This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rigley (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 3 January 2011 (→HanBan employee Mobo Gao: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:32, 3 January 2011 by Rigley (talk | contribs) (→HanBan employee Mobo Gao: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Books Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | China Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
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)
| “ | Confucius Institute
Confucius Institutes (simplified Chinese: 孔子学院; traditional Chinese: 孔子學院; pinyin: kǒngzǐ xuéyuàn) are non-profit public institutions that aim to promote Chinese language and cultureand support local Chinese teaching internationally. The headquarters is in Beijing and is under the Office of Chinese Language Council International (colloquially, Hanban (汉办)). Many scholars characterize the CI program as an exercise insoft power where China "sees the promotion of its culture and its chief language, standard Mandarin, as a means of expanding its economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach." |
” |
OK, isn't it very clear, Professor Mobo Gao is an employee of the Chinese Government, HanBan, of course he has to say nasty thing about this book, simply because this book say nasty things about Mao, The Beloved Leader of the Chinese Revolution. I would put Mobo Gao in the same turf with Han Suyin and Edgar Snow. Arilang 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
HanBan employee Mobo Gao
http://www.confucius.adelaide.edu.au/people/mobogao.html
User Quigley, Mobo Gao is officially an employee of HanBan, which is a propaganda apparatus of the Chinese Government, I don't think his opinion deserved a place on the lead section. Arilang 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
| “ | Confucius Institute
In Australia, university teachers have objected to CIs. When the University of Sydney was negotiating to establish a Confucius Institute, some professors called for it to be segregated from the Chinese studies department. Jocelyn Chey, a visiting professor at Sydney and former diplomat with expertise in Australia-China relations, criticized CI "as a propaganda vehicle for the Chinese communist party, and not a counterpart to the Goethe Institute or Alliance Française." Considering the close links between the CI, Chinese government, and Communist Party, Chey warned "this could lead at best to a "dumbing down" of research and at worst could produce propaganda." When a CI was established at the University of Melbourne, members of the Chinese studies department objected to it being located within the faculty of arts, and the CI was set up away from the main campus. |
” |
OK, look likes Sydney U and Melbourne U do not like to be associated with "a propaganda vehicle for the Chinese communist party", so can we conclude that Mobo Gao is working for the Chinese communist party? Arilang 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing for Mobo Gao's inclusion in the lead, which was placed there by an inexperienced editor quite recently. I was arguing for the preservation of the longstanding general statement about the book's negative reception in independent academia, of whom Gao or his opinions are not representative. Whether Gao is independent or not, or whether his views merit inclusion in the criticism section, which up until this point has been pretty impeccable to accusations like these, is a different issue.
- As you indirectly point out, the Confucius Institutes article is confused in some places, and needs work to make very clear and factual statements about the Institutes' origins and connections. At present, the relationship you conjecture between Gao and the government, or between the Confucius Institutes and the government for that matter, is not grounded enough in facts or references to reliable sources for my liking, but if you have a burning desire to excise Gao's name from the page, just keep the note of general criticism, and if nobody wants to vindicate Gao now, this issue can be revisited later. Quigley (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)