Talk:Kang Sheng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can Mr Adam Carr stop his stupid action of deleting my contribution? He should pay more time on my grammatic problems instead of deleting other's contribution.Or he should spent more time on studying the history of CPC. For example, when Kang went to Moscow, he was sent as delegate of CPC in Comintern, not to study security.Cna Mr Carr be more modest and tolerable?He can spent more time on correcting my grammatic problem instead of boasting about his contribution of more than 10000 articles. I protest about his being rude and intolerable.

When you stop trying to insert a large number of unsourced and unformatted photos into the article, I will stop being intolerable, OK? Also, please SIGN YOUR COMMENTS or I won't bother talking with you further. Adam 12:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has now been rewritten and filled with assertions the truth or otherwise of which I don't know and can't find out. So I am taking it off my watchlist and someone with more knowledge of Chinese history than me can worry about it. Adam 01:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Any additions which label Kang and/or the communist system a "devil" will be reverted, as will any similarly POV claims. If you want to have your work included, respect our fundamental Neutral point of view principle. 01:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My dear foreign friends ,thank you for your interests in Chinese history. Firstly I think it is a principle in history study ,which is It Is Much Easy To Prove Sth Than To Noth. As some histories you don't know, you can't take it for granted that it didn't happen. Rely on more resources, especially on some Chinese resources!There are still some true and original documents in China.Secondly I advocate the policy of NPOW, but it doesn't mean you have no comment on some general accepted facts. Can't you agree that Fascism, Hitler or authoritarianism are devils? Most of the crimes committed by Kang could be found in documents by in China and abroad. Why can't I call him a devil? Giant 10:07 7 Sept 2005

That Kang and the system were "devils" are not generally accepted facts. Even among people who hold such views, "devils" would sound like angry rhetoric, not serious history. People who do not hold such views (myself included) would regard such terminology as just flat wrong. Everyking 02:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

About the devil word, I would say there is always word difficult to tell from being neutral or negative.For example, when you use the word "persecution" for Hitler's treatment of Jews in WW2, from the POW of historians it might be neutral, but in the dictionary the word is certainly negative. Can you avoid using this word in every article for that reason? Even if you don't agree with the devil word, How could you abuse your privilege to delete other contents? If you don't like it, it is OK.But please prove I am wrong.Don't take that westerners know everything more deeply than others for granted.For example ,in the version you kept, it said that Kang was sent to Moscow to study security technics but truth it is he was sent to as delegates to Comintern. And he didn't hold the position of social affairs department till 1949, during which he was demoted to Shangdong for his faults in "rectification"movement. Pardon me for my poor computer skill so that I can't give you the relevant linkage you need. But all these facts I provided could be found in the documents published by CPC and verified by memoirs of famous CPC dissidents such as Zhang Guotao and Wang Ming.So do respect my hard work.And if you think there is sth wrong in my statement, please leave them there for anyone more knowledgeable to correct instead of deleting without any further explanation. Giantcn 12:07 7 Sept 2005