Talk:Jin Jing

Info

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)

French media

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)

Standards

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)

Note: Yi So-yeon is no longer on the main page and the article looks much different than my when I made my original comment.

Proposed Deletion

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 for at least two things: being an Paralympic athlete, and being a torchbearer. Usually, being notable for one event is not enough for inclusion; but major news coverage (in western press too) and notability for two distinct things are certainly enough for inclusion under these criteria. nneonneo ^talk 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Quick comment from me, as the person who initially created this article. I haven't got time to work on it further right now, but I'd like to respond to the claim that "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". I'm not Chinese, I'm not pro-Chinese government, and I'm definitely not trying to put a spin on anything. What I've actually written in this article, the edits I've made to it, and my contributions to the article 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay should convince you of that. (I've expressed concern in the talk page of the latter article regarding the fact that violent protests were given excessive weight in the article in comparison with peaceful protests, so I really don't think I can be accused of trying to put a pro-Chinese government spin on anything!) I created this article simply because Jin Jing is notable. As The Guardian (a British newspaper) puts it, she "has rocketed to national fame" in China [1]. The official website of the Olympic torch relay has given her more than significant attention. I do find it interesting that the Chinese media have turned her into a national star while the Western media were slow to report on her at all. I'm not saying that to hint at bias on either side, or on both sides, but to point out that the differences in media coverage are interesting and notable in themselves. Documenting the content, nature and extent of media coverage is not the same as expressing support for a type of media coverage. Aridd (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. China's online population is almost as large as that of the U.S. now. People do have many ways to get information. The events surrounding Jin Jing touched the nerve and sentiments of many ordinary people. To suggest that she becomes notable only because of government spin would be absurd. For Wikipedia to expand, it should incorporate perspectives from across the globe, rather than being trapped in a Western-centric mold. --Zhenqinli (talk) 14:55, 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)

Not the torch protesters. Despite what Chinese media may try to say, almost all protesters were peaceful. Some gathered some distance away from the relay, never attempting to disrupt it. Others simply stood on the sidelines, booing, but not intervening physically. Others lay down on the road to try and stop the procession - a disruptive but utterly peaceful form of protest. Many politicians took part in peaceful gatherings. Almost nobody was violent. But the media likes to focus on violence - either for political purposes, or for sensationalism. Having said that, yes, of course this article should be kept. Jin has become a phenomenon in China; there's absolutely no conceivable reason to delete it. Aridd (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on the scene of torch relay. According to my friends in Paris( all chinese though), pro-tibet protestors were almost the only source of violence in that day. They shoved and kicked pro-china protestors, one of my friends told me that she got an injury to the leg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same friends think that is ok to occupy Tibet. Novidmarana (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What your friend said would be considered original research. =) Oiboy77 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I can't quote them in this article, but only use their experience here in this talk page, to remind all of us that we should just describe the scene as it appears to be, unless we have some reliable sources supporting our version of story. We saw pro-tibetans, with their banners and posters and slogans. "Pro-tibetans dedicated to improve human rights in china" is only an allegation. Helloterran (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is guarding POV?

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 term "protests against China's human rights records" is not fully true

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)

Not all are pro-Tibetan protectors, but all of them have grievances against the Chinese government's human rights records. DHN (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that they are protesting mainly for human rights, not tibet independence itself? Human rights is a very broad topic, and can be fitted in almost any similar event---can I put human right tag on 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel? Helloterran (talk) 06:03, 12 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)

Removed Photo as Copyright Violation

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)

This article is important enough to be kept

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)

I quote you Jingandteller "after getting voices from all sides from this article" in that case why did YOU remove references to the epoch times and adjust the commententary of two news sources to seem like one person WITHOUT any discussion on the talk page. Please assume Good Faith when editing articles. If editors can work together we will have a better aticle. Even your username originally violated wikipedia terms. At least you changed that. Oiboy77 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove references to the epoch times? Show me your proof please. Why did you talk about my first username? Does it make any sense here in this talk page of the article? I openly show my favorite to Jin Jing always and never hide the fact that I'm a fan of her. But I also said many times that I understand the policy of wikipedia and work together with you all to write a NPOV article. I quote you Oiboy77 "Please assume Good Faith when editing articles".--Jingandteller (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't start revert warring over the Epoch Times reference again. As I already mentioned, it is unsuitable as a reference for this article. nneonneo ^talk 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All material are encyclopedic

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)

DYK

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)

Interesting opinion of Geoffrey York

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)

You haven't cited any Wikipedia policies that are violated by including reporting by the Globe and Mail's Beijing bureau chief. John Nevard (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As a NPOV article, we should mention the opinion of Geoffrey York. I agree with Helloterran, the opinion of Geoffrey York is his/her own POV opinion. We need to put this POV opinion to the part of opinions on Jin Jing and the events during and after the torch relay in the article, but we should not put this POV opinion to the events themselves. When we describe the events of the torch relay and of the Chinese media reports, we should take a NPOV and only mention the facts but not the POV opinion by someone. The POV opinion should be in the comments part. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the opinion of Geoffrey York is not fully true from many Chinese points of view. Chinese government is making propaganda but the feelings of Chinese people are independent from the Chinese government. Many Chinese people got to know Jin Jing and her story from the internet chatrooms and forums but not from the Chinese media. I googled the reports on Jin Jing only when I wanted to write this article on Jin Jing, before that I already knew her from mitbbs.--Jingandteller (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

References

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)

How to do it? Thanks.--Jingandteller (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Example. Daniel (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Some articles from the official site for torch relay don't show the names of authors.--Jingandteller (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

Which video?--Jingandteller (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you said here is NOT neutral either. So what's your source that Jin Jing has become a propaganda tool for the CCP? Don't make dubious claims yourself! 198.166.21.5 (talk) 23:56, 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)

As the Jin Jing incident was the most important incident during the protest this is included in the statement by Geoffrey York, furthermore he is not some irrelavant writer see the biography on the Globe & Mail webpage at [2]. And what indication is there that it is just a horrible opinion piece, that is at most your personal opinion and thus irrevelant for the article. Chinese government sources should be included, yes, but not as sources for fact like that Jin Jing was allegedly injured (what seems quite unlikely given what the video sshow). They should only be used to show what the Chinese government says. What about HK media like the South China Morning post - they are far more appropriate to show the Chinese POV. Novidmarana (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which video?--Jingandteller (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Short remark on the advice to use the SCMP: who are you to decide what's appropriate to show the Chinese POV? The only ones who can represent the Chinese POV are the Chinese, don't forget that. SCMP shows SCMP's POV, and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.155.65 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

comment on Agent provocateur theory

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)

You are talking about a completely different part of the blog post, so please read the blog post properly. It doesn't seem to far fetched to believe that the protestor was an agent provocateur, and the picture highly suggests this theory. So this has to be included with the disclaimer that this is so far are speculation from some blogs. Novidmarana (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's reported as a speculation by bloggers. Blogs are not reliable sources for facts, but they are a reliable source for the fact that the blogs mentioned speculate on that. If you are so concerned about reliability of source why not remove the dubious claim made by the xenophobic and nationalistic blog anti-cnn? Novidmarana (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If, for example, the BBC, reported about the bloggers, than we've got a reliable source. The source you're using is the blog itself! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a specific video clip on the ABC website showing his face as a tibetan activist, in case you didn't read the referce links properly. As I have stated above most chinese people don't know the tibetan flag. That's probably why he managed to approach Jin Jing in a group of pro-chinese people, instead of the far-fetched speculation you present. Helloterran (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

When someday your blog make the chinese government respond formally to its charges, like CNN and Der Spiegel did to anti-cnn, I will acknowledge it as a reliable source.Helloterran (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, maybe because this blog is used as a source about the blog itself?? What is completely in line with WP:RS. If it would be reported as a fact that the protestor was an agent provocateur, only then the blog cannot be used as a reliable source. But saying that some bloggers speculators that the protestor was an agent provacateur is not a violation of WP:RS. Novidmarana (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still a notability issue. You can place literally anything in this article, even the entire book of devil's dictionary, provided you place them all in quotation form. Unfortunately only a small portion of them are encyclopedic and important enough to be included. As I have pointed out that this whole blog lacks the essential credibility. Helloterran (talk) 05:45, 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)

Like or not Power Line is not a random blog. Furthermore, who constantly removes that French police officers protected her and the torch? The selective quoting and the selective choice of state-controlled Chinese media is rather embarassing for Wikipedia and the editor involved in sanitizing this article respectively transforming this article in a fanpage of Jin Jing (one of the main editors has even the audacity to say that he is a fan of Jin Jing and wants everyone to know about her). Novidmarana (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind your words, you are becoming personal. This is a wiki article, it's cheap and irrelevent here to try to discredit one of the editors in order to discredit his contribution. The policemen tried to protect her from attacks but they obviouly failed for a couple of times. It's not a blame, only what's closer to fact. Helloterran (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issue

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)

Maybe because there are rarely any third party references in newspaper articles? No proper reasoning, you must be joking - what is so far-fetched in saying that the Jin Jing has become a propanda tool for the Chinese government. If Wikipedia would follow your reasoning every single sentence would start with According to XY, ..., even if a reliable

source is provided. Novidmarana (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As most of the refrences used in this article are from Chinese state controlled media outlets, or selective quotes, shall we use According to the CPP before every line of this article?Oiboy77 (talk) 07:06, 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)

It's very amusing how you gradually enlarge the concept of government media control in china---first only xinhua and then the official olympic website is included, later perhaps all china based news sites like sohu and sina? You have no evidence for your accusation, and you don't bother to find any. Maybe someday you can claim that every word from a chinese mouth is based on state controlled reports and brain-washed POV? It seems you already thinks that way. "If you can't refute them, then discredit them". That's a easy game, I didn't think you learned so much from the Great Purge Helloterran (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you diputing the FACT that the government controls the media sources in China? Oiboy77 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe all this wouldn't be a problem if you wouldn't discount reliable sources such as the Globe & Mail by adding a disclaimer, but at the same time seem to find it perfectly ok to use state-controlled and censored Chinese media to make this article look like a fanpage for the "angel in the wheelchair". Novidmarana (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we cite some information from the timesonline article listed above? It seems like Geoffrey Yorke is not a lone single media source that thinks the CPP is using this incident to build nationalist support.Oiboy77 (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am disputing some words you choose. You believe that all chinese media are (potentially) government controlled, and you even think that belief can justify your attack on their credibility. What's worse, you don't bother to list any evidence when you accuse some source as "government controlled". Are you joking me? Do you think you have the right to censor voice from China according to your individual belief? Leave me alone. Helloterran (talk) 08:41, 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)

Yes they did. They shoved and kick her according to herself in the interview by www.sohu.com, which is a 100% percent private company.Helloterran (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever removed the NPOV tag, this article is not neutral and reads more like an apotheosis of Jin Jing. Chinese media are excessively cited, whereas any critical voices, here by Western media are heavily discounted by pretending that it is just the personal opinion of a single editor. This is laughable. And by the way, Chinese media are rightly critized for spinning a story, and they would be rightly critized for censoring if they would do, wait that is what they do all day. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Passing comment

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)

Done.--Jingandteller (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this

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)

You're kidding me right? A random youtube video put together by some random person on the internet is most certainly not reliable. And do you not notice that the protestor is not the only one with a Tibetan flag in the picture while he's walking to the protest? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we translate or use this article?

http://jp.epochtimes.com/jp/2008/04/html/d32396.html

Oiboy77 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Epoch Times is quite possibly the worst source one can use for China-related articles, worse than Chinese state-owned media. It's a Falun Gong mouthpiece with all kinds of unsubstantiated and illogical claims. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 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)

Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Quoting WP:RS:

When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

In this case, you cannot argue that the Epoch Times is a high-quality news organization. In this case, I'd also recommend leaving out Xinhua as a source, since it's contentious as an NPOV source on this subject.

Basically: Leave the Epoch Times and Xinhua out. Neither of them are good NPOV sources for this material. nneonneo ^talk 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that Xinhua is not that bad. It is a reliable source.--Jingandteller (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Conciseness

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)

I disagree. We only need to report on those actions which make her notable enough to include in Wikipedia. We need not have every piece of her life story165.123.139.232 (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments.

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)

I deleted the part that says he broke through the police escort. But I think her quote is relevant because it explains how she personally feels about protecting the torch. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nature of notability

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)

I've shortened "She is notable as a torchbearer" to "She was a torchbearer". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 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)

If I didn't think she was notable, I wouldn't have created the article. ;) What I'm saying is that her notability derives from people's reactions to what happened, more than from the incident itself. The current amended wording is OK. Aridd (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

I am all for neutral, but say that to PRC "Western media are biased"-"Tibet was, is and will be a part of China"-propaganda department. Novidmarana (talk) 06:05, 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)

To my knowledge, nobody ever disputed the fact that the French police protected her. They obviously did, as the videos of the incidents attest. Has anyone ever seriously claimed that the police stood back and twiddled their thumbs? Aridd (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aridd that French policemen had protected Jin Jing.--Jingandteller (talk) 12:24, 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)

We also don't have a source saying you are not a propagandist shill. Does that mean you actually are?

Just trying to follow your logic.--Jahilia (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This picture showed that French policemen did protect Jin Jing.

File:Violentolympicprotestor.jpg

Police stopping a pro-Tibet protester attempted to secure the torch from torch bearer Jin Jing. The Chinese Communist Party news agency Xinhua reported that Jin Jing protected the torch with her body and suffered scratches on her chin and shoulders after repeated assaults by seperatist rioters.

--Jingandteller (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While this picture showed that the French policemen didn't protect Jin Jing very well at some moments.

File:Parisprotests-olympictorch.jpg

Pro-Tibet protester attempting to grab the torch from torch-bearer Jin Jing in Paris, who received several minor injuries in the incident. The 2008 Olympic Torch Relay has been met with protests in some cities.

--Jingandteller (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the French policemen were on their duty basically and protected Jin Jing at most time. Otherwise Jin Jing would get much more attack. But the French policemen didn't protect Jin Jing very well. At some points, Jin Jing was attacked.--Jingandteller (talk) 19:17, 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)

Just to add to that, what do they look as if they're doing here? Also The People's Daily says the French police protected her.[4] Is that reliable enough for you, and can we stop with ridiculous questions now? Aridd (talk) 20:42, 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:

• We also don't have a source saying you are not a propagandist shill. Does that mean you actually are?

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)

Describing what what one sees on pictures or on a video is not WP:Original research, and it might in fact be more reliable than just citing media sources, which probably just copy from each other anyway or rely on statements of participants that can hardly be verified. Like for example the statement that she suffered minor injuries, what seems very unlikely given what has happened, and is more likely an exaggeration by her, what is probably understandable given the tumultous events. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's up to the editors' interpretation of a video or photo. That's why it's WP:Original research. Editing WP articles is not about adding what we as editors perceive as truth. Our job is only to reflect what our sources say, not interpret them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But that is the same problem with newspaper reports. It's up to the editor which newspaper to choose, and how to interpret what the newspaper has to say, at least if one is not just copying the article. WP:Original research does explicity cover videos and pictures and as long as one objectively describes what one sees on the video or picture it is not original research. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what WP:Original research says about videos:

• Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance...

and

• Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation is not the same as description, quote: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and" Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Mentioning The Globe and Mail

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)

It's not only the Globe & Mail, but also The Times Citation 19 and the Daily Telegraphy Citation 23, the same article used as a citation for Jin Jing's featherbrained statement on Tibet. And I am sure that there other source saying the same, at least the Polish press does, and the theory that the Chinese government is portraying itself as a victim is not very far-fetched given what Xinhua and Co. say about this incident and these "vile" Tibetan protestors. So all that together, reputable newspapers plus plausibility does support that this is more than a fringe theory. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "victim" never once appeared in the article in The Times or the Daily Telegraph. It doesn't matter if you personally think it's "far fetched" or not. That China is presenting itself as a victim is a matter of opinion, not absolute truth. This is why we should include mention that it was The Globe and Mail that said it. Hong Qi Gong -(Talk - Contribs) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"symbol of Chinese virtue in the face of a hostile world", "symbol of Chinese virtue in the face of a hostile world." = "China as a victim", different words, same meaning, your do expect that different newspapers use the exact same wording. And don't be so to assume that whether something a newspaper writes is plausible or not has not a bearing on whether it should be included or not. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about it this way, would the Chinese government say that they are trying to portray China as a victim? I don't think so. The point is that the Chinese government is saying one thing, and Western media is saying something else. NPOV dictates that we present different points of view. If it is Western media that's saying X, then we have to present it as such. And right now that York article is the only source that says that the Chinese government is trying to portray China as a "victim". Please stop trying to insert your own interpretation of our sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 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)

How many times must I say, The Globe and Mail is the only source that even has the word "victim". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dassiebtekreuz, you will note that Xinhua is only being used as a reference for the FESPIC games result. It's not being used for the (controversial) torch relay section. If you can find a better reference for the FESPIC games, that would be good. However, since it's not in the controversial section, it can't be used to justify any Epoch Times reference. nneonneo ^talk 23:32, 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)

Distrort the sources. Look at the first paragraph . Did you notice ABC news was the only source that used the verbage some protesters "threw themselves" why no mention "according to" and lets not forget to use the whole sentence. which mentions most protesters were stopped by the french police and also only ONE actually got through and tried to wrestle the torch from her. That is what was said in the article. Why only use "threw themselves" It makes it look like fact. at least I used various news sources reported. You need to look at the gist of articles, its obtuse to think all writers will use the same verbage. Oiboy77 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrected - [6]. In fact, when I first added the ABC reference, I specifically added that it was ABC News who wrote the "threw themselves at her" line.[7] Apparently somebody else deleted it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No further comment. Your refusal to accept that there are at least three different sources for the claim that China is portrayed as a victim is bordering the ridiculous. Attribute it to Western media in general, but there is no reason to say that only the Globe & Mail says so. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, not sure how many times I must say this, only one source even uses the word "victim". Plus, I've expanded the criticism of Chinese media, to clarify exactly what the article in The Times said. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we favor the western media?

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)

Exactly. Both sides have their biases. This is why we should do in-content attribution when there are claims like China presenting itself as a "victim". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jingandteller, don't come with this "Western media are biased". Sloppy reporting is not the same as being biased, and at the moment the assertion that Western media are biased only serves as a cheap excuse for many Chinese to not be self-critical and not to question why people are demonstrating against the torch relay. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dassiebtekreuz, don't come with this "Sloppy reporting is not the same as being biased". Whatever term you used, sloppy is as bad as biased. We are not talking about that Chinese media is good, instead the Chinese media is bad. But the point is that the western media is also bad, as bad as Chinese media. So we should not always prefer western media to Chinese media. At the moment the assertion that Chinese media are controlled by Communist Party and are biased only serves as a cheap excuss for many western people to not be self-critical and not to question why Chinese people are criticizing the western media, such as CNN as shown in Anti-cnn.--Jingandteller (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All media is biased. If we can display an objective viewpoint of the bias on both sides, readers will be able to interpret the article on their own. I think the main issue is that the Chinese media is controlled by the government, so their point of view is almost identical to the government's. The Western media focuses far too much on this, and the alleged "cover-up" China is doing. If we display this, and show the relative scarcity of pro-Chinese news sources, we can maintain an objective viewpoint. --ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese media is controlled by the government, true. But the western media is also controlled, controlled by the rich such as Murdoch. And even worse when bad western media looks fine using independence as excuse. Chinese media is bad, and people all know it's bad. The western media is also bad, but most of the western people even don't know or don't realize that it's bad. The good image of really bad western media is faked and cheating. We should not prefer bad western media to bad Chinese media and should admit that they are both bad.--Jingandteller (talk) 17:20, 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 totally agree with HongQiGong.--Jingandteller (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I just said that. This isn't an argument anymore, as everyone has agreed that we should add western media criticism to these articles. --ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should add western media criticism, but I don't agree using western media to take the place of Chinese media. Western media is not better than Chinese media. If something can be explained by Chinese media, that's fine enough, and we don't need to find a western media with similar information to take the place of Chinese media in order to let the article look better simply from some western people's view.--Jingandteller (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

about "Chinese Communist Party-controlled newspaper China Daily"

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)

Here's where I disagree with you. I think we need to state that China Daily represents the CCP. The same way that I think we need to mention it is The Globe and Mail that says the Chinese government is trying to portray itself as a victim. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think we need to state that China Daily represents the CCP? I have said my opinion that 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) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that it is the direct opinion of the CCP. But the readers deserve to know that the CCP controls what China Daily publishes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The readers get the idea themselves, not pushed by you.--Jingandteller (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is the harm in adding the CCP reference? In the same way, I don't see how it can be bad that we mention The Globe and Mail. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care The Globe and Mail. We are talking about China Daily. The readers have their own freedom to get the opinion. You don't have any right to push your idea to the readers.--Jingandteller (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really not any of my own ideas. That China Daily is controlled by the CCP is fact. I am saying we should present this fact to the readers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, as you like. And thank you.--Jingandteller (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

how about "state-run"?--Jingandteller (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the article is fine

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)

Downfall

Now she's seen as a traitor because she vaguely opposed boycotting Carrefour. Arronax50 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait till that shows up on the news, if it does at all. This article would be 100 times bigger if we try to add in everything that was said about her by every random commentor on every random blog. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One angry comment on a random blog is not noteworthy enough for inclusion. It will become noteworthy if it's mentioned in the media. Aridd (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found an article about it in the China Digital Times: [8]. Aridd (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one from India [9]. DHN (talk) 22:05, 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)

We've been mentioned in the media!

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)

Ah, I'm very impressed by what's reflected beyond this incident. Finally they will know that there are something they need to improve on what they know about China, and how they treat this country. Glad to see wiki functioned as it's designed for---reveal truth, by not ignoring it. 3x to all Helloterran (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Aridd, thank you very much! We are proud of you! And congratulations, everyone! And thanks to all! --Jingandteller (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

the policy on biographies of living persons

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)

That statement does not reflect badly on Jin. Instead, it shows how crazy those Chinese fenqing are.F (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. If that sentence shows something of fenqing as you claimed, you should move that sentence to the article on fenqing, but not put the sentence here on Jin Jing.--Jingandteller (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Fenqing is a great example of WP:Undue weight. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is original research, although that she has also lost her brain is all to obvious from her imbecile remarks and the whining about Monsieur Sarkozy not apologizing to her. Poor Jin Jinu, poor China, always the victim. Novidmarana (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

no need to mention ABC news

even French president never denied the facts.--Jingandteller (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

towards featured article

A plan: to Wikipedia:Good articles, then to Wikipedia:Featured articles.--Jingandteller (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be difficult. For one thing, I'm not sure there's all that much more relevent content we can put into this article, so it may remain too limited in scope for consideration. In any case, one requirement for a good article is neutrality and stability (no edit warring). So the first step would be to agree on the content. Why exactly has this article been tagged as a POV concern, and what remains to be solved before the tag can be removed? Aridd (talk) 00:00, 24 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))

There is no neutrality problem now. I will remove the NPOV tag.--Jingandteller (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Maybe you are just not the right person to assess, after all the article still reads the same. Maybe you should just accept that Jin Jinu is a poster child for those Chinese that bath in nationalism, whine about how unfair China is treated and lack the ability to be selfcritical. But of course that is anathema for any self-proclaimed Jin Jinu fan. But who knows, maybe the efforts of all those relentness Chinese POV warriors will result in the complete unblock of Wikipedia in China. Novidmarana (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify there is no neutrality as long as reliable Western sources such as the Globe & Mail or the Times are discounted by pretending that what they write is just a personal opinion. Novidmarana (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not there's a POV tag at the top of the article, but seriously, you need to learn what it means to present information in a WP:NPOV manner. It means presenting different sides of an argument. Globe & Mail and The Times are not discounted just because we attribute to both of these sources exactly what they wrote. Nothing in the article states that these two sources should be discounted or that they're somehow unreliable. Presenting what they wrote as if it was plain fact, on the other hand, would be POV. It may be a POV that you agree with in particular, but it's still POV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:39, 28 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)

Xinhua is used for her fencing career record and Sina is not used at all, from what I can see - correct me if I'm wrong. So if you want to add to the article content that her fencing record is reported by Xinhua, by all means go right ahead. No objection from me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply, they are reliable sources, so when they say that X we have to take X as a fact and not just another POV. Otherwise we would have to attribute every single statement in every Wikipedia along the line "according to the New York Times the United States is a country in North America...". That's why there is a policy on what constitutes a reliable source and what not, and given that the assertions presented here are the consensus in Western media we can take it as a fact. Novidmarana (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad analogy. The New York Times is not the only source that says the United States is a country in North America, and more importantly, no source would disagree with the view that the United States is a country in North America. Can't say the same with the Globe & Mail source claiming that China is portraying itself as a "victim". Again, get a better grasp of what WP:NPOV means:

• The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a good analogy, the Globe and Mail is not the only source who said so as I showed and explained somewhere above. And where is the disagreement on that China portrays itself as a victim. Reading of western news sources shows that is rather the consensus. Of course, I am ignoring Chinese news sources, but that is the rather the point and confirms the fact that China portrays itself as the victim. Novidmarana (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, learn and understand WP:NPOV. Here's another passage from the policy:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

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)

That China portrays itself as the victim is not an opinion, it is a fact confirmed by reliable sources such as the Globe & Mail and the Times, and the Washington Post said that in article, too. According to your interpretation different sources must use the exactly same words, here victim, but of course that almost never happens, in no article. But lets just settle it here and agree to disagree, keep the non-neutrality tag and wait until there is a scholarly assessment in five years or so. Novidmarana (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break about propoganda in the people's republic of china

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))

Agreed. If anything, the Tibet protestors themselves have provided fuel for nationalistic fervor in China, and for Overseas Chinese outside of China - people who have ready access to so-called "independent" press. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is calling it propaganda? It's first and foremost an internet phenomenon, obviously, although the dissemination of news about the event *within* China was a calculated move. Yunfeng (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been several attempts to add this article to the category "Propaganda in People's Republic of China". Check the change log. Some people willfully omitted going through their brains before making important changes.(Cowboybebop98 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, didn't know that. I would think that this sentence:

According to Canada's The Globe and Mail, initially the state media of China censored reports on the torch protest and the incident involving Jin Jing, but it soon reported on the protest and portrayed China as the victim, thus appealing to patriotic sentiments.

would be what those editors were thinking of when they put it in. Doesn't that tend to show that there is a propagandistic element to this story? Yunfeng (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the offical torch relay website under news. There are 7 news exerts on Jin Jing and no others that mention a torch bearer more than one. If this is a case of calling the kettle black.....Oiboy77 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This phenomenon initiated from internet outside China, where Chinese government got almost all their information about the incident. Even if China intended to take this opportunity to launch their propaganda campaign, they are not the force behind it. The publicity that this incident and the phenomenon of Jin Jing were mostly pushed by pro-china community as well as pro-tibet community (as they have their conspiracy theory). By no means should it be listed as a case for PRC's propaganda simply because they chose to join our voice. It was not, and it did not have to be manipulated by Chinese government. It is quite normal that there were numerous news about this in the official torch relay as this is the result rather than the cause of the phenomenon. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

The Chinese government is using this incident for propagandistic purposes, therefore it's propaganda. Use of that term does not mean that the incident was staged or that they "discovered" it before fenqing like you did. It doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It means they are consciously using the event to push opinion in China a certain way. On a related note, I am tired of giving free English lessons to Wikipedia editors who don't know how to use a dictionary. If your English isn't good enough to understand the difference between a conspiracy and propaganda, then you should be editing in your native language, not on English Wikipedia. Yunfeng (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way did i relate conspiracy with propaganda? And where did i indicate conspiracy = propaganda? Did you even read what i just wrote? And you couldn't wait lecturing me on your crappy english? Please stop raising these unrelated issues without reading and stop asking stupid questions like "who's calling it propaganda" without checking the changelog, ok? (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

If you revert my change again, you'll be in violation of the three-revert rule. WP:3RR. Yunfeng (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also anonymouse netziens is a falicy all bbs log IP addresses, making then not anonymouse whether they register a user name of not. Looking at the boards i noticed that most of the posts are from REGISTERED users. Oiboy77 (talk) 17:01, 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)

Official policy from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories

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)

I assume we're talking about nationalism and propaganda? I think the above would be relevant if we were talking about calling Jin Jing herself a nationalist and a propagandist, but we're not. We're talking about the phenomenon of her fame, which is due to nationalist / fenqing outrage, and has been exploited for propagandistic purposes. So, I think the categories should stay. Yunfeng (talk) 20:46, 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)

I don't think that's necessary at all. Nobody reading the category is likely to think that she herself is a propagandist, merely that this is used for propaganda. Unless someone objects I'll replace the cat. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if these links are listed as a see also column to reflect your opinion, but putting a propaganda category is like labeling this phenomenon with a tag of "made in china, by communists", which is not the case as i mentioned. Unless you show enough sources like in Tianmen_Square_self_immolation, in no way should it be listed as this category. Maybe you can wait a few more years. I suggest you to hold on to avoid unnecessary reverts, not only by me. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

It has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. It's propaganda because the story has been used as such in China. I don't understand the rest of your comment. Yunfeng (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're concerned about unnecessary reverts, then don't make them. Yunfeng (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda in the People's Republic of China refers to the PRC's use of messages designed to influence public opinion. Jin Jing's story is not designed in any way to start with. And Public Opinion was influenced by what they saw from the picture and the video rather than what Chinese government told them. My last comment was not intended for you so please skip it you have problem understanding them.(Cowboybebop98 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

For a event or phenomenon to be used for propaganda does not require that the event be *created* with propaganda in mind. I would think that would be clear. The Great Leap Forward propagandists did not invent Lei Feng. He was a real person. They just used his story as propaganda. This is an exact parallel. Yunfeng (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the sources say. We follow the sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Sigh. Ok: [10]; [11]; [12]. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:09, 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))

I agree that most media does see the incident been used as CPP Propaganda.Oiboy77 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Link section

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)

This article is about Jin Jing, and these links are relevant to her. Heck, she's probably the most famous Paralympic athlete in the world at the moment. Following your logic, we might as well remove everything in the article that's not about the Olympic relay. But having said that, I have moved amputation up to the article content and also added two more links in the See Also section: Media of the People's Republic of China and Internet in the People's Republic of China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid and WP:Weasel

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)

I think HQG's version is preferable to what we had before. Yunfeng (talk) 17:14, 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)

the section of see also need to be removed

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)

Useless? Nothing to do with Jin Jinu? Could you please state reasons, because "useless" and "nothing to do with the article" can mean anything. Novidmarana (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

why do you link Chinese nationalism in the see also?--Jingandteller (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop removing content on the ground that your question that has been repeatedly answered has not been answered? And why do you expect that someone answers your questions if you are not willing to answer what "useless" and "nothing to do with the article" means. Novidmarana (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No.--Jingandteller (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Long live China

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)

How's life in Tennessee treating you? After you "take revenge," consider your children may then not have the opportunities you do currently studying/working in the USA. You really have to love those who bite the hand who feeds them. 165.123.139.232 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some more info we may be able to use for the article

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=450642

http://www.disabilitynation.net/blog/handicapped-jin-receives-heros-welcome-protecting-olympic-torch-paris

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://chinaaid.org/2008/04/21/french-emissaries-to-beijing-chinese-government-blocks-irrational-nationalism/

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)

Interesting stuff. I am afraid though that it has not been approved by the PRC government and will meet some resistance by the Jin Jinu fanboys. Better to keep the current version of the article and avoid an edit war. After all Jin Jinu is a completely insignificant person that had her 15 minutes, and not really worth of the energy put into this article. I guess the article makes clear that she is a national hero for some in China, and seen as propaganda stooge by others everywhere else, so in that sense the article does the job. Novidmarana (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the links above are simply very cheap blogs. Do you want to use blogs as sources?--Jingandteller (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to keep the article as is

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):

• User:Aridd
• User:Cowboybebop98
• User:Dassiebtekreuz - apparently retired from Wikipedia
• User:Helloterran - not active anymore?
• User:HongQiGong
• User:Jingandteller
• User:Oiboy77
• User:Relata refero
• User:Yunfeng

Novidmarana (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coordinating the effort towards resolving neutrality issue for this article. I agree that no new major developments need to be added at this point, and hopefully in the future. But obviously there is still this struggle for category among several editors. Lets use this opportunity to get this straighten up. Like I said I am not against adding PRC's propaganda as the category because other users have a point, but it is still inappropriate according to General_Consideration: Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article. It might be true that Jin Jing's (incident) is (used) as propaganda, but does "Jin Jing is propaganda" or "Jin Jing is a kind of propaganda" make sense? Simple as that. It does and does not depending on your perspective. If a side needs to be taken, I would still say no to the cat. I just wouldn't participate in the edit war for this any more. --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be ok with me - the version I had in mind, see the link above to the reference version, does not put her in the propaganda category, instead there is a wikilink to propaganda in the PRC. Novidmarana (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice that. I am OK with the version. Let's hear from others. Thanks --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 03:05, 5 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)

Better flow for Libération, L'Express, and Le Monde

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)

Ah. Good point. Perhaps we could rephrase it a little, and simply say "although these dealt primarily with President Sarkozy's reaction to the events relating to Jin."? Aridd (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually wondering what value the mention of those three newspapers add to the paragraph. Doesn't seem to be very useful. And those three newspaper articles are basically a printed version of the letter. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How about remove the sentence, but add the references to the paragraph where the letter was mentioned? I don' see why their names had to be mentioned explicitly while the information they provide were already covered (later). --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article published by Le Figaro was written after the letter was delivered to Jin Jing. Ideally it should've been mentioned later when the letter is covered by the article. --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 03:43, 6 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)

For the record, I mentioned them mainly to show that Jin did eventually receive coverage in the French media. Which seemed reasonably important, since the events happened in France. But remove them if you like. Aridd (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The media coverages that you added are important addition to the article. Thanks for the work. --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Inexact story from Marianne

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)

Why don't you find an article that supports the text you added about the Marianne article? Otherwise your comment is OR / editorial. Also, the comment would belong at the end of the Marianne section, not at the beginning. Yunfeng (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest news

Is this worthy of inclusion, do you think? Aridd (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I added one line in the career section to include this. I think its worth a mention. Thanks for the update. --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

see also section removed

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)

Given that this somewhat controversial article has reached a stable equilibrium I do not appreciate at all your changes, especially as you have given no justification whatsoever. Well, except for what I read above that the section is useless. It has been explained repeated times why the see also section is related to Jin Jing. And useless, and again I have said that in one of the section above, is not a reason at all. Useless why, maybe you should try to answer this question instead of just changing things to your personal liking. Novidmarana (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is on Jin Jing, not on other things in that see also section.--Jingandteller (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a textbook example of the phenomena listed in the 'See Also' section. Given your personal involvement with this article's subject (tribute videos, etc) I am suspicious that you are trying to purge it of any negative content. Yunfeng (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is acceptable to list some external links related to the article. Relevance of particular links can be disputed though. For example, I don't think Fenqing is closely related to the article as it doesn't take a Fenqing to show his sympathy/anger for the incident (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Jin Jing is a rallying point for fenqing and other nationalists. Yunfeng (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed Fenqing, for the sake of keeping the article stable. I also undid the revision by Jingandteller as this editor gave no reason for the changes. To Jingandteller, given that this article is controversial you should discuss changes before doing them, especially as what you have changed as been discussed here already a thousand times. I remind that Wikipedia is about collaborative editing, so you simply can't ignore what other editors have to say. Also, per WP:TALK you should not remove content from the talk page. Novidmarana (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good for you to remove fenqing.--Jingandteller (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yunfeng, you are right, it is related to Jin Jing so we should keep it. Thanks for your explanation. Novidmarana (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just doing a google search on Fenqing and Jin Jinu shows that some of her most ardent nationalistic supporters are frequently labeled as Fenquing, so there is a connection between the more or less deragotary term Fenquing for Chinese nationalists and Jin Jing. The article on Jin Jing also establishes that the Jin Jing incident is a rallying point for hyper-nationalists, and given that a Fenquing is a hyper-nationalist we we should keep the link in the article in the article. Novidmarana (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jin Jing's incident in France fueled Chinese nationalism in the whole country, which is already listed in the See also section. And, after reading Fenqing, I generally can't relate the actions of Chinese nationalism shown in this article with the characteristics of Fenqing. You may argue that a few netizens calling Jin Jing Hanjian are Fenqing. First, they were doing so out of the anger towards French government, not because Jin Jing is Westernized or Japanophile, obviously. I would rather think of these kids as a bunch of idiots who didn't even know what they were talking about. Besides, the Boycott of Carrefour incident involving Jin Jing is a very insignificant part of the article, shouldn't we focus on the link with the main part of the article, i.e. the olympic torch incident? If we all agree that Fenqing is a somewhat deragotary term, then it should be carefully used/linked and should not be abused. I am supportive of not including it in the See also section. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your response, much better than this Jin Jinu fan whose English is just good enough to say useless, useless and nothing more. I still disagree with your position, but we can keep it out for the moment to avoid another edit war. Novidmarana (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

French videos

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423220022/http://www.sueddeutsche.de:80/ausland/artikel/610/170115/ to http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/610/170115/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422065127/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5XsY8GC20KstkLBljyVXruvU2rgD903QCVO1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5XsY8GC20KstkLBljyVXruvU2rgD903QCVO1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411230728/http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/cn/journey/paris/news/n214297194.shtml to http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/cn/journey/paris/news/n214297194.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411230744/http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/journey/paris/news/n214297268.shtml to http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/journey/paris/news/n214297268.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-china12apr12%2C1%2C4480516.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414055303/http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214299940.shtml to http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214299940.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414203411/http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214305373.shtml to http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214305373.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411193523/http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/875154.aspx to http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/875154.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414232047/http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214298691.shtml to http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214298691.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414232057/http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214299534.shtml to http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214299534.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414162007/http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080411/wchina0412.html to http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080411/wchina0412.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416105901/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6805a872-4db0-4f2b-a375-793b7bf97448&k=61122 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6805a872-4db0-4f2b-a375-793b7bf97448&k=61122
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/99/t-89999.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920074050/http://www.france24.com/fr/20080830-chine-escrimeuse-handicapee-fiasco-flamme-paris-relais-jeux-paralympiques to http://www.france24.com/fr/20080830-chine-escrimeuse-handicapee-fiasco-flamme-paris-relais-jeux-paralympiques

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)