Talk:Gang Bing

A fact from Gang Bing appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ming Dynasty general Gang Bing castrated himself and placed his severed organs under Emperor Yongle's saddle to avoid being accused of sexual improprieties?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/December.

Wikipedia

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

is this for real?[edit]

"G. Carter Stent’s "Chinese Eunuchs.”" in the external links section has no mention of "Gang Bing" or "Kang Ping" OlEnglish (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, a Google Books search for "Kang Ping" in the main source cited turned up a "Kang Ping Tieh", aka the "Iron Duke" but no "Gang Bing". OlEnglish (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple way to check facts. It is called READING THE ACTUAL ARTICLE. Take a look at this copy of Stent's article[1]. Make sure when you do your universal search that you place a hyphen between "Kang-Ping," other wise it won't show up.David Straub (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it was a simple mistake of not including the hyphen when I searched (which btw is an easy mistake to make considering there's no hyphen used in the wikipedia article), no need to get all pissy with me in your edit summary, don't take personal offense when people point out minor errors in an article. And there's still no mention of specifically "Gang Bing" in Stent's article, so where's your source for this spelling then? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 20:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is suppose to be a peer-reviewed website that verifies content. Do you think peer reviewed journal editors make universal searches when fact checking? You gotta read the articles in order to understand the content. As for not finding Gang Bing, take a look at the pin yin and Wade-Giles systems of transliteration for Chinese. Pin yin is the most prevalent here in Wikiland, so I used Gang Bing rather than Kang Ping. Besides, it doesn't change what the original Chinese would have been.David Straub (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Patron saint"?[edit]

Personally I think the term "patron saint" should be used exclusively for Christianity and is not appropriate here. Gang Bing is a tutelary deity in Chinese folk religion, not a Christian saint, since both he and Emperor Yongle were not Christians. The source websites used "patron saint" instead of "tutelary deity" just because it is easier for (Western) people to understand, as the word "deity" usually do not refer to a deified person in the Western World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.17.158.161 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources[edit]

I've searched for this guy's name (刚秉) and various keywords (like "yongle emperor", "castration" etc.) in Chinese and Japanese, but I can't find a single article anywhere on the Internet that references this person in these languages. (I don't actually read Chinese, so I may have overlooked something.) I'm not saying the English sources are lying or anything, it just seems really... strange. And it makes it hard to tie this information together with anything outside the article. If we can't find any non-English sources for this non-English-area historical person, I think we should put a big red flag on the top of the article that corresponds to something like "everything in this article is really specious." Ornilnas (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ ≥≥≥

[1] ≥≥≥

[1]