Talk:Chen Linong

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

ATTENTION! Page must be in English unless needed otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZangyPineapple (talkcontribs) 21:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Notifications left at User talk:MowerBreeze, User talk:晴朗天, Talk:Eddie Peng, Talk:Janine Chang, Talk:Greg Hsu, Talk:Ouyang Nana. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages:

Editors:

The edit warring going on across these five pages is terrible. Please see Wikipedia:Edit warring for why this isn't acceptable.

All five articles have been fully-protected for a week, meaning you can't edit them.

Please use this section here to discuss the issues you're having. If you need external help, please see the Biographies noticeboard or requests for comment.

Consider this a final warning that if edit warring resumes once the protection lapses in 7 days, or the edit warring extends to other articles, you will be blocked from editing.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@晴朗天: very disappointing to see you being active, asking for help about this article, at other editors' talk pages (diff), without coming here to initiate discussion about your removal of content prior to the articles being protected. Daniel (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that, Daniel? I am trying to solve the problem. May I ask you a question ? As stated, if the artist has not altered his/her nationality since birth, he/she doesn't need to fill out the (nationality) field, am i not right?

晴朗天 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel ex. 1 ex. 2 ex. 3 ex. 4 晴朗天 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel (nationality field) 晴朗天 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing your removal of the sourced statement regarding cotton, and MowerBreeze's readdition, which verged into edit warring. Daniel (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources, easily found on Google, which back up the citation. Additionally, I already tried to compromise and make it as neutral as possible by removing my original addition ("The premier of Taiwan, Su Tseng-chang, later said that some of Taiwan's celebrities were selfish for expressing support for Xinjiang's cotton, and said that generations of people had worked hard in Taiwan to achieve democracy and its respect for human rights."), even though I felt it was relevant. The user 晴朗天 claims that the "Xinjiang cotton controversy is inconclusive" in his edit summaries, but that does not remove the fact that these people expressed support for it. The user also says "Remove misleading information" but none of this is misleading, since publicly announcing their support for the cotton is a fact that happened. Ultimately, this is not a hill worth dying on, but we should not allow the scrubbing of support for potential human rights abuses MowerBreeze (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hashtag 'I support Xinjiang cotton' in Chinese launched by People's Daily on Weibo means ‘rejecting malicious vilification,’ but how did it become ‘supporting human rights abuses’ in MowerBreeze's mouth? If this is not misleading information, then what is?

And I was surprised that he/she changed the title of early life to personal life in order to place that statement, regardless of the structure of the article. (Same as Eddie Peng's article.) 晴朗天 (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@晴朗天: The companies expressed concern over the use of forced labour in Xinjiang (i.e. human rights abuses). Not sure where the "hashtag launched by People's Daily" comes into the discussion. Citobun (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than happy to create a new section, such as "Xinjiang cotton", "Potential support of human rights abuses", or "Political views" to add the statement, instead of "Personal life", if you would like me to. MowerBreeze (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Citobun: Overview: In October 2020, H&M issued a statement on its official website to "stop using cotton from Xinjiang" in response to reports and allegations of forced labour by Uighurs. Many apparel companies have made similar statements for similar reasons.

In March 2021, Chinese state media and the public accused these statements of smear and vilification, mobilizing support for Xinjiang cotton and boycotting companies that abandoned it.

The hashtag "I support Xinjiang cotton", launched by People's Daily on Weibo (link), which means “rejecting malicious vilification,” has received over 8 billion views and more than 43 million discussions, and was retweeted by many celebrity Weibo accounts. Then the media reported on the celebrities' termination of contracts with the boycotted companies and the retweeting of "I support Xinjiang cotton", with some important details being omitted, according to their own positions and opinions.

(Related articles: Xinjiang cotton industry and 2021年新疆棉花争议事件

According to the facts of the matter, the celebrities' Weibo accounts retweeted the hashtag "I support Xinjiang cotton (refers to reject malicious vilification)" instead of the hashtag "I support human rights abuses".

For people who don't know the real situation and see MowerBreeze's writings (especially links to Xinjiang internment camps), they may mistakenly think that this artist supports human rights abuses. 晴朗天 (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you mention, the celebrities specifically used "I support Xinjiang cotton" after some companies were concerned about it. This matches up perfectly with my edits, which you deleted: (In March 2021, Chen announced support for cotton from Xinjiang in mainland China, after some companies had expressed concerns about human rights abuses. ). Therefore you have proven my edits correct, and there should be no issues with them. MowerBreeze (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, your statements are cunningly [Quoting out of context| taken out of context] in order to discredit these artists. It is against the [Biographies of living persons] and the neutral point of view. I have always stressed the premise of "rejecting malicious vilification," but you have deliberately ignored it because of your political bias. 晴朗天 (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]