<blockquote>
<p>Does 天 mean &quot;deva&quot; here?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Four Heavenly Kings (四天王) are <strong>four</strong> (Buddhist) <strong>gods or devas</strong>, each of whom is believed to watch over one cardinal direction of the world.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Heavenly_Kings" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Heavenly_Kings</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-22T21:18:45.080Z
Maybe I should've clarified, but I think everybody's first instinct is to Google "Heavenly King" or 天王, or to look up the exactly relevant articles on Wikipedia. I copied Sanskrit transcriptions from Wikipedia articles, including this one.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-22T21:34:55.310Z
Yes, you should always exhaust the research before asking.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T03:58:26.403Z
No, I meant I'd already known your answer before I asked, otherwise I wouldn't've asked at all. I should've clarified that I'd already read that exact Wikipedia article you're citing here, which is what literally anybody with a brain would've done.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T15:56:41.097Z
You got my final vote after all that hard works :)
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T18:33:55.023Z
Don't worry, I'd vote close too, because I'm starting to attract low-quality answers like yours and the guy below (Elon-style crying laughing emoji). I'm actually yearning for the days when I only got comments because people were serious about reading the questions carefully and hesitant to give answers (laughing out loud rolling on the floor because I'm so not mad at all).
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T21:12:50.020Z
When I sew a quality post, I would wait eagerly to see the quality answers which are usually quite informative, otherwise, I would put a plug to it :)
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-22T19:54:43.553Z
2024-08-22T19:54:43.553Z
r13
<p>Bad translation.</p>
<p>Heavenly: very nice<br />
Not the right description for any king I think.</p>
<p>“天王”一词在汉语中有多种含义，<br />
“God King” this word in Chinese has various meanings,<br />
包括天子、太平天国的领袖、某些威力很大的天神等。<br />
including‌ Heaven’s Son, the leader of Taiping’s Heavenly Kingdom, some formidable great gods etcetera.<br />
• 在古代，天王通常指天子，即一国之君，如春秋时期的周天子。‌<br />
•  in ancient times, 天王 usually referred to 天子 Heaven’s Son, namely the ruler of a country, such as in the Spring and Autumn Period 周天子。<br />
• 在太平天国时期，天王是洪秀全的自封称号。‌<br />
• in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Period, 天王 was 洪秀全’s  (1814-1864) self-proclaimed title.<br />
• 在神话中，天王指的是某些威力很大的天神。<br />
•  In legends, 天王 refers to some formidable great gods.<br />
• 在娱乐圈中，“天王”是对某些著名男歌手或演员的尊称，如香港的“四大天王”包括刘德华、张学友、郭富城、黎明等。<br />
•  In entertainment circles,  天王 is the title given to some famous male singers or actors, such as Hong Kong’s “4 Great Sons of Heaven” including 刘德华、张学友、郭富城、黎明 etcetera.<br />
• 在佛教中，四大天王是重要的护法神，分别守护东、南、西、北四个方向，象征风、调、雨、顺。‌<br />
•  in Buddhism the 4 Great Dharmapala are important Protector Gods, separately guarding the four directions of East, South, West and North, symbolising Wind, Harmony, Rain and Tranquillity.</p>
<p>Referring to a king, 天王的天 just means Dei Gratia, by the grace of God.</p>
<p>奉天承運皇帝，詔曰<br />
The Emperor by the Grace of Heaven, decrees. (Weekends will last 6 days from now on!)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T06:41:01.010Z
Where'd you get all this? Is the Chinese text supposed to be quotations or something? I could not verify a single line of text here.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T09:08:30.027Z
@Vun-HughVaw Although this post is in a bilingual format for easy understanding, it is far from the truth.
NanningYouth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T05:19:12.953Z
2024-08-23T05:19:12.953Z
Pedroski
<p>The Chinese have long used the word 天 to translate the Sanskrit word <em>deva</em>, in names of such devas as 多聞天 and 辯才天. This means that 天 is not a mythological location, but a mythological species. However, the title for four major devas, 四天王, is often translated into English as &quot;Four Heavenly Kings&quot;, which insinuates location rather than species. The Sanskrit term, <em>chaturmahārāja</em>, doesn't seem to include any reference to a heavenly realm as <em>mahā</em> only means &quot;great&quot;. Perhaps 天 in 天王 is just a loose translation of <em>mahā</em>? But then in the variation 四大天王, 大 is right there. &quot;Heavenly King&quot; also seems to contradict 天主, the title of 帝釋天, which is translated into English as &quot;Lord of the Devas&quot;, not &quot;Heavenly Lord&quot;, although in this case the Sanskrit equivalent, <em>Śakra <strong>devā</strong>nāṃ indraḥ</em> is much more explicit as to what 天 ought to mean.</p>
<p>So is it accurate to translate 天王 into English as &quot;Heavenly King&quot;? Does 天 mean &quot;deva&quot; here? Or is it a loose approximation of the Sanskrit <em>mahā</em> meaning &quot;great&quot;?</p>
<p><strong>Update:</strong> I've happened on a Vietnamese Buddhist dictionary that includes such additional Sanskrit forms as <em>devarāja</em> for 天王 and <em>caturmahārājika-deva</em> for 四天王. I guess 天 does mean <em>deva</em> after all.</p>
<p><strong>Update 2:</strong> Okay, so it seems there's been some misunderstanding. Some folks may have thought I neglected to do very basic research like Googling or looking up 天王 on Wikipedia. I did. So citing articles like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Heavenly_Kings" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Four Heavenly Kings</a>, which are literally the first results that would come up in such research, is not helpful at all. I thought my question details already made clear that I was well aware the Four Heavenly Kings were devas (&quot;However, the title for <strong>four major devas</strong>, 四天王&quot;). The only thing that Wikipedia article explicitly says is exactly this, that they are devas, which I was already well aware of. The question was specifically whether the 天 in 天王 should be translated as &quot;heaven&quot; or &quot;deva&quot;, even if it's an obvious fact that 天王 are devas.</p>
<p><strong>Last update:</strong> For whatever reason, my recent two questions have attracted very low-quality and low-effort answers from individuals with dubious motives. They consistently demonstrated their lack of knowledge, refusal to cite credible sources, and unwillingness to accept criticism of their bad behavior. This was never the case for my last six questions. Just a heads-up for folks who want to emulate them: don't. This isn't Reddit. I'm not asking for your uninformed opinions. Cite a source, or accept the downvote.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-22T12:04:46.610Z
四天王 sounds more like 'the four great champions' (for Buddha) “佛陀的四大捍卫者"
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-22T15:22:22.380Z
maybe “the four guardians”,  or “the four warrior attendants” [of buddha] 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-22T23:50:40.053Z
Sanskrit have nothing to do with Chinese. Translations are all only approximations. They are not exact. And in this case it (somewhat) contradicts with the normal and proper Chinese usage of the word.
Admirer of the dragon flag
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T01:33:30.647Z
Especially when translating ancient terms which are not only colored by time, but also foreign religious concepts alien to the indigenous culture and spiritual outlook. Buddhism, Christianity are imported into China, and the translators then have no tool except their own native language. They are not around to answer why this or that word was used. Take the word 天 which in Chinese itself have multifarious meanings. But in a religious sense, one definition is the abode of the gods who are also called "emperors" because, having a terrestrial connection is easier for ordinary people to grasp.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T04:32:12.377Z
@Admirerofthedragonflag Even if "translations were only approximations", what do you think translations are? You need a source language to translate from, otherwise you woudn't be doing any translation. So yes, Sanskrit has everything to do with Chinese here. Some so-called Chinese words wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for translations from Sanskrit and Pali scriptures, including very basic, common-sense words like 世界 (translated from *lokadhātu*), 十方 (from *daśa-dikpāla*), 僧 (from *sangha*), 禪 (from *dhyana*).
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-23T04:46:14.740Z
@Admirerofthedragonflag The contribution of Sanskrit to Chinese through the transmission of the sutras is just slightly less significant than the contribution of Hebrew, Latin and Greek to English through the transmission of the Bible. We owe many words and expressions to Sanskrit.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T03:11:01.633Z
@Vun-Hugh Vaw Understand that this is a non-specialist Forum for discourse on the Chinese language, not a dedicated Forum on the language as it relates to any religion. Perhaps there is such a Forum somewhere in Cyberspace. Thus one could expect, (and accept) a whole spectrum of answers, from the sublimely ignorant to the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious kind. Just have a good laugh and move on. People should come here to learn and have fun at the same time, not get upset because you will perhaps never, ever be meeting anyone here in person who in person are, perhaps, actually nice people.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T03:51:00.743Z
@WayneCheah The participants of Chinese SE don't need to have specialist training, but I would expect a level of basic rigour such as citing assumptions and sources. This is common practice across all other StackExchange sites. The quality of some of the questions and answers which appear here would never see the light of day in other StackExchange sites, like StackOverflow, Linguistics, History, Japanese, English, Mathematics to name a few, and these are the kinds of sites which IMO provide a strictly better experience for learning something new.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T05:19:59.567Z
@WayneCheah That's a very weak argument. I said cite a source, and it doesn't take a specialist to do so. That's what college undergrads are required to do. I was required to cite my sources when I did my communism paper, despite not being a trained philosopher/economist myself. It also depends on the kinds of questions being asked. For those concerned with practical usage that may not be covered by textbooks or papers, a native speaker's native intuition may be enough. But for those where there's likely a credible source, like this question, a source is needed.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T07:31:19.823Z
Yes, the points both of you made are taken and I see no reason to argue otherwise. My point is simply not to expect a high level of academic rigour, that's all. Perhaps my fault is to lean towards gracious leniency as opposed to combative rejection, (that's just me, I suppose) Being a lawyer by training, I know all about citing sources and substantiations, but having lived for 75 years, I also understand more now about human frailty and pride than I did when at age 40. What I am saying is there are more than one way to deal with less than satisfactory or down right silly answers.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T07:54:55.337Z
@WayneCheah Speaking for myself, I'd like to see Chinese SE to have high-quality content that makes people want to return and learn more. The number of ways of dealing with unsatisfactory answers diminishes down to about 2 among people who share the same vision. "Human frailty and pride" may be the topic of conversation of a nice personal chat, but if the result of the chat is *inaction*, it may result in personal enlightenment but definitely not actions towards the improvement of this site.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T09:13:39.357Z
@WayneCheah You're missing the point here. Knowing the APA format of citations, or knowing fancy technical terms, or being diligent in referencing secondary and tertiary sources, etc. is NOT the point. Rigor is can be as simple as backing up your claims with credible sources. A press release, a second-hand article, a video clip, an accessible textbook, etc. It's reasonable to demand that in a YouTube comment section or in Twitter replies, so what makes this website, whose express intent is to answer questions, any different?
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T09:19:17.590Z
@WayneCheah "Perhaps my fault is to lean towards gracious leniency as opposed to combative rejection" I don't owe anybody, especially with repeated bad behavior, courtesy. Courtesy is earned. If you don't demonstrate your good faith with a modicum of well-thougt-out research, and if you are combative yourself and act derisive when being criticized for your expediency, you do not deserve leniency. The individuals I alluded to have shown me they do not have good faith. They don't answer, they pontificate like a know-it-all Redditor.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T09:40:50.000Z
As I said, "...there are more than one way to deal with less than satisfactory or down right silly answers" or even bad behavior. Your way is just one way, and I never said you were wrong, did I?, because we all, including that individual you alluded to, have to live with the choices and actions we all make or take, and this being an open Forum, positive or negative public opinion does play a part on all of us without exceptions.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-24T10:52:01.047Z
@WayneCheah I guess we agree? One of the individuals, in a now-deleted comment, explicitly said that the question was intended to "draw debates" and voted close, only after I didn't appreciate their terrible answer. They made a choice to put out a bad answer, got bitter about being criticized and tried to retaliate. That's not "living with the choices and actions you make". An open forum isn't necessarily "open" to any kind of garbage response, which is why their retaliatory comment was duly removed. I don't welcome this kind of behavior and discourage low-quality answers like theirs.
Vun-Hugh Vaw
<translation><etymology><buddhism>
Is "Heavenly King" an accurate English translation for 天王?
# Is "Heavenly King" an accurate English translation for 天王?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-22)

The Chinese have long used the word 天 to translate the Sanskrit word *deva*, in names of such devas as 多聞天 and 辯才天. This means that 天 is not a mythological location, but a mythological species. However, the title for four major devas, 四天王, is often translated into English as "Four Heavenly Kings", which insinuates location rather than species. The Sanskrit term, *chaturmahārāja*, doesn't seem to include any reference to a heavenly realm as *mahā* only means "great". Perhaps 天 in 天王 is just a loose translation of *mahā*? But then in the variation 四大天王, 大 is right there. "Heavenly King" also seems to contradict 天主, the title of 帝釋天, which is translated into English as "Lord of the Devas", not "Heavenly Lord", although in this case the Sanskrit equivalent, *Śakra **devā**nāṃ indraḥ* is much more explicit as to what 天 ought to mean.

So is it accurate to translate 天王 into English as "Heavenly King"? Does 天 mean "deva" here? Or is it a loose approximation of the Sanskrit *mahā* meaning "great"?

**Update:** I've happened on a Vietnamese Buddhist dictionary that includes such additional Sanskrit forms as *devarāja* for 天王 and *caturmahārājika-deva* for 四天王. I guess 天 does mean *deva* after all.

**Update 2:** Okay, so it seems there's been some misunderstanding. Some folks may have thought I neglected to do very basic research like Googling or looking up 天王 on Wikipedia. I did. So citing articles like [Four Heavenly Kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Heavenly_Kings), which are literally the first results that would come up in such research, is not helpful at all. I thought my question details already made clear that I was well aware the Four Heavenly Kings were devas ("However, the title for **four major devas**, 四天王"). The only thing that Wikipedia article explicitly says is exactly this, that they are devas, which I was already well aware of. The question was specifically whether the 天 in 天王 should be translated as "heaven" or "deva", even if it's an obvious fact that 天王 are devas.

**Last update:** For whatever reason, my recent two questions have attracted very low-quality and low-effort answers from individuals with dubious motives. They consistently demonstrated their lack of knowledge, refusal to cite credible sources, and unwillingness to accept criticism of their bad behavior. This was never the case for my last six questions. Just a heads-up for folks who want to emulate them: don't. This isn't Reddit. I'm not asking for your uninformed opinions. Cite a source, or accept the downvote.

**Tags:** translation, etymology, buddhism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 四天王 sounds more like 'the four great champions' (for Buddha) “佛陀的四大捍卫者"  
> **username_2**: maybe “the four guardians”,  or “the four warrior attendants” [of buddha]   
> **username_3**: Sanskrit have nothing to do with Chinese. Translations are all only approximations. They are not exact. And in this case it (somewhat) contradicts with the normal and proper Chinese usage of the word.  
> **username_4**: Especially when translating ancient terms which are not only colored by time, but also foreign religious concepts alien to the indigenous culture and spiritual outlook. Buddhism, Christianity are imported into China, and the translators then have no tool except their own native language. They are not around to answer why this or that word was used. Take the word 天 which in Chinese itself have multifarious meanings. But in a religious sense, one definition is the abode of the gods who are also called "emperors" because, having a terrestrial connection is easier for ordinary people to grasp.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Even if "translations were only approximations", what do you think translations are? You need a source language to translate from, otherwise you woudn't be doing any translation. So yes, Sanskrit has everything to do with Chinese here. Some so-called Chinese words wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for translations from Sanskrit and Pali scriptures, including very basic, common-sense words like 世界 (translated from *lokadhātu*), 十方 (from *daśa-dikpāla*), 僧 (from *sangha*), 禪 (from *dhyana*).  
> **username_0**: @username_3 The contribution of Sanskrit to Chinese through the transmission of the sutras is just slightly less significant than the contribution of Hebrew, Latin and Greek to English through the transmission of the Bible. We owe many words and expressions to Sanskrit.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Understand that this is a non-specialist Forum for discourse on the Chinese language, not a dedicated Forum on the language as it relates to any religion. Perhaps there is such a Forum somewhere in Cyberspace. Thus one could expect, (and accept) a whole spectrum of answers, from the sublimely ignorant to the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious kind. Just have a good laugh and move on. People should come here to learn and have fun at the same time, not get upset because you will perhaps never, ever be meeting anyone here in person who in person are, perhaps, actually nice people.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 The participants of Chinese SE don't need to have specialist training, but I would expect a level of basic rigour such as citing assumptions and sources. This is common practice across all other StackExchange sites. The quality of some of the questions and answers which appear here would never see the light of day in other StackExchange sites, like StackOverflow, Linguistics, History, Japanese, English, Mathematics to name a few, and these are the kinds of sites which IMO provide a strictly better experience for learning something new.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 That's a very weak argument. I said cite a source, and it doesn't take a specialist to do so. That's what college undergrads are required to do. I was required to cite my sources when I did my communism paper, despite not being a trained philosopher/economist myself. It also depends on the kinds of questions being asked. For those concerned with practical usage that may not be covered by textbooks or papers, a native speaker's native intuition may be enough. But for those where there's likely a credible source, like this question, a source is needed.  
> **username_4**: Yes, the points both of you made are taken and I see no reason to argue otherwise. My point is simply not to expect a high level of academic rigour, that's all. Perhaps my fault is to lean towards gracious leniency as opposed to combative rejection, (that's just me, I suppose) Being a lawyer by training, I know all about citing sources and substantiations, but having lived for 75 years, I also understand more now about human frailty and pride than I did when at age 40. What I am saying is there are more than one way to deal with less than satisfactory or down right silly answers.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 Speaking for myself, I'd like to see Chinese SE to have high-quality content that makes people want to return and learn more. The number of ways of dealing with unsatisfactory answers diminishes down to about 2 among people who share the same vision. "Human frailty and pride" may be the topic of conversation of a nice personal chat, but if the result of the chat is *inaction*, it may result in personal enlightenment but definitely not actions towards the improvement of this site.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 You're missing the point here. Knowing the APA format of citations, or knowing fancy technical terms, or being diligent in referencing secondary and tertiary sources, etc. is NOT the point. Rigor is can be as simple as backing up your claims with credible sources. A press release, a second-hand article, a video clip, an accessible textbook, etc. It's reasonable to demand that in a YouTube comment section or in Twitter replies, so what makes this website, whose express intent is to answer questions, any different?  
> **username_0**: @username_4 "Perhaps my fault is to lean towards gracious leniency as opposed to combative rejection" I don't owe anybody, especially with repeated bad behavior, courtesy. Courtesy is earned. If you don't demonstrate your good faith with a modicum of well-thougt-out research, and if you are combative yourself and act derisive when being criticized for your expediency, you do not deserve leniency. The individuals I alluded to have shown me they do not have good faith. They don't answer, they pontificate like a know-it-all Redditor.  
> **username_4**: As I said, "...there are more than one way to deal with less than satisfactory or down right silly answers" or even bad behavior. Your way is just one way, and I never said you were wrong, did I?, because we all, including that individual you alluded to, have to live with the choices and actions we all make or take, and this being an open Forum, positive or negative public opinion does play a part on all of us without exceptions.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 I guess we agree? One of the individuals, in a now-deleted comment, explicitly said that the question was intended to "draw debates" and voted close, only after I didn't appreciate their terrible answer. They made a choice to put out a bad answer, got bitter about being criticized and tried to retaliate. That's not "living with the choices and actions you make". An open forum isn't necessarily "open" to any kind of garbage response, which is why their retaliatory comment was duly removed. I don't welcome this kind of behavior and discourage low-quality answers like theirs.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2024-08-22. Score: 0

> Does 天 mean "deva" here?

The Four Heavenly Kings (四天王) are **four** (Buddhist) **gods or devas**, each of whom is believed to watch over one cardinal direction of the world.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Heavenly_Kings>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Maybe I should've clarified, but I think everybody's first instinct is to Google "Heavenly King" or 天王, or to look up the exactly relevant articles on Wikipedia. I copied Sanskrit transcriptions from Wikipedia articles, including this one.  
> **username_6**: Yes, you should always exhaust the research before asking.  
> **username_0**: No, I meant I'd already known your answer before I asked, otherwise I wouldn't've asked at all. I should've clarified that I'd already read that exact Wikipedia article you're citing here, which is what literally anybody with a brain would've done.  
> **username_6**: You got my final vote after all that hard works :)  
> **username_0**: Don't worry, I'd vote close too, because I'm starting to attract low-quality answers like yours and the guy below (Elon-style crying laughing emoji). I'm actually yearning for the days when I only got comments because people were serious about reading the questions carefully and hesitant to give answers (laughing out loud rolling on the floor because I'm so not mad at all).  
> **username_6**: When I sew a quality post, I would wait eagerly to see the quality answers which are usually quite informative, otherwise, I would put a plug to it :)  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2024-08-23. Score: -1

Bad translation.

Heavenly: very nice  
Not the right description for any king I think.

“天王”一词在汉语中有多种含义，  
“God King” this word in Chinese has various meanings,  
包括天子、太平天国的领袖、某些威力很大的天神等。  
including‌ Heaven’s Son, the leader of Taiping’s Heavenly Kingdom, some formidable great gods etcetera.  
• 在古代，天王通常指天子，即一国之君，如春秋时期的周天子。‌  
• in ancient times, 天王 usually referred to 天子 Heaven’s Son, namely the ruler of a country, such as in the Spring and Autumn Period 周天子。  
• 在太平天国时期，天王是洪秀全的自封称号。‌  
• in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Period, 天王 was 洪秀全’s (1814-1864) self-proclaimed title.  
• 在神话中，天王指的是某些威力很大的天神。  
• In legends, 天王 refers to some formidable great gods.  
• 在娱乐圈中，“天王”是对某些著名男歌手或演员的尊称，如香港的“四大天王”包括刘德华、张学友、郭富城、黎明等。  
• In entertainment circles, 天王 is the title given to some famous male singers or actors, such as Hong Kong’s “4 Great Sons of Heaven” including 刘德华、张学友、郭富城、黎明 etcetera.  
• 在佛教中，四大天王是重要的护法神，分别守护东、南、西、北四个方向，象征风、调、雨、顺。‌  
• in Buddhism the 4 Great Dharmapala are important Protector Gods, separately guarding the four directions of East, South, West and North, symbolising Wind, Harmony, Rain and Tranquillity.

Referring to a king, 天王的天 just means Dei Gratia, by the grace of God.

奉天承運皇帝，詔曰  
The Emperor by the Grace of Heaven, decrees. (Weekends will last 6 days from now on!)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Where'd you get all this? Is the Chinese text supposed to be quotations or something? I could not verify a single line of text here.  
> **username_8**: @username_0 Although this post is in a bilingual format for easy understanding, it is far from the truth.  

---

