Xiaodingjin

Critique

Hi. I'm afraid wikipedia does not allow for personal research, which is why I removed your pdf file. There are many fine reviews of her book on the page already (as well as the book's entry). John Smith's 08:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Dont pay attention to the above. There is no policy called "personal research", but original research, of which your link is not beause you did not come up with any original research, and are not including any personal finding (synthesis) in the body of the article. Putting together the paper from available sources to express this POV that is well done and has recieved some attention is perfectly fine for the external link section. Indeed, because this critique not only has received some notoriety as its been discussed by academics in the field but does a good job as expressing lots of problems with this book, I see keeping it here as adding value, provided its in the external links section; it's not notable enough on its own to warrent its own article. Thus, I have restored it. Please feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. I wonder if you know Dr. Gao? He mentioned your paper.Giovanni33 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I got a word wrong!!

I'm not sure how you can say he put it together from "available sources" when there is no reference section - just some mention of various views in Appendix B. John Smith's 09:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Read again. The references are built into the essay. The standards for external links are not the same as for the body of the article. Even personal essays are fine provided they do a good job at presenting a POV or adding valuable info, both of which this link does.Giovanni33 09:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But the external links should be about the author, not the book - it's the wrong article page. If you want it included you should take your case to the Mao book talk page, given it's locked. Don't try to throw it on to the most relevant, unlocked page. John Smith's 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually its about Jung Chang as much as about her book. The eassy is full of citations, mostly to the book it quotes. It has been published in the Chinese news paper, Duowei, as the paper, cites, with a section from an interview with Jung Chang, responding to this review. She only was ablet to answer 3 questions is poses. And, again, there is no policy that requires the author to be of some kind of standing. This essay has gained attention in the media, Jang has read it, discussed, and responded to it, and there is no reason why readers can't reference this critque here.Giovanni33 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni, i do not know Dr. Gao, I believe my review is relevant and deserve an external link, but some "democratic" "freedom fighter" keeps deleting it, what can i do? If this gentleman stops doing so, i can easily put references to satisfy his demand. I think he is afraid of my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.95.1 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I presume this is Xiaodingjin? Can you please edit when you're signed in. It makes it a little confusing otherwise. Thanks, John Smith's 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, it isn't a good idea for you to insert your own work in wikipedia. If you look here you'll see another user point that out - it's a conflict of interest.

That doesn't mean the review won't be included in wikipedia. I have been trying to move the discussion onto the talk page of the book itself, as that would be the best place to have it if we agreed it should be included. I know the book article is locked, but if we decide whether to include it or not then we can insert it once the block is lifted. John Smith's 17:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link so it should look like this (click on edit to see how it looks like): *A Critique of J. Chang and J. Halliday’s Book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Take a look at the discusson on the talk page. The essay must be factually accurate and not mislead the reader. This is the standard for external links. John Smith has rasied a few points regarind this. Perhaps you can address those questions, or perhaps fix any issues of accuracy in your paper, if they are valid question of accuracy. Of course, the paper can have a pov and opinion, but question of fact (not opinion), but be accurate. I hope any error of fact can be fixed because its a very good analysis of this book.Giovanni33 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni, many thanks for your suggestion. I am willing to change any inaccurate factual statements or illogical analysis in my review, as soon as i see it. Any comments will be appreciated. I do not know how to respond to John Smith's points. He first said that my review is about Jung Chang's book, not herself, and so should not be linked. But the most references listed there are about the book, no more about Jung Chang than mine. Then he said that my review does not have references, again this applies to other listed references as well. Finally, he said that I should not insert my own work. Should I insert someone else work? Or someone else can insert mine? Isn't Wikipedia a place for voluntary contribution? I am confused. Why cannot John Smith point out precisely which facts in my review are wrong, or which arguments are illogical, instead of deleting my link constantly, acting like a Chinese government propaganda officer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaodingjin (talk • contribs)

Xiaodingjin, first of all I would ask you not to talk about me to another user on your own talk page given I am talking things over with you here. It is akin to talking in front of someone about them to another person. I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude, but I hope you realise that was a bit of a mistake. If you want to talk to someone, the best thing is to leave a message on their talk page as there is less chance of someone taking offence if you are talking about them.

I think I may not have been clear enough in the past about why I removed the link. First of all, I pointed out the comments made by another user (Sumple) that it is a conflict of interest for you to add your own work to wikipedia. This also applies to people who edit articles about them (unless it's simple vandalism reversion). Surely you can understand why it is not good for people to do that - it's much more difficult for them to be neutral about themselves or their work, isn't it? I'm not accusing you of bias, just highlighting a general standard. Of course more generally everyone is welcome to edit wikipedia, but there remain some exceptions (as I pointed out).

You are right that the citations used are about her books. But that is because the points being raised in the article are about the books and thus need references that relate to those books. External links are not the same. These should be linked to material about the page itself. If there was no article on the book in question, you might be correct to say your link should go on the author page. But because there is a page on the book (Mao: The Unknown Story) it is much better for the link to go there if it is to be included. That is why I have repeatedly suggested to Giovanni that the discussion about the link be moved there - there is no point in discussing whether to include the link on the wrong talk page.

As a side note, please do not take the following message (below) as an attack. It is a standard message for new visitors to wikipedia who may not understand some of the rules. John Smith's 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Jung Chang

Hi, I would like to give you a chance to revert your fourth reversion back. Please review the rules highlighted above. They are compulsory. If you revert back (that is you revert to my edition) I will not report you. But if you ignore this message I will feel required to. I know you are a new member, so I am giving you this chance.

Thanks, John Smith's 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you don't want to revert more than 3 times within 24 hours or John Smith will report you and get you blocked for a day. Since you have some community support for adding this link, it will be restored in due time pending consensus, and if John Smith is without consensus and keeps restoring he can be blocked for edit waring. You will notice that there is a magical/mysterious IP that keeps showing up to support and revert to his version. Using another IP or even getting a freind do this is known and socket puppets or meat puppets and is also not allowed, but this is hard to prove as you can see. Eventually, the connections become rather apparent, though. I'd advise sticking to the rules, and using the talk pages to address concerns and issues. Probably the best place for this review is the article on the book itself, but since that page is still locked, this is the next best place for it.Giovanni33 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you act as if you have never reported anyone! Or are only you allowed to report people? John Smith's 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni, thank you very much for your valuable advice and support, I appreciate them very much! May truth prevail. Jinxiaoding

Hello and welcome back

Hi, now that you've been unblocked I was wondering if we could have a bit of chat - I think we may have got off on the wrong foot. So I would appreciate it if you could drop by my talk page and leave me a message. It sounds like there are some things you want/wanted to say to me, but for some reason didn't. I hope Giovanni's comments didn't put you off - I certainly don't have it "in" for you. John Smith's 20:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I moved it to my talk page, so you can easily comment if you want to say more there. I haven't had a chance to read it in depth, but I promise I will later and get back to you then. If you want to start a new conversation on a talk page, just go to the bottom of the page, type in a header (e.g. message) and surround it with two "=" on each side (without the speechmarks of course). So basically you want something like where I said "==Hello and welcome back==". Or just type your message in and I will make a header for you. John Smith's 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It really belongs on the talk page of the article, since its an answer to the objections you posted there about this content dispute. So, I have restored it to that page so that all editors can see the debate about the merits or lack there of of your objections to the content of this link.Giovanni33 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, it is not for you to decide. It was a private message to me - Xiao said he didn't know where to put it on my talk page. If Xiao wants to make a point on the talk page, let him reinsert the material. You are not his nanny - he can make up his own mind. John Smith's 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiao, if you want to leave the message up on the Jung Chang page, you can just revert. But I will leave my reply on your talk page as I want to have a discussion with you and not the rest of the community. John Smith's 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not for you to decide. There is nothing private about the message, since he posted it on the talk page of the article--where it belongs correctly. You decided to remove it, which has the diservice of not allowing the other interested editors to see the refutation of your objections to the content of that link. It belongs on that articles talk page, although you are free to copy it adn resond to it personally on your own talk page.Giovanni33 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A fuller response

Ok, where to start?.....

• About the claim on Mao being a monster being accepted immediately. Well, maybe. But Mao already had a fairly low opinion in the UK. It's not so much that her book made the media think he was a monster, more that she was expressing an opinion many already believed. Also you were misleading when you said "When the book was first published in UK in June 2005, it was hailed by all major media with great enthusiasm". You implied all the major media groups were enthusiastic about the book, not just on whether they supported the criticism of Mao. Frank McLynn was very direct in his lack of enthusiasm when he concluded "But it is neither serious history nor serious biography"

• In regards to a "Chinese view", if you look at the Mao: The Unknown Story page, you will see comments from Alfred Chan in a very detailed review. That doesn't mean your comments aren't welcome, but don't feel you need to fill a void.

• You talk about her being the most influential person ref Chinese history on the British public as a fact. Well it isn't - it's a personal opinion. From my understanding a lot of people have no idea who she is.

• It wouldn't have taken you long to say that the "seminar" was in Glasgow in 2005 in your review - it's important to give a setting to such events if you are going to mention them. On a personal note, I attended a session at a university where a chap tried to monopolise her time and was quite rude because he insisted on asking several long questions (even though it was explained one qn per person because of time pressures and the size of the audience). He was treated with good humour nonetheless, though he had to be cut off when he kept rambling to let her respond and get more people in. You seem to be generalising from your one experience that any critics of her are "shut up" - if so, that is unfair. I would also ignore comments on the Amazon website - that's hardly an accurate reflection of public opinion (it's not even a good way of judging the quality of a product).

• "Prejudice" is not a word to use lightly - it has very negative connotations. If I said "you are prejudiced against Africa/Blacks", that would imply you're racist to most people. Though if you say you were only refering to the media I accept that. Still I would dispute there is a bias throughout the UK media towards China. Certainly no more than there is towards the UK in the Chinese media.

• The point about your review not being "welcomed" was accurate, but it was still.... how should I say it? "Inappropriate", maybe? I understand you felt you made some great points, but you have to realise there was no chance you would be given any time. Not because of your views but because you are in their eyes (to be blunt) a nameless student. They get so much correspondance all the time they don't have the time to read it all, let alone use it. The Times (for example) gets God-knows how many letters every day and has space for a few (of a limited length). How could your review have been fit in? It certainly wouldn't have gone in any of the commentary sections - only paid contributors and/or people asked to guest get in. You were simply aiming too high, I'm afraid. So when you say your review was ignored, in a fairly accusatory way, that was to be expected. If I wrote a review of a book to any publication it would also be ignored.

• Conflict of interest - that was about you inserting the link, not anyone else. So I objected to you inserting it on that point, but only you on that point of the conflict of interest.

• I hope to hear from you soon on my talk page. John Smith's 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

From Giovanni

Welcome back. I have cleaned up those old noticed you had wanted to do for you. I look forward to having you contribute to this great free Encyclopedia for all.Giovanni33 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

Do you know User:Dariusdaman? His arrival and immediate support for you suggests that he is either a sockpuppet (another account you created) or a meatpuppet (someone you know who you asked to drop by). Neither of those is acceptable under wikipedia policy - sockpuppets can only be used if they are clearly identified.

I'll file a report when I get clarification on which procedure to use, but if you do know what/who Darius is then you may evade censure for saying so now. Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, JohnSmiths. I also support Xiaodingjin, I hope that doesn't make me his puppet. By your standard, would you report yourself if your mysterious Hungarian friend appears again?Giovanni33 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he was blocked as a meatpuppet. Looks like my suspicions were right - don't criticise me because I know obvious puppetry when I see it.

By the way, the Hungarian user was not found to be a puppet of mine after a report was filed. But, of course, you forgot that - as you forget every time I am acquitted of wrong-doing. John Smith's (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)