Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:50, 18 February 2011

where did the rest of my talk page go, I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Usurpation

Hello, Homunculus. A request has been made at Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Usurpations to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. Misplaced Pages:Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given seven days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat or changing username clerk explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing: the request will be filled after seven days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed: please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. Homunculus (duihua) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please write to me here

Thought reform

I noticed you are editing the Yan'an rectification article. I created Thought reform in the People's Republic of China, which needs more work, research, etc. Yan'an was when the CCP settled all these manipulation and brainwashing techniques, so it's important. You may want to have a go of that one above as well. --Asdfg12345 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, everyone's read Lifton. I might take a look later. Will add to my list, at least. Homunculus (duihua) 10:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dukie

You may be right in your edit summary], but they are at Duke, and possibly very tenured. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah hah. One of my pet peeves are these Brave New World academics and their nihilistic language games. Homunculus (duihua) 05:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I wish I could talk or write like one, since that would be very beneficial to my career. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at what cost? To write like that, you have to think like that. Homunculus (duihua) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

If it interests you at any point, would you mind taking a look at Sichuan schools corruption scandal and give it a readthrough? I just stumbled upon the article a few days ago, and gave it a facelift, but much work still needs to be done. Colipon+(Talk) 02:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I was out of town for the last week; I will certainly read it and make changes as I go. Homunculus (duihua) 13:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Futian incident and Anti-Bolshevik League incident. There's a large amount of untranslated sources and POV that needs to be assessed.--PCPP (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish I could split my body; life is full. Homunculus (duihua) 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Text of the Straight Goods article

Here's the full text FYI. Forgive the messy formatting. --Asdfg12345 02:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dateline: Monday, May 31, 2010 Judge rules that Falun Gong newspaper acted in the public interest. by John Gordon Miller, Ryerson University An important victory for investigative journalism has been won in Quebec, but most journalists probably overlooked it. That's too bad, because it demonstrates that good journalism can sometimes be found in unlikely places and that "public interest" and "responsible journalism" are increasingly being recognized by the courts in Canada.

Although publisher Crescent Chau denied being an agent of Beijing, the court found his explanations for how he funded his special editions were "to say the least, nebulous."

Quebec Superior Court Justice Catherine Mandeville sided with the Montreal publisher of The Epoch Times, a small newspaper serving the Chinese community, which was sued for defamation by the publisher of a rival paper, La Presse Chinoise. A series of Epoch Times stories examined La Presse Chinoise's publisher, Crescent Chau, and how he managed to publish 100,000 copies of four special editions of his newspaper and distribute them free of charge in Chinese communities across Canada. La Presse Chinoise usually circulates a mere 4,000 copies, sells them for 60 cents each, and limits distribution to Montreal and a few copies to Ottawa. The special editions carried no advertising or news, just articles denouncing and calling for the elimination of Falun Gong, a spiritual group that has been violently suppressed in China since being outlawed in 1999. The articles repeated the Chinese regime's most malicious, unsubstantiated charges against Falun Gong practitioners ¡ª that they engage in bestiality, vampirism, murder and suicide. Chau sued The Epoch Times for libel, asking for nearly a quarter million dollars in damages. The Epoch Times, founded in 2000 by practitioners of Falun Gong, examined Chau and his business and wrote a series of investigative articles that suggested he was acting on behalf of Beijing. The articles appear to be thoroughly and professionally reported, which isn't always the case in the often under-resourced ethnocultural press. Epoch Times reporters interviewed a former Chinese diplomat who offered insight into Beijing's influence over overseas media, and reviewed Chau's own public statements and testimony made before the European Parliament and US House of Representatives. Justice Mandeville ruled that the paper acted in the public interest and its articles expressed "legitimate concerns and constitute an opinion which is drawn from a factual premise and not made for the purpose of abusively attacking the reputation of Mr. Chau." She said it's "a case of the biter complaining about being bitten." Although Chau denied being an agent of Beijing, the court found his explanations for how he funded his special editions were "to say the least, nebulous." Under Quebec law, Chau bore the burden of convincing the court that The Epoch Times failed to exercise a standard of care, and he clearly did not do that. This case is a significant victory for a publisher that has come under some suspicion because of its ties to the Falun Gong ideology. In 2006, the paper's credibility was damaged when one of its journalists hurled insults at Chinese President Hu Jintao at a White House briefing. President George W Bush apologized to the Chinese for the incident. In turn, The Epoch Times apologized to the US president, although it denied any direct ties to, or funding from, Falun Gong. But in the Quebec case, the paper's reporting stood up to the court's scrutiny, and we should all be grateful for their careful scrutiny. Beijing has used similar lawsuits to silence critics, but they weren't allowed to get away with it this time. John Gordon Miller has been an award-winning reporter, a senior news executive, chair of a journalism school, an author, a teacher, a researcher and a consultant. He’s been professor of journalism at Ryerson for 21 years, following a 20-year career as an editor and reporter. Most of that was spent at the Toronto Star, where he was foreign editor, founding editor of the Sunday Star, weekend editor, deputy managing editor, and acting managing editor. eMail: jmiller@ryerson.ca<mailto:jmiller@ryerson.ca> Website: http://www.ryerson.ca/journalism/facultydirectory/emeritus/miller.html http://www.straightgoods.ca/2010/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=554

Okay, thanks, though I think this has already been looked at by another editor. I see there is some conflict on the page now, in fact. Homunculus (duihua) 14:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Political Education in the PRC

Good article topic. Here are a few points:

• Shouldn't the title be "Political education in the People's Republic of China" (given the articles like this, and Thought reform in the People's Republic of China, Censorship in the People's Republic of China, Media in the People's Republic of China, etc. I think they should adopt a consistent name.
• Use the ref name function when referring multiple times to the same source. See this edit for an example. And if it's multiple pages from the same book, I recommend this: <ref>Townsend 1967, p. 181</ref> ; though you're free to choose your own way. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Phaedo, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. RJC _Contribs 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, good catch, and thanks.Homunculus (duihua) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Organ harvesting of Falun Gong

FYI, whether that page should be deleted or not is being discussed here. The background is that a couple of anti-Falun Gong activists got it deleted, then some rational editors rebuilt it and now it's being discussed again whether it should be deleted. You can make your comment, if you like. I commend you to edit these articles more actively: they need the input from non-partisan people who know the facts. I mostly refrain from major edits these days, despite the gross inadequacies on the pages. Asdfg12345 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kilgour-Matas report

It is unnecessary, inappropriate and against Misplaced Pages policy for people to be making personal comments in the Kilgour-Matas report AfD discussion, regardless of provocation. It is precisely because of such behaviour that Falun Gong related material is problematic. I am requesting that you remove your personal comments in the AfD discussion, and letting you know that if you do not do so that I will direct the closing admin's attention to your comments and ask that your !vote be discounted.

Editing on Misplaced Pages can be stressful at times, and this is understood. I do have sympathy with those who get frustrated. However, I would also ask that you refrain from making any personal comments in any area of Misplaced Pages in future. Focus on the content and not your assumption about the person's motives. If you feel that you are unable to conduct yourself in a reasonable manner; that editing on Misplaced Pages causes you stress; that you get enraged when other editors change your text and you are unable to politely discuss the matter or ask for assistance and would rather abuse the other editors then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not the place for you.

My suggestion is that if you feel angered by someone's behaviour, that you:

1. Give yourself a period of at least an hour before responding.
2. Write out your response, then before pressing Save page read through it carefully and edit it - removing any personal or inappropriate comments.
3. Check what you have written a second time before pressing Save page.
4. Read through what you have written after you have posted it, and remove anything that could be taken as a personal comment.
5. If you are so angry that you cannot trust yourself to do this, or you feel the behaviour needs looking at, request assistance from one of the resources listed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution; remembering to make as neutral a statement as possible, such as: "Would someone please look at this for me." If the behaviour is not obvious and needs a lengthy explanation, the chances are you are being too sensitive.

If you are unsure about any of this, then please get in touch. SilkTork * 09:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for the suggestion. I have removed my initial comment from the discussion, and I offer apologies for contributing to the less-than-diplomatic tone. I suppose I should consider this my initiation into the rather unfamiliar world of highly charged Falun Gong-related discussions. I am not accustomed to editing articles that are as controversial as this one, and will attempt to be more sensitive going forward.

That said, I'm not sure I appreciate being pigeon-holed as a pro-Falun Gong editor. I am certainly sympathetic with respect to the human rights violations against Falun Gong followers in China. But my interests lie with ensuring that these article reflect the most accurate information and rigorous available scholarship. I do not care for the arbitrary suppression of relevant information. Suppressing information whose conclusions support the allegations made by Falun Gong does not make that information biased, nor does it lessen its neutrality or credibility. It may simply mean that the Falun Gong accusations are relatively well supported by the evidence. Lobbying for the inclusion of such information, when and where it is appropriate, does not make me pro-Falun Gong.

In any case, thanks for bringing me in line. Homunculus (duihua) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Create/Appoint

Please see the meanings of "create" in the dictionary... "Appoint" is actually the wrong word since "appointments" have durations, whereas "creations" do not. --Nlu (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NIu. I've seen the two used interchangeable (ie., "Henry was appointed Constable of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. In 1494, he was created Duke of York. He was subsequently appointed Earl Marshal of England and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland"). In some cases, however, the context in which the term 'created' is used is not entirely clear, and I changed to 'appoint' because it seemed less likely to be misinterpreted. 'Appointed' does not necessarily imply a limited duration; it can simply mean to "name officially to a position." Moreover, when a person is appointed as emperor (for instance), is that not a temporary position, one which will subsequently be assumed by someone else? Please let me know if I'm missing some degree of nuance in the difference between positions to which people are created vs. appointed. If I'm wrong in my thinking on this, I'll be happy to concede the point. Homunculus (duihua) 04:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see above, "appoint" generally refers to an office, whereas "create" generally refers to a noble title. --Nlu (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Homunculus (duihua) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you plan to keep up the strong work you began on the main Falun Gong page? There are several other articles related to the topic, all in need of attention. If you planned to work on those, I can certainly pitch in. —Zujine|talk 13:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope to keep it up, though I have a couple other things in my sights as well...Homunculus (duihua) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your input is sought

If you feel so inclined, you may want to weigh in here. An edit war is brewing, and I would like to find a reasonable solution before much time is wasted. Homunculus (duihua) 19:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them. SilkTork * 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Hi Homunculus. Well done on persevering in what is a rather difficult editing environment, even now, on Falun Gong-related pages. I want to suggest something, and please let me know if you are interested. It is to see whether you want to proceed with submitting an arbitration enforcement case against PCPP. I posted it here, but was informed that that was the wrong place. The right place is at Misplaced Pages:AE. When I went there to inspect what was expected, I noticed the line "Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themselves." Now, to be quite honest, I do not think my hands are dirty in this case. However, I think that PCPP could easily claim that because of my history, not always glorious, of editing the pages, he may turn that around and try to have me disqualified from making the complaint.

So, I am first checking with you to see if you want to run with the complaint. Of course, you can do what you want with the text I have assembled. I am sure you have your own way of writing and putting things. I just wrote it up quickly. You can take it as a reference for your own complaint. But I want to see first whether you have a wish to do that. I'm told by ResidentApologist that one doesn't have to be a saint to make a complaint. But I believe it will be more straightforward if PCPP is not able to so quickly divert attention onto the messenger; my faith in the Archimedean neutrality of Misplaced Pages sanctioning processes never recovered after what happened last year. If I don't hear back from you within 24 hours, I'll do it myself, no problem. --Asdfg12345 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about it. It's not the type of thing I'm eager to get involved in. Homunculus (duihua) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm just going to do it now then. Feel free to state your views in support or opposition when the post goes public. --Asdfg12345 20:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)