User talk:Pw21671

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Daiwie Fu ‎, you may be blocked from editing. Don't use blogs as refernce, like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daiwie_Fu&diff=1064005043&oldid=1064004088 . Rastinition (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Daiwie Fu, you may be blocked from editing. If you remove the template, you should explain. there is no explanation in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daiwie_Fu&diff=1063824810&oldid=1063538994. Rastinition (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Pw21671. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Rastinition (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reminder. I was a student of Dawie Fu more than ten years ago. I intend to edit this page because there was much incorrect and insufficient content. The content I edit is based on the interviews or the publication of Daiwaie Fu. I don't get paid for editing this page, and I don't see the conflict of interest. Pw21671 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Restinition,

1, Ｗhen I started to create this wiki entry (Daiwie Fu), I was not warned or reminded about the CoI problem.

2, This entry is my work, except for the letter Fu asked me to send to you when he saw your templates comments, especially the "excessive amount of intricate details."

My work includes Fu's published writings, published interviews, and my later interview with Fu, so the four points you wrote on the CoI tag are incorrect.

When I edited this entry, I attempted to be neutral and objective. Thus, I mentioned the criticisms of Fu in the Taiwanese academia, including the academic and social debates that you initially deleted. Therefore, I hope you can review the part.

Academic and social debates

There were naturally some debates concerning Fu’s ideas and researches. From his earlier social criticism and his current book project research, he has been constructing a conception of “radicality” with a special Chinese phrase（基進）. This conception was partly inspired by Foucault’s historical works on the marginals, thus Fu had proposed an idea of “marginal struggle” to emphasize the criticism of the marginal and its subversive power. It had gained some importance in the early phases of Taiwan’s democratic movements. He advised activists engaging social criticism from the margins and not to be seduced to become part of the center: i.e., parliment or government. But this position is not popular among social activists who work with political oppositions and eager to become elected congressmen or ministers. Only by taking control of the state machine, they argued, can we really change or reform the society. A recent reflection of Fu’s idea of radicality in the last three decades and his further theoretical notes was addressed in his “Radicality 2.0” (基進 2.0, 2019). Another debate, or at least tension, is between Fu’s position concerning the relationship between philosophy of science (PS) and STS. Although come to Taiwan’s academics as a philosopher of science, he later switched to history of science and especially to STS in his second half of academic life. This switch did not please some younger philosophers of science, who had considered Fu an important ally. Similar to the tension between PS and STS in Euro-America contexts, PS in Taiwan is often suspicious of STS being relativism and excessive constructivism, whereas STS tends to dismiss PS as egg-headed academic and irrelevant to social issues of science, technology and medicine. Sometimes Fu also gave others impressions like that, but he also wrote papers concerning this tension and looked for ways to respect or complement each other, as can be seen from his 2013 paper on “boundary-crossings” and his new 2021 General Introduction to the fourth edition of Taiwanese translation of Kuhn’s Structure Fu had helped to translate back to 1985.

If you still cannot accept it after the review, I feel sorry that the wiki does not encourage East Asian scholars to communicate with the world and provide good information for exchange. So, finally, I will delete this entry entirety. Pw21671 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]