Talk:Gao Cai

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in Wanli yehuo bian, the Ming eunuch Gao Cai was accused of consuming the brains of young boys in the belief that it would restore his penis?

• Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=QT5JAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

• • Reviewed:

Created by 金色黎明 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

金色黎明 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC).

• @金色黎明: reviwing now. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article long and new enough. Translated from 'zh' article. Wikisource materials are in 'zh' language, although Google Translate confirms the information. QPQ not needed,(one more nom to go!). Hook is also interesting so the article seems ready for the next stage. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• @金色黎明 and FaysaLBinDaruL:, can you advise how you think wikisource is reliable for these sorts of statements? TarnishedPath^talk 05:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath:：Since the content I cited from Wikisource is, in fact, an ancient Chinese book, it is free from copyright restrictions due to its antiquity. Moreover, the points I discussed in my article merely reflect the perspectives presented in this ancient book—a fact I have also explicitly clarified.--金色黎明 (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    • @金色黎明:, you need to cite the source itself, not wikisource. TarnishedPath^talk 06:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
      • @TarnishedPath:：I have added source from Chinese Text Project--金色黎明 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath:: wikisource is not allowed for DYK? ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath: & @金色黎明: Chinese Text project source translation goes with DYK. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@金色黎明 and FaysaLBinDaruL:, I'm sorry if I've not expressed myself correctly. The article should be citing the actual source. Not citing user generated content which copies the source such as Wikisource or Chinese Text Project. For the purposes of DYK, if you then want to say that a copy of the source can be found at Wikisource/Chinese Text Project, and that I can use that for verfication, I can assume good faith. The wikipedia article itself though needs to be based off the sources. We can't have the content of Wikipedia articles being based off user generated content. You need to cite the actual source in the Wikipedia article. I hope this makes sense? TarnishedPath^talk 07:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath:：Do you think the Chinese Text Project is unqualified? Actually, this website was created by sinologist Donald Sturgeon, a renowned scholar, not just an ordinary user. All content is verified. It's very similar to Ballotpedia, and even better.--金色黎明 (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@金色黎明:, from from what I've read it has similarities to Wikipedia and relies on its community for review to ensure correctness with the original texts. For me this presents the same issues as if we were to cite to Wikipedia. I don't know why you wouldn't cite to the originals themselves using Template:Cite book templates. TarnishedPath^talk 09:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath::I have changed them by cite book--金色黎明 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@金色黎明:, thankyou for that. Now I've read through the Chinese Text Project article (presuming good faith that it is an accurate representation of the original), and the best quote I can find is "Recently, in Fujian, a tax collector, seeking to regenerate his penis, was misled by a sorcerer and secretly bought the brains of young boys to consume, resulting in the deaths of countless young boys—a cruel and foolish act indeed". This doesn't directly name Gao Cai. Is there something I'm missing? TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath:: The quote of book in Chinese is "近日福建稅璫高寀，妄謀陽具再生，為術士所惑，竊買童男腦髓啖之，所殺穉兒無算，則又狠而愚矣。" You can find it on book by Z-library:(https://reader.z-library.sk/read/52fa93a202f1033d9f5c15936fac3baa40d501f0318311f6f923aa02d00cde43/book/QOPEY2M6RX/%E8%90%AC%E6%9B%86%E9%87%8E%E7%8D%B2%E7%B7%A8.html?client_key=1fFLi67gBrNRP1j1iPy1&extension=pdf&signature=99d15fa517897004de09db9669533d801f425059849b8b3f560e94cc2b33cdba&download_location=https%3A%2F%2Fzh.z-library.sk%2Fdl%2FEwAn6Xd5ZL&file_access_token=eyJleHAiOjE3NzYwNzc5MjUsInZlciI6IjEuMCIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsImFsZyI6IkhTMjU2In0.eyJzdWIiOiJmaWxlX2FjY2VzcyIsImZpbGVfc2hhMjU2IjoiNTJmYTkzYTIwMmYxMDMzZDlmNWMxNTkzNmZhYzNiYWE0MGQ1MDFmMDMxODMxMWY2ZjkyM2FhMDJkMDBjZGU0MyIsImFjY2Vzc19sZXZlbCI6ImZ1bGwiLCJpc19wdWJsaWMiOmZhbHNlLCJsaW5rX293bmVyIjo0MjczNzkwMn0.HjpaMWXT8qvORl3xNww5URc1alKfbui6s2tEkTQpf8o)--金色黎明 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@金色黎明:, thankyou very much for your patience and assistance. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Time period

@金色黎明: This article currently doesn't have any clear indication of the (approximate) years when Gao Cai lived, except that it was "during the Wanli reign of the Ming dynasty". Would you be able to provide more context here, if possible? Do the sources say when he served in Fujian, or when the allegations were made? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Analysis

The "analysis" part is pretty transparently written by LLM and says almost nothing actually related to the topic. --~2026-23055-71 (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)