User talk:Colipon/archive5

Jackie Chan
As for Jackie Chan's article, the edit summery "He released Mandarin and Japanese albums" was for the type of musics J-pop and Mandopop added to his music genre? Not everyone is as political movitated as you that ignore all other edits of common subjects. Rjanag is an objective thrid party that u invited him to join the discussion, is he not? After reviewing the fact, he doesn't seems to agree with your accusation too. If u have problem w/ edits in the article Jackie Chan, leave comment in Jackie Chan's talk page and try to solve the issue there, don't go to the Hong Kong article talk page to talk about issue in the Jackie Chan page. Da Vynci (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question from Talk:Falun Gong
Colipon, on the talk page you wrote the following after quoting Kavan, "... Ownby and Rahn make similar comparisons." Can you quote what they have to say on the matter? I'm curious about how they express this matter specifically. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ownby's treatment of the issue is a lot more academic than Kavan's, that is for certain. Ownby specifically points to transparency issues with Falun Gong and its "in-group" and "out-group" classifications, and that Falun Gong and CCP's media strategies both have roots in the Cultural Revolution and Maoist China. Ownby also says that newspapers such as the Epoch Times attack the CCP like anti-Communist propaganda found in Taiwan in the 1950s. Rahn essentially says that both Falun Gong and the Communist Party lie and discredit the other with a bunch of exaggerated "evidence" and they often use the same attacks (such as calling the other a "cult", discrediting the other's leader, claiming the other is "evil" etc.). When I have time, I will do some digging to see if I can find the specific quotes. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I ask is because I think they may be more meaningful comparisons than her's. Falun Gong's media strategy within China is clearly different than their international media strategy.  The ability to gain advantage through the Chinese media vs. the Western media clearly favors either side respectively.  Kavan conflates this simply into "the media" in that quote you used on the talk page.  Several of her other comparisons are also way to general.  Take this for instance Both use the same rhetorical strategies: issuing blanket denials when accused, devising conspiracy stories, and redirecting allegations by accusing the other of the same thing.  Yeah both Falun Gong, the Chinese government and a million other groups engaged in rhetorical conflict all around the world.  If one digs beyond the superficial layer that would allow one to compare all of these millions of groups difference erupts.  For instance do they really accuse the other of the same thing?  So when Falun Gong accuses the Chinese government of harvesting their organs the Chinese government then turns around and says that Falun Gong is harvesting their organs?  Do they accuse each other of what may seem to be equally pernicious things?  I'm sure, but that's not what Kavan writes, unfortunately.  This is like her cult comparison, which uses a criteria that could easily be applied to the Catholic Church.  It simply isn't all that meaningful.  On the other hand it looks like Ownby actually makes comparisons to more specific rhetorical strategies which are relevant to the cultural and historical contexts of each group.  My suggestion would be to use Ownby and Rahn over Kavan for this issue.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. Having Kavan as the single source backing up a seemingly bold claim is probably insufficient. I am in the middle of reading more papers on Falun Gong to see how to contextualize things for the average reader, and hopefully in a few days I will have a better idea of how everything fits in. But in terms of rhetorical strategies, I have to say Falun Gong's uniqueness is quite special. Maybe you can take a look at the "Nine commentaries on the Communist Party", a lengthy editorial by Falun Gong media outlet the Epoch Times. In it you will find a series of charges levied against the Communist Party of China that was similarly used against Falun Gong by the CCP ("cult", manipulative leader, brainwashing members, counter-current to societal order etc.). When I read it, it almost felt as though it was a mirror image of the CCP's attacks on Falun Gong. This is why I am very much inclined to say that Kavan's treatment of Falun Gong is actually quite accurate. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this article really necessary?
List of Falun Gong practitioners, a short list of four people.--PCPP (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ...he has a point. should someone take it to AfD, I'll vote "nuke"... esp. when there's a list and a category. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think John Carter envisioned that the page would grow to include more people as time went on. You may want to ask him for his rationale for starting the page... Colipon+ (Talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was the one who created the list, at least in part because I expected that there would be more articles on practicioners than there are. I even created the article on one of the those listed myself in the past month or two. I do have the Ownby book, which is the only one I have ready access to, and will use it to see if there is sufficient material to create articles on other practicioners. If there aren't that many more to be created, I'd probably go for merging it, somehow, into something else as well. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese politicians
Sure. I've been creating articles of high level individuals in Chinese politics. This is an area I tend to find Wikipedia lacking very much. I have a favor to ask, can you find a free image of Zhou Xiaochuan for me? He is one of the most important financial figures in the world today and no image exists in his page. Cheers! Poliphile (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any luck? Poliphile (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The Wang Lequan page looks very skewed on my browser... don't know if its the same with yours. I'm logging off though. Will return to it soon. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Are you going to upload it? Poliphile (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you try to engage with the person who tagged them? Maybe raise it with an admin who is familiar with licensing issues. Would be great if we could confirm wither Chinese gov images have the copyright stats as US federal images do Poliphile (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can comment on the discussion here: Possibly unfree files/2009 September 20. Note that the question is not whether or not the Chinese government will "hunt down Wikipedia", but whether or not the images have been released as sufficiently free to meet Wikipedia's own usage criteria. Like I said in the listing a few of the older ones might be public domain due to age, a few might be usable under the Non-free content policy, but I'm pretty sure the license information currently used on the images are not correct. If you think particular images should be "salvaged" by changing it's status please join the Possibly unfree files discussion linked to above. --Sherool (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

map
I posted a first draft of a map for the Urumqi-riots article on Rjanag's talkpage. Comments appreciated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong reports showing that China is improving
Where would this belong? Cheers, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * October 6, 2009, Norway is best place to live, China moves up: UN, AFP (Yahoo!7 News)


 * Maybe in the Economic Reforms article? But surely also in the "PRC" article. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance at WP:FAC - your efforts are much appreciated! Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Thanks for your fixes. The problem I was faced with was that someone insisted on having the word 'autonomy' in the first sentence. He was warring with me, with the threat of having it repeated in the second sentence - which I thought was needless repetition. My construction, while admittedly not the best, was a way out of that problem. I don't quite understand why his (you can probably guess who I am talking about) insistence, because it looks quite good there in the second sentence where you put it - I hope he will not put the word back into the first sentence. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In all honesty I think that last lede constructed by you about a month ago was the best one we've had on that god-forsaken Hong Kong article. It wasn't perfect, but it was stable in every way until that user came and destroyed it. This is at least the third time he's come and ruined a stable lede. You will also notice he goes into other pages and makes intentionally misleading edits, anything that highlights Hong Kong's separation from China. In some pages these edits aren't so bad (you can say, subtle-POV-pushing), but in others it is quite blatant. You will notice here that he simply inserts into the article that Hong Kong is a "city-state". The pattern is reflected in other edits as well. He also continues to remove the word "Chinese" in the lede of Jackie Chan; note this misleading edit summary. At Jackie Chan I've tried to re-insert the "Chinese" at some point but got tired and just let it be. I figured it was wiki-fatigue on the Falun Gong articles, I guess. ;) Colipon+ (Talk) 10:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sima Nan
I nominated Sima Nan for DYK, but the 'hook's aren't very catchy. Can you help here?

Epoch Times page
Thanks for copyeditting the additions that I made to the Epoch Times page. Your changes did a lot to make it look more polished. I was curious about your views on Falun Gong and viewed your user page. I agree with a lot of what you say about it, and also feel that a somewhat imbalanced view of Falun Gong and the Epoch Times has been offered on Wikipedia. Personally, I feel that Falun Gong beliefs, practices, and even members in many ways resemble another well-known "religion", Scientology. However, I thought it best to simply let Epoch Times claims, such as on the PLA nuclear weapon causing the Sichuan earthquake, stand for themselves and let the (hopefully reasonable) readers judge for themselves.

Anyway, I posted here to say thanks for the help, and also to note that your efforts at combating bias are both appreciated and supported.--67.101.212.182 (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tongliao
The reason I didn't add the name in Mongolian is that I am not really sure how it is written. E.g. if with front o or back o. The problem is that the Mongolian name is just a transcription of the Chinese one, so Mongolian orthography does not really help, and I could not easily find any material in Mongolian script with the name Tongliao on it. If you know someone who is more competent, I could upload one version and you can tell me if I got it right or not. And if not, what went wrong. Cheers,

Yaan (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Another article:Tuanpai, please add comment. Arilang   talk  04:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Barcelona
It's not strange. Everyone knows Spanish. Catalan is the language that has to fight for survival. --Andromeda (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When one ant cannot push the stone...
Does this look NPOV to you? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * @benlisquare, that looks NPOV because it cited multiple reference from reliable sources. It is also interesting you acted so quickly to ask your friends to help you to remove referenced material from the LEDE. Da Vynci (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ethnic Minority Place Names
Hi, Colipon, I don't remember that I have created any article of 'ethnic minority' places. Usually I just add interlanguage links to them and make some minor edits. Sorry that I cannot help much. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion for editing the Persecution of FLG article
Here are some of my views:
 * The PRC refers to the campaign as a "ban", FLG groups refer to it as "persecution" (eg CIPFG, WOIPFG, Epoch Times), and third party organizations use the labels "crackdown", "repression", "suppression", "persecution" etc pretty much interchangedbly . Mainstream news sources have labelled FLG as largely referred to the campaign as "crackdown" and "ban"  . There is no universal agreement on the what the ordeal of FLG in China should be named.
 * The word "persecution" is poorly used in the article, in which it is used as a generalized catch-all term to describe the PRC's anti-FLG campaign. There are several articles that introduce FLG as "a persecuted religious group", which is quite over the top. Compared to "crackdown", "ban" etc, the term "persecution" is not neutral and implies an negative anti-PRC slant, which is largely used by FLG and associated media. Note that the Chinese wikipedia, which is censored in the PRC, referred to it as a "ban".
 * Per WP:Words to avoid, the term should be either attributed to a source, or be replaced with a much more neutral wording. Eg the organization al-Qaeda is described as a Islamist jihad organization in its article, and not a terrorist organization, even though the latter has a fairly large mainstream acceptance. al-Qaeda is indirectly attributed as a terrorist organization by listing the sources that actually use the label eg "al-Qaeda is designated as a terrorist organization by XXX and YYY.
 * Following the al-Qaeda example, the article should be written something like "The banning of FLG by the Chinese government is described as a human rights violation and religious persecution by XXX and YYY [insert sources]". In this way, the ordeal can be described without endorsing a particular viewpoint. It is up to the reader to decide whether the FLG's ordeal constitutes religious persecution.
 * My suggestion is to rename the article as Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China so that it sidesteps the naming debate, and the terms used should be specific to the context eg "FLG members were tortured/arrested", not "FLG members were persecuted".--PCPP (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting suggestion. I would add that the text of the article should mention "described as a Human Rights violation according to X1 and X2, as a ban by Y1 and Y2 and as persecution by Z1, Z2 and Z3." 195.67.20.5 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried my best in the previous move proposal, but most of Wikipedia's community still seems to have an incomplete understanding of the situation and seem to be in favour of using these loaded words and in sheer ignorance of WP:NPOV. If you wish, you could start another move request, but many editors are already beginning to assume "bad faith" on some of us. If it's bound to be fruitless, Wiki just has to live with endorsing the Falun Gong viewpoint for a while yet. Colipon+ (Talk) 09:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While consensus can change, it doesn't happen within this sort of time-frame PCPP is talking about. We should try working on the article with that title, and I'm sure, looking at some of the material out there (see new text/sources introduced into 'FG' and 'History'), the picture painted by the article can, and will, change. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pi-dou/Struggle session
Thank you for chiming in at Talk:Pi Dou mass rally. : ) L talk 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another FLG SPA
I checked the contributions of Hoerth after that sling at me on the Falun Gong talk page, and was only a tiny bit surprised to discover xhe was a single purpose account focussed on Falun Gong articles. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chongqing gang trials
Hello! Your submission of Chongqing gang trials at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OT: Yay for communism!
Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AAP, 21 Nov 2009, Cuba offers free penis implants, Yahoo!7 News

I added main industries of Barbados per your suggestion. Thanks.
I had it on my mind and kept having something else come up. I finally got it on there now though (in the lead). Thanks for the suggestion. I really have to clean up that article and push some things from the main page down a bit deeper into their own sections but at least it's a start. CaribDigita (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen: remove POV edits
You seems to have removed entries saying they are "POV", however the whole point of the entries is because GDP relative and absolute reduction figures are not directly comparable. Indeed it is a separate question regarding developing/developed world - charity ought to be offered by those who have benefited from CO2polluting technology earlier than others. This is a very good reason why the 1990 arbitrary year is nonsense, but none the less the Kyoto agreements exist as a precursor to Copenhagen. I explicitly raised this issue in the article talk page's discussions (see Brazil and other comparisions). Please explain your point of view, and preferable on article talk page. It is irritating to attempt to clarify one only to irritate another... There is already some thought that much more detail is required so that the various points of view raised by the countries attending the conference are elaborated, rather than comparing on Kyoto guidelines only. Are you instead suggesting POV could remain but clearly separate from country proposals? If so, so do I. Care to help, rather than randomly delete? 124.170.161.55 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My point of view on the matter is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we follow the appropriate Wikipedia policies when we write about subject matter. You additions to the page failed several of these policies (including WP:POINT, WP:OR) but most importantly it severely undermined the neutrality of the article. I have no problems with you advocating that developing countries are not doing their share, are going to destroy the earth, that it's a sham; whatever it may be, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. If you can find a reputable news source that reports the same calculations as your own then I would be open to inserting that to a new "analysis" section of the article - but then we must similarly scrutinize the emissions targets of countries such as the United States. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Any such analysis should be complete in the sense of including all corners and all views of other corners.  If you inspect the history logs, you will see that some reverted changes showed the USA and others cast into emissions per GDP in the same way as India and China have been cast back the other way.  I acknowledge that an implicit POV of mine is introduced through the selection of constant GDP and peak GDP: I assume nobody wants nor demands on another a zero growth economy deliberately and nobody wants to be seen ethically to be breaking new growth records either.  However it is quite problematic to claim that the ratio between 1990 entries in an IEA dataset produced explicitly for the Copenhagen conference and the 2005 entries in the same dataset constitutes some significant calculation.  Do the List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions in Wikipedia pass Wikipedia policies?  Their data is derived from two sources in a ratio.  By your standards on my entry, it does not.124.170.161.55 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually on further reading of OR, it is clear that GDP (PPP) to absolute reduction conversion is dependent on the various editors of the document agreeing that any such calculations are transparent. This article is about a topic that is clearly too raw/recent/dynamic for neutrality concerns, whether fairly cast or not, to not interfere with such agreements. From my point of view, that is a shame.  Thanks for alerting me to the nexus of Wikipedia policies in this regard. 124.170.161.55 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading further about WP:POINT I see no justification for this. It is clear from previous changes, disputes, etc. that I have been involved with on this article topic that decent attempts have been made to rectify all relevant disagreements to mutual satisfaction.  It is precisely one of those discussions that opened the need for more discussion on the format of the section of the document, perhaps with a separate section.  Do you maintain a concern with WP:POINT, and can you please elaborate either for my better participation in Wikipedia or to understand where there is a WP:POINT problem for this article.


 * I would say the WP:OR concerns here really outweigh the WP:POINT concerns. I guess WP:POINT concerns users who have been here for a long time, and you don't seem to be one of them, so perhaps it was not the most appropriate of me to put that alongside WP:OR as a policy violation. In any case thank you for your very candid replies on this issue. I think you would be a valuable contributor to an "emissions analysis" section or something, where aspects of the emissions cuts can be discussed. What do you think? Colipon+ (Talk) 15:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have directed my thoughts into the discussion forum of the article so that others may contribute more efficiently then I have on this article. I'm somewhat reluctant to dive into such as section alone because of the data workload, and because I being somewhat naive of Wikipedia policy, although I would be interested in contributing. 124.170.161.55 (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hu Jintao article
Hello. I am a China researcher and came upon the Hu Jintao article. Are you working on it? Why is there a whole section devoted to the SARS crisis? In the scope of his life, there are other more important events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.139 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes. I have been working on the Hu Jintao article. Much of the content, however, is not my work. I have wanted to re-organize the article for a very long time, but haven't came around to it yet. We need China researchers like yourself to help this encyclopedia improve the quality of these articles. If you have some time, it may be good to create an account, familiarize yourself with some wikipedia policies, and be bold and start editing! Colipon+ (Talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong "alert"
I'm just notifying everyone involved in the Falun Gong articles lately, regardless of stance or opinion. We have a new SPA RoyalRook with absolutely no clue about no interest in NPOV who inserted phrases like "Huge BS" and "Can you say crazy cult for 100?" into the main article. I reverted. You're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)