Jump to content

Talk:Chai Ling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

qidai and NPOV

[edit]

Saranyaforlag had added two comments to the article. I have moved them to the discussion page (where they belong). Here they are, with a comment of myself:

NB! Please note that the above quoted interview and the way it has been interpreted all hangs on one Chinese word that she used, qidai. It is the key word in the following translated sentence: "I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed..." Now qidai has different meanings, one is quite correctly hope, but another is expect. Chai Ling most certainly had the latter in mind. (This paragraph has been written by Yan Friis.)

I disagree. The word qīdài 期待 can be translated into English as "hope for", "look forward to" and "expect", but to say that it has the meaning "to expect" is just a trick that works only with people who don't know Chinese, because qīdài 期待 always implies a desire, such as in qīdàizhe nǐ zǎorì xuéchéng guīlái 期待着你早日学成归来 or jué bù gūfù nín de qīdài 决不辜负您的期待.

This is also supported by the context, by what Chai Ling went on to say: "And what is truly sad is that some students, and some famous, well-connected people, are working hard to help the government, to prevent it from taking this measure", i.e. bringing about a bloodshed.

Chai Ling claimed in a letter to the New York Times that qīdài 期待 should have been translated as "to expect". She consciously tried to mislead the public.

Saranyaforlag's second comment:

NB! Some of what is being stated in this article is very tendentious. Please have in mind that this also goes for the above mentioned documentary "Gate Of Heavenly Peace" that she refused to take part in. And "The American"-dream quote is taken out of context, and should be read as such, and so should the comment about her alleged claims about being a 1989 heroine. (Yan Friis)

I agree that the article should be cleared up, but I think that quote makes sense here. And BlueShirts is right: She's a damn hypocrite. —66.98.206.97 05:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article may well be correct, but I still don't think the article sounds balanced. It doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article to me. --Blue Elf 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would agree with Blue Elf but go on to ask how those focusing on the ridiculous notion that Chai may have Hoped for Bloodshed (including her own since she was there when it happened!)have fallen for the oldest political trick in the book. Instead of focusing on how the Chinese government should treat the great Chinese people they are drawn into a bald faced attempt to discredit the speaker when the message itself cannot be debated (even the Chinese Communist authorites state they are in favor of democracy and try to show it with local elections and statements to the U.S. media). --206.104.58.62 (IP address of Jenzabar, Inc SPRINTLINK) 09:15, 14 July 2006

Deleted text / revert

[edit]

I've reverted changes made by 206.104.58.62 (IP address of Jenzabar, Inc SPRINTLINK). A user at the company run by Chai Ling herself and her husband deleted the whole article and replaced it with a text supposedly copied from the Harvard Business School Bulletin. That's vandalism - please stop. —Babelfisch 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous IP registered with Jenzabar has vandalised the article once again. I've reverted the changes. If you want to contribute something, please do so in a way that makes sense. —Babelfisch 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same anonymous IP has once again deleted the link to the article about Jenzabar on the website of the documentary "Gate of Heavenly Peace" by Carma Hinton and Richard Gordon. I've once again re-inserted it. I've added a remark that this is not the company website. —Babelfisch 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed

[edit]

I have removed most of the text from this article because it is unsourced and is drawing WP:OTRS complaints. Please rebuild the article with due regard to reliable sources and references. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted almost the whole article. I've moved the original version to this talk page (see below), so it can be edited and referenced.
What are the OTRS complaints? Without details, those complaints can't be addressed. —Babelfisch 03:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Ling kept coming back and deleting the whole section. I am not familiar with the formating, can someone help out here in reverting the whole article? - sarahsarah Oct 10, 06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarahsarah (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 October 2006.

They're vandalising the article about Jenzabar as well.
I see you've restored the article except for this link:
* Article on Jenzabar (link to company website below)
I would have waited for a reply from UninvitedCompany. —Babelfisch 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints are broad and appear plausible, which is why I stubbed. Without sources we can't contest even vague claims. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are the complaints? "Broad and plausible" is not enough to justify these attempts to censor Wikipedia.
It's not acceptable to immediately delete articles without any discussion because they are unsourced. There are tags and talk pages to solve such problems. —Babelfisch 02:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:38, 18 September 2006

[edit]
In this Chinese name, the family name is Chai.

Chai Ling (Chinese: 柴玲; Pinyin: Chái Líng) (born 15 April 1966) was one of the leaders in the Tian'anmen Square protests of 1989.

Chai Ling was born in the city of Rìzhào in Shāndōng province. She graduated from Beijing University in 1987 and then undertook graduate study in Beijing Normal University concentrating on child psychology.

She emerged as one of the student leaders on the Square at a later stage of the movement, and although there was no official power rested in her post, for which she was constantly referred to as the icon fighter of democracy.

The most controversial aspect of her role in the protests was her uncompromising stand on the Tian'anmen Square. Her tactics centered on publicly shaming the communist Chinese government for its callous disregard for its people. She was argubly the main factor that resulted in the ultimate failure of Tian'anmen movement which ended with PLA's crackdown. The contrast between her high-profile in the movement and subsequent distancing from the democratic movement after the crackdown made her vulnerable to the accusation that she was an opportunistic and calculating fame-seeker only interested in improving her social and financial situation at the cost of others, in the name of democracy.

In an interview with American journalist Philip Cunningham on May 28, 1989, she stated:

"The students kept asking, 'What should we do next? What can we accomplish?' I feel so sad, because how can I tell them that what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed, for the moment when the government has no choice but to brazenly butcher us. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they really be united. But how can I explain this to my fellow students? And what is truly sad is that some students, and famous well-connected people, are working hard to help the government, to prevent it from taking such measures. For the sake of their selfish interests and their private dealings they are trying to cause our movement to collapse and get us out of the Square before the government becomes so desperate that it takes action."[1]

She was on the wanted list by the Chinese government. She fled from China in April 1990, with the help of Hong Kong-funded organizations, and completed a beautifying plastic surgery while in exile, claiming that this would help conceal her identity. After 10 months of hiding, she settled in Paris, France, where she immediately divorced her then-husband, Fēng Cóngdé (封从德), once she accepted a full scholarship to Princeton University. She later received an honorary Masters degree in Political Science from Princeton University. After this, she served as a junior consultant at Bain & Co., a leading strategic consulting firm, during 1993-1996 in its Boston office.

Then she moved on to acquire an MBA at Harvard Business School in 1998. She runs a software company with her current husband, Robert A. Maginn Jr., who was the vice president and partner of the Boston office of Bain & Co. Maginn was instrumental in the hiring of Chai into Bain, a controversial move fiercely opposed by Bain's Asian partners for the fear of provoking the Chinese government. After rampant rumors of an affair between the two, Maginn divorced his wife to marry Chai.

They now co-run the software company Jenzabar.

Chai and Maginn Jr. were sued by five former executives and Harvard Business School for "a number of illegal actions."[2]

"Today, I am living the American dream," Chai told Parade magazine in June of 2003. She also serves as a trustee to a few local education institutes in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she resides.

She repeatedly declined an interview for the documentary film on the 1989 student demonstrations, "Gate of Heavenly Peace," released in 1995.

She reportedly made a trip to China seeking business opportunities in 2005.

[edit]

[[Category:1966 births|Ling, Chai]] [[Category:Living people|Ling, Chai]] [[category:Chinese dissidents]]

Someone has posted:

"She reportedly made a trip to China seeking business opportunities in 2005 intending to return and settle in China on seeing the "American Dream" is really financial disasters, bankruptcies, over 10% unemployment and families living in tents in public parks."

Can someone tell who posted this paragraph? Although I can't sustain that it is not true, at first glance it seems to be a fallacy and there is no citation to any source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mppf (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Anonymous user 206.104.58.62 (IP address allocated to Jenzabar, Inc, SPRINTLINK): Don't vandalise this discussion. See Wikipedia guidelines on Behavior that is unacceptable on talk pages. —Babelfisch 06:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced materials removed

[edit]

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New, unsourced (?) material

[edit]

The new addition to the article [3] contains markers [1] and [2] which seems to refer to sources. If these are not mentioned, the statemants inkluding Chai Ling quotes are not sourced all the same, and the material should be removed. / habj (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Ling marketing page?

[edit]

The article is more like a marketing page for Chai Ling. This is surely a misuse of Wikipedia. 86.178.73.202 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have large chunks of her life been left out in article?

[edit]

Why has the article been re-written to leave out a large chunk of her life? Surely she was famous for the deaths in Tiananmen Square ref: June 4 1989, and the article should cover this is some details, which it used to do but has now been sanitised (by Chai Ling?). 86.176.48.180 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was she actually there at the Square on the night of the final crackdown? I actually would like to know if she was there and hard to find information on that. The current article is somewhat vague and doesn't specify on whether she stayed or escaped the square early like she did last time. Note that a verified video had showed that Chai Ling confessed that she was hoping or aiming for a massacre at the square, but didn't want to tell the students that. A twisted person who was prepared to use others as sacrificing tools towards their deaths and lie to them about it, isn't someone of integrity. So arguably she is not a reliable source. Meanwhile Hou Dejian and student leader Liu Xiaobo were actually verified to be there, and both said they saw no massacre in the square. They had no reason to lie, especially Liu Xiaobo considering how much he hated China so no reason why he would lie just to help China. I suggest that the article should make it clear on whether she was actually there or not. But not relying completely on her word for everything as it currently is.49.186.80.191 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

religion and AGA

[edit]

Chai Ling

[edit]

(discussion moved from Off2riorob's talk)

Hello

I wish to restore the content that was removed on the Chai Ling article by user Scott McDonald- notably her Christian testimony and information about the All Girls Allowed (AGA) initative. The reason given for their removal was that they were not encyclopeic- yet both were referenced, and supported by the AGA website. Chai Ling's testimony also appears on the China Aid site here: http://www.chinaaid.org/downloads/sb_chinaaid/ChaiLingstestimony6_13_2010.pdf

I do not understand why you claim I have violated copyright laws? The information is factual and from another open public forum, and I would have thought it would be useful to anyone visiting Chai Ling's page. Please could you explain in simple language what I would need to do in order to satisfy your requirements (I am new to wikipedia and I don't understand all the jargon!)Aurora07 (talk)

Hi, thanks for discussing. one issue is that it is a cut and copy exact of the website that has a copyright notice at the bottom. Another is that it is far to much content about that and is all cited to her own website, there is no independent report of it in a national publication. To be honest, it is not worthy of note in a wikipedia BLP, it is in the article when she was become a Christian, possibly if you want to summarize the issue in a couple of lines then it could be ok cited to that website but imo more than that is undue coverage of a not notable issue. If you are unhappy with this position I will ask another user or an Administrator to look at it for you, regards. I am watching this talkpage and if you reply here I will reply, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- surely whether the information is notable or not is a matter of opinion? It is a biographic page, and when someones beliefs changes the course of their life (and in this case it is the reason that Ling has established AGA) then I would count that as notable! I would be happy to cut it to a few lines though and link to the website- the reason it was more lengthy is that someone more experienced in wikipedia suggested that putting more positive content on their would detract from the slander that some people have been placing on the page. I was the one who flagged up that slander is being placed on there, so it is a bit annoying that it is now the positive content that is being so challenged! I understand that we need to be compliant with copyright laws though and will try to make approriate adjustments. What about the information about AGA that user Scott McDonald had also removed? If I shorten it could that be placed back on there? Thanks Aurora07 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiipedia notability is established by independent quality publications writing about a person and then we report about those reports. Yes, write a small summary of her religious experience...please keep it to the bones as they say and we can look at adding it. The article has a few watchers now and the slanderous comment should not get back in now, thank you for that. I have left Scitt McDonald a note to ask his opinion to your comments also. We can also look at a reduced and rewritten small section about the AGA, but please remember we need to be careful not to create a self promotional article with excessive promotional content supported by the subjects own websites. What we really want is independent reports talking about her, not her talking about herself, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Robb here. That her religion changed is notable, and perhaps a sentence to describe where and when. But we follow sources, and unless you can show independent media interest etc in the details, then it isn't notable enough for a biography. Perhaps this discussion is best moved the the article's talk page so others can see it.--Scott Mac 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've tried to write a brief and balanced summary with links to appropriate sources. I may add the odd line over time but will make sure that it is clearly referenced if I do. Aurora07 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took it on myself to change "bring God's love" to "bring Christianity to China". The former is hardly unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.244.157 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Software/ERP/Database company?

[edit]

I'm surprised no one from Jenzabar (the company) has created a company page. It is odd that I got redirected to this page when I was trying to find out about the company and its products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.206.6 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edits

[edit]

I made a bunch of edits to the article to remove hagiographic elements and cut down on bloat (such as stating her entire educational history twice or details of how and where Chai got baptized). I also removed elements that could only be verified by her autobiography (2x Nobel Peace Prize nomination) since that doesn't adhere to wiki:BLP. Please discuss these changes here before reverting them back. Thank you. Lostromantic (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chai Ling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

raped by yuan zhiming (allegation)

[edit]

has RS. plz add AAAAA143222 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2023‎

[edit]

ADifferentMan - please explain this edit. There was a mismatch between what the source was saying and what the content was saying. Politixsperson (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again, please explain this edit. There was a mismatch between what the source was saying and what you wrote. Politixsperson (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have yet to hear from you even though it has been a few days since I raised this issue, I am removing the material. Politixsperson (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Politixsperson: Where is this alleged 'mismatch'? ADifferentMan (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not say her remarks are "controversial" or that the interview is "notable" or "notably recorded". That is just random commentary you put in there. Politixsperson (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of controversial:
[4]
Controversial (adj.) - Arousing controversy — a debate or discussion of opposing opinions.
This section clearly describes the scandal involving Chai's defamation lawsuit, as well as the resulting backlash, starting from the sentence:

In 2009, Chai and her firm have launched multiple lawsuits against the film's non-profit producers, the Long Bow Group...

Please take some time to read WP:SS before brazenly removing material. ADifferentMan (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt change the fact that the source you cited never says what you says it says. We are going to need a source, not your interpretation, that specifically and clearly says her comments were controversial. Failure to do so would be a violation of WP:PROVEIT. It would also be a violation of WP:BLPSOURCE. The most we can say is that her remarks formed the basis her defamation lawsuit.
She has made a number of controversial remarks regarding her role in the 1989 protests that were recorded in an interview with Phillip Cunningham in the documentary The Gate of Heavenly Peace, which have since been the subject of various legal[3][4][5] and personal[6] disputes. - as explained, the phrase controversial remarks violates policy. Having it in the introduction section also violates WP:BLPBALANCE as it gives disproportionate space to the views of her critics for those remarks. In addition, there are specific issues related to the sources: Sources three and four do not link properly. Five is about the trademark lawsuit, not the defamation lawsuit, which as the source shows had nothing to do with the documentary remarks. Six does not say or show her remarks were the subject of various personal disputes - the most it shows is Chai attacking the producer of the documentary but without making clear references to the remarks.
The footage has been verified by third-party media specialists as genuine, and is readily available online.[78] - this is original research and thus qualifies for WP:BLPREMOVE. It also violates copyright policy (WP:YOUTUBE, WP:COPYVIOEL) Politixsperson (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have yet to hear from you even though it has been a few days since I made my comments, I am removing the material. Politixsperson (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like your personal interpretation of the word 'controversy' than any policy. Furthermore, you seem to have completely missed the point that the paragraph under discussion is meant to summarize the sections below. If you have a problem with a particular word, change it to whatever you consider more 'neutral'. It gives you no grounds to delete an entire paragraph over it. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will put in a sentence that says her remarks formed the basis of the lawsuits. But as for putting in an entire paragraph that is full of biased commentary and faulty interpretation of what the sources say - yeah, that is not happening Politixsperson (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chai_Ling&oldid=1194722602"