User talk:林木森森

Welcome!

Hello, 林木森森, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Fang Zhouzi
It doesn't work like that. Please read WP:BLPSTYLE. When a person has expressed views on many issues, giving special attention to only some of them would give undue weight to those specific views. From what little I have gathered, Fang is known mostly for his criticism of (alleged) corruption in academia, not his criticism of Christianity. Therefore, the article should not focus on the latter.


 * Actually in early days of Chinese internet (1990s) Fang was more known for his anti-Christianity rhetoric, Chinese Christians even established a website (http://cclw.net/gospel/new/bcfzz/) to counter his views. Besides, the article did not 'focus' on his anti-Christian views, it is just the rest of his views are not fully elaborated, thus making it appear that my elaboration is 'emphasizing' his views on Christianity. However, given time, the article will get longer and his other views will also get elaborated, which will make the 'focusing effect' disappear. But if you delete my elaboration here, you are discouraging further expansion of the article.--林木森森 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason I often quote his words is it is best to use the person's own words to reflect his opinion, rather than summarizing them ourselves as that may introduce bias. I have seen that it may be too lengthy so I have already shortened it. It should be OK now.--林木森森 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, writing--especially about living persons--on Wikipedia must be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". It's not Wikipedia's business to paint a picture of Fang calling Christianity a tumour on civilisation and Jehovah a murderous demon, even if those are indeed his views. Combined with the above (that criticism of Christianity isn't the main thing he's known for), we should stick with the conservative and accurate description that Fang is highly critical of Christianity. wctaiwan (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Since we're unlikely to convince each other, I've asked for outside opinions at the BLP noticeboard. If other editors consider my understanding of the BLP policy to be incorrect, I'll drop the issue. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--林木森森 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the Christianity section back to User:Wctaiwan's last version. The problem is that these English-language quotes attributed to Fang Zhouzi are not from an actual source that contain these quotes as "they were in English", but it seems the quotes were actually translated by the user 林木森森 him/her-self, and then presented on Wikipedia. Quotations, specifically stated that "Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Verifiability)." And we must also be aware of No Original Research. Further, they are rather badly-translated and lacks eloquence. They should be removed unless there are actual English language translations (not by Wikipedia users) on these quotes. The best approach is to summarize the content, as Wikipedia:Quotations stated "editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation."--Thomasettaei (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are translated by me. However, reliable source is not violated here because Wikipedia policy does not specify that the source must be in English. And the fact that it is not in English does not render the source automatically unreliable. Secondly, could you explain why you think they are translated poorly? These are Fang's original words in Chinese: "批判基督教的野蛮、邪恶"、（《圣经》是）“血淋淋、赤裸裸地诲淫诲盗的书”、（耶和华是）“杀人魔王”、（基督教是西方社会的）“毒瘤”、“基督教将会是中华文化的一大威胁”、（耶稣）“暴力”、“撒了弥天大谎” What I did is merely making a faithful translation of his words. You may ask any Wikipedia editor who knows Chinese whether my translation is a faithful one, I can assure you that the answer is "yes". If you think there is any grammatical mistake in my translation, or if there is any room for improvement of the translation, please point it out here (and be specific). Thanks.--林木森森 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fang Zhouzi
Hi, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what I'm doing. I am not trying to protect Fang's reputation--all I have been trying to do has been to make the article comply with Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, neutral point of view and original research. Basically, I did what i have done because I care about Wikipedia, not because I care about Fang. Honestly, given what little I had read in the process of working on the article, I don't have a particularly favourable impression of Fang, but that's completely irrelevant on Wikipedia.

You may or may not be right about Fang's character, but without coverage by what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, the things you're trying to write about do not belong on Wikipeida. I get that you think that Fang is favoured by the Chinese government and that had China allowed free press, there would be more negative coverage of Fang. Unfortunately, in this case, per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, we're forced to restrict our coverage--the policy is not negotiable. Wikipedia's purpose is not to spread "the truth" or expose injustice; it's only to document what has been said by sources, even if the sources are one-sided due to censorship in Chinese sources and a lack of international coverage.

You may find this to be 不近人情, but you need to see this in the context of Wikipedia's role. I'm not trying to stop you from exposing what you perceive to be atrocities committed by Fang, but you should do it elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, no matter how tempting it is to capitalise on its high ranking in search results. wctaiwan (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will strive to write within the bounds of reliable sources and policy. As for the example of the poor girl, I'm sending it strictly "for your info", not seeking your opinion on whether it should be included in Wikipedia. In fact, I don't have the intention of doing so. Here is another piece of info: a Taiwanese's take on Fang. It's for your entertainment and I won't include it in the main article.--林木森森 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)