Ecourr

Warning

This is to warn you to stop maliciously deleting well sourced contents from Dongyi. These are citations from Classic Chinese history records:

• 《左傳》稱：「紂克東夷而損其身」。
• 《礼记·射义》载：“挥作弓，夷牟作矢。

These are sources from peer reviewed acamedic journals:

• 何德亮,“试论青州地区的东夷文化”, <<管子学刊>>2009年 第01期.
• 逄振镐, "从图像文字到甲骨文——史前东夷文字史略", 《中原文物》2002年第2期
• 韩建业, 杨新改; "大汶口文化的立鸟陶器和瓶形陶文"《江汉考古》2008年第3期

These are sources from Chinese government or government media:

• 神秘东夷甲骨文现山东 疑比殷墟甲骨早千年雅安市档案局, 2008年10月27日
• 东夷及其文化发展 山东省情网
• 追寻东夷族的文化足迹 新华网

This article is about Dongyi, not about the meaming of Yi. It should focus on Dongyi people's history, culture etc. Please contribute constructively. If you doubt the accuracy of individual sentences, you can edit individual sentence. Delete all the content is vandalism. Not just peer reviewed journals are reliable sources. And you are blocking the use of peer reviewed academic sources. Ecourr (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved your comments and discussion here. No, the contribution you made to the article Dongyi is unencylopedic. First of all, in terms of grammer, they are badly-written, poorly constructed; they have no cohesion and seems like they were put together hastly and then puted onto the article.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, the three Chinese "peer-reviewed" articles [1] [2] [3] you provided (there aren't much English language information about these "academic journals" and the host site http://www.cqvip.com/ is a commercial Chinese website) provided very little actual information. Most importantly, they do not support many of the claims you put forth, i.e. "Dongyi culture is one of the oldest civilization in China[1] and also the most advanced one in China at that time...oldest in China...more advanced culture...etc." These articles talked about pottery, and written symbols, but THEY DID NOT make any concrete claims. You seems to be simply interpretating sources on your behalf and putting in your own words. Unless these three articles explictly states information concerns your claims, it is not acceptable to go to your own conclusions.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

These Chinese language Government sources are even harder to verify as they have no background sources and are largely anonymous. Further, I noticed in several of the articles, the tone is hypothetical; they are not presented as "hard-evidences" but as "possibilities" and were asking "questions". Several of these articles' tone of voice makes them seem like commentary and in a subjective "travelog-esque" manner (such as in this Xinhua article [4]). That is especially a problem the way you are citing them, as to support direct "matter-of-fact" statements.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)