![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jin Jing be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
If anyone here understands Chinese, this page may have more information about Jin Jing. Feel free to draw information from it (and cite it as your source) to contribute to Wikipedia. Aridd ( talk) 11:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed an incorrect mention of French media. The source linked to is not French media: it's the website of the Chinese torch relay organisers, in French. The source is Chinese, even though it's in the French language. Second, I've checked all the articles on Jin in the Chinese media, and, unless I've missed something, there's no mention of her bleeding. A reference to that needs to be provided, or it needs to be deleted. Aridd ( talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this entire article meets Wikipedia's standards, I thought Wikipedia was banned in China? (HK, Macau excluded) The entire Personal Life section should be considered for deletion ... "Her hobbies include reading magazine on fashion and novels, singing songs and playing Badminton and Table Tennis." blahblahblah ... not important people such as Napoleon, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Nero, and Mao don't have their hobbies listed, so why should this girl? To me this article reads like someone writing an article for their favorite band, in another language, with the sole purpose of promoting the band. For me Jin Jing having an article that is nearly the same length as Korean Astronaut Yi So-yeon (WHOM IS CURRENTLY TACKED ON THE MAIN PAGE) is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose this article does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards and as such be slated for deletion. I have noticed no other article for any member of the China Olympic Wheelchair fencing team. It seems to me that the Jin Jing acticle was put in place to put a spin on the recent protest events and for little else. Outside of the torchbearing "incident" there is little substance to this article. Why no article on other members of her team? Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Oiboy77
She is famous in China. That's the reason for the existence of this article. other member of her team are not as famous as her.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
She is famous in China as the CCTV media has made her a martyr in recent news broadcasts. The press spin was showing and I quote directly from CCTV9 "See how these vile Tibetan Separatists Attack an innocent disabled athlete". If she was not used as a tool to garner national outrage and nationalism what was? Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Translation of previous comment: 她是著名的在中国因为CCTV 媒介做了她一个受难者在最近新闻广播。新闻旋转显示并且我引述直接地从CCTV9 "看见怎么这些卑鄙的西藏分离主义者攻击一位无辜的残疾运动员" 。如果她未被使用因为工具获取全国暴行和民族主义什么是? Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What you said "If she was not used as a tool to garner national outrage and nationalism what was?" is POV. Chinese people think she is heoric.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is why I'm using a talk page as my comment may be construed as POV . I edited the article to change protests against the torch relay. People were protesting against Human Rights Issues, they were not against the torch relay in itself.Not all were "pro-tibetan" Many were against the media restrictions put on the Chinese people, Lack of transparency of media from entering Tibet during the uprising, many are upset about china's position in Darfur, Myanmar, and Taiwan. Many are upset on their treatment of the Falung Gong and Catholics . It is a gross misrepresentation to call all protesters Tibetan supporters as you did on my talk page.-- Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that she is heoric. They were pro-tibetan, not as you said against human rights.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the photos that Jin Jing was attacked by some pro-tibetan people? Do you think those guys were not pro-tibetan?-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have locked the article until some concensus can come about from other Wikipedians. I will leave it in its current state until a viable consensus can be established. Then a admin can remove the lock. Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have the right to lock the article.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging an article's notability from one's political view of its subject is POV issue ,a serious violation of wiki policies. Furthermore, opinions of any individual editor on why she became famous is original research, and therefore bears no direct relation to the topic. Editing this article according to one's analysis on the topic is inappropriate. See WP:NOR. Helloterran ( talk) 05:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jin Jing is notable. As The Guardian (a British newspaper) puts it, she "has rocketed to national fame" in China." This.
The idea that this page should be deleted is laughable. It should be cleaned up, fixed with photographs, and discussion should be added about the impact on China and Chinese perceptions of the Torch relay. It's new enough that even google lacks pictures of her unless you already know her name in Hanzi (and even then, they're very simple, common characters) and wikipedia is one of the first places people will go to find out about this story. It's on drudge. It's news. And it should not be going *anywhere*. People attacking a wheelchair-bound woman was a *major* mistake for the torch protesters. - jowfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.101.173 ( talk) 11:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What Jin Jing did was guarding the torch. Guarding is not POV. It's the fact.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The protestors were mainly pro-tibetan. Several persons who attacked Jin Jing were also pro-tibetan. The term "protests against China's human rights records" is not fully true.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
First, this is absolutely non-sense to use the term "similar event" to compare Villiers-Le-Bel and the riots in Tibet. To begin with I didn't hear about police or army shooting down people in Villiers, and yet people there were far from pacific or quiet. And secondly, when the international community was watching us, and denouncing the 'messy' way our governement dealt with the situation, sometimes with strong terms, there was no one in France to demonstrate in the streets to claim our governement was right, that others countries weren't 'fully aware of the situation' and that in fact everything was ok. That was about Villiers. And concerning the "mainly pro-tibetan protestors", I guess you've never seen any video of Paris or been there that day: In France the debate and protestations were mainly about human rights: See the huge banners with the handcuffs replacing the olympic rings. They were on the eiffel tower, on our cathedral Notre Dame, on tshirts, bridges, cars, flags and so on. Most of the associations (RSF, amnesty....), were mobilized to fight for human rights. I have no exact proportion to give you but what I want to explain is that it was far from being an exclusively pro-tibetan demonstration. And even concerning those you name pro-tibetans, there must be no confusion between independance in Tibet, and asking for the respect of human life and human rights in Tibet. I was there and i discussed with many "protibetans", and they weren't asking for independance (that they knew to be irrealistic), but wanted Tibet to be able to have its voice heard, and people there to live freely without theirs right and lives ignored. -- Le lannister ( talk) 01:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture used within the article is Copyrighted to Getty Images. Use without their permission on Wikipedia is forbidden. Its not free use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiboy77 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture has been released by the author Yang Zhen Dong under GFDL. I have added it into the article.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Jin Jing is very famous in China now. Billions of Chinese people support her and call her an angel. There're many reports on her, see the references in the article. Please keep this article.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Billions of Chinese people? I thought there were only 1.3 billion. And as I said before, Chinese people can't read wikipedia on the mainland. A short concise article on Jin Jing is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 09:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are billions of Chinese people on this Earth, see the article Han Chinese, 1.2 billion in China, and others around the world, in France, in USA. Even considering the number 1.3 billion, it's more than one billion and we can say billions. I think Chinese people can read wikipedia on the mainland. But even they can't, this is still not the reason to write a short article on Jin Jing as you claimed. Even Chinese people can't read this article on the mainland, they still call Jin Jing an angel. You can't simply ignore the opinions of billions of people. Wikpedia is not just for western people, it's for the whole world. This article is in English, but it's not only for people who speak English as native language. Otherwise you should go to wikipedia.org.uk or wikipedia.org.us.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for criticizing mistakes with English grammar, I agree that the information itself is the most important thing. However, I was recently in China and I know that www.wikipedia.com will NOT load in China, because I tried it when I was there about 8 months ago. I was also in Hong Kong and Macau, and in both places wikipedia.com was available. I don't debate the necessity of a short article on Jin Jing, but I don't think there should be an article that seemingly glorifies her minor participation in a current event with global implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.199.3 ( talk) 18:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I don't agree with you that her participation is minor. At least one fifth of the whole population of human beings on this planet are touched by this pretty young girl. How dare you to say that one fifth of the whole population of human beings on this planet are minor? I also don't agree with you that this article in wikipedia is to glorify Jin Jing. I'm a fan of Jin Jing, but I'm also a user of wikipedia and I understand the policy of NPOV. This article is to introduce Jin Jing to the readers of wikipedia around the world. There are informations criticizing Jin Jing by western media in this article. The readers themselves will have their own opinion on Jin Jing after getting the voices of all sides from this article. Jin Jing glorifies herself by herself, not by others, not by fans like me, not by critic like you, not by the article in wikipedia.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jin Jing's personal life is important to show here. That's an essential part of a human being.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopaedias are not concerned with whom reads fashion magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
One example, Lance Armstrong also has his personal life.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page to comment on the eligibility of this for DYK. It looks well-referenced, and may indeed be long enough. I'll have to check. But first its editors need to come up with a suitable hook. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article looks good now, although Jin Jing's fencing career isn't that notable. Maybe User: Jingandteller can elaborate on the competitors that finished in first place in these events, if he or she is avid to contribute to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Jin Jing's fencing career is not that notable. I can't find more materials on her career. I'd like to work together with you all to write a high level and NPOV article on Jin Jing.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to include information on the other competitors in the fencing competition. Jin Jing is covered, but what about the other fencers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.199.3 ( talk) 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Do it please. Talks are cheap.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
His analysis on chinese state media's reaction to this incident is based on a hidden preconception. If you read carefully you will notice that no matter what kind of reports come from the chinese side(except they don't report it at all), similar criticism can always be imposed upon them, and that makes his conclusion impossible to refute. What is critical is that, Mr. York actually accused chinese media of stirring "patriotic sentiment" with neither solid evidence, nor essential reasoning at all. What he tried to deliver was not that chinese media changed their decision, but that this whole incident is used as a propaganda by chinese government, therefore bears no notability. Just count how many wiki policies it violates. I moved it to the external links, as that's where his words fits best. Helloterran ( talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Listing the author (either the name, eg. "Smith, John" or the agency, eg. "AAP") might be worthwhile. Daniel ( talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately this article is NOT neutral. Apparently sources from reliable Western media like the Globe & Mail are labelled as speculations and personal opinions, whereas state controlled media from China or media that conforms to the viewpont of the CCP like Sinovision are used sources for dubious claims. Furthermore, a forum like anti-cnn is not a realiable source at all and violates Wikipedia policy, see WP:RS. The article claims that she protected the flame and suffered injuries - just check the video and you will see that French police officers protected her, and the claim that she suffered injuries seems at least dubious according to the video materials. Furthermore there is no mention of that Jin Jing has become a propaganda tool for the CCP, with China as the victim and Tibetan and Western protesters as the perpretators. All this belongs in the article, Wikipedia is not Xinhua or the People's Daily. Dassiebtekreuz ( talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, please read that source carefully. York never wrote that the Jin Jing incident specifically was initially censored by the Chinese government. He was referring to reports of the protests in London and Paris in general. If anything the York source belongs on the article about the torch relay itself. Secondly, that piece of writing is a horrible opinion piece from a random writer who is apparently not very notable. If the Chinese government had kept news of the torch relay protests censored, people like York would be writing opinion pieces criticising the censorship. Of course, since the Chinese government did not censor news of the torch relay protests, people like York feel the need to write about how the Chinese government used news media to brainwash Chinese people. Thirdly, Chinese news sources, despite being state-owned, absolutely need to be used as sources - not because their content represent facts and truth, but because their content represent the views of the Chinese government. On the other hand the views of one Geoffrey York is quite irrelevant. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the cited blog, unfortunately the writer tried to convince his readers by including ungrounded assumptions and already refuted material. The photo of chinese military police carrying tibetan clothing was use by Dalai as a proof of beijing's attempt to fabricate evidence. But it has been clarified that this photo was taken in summer 2002, when those policemen participated in the making of the movie The Touch. The uniforms in that picture match neither the current style nor the current season. Further more, while most chinese don't even know what the tibetan flag looks like, the blogger seems to base his reasoning on the assumption that every chinese involved in the Paris torch purposefully played a role in some sort of Goebbels style agitprop. That said, the credibility of this reference is seriously impaired, and it should be removed. Helloterran ( talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason why we don't write about some random blog, and then use the blog itself as a source for the content, is because of WP:Undue weight. Basically anybody can write a blog to say whatever he or she wants. Why should it be mentioned at all??? What makes the blog writer's opinions matter? What if I wrote a blog about why that blog is completely wrong? Should we include that then? This is the gist of why we should not include this "agent provocateur" stuff. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And how can Geoffrey York's words be marked as reliable and nertral, when there's neither third party reference nor proper reasoning at all? Did he mention that he had "reliable" source inside chinese government to feed him details of their every single decision? A reporter sees what and writes why, that's their job. But for the neutrality of wiki we must distinguish these two foundamentally different element. Helloterran ( talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
source is provided. Novidmarana ( talk) 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
lets see:
^ a b c d Chang, Guoshui and Xiang, Lei “最美火炬手”原是合肥女孩! (in Chinese) anhuinews.com, April 10, 2008 (state controlled media)
^ Flanagan, Ed China's 'Smiling Angel in Wheelchair' NBC News, April 10, 2008
^ a b c d e f David 残疾人火炬手金晶用残缺身体保护奥运圣火顺利传递 (in Chinese) The Official Website of the Torch Relay, April 8, 2008 (government controlled )
^ a b Liang, Yan "Handicapped Jin receives hero's welcome for protecting Olympic torch in Paris" Xinhua, April 10, 2008. (state run media)
^ "Torchbearer exhibits courage in Paris", official website of the Olympic torch relay, April 8, 2008
^ [Forget It. It's Chinatown... Big Lizards Breaking Bombshell News!] Big Lizards Blog, April 13, 2008
^ [Agents Provocateur?] Power Line Blog, April 13, 2008
^ Graham-Harrison, Emma China rages over attack on disabled torch bearer The Guardian, April 11, 2008
^ Ramzy, Austin China's View of the Olympic Torch War Time, April 9, 2008
^ Chen, Lydia "Touche: Assailant meets match" Shanghai Daily, April 9, 2008 (state run media outlet)
^ Zhang, Ning "Handicapped girl wins respect for protecting sacred flame", CCTV, April 10, 2008 (government run and controlled media outlet)
^ "Photos: Heroic torchbearer Jin Jing back in Beijing", official torch relay website, April 9, 2008
^ "Chinese angel comes home", official torch relay website, April 10, 2008
^ York, Geoffrey China spins protests abroad to buttress support at home Globe & Mail, April 12, 2008 (free-press media)
^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article3732204.ece Chinese media provokes outrage over pro-Tibet Olympics protests] The Times, April 12, 2008 (free-press media, no government affilation & not a party to the situation)
Don't forget the protesters are protesting the Chinese government. The government is a party to the "incident". It is like Adolf Hitler reporting on Nazi war crimes. Report sources should be NPOV and coming from a party to the situation namely the CPP they cannot be.
Oiboy77 ( talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect more articles about Jin Jing will be coming out of Western sources in the near future. But the fact of the matter is that most of the reporting about her and her involvement in the torch relay has come from Chinese news. Western sources, in their infinite wisdom, deemed it not newsworthy that a disabled torch bearer was attacked in Paris. But days later, instead of wondering how they missed the Jin Jing story as it happened, they are instead criticising Chinese news for its focus on Jin Jing, a story that has generated tremendous interest in China. Chinese news just can't win in the eyes of Western journalists, not unless they report exactly what Western journalists would like them to report on. If they censor, they're criticised for censorship. If they do not censor, they are criticised for spinning a story. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
even the word attacked is false watch the video carefully. The did not attack her, the were attempting to take the torch. Oiboy77 ( talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I find that this picture is quite striking, symbolically displaying Jin as the focus of media attention in China. Of course, we can't use it, but I thought I should include a link to it here. Aridd ( talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ndRXWq1Uw
Seems like a viable source the epoch times that is not youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiboy77 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
http://jp.epochtimes.com/jp/2008/04/html/d32396.html
Oiboy77 ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Worse than state owned media is YOUR POV. Remember wikipedia is NPOV. All kinds of unsubstatiated claims is YOUR claim. Unless you can cite references to correllate your "theory" please refrain from your ludicrious comments.
Oiboy77 (
talk)
18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.
I think that instead of spiralling into a political argument on this talk page the article should be concisely be written with the article on Suada Dilberović, one of two women killed by snipers sparking the Siege of Sarajevo, as a model. It is factual, concise, and non-bias. I used "concise" too many times but, seriously that is what an article on a woman whose ONLY notable achievement (in the grand worldly view) was carrying the Olympic torch needs to be. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.199.3 ( talk) 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a girl, a vivid living person on this planet. She has all her meaning to be in this world simply because she is a human being with her own life, but not because she is famous for a single event. Since there are informations of her life, the article should include all essential materials of her life as a human being but not as a footnote of an event.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "when a protestor carrying the Tibetan flag broke through the police escort and rushed at her, according to New York City-based Sinovision, she protected the torch with her body." The man didn't "break through the police escort". As you can see on this video at 00:50, he was tackled by a police officer before he could reach her. Second, is this line ("Jin was quoted by Chinese Communist Party-controlled newspaper China Daily as saying that she "would die to protect the torch."") really necessary? I don't think it adds anything relevent to the article. Aridd ( talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "She is notable as a torchbearer carrying the Olympic torch amid political protests during the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay in Paris, France, fending off protestors who, according to ABC News, "threw themselves" at her."" True, but it seems to me that her notability stems more for the Chinese media coverage of the event than from the event itself. By which I mean that her (unquestionable) notability is due primarily to what she became in the eyes of the Chinese media and of Chinese netizens. Aridd ( talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But one thing I want to add - if she is notable in the eyes of Chinese people, and she is thoroughly reported in Chinese media, then she is just notable. I mean, it stinks of bias if we are to say that she is notable because of Chinese media coverage, in which context is how Jin Jing has been reported in a few articles, more so than the event itself. That's like saying Jackie Chan is only notable through his work in Hollywood, not so much because of his work in Hong Kong, which received zero media attention until he became famous in Hollywood. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So obviously there is a difference in how Jin Jing is seen by Westerns and the Chinese, and it seems to be rather unlikely that a consensus could be reached to make this article neutral, given that even the wording of whether she protected the torch or whether she was protected by police officers is contended. What about stripping this article to the bare facts and removeeverything that is even slightly controversial (as proposed above Talk:Jin_Jing#Proposal_for_Conciseness). That is just sticking to what is reported both in Western and Chinese media, there must a congruency. Or reporting in one section the Chinese view and in another section the Western view. In a nutshell, Chinese view: angel in a wheelchair, Western view: used to appeal to nationalistic sentiment. Dassiebtekreuz ( talk) 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That she protected the torch herself is what the sources say. Do we actually have any sources to say that French police protected her? Or is it just your WP:Original research from eyeballing a youtube video? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
About the opinion of Western media, here is an example to show that some western people approve the behavior of Jin Jing, China's 'Smiling angel in wheelchair' by Ed Flanagan. Not all western people are that mean as Geoffrey York.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have sources that say Jin protected the torch, do we have sources that say French police protected her? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hong Qi Gong, please tell me you're joking! Why do you think she was surrounded by policemen? Are you seriously implying that they just stood back and did nothing? You've seen the pictures and you've seen the videos. The police did their utmost in sometimes difficult circumstances. They reacted quickly and efficiently to keep protesters away from the torchbearer, as evidenced by the video - notably in the case of several protesters who were literally tackled by the police. But if you insist on a source for something which should be blindingly obvious, try Reuters: "La plupart d'entre eux ont été vivement repoussés par la police, mais l'un est parvenu jusqu'à l'athlète chinoise, qui s'est cramponnée au symbole olympique jusqu'à ce que le protestataire soit emmené." (i.e.: "Most of them were roughly pushed back by the police, but one managed to reach the Chinese athlete, who clutched the Olympic symbol until the protester was taken away.") [3] The police kept the protesters away from her. Seriously, asking "do we have sources that say French police protected her?" is far beyond absurd. What on Earth do you think?? Aridd ( talk) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. If there are French sources that say the police protected her, then let's add that in and source it. If we editors look at some pictures and make conclusions about what happen, that, on the other hand, is called WP:Original research.
And to answer a question posed to me above:
That means we can't make conclusions about whether or not I'm a propagandist shill. The same logic applies to how we can't say whether or not French police protected her if we don't have sources confirming it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is what WP:Original research says about videos:
and
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
References
I don't mind that we do not mention York by name, but I must insist on at least mentioning The Globe and Mail. It is the only source we have so far that claims that the Chinese government is portraying itself as a "victim". For all we know, it is a fringe theory - not that we should say so in the article. But this is why it's absolutely necessary to at least mention The Globe and Mail. You know, just because a media outlet is privately owned, does not mean it is not biased. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed reference to the "globe and mail said" as it is FACT it was not only the globe and mail. Please do not revert without using this talk page. 3 independent media sources have said the SAME thing as Dassiebtekreuz showed. Also if you have Xinhua in this article then the epoch times is ok too. Xinhua is a party to this event being state owned and funded and that the protesters are protesting the state. Oiboy77 ( talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, The Globe and Mail is also the only source we have so far that states that Chinese media initially censored what happened in Paris. The article from The Times does not say that. I have added another sentence just for the criticism that was offered in The Times. [5] And we don't have "several" media source criticising Chinese media coverage. We have one article from The Globe and Mail, and one from The Times. Please let's not distort our sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The western media are as biased as Chinese media. Look at CNN. Why should we favor the western media here? Why should we emphasis the reports or opinion of western media? There is no logic reason for such thing. We should treat the media in equal, western or Chinese. The western media don't have more credit than the Chinese media. We should not prefer citing the western media.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV says we need to present different points of views. The best thing to do is state that "X said this", and "Y wrote that". This goes for both the Chinese and the Western points of views. We should not try to present what one side wrote as absolute fact. And again, just because a news source is privately owned, does not make it absolutely unbiased. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to emphasis the China Daily is controlled by Communist Party. The readers can judge by themselves. If you want to say that that's the opinion of Communist Party, you need to directly cite the words from a Communist Party official but from a report on newspaper.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
how about "state-run"?-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, guys, thank you all to work together to edit this article. I think this article is fine now and I'm satisfied with it.
One more piece of news: Jin Jing said that she disagreed with the boycott of Carrefour in China because the boycott will harm the Chinese works in Carrefour. 金晶不赞成抵制家乐福:中国员工可能首先受影响 http://2008.cns.com.cn/news/2008/04-16/13864.shtml 2008-04-16.
I will try to find a photo of Jin Jing under GFDL.
Thank you all.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Now she's seen as a traitor because she vaguely opposed boycotting Carrefour. Arronax50 ( talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found an article about it in the China Digital Times: [8]. Aridd ( talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's face it. She was indeed labeled by some Chinese nationalists "traitor" and it can be backed by the sources listed above. Adding "A German media said" to every claim like this just sounded funny to me. Its bascilly telling me that the authors of this article don't believe this at all. My suggestion is to replace the german reference with a reference from china and then remove "a media said".
Cowboybebop98 —Preceding
comment was added at
18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet she is still popular amongst most Chinese. Seriously guys, if you ever read "Chinese bulletin boards", common sense says whoever wrote those articles about the "downfall of Jing Jing" must have taken a LOT of time to dig up these few offensive comments against her(not to mention none of them gives a source). Almost all are positive, yet here it makes it seem all Chinese hate her. I don't know if the message of this edit was on purpose or unintentional, but I'm changing it. Unless you can prove that the majority of comments label her as a "traitor" instead of a hero, it should be kept that way. Seriously, even one of the sources backing this "traitor" material displays that all the Chinese comments about her are either supporting her or attacking those who attacked JinJing. I also must point out that all the sources on this are very... unofficial to boot. Gnip 13 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The French newspaper Le Figaro has mentioned this article, here: "Créée juste après les incidents des Paris, une longue fiche Wikipedia en anglais est disponible sur elle." (i.e., "Created just after the Paris incidents, a long file about her is available in the English Wikipedia"). And the Figaro article links to this article. I'm rather proud since I started the article, and it's the first time a Wikipedia article of mine is mentioned in the press, but all of you here have worked on it a lot to develop it from the stub it initially was. Congratulations, everyone! ;) Aridd ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is on a living person. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This sentence is seriously against the policy on living persons: "Some even said "she first lost her leg, now she lost her brain."" We need to remove this sentence immediately.
-- Jingandteller ( talk) 10:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
even French president never denied the facts.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A plan: to Wikipedia:Good articles, then to Wikipedia:Featured articles.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not going to happen until the editing traffic to this article dies down. It needs to settle into a stable state first. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To start with, the Neutrality problem has to be resolved. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 12:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
Why is information from sina and Xinhua "presented as fact"? Your analogy is absurd. Oiboy77 ( talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, learn and understand WP:NPOV. Here's another passage from the policy:
That China portrays itself as a "victim" is a perfect example of what the second paragraph above is talking about. It is not an undisputed fact, nor is it simple truth. It is a position advanced by a newspaper. And no, what the Globe & Mail wrote is not the same as what The Times wrote. Here is where we run into problems with interpretting what our sources say. This is why the contents of the two newspapers are presented seperately. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a student studying in France, the original video footage was shot by a french local tv. Jin Jing was labeled "hero" as well as "traitor" by netizens. Where and how was anything of this "designed by government to influence the public opinion"? I have some reserved thought about adding "nationalism" as the category, but i think i was OK with it. But good luck trying to portray this as propaganda of PRC. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
Here again is where we run into problems of WP editors freely interpreting our sources. This is not a "the sky is blue" situation. To say that it is propaganda is a controversial claim with disagreements. Furthermore, this article is about Jin Jing the paralympic fencer, not Chinese government portrayal of the Paris leg of the relay. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
quote:
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see Invasion of privacy#False light).
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met ...
I take it that a category would not belong here, unless the facts (rather than opinions) that result in its use are clearly stated and sourced. -- Zhenqinli ( talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I appreciate the confusion that can result from the categories, and I don't want to give the false impression that JJ is a nationalist or a propagandist, so I've added a "See Also" section and removed the categories. Yunfeng ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i think i can not deny that it is the consensus of western media that this incident has been USED as a propaganda. I am no longer against adding the cat. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Someone added links to amputation (sic!!), Sports in China and Paralympic sports to the article, probably just to prove a point. As these links are already covered by the categories Category:Chinese fencers and Category:Chinese amputees there is no need to introduce additional links. Furthermore, Jin Jing is overwhelmingly known for her role in the torch incident, not for her sports career. Novidmarana ( talk) 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, some of you seriously need to read Wikipedia:Words to avoid and WP:Weasel. We shouldn't be adding that anything is "generally accepted". That's completely ambiguous. Who generally accepts it? The entire world? The West? Pro-Tibet WP editors? Clarity, people! Let's have clarity! Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And I understand the concern with using too many quotes, too many "XXX said this, YYY said that". If we can get concensus, I do not mind saying that it is "Western news sources" that have called this Chinese propaganda. But I am absolutely against saying anything is "generally accepted" - not just in this article, but in any article, really. Firstly, it is entirely too ambiguous; and secondly, in the face of so much complaint from both the Chinese government and Chinese people about Western media bias, it's plain laughable to say that it is "generally accepted" this is just Chinese propaganda. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
they are useless links and have nothing to do with jin jing. the section of see also should be removed.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
why do you link Chinese nationalism in the see also?-- Jingandteller ( talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that Jin Jing is our hero as she defended our pride against the world. Wait until we will be even stronger, you will not dare again to protest against our powerful nation. Rather you will have to ask us for forgivance for your vile protests and for how you offended our proud nation. Remember this because we will remember and will take revenge!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.109.201 ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=450642
http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2008/04/21/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/020287.php
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-17-torch-protests_N.htm
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-china-torchdefender&prov=ap&type=lgns
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/ideas/story.html?id=f09f4244-1bff-4187-b168-7594bb30ebf4
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200804b.brief.htm
http://www.voicesoftomorrow.org/400/international/media-ignites-chinese-anger.php
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/bloggingbeijing/2008/04/protests_and_counterprotests.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2b2b2574-2000-40ed-98ab-0e16cea9f3aa
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=e36d2a68-00c0-4738-bc61-727dae9ccd52
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/004894.php
http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/nationalpost_041608.htm
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/04/forget_it_its_c.html
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2008/04/burning-out.html
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/004897.php
Oiboy77 ( talk) 00:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As everyone may have noticed this article is quite controversial. So instead of continuous edit wars that do not improve the article at all I propose to keep the version as it is (maybe remove the neutrality tag) as May 4, 6:30 pm UTC Reference Version. Any addition or removal of content would require discussion on the talk page and consensus (not just no answer, so hence I feel free to remove or change content). I doubt that there will be any new major developments that require the insertion of new material, so this procedure seems to be the most sensible. If there are any other proposal for avoiding edit wars please add them here. Editors that were majorly involved in the discussion of this article so far are and should thus have a say are (please add anyone that I might have forgotten):
Novidmarana ( talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a few lines on coverage by the French media, since we had nothing on that and since the initial events happened in France. Other than that, the current version looks good. Unless there's a specific aspect which someone feels is POV, I think the NPOV tag can be removed. Good work, everyone! Aridd ( talk) 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Any objection against removing POV tag? Thanks -- Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with the proposal and I don't think we need the tag. Yunfeng ( talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
True that there may not be any significant new material to add, but as I see it, as this article has reached some sort of equilibrium, there're plenty of ways to protect it within wiki rules. Completeness is an article's best defense. Helloterran ( talk) 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't really care whether we keep or discard the POV tag. But I think to ask for concensus on any and all edits before they're made is ultimately unattainable. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Three French newspapers (Libération, L'Express, and Le Monde) are mentioned as having printed articles about Sarkozy's letter to Jin Jing. But the article itself doesn't actually cover the letter till later. We need to either just delete mention of these newspapers or come up with a better flow, so that the article doesn't mention the letter before it actually goes into details about the letter. Suggestions? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. The reason we mention a news source's name, when we do, is because they're usually commenting on certain things or advancing a specific position - the readers deserve to know who is stating what. But these three news articles are just a reprint of the Sarkozy letter, and we're not reporting anything else from those sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A important fact is that this whole incident happened before Jin Jing's turn in the relay. She was just waiting for the flame. That's why she was holding an unlit torch and "strangely" not protected by flame attendants. Also the male athlete behind the wheelchair was blind, that might explain why protestors reached the torch without much difficulty. All these detailes are included in the chinese interview by Sohu. As there're quite a few conclusions based on this imcomplete scene of the event, I think Marianne's editorial should at least be marked for its potential bias. Helloterran ( talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this worthy of inclusion, do you think? Aridd ( talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an article on a person, not on other things in China. The section of see also was useless.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that the Chinese media are talking about her again, the French media are too. France 3 broadcast a brief interview of her this morning. I can't find that video on the Internet, but for those of you who are interested, here are two others from the French media: France 3 on April 10, France 24 on August 30. I've added links to them in the French Wikipedia article on Jin. Aridd ( talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jin Jing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Jin Jing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/99/t-89999.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jin Jing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jin Jing be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
If anyone here understands Chinese, this page may have more information about Jin Jing. Feel free to draw information from it (and cite it as your source) to contribute to Wikipedia. Aridd ( talk) 11:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed an incorrect mention of French media. The source linked to is not French media: it's the website of the Chinese torch relay organisers, in French. The source is Chinese, even though it's in the French language. Second, I've checked all the articles on Jin in the Chinese media, and, unless I've missed something, there's no mention of her bleeding. A reference to that needs to be provided, or it needs to be deleted. Aridd ( talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this entire article meets Wikipedia's standards, I thought Wikipedia was banned in China? (HK, Macau excluded) The entire Personal Life section should be considered for deletion ... "Her hobbies include reading magazine on fashion and novels, singing songs and playing Badminton and Table Tennis." blahblahblah ... not important people such as Napoleon, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Nero, and Mao don't have their hobbies listed, so why should this girl? To me this article reads like someone writing an article for their favorite band, in another language, with the sole purpose of promoting the band. For me Jin Jing having an article that is nearly the same length as Korean Astronaut Yi So-yeon (WHOM IS CURRENTLY TACKED ON THE MAIN PAGE) is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose this article does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards and as such be slated for deletion. I have noticed no other article for any member of the China Olympic Wheelchair fencing team. It seems to me that the Jin Jing acticle was put in place to put a spin on the recent protest events and for little else. Outside of the torchbearing "incident" there is little substance to this article. Why no article on other members of her team? Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Oiboy77
She is famous in China. That's the reason for the existence of this article. other member of her team are not as famous as her.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
She is famous in China as the CCTV media has made her a martyr in recent news broadcasts. The press spin was showing and I quote directly from CCTV9 "See how these vile Tibetan Separatists Attack an innocent disabled athlete". If she was not used as a tool to garner national outrage and nationalism what was? Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Translation of previous comment: 她是著名的在中国因为CCTV 媒介做了她一个受难者在最近新闻广播。新闻旋转显示并且我引述直接地从CCTV9 "看见怎么这些卑鄙的西藏分离主义者攻击一位无辜的残疾运动员" 。如果她未被使用因为工具获取全国暴行和民族主义什么是? Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What you said "If she was not used as a tool to garner national outrage and nationalism what was?" is POV. Chinese people think she is heoric.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is why I'm using a talk page as my comment may be construed as POV . I edited the article to change protests against the torch relay. People were protesting against Human Rights Issues, they were not against the torch relay in itself.Not all were "pro-tibetan" Many were against the media restrictions put on the Chinese people, Lack of transparency of media from entering Tibet during the uprising, many are upset about china's position in Darfur, Myanmar, and Taiwan. Many are upset on their treatment of the Falung Gong and Catholics . It is a gross misrepresentation to call all protesters Tibetan supporters as you did on my talk page.-- Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that she is heoric. They were pro-tibetan, not as you said against human rights.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the photos that Jin Jing was attacked by some pro-tibetan people? Do you think those guys were not pro-tibetan?-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have locked the article until some concensus can come about from other Wikipedians. I will leave it in its current state until a viable consensus can be established. Then a admin can remove the lock. Oiboy77 ( talk) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have the right to lock the article.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging an article's notability from one's political view of its subject is POV issue ,a serious violation of wiki policies. Furthermore, opinions of any individual editor on why she became famous is original research, and therefore bears no direct relation to the topic. Editing this article according to one's analysis on the topic is inappropriate. See WP:NOR. Helloterran ( talk) 05:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jin Jing is notable. As The Guardian (a British newspaper) puts it, she "has rocketed to national fame" in China." This.
The idea that this page should be deleted is laughable. It should be cleaned up, fixed with photographs, and discussion should be added about the impact on China and Chinese perceptions of the Torch relay. It's new enough that even google lacks pictures of her unless you already know her name in Hanzi (and even then, they're very simple, common characters) and wikipedia is one of the first places people will go to find out about this story. It's on drudge. It's news. And it should not be going *anywhere*. People attacking a wheelchair-bound woman was a *major* mistake for the torch protesters. - jowfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.101.173 ( talk) 11:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What Jin Jing did was guarding the torch. Guarding is not POV. It's the fact.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The protestors were mainly pro-tibetan. Several persons who attacked Jin Jing were also pro-tibetan. The term "protests against China's human rights records" is not fully true.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
First, this is absolutely non-sense to use the term "similar event" to compare Villiers-Le-Bel and the riots in Tibet. To begin with I didn't hear about police or army shooting down people in Villiers, and yet people there were far from pacific or quiet. And secondly, when the international community was watching us, and denouncing the 'messy' way our governement dealt with the situation, sometimes with strong terms, there was no one in France to demonstrate in the streets to claim our governement was right, that others countries weren't 'fully aware of the situation' and that in fact everything was ok. That was about Villiers. And concerning the "mainly pro-tibetan protestors", I guess you've never seen any video of Paris or been there that day: In France the debate and protestations were mainly about human rights: See the huge banners with the handcuffs replacing the olympic rings. They were on the eiffel tower, on our cathedral Notre Dame, on tshirts, bridges, cars, flags and so on. Most of the associations (RSF, amnesty....), were mobilized to fight for human rights. I have no exact proportion to give you but what I want to explain is that it was far from being an exclusively pro-tibetan demonstration. And even concerning those you name pro-tibetans, there must be no confusion between independance in Tibet, and asking for the respect of human life and human rights in Tibet. I was there and i discussed with many "protibetans", and they weren't asking for independance (that they knew to be irrealistic), but wanted Tibet to be able to have its voice heard, and people there to live freely without theirs right and lives ignored. -- Le lannister ( talk) 01:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture used within the article is Copyrighted to Getty Images. Use without their permission on Wikipedia is forbidden. Its not free use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiboy77 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture has been released by the author Yang Zhen Dong under GFDL. I have added it into the article.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Jin Jing is very famous in China now. Billions of Chinese people support her and call her an angel. There're many reports on her, see the references in the article. Please keep this article.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Billions of Chinese people? I thought there were only 1.3 billion. And as I said before, Chinese people can't read wikipedia on the mainland. A short concise article on Jin Jing is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 09:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are billions of Chinese people on this Earth, see the article Han Chinese, 1.2 billion in China, and others around the world, in France, in USA. Even considering the number 1.3 billion, it's more than one billion and we can say billions. I think Chinese people can read wikipedia on the mainland. But even they can't, this is still not the reason to write a short article on Jin Jing as you claimed. Even Chinese people can't read this article on the mainland, they still call Jin Jing an angel. You can't simply ignore the opinions of billions of people. Wikpedia is not just for western people, it's for the whole world. This article is in English, but it's not only for people who speak English as native language. Otherwise you should go to wikipedia.org.uk or wikipedia.org.us.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for criticizing mistakes with English grammar, I agree that the information itself is the most important thing. However, I was recently in China and I know that www.wikipedia.com will NOT load in China, because I tried it when I was there about 8 months ago. I was also in Hong Kong and Macau, and in both places wikipedia.com was available. I don't debate the necessity of a short article on Jin Jing, but I don't think there should be an article that seemingly glorifies her minor participation in a current event with global implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.199.3 ( talk) 18:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I don't agree with you that her participation is minor. At least one fifth of the whole population of human beings on this planet are touched by this pretty young girl. How dare you to say that one fifth of the whole population of human beings on this planet are minor? I also don't agree with you that this article in wikipedia is to glorify Jin Jing. I'm a fan of Jin Jing, but I'm also a user of wikipedia and I understand the policy of NPOV. This article is to introduce Jin Jing to the readers of wikipedia around the world. There are informations criticizing Jin Jing by western media in this article. The readers themselves will have their own opinion on Jin Jing after getting the voices of all sides from this article. Jin Jing glorifies herself by herself, not by others, not by fans like me, not by critic like you, not by the article in wikipedia.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jin Jing's personal life is important to show here. That's an essential part of a human being.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopaedias are not concerned with whom reads fashion magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
One example, Lance Armstrong also has his personal life.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page to comment on the eligibility of this for DYK. It looks well-referenced, and may indeed be long enough. I'll have to check. But first its editors need to come up with a suitable hook. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article looks good now, although Jin Jing's fencing career isn't that notable. Maybe User: Jingandteller can elaborate on the competitors that finished in first place in these events, if he or she is avid to contribute to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.207.105 ( talk) 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Jin Jing's fencing career is not that notable. I can't find more materials on her career. I'd like to work together with you all to write a high level and NPOV article on Jin Jing.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to include information on the other competitors in the fencing competition. Jin Jing is covered, but what about the other fencers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.199.3 ( talk) 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Do it please. Talks are cheap.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
His analysis on chinese state media's reaction to this incident is based on a hidden preconception. If you read carefully you will notice that no matter what kind of reports come from the chinese side(except they don't report it at all), similar criticism can always be imposed upon them, and that makes his conclusion impossible to refute. What is critical is that, Mr. York actually accused chinese media of stirring "patriotic sentiment" with neither solid evidence, nor essential reasoning at all. What he tried to deliver was not that chinese media changed their decision, but that this whole incident is used as a propaganda by chinese government, therefore bears no notability. Just count how many wiki policies it violates. I moved it to the external links, as that's where his words fits best. Helloterran ( talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Listing the author (either the name, eg. "Smith, John" or the agency, eg. "AAP") might be worthwhile. Daniel ( talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately this article is NOT neutral. Apparently sources from reliable Western media like the Globe & Mail are labelled as speculations and personal opinions, whereas state controlled media from China or media that conforms to the viewpont of the CCP like Sinovision are used sources for dubious claims. Furthermore, a forum like anti-cnn is not a realiable source at all and violates Wikipedia policy, see WP:RS. The article claims that she protected the flame and suffered injuries - just check the video and you will see that French police officers protected her, and the claim that she suffered injuries seems at least dubious according to the video materials. Furthermore there is no mention of that Jin Jing has become a propaganda tool for the CCP, with China as the victim and Tibetan and Western protesters as the perpretators. All this belongs in the article, Wikipedia is not Xinhua or the People's Daily. Dassiebtekreuz ( talk) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, please read that source carefully. York never wrote that the Jin Jing incident specifically was initially censored by the Chinese government. He was referring to reports of the protests in London and Paris in general. If anything the York source belongs on the article about the torch relay itself. Secondly, that piece of writing is a horrible opinion piece from a random writer who is apparently not very notable. If the Chinese government had kept news of the torch relay protests censored, people like York would be writing opinion pieces criticising the censorship. Of course, since the Chinese government did not censor news of the torch relay protests, people like York feel the need to write about how the Chinese government used news media to brainwash Chinese people. Thirdly, Chinese news sources, despite being state-owned, absolutely need to be used as sources - not because their content represent facts and truth, but because their content represent the views of the Chinese government. On the other hand the views of one Geoffrey York is quite irrelevant. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the cited blog, unfortunately the writer tried to convince his readers by including ungrounded assumptions and already refuted material. The photo of chinese military police carrying tibetan clothing was use by Dalai as a proof of beijing's attempt to fabricate evidence. But it has been clarified that this photo was taken in summer 2002, when those policemen participated in the making of the movie The Touch. The uniforms in that picture match neither the current style nor the current season. Further more, while most chinese don't even know what the tibetan flag looks like, the blogger seems to base his reasoning on the assumption that every chinese involved in the Paris torch purposefully played a role in some sort of Goebbels style agitprop. That said, the credibility of this reference is seriously impaired, and it should be removed. Helloterran ( talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason why we don't write about some random blog, and then use the blog itself as a source for the content, is because of WP:Undue weight. Basically anybody can write a blog to say whatever he or she wants. Why should it be mentioned at all??? What makes the blog writer's opinions matter? What if I wrote a blog about why that blog is completely wrong? Should we include that then? This is the gist of why we should not include this "agent provocateur" stuff. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And how can Geoffrey York's words be marked as reliable and nertral, when there's neither third party reference nor proper reasoning at all? Did he mention that he had "reliable" source inside chinese government to feed him details of their every single decision? A reporter sees what and writes why, that's their job. But for the neutrality of wiki we must distinguish these two foundamentally different element. Helloterran ( talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
source is provided. Novidmarana ( talk) 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
lets see:
^ a b c d Chang, Guoshui and Xiang, Lei “最美火炬手”原是合肥女孩! (in Chinese) anhuinews.com, April 10, 2008 (state controlled media)
^ Flanagan, Ed China's 'Smiling Angel in Wheelchair' NBC News, April 10, 2008
^ a b c d e f David 残疾人火炬手金晶用残缺身体保护奥运圣火顺利传递 (in Chinese) The Official Website of the Torch Relay, April 8, 2008 (government controlled )
^ a b Liang, Yan "Handicapped Jin receives hero's welcome for protecting Olympic torch in Paris" Xinhua, April 10, 2008. (state run media)
^ "Torchbearer exhibits courage in Paris", official website of the Olympic torch relay, April 8, 2008
^ [Forget It. It's Chinatown... Big Lizards Breaking Bombshell News!] Big Lizards Blog, April 13, 2008
^ [Agents Provocateur?] Power Line Blog, April 13, 2008
^ Graham-Harrison, Emma China rages over attack on disabled torch bearer The Guardian, April 11, 2008
^ Ramzy, Austin China's View of the Olympic Torch War Time, April 9, 2008
^ Chen, Lydia "Touche: Assailant meets match" Shanghai Daily, April 9, 2008 (state run media outlet)
^ Zhang, Ning "Handicapped girl wins respect for protecting sacred flame", CCTV, April 10, 2008 (government run and controlled media outlet)
^ "Photos: Heroic torchbearer Jin Jing back in Beijing", official torch relay website, April 9, 2008
^ "Chinese angel comes home", official torch relay website, April 10, 2008
^ York, Geoffrey China spins protests abroad to buttress support at home Globe & Mail, April 12, 2008 (free-press media)
^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article3732204.ece Chinese media provokes outrage over pro-Tibet Olympics protests] The Times, April 12, 2008 (free-press media, no government affilation & not a party to the situation)
Don't forget the protesters are protesting the Chinese government. The government is a party to the "incident". It is like Adolf Hitler reporting on Nazi war crimes. Report sources should be NPOV and coming from a party to the situation namely the CPP they cannot be.
Oiboy77 ( talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect more articles about Jin Jing will be coming out of Western sources in the near future. But the fact of the matter is that most of the reporting about her and her involvement in the torch relay has come from Chinese news. Western sources, in their infinite wisdom, deemed it not newsworthy that a disabled torch bearer was attacked in Paris. But days later, instead of wondering how they missed the Jin Jing story as it happened, they are instead criticising Chinese news for its focus on Jin Jing, a story that has generated tremendous interest in China. Chinese news just can't win in the eyes of Western journalists, not unless they report exactly what Western journalists would like them to report on. If they censor, they're criticised for censorship. If they do not censor, they are criticised for spinning a story. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
even the word attacked is false watch the video carefully. The did not attack her, the were attempting to take the torch. Oiboy77 ( talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I find that this picture is quite striking, symbolically displaying Jin as the focus of media attention in China. Of course, we can't use it, but I thought I should include a link to it here. Aridd ( talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ndRXWq1Uw
Seems like a viable source the epoch times that is not youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiboy77 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
http://jp.epochtimes.com/jp/2008/04/html/d32396.html
Oiboy77 ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Worse than state owned media is YOUR POV. Remember wikipedia is NPOV. All kinds of unsubstatiated claims is YOUR claim. Unless you can cite references to correllate your "theory" please refrain from your ludicrious comments.
Oiboy77 (
talk)
18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.
I think that instead of spiralling into a political argument on this talk page the article should be concisely be written with the article on Suada Dilberović, one of two women killed by snipers sparking the Siege of Sarajevo, as a model. It is factual, concise, and non-bias. I used "concise" too many times but, seriously that is what an article on a woman whose ONLY notable achievement (in the grand worldly view) was carrying the Olympic torch needs to be. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.199.3 ( talk) 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a girl, a vivid living person on this planet. She has all her meaning to be in this world simply because she is a human being with her own life, but not because she is famous for a single event. Since there are informations of her life, the article should include all essential materials of her life as a human being but not as a footnote of an event.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "when a protestor carrying the Tibetan flag broke through the police escort and rushed at her, according to New York City-based Sinovision, she protected the torch with her body." The man didn't "break through the police escort". As you can see on this video at 00:50, he was tackled by a police officer before he could reach her. Second, is this line ("Jin was quoted by Chinese Communist Party-controlled newspaper China Daily as saying that she "would die to protect the torch."") really necessary? I don't think it adds anything relevent to the article. Aridd ( talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "She is notable as a torchbearer carrying the Olympic torch amid political protests during the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay in Paris, France, fending off protestors who, according to ABC News, "threw themselves" at her."" True, but it seems to me that her notability stems more for the Chinese media coverage of the event than from the event itself. By which I mean that her (unquestionable) notability is due primarily to what she became in the eyes of the Chinese media and of Chinese netizens. Aridd ( talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But one thing I want to add - if she is notable in the eyes of Chinese people, and she is thoroughly reported in Chinese media, then she is just notable. I mean, it stinks of bias if we are to say that she is notable because of Chinese media coverage, in which context is how Jin Jing has been reported in a few articles, more so than the event itself. That's like saying Jackie Chan is only notable through his work in Hollywood, not so much because of his work in Hong Kong, which received zero media attention until he became famous in Hollywood. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So obviously there is a difference in how Jin Jing is seen by Westerns and the Chinese, and it seems to be rather unlikely that a consensus could be reached to make this article neutral, given that even the wording of whether she protected the torch or whether she was protected by police officers is contended. What about stripping this article to the bare facts and removeeverything that is even slightly controversial (as proposed above Talk:Jin_Jing#Proposal_for_Conciseness). That is just sticking to what is reported both in Western and Chinese media, there must a congruency. Or reporting in one section the Chinese view and in another section the Western view. In a nutshell, Chinese view: angel in a wheelchair, Western view: used to appeal to nationalistic sentiment. Dassiebtekreuz ( talk) 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That she protected the torch herself is what the sources say. Do we actually have any sources to say that French police protected her? Or is it just your WP:Original research from eyeballing a youtube video? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
About the opinion of Western media, here is an example to show that some western people approve the behavior of Jin Jing, China's 'Smiling angel in wheelchair' by Ed Flanagan. Not all western people are that mean as Geoffrey York.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have sources that say Jin protected the torch, do we have sources that say French police protected her? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hong Qi Gong, please tell me you're joking! Why do you think she was surrounded by policemen? Are you seriously implying that they just stood back and did nothing? You've seen the pictures and you've seen the videos. The police did their utmost in sometimes difficult circumstances. They reacted quickly and efficiently to keep protesters away from the torchbearer, as evidenced by the video - notably in the case of several protesters who were literally tackled by the police. But if you insist on a source for something which should be blindingly obvious, try Reuters: "La plupart d'entre eux ont été vivement repoussés par la police, mais l'un est parvenu jusqu'à l'athlète chinoise, qui s'est cramponnée au symbole olympique jusqu'à ce que le protestataire soit emmené." (i.e.: "Most of them were roughly pushed back by the police, but one managed to reach the Chinese athlete, who clutched the Olympic symbol until the protester was taken away.") [3] The police kept the protesters away from her. Seriously, asking "do we have sources that say French police protected her?" is far beyond absurd. What on Earth do you think?? Aridd ( talk) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. If there are French sources that say the police protected her, then let's add that in and source it. If we editors look at some pictures and make conclusions about what happen, that, on the other hand, is called WP:Original research.
And to answer a question posed to me above:
That means we can't make conclusions about whether or not I'm a propagandist shill. The same logic applies to how we can't say whether or not French police protected her if we don't have sources confirming it. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is what WP:Original research says about videos:
and
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
References
I don't mind that we do not mention York by name, but I must insist on at least mentioning The Globe and Mail. It is the only source we have so far that claims that the Chinese government is portraying itself as a "victim". For all we know, it is a fringe theory - not that we should say so in the article. But this is why it's absolutely necessary to at least mention The Globe and Mail. You know, just because a media outlet is privately owned, does not mean it is not biased. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed reference to the "globe and mail said" as it is FACT it was not only the globe and mail. Please do not revert without using this talk page. 3 independent media sources have said the SAME thing as Dassiebtekreuz showed. Also if you have Xinhua in this article then the epoch times is ok too. Xinhua is a party to this event being state owned and funded and that the protesters are protesting the state. Oiboy77 ( talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, The Globe and Mail is also the only source we have so far that states that Chinese media initially censored what happened in Paris. The article from The Times does not say that. I have added another sentence just for the criticism that was offered in The Times. [5] And we don't have "several" media source criticising Chinese media coverage. We have one article from The Globe and Mail, and one from The Times. Please let's not distort our sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The western media are as biased as Chinese media. Look at CNN. Why should we favor the western media here? Why should we emphasis the reports or opinion of western media? There is no logic reason for such thing. We should treat the media in equal, western or Chinese. The western media don't have more credit than the Chinese media. We should not prefer citing the western media.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV says we need to present different points of views. The best thing to do is state that "X said this", and "Y wrote that". This goes for both the Chinese and the Western points of views. We should not try to present what one side wrote as absolute fact. And again, just because a news source is privately owned, does not make it absolutely unbiased. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to emphasis the China Daily is controlled by Communist Party. The readers can judge by themselves. If you want to say that that's the opinion of Communist Party, you need to directly cite the words from a Communist Party official but from a report on newspaper.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
how about "state-run"?-- Jingandteller ( talk) 11:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, guys, thank you all to work together to edit this article. I think this article is fine now and I'm satisfied with it.
One more piece of news: Jin Jing said that she disagreed with the boycott of Carrefour in China because the boycott will harm the Chinese works in Carrefour. 金晶不赞成抵制家乐福:中国员工可能首先受影响 http://2008.cns.com.cn/news/2008/04-16/13864.shtml 2008-04-16.
I will try to find a photo of Jin Jing under GFDL.
Thank you all.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Now she's seen as a traitor because she vaguely opposed boycotting Carrefour. Arronax50 ( talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found an article about it in the China Digital Times: [8]. Aridd ( talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's face it. She was indeed labeled by some Chinese nationalists "traitor" and it can be backed by the sources listed above. Adding "A German media said" to every claim like this just sounded funny to me. Its bascilly telling me that the authors of this article don't believe this at all. My suggestion is to replace the german reference with a reference from china and then remove "a media said".
Cowboybebop98 —Preceding
comment was added at
18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet she is still popular amongst most Chinese. Seriously guys, if you ever read "Chinese bulletin boards", common sense says whoever wrote those articles about the "downfall of Jing Jing" must have taken a LOT of time to dig up these few offensive comments against her(not to mention none of them gives a source). Almost all are positive, yet here it makes it seem all Chinese hate her. I don't know if the message of this edit was on purpose or unintentional, but I'm changing it. Unless you can prove that the majority of comments label her as a "traitor" instead of a hero, it should be kept that way. Seriously, even one of the sources backing this "traitor" material displays that all the Chinese comments about her are either supporting her or attacking those who attacked JinJing. I also must point out that all the sources on this are very... unofficial to boot. Gnip 13 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The French newspaper Le Figaro has mentioned this article, here: "Créée juste après les incidents des Paris, une longue fiche Wikipedia en anglais est disponible sur elle." (i.e., "Created just after the Paris incidents, a long file about her is available in the English Wikipedia"). And the Figaro article links to this article. I'm rather proud since I started the article, and it's the first time a Wikipedia article of mine is mentioned in the press, but all of you here have worked on it a lot to develop it from the stub it initially was. Congratulations, everyone! ;) Aridd ( talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is on a living person. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This sentence is seriously against the policy on living persons: "Some even said "she first lost her leg, now she lost her brain."" We need to remove this sentence immediately.
-- Jingandteller ( talk) 10:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
even French president never denied the facts.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A plan: to Wikipedia:Good articles, then to Wikipedia:Featured articles.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not going to happen until the editing traffic to this article dies down. It needs to settle into a stable state first. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To start with, the Neutrality problem has to be resolved. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 12:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
Why is information from sina and Xinhua "presented as fact"? Your analogy is absurd. Oiboy77 ( talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, learn and understand WP:NPOV. Here's another passage from the policy:
That China portrays itself as a "victim" is a perfect example of what the second paragraph above is talking about. It is not an undisputed fact, nor is it simple truth. It is a position advanced by a newspaper. And no, what the Globe & Mail wrote is not the same as what The Times wrote. Here is where we run into problems with interpretting what our sources say. This is why the contents of the two newspapers are presented seperately. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a student studying in France, the original video footage was shot by a french local tv. Jin Jing was labeled "hero" as well as "traitor" by netizens. Where and how was anything of this "designed by government to influence the public opinion"? I have some reserved thought about adding "nationalism" as the category, but i think i was OK with it. But good luck trying to portray this as propaganda of PRC. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
Here again is where we run into problems of WP editors freely interpreting our sources. This is not a "the sky is blue" situation. To say that it is propaganda is a controversial claim with disagreements. Furthermore, this article is about Jin Jing the paralympic fencer, not Chinese government portrayal of the Paris leg of the relay. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
quote:
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see Invasion of privacy#False light).
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met ...
I take it that a category would not belong here, unless the facts (rather than opinions) that result in its use are clearly stated and sourced. -- Zhenqinli ( talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I appreciate the confusion that can result from the categories, and I don't want to give the false impression that JJ is a nationalist or a propagandist, so I've added a "See Also" section and removed the categories. Yunfeng ( talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i think i can not deny that it is the consensus of western media that this incident has been USED as a propaganda. I am no longer against adding the cat. ( Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
Someone added links to amputation (sic!!), Sports in China and Paralympic sports to the article, probably just to prove a point. As these links are already covered by the categories Category:Chinese fencers and Category:Chinese amputees there is no need to introduce additional links. Furthermore, Jin Jing is overwhelmingly known for her role in the torch incident, not for her sports career. Novidmarana ( talk) 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, some of you seriously need to read Wikipedia:Words to avoid and WP:Weasel. We shouldn't be adding that anything is "generally accepted". That's completely ambiguous. Who generally accepts it? The entire world? The West? Pro-Tibet WP editors? Clarity, people! Let's have clarity! Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And I understand the concern with using too many quotes, too many "XXX said this, YYY said that". If we can get concensus, I do not mind saying that it is "Western news sources" that have called this Chinese propaganda. But I am absolutely against saying anything is "generally accepted" - not just in this article, but in any article, really. Firstly, it is entirely too ambiguous; and secondly, in the face of so much complaint from both the Chinese government and Chinese people about Western media bias, it's plain laughable to say that it is "generally accepted" this is just Chinese propaganda. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
they are useless links and have nothing to do with jin jing. the section of see also should be removed.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
why do you link Chinese nationalism in the see also?-- Jingandteller ( talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that Jin Jing is our hero as she defended our pride against the world. Wait until we will be even stronger, you will not dare again to protest against our powerful nation. Rather you will have to ask us for forgivance for your vile protests and for how you offended our proud nation. Remember this because we will remember and will take revenge!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.109.201 ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=450642
http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2008/04/21/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/020287.php
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-17-torch-protests_N.htm
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-china-torchdefender&prov=ap&type=lgns
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/ideas/story.html?id=f09f4244-1bff-4187-b168-7594bb30ebf4
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200804b.brief.htm
http://www.voicesoftomorrow.org/400/international/media-ignites-chinese-anger.php
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/bloggingbeijing/2008/04/protests_and_counterprotests.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2b2b2574-2000-40ed-98ab-0e16cea9f3aa
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=e36d2a68-00c0-4738-bc61-727dae9ccd52
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/004894.php
http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/nationalpost_041608.htm
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/04/forget_it_its_c.html
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2008/04/burning-out.html
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/004897.php
Oiboy77 ( talk) 00:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As everyone may have noticed this article is quite controversial. So instead of continuous edit wars that do not improve the article at all I propose to keep the version as it is (maybe remove the neutrality tag) as May 4, 6:30 pm UTC Reference Version. Any addition or removal of content would require discussion on the talk page and consensus (not just no answer, so hence I feel free to remove or change content). I doubt that there will be any new major developments that require the insertion of new material, so this procedure seems to be the most sensible. If there are any other proposal for avoiding edit wars please add them here. Editors that were majorly involved in the discussion of this article so far are and should thus have a say are (please add anyone that I might have forgotten):
Novidmarana ( talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a few lines on coverage by the French media, since we had nothing on that and since the initial events happened in France. Other than that, the current version looks good. Unless there's a specific aspect which someone feels is POV, I think the NPOV tag can be removed. Good work, everyone! Aridd ( talk) 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Any objection against removing POV tag? Thanks -- Cowboybebop98 ( talk) 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with the proposal and I don't think we need the tag. Yunfeng ( talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
True that there may not be any significant new material to add, but as I see it, as this article has reached some sort of equilibrium, there're plenty of ways to protect it within wiki rules. Completeness is an article's best defense. Helloterran ( talk) 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't really care whether we keep or discard the POV tag. But I think to ask for concensus on any and all edits before they're made is ultimately unattainable. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Three French newspapers (Libération, L'Express, and Le Monde) are mentioned as having printed articles about Sarkozy's letter to Jin Jing. But the article itself doesn't actually cover the letter till later. We need to either just delete mention of these newspapers or come up with a better flow, so that the article doesn't mention the letter before it actually goes into details about the letter. Suggestions? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. The reason we mention a news source's name, when we do, is because they're usually commenting on certain things or advancing a specific position - the readers deserve to know who is stating what. But these three news articles are just a reprint of the Sarkozy letter, and we're not reporting anything else from those sources. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A important fact is that this whole incident happened before Jin Jing's turn in the relay. She was just waiting for the flame. That's why she was holding an unlit torch and "strangely" not protected by flame attendants. Also the male athlete behind the wheelchair was blind, that might explain why protestors reached the torch without much difficulty. All these detailes are included in the chinese interview by Sohu. As there're quite a few conclusions based on this imcomplete scene of the event, I think Marianne's editorial should at least be marked for its potential bias. Helloterran ( talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this worthy of inclusion, do you think? Aridd ( talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an article on a person, not on other things in China. The section of see also was useless.-- Jingandteller ( talk) 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that the Chinese media are talking about her again, the French media are too. France 3 broadcast a brief interview of her this morning. I can't find that video on the Internet, but for those of you who are interested, here are two others from the French media: France 3 on April 10, France 24 on August 30. I've added links to them in the French Wikipedia article on Jin. Aridd ( talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jin Jing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Jin Jing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/99/t-89999.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jin Jing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)