Talk:Shangwen Fang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

An entry from Shangwen Fang appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 August、2006.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-13. The result of the discussion was keep.

1 Cat abuse incident in Neihu
2 NPOVing
3 Requested move
- 3.1 Survey
- 3.2 Discussion
4 Sockpuppetry

[edit] Cat abuse incident in Neihu

Is anyone interesting in translating zh:內湖虐貓事件? I am exhausted in it--Albert Hsu 15:25、8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe later. Now in zh-wp people are still voting for the merge of zh:內湖虐貓事件 and zh:方尚文. If the final result of the vote is keep、then it's proper to translate zh:內湖虐貓事件 into en-wp. My 2 cents.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎

(Discuss|Contributions) 16:49、8 August 2006 (UTC)

So what did he do to the cats?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.58.246 (talk ‧ contribs) .

I don't know. Perhaps he huffed the kittens? --GunnarRene 18:19、9 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres a link in the article that shows the pictures. I have seen the first few and stopped immediately. I mark the link as showing graphic violenc but if you have a strong stomach、view them (i dont recommend that). --DocBrown 19:38、9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see the pictures、(using a text browser anyway) but without foreknowledge of what the nature of the abuse is、the article is completely meaningless. Did he switch to dry food? Stroke their fur against the grain? A comment below suggest he may have been crushing them somehow. Here's my IP for the comment sign nazis: 75.7.58.246 20:51、9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if the abuse was as minor as "switching to dry food"、then this article would not exist. This entry is about the abuser and not only about the abuse incident、therefore the focus was more on the person rather than the description of the gruesome photos. Bobbybuilder 07:27、10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is either "crushcat" or "torturecat" as they are known on 4chan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.232.90 (talk ‧ contribs) .

I agree that the article should contain some information about how the cats were abused、so that we can separate this case from stuff like Bonsai Kitten. --GunnarRene 20:57、9 August 2006 (UTC)

And to separate it from the cases that led to NEDM、right? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:42、10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think zh-wp is swayed by both sides' feeling. No matter how zh-wp decide to do、I still believe "Cat abuse incident in Neihu" could make people understand what happened and how lovers of cats to seek for Fang in this incident completely. And it is more suitable than the article、"Shangwen Fang". --Albert Hsu 01:27、10 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess. Let's wait for their resolution and I'll assist on related translations. AQu01rius 23:16、12 August 2006 (UTC)

First、It doesn't seem that Fang is willingly to be in public domain (according to his statement in zh-wiki) and neither did he himself being publicized voluntarily - he is not a public figure at all. Fang's personal information was being disclosed to public by media illegally、and those personal information have nothing to do with the cat abuse. (As for the definition of public figure、please refer to the case Gertz v. Robert Welch、Inc.、418 U.S. 323,351(1974). )

Second、is there anybody interested in Fang's life except for the cat incident? (If you did、you should have put these information into this article.) Cat abusing is only a little part of Fang's whole life、and will anybody include his early life、his work、and his studies with detailed description as his biography in Wiki? Are those biography important enough to make Fang an article?

Third、the article was filled with subjective comment、and I don't think that Wiki is a place for outrageous cat lovers to humiliate their dislike person. This place is supposed to be neutral、it's not a personal blog.

This article may have to be removed. Filing a deletion is needed.

-- fanoffang、 13 August 2006

1. Refer to the voting result of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Massoud_Tofangsazan 2. Again、refer to the article of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Massoud_Tofangsazan 3. Tell us which "subjective comments" you were talking about. 4. Your username says it all. Fan of Fang. Bobbybuilder 01:47、14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to let you know that Fang is not Amir Massoud Tofangsazan、and any thing Fang has done has nothing to do with Amir Massoud Tofangsazan.

What are subjective comments? The edit history of this page and all discussions you made in zh-wiki will explain everything. Please refer to the following discussion (Chinese) http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isnow#.E6.96.B9.E5.B0.9A.E6.96.87 -- fanoffang、 14 August 2006

And Fang is not Chu Mei-Feng、simple as that. What does that discussion page explain? Your lack of legal knowledge、Fang? Bobbybuilder 11:09、14 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Qu and Hilton could apply to this article have already been explained、however、why Amir Massoud Tofangsazan could be cited into this article is still a mystery. A responsible Wiki User is not supposed to just dump links like birds' droppings.

BTW、just relax、not all people who disagree with you with a name of Fang.

-- fanoffang、 14 August 2006

You can play dumb however you want、by the end of the day、you are the one who is dispited by the society、Fang. Bobbybuilder 12:15、14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow!! Here comes your unique skill - be shamed into anger !! Hum.... I may have to remind you that personal attack not only truely turn your weblinks to "droppings" but make your points unpersuasive. The mystery of citing Amir Massoud Tofangsazan into this article still remains.... Maybe it's time for you to go back ptt to cry for help again -just like Fang had made you to do so. -- fanoffang、 14 August 2006

[edit] NPOVing

I made a number of edits that I believe make the article flows better and more NPOV. (Of course, some other users may disagree.) --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for moving. --Dijxtra 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Shangwen Fang → Cat abuse incident in Neihu – I suggest to move this article because:

The result of the merge voting of zh:內湖虐貓事件(means "Cat abuse incident in Neihu") and zh:方尚文(means "Shangwen Fang") on zh-wp is to merge into zh:內湖虐貓事件. To move to Cat abuse incident in Neihu will make the article mapping between en/zh WP more precisely.
This article describes the cat abuse incident more than Fang himself.

Also I do not think it's good to reveal someone's personal data on WP if the person is not a famous one (however, some might not agree). H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 13:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Support: as above.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 14:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Per Nlu (talk • contribs) below. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is not exclusively about the cat incident. Kafziel 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Nlu; although the incident seems to be the sole reason for notability, the article is still about him. Besides, it is far easier to find it in the current way. Duja 12:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Oppose. I don't believe so -- I respect, but highly disagree, with the actions by the Chinese Wikipedians merging the biographical article into the incident article rather than the other way around. "Cat abuse incident in Neihu" is a name that is highly unlikely to be found by someone who wanted to find an article about the incident, since it is a highly specific phrase for the incident. (Yes, we can have redirects for several different ways to phrase that incident, but we cannot anticipate all combinations.) Nothing that is written about Fang here is confidential, personal information. If there were confidential information here, the proper action to take is to delete the information, not to move the article. The proposed name of the moved article would also imply that there was only one cat abuse incident in Neihu throughout Neihu's entire history, which I'm sure would not be true. --Nlu (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to keep this article for the reason that someone is likely to find an article about the incident, then keep the title of this article will be much harder for someone to find out. The current title of this article would also imply that there was only one thing that Fang has done throughout all his life, which everybody will be sure would not be ture. By Prior400
- The article does explain what else Fang has done with his life, to the extent that the information is known and verifiable. --Nlu (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Now you change your stndard to what else Fang has done with his life? Then quote all his life instead of only the incident is much more appropriate since all this man's personal information has been disclosed to the public, and you can contact him directly to verify the rest of the information - both known and verifiable. By Prior400
    - I don't have his contact information, nor do I care to obtain it. Nor do I want to hear any more of his self-justifications. If he wants to post his other biographical information here and can cite sources to verify them, I'm all for it. --Nlu (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    - And please do not introduce Chinese punctuations into the article. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    - And please do not insert POV statements. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      - I don't care about whether you want to have his contact information or not. What I am doing now is to discuss how the information been known and verifiable. Contact him directly to verify the information is certainly conforming to Wiki's policy(known and verifiable). By Prior400
        
        Since it would not be cross-verifiable to a reputable source, doing so would be original research. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
        
        While most Taiwanese medias are not neutral at all, and how do you maintain the policy of "Neutral point of view" while citing a sourc which is not neutral itself? By Prior400
        
        What about the current wording about the incident is not neutral? Please give specific examples. --Nlu (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Relisting the request for no consensus. --Dijxtra 08:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.