User talk:FreedomFighter228

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk

Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

Please stop inserting biased text into articles. Articles must adhere to the NPOV policy. --Ji ang 05:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang, it's funny you should mention that, b/c you seem to be the premier of POV. I've been reading wikipedia for quite some time now, and it seems you are in a billion edit wars all over the place. I also saw your big rejection from adminship. Nice. (And quite deserving)--FreedomFighter228 05:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove/change content without discussion. Some people may consider it vandalism. If you are opposed to Ji and User:Changlc's views, please discuss the matter with them. Don'call them clowns, this is against civility. I am not sure whether your edits are NPOV or not, because I am not an expert on China and Taiwan. You might wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. And remember the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. utcursch | talk 05:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I noticed that after Changlc reverted something twice and then Jiang came in for the third revert to block me. Is it possible they are sockpuppets?--FreedomFighter228 05:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not warning :-), just a friendly advice. I don't think that Ji and User:Changlc are sockpuppets. You might want to disucss your edits at Wikipedia:Taiwan-related topics notice board or Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board. utcursch | talk 05:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please come back when you can refrain from vandalizing or using personal attacks. And do keep with a single account or all of them will be blocked. --Ji ang 05:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now this one is a warning. Don't vandalize others user pages. utcursch | talk 05:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Neutral POV[edit]

First off, there is no need to resort to personal attacks here. Let's stick to the facts.

I reverted your edits because they endorsed a specific POV, namely that Taiwan is a sovereign nation. As it happens, it is a POV that I happen to share myself. However, they have no place on Wikipedia. We cannot endorse a specific POV here, we can only present the facts and let the reader come to his/her own conclusion. Our POV shuld have no bearing on what we write here. I will revert edits I feel violate the NPOV policy regardless of which side they're biased towards. If you feel I am in error, feel free to tell me about it.

To address your edits individually:

228

I reverted this edit for two reasons. First off as I mentioned before, everything in the added paragraph (KMT whitewashing, massacre of elites) was already covered in the body of the article if you would care to read it, making that edit redundant. The point of an intro is to give a brief overview, not be a whole article in itself. Also, using a quote that size in the intro should generally be avoided. If you feel an edit along the lines of what was said in the quote is necessary, reword it yourself. Otherwise, stick it in a penitent part of the main body. Second, explicitly accusing the KMT of being afraid of facing up to the truth is acting out of bounds. Again, we can state what the KMT did do during 228 and what they did afterwards, but we should leave the critiques out of it.

Political Status of Taiwan

The original term used was de facto nation which you edited into sovereign nation. De facto is accurate insofar as the facts are that the ROC is still called the ROC and there has been no official move to formally sever ties to China (for a variety of reasons), and the fact that Beijing has absolutely no jurisdiction over Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and Penghu, yet most nations recognize or at least acknowledge the PRC's claim. This makes it de facto independent but not de jure independent. Independent in practice but not nessecarily by international law (or at the least, not recognized). Sovereignty can mean either de facto or de jure, and must be clarified if it is to be used in the context of Taiwan. (De facto soverignty vs. de jure sovereignty)

Republic of China

You deleted the link to the KMT webpage. Like it or not, the KMT still participates in politics in Taiwan making them an ROC political party, calling them a mainland Chinese party is a POV (and an inaccurate one at that). You may disagree with them in real life, but you cannot delete legitimate references to them - that's censorship biased towards a specific POV. I couldn't disagree more with the POV expressed by this particular link at the bottom of the 228 article, yet I haven't moved to delete it. Why? Because it is relevant in that a large number of people believe it.

Look, I understand the urge to put down things according to our own POV. It took me a while here before I figured out what was permitted and what wasn't. It's tempting to put stuff down like "The KMT is the PLA 5th column" or "The PRC claim on Taiwan is not supported by historical fact", but then we'd also have to allow stuff like "Taiwan is an inseperable part of China". As it stands, I am confident enough in my beliefs that I believe that stating the unbiased truth is damming enough to those who would obscure it. Let's not sink to the level of the people that we oppose. --Loren 05:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]