Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 3 January 2011

Books Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please leave the lede alone

Please, we have sections such as "Praise" and "Criticism". Arilang 14:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that we can't just say "it became a bestseller", that's a bit misleading/lacks context. I think the previous version was generally fine. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, just do not like to see too many "Criticism" comments posted all over the place. The Communist Propaganda apparatus would like to project a positive image for Mao, that is why there are a lot of 50 Cent Party around. Arilang 00:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the lead is the perfect and correct place to introduce criticism, as the manual of style specifically says, "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." And Arilang, would you please stop throwing spurious accusations of being on Communist payrolls around? The criticisms of the book in this article are thoroughly scholarly, and not political. Quigley (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a summary of praise and criticism belongs in the lede. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's necessary to put a particular spotlight on one review, with several quotes from that review, as is done here; is there something that makes this one review more notable than all the rest? I don't know if there is, but without that knowledge this looks to me like undue weight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are so many reviewers around, some say the book is good, some say the book is bad, Mobo Gao is only one of the reviewers, so what? Arilang 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Professor Mobo Gao, Director, Confucius Institute and Professor of Chinese Studies, as far as I know, all those Confucius Institutes around the world are under the control of Hanban, http://english.hanban.org/node_7719.htm, "Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters, as a public institution affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education," that means Confucius Institutions around the world are funded and controlled by the Chinese Government, that means Professor Mobo Gao is funded by the Chinese Government, of course he has to promote the PRC (and Mao) official image. No wonder. He is the biggest 50 Cent Party of them all. Arilang 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unassessed Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Unassessed China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles