User talk:Hans Otto Kroeger

February 2022
Hello, I'm Firefly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. firefly ( t · c ) 13:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Peng Shuai. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

--Hans Otto Kroeger (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Sorry, but it seems to me that the writings about Peng Shuai's "sexual abuse" isn't "neutral", since here the speculations are being presented as if they were "facts". No mention is made in regard to the lack of evidence. Let's see: - The title: "Disappearance and aftermath" Still no proof of her disappearance. - Global Times is cited, but immediately criticized - once more, without proof, or source, that anything said by Global Times is false. - "Global Times has not covered the accusations against the former vice-premier at all." Since there was no accusation of any real sexual "violence", beside "seduction", there is nothing to be investigated. Seduction is not sexual abuse, nor crime. Beside of that, Peng Shuai, afterwards, made it very clear that she wasn't "abused", but, rather, "seduced". - " Steve Simon, called on Chinese authorities to investigate Peng's allegations and called for an end to official state censorship on the subject." - If there is really censorship (No evidence has been provided), it's because the Chinese governments wants to protect the involved people from bullying trough Internet. Wikipedia is censoring also, for the same reasons. - "expressed his shock at Peng's disappearance" - Wikipedia now presents the allegation that Peng Shuai "disappeared" as if it was a proven fact. And it's not. What we know so far, and what was told by Peng Shuai, is that she didn't disappear, she merely remained at home after all the uproar and the public humiliation caused by her post. - "Djokovic said the incident was "shocking" and Osaka said "Censorship is never OK at any cost." Well, obviously, Wikipedia hasn't the same opinion. - "Jon Wertheim of Sports Illustrated noted that the "2008 Beijing Games that were supposed to liberalize China made its regime only more brazen in rejecting liberal democracy and human rights" and called for the cancellation of all tournaments in China" - well, that's not exactly a "neutral" comment and citation. Is it? - "The authenticity of the email was cast in doubt, with many pointing out that a typing cursor appears to be visible on the screenshot of the email." Well, the Article casts doubt about everything said by Chinese media, and by Peng Shuai herself. But never does so in relation to the posts which go down upon China without any proof. - " Peng posing with her cat and stuffed animals including Winnie the Pooh (a character blocked by censors after it was used as a meme for CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, though Pooh Bear merchandise is still legally allowed for purchase in China)." Winnie the Pooh has nothing to do with the article about Peng Shuai, but obviously, it's a punch more against the "CCP Regime". Nothing to do with "neutral" and objective". - " Hu tweeted "Can any girl fake such sunny smile under pressure? Those who suspect Peng Shuai is under duress, how dark they must be inside. There must be many, many forced political performances in their countries."[75] Hu's newspaper also started to frame Peng's status "as an ideological struggle between China and the west" Since there is no evidence supporting those obviously Anti-China comments, it should be deleted. It doesn't any good to the credibility, or "neutrality" claims. - "Elaine Pearson, the Australia director of Human Rights Watch, was critical, saying, "Frankly, it is shameful to see the IOC participating in this Chinese government's charade that everything is fine and normal for Peng Shuai. Clearly it is not, otherwise why would the Chinese government be censoring Peng Shuai from the internet in China and not letting her speak freely to media or the public." No evidence has been provided that Peng Shuai can't speak freely. Rather the contrary is true. "participating in this Chinese government's charade" is also an empty claim. Claims like these, and "we can't trust China" are made every time when speculative accusations are being made against China or Russia, or Venezuela, without any evidence in support, and even so claiming: "Clearly it is...". Till now, no proof that Peng Shuai has been censored  by the Chinese government. It's merely a conspiracy theory, since she is commenting again. - "the history of the Chinese government disappearing people and then making videos of them to prove that they are unharmed when it is, in fact, the opposite," Does that even sound reasonable to you? The same could be said about the women who accused Donald Trump of "sexual abuse". "They disappeared"; ""the history of the American government disappearing people..."

And so it goes on and on. NOT A SINGLE FRIENDLY COMMENT ON CHINA! NOT A SINGLE DOUBT UTTERED ABOUT THE SPECULATIONS MADE, ONLY ATTACKS AGAINST CHINA, FOR WHICH PENG SHUAI HAS TO SERVE AS THE INSTRUMENT, AGAINST HER WILL! If you think this Wikipedia article over "The Disappearance made, at any point, any comment which isn't directly contaminated with anti-China sentiment, I ask you: tell me which!

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to [[:Peng Shuai] Sorry, but the Article is full of personal points of views, as I have shown. It's directly: "What has been published, non-favorable to China, is to be trusted, even without any evidence in support. What is not favorable to China, is highly suspect." By the way, NO LINK TO THE DISCUSSED POST ON WEIBO WAS EVEN ADDED TO THE ARTICLE, and obviously, no translation. That looks like Wikipedia doesn't want people to see what Peng Shuai really posted. And when I added a link, it fell under censorship, as also the translation! But, why?

Little would be all that, but as it stands - no counter-argument allowed, no critics allowed, this goes down to merely a new "Anti-China-Propaganda piece.

Therefore, I ask for my addition, no matter if "corrected" by Wikipedia censorship, as long as the critics of western Anti-China conspiracy theories may also been allowed, along with the proof given in its support. I have read several publications about the lack of neutrality of Wikipedia, and, it seems, there is truth behind.

The same happened when, some years ago, I made some comments on the issue of Maria Gabriela Chavez, and her speculative "fortune", and her supposed money in a fictitious "Frabz Federal Bank", which started the whole tale about her "fortune". My comment and added proof was deleted. The "fortune" talks, still stand.

So, unless you can provide proof that the title about "Peng Shuai's disappearance" is "neutral", I want to see my comment restored, if Wikipedia allows a critic on speculations (what hasn't been proven true, is speculation and conspiracy theory)

Avoid stating opinions as facts. (...more details...) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. (...more details...) Avoid stating facts as opinions. (...more details...) Prefer nonjudgmental language. (...more details...) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. (...more details...)

I just found a video (also about China) which illustrates fairly well, what Wikipedia censorship claims to be "unbiased and neutral" Steven D'Souza's publication would be called unbiased, "neutral", and well-supported with evidence. Daniel Dumbrill's arguments would be called "biased", "full of his own points of view", His comments would be branded:"Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed." If I am wrong, give me some evidence, that it is still possible to write something positive about China on Wikipedia, without being immediately censored!--Hans Otto Kroeger (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

re: Your Comment on Peng Shuai talk page
I learned how to edit wiki pages by editing articles on the Late Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. It's a much smaller community, and a good way to learn the ropes, because people are happy to help, and point out how to write wiki articles. My point in mentioning this isn't that I'm recommending that you go edit the page on the Emperor Constantine, but rather to say that non-controversial, non-current event articles I find are much more laid back and great places to learn. The problem with your edits is a couple things, but the most basic is that wiki isn't writing opinions, especially with pages about living people, it's simply finding sources that are generally viewed as reliable and regurgitating what they say, without change, fan fare or anything else. In the case of current events involving living people the sources are generally NYTimes, BBC, New Yorker, CNN, etc. if available then published and peer reviewed material, but there's no personal opinion. Peer reviewed sources that have the highest standards for the content they publish. I've write plenty of things on Wikipedia that I don't agree with, or believe in because it's what the source I'm writing from says. Another good way to get started is to go on to talk pages of subjects that you find interesting and see what people think the article is missing and then help, and use this to get involved, post on the talk page to meet the community and make friends. As far as presenting two sides goes this happens when two reliable sources disagree, then the two ideas will be presented ie if the WSJ says one thing and the NYT says another then these. Anyhow hope you find this useful. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

RELIABILITY OF SOURCES ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA
THE WIKIPEDIA SELECTION OF “RELIABLE SOURCES”. (NYTimes, BBC, New Yorker, CNN) I was curious, a year ago, to find out how “reliable” those sources are, and tried it out on a single matter. Well, let's verify the sources used by Wikipedia in the “Disappearance of Peng Whanzou" matter, and in the same order they have been linked there: 1 - “Essex lorry deaths: 39 found dead were Chinese nationals” (BBC) 2 - “Les 39 personnes retrouvées mortes dans un camion au Royaume-Uni étaient chinoises”  (Le Monde) 3 - “All 39 people found dead in truck trailer were Chinese nationals”  (Yahoo) 4 - “39 Tote in Lastwagen hatten chinesische Nationalität” (Deutsche Welle) 5 - “All 39 people found dead in truck were Chinese nationals, British police confirm” (The Globe and Mail) 6 - “39 Bodies Found in Truck Are Likely Chinese, UK Police Say” (NYTimes – this one seems to be true) 7 - “Essex lorry deaths: all 39 victims were Chinese nationals” (The Guardian) 8 - “39 truck death victims in UK were from China; driver under investigation” (Deseret News) 9 - “39 dead in UK trailer were Chinese nationals as police raid …”  (ABC News) 10 - “Bodies in truck container identified as Chinese nationals” (CNN) 11 - “39 people found dead in Essex lorry were all Chinese: UK police” (Al Jazeera) 12 . “The 39 people found dead in truck near London were Chinese nationals- ITV” 13 – “insidethegames.biz” is a blog, should not be conisdered a “reliable source”, since Twitter and Youtube are also not considered “reliable source”. No post on the Lorry Deaths matter. 14 - All 39 people found dead in a truck in England were Chinese nationals, and police are investigating organized crime 15 - “UK Police Expand Probe, Say 39 Dead Found in Truck All From China” (Voice of America) 16 - “U.K. police believe 39 found dead in truck container were Chinese nationals (CBC) – True 17 – Link N.º 109 - YouTube publication – considered “not reliable”, when I posted it, even being clear that it was a video from “THE HILL”, normally considered “reliable”. 18 - “All 39 people found dead in shipping container in Essex were Chinese nationals, officials confirm” (Sidney Morning Herald) 19 - “THE POLICE HAVE CONFIRMED ALL 39 VICTIMS WERE CHINESE (The Spectator) 20 “Lorry deaths: Container hiding 39 Chinese may have brought in others” (The Times Co.UK”

You see, from the 19 sources used in the “disappearance” title, you claim without evidence, “current events involving living people the sources are generally NYTimes, BBC, New Yorker, CNN, etc.” ONLY TWO (2) have been passed the first test of “reliability” measured ONLY on a single question!

Why exactly would “The Hill” not be reliable? Or Fox News? Well, about “Global Times” and “CGTN” we know the “answer”: “They are Chinese State Propaganda, and therefore, not reliable”. The argument is merely an “ad hominem” fallacy; As far as I have investigated, both outlets are far more reliable than the ones you mentioned. Al Jazeera, and SCMP also used to be reliable, even with some anti-China bias, but now they are also nothing more than “regurgitating what they (CIA and US government) say” (sic – that was your comment).

OPINIONS, SPECULATIONS AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES ON WIKIPEDIA
Now, about “wiki isn't writing opinions” (sic – it’s your statement) – well, let’s see what we find in the “Disappearance” matter on the Peng Shuai page, Wikipedia:

“As a person who is familiar with Chinese system, I don't believe Peng Shuai” (Its not a fact, its an Opinion.

“Commentators seized upon…” Comments are not facts, they are opinions.

“Andrea Gaudenzi also expressed concern” Concerns are opinions, not facts.

“Peng's allegations” Allegations are not facts. Anyway, a witness is trustworthy, or is not trustworthy. Since Peng Shuai already was suspended once in a Tennis fraud issue, and the “opinion” of Wikipedia is that she isn’t trustworthy when she claims that she never said she was abused, and that she is fine, it seems, the ONLY reason why she should be “trustworthy” when western media claims she said what she in fact didn't say, (violation, sexual abuse) – it seems it is only “trustworthy because it fits into the USA political and propagandistic agenda.

“Novak Djokovic expressed his shock at Peng's disappearance in comments” – Once more, comments are opinions, not facts.

“Djokovic said the incident was "shocking" That’s an opinion from Djokovic, not a fact.

“Osaka said, "Censorship is never OK at any cost." Once more, that’s an opinion. And it seems, “censorship” is “never OK”, but only as long as the narrative fits into USA’s political agenda. That’s why my editions are being censored as fast as possible!

“Supposed to liberalize China made its regime only more brazen in rejecting liberal democracy and human rights" That’s also nothing more than an Opinion.

“ It also has a considerable opportunity in this crisis: to cut ties with a country so unaligned with its mission". Yeah, that seems to be the only thing that matters, for the USA.

“Wertheim suggested” Merely an opinion.

“China Global Television Network released an email allegedly written by Peng to Simon” You see, if something has been published by Western media that fits into the Anti-China propaganda, Wikipedia doesn’t anything but “regurgitating” the statements they like. If something is published in Chinese media, well, a well-placed “opinion” does the trick: “ China Global Television Network released an email allegedly written by Peng to Simon”

“The authenticity of the email was cast in doubt;” I still haven’t seen any Anti-China propaganda claiming that something published by China wasn’t “cast in doubt”. On Wikipedia, it’s the same: If something is said by the Chinese government”, it’s “not a reliable source”, “because it’s Chinese propaganda”, or “Chinese aren’t trustworthy.

“Peng's sexual assault allegation must be investigated "with full transparency and without censorship" It’s obvious that, for Western Media, “China is guilty” is a “fact” that can’t be denied. No matter how much proof China provides, no matter how many times western troublemakers speak with Peng Shuai, if China doesn’t “confess”, “China lacks on transparency and honesty”.

“Posing with her cat and stuffed animals including Winnie the Pooh (a character blocked by censors after it was used as a meme for CCP general secretary Xi Jinping,” Yeah, it’s still there; has nothing to do with the issue, but Anti-China-Propaganda couldn’t avoid the “sidekick” against the “CCP dictatorial oppressive Regime”.

And this way, it goes on and on, without end. What I also have verified, is that NOT A SINGLE LINK was provided to Chinese media cited in the title about Peng’s “disappearance”.

NO FACTS about the issue are being provided by Wikipedia, only the “regurgitating” anti-China opinions, speculations, nonsense, and recommendations of punishment for unproven “crimes”, criticizing EVERY claim made in favor of China.

Veo que Ud. (si bien no revela su nombre) también habla español. Pues, verifique la página en español, sobre este mismo tema: las "opinones" y "especulaciones" apenas son relacionadas a algún enlace en Internet. E, igual como acá, es la "regurgitación" de la propaganda anti-China, mientras la opinón contrária es suprimida- mi aporte en castellano también fue deletado, bajo el argumento de que "las fuentes no son fiables". De lo que resulta: Cuando alguna fuente se somete a los lineamentos propagandísticos de Estados Unidos, entonces es fiable, aún cuando hay prueba de que no lo es. Caso contrario, no es fiable. Y, cuando alguna de estas fuentes, normalmetne consideradas "fiables" (The Hill) publica algo que contraviene las directrices "recomendadas" por el gobierno de Estados Unidos, deja de ser fiable, sin explicación alguna.

No olvidemos lo que sabemos sobre la "fiabilidad" del gobierno americano:

“I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.” (Mike Pompeo)

“Trump's false or misleading claims total 30573 over 4 years” (washingtonpost.com)

“Make your message big, bold and simple.” “Hang a name on your opponent.” “Attack, attack, attack—never defend.” “Nothing is on the level.” “Hate is a more powerful motivator than love.” All “Stone’s Rules.” Also: “Admit nothing; deny everything.” (Roger Stone)

“Reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process…” (Sindey Powell)

¿Me puedes dar alguna razón objetiva, coherente, demostrable, por la cual "Global Times", "CGTN", o el propio gobierno de China sería menos fiable que las fuentes occidentales y el gobierno de Estados Unidos? Estoy realmente curioso para saberlo! --Hans Otto Kroeger (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I gave it another try. I edited "East Turkestan". I only added what "Britannia" enciclopedy had to say about Turkestan: no mention of any etablished "East Turkestan Republic" "The First East Turkestan Republic existed from November 12, 1933, until April 16, 1934, and the Second East Turkestan Republic existed between November 12, 1944, and December 22, 1949. Not a single personal "opinion"; I merely cited the fact that Britannia doesn'know about such "facts", published by a really dubious outlet, called "eurasianet.com" (which was used by Wikipedia to simmulate an old exitense, even brief, of an "East Turkestan". And, no surprise: Britannia was considered "not reliable source", while a dubious blog site from an Eurasian "org" remains there.

So, one test more: Taking in account how many pages Wikipedia has spend, to slam the Chinese govenrment on the "Peng Shuai Sexual Abuse" rumours, I wonder, how many words Wikipedia will spend on Trump, and the accusations and lawsuits he is supporting for "sexual assault", since it have been 26 women who accused him, not merely one, who didn't exactly do that. Well, it came down to 10 lines. Nothing said about a "request of transparency", not a word about the lawsuits, not a single woman of his victims is named, nothing is said about the "disappearance"

IS WIKIPEDIA REALLY NEUTRAL?
--Hans Otto Kroeger (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I gave it another try. I edited "East Turkestan". I only added what "Britannia" encyclopedia had to say about Turkestan: no mention of any established "East Turkestan Republic" "The First East Turkestan Republic existed from November 12, 1933, until April 16, 1934, and the Second East Turkestan Republic existed between November 12, 1944, and December 22, 1949". Not a single personal "opinion"; I merely cited the fact that Britannia doesn't know about such "facts", published by a really dubious outlet, called "eurasianet.com" (which was used by Wikipedia to simulate an old existence, even brief, of an "East Turkestan". And, no surprise: Britannia was considered "not a reliable source", while a dubious blog site from a Eurasian "org" remains there.

So, one test more: Taking in account how many pages Wikipedia has spent, to slam the Chinese government on the "Peng Shuai Sexual Abuse" rumors, I wonder, how many words Wikipedia will spend on Trump, and the accusations and lawsuits he is supporting for "sexual assault", since it have been 26 women who accused him, not merely one, who didn't exactly do that. Well, it came down to 10 lines. Nothing said about a "request of transparency", not a word about the lawsuits, not a single woman of his victims is named, nothing is said about the "disappearance". But almost nothing has ben heard about these 26 victims of Trump. Well, let's do what Wikipedia does: they probably have been detained, are being oppressed by the US regime, because you can't trust USA government, and USA founded media, none of the women can talk freely because of censorship, their social media accounts have been gone, you can't find anything on Internet any more about the women, because of Western censorship, it has to be a tactic to attack the Chinese government, a photo uploaded by a victim, "Donald Duck"  which consisted of three photos of a victim of Trump posing with her cat and stuffed animals including "Donald Duck" (a character blocked by censors after it was used as a meme for Ex-President Trump). Sanctions must be applied against the USA, an International investigation must be started, several human rights organizations want a deep and complete investigation, USA must allow the accusation to happen without any restriction, we must urge the US to show proof that at least some from the 26 women are still alive and well, they should be allowed to travel to foreign countries, the fact that reporters and representatives from human rights organizations were able to speak with them means nothing. Their claims that they never accused Trump of sexual abuse, aren't worth anything since she is being closely spied on by disguised CIA and FBI agents, blablablabla... all this nonsense that Wikipedia allows to be published, while ANY comment which shows the nonsense of such "old widows talk" isn't supported by evidence, FALLS UNDER AMERICAN CENSORSHIP!

DO YOU SEE HOW SILLY SUCH CLAIMS SOUND, WHEN APPLIED TO TRUMP, WHO COMMITTED THE SAME CRIMES WESTERN MEDIA ACCUSES A CHINESE OFFICIAL, 26 TIMES! And the women are still "disappeared", their social media accounts, still down!!!

Well, and as crazy as it may sound, the ones censoring Wikipedia are still claiming that Wikipedia is "neutral"!!!! --Hans Otto Kroeger (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CENSROSHIP AND DELETED ACCOUNTS ON WIKIPEDIA
--Hans Otto Kroeger (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I just found this on Inerenet. Wikipedia infiltrators banned for pushing China propaganda Nothing is said about if the editions made by those "infiltrated China propagandists" is true, trustworthy, reasonable, or rather, false, malicious, irrational. That shows that their contributions can't be refuted, therefore they themself are being attacked, censored, and deleted from the public (Fallacy "Ad Hominem") Obviously, for Wikipedia censorship, I also am a "infiltated China-Propagandist", and if I insist in clarify some astonishing claims made on Wikipedia, mi post is banned, deleted, far faster as the Time Peng Shuai was taking, before deleting her post. If I insist, I myself will get banned, because only CIA propaganda is allowed.

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)