Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Smith's (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 17 April 2007 (→Your recent edits to []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Jung Chang on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Dina 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

Your recent editing history at Jung Chang shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. John Smith's 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)