up being used in a way that imparts incorrect information. That is a legitimate concern. So what we have to do now is two fold... 1) determine if the copied material is imparting incorrect information, and 2) figure out how to correct things if it does. Your detailed explanation of the problems with the citations (above) should go a long way towards achieving that. Blueboar 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It was hard work. (I lost edits for some reason and had to do them over.) I'm tired! --Mattisse 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained many many many times that when I refer to "my sources" I am referring to books I own and consult, nothing more. For the sake of communication and clarity I refer to them as "my sources." If you prefer another phase, please inform me how to distinguish between the ones I provided and the ones I did not. Perhaps we can call the aricle sources I uniquely contributed as Sources B. --Mattisse 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One of my problems on this page is that for some reason, the individual sections do not open independently. I can only edit the whole talk page at once. Therefore, making entries under other sections is very difficult because in the edit mode it is hard to find the right place. I don't know what causes this problem. It does not happen on article pages or on other talk pages that I remember. Can you think of a reason to help me with this? (Anyway, I appreciate that you post toward the bottom because of this problem!) --Mattisse 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This might happen if you are looking at an old revision of the page, or a diff. Individual edit links only appear when looking at the current revision. --Salix alba (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No. That's not it. Usually if I click on the section heading, that section heading opens up. But on this page, nothing happens if I click once. If I click twice, the whole page opens in one long piece. And it is not due to using a diff or an old versions. --Mattisse 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Try going to your preferences, click on edit tab, check the first box and uncheck the second and third. You won't be able to double click, but will have an [edit] link for each section which you can edit. This method is more reliable as it does not use javascript, which may have messed up. --Salix alba (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I will do that. I have been suspecting the javascript and even asked at the Village Pump about it. I also have some script in my monobook.js but I would hate to give it up as it is pesky but useful. Also, my computer hasn't had time to reboot since the electricy went off the last time, so maybe I need to close things out and do that. But first I will try you preferences suggestion. Thanks! --Mattisse 00:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No difference with the prefernces set as you suggested. Maybe I need to close out Firefox. For several day I have had five or six separate Firefoxes going, each with a multitude of taps open. It's just that it will take me time to find everything again if I do that. Scared! --Mattisse 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think you have the issue exactly right. This is also how I view the issues, and it is heartening to see that Mattisse has finally decided to engage these issues with some coherence and detail, with the most recent list of issues in the thread above.

We are making progress already! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any discussion on Issue One it should be entered here, PalaceGuard008. However, it seems we are skipping Issue One for now. --Mattisse 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See the section on Issue One below. I just want you to explain your last comment, which seems to have nothing to do with Issue 1 or Issue 2. I want to be sure I'm not missing a significant issue that you are raising.

Just clarify it. It's not that hard. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For your convenience, I have flagged the comment below which I want you to clarify, with a cquote template in bold and in caps. Please feel free to remove the flag afer you find it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No point in going over past history - please deal with content issues

I do not see the point of going over past history. I have given up on zaojing. I redirected it because I was proud of my little DYK (one of the few little rewards for writing so many articles here - as petty as that may sound) and because the information in the article was part of a master plan to write an article on Ancient Chinese architecture which I am now starting. If you want to change the redirect, go ahead. I have given up on zaojing. Hope this helps. --Mattisse 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think forgetting the past history of how we got to this point, and concentrating on the current content of the article is a great idea. Blueboar 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I, too, think that is a positive development and a good suggestion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I am not sure if my services are needed anymore. Since I don't know a think about the topic, I can not really contribute to the article. I am happy to help guide discussion and to continue to play mediator if you think it will help... but I think you can probably go on from here without my help. As I see it, the next step is to address the specific citation concerns that Mattisse raised above. If the sources do not actually support the statements they are being used for, either find new sources that do, or change the statements. If you both work together, instead of at cross purposes, this could end up being a very good article. Good luck. Blueboar 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I am not sure what you mean. Is this the end, or is PalaceGuard008 supposed to reply to the objections I listed or what? What is supposed to happen now? Thanks, --Mattisse 14:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse - please keep in mind that other editors often don't have much time to work on Wikipedia, or usually have time but then something else comes up and they have to focus elsewhere. I think your six issues are very well stated, and do exactly what is needed - switch the discussion to whether questioned statements are actually supported by citations. Yes, PalaceGuard is supposed to respond to the issues you've listed, though he doesn't have to actually post anything to the talk page - he could just go ahead and make changes to the text (rewriting, deleting, adding different citations, whatever). But wait at least a couple of days, please. And if PalaceGuard doesn't do anything, I'll be happy to help here, since you're narrowed the discussion to six factual points, and spelled out the issues quite well.

P.S. If you're still having trouble editing a specific section of this page, try using this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caisson_%28Asian_architecture%29&action=edit&section=40

where you can change the section number at the end to whatever you want. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Issue One on the list ask for by Blueboar has not been addressed I have added a citation needed tag to article

User:John Broughton posted on my talk page that this was the way to proceed if my issues were not addressed. --Mattisse 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Had to add another fact tag per Issue One, as a zaojing is not an "otherwise flat" ceiling necessarily and the rationale for copy/paste and #REDIRECT was that zaojing and caisson were the same. The first fact tag in the paragraph listed in Issue One was for the definition of caisson as " an archiectural feature typically found in the ceiling of temples and palaces, usually at the centre and directly above the main throne, seat, or religious figure." I have not seen that definition regarding a zaozing so I question the validity of the statement. The rest of the paragraph is source by the People's Daily link. Mattisse 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I very much like the direction that this discussion is going (focus on the what are stated to be facts, and their support, rather than on the issue of cut-and-past per se; sometimes cut-and-paste is okay, sometimes it's not, so it's best to shift to specifics, not the issue of cut-and-paste itself). Please do give things a couple more days to before starting in on issue 2, yes? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... Go through Mattisse's laundry list of problems one at a time... see if a solution can be found to one issue before you move on to the next one. Stay focussed. The goal is to make this a good, accurate article... but we do not need it to be perfect right this second. As long as there is slow progress, then the goals of Wikipedia can be met. I am sure that both John Broughton and I will be more than willing to pop in and help break the occational log jam by offering a neutral comment... but if you both assume good faith and are patient with each other, you should do fine. Go slow and take it one step at a time. Blueboar 16:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

First Issue to work on

To get you started... focus on the first of Mattisse's issues... don't move on until you reach a compromise on this one Blueboar 16:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Para one:

• The Caisson (Chinese: 藻井; pinyin: zǎojǐng; literally "algae well"), also referred to as a ceiling caisson, caisson ceiling, or zaojing, in East Asian architecture is an archiectural feature typically found in the ceiling of temples and palaces, usually at the centre and directly above the main throne, seat, or religious figure. The caisson is generally a sunken panel set into the otherwise largely flat ceiling. It is often layered and richly decoracted. Common shapes include square, octagon, hexagon, circle, and a combination of these. [1]

My objections: The reference is to http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/features/architecture/zaojing.htm Here is the entire text of the People's Daily reference:

• The Chinese name for the caisson ceiling, zaojing, means "aquatic plants" (zao) and "well" (jing). The two terms are relevant to water because there was constant worry about fire destroying the palace buildings. With water from the zaojing, the ancients believed the threat of fire would be averted.

Nothing else in the first paragraph does it reference, even though it looks like it does. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is that the citation does support some of the facts in the paragraph, but not all of them. Is this correct? Blueboar 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It supports the last sentence only. The first two sentences are not true of zaojing and are not supported by the footnote. The argument for removing the contents from the zaojing article and copy/pasting the contents into this article was that caisson = zaojing. If that is true, then the first two sentences are incorrect. (I recognize that footnotes can be places in the part of the article that explands upon this.) Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it does not make sense. Religious figures in Chinese structures are not typically placed in the center of the building under a dome like structure. In fact, until Buddhism took hold, the Chinese did not have religious images or figures. The history of the zaojing is unconnected to Buddhism and began before Buddhism reached China. Mattisse 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the source cited:

"The Chinese name for the caisson ceiling, zaojing, means "aquatic plants" (zao) and "well" (jing). The two terms are relevant to water because there was constant worry about fire destroying the palace buildings. With water from the zaojing, the ancients believed the threat of fire would be averted.

"It is usually in the form of a sunken coffer bordered in a square, a polygon or a circle, decorated with elaborately carved or painted designs. This architectural decoration has been found in Han Dynasty tombs which dates 2,000 years ago."

[Note selective quotation by Mattisse]

• Please accept good faith. Any ommissions were unintentional. Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will dissect each sentence of the lead to identify exactly what needs a quotation.

1. The Caisson (Chinese: 藻井; pinyin: zǎojǐng; lit. 'algae well'),

This part should be uncontroversial. That "Caisson" = 藻井 can be verified via the variety of sources cited, and especially by the People's Daily source cited in this paragraph.

• Comment. The People's Daily can source the parts that reflect its wording. There are few statements that are not uncontroversial, whether or not the "should" or "should not" be. First a clear citation, (not just the same People's Daily article) needs to be cited. I am not convinced that caisson = zaojing, except in the sense a refrigerator = an ice box. I would like to see some articles of the same time period as the Forbidden City using the work zaojing. Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2. also referred to as a ceiling caisson, caisson ceiling, or zaojing

This should also be uncontroversial, supported as it is by the variety of sources cited in the article. However, I should note that I added these other names to placate Mattisse, so if he objects, I am quite happy to see them removed. As I mention under Issue One, ceiling caisson is not mentioned and shoud be removed. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not tall down to me by using words like placate Mattisee. That is not assuming good faith. The phrase ceiling caisson does not exist unless you can prove otherwise. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3. in East Asian architecture is an archiectural feature typically found in the ceiling of temples and palaces

This should also be uncontroverisal, because it summarises matters addressed in the rest of the article. If Mattisse wishes, the references to the Forbidden City and the Baoguo Temple in Yuyao can be brought up to reference this part.

• Since this is in the lead and is a summary statement referenced in the expanded section in the article, when we reached the expanded discussion in the article we can make sure the sourcing is correct there. However, the statement is not true of zaozing so if zaojing = caisson, there needs to be tight sourcing to prove this. Also, what is different about an Asian cassion and others like those in coffers?

• This is controversial. It is combined material with an untrue or misleading result. I agree with Blueboar the "something" can replace "typically". The rest you can source, if not in the lead, then elsewhere in the article where you expand upon this. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

4. , usually at the centre and directly above the main throne, seat, or religious figure.

I concede that I do not at present have a citation for all of this. The Forbidden City citation supports the caisson being above the throne - but on checking a number of images on Wikimedia commons, I think the claim of it being "directly above" may not be accurate. I am happy for this part to be removed pending future sources being added.

• My references are from a thousand years earlier. This article gives undue weight to the time periof of the Forbidden City. The article does not present the evolution of the architectual element. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

5. The caisson is generally a sunken panel set into the otherwise largely flat ceiling.

• "Largely flat ceiling" needs to be unmoved or referenced. It is redundant as ceiling ere flat. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That the ceiling is otherwise flat is synthesised from literature on Chinese architecture. If Mattisse requires a citation, this one can be added: Horace H. F. Jayne, "Far Eastern Architecture", Bulletin of the Pennsylvania Museum, Vol. 24, No. 124 (Jan., 1929), pp. 3-13.

• This sentence needs referencing from a less obscure source. Libraries are filled with books that are accessible to everyone. For an important issue like this, upon with the whole article depends, I dod not feel an obscure source that cannot be easily refrenced by others is adquation. A "synthesized" statement needs more than one source. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once you come up with architectural articles describing what a caisson is in architecture, this issue will become more clear. It is a confusing statement regarding zaojing and needs to be clarified and sourced. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

6. It is often layered and richly decoracted.

That it is often layered is supported by the rest of the article. Citations can be moved up if required. That it is richly decorated is supported by the People's Daily source cited.

• This statement is fine. Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your only references seem to be a two statement article from Peiple' Daily. There should be many more articles available if caisson is a frequently used term. --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Common shapes include square, octagon, hexagon, circle, and a combination of these.

The People's Daily article cited supports the following shapes: square, polygon, or circle. If Mattisse disputes that the said polygon can be either an octagon or a hexagon, then Yu's Forbidden City book supports both of those. I won't, however, be able to cite the page number immediately.

Please let me know whether this is satisfactory to you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the statements that directly parrot the PD arecile are fine. I have problems with the reservations about the uncited material in the text where you expand upon all of this with referencing. I agree with your removal of the material that seems to be OR, unless it is expanded and source elsewhere in the article. I do think you need more sources than just a two sentence article from People's Daily. Generally you need more that one reliable source, so I do not think it is a good idea to rely completely on the two sentence PD article --Mattisse 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

some comments

With the second bit of the source provided, the source does indeed support more of this paragraph than just the last sentence... but it still does not support all of it. That is the problem with synthesising information from multiple sources (be careful about that... WP:NOR cautions against synthesis. I don't think you are into OR here, as you are not actually stating a conclusion, but it is boarderline.) You have to make it clear which stuff comes from which source.

I would suggest rewriting the paragraph so that the bits that are supported by the People's Daily (PD) are seperate from the parts that are not. If you do not want to completely re-write, then cite the People's Daily multiple times, directly to those statements that are supported by the PD, and cite the other statements to a source that backs them. Even a small change of wording could clear up some of the problem, for example instead of "typically found in the ceiling of temples and palaces" what if it were changed to "sometimes found in the ceiling of temples and palaces"? (you would still need a source and perhaps some examples, but from what you tell me, I think this would be a factual statement.) Mattisse... if you were to rewrite the paragraph, how would you state it? Blueboar 13:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend sticking with the information from the People's Daily in the first paragraph of this article and removing the rest unless sources are found, including removing ceiling caisson as I have never heard of this term. The People's Daily source makes a clear statement of how the People's Daily defines the word. Also, it would remove the problem in the definition of saying that a caisson is a ceiling set into a ceiling. I would support changing "typically" to "sometimes". Mattisse 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you had a problem with the whole "temple" thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the People's Daily article also uses the word coffer. I think coffer is more descriptive of what this article is about. Mattisse 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic please. The People's Daily article also uses the word "ceiling". Why don't we move this to ceiling? I'm being ironic. Please don't take that comment seriously. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a link to this article in the Forbidden City article with a footnote source:

Set into the ceiling at the centre of the hall is an intricate caisson decorated with a coiled dragon, from the mouth of which issues a chandelier-like set of metal balls, called the "Xuanyuan Mirror".

I think the use of caisson in the two articles should be congruent, else it should not be linked to the Forbidden City article. Mattisse 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting your point. What is incongruent between these, do you think? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Click on the link in the Forbidden City article and you will see. ( Do you agree that a zaojing is a ceiling decorated with a coiled dragon, from the mouth of which issues a chandelier-like set of metal balls, called the "Xuanyuan Mirror"?) Mattisse 13:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What? no! That's just one particular caisson! Geez. Do you think stating "The throne in the throne room of Buckingham Palace is covered by a canopy supported by two allegorical figures" consitutes a definition of a throne? No it doesn't.

Does that make sense to you?

What that sentence says, plainly, is that there is a caisson in the palace, and that particular caission is decorated with a coiled dragon, etc. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ATTN MATTISSE - REMOVE AFTER YOU HAVE READ THIS

Please remove this flag after you read my reply. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Although WP:LS doesn't say so explicitly, I happen to think that the lead section, as a summary of the topic and the information in the body of the article, requires citations primarily for what isn't cited elsewhere. Or, to put it differently, it may be better to work through issues 2 through 6, above, and then return to the lead section, than to spend a lot of time on issue one, first. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just as long as there are credible sources somewhere. Sourcing the first para, however, does not mean the sources have to stay there in the finished article. Since everything in the lead has to be follow up and expanded in the article (as you say the lead is a summary) the citation can be moved down in the article, as we go through this process, to a more appropriate place. --Mattisse 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

John, you are absolutely correct! Forgive me for starting us off on the wrong foot... I had not focussed on the fact that we were talking about the lead here. The rules and guidelines are indeed a bit different with leads, and summarizing/sythesizing is more acceptable. In fact, ideally, there should be no citations at all in a lead... because everything in the lead should be discussed in more depth elsewhere in the article, and any needed citations would be made there. So yes, we should move to the next issue and come back to the lead later. Blueboar 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can amend Issue One to say that the text in the lead is not further expanded nor referenced elsewhere in the article. That point needs to be dealt with at some point. Or perhaps I can move the point that the lead is not expanded or referenced elsewhere in the article down to Issue Six and move all the others up one numerically? Mattisse 20:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we can move directly on to issue Issue Two. --Mattisse 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets do that since Issue One has not been addressed. --Mattisse 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that we move to Issue Two, but disagree that Issue One has not been addressed. Please clarify your last post in the section above, please, because I'm afraid you've lost me again. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) BlueBoar asked my to list the issues. I did and he said that was a good start. He suggested that we discuss the Issues one at a time, and not move on to the next one until the first issue is closed. John Broughton kindly put section links into each Issue, so that response to each Issue can easily discussed in one place and agreement reached before we move on to the next Issue to be discuss one at a time. Per Blueboar's request, the Issues are entered under the Issue Name, e.g. Issue One, Issue Two etc., one issue in each section for clarity. We are not to move on to the next list until there is a agreement of the first. However, nothing has been entered under Issue One so it seems just as well that we move on the Issue Two. As per the discussion about by Blueboar and John Broughton is appears we should skip the lead for now. --Mattisse 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant, could you clarify your last comment in the section above about the Forbidden City. It seems to have nothing to do with either Issue 1 or Issue 2. I just want to be clear exactly where that comment fits in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be alrl ight if the list of Issues is moved down?

Much confusing test has been entered in between. I proposed moving the formated list of Issures' down toward the bottom for clarity, by passing the confusion. Thanks. --Mattisse 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point to it. I can find your list of issues perfectly clearly. But if it helps you, go right ahead. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the list of Issues that Blueboar asked to provide. When I did Blueboar said it was a good start. So John Broughton formatted the list of Issues with individual headings so each one could be addressed independently. If you follow the discourse it is above. It started out as #28 List of Issues. John Broughton formatted the Issues so that each Issue has an individual heading so it can be edited individually. Unfortunately, posts have been entered out of sequence and entries pertaining to Issue One so now it is confusing. But we can follow the formate on Issue Two since it has been appently decided that we can skip the lead for now. I would urge clear and concise entries without personal comments about other editors as a more constructive way to continue this dialog. --Mattisse 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Issue 0: equivalence of Caisson and zaojing

A preliminary issue that Mattisse still seems to be disputing in his comments, despite sources cited, is that Caisson = Zaojing, that one is the English term and the other is the Chinese term for precisely the same thing. I propose that we work through this issue first before going through anything else. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008 first submission

1. That Zaojing = Caisson is supported by a number of sources cited in the article. A flick through the book sources will reveal that what some sources call "zaojing" is exactly the same as what other sources call "caisson". For example, Yu's Forbidden City book calls the layered coffered roof structures "Caisson" - Chinese sources on the Forbidden City, such as http://www.dpm.org.cn/ call exactly the same structures "Zaojing" - 藻井
2. That Zaojing = Caisson is explicitly stated in the People Daily source.
3. These are definitions for "caisson" and "zaojing" in my Chinese-English and English-Chinese dictionaries:
   1. caisson - 5. [建] 藻井 (which means: [Architecture] Zaojing) - from the Century Edition of the New English Chinese Dictionary from the Shanghai Yiwen Press.
   2. caisson - 5. [建] 藻井 (identical to above) - from the standard edition of the English-Chinese Dictionary from the Shanghai Yiwen Press.
   3. caisson - 沉箱，（天花板的）凹格，藻井 (which means: sunken chamber (see Caisson (engineering), (ceiling) sunk panel, zaojing) - from the Zhulong Architectural Professional English-Chinese Dictionary
   4. caisson ceiling - 古建筑中的藻井 (which means: zaojing in ancient architecture) - from the same source.
   5. 藻井 - [建筑] coffer; sunk panel; caisson ceiling ([建筑]=[Architecture]) - from the New Age Chinese-English Dictionary from the Commercial Press.
   6. 藻井 - [建] sunk panel, caisson ceiling - from the Chinese-English Dictionary from the Beijing Foreign Languages Institute.
   7. 藻井 - caisson ceiling - from the Chinese-English Architectural and Civic Planning Word List (1998) from the Chinese National Science and Technology Terms Verification Committee (I'm translating the name here: it's called 全国科学技术名词审定委员会 in Chinese).

I believe that the above evidence firmly establishes that zaojing is known in English as "caisson" or "caisson ceiling".

And just to anticipate two arguments which Mattisse has used in the past:

• That one or more of "your" sources don't draw the equivalence between two sources is no evidence against their equivalence. Just because I have a book that only talks about Myanmar and another that only talks about Burma, that does not mean that Myanmar does not equal Burma. If you wish to refute my evidence of equivalence, you need to find a source that actually states that they are not equivalent.
• That "caisson" can have more than one translation in Chinese is no evidence against it being the same as "藻井" - "Caisson" is a name for several, quite different, things even in English, and each of those things has a different meaning in Chinese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to Mattisse: I would prefer if you do not break up my post with your comments. Start a new subsection below, and address any point which you wish to - they are numbered for your convenience. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to PalaceGuard008: Please follow the outline suggesed by and set up by Blueboar and John Broughton above. Mattisse 12:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given what PalaceGuard has posted, I think we can deal with issue "0" fairly quickly. It is clear that there is indeed enough evidence to say that Zaojing = Caisson ceiling. Let's move on to the next issue (I think that would be issue two). Blueboar 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflice)

I do not agree but will drop the issue for now. Given the the word "Caisson" is used very infrequently in English to mean ceiling, See Issue Two and Issue Four above, and given that the Architectual Portal does not define the term at all but uses coffer and dome instead, I question it's use at all. If PalaceGuard008 could provide multiple sources in English stating the same, it would have more credibility. However, I am willing to move on for now but I do not consider the issue settled. I believe the sole English link provided by PalaceGuard008 Caisson (engineering) does not support his contention.

Blueboar, are you fluent in Chinese? I believe is is the matter of translator choice in translating words from one language to another. PalaceGuard008 and other English sources may arbitrarily choose a range of terms for the interpretation of one term, as anyone who has translated is aware.

Also, this does not address the question of the disparity in the historical time line. Do the sources quoted above make it clear that they are referring to periods pre 7th century A.D. The Forbidden City was relatively late. Also Nancy S. Steinhardt makes it clear in one of her books that Chinese terminology has been preempted by western translations to the point that the "architecture in China is often defined by a single image, The Forbidden City. ... Even the best known features of Chines construction ... have not been brought together in a common vocabulary to illuminate distinctive Chinese forms and styles." This is what the zaojing article was about and trying to remedy. Since the zaojing article = the caisson article, I think these concerns should be taken into account in the caisson article. Mattisse 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not moving on to Issue Two until Mattisse accepts this elementary issue of definition.

That quote which you repeatedly trot out simply says that Steinhardt is concerned to show Westerners that there is more to Chinese architecture than the Forbidden City. It says nothing about the caisson, and it says nothing about your arbitrary "800AD" line.

What is that 7th century AD line anyway? Are you seriously telling me that Chinese architecture experienced a discontinuity at 800AD? You are right - the sources above say nothing about the "pre-7th century AD" thing - and you have supplied no evidence to back up that arbitrary claim.

You can't just say you will "drop" the issue - as you have done before - and then come back and roll it into every second comment you make. It makes for very tedious debating.

So you either accept that Caisson and Zaojing describe exactly the same thing, or you put forward some evidence to convince me otherwise. We can't move on until this elementary issues (which, I would have thought, should have been uncontroversial given that it is what is said in dictionaries) is resolved.

So please provide some reliable source that shows that caisson and zaojing are not the same thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue Two

Para two:

• The caisson is a general name for any sunken panel placed in the ceiling.[2] For other meanings, see Caisson. In the case of East Asian architecture, however, the caisson is characterised by highly developed conventions as to its structure and placement. It is known in Chinese as zaojing, a name which is a combination of zǎo (aquatic plants) and jǐng (well). [3]

Reverences: wiki dictionary link; The Oxford English Dictionary; book by Nancy Steinhardt

Mattisse's objections:

• The link to wiki dictionary definition does not define caisson as a ceiling or anything else relevant to this article. The rest of the para is referenced by a book that I used in an article. The paragragh: "In the case of East Asian architecture, however, the caisson is characterised by highly developed conventions as to its structure and placement. It is known in Chinese as zaojing, a name which is a combination of zǎo (aquatic plants) and jǐng (well)." is not in the reference cited in the footnote. The Steinhardt reference does say jing means "a well", that is the only part relevant to this paragraph. The People's Daily referenced discussed above would more correctly reflect the meaning of zao as described in this article.

Blueboar's initial comments: The problem seems to be that the second sentence needs a source. The issue with the third sentence seems easy to rectify by using the People's Daily instead of Steinhardt as Mattisse suggests. Any problems with that? Blueboar 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not true in the two books I have by Nancy S. Steinhardt that she uses zaojing to mean caisson. She does not use the word "caisson" at all, at least in her writings pertaining to pre 7th Century architecture. She uses the word coffer or "coffered". --Mattisse 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I think you are being a bit overly technical on this point. Having established that lots of other sources equate zaojing with caisson, I think that it is legitimate for us to equate Steinhardt comments about zaojing with caissons. Unless Steinhardt specifically says that zaojing does not mean caisson, it seems to me that she just uses a different word for the same concept. (as an asside, exactly what is the difference between a caisson and a coffer? The Wikipedia article on Coffer seems to equate the two.) That said... I would call Steinhardt an indirect source for the specific statement under discussion... and I agree that since we have a source that more directly supports the statement being made (the People's Daily), we should use that source. Blueboar 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Caisson is rarely used in architecture in the Western world. Coffer is the preferred use. That is why that use of caisson is not found on Wikipedia and why it is so hard to find any references to that use of caisson to put in this article. (When you have to use the OED because there are no architectural references on the Internet, then you know something is strange.) Look it up on Wikipedia -- you will see. Look up the the number of articles with the word "caisson" and compare to the number of articles with "coffer" in them. Also, almost all uses of "caisson" refer to the military use or the underwater structure, or some other preferred definition Mattisse 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I want some proof that I can consult that say caisson = zaojing and that, if so, that caisson is the preferred definition. Usually caisson ceiling is occasionaly used for renaissance church ceiling but that is the only place I have seen it. This most certainly is not the definition of zaojing, as zaojing has no religious connotations. Translations by a person with a vested interest are not as trustworthy as those by a disinterested party. Plus how do we know that zaojing = caisson is not along the lines of refrigerator = icebox. I learned in French class that "Fermez la bouche" meant "Shut up" and thought that was true until I was in France and was told that fermez la bouche was something a dentist would say. Shut up was "tessez vous". Mattisse 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Compare:

Mattisse 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not have to go to the old OED... Mirram Webster defines caisson as being the same as coffer (see definition 3 here, and MSN Encarta says the same (see definition 6 here. No... a caisson is obviously the same as a coffer... different terminology for the same concept. As for zaojing meaning caisson... the five or six definitions that PalaceGuard gave above tell me clearly that zaojing can be translated as caisson. I don't see any problem with using it here. I think this is settled. Blueboar 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I'm not moving onto Issue 2, but since the discussion has moved on I will indicate my views here: I agree with Mattisse's suggestion for the substitution of sources in sentence 2.

I agree with Blurboar's views regarding the other issues:

As to whether Steinhardt uses the word "caisson", see this source: Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 47, No. 1. (Mar., 1988), pp. 57-73. for an exaple where Steinhardt uses the word "caisson" instead of "zaojing" to indicate the same thing. (It's not on the front page - you may need to access it through an academic library) This seems to indicate to me that even Steinhardt, whom Mattisse seems to cite as his strongest source of evidence, uses the two terms interchangeably.

BTW, as I have said many times before, Mattisse enjoys attacking the OED, but he is confusing the issues.

1. The OED is cited to reference a sentence on the general meaning of the word "caisson" in architecture. Does that sentence say anything about Chinese architecutre? Noo... Does it say anything about the Forbidden City? noo.... Does it say anything about the Chinese word Zaojing? nooo.... Does it say anything about "7th century AD"? noo... The OED is perfectly competent in defining a word, thank you very much.

2. The OED cites as its source for the architectural definition of "caisson" Gwilt's Encyclopaedia of Architecture. If you are going to dispute the OED, you'd better come up with something more authoritative than Gwilt - and you have come up with nothing that disputes the OED's definition of "caisson".

In any case, as I thought, the elementary definitional problem is slowing the discussion down. Can we regard it as settled, as Blurboar suggested, or should we return to Issue 0 and sort it out? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PG... come on, sarchasm does not help. Please assume good faith. That said, I think we can call the zaojing = caisson = coffer issue settled. Why don't you make the suggested changes reguarding the sources. Can we move on to Issue Three, or is there still something further we need to discuss on Issue Two? Blueboar 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Issue Two is settled then.

BTW, I have apologised to Mattisse regarding any offence I may have caused him on this page - and explained my frustration with this dispute. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For 5 days, incivility, sarcasm, personal attacks, accusation of bad faith have continued unchecked - I will seek alternative method of mediation

Since I have received no protection from the unceasing ncivility, sarcasm, personal attacks, accusation of bad faith in the discussion on the talk page, except an extremely lukewarm statement from Blueboar yesterday and an apologyy yesterday from PalaceGuard008 blaming his behavior on the frustration I caused, I am withdrawing from this discussion and will seek other methods of solving the dispute here. --Mattisse 14:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, as I said on my talk page, I think you are being overly sensitive here. Editors in a content dispute often get frustrated and say things in a way that they later regret. It is a very common response. You should expect it to some degree. In this case, I can fully understand PalaceGuard's frustration. He had just listed multiple sources demonstrating how multiple reliable sources define zaojing as meaning caisson, and the fact that, a few posts later, you ask for proof that zaojing means caisson is extremely frustrating (for me as well). It seems as if you did not even bother to read his comments... or that, if you did, that you are ignoring them. I am not saying this is the case... just that it appears like that. Add in the fact that he has made these same points several times before on this page, I am not at all surprised by his reaction. Does that excuse his sarchasm? no... But it does make it understandable. I do not see any "personal attacks" or accusations of bad faith. What I see is legitimate expression of frustration, followed by a legitimate appology for how that expression was made.

It is obvious that you are frustrated too... Perhaps I don't know the subject matter enough to really help you. So, if you think some other form of mediation or dispute resolution will work, go ahead and try it. I will continue to monitor the page, and offer my advice. If you don't want to take that advice, that is fine with me.

PalaceGuard: since Mattisse is withdawing from the discussion, I would suggest that you take another look at his list of objections, and simply act in good faith to address what you can. Good luck. Blueboar 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you're not aware of this, you'll find various methods of dispute resolution listed here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read all the instructions over and over and have tried to file. However I do not know how to do it. I have left a message asking for help. I cannot believe that such treatment as this is me being "oversensitive" as Blueboar alledges. [11] Mattisse 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar - I will continue on ONE contition - that the personal attacks, sarcasms , accusation of bad faith , ridicule & incivility cease immediately

If you continue to allow me to be treated this way I will stop. I am only continuing because you say:

"... but please note that doing so does mean that you will lose some credibility when it comes to correcting the flaws you see in the article."

I do not have faith in you. Do you know what "focus on content and not on the editor" means?"

I have a very poor opinion of you. But you have put me in a position of having no choice. I must continue with a mediation that I do not respect and and with a mediatior who condones an uncivil atmosphere. --Mattisse 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When you put it like that... No... I don't have much interest in helping anymore. Remember, I was a volunteer here... if you have no respect for me, or for the process I have tried to impliment to resolve your issues, then I see no reason to continue. Go find someone else to mediate, someone who you do respect. That is probably for the best, as you have now lost my respect as well. Good luck. Blueboar 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I do not respect anyone, never mind a voluntary mediator, who overlooks and excuses personal attacks and incivility on the basis of frustration. That is the very thing a mediator is to prevent. Further, you condoned incivility and snide remarks on your talk page about the parties involved in the mediation. I do not think you used good judgment in this case in deciding what was "too sensitive." I hope you do not engage in future mediations with this insensitivity. Further, I recommend that you read the rules on Personal attacks, Assuming good faith, and others that will help you understand what civility is and what a mediator, or any person who wishes to be helpful on Wikipedia, should know. Mattisse 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I use sarcasm when I'm constrained by civility not to swear at people. Note also, that I did not use sarcasm - or any of those things you are accusing me of - against you personally. You can go right ahead and dig, but I assure you you won't be able to find any incontrovertible proof of personal attacks. Trotting out WP:NPA and WP:AGF without a shred of evidence is not acting in good faith.

You have, and you continue to, frustrate this process. When you see a hostile rational argument, you don't meet it - you dodge the issue, you go forum shopping, or you start accusing other editors of personal attacks.

If you wish to discontinue this process, that's fine. Remember, it is you who want to push through those deletions and other edits. If you want to abandon that cause, that's fine by me, because seriously, I have better things to spend my time on.

Since you have apparently abandoned the process, the choice is yours: return to the agreed process, or abandon your cause. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar: Thanks for your help. As you suggested, I will continue to work through the issues listed by Mattisse even without his participation - I have already added a number of sources to the first couple of paragraphs.

Your help was invaluable to this article: Now that Mattisse has explained his objections fairly clearly, I can at least identify where the potential problems are, and work through to improve or substitute the references. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks. It is nice to know that someone appreciates what I tried to do. Sorry it did not work. Blueboar 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008 - I agree that Blueboar was "invaluable" to you, as you say, in allowing you to intimidate and beat down another editor

I certainly understand your wanting to thank him. I'm sure Blueboar will be useful to you in the future. --Mattisse 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful Mattisse... you are not making the situation better. The accusations that you are making can be considered personal attacks as well (luckily, I'm not one to get overly worked up about that). Sigh... I will say this one last time. I did not "allow" anyone to do anything. I am not in a position to allow things or to stop people from doing things. I am not an administrator, nor am I the "conduct police". I am simply another editor who volunteered to listen to your arguments and give an independant opinion. I saw my roll as facilitating discussion, To provide some structure so that you and PalaceGuard could talk through your problems with the article. No more, no less. Even if PG had been abusive, it was not my job to protect you from that. More to the point, I don't see anything that would constitute a personal attack by PalaceGuard ... I do not see anywhere where he is trying to "intimidate and beat down another editor". Would you please point out where you think he did this? If you can not point to a few secific examples, then don't make accusations. Blueboar 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful Blueboar....(But you are not "sensitive" so I am not worried.) You "allowed" Palaceguard008 by supporting his bad behavior, going along with it, and failing to protect me. I never would have agreed to the "mediation" if I had known that you condoned abuse. In previous mediations, the mediator has not allowed that. The mediator makes statements and points out personal attacks and abuse.

Do you think I wanted to do PalaceGuard008's work for him in return for abuse? Does that make sense? It was AFTER I, in good faith, cooperated by providing the information that PalaceGuard008 is now calling so "invaluable" , that the personal attacks against me escalated. You protected PalaceGuard008 (don't hurry him, he is busy you said to me, give him plenty of time to respond), but never once did you protect me. As a mediator, you were in a position to at least comment on the inappropriateness of his personal attacks or even give him a warning, which would have been appropriate. You certainly should not have allowed the open abuse of the other editor who was trying to cooperate. Instead you said nothing, not even on your talk page. You condoned the personal attacks. You certainly gave Palaceguard008 plenty of support.

When I gave you the "invaluable" information, I trusted you, Blueboar. I did not know that, you, Blueboar, would then let PalaceGuard008 run me off. It was after I provided the information that the real abuse and personal attacks started which shows what was really going on. I think that if either Blueboar or PalaceGuard008 accuses me of personal attacks that would be true hypocrisy after what has occurred. Of course, you are not as "sensitive" as I am, so this is not bothering you I am quite sure. However, Blueboar, you have demonstrated you are either a hypocrite or incompetent as a mediator, but very good at serving PalaceGuard008's needs (Maybe he is MSJapan). I would like to know the limits of your (sigh) hypocracy. How far does it go? PalaceGuard008 once again got me to do his work for him, thanks to you, Bluebour. You are not very nice and should never be a mediator. --Mattisse 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How did PalaceGuard "run you off"?... how did I "allow" him to do so? You are still posting. You have not been "run off".

You know, I was going to just walk away from this, but when you include accusations of sock puppetry you escallate things beyond where I can do so. I can no longer accept that you are acting in Good Faith. I came here as a neutral third party... due to questions you posted at the village pump. It now looks to me like neutrality is not what you wanted from me. It looks to me like you wanted someone to validate your view of things. You were willing to cooperate with what I was doing, as long as I was basically agreeing with you. Once I started to express opinions that ran contrary to your POV, you turned hostile. OK, now I am hostile. If you want to call that "hypocracy", fine. If you want to say I am not a nice person, fine. I can live with that. But when you insunuate that I have colluded with another editor, and accuse us of engaging in sock puppetry, you take a step too far. State your evidence or stop making accusations. Blueboar 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert changes without justifying reverting them first

The changes I have added are justified by and pertain to the list of Issues I proved. Plese do no remove reverenced material without good cause. I remove one reference, discussed in the 'Issues because it was fixated on "spider web design", not something featured in the paragraph it referenced or anywhere in the article. --Mattisse 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign to agree to formal mediation

I have filled out a request for formal mediation after Mattisse rejected Blueboar's attempts. The link for the request in here: [12]. Each party, in this case PalaceGuard and Mattisse, is required to sign near the end of the form and then fill out their general issues. You don't need to inundate the mediator with issues that are already discussed on the Talk pages, and the request must first be accepted. - Cyborg Ninja 08:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please re-engage in discussion or leave this page alone

Mattisse, you are not only re-introducing contested edits, but making clearly irrelevant edits.

If you still wish to participate, please re-engage in this discussion. If you feel informal mediation did not work (as apparently you do), please agree to formal mediation. A link has been provided on this page, and I have also notified you on your talk page - although I notice you subsequently deleted it.

Your choices are clear: either discuss (by agreeing to mediation or otherwise), or leave the page alone. Quitting discussion, then introducing the very edits subject of the discussion is violating the principle of consensus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Well, this is certainly going to teach me to check out all relevant talk pages before I do something, but despite my aversion to conflict, I stand by my actions. I've redirected Zaojing (Chinese) and Zaojing (traditional Chinese architecture) here as the seem to both be duplicates of this article. I don't want to step into an edit war, but do we really need three articles essentially saying the same thing? If it is really that important in maintaining the "right version" that you feel you must create duplicate articles, may I recommend doing so as a subpage in your userspace? AniMate 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Will arbitration be necessary now that the mediations were both rejected? There isn't much editing going on with the article now, so I don't know. Let's make a quick survey here of what people think. - Cyborg Ninja 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an active issue here. Mattisse has not been editing here since the last episode, and I won't be continuing with the issues list for at least another week. Let's wait and see. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

caisson link goes to disambig page

As someone insists on returning the link to the disambig page, please fix it so it does not go to a redirect. The only choice on the disambig page that fits the definition in the article is a redirect back to the article. Please fix. Mattisse 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't go to a redirect Mattisse, it goes to the Caisson dab. I don't know why it redirects back to the article for you. For me it works perfectly and goes to the dab page as intended. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is called a disambig page. For your benefit I have copied it below. It is not correct to link to a disambig page. Copy of page follows:

Caisson may refer to:

• "Caisson", a pen-name of Edward Sperling

• Caisson (engineering), a sealed underwater structure
  • Caisson disease, decompression sickness, named for the structure
  • Caisson lock, a type of canal lock in which a narrowboat is enclosed in a sealed box and raised or lowered between two water levels
  • Caisson (water transport), the water-filled trough used to transport boats on a boat lift or canal inclined plane
  • Caisson, a construction method of foundation on land
• Caisson (military), a carrier of artillery ammunition, also used for coffin transport in funerals
• Caisson (Asian architecture), (uncommon variant of coffer) a decoractive sunken ceiling structure in Roman, Renaissance, especially religious architecture, Chinese and East Asian architecture

Also see

• Homophone: "Kazon", an alien race in the fictional Star Trek universe

{{:disambig}} End of disambig page Mattisse 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ________________ _________________________________________________________________

What's the problem of linking to the dab? It is supposed to illustrate the other meanings of the word "Caisson", especially because no article or appropriate redirect currently exists for Caisson (architecture). What could possibly be your rationale of linking to Caisson (engineering)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed all the editors and bots that spend all their time going around fixing links that go to disambig pages? It is considered a fault if a link goes to a disambig page. If a link goes to one, then that link should be fixed to go to one of the choices on the disambig page and not the disambig page itself. That is considered by wikipedia to be rude to the reader. If you want to explain the meanings of caisson relevant to the article, explain it in the article. Mattisse 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I don't think wikipedia considers it to be "rude to the reader". The bots fix dab links that should go to a specific page. In this instance, it should not: it was intended to go to the dab page all along.

In the spirit of compromise, how about just remove the links altogether? The dab page is linked to from the top of the page already. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Originally I did remove them but someone replaced them. Think of a French reader, for example, seeing the link and clicking on it to find out what "Caisson" means and then being faced with those choices! And actually, that disambig page needs a clean up, as there are not supposed to be other links on the page, unrelated to the disambig. Rome, for example, should not have a link according to the disambig page standards. Mattisse 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation Mattisse 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) Mattisse 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the links and cleaned up dab pages, separating the structurally distinct "coffer" from Asian caissons, and removed secondary links in entires. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)