Misplaced Pages

The answer is perfectly obvious: given that ninjas and pirates are both good, it surely follows that pirate ninjas (such as Chris) are better than either one. -- AJR | Talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Puh-lease. Just picture the Pirate/Ninja stealthily sneaking into the bedroom under cover of darkness - clinging to the ceiling with tiny bamboo-leaf sucker cups attached to fingertips and toes - and assasinating your enemy with a single drop of lethal poison by trickling it down a fine thread lowered into his mouth....with an eye patch, one wooden leg, a hook for a hand and a damn great red and blue parrot on his shoulder incessantly yelling "PIECES OF EIGHT!! PIECES OF EIGHT!!" ??? I didn't think so. SteveBaker 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pirates, DUH!A7X 900 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that there are likely far more actual pirates than real ninjas in the world today, I'd say pirates are more popular, even though I personally find ninjas more interesting. But piracy a more popular occupation, judging by acquaintances I have who sail in tropical seas. I've met more people who have encountered real pirates than people who have encountered real ninjas. =Axlq 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because nobody who meets a ninja lives to tell about it! Deco 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost pirates!(i've posted too many times here >.<)--Kar_the_Everburning 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is a need for more practice of Piracy. Ninjitsu is an overrated and loathesome past time that need not be afflicted upon the peoples of the world. Someday the pirates wil be up in arms and all the Ninja will do is a pretty backflip onto some roof in the horizon, then prance about with flashy stars and I will be in my house laughing and consuming the maids latest affrontary on the consumable medium. May Satan save us all.--R.A Huston 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dude! Ninjas all the way! Kyo cat 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjas Clearly way cooler than pirates --Fittysix 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjas...for obvious reasons... ;) --さくら木 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 20 legit reasons that pirates are better (from a Facebook group; I'm not responsible for any contraversial points as I didn't make them):

1. Ninjas don’t choose to be sneaky, they have to be. The only way that they can kill anyone is if they sneak up and stab them in the back and then run away. Pirates basically announce that they are coming because they know that no one can stop them.
2. Ninjas have poor social skills. That is why they are such loners. Do you ever see a loner pirate? No.
3. Pirates get all the booty.
4. Famous pirate movie: Pirates of the Caribbean (Johnny Depp is a pimp)... Famous ninja movie: 3 Ninjas (enough said) (What? did you say "what about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?" Well see #10 below duh.)
5. Pirates get pet monkeys and parrots. Ninjas get nothing.
6. Pirates eat meat off the bone. Ninjas eat low fat yogurt (it’s the only thing that is transportable enough for them to carry in their black clothes or whatever the heck they wear).
7. Pirates get to use cool words such as “Yo Ho,” “wench,” and “argh.” Ninjas don’t talk (poor social skills, remember?).
8. 84% of ninjas are homosexual. Look it up. It’s a fact.
9. Pirates speak English. People who speak English are BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Plus, they have cool accents.
10. One might say, “Well, what about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?” Now, I will admit that the Ninja Turtles are awesome. Unfortunately, they are NOT ninjas. According to TheFreeDictionary.com, The definition of a ninja is “a person skilled in ninjitsu.” The definition of a person is “a living human.” Therefore, a ninja is “a living human skilled in ninjitsu.” Since they are turtles, they are not ninjas.
11. George Washington was a pirate.
12. Pirates have been known to eat up to 70 pancakes in one sitting. Can a ninja do that? No sir.
13. Pirates have a universal symbol: the Jolly Roger.
14. Ninjas have no famous Disney characters. Pirates have Captain Hook.
15. Pirates sing pirate songs. Ninjas just read Cosmo.
16. No one can make artificial limbs look cool like pirates can.
17. Pirates get to pillage. Pillage...what a freaking cool word.
18. Shakespeare prefers pirates. There are pirates in The Tempest. Are there ninjas in any of Shakespeare's works!? No!
19. In the song "That's Life", Frank Sinatra sings, "I've been a puppet, a pauper, A PIRATE, a poet, a pawn and a king." Frank Sinatra is a pirate, FRANK SINATRA. Beat that, ninjas.
20. Ninjas don't get to keep the stuff that they steal, they give it to their government. You know what that means?, Ninjas work for the man, that's right, THE MAN. Nobody likes the man.

--Vic226 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vic226 make's a great point.A7X 900 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dural: has everyone forgotten about pirate ninja mimes? they are the best thing imaginalbe! not only can they do everything pirates and ninjas can, they can also use invisible weapons, deflect anything with their glass boxes, and "fly" using invisible staircases! :poseted by Dural (who is currently NOT a member... but that will change within a week)

Kim Arhee: Now lets stay on task here- this is a popularity contest. The constant bickering over these two classic predatorial archetypes has emerged in recent years due to a combination of media campaigns. Notice how the two most popular Shonen Jump (tm) titles, One piece to piracy as Naruto is to Ninjitsu, and their relatively recent introduction to western popular culture. Admittedly One piece does conincide with the fanatical following of Pirates of the Carribean in a very timely fashion, but Ninja have been supremely popular with the youth of the past generation- Power Rangers, the 3 Ninjas franchise et al. Of course we could go into lots of petty disputes over the romanticizing of oriental assassination in various literary texts and how pirates dress not for practice,but how well the aparell catches the fellow sailors' amourous attention, however im sure we can come to an agreemnt on the "more important" facts like who Frank Sinatra referenced in an obscure song. Focus people, this is not a Johnny Depp character portrayal popularity contest, this is to decide which career is the best for toy companies to market as a fad for all 6 year old children in 1st world countries.

Hey everybody, please stick to my topic question because me and probably every one else are getting confused about what this discussion is really about. I would really appreciate it.Gogoboi662 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Pirate, trained in Ninjutsu. Gilgamesh Rex 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas, arrrr. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Misplaced Pages editors

What horrifying appeasers.

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of zhwiki seems to be "what a horrifyingly bad article", for what it's worth... Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets just condem communism in general, as a load of bullshit

†he Bread 08:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The IHT was inaccurate and misleading. We've been discussing it on the Chinese Misplaced Pages, and frankly most people are disappointed at this complete misrepresentation of what the Chinese Misplaced Pages really stands for. After all, we've been blocked three times by the Chinese government, but have never made any concessions to them. zh:User:R.O.C has sent an email to the foundation-l mailing list: , listing the inaccuracies in the IHT report. -- ran (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The IHT did a poor job in research, which could have revealed more corrupted entries, more damning facts of zhwiki, and how it gets where it is. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This can be partly due to zh.wiki's small number of active contributors. Not every wikipedia has the luck that en.wiki has enjoyed having so many contributor from all over the world (or, at least, most parts of the world) to make sure NPOV is achieved. On the contrary, zh.wiki does not enjoy such a luxury of a diverse backgrounds of contributors, especially since the PRC's been blocking zh.wiki for such a long time. In fact, only some very controversial articles (which IMO is very few) can receive adequate discussion/editing to achieve NPOV while the majority of articles are mainly done by one person. In that case, I think a certain degree of nonadherence to NPOV policy is expected since NO ONE can have absolute NPOV (IMHO, a person w/ NPOV does not exist), and no one can avoid that and thus are guilty of not adhering to NPOV to some degree. However, finding a non-NPOV point and not changing it is just as bad as writing something that's non-NPOV. In the end, a wikipedia won't be a wikipedia if its contributors which includes everyone, active members or just passers, stops caring about righting the wrong (or alleged non-NPOV, in this case).-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the blog entries by Chinese Misplaced Pages editor Roadrunner, who was interviewed and then found his remarks misrepresented: . -- ran (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a picture wouldn't hurt. brought to you by the Chinese Misplaced Pages. -- ran (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ran, you can still entertain other fellow wikipedians with this misleading report. Admirable. China (that's the PRC in the "western" context) contributes much more to the world than a reminiscence of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. :) Ktsquare (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You bet. Now they even have African's blood on their hand, through Janjaweed militia - a fact you won't see in zhwiki (because of their editorial policy). Meanwhile, they insist Slobodan Milosevic never died, but 'passed away', to show their respect, in NPOV style (Chinese context).--Uponsnow 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, what do you know about zh.wp's editorial policy? Saying "they" don't follow the standard NPOV is a serious accusation, and you better to have plenty of evidence on your hands to back yourself up (FYI the link is http://zh.wikipedia.org).

And who's this "they" anyway? Attributing one single opinion to all of the zh Wikipedians is so convenient. --Lorenzarius 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow: what zh.wiki editorial policies are you talking about? Currently the Chinese Misplaced Pages is the only Misplaced Pages to have begun a translation of the Nangpa La killings article that you've been working on; does that conform to what you believe are zh.wiki's editorial policies? As for Darfur, if you or anyone else wants to write something on the zh.wiki, conforming to the same standards of NPOV as the English Misplaced Pages, please go ahead, no one will mind. -- ran (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I merely want to bring a point across. It's one thing for the IHT to publish a misleading article, which Slashdot promptly spun out of proportion in its discussions. At least you can say that they don't know how Misplaced Pages works. It's another thing for fellow Wikipedians to misunderstand our community as well. We're already been blocked for over a year, and yet we didn't yield... it's horrible to be accused of doing exactly what we've refused to do all this time. -- ran (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you folks already did a good job to appease Chinese Communists. Look at the entry "Hu Jintao": "His modesty impressed 2 Chinese leaders. ... After assuming the post of Secretary-in-general of the Communist Party politburo, Hu visits economically challenged central and west provinces for quite a many times, showing a more open minded and equal-footing image and more concerned with those have-not in reform era." What a eulogy! Need to read further? --Uponsnow 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow, I believe u have misunderstood my point. I meant China becomes or is becoming a nation of global influence, not a global bloodaxe, which IMO your interpretation was. Ktsquare (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wished your way, but reality beats me, squarely. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow: If you want to NPOVize those please go ahead. -- ran (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Leave it as is, as an epitome of Chinese Misplaced Pages under Shizhao and other fanatics in disguise of wikipedians. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's especially scary how Shizhao, being the crazy commie puppet that you think he is, would nominate a supporter of the Taiwanese Pan-Green Coalition for adminship. -- ran (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To Uponsnow: Since you've translated and quoted the Hu JinTao article on zh.wiki so well, why didn't you just change the sentence where you consider it is not NPOV. Isn't it also one of wikipedia's basic function that EVERYONE CAN EDIT; therefore, if you didn't like it, you should've changed it or bring it up to its discussion page so that other people can change it. As of your comment on zh.wiki's NPOV policy, I can guarantee you that most people on zh.wiki adheres to this policy strictly. As a contributor to Chinese Misplaced Pages, I take this policy seriously whenever I'm editing an article. BTW, I have slightly changed those sentences in "Hu Jintao" article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention ALL THE WAY here at En.Wiki.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. There are 2 reason: 1.Don't you think I have tried, not once, but twice? You just can't beat a determined oxymoron. 2. How many Chinese-speaking people would try to get to know who is Hu by reading Misplaced Pages? For readers it can result no harms. But it harms Misplaced Pages! In case you are really concerned. --Uponsnow 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to NPOVize it. First of all, I'm glad that you actually did try to change it , and it's unfortunate that you met a determined editor on zh.wiki. Nonetheless, it shouldn't have stopped you from NPOVize it. Changing it directly isn't the only way. There is always other routes, and you just need to give it a try. Second of all, I agree with you that non-NPOV can definitely harm Misplaced Pages, and that's why we need to change it. Misplaced Pages is about accumulating any knowledge that all people share. In this case, it does not matter the number of readers for Hu's article now, because, if not now, someday there will be someone who's unfamiliar with Hu JinTao and decided to find out some more about him. By then, that will be the true value of Misplaced Pages.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikopoley: Thanks for changing it.

Uponsnow: Please don't let one edit war mar your opinion of Misplaced Pages. Shizhao may come off as being confrontational sometimes, but he would never intentionally dig up the NPOV policy. Nor is zh.Misplaced Pages ruled by one person: out of 83 sysops, just 29 are from Mainland China, and a quick glance through their user pages reveal diverse political stances. As for the Hu Jintao article on the Chinese Misplaced Pages, I'll help keep an eye on it, if you prefer. -- ran (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ran, I fear that you could be easily overloaded. For instance, Chinese Misplaced Pages claims that Tibet was peacefully liberated by Chinese in 50s. Yet the opinion of how peaceful it was from those on the receiving end of the liberation, is conspicuously missing, as a result of dodged edit war. Like in almost every time, the Russian-speaking Zhwiki Czar won the battle, by design. You can insist that Tibet was peacefully liberated, like your fellow Chinese do, but it's shame for silencing others who do not subscribe to your version of truth and still claim that Chinese Wiki adheres to high standard of NPOV. Shizhao cannot fool all the people all the time.
  --Uponsnow 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that you say:"Chinese Misplaced Pages claims that Tibet was peacefully liberated ". The only mentioning of word "peacefully liberated" 和平解放 in the article zh:西藏, is the title of the agreement signed by Chinese central government and Tibet Authority, which reads:"Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet ". About the military conflict prior to that agreement, comparing to the English version, Chinese version actually has lot more words to say :" 1950年10月7日，由军官王其美率领的解放军四万余人分八路向康区首府昌都发起进攻，很快就打败了只有八千余人的西藏军队。两天后攻克昌都。俘去多麦总管阿沛　阿旺晋美和其随行人员，打死四千余西藏军人。1950年10月7日，西藏政府呈交联合国秘书长的报告：“西藏人民已清楚无力阻当中国军队的前进，西藏人已应允与中国政府进行和谈。虽然长久热爱和平的西藏人民欲要战胜熟练于战争的中国军队的希望并不大，但是，我们相信在世界的任何地方，只要发生侵略行为，联合国是必定会帮助予以抗击的." Roughly translate as: Oct. 7, 1950, 40K PLA troops attacked Changdu, easily defeated 8000 Tibetan army, captured governor, killed 4000 Tibetan combatant. Oct 7 1950, Tibetan government submited a report to UN secretary general saying:"Tibetan people can no longer resist chinese troops' advance. Tibetan has agreed to hold peace negotiation with chinese goverment. although peace loving tibetan people is no rival with chinese army, we believe UN would step in to help once agression happens"." Other than this paragraph, there is no mentioning of peace/peaceful elsewhere in the article. I'm curious to understand how you came to you conclusion. - munford 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, I never suggest that the bias came from sysops' national origin. The most senior sysop from Taiwan once claims that Taiwan has 'no legal ground to be independent from China'(sic). That ends the story. He played a key role to delete dissenting views to ensure his interpretation of NPOV. You need to imagine what it is? --Uponsnow 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went and read this discussion. Anyone who reads Chinese can read the same discussion here at zh:Talk:西藏问题. For those who can't read Chinese, here's a rough summary:

Shizhao: A lot of Chinese people feel that Tibet is the way it is only because it depends on the central government for financial support.

Theodoranian: So are you saying that since Taiwan doesn't depend on China for financial support, therefore it has the right to independence?

Theodoranian (the Taiwanese sysop you speak of) was using Reductio ad absurdum. He took Shizhao's point, extended it logically and arrived at a conclusion that Shizhao may not agree with, thereby showing the inconsistency in Shizhao's original point. In other words, Theodoranian was not arguing that Taiwan has no right to independence, in fact Theodoranian just rebutted one of the main reasons why people say Tibet can't be independent. In addition, his edits and comments elsewhere on Misplaced Pages show a consistent loyalty to his country, the Republic of China on Taiwan.

So not only have you twisted Theodoranian's point around, not only did you push away someone who was supporting your point of view (Tibetan Independence), you also insulted his loyalty to Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You were so close to reveal the real mindset of Theodoranian! Yes, I was referring to the same quote of him. But you missed in how Reductio ad absurdum is employed in debate. The logic extention part is supposed to reach a conclusion which is obviously absurd to everyone! So Theodoranian, a Taiwanese, seems to think Taiwan's independence is absurd, and he thinks it's agreed by all. He is not alone (in Taiwan). He is certainly entitled to his belief, but he should not let this mindset unduely influence his edit decision. That's my concern. --Uponsnow 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Theodoranian arrived at a conclusion that may be absurd to Shizhao. In other words, he presents Shizhao with a choice:

• Either continue to hold on to the link between independence and economic dependence, and admit that Taiwan can be independent;
• Or admit that there is no link between independence and economic dependence, and lose a major point in arguing against Tibetan Independence.

This does not mean that Theodoranian himself rejects Taiwanese independence, in fact his actions and words elsewhere speak strongly of his patriotism towards the Republic of China (Taiwan); all it means is that Theodoranian is showing Shizhao the contradiction in Shizhao's POV. After all, if Theodoranian were so hostile to independence movements, then why would he be arguing against Shizhao here? Why did Theodoranian begin his point by saying: "There is no link between independence and economic dependence?"

I also fail to see how pushing away Theodoranian, who is clearly arguing for Tibetan Independence here, helps you or the international Tibetan Independence movement. Not only did you deprive yourself of a potential ally in future debates, you're also depriving the Chinese Misplaced Pages of a potential advocate of Tibetan freedom.

Ever since you started insinuating on the Village Pump of the Chinese Misplaced Pages that Theodoranian is somehow a PRC lackey, Theodoranian has been asking for an apology from you, for publicly attacking his loyalty to his own country. I suggest that you apologize to him. -- ran (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this thread is still running, I'd just like to say how honored I felt the day I discovered that a Chinese language editor translated my work at Joan of Arc. Thank you. I'd love to see more Chinese biographies become featured articles in English. I'm an admirer of Chinese poetry (which must lose a great deal in the versions I'm able to read). I realize we're all volunteers, yet may I make a request for Li Bai? Regards, Durova 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did this in zh.wikipedia

• A photo depicting Chinese soldiers' killing of defenseless Tibetan refugees has been promptly deleted, after it was voted down out of 'copyright concerns', though it's properly credited under 'fair use' clause. A similar one from the same source stays fine in en.wikipedia. --Uponsnow 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to an Admin on Zh.wiki, this photo was deleted because it was submitted under "fair use" licensing and someone submitted it to vfd. Because no one voted to oppose deletion of the photo during the 7 days period of voting, it was deleted by an admin after 7 days. Everything was done according to procedure. If you believe it was a mistake, it will be nice if you upload it again, and vote to oppose deletion in case it's submited for vfd again. Btw, is the similar photo on en.wiki fair use also? or is it under free license? If it's under free license, why don't you upload it to commons. It's always nice to put free licnese stuff in commons.. :) -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've already explained on the Chinese Misplaced Pages, the sysops deleted the picture because it did not meet the requirements for fair use. They did not remove any wording from the article Nangpa La killings, nor did they remove any of the numerous links at the bottom of the article to various news reports, photos, and videos. In other words, the picture was deleted according to Misplaced Pages's copyright policies, not what you perceive to be politically motivated censorship. -- ran (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, why is that picture there in the English version of Nangpa La killings? It might be nice for someone to email the photographer and ask for permission to use his Nangpa La-related pictures on all Wikimedia projects. This way you'll be able to upload to both English and Chinese Misplaced Pages. -- ran (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, we all know what's happening in Chinese Wiki. These selective enforcement of 'policy' can take many forms, and we all know what those sysops are really targeting. Since when those Chinese suddenly start to respect other's copyright? Come on, give me a break! You must be joking to yourself if you believe they are not trying to appease the Chinese communists. --Uponsnow 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Chinese Misplaced Pages is trying to "appease the communists", then why haven't they tried to remove the entire article about the Nangpa La killings altogether? Why haven't they tried to remove the numerous links to eyewitness accounts, photographs, and videos found at the bottom of the article? What is wrong with deleting an image that violates the copyright policy shared by all versions of Misplaced Pages, English or Chinese? And doesn't the fact that I suggested a way to ask for permission from the original author to use the photo on Misplaced Pages, mean anything to you? Honestly, why do you look for motives when there is none?

We've always taken copyright just as seriously on the Chinese Misplaced Pages as the English Misplaced Pages. The Chinese Misplaced Pages is not a reflection of the government of the People's Republic of China, whether in copyright policy or political slant. -- ran (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To Uponsnow:I don't think this photo has a correct license template. According to Explorersweb's policy, everything on its website should be All Rights Reserved. I don't konw who put the {{cc-by-2.0}} license there but it still does not make it OK to put it on wikipedia. Therefore, I think the Admins on zh.wiki did a legitimate deletion of the photo. Btw, I will submit this photo for deletion here, too, and this has nothing to do with the content. It's just because incorrectly licensed photo, especially unfree content, cannot be used on wikipedia. -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 06:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A real article from the Chinese Misplaced Pages: one of the many reasons why we are blocked by the government (updated: this article has been in the "Did you know?" section on the main page of the Chinese Misplaced Pages)

This article alone is enough to get us blocked, forever, by the Chinese government. And it's merely one of many such articles. We have been blocked since October 2005. We have appealed to no effect. But we have not changed our policies in any way, unlike say Google or Yahoo.

From zh:囊帕拉槍殺事件

Intro

囊帕拉槍殺事件是指2006年9月30日中國邊防武警向企圖穿越西藏與尼泊爾邊境上的囊帕拉山口（海拔5700米，一譯朗喀巴山口）、出境前往尼泊爾的75名西藏逃亡者開槍射擊並至少打死兩人的流血事件。

The Nangpa La killings refer to a deadly incident on September 30, 2006, in which Chinese border military police fired on 75 Tibetan refugees attempting to cross Nangpa La Pass (altitude 5700m) between Tibet and Nepal and head to Nepal, killing at least two.

逃亡者中包括年幼的兒童和兩名帶路的嚮導。2006年9月30日，據目擊者和逃亡者稱，中國西藏邊防武警總隊日喀則大隊定日中隊在沒有預警的情況下，向這些試圖徒步穿越山口的藏人開槍射擊，17歲（有報導稱23歲）的Kelsang Namtso（女）被子彈當場擊中，在山口前死亡。另一名23歲藏人Kunsang Namgyal（男）被兩次擊中腿部後倒下，由武警帶走，事後中國當局承認Kunsang Namgyal死亡。

Among the refugees were young children and two guides. On Sept 30, 2006, the Tingri squadron of the Shigatse brigade of the Tibet border military police detachment, China, fired without any warning on these Tibetans who were attempting to cross the pass on foot, according to eyewitnesses and refugees. Kelsang Namtso, female, 17 (some reports say 23) was hit by gunfire, and died in front of the pass. Another 23-year-old Tibetan, Kunsang Namgyal (male) was hit on the leg twice and fell, and taken away by military police. The Chinese regime later admitted that Kunsang Namgyal had died.

中國當局聲稱，士兵開槍是出於「自衛」。這一聲稱與現場西方目擊者的陳詞有矛盾。事後，41名幸存者抵達位於尼泊爾首都加德滿都的「西藏難民中轉中心」。兩周以後，幸存者抵達目的地印度達蘭薩拉。

The Chinese regime claims that the soldiers fired out of "self-defense". This claim contradicts the testimony of Western witnesses at the scene. Afterwards, 41 survivors arrived at the "Tibetan Refugee Reception Center" in the Nepali capital Kathmandu. Two weeks later, the survivors arrived in Dharamsala, India.

Excerpts

一些外國登山者向外界發佈了照片和視頻，私下或者公開提供了目擊者證詞。這些圖像包括中國士兵押送未能逃脫的幸存者（包括未成年的藏人）列隊經過卓奧友峰先頭大本營的情形。視頻片段包括武警戰士對正在遠去的非武裝藏人平民進行長距離狙擊式射擊。

Some foreign mountaineers sent their photos and videos to the outside world, and gave witness testimony either publicly or privately. These images include Chinese soldiers escorting under custody survivors who could not escape (including Tibetan children) in file through the Cho Oyo forward base camp. Videos depict military police sniping, at a great distance, unarmed Tibetan civilians moving away from them.

我看到一隊西藏人向山口進發，這是司空見慣的，因為每一年的這段時間是通商時節。然後，毫無預警地，槍聲大作，一輪，一輪，又一輪。隊伍開始朝山上逃散，這裡海拔是19000英尺。看起來，中國軍隊得到密報說有人逃亡，於是帶槍出現了。目睹隊伍在雪地上蜿蜒奔命，槍聲四起，我們注意到兩個人形仆倒。望遠鏡下就清楚了：兩人倒下，沒有再起來。

The above is a direction translation from anonymous testimony in English:
I saw a line of Tibetans heading towards the start of the pass - a common sight. Then, without warning, shots rang out. Over, and over and over. Then the line of people started to run uphill. Watching the line snake off through the snow, as the shots rang out, we saw two shapes fall. The binoculars confirmed it: two people were down, and they weren’t getting up.

Sergiu Matei對媒體表示：「我把他（槍擊幸存者）帶進帳篷，給了他極地保暖毯和一雙襪子。我沒拍下來，我不想再回去，只希望他穿越山口，不要成為那些嗜血的中國人的活靶子。我給了他一些牛奶和爆米花。然後我告訴他得儘快離開，因為中國軍人在搜捕兩名失蹤的藏人，很可能會搜查帳篷。我給他指了穿越冰川的捷徑，他就上路了。他穿越槽口的時間大約是凌晨兩點。」

The above is a direct translation from the English original of Sergiu Matei's testimony:
"I took him into our mess tent and gave him one polar fleece and a pair of socks that Cosmina had bought for me. I don't know why I didn't film the scene – I just didn’t seem relevant for me back then; all I could think of was to see that guy crossing Nangpa La without becoming a practice-target for the blood-thirsty Chinese boys. I went again in the tent and gave him some milk and cornflakes. Then I told him to leave as soon as possible, since the militia was on the prowl after two missing Tibetans and they might search the camps looking for him. Thirty minutes later I showed him the shortest way across the glacier, and off he went towards what they call their spiritual father. He crossed the col at around 2 am."

To Uponsnow (zh:User:澍子, who wrote this article and made it even more detailed than the English version, I express my gratitude and respect, for making the Chinese Misplaced Pages an avenue for freedom of expression. I also ask Uponsnow to reflect on the fact that to date, no sysop on the Chinese Misplaced Pages has tried to delete this article or compromise its truth or neutrality in any way. I understand that you're angry towards the policies of the Chinese government, censorship or worse, but this article alone should elucidate the fact that the Chinese Misplaced Pages is NO PART OF IT.

-- ran (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is why Misplaced Pages HAS been blocked by PRC government for a long long time. But who cares about what PRC gov't thinks, keep up the good work!!;) -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: this article is now in the "Did you know" box in the main page of the Chinese Misplaced Pages. -- ran (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ran, I believe what Chinese Wiki needs most to restore its credibility is NOT such a stunt show with limited PR value, but rudimentary change of altitute. Currently its editing policy is carried out in a way hostile to contributors who dare to differ from Beijing regime. This saddens me most. --Uponsnow 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this "stunt show", so to speak, hostile to you? When you created the Nangpa La killings article on the Chinese Misplaced Pages, what hostility did you meet, other than the deletion of the image that you uploaded with no permission (and I should say that it is I who emailed the original author and obtained permission to use it on both the English and Chinese Wikipedias?) Why is it a user like 台灣少年, a declared Pan-Green supporter, can get nominated as sysop by none other than your scary commie bogeyman Shizhao (he would have been elected 9-0-0 had he not declined due to real life commitments)? The hostility you have met is the result of your own confrontational attitude, your own propensity for accusing people like Theodoranian of being PRC lackeys when nothing could be further from the truth, and not because of your political views. -- ran (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a typical, well-written Chinese Misplaced Pages article: History of Taiwan. Please tell me how this article, which claims the following things, panders to the Beijing Regime:

• As late as the Ming Dynasty, Taiwan was regarded as foreign territory;
• The Ming Dynasty did not object to the Dutch colonization of Taiwan, because it was foreign;
• The first time Taiwan became Chinese territory was in 1683, not the 3rd century as Chinese history books like to imply;
• The Qing Dynasty initially wanted to give up Taiwan after conquering it in 1683;
• Much of Taiwan's modernization can be attributed to Japanese colonization;
• The Republic of China continued to be the government of Taiwan after 1949 (and not the "Republic of China" with quotes, the "Kuomintang regime", the "Taiwan authority", or whatever other contrived name the People's Republic of China likes to use);
• That the Taiwanese population is generally hostile to the Anti-Secession Law passed by the PRC in 2005, and took to the streets to express their determination to protect Taiwanese sovereignty

-- ran (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they wrote this in zh.wikipedia

• Under zh:中国地质大学(China Geology University), zh.wikipedia goes: "In 1978 it restored its operation in Beijing on the approval of Comrade Deng Xiaoping... Its first president was Liu Xing, a Proletariat Revolutionary and Educator." --Uponsnow 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why this article has a NPOV template on the top of it. Once again, Please edit it as you see anything that is incorrect, and suport it with reference. I believe you can find something like this happening on any wikipedia. Such a thing is part of wikipedia's nature while edit out wrong info as you see it is how we build wikipedia up.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't you think it's just the tip of the iceberg? Such unscrupulous propaganda inundates Chinese Wiki, though it's against stated policy even from language style point of view. That's why I call Howard French's poorly researched essay newsworthy - it at least raises a legitimate issue. --Uponsnow 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This "tip of the iceberg" is currently tagged with an NPOV tag, which is an indication that the Chinese Misplaced Pages community in general finds that article to be of an unacceptable quality. There are plenty of such flawed articles on every version of Misplaced Pages. If you feel strongly about it, you should take the time to change it yourself. -- ran (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To Uponsnow: It is the tip of the iceberg, there are more out there that needs our attention, and they grow more and more everyday. Good thing someone has already smelled the iceberg by putting NPOV template on it; otherwise the wikiTANIC will soon hit the iceberg and sink. It is unfortunate that if wikiTANIC ever should sink, so many good people on it would die, too, just like poor Jack Dawson. It's always sad to see good people die.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Persuasive Essay Outline for College

I have to do an outline, and I am not to sure what is meant by sub-details in reference to supporting details. Can someone please explain this to me. I would greatly appreciate it. Thankyou

Undue Mormon influence and excess of LDS content on Wiki

I am astonished at the amount of Mormon content on Wiki. Please see this list:

List_of_articles_about_Mormonism

Every minute aspect of the Mormon Church, its history, and mythology has its own article. While these topics are undoubtedly important to Mormons, many of them are not notable enough (or based on anything but Mormon mythology) to be included in a general interest encyclopedia.

Many Mormon myths are also written as 'fact'.

Journey to the Promised Land - Mahonri_Moriancumer

Moriancumer was then instructed to build "barges" or boats. After building the boats, Moriancumer worried about how the insides of the boats would be lit during their journey across the sea. The Lord told Moriancumer he should figure out a way to light the boats, and so he produced sixteen stones from molten rock, two for each ship, and they were white and clear, just like transparent glass. Moriancumer then asked the Lord to touch each stone he had made so they would shine in the darkness.

The Mormon church was just busted for editing one of their own articles as well. I am concerned that Wiki is being misused by well-meaning Mormons whose membership in the Mormon Church colors their sensibilities as to what content is sufficiently notable to non-Mormons to merit inclusion. Isn't the Wiki software available free if they want to create the definative encyclopedia on Mormons, instead creating it on Wiki?

Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least we can categorize these things as myths, and cite some of the historical debunking of Mormon claims. --BenBurch 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several possible solutions to this. One is tagging articles with problematic content with {{verify}} or {{pov}}. Another is trying to improve the articles yourself by identifying some of that content as church doctrine rather than historical fact - but if you choose to do so, please be considerate of other editors who may object, and try to avoid shifting the article's POV to an anti-Mormon one. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am supportive of making any article better on wikipedia. This interest is focused upon making Misplaced Pages better. If articles have merit they should remain; if they do not they should be deleted. This happens daily on WIkipedia, no? Mr. Darcy's counsel is both wise and helpful for all editors. I also appreciate that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. I anxiously await each of you editors going to the Jesus and Christainity articles, just for starters, and labeling them mythology. After I see that successful effort I will lead the charge with you. If you are not willing to do that, I would appreciate having a more indepth conversation on individual motivations. It would strongly improve the assumption of good faith that I possess.

Please tell me what "busted" means and how it applies. Who got "busted", how were they "busted", and who was the "buster"? I would encourage you to drop this quality verbage from your lexicon when referring to other editors or groups; it engenders hostility and contention. Please also show me any article where NPOV does not come into play given the diverse caliber of participating editors. Citing one example becomes almost laughable given the daily editing that goes on. Please set down the axe and just help to make articles better wherever your expertise and interests rests. Cheers. Storm Rider 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus article has been so-categorized. As will all of the Mormon myths. --BenBurch 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MrDarcy. Let wikipedia process work for itself - improve articles that are junk - whether Mormon-related or not. Don't just censor articles because you don't agree with their religious beliefs.

I see no verbiage in the Mahonri Moriancumer article that is not found in Hermione Granger, Uncle Tom, or Huck Finn or other "character"-type articles. I think most wikipedians are smart enough to understand and recognize faith-based and religious articles discussing people - from Xenu to Job (Biblical figure) to Jesus - especially where there is a question of historicity.

As for the claim that Mormons have too much influence on Misplaced Pages - that is discrimination at its best. No other segment of people are singled out - from Star Trek fans to Blacks to Catholics. Misplaced Pages editors can (and should) write about topics of interest to them. Latter Day Saints, including those who are not LDS or Mormon can write about any topic of interest to them, and if the community thinks that it doesn't meet standards, articles are removed. However, the bulk of articles about Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement are not only encyclopedic and well-written, but most editors go out of their way to get non-LDS folks to help balance any possible NPOV that could creep in to the articles. The WP:LDS has been very good at recruiting non-Mormons to help and have had a history of doing so since 2003 (and I'd venture to say that about half of the editors who contribute sigfinicant content on LDS-related articles are not LDS). LDS editors have also supported their fair share of deletions of Mormon-related content that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia or cited at wikipedia. For sure, not "Every minute aspect of the Mormon Church, its history, and mythology" is included at Misplaced Pages. Not even close.

I would also like more information about "The Mormon church was just busted for editing one of their own articles as well." I've heard nothing of it, and think this is a myth. Not even their PR firm (edleman) has bandwith to worry about wikipedia. -Visorstuff 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see here LDS church involvement in editing? - F.A.A.F.A. 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. respectfully, I believe your conclusions are incorrect, however. And I should have guessed how that was dug up. According to these two sites, Geobytes, ip2location and the IP address accused of being from the Church (216.49.181.128) is located in Iowa. Another locator says its in Salt Lake here- so there is some question about location. In any case, even if it was someone working at church headquarters, that doesn't make their edits non-valid. Nor does it make their edits official. Is everything you post from your office official from your company? Most of the users edits have been spelling and grammar changes , and the editor has been warned about the perception of their editing . Church public affairs is done by Edleman public relations, and this editor would be not be officially clarifying anything, as that is not a job of church employees, other than the Public Affairs dept, which responds to criticism via their newsroom (see the hundreds of releases at LDS.org) or to reporters, as general policy. Organizations such as FAIR or FARMS do apologetics online of their own choice and is not official (neither would be coming in from this location. I wouldn't say that is any evidence that the church was "busted" for editing their own articles. In any case, the user has only had one post since the warning of the perception appeared. On the other hand, I think this accusation shows a lack of understanding on how the LDS church works. just my $0.02. -Visorstuff 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging around. The IP address is owned by the church - the address comes from the offices of "property reserve," the group that manages all church real estate (its counterpart is Intellectual Reserve which owns church copyrights and communications equiptment). I doubt property managers decide church responses to wikipedia. -Visorstuff 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this Misplaced Pages whois report says just the opposite: the address resolves to NameServer: NS1.INTELLECTUALRESERVEINC.ORG. Duke53 | 02:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said 'busted for editing their own article'. My apologies. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have been fairer to say that someone from that location was making edits; some of the edits went far beyond "spelling and grammar changes" ... they were simply wholesale deletions of content, without comment. Duke53 | 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, someone please explain how Visor stating that the IP address is owned by the LDS church, works under "property reserve" with a counterpart of Intellectual Reserve is the opposite of which states it is owned by "IntellectualReserve". Anyone please explain how the same thing is the opposite of itself? I love this type of logic it makes for stories where truth becomes strange than fiction. Storm Rider 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So they have been editing their own articles. Not a problem, I say, but apparently they're introducing some POV problems. -Patstuart 05:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All we can say for sure from the evidence is that some person posted some edits to LDS-related articles from an IP address owned by the LDS church, and those edits are generally agreed to violate NPOV. Whether the person intended to represent the official church position, or had authority to do so, is questionable and, in light of Visorstuff's research showing the internal assignment of that IP address to the property management arm of the church, highly unlikely. Occam's Razor suggests that it's an individual employee acting on their own, pushing their own POV, and ceasing their behavior after having been warned. There's no evidence that there's a "they" in this, if "they" means the church authorities. alanyst 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"... in light of Visorstuff's research showing the internal assignment of that IP address to the property management arm of the church". I have seen no evidence showing that this 'internal assignment' is true; he's claiming it to be true, but not showing it.