Talk:Wang Wei (pilot)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Martyr claim

Does anyone have a credible reference that a CCP commission declared him a martyr? It seems to be a poor translation, as an official statement of a officially atheist state would refer to him as one for died for his religion.

Religion of Nationalism maybe. ^_-
The official Chinese term is "烈士" (literally heroic gentleman), or "革命烈士" (literally revolutionary heroic gentleman). The official translation of the former term is, indeed, martyr. The latter is translated as revolutionary martyr. I guess it's dying for a cause, rather than specifically a religious cause. -Sumple (Talk) 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Type of fighter jet

This article previously said that Wang Wei was flying an F-8 fighter jet. The Sino-American relations article also said it was an F-8. However, the EP-3E Aries II article said it was a Shenyang J-8 fighter jet. After a little bit of research, it appears that it was a J-8, not an F-8. (see this article at Janes.com) - Walkiped 02:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Seriously, no mention of the fact that this guy's name was a huge joke in the US at the time? Wang Wei, pronounced "wong way" (which sounds like "wrong way") crashed into another airplane. I'm just saying, this guy's got some humor-related cultural significance. Danielsan1701 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added it.
Just a note here, I did not write the above note "I have added it.", in case any one thinks I wrote the original "Wrong Way" entry. I merely proposed the idea. Danielsan1701 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discusson on Wrong Way mention

DISCUSS HERE BEFORE MAKING UNILATERAL BLANKS OF EDITS


The "joke" cited has unencyclopedic. It is non-notable, because it has not become a cultural phenomenon or a regular expression - see Why did the chicken cross the road? or Hitler Has Only Got One Ball as examples of notable jokes worthy of inclusiong in an encyclopedia. --Sumple (Talk) 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You and the other editor (who contacted you on your talk page) are both likely trying to remove this because you find it offensive as Chinese. This is the most disturbing part of this entire discussion on this section of the page. Please desist in blanking other's edits.

I definitely heard of the joke when the Wang Wei incident happened. Obviously it was pretty widespread especially in the States. Wang Wei isn't Adolf Hitler, and this joke isn't notable enough to deserve its own article, but the inclusion is necessary since the only reason Wang Wei has a personal article on wikipedia is because of this particular incident that happen. Without a doubt, his named rhyming became one of the centerpoint in this incident.--Certified.Gangsta 22:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the references that manifest themselves in those edits demonstrate any kind of notable slur/joke. They seemed to be off-hand references that don't mean much in the context of the entire event. I'm pretty sure people have commented that George W. Bush's surname can be mispronounced as "bullshit" yet we don't make that known to the world on his article do we? I disagree that it has become the "centerpoint" of the incident; surely, the important thing to take away is the diplomatic spat between China and the United States. enochlau (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then let us by all means debate the edits rather than 1) blanking them 2) making accusations of racism. I would strongly suggest that Chinese abstain from this debate as it is obviously bringing about Nationalistic feelings. I had Zoe tell me to stop making "racist" edits on Wang Wei (pilot). Now if that isn't a low-quality way to try and stop a debate -- I don't know of another.
Should Americans abstain from editing Wikipedia in general because it's hosted in the United States? No. In any case, I'm probably the last person to have nationalistic feelings about mainland China. enochlau (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, and I should rephrase. I would ask those who can't honestly keep their nationalistic/personal feelings at bay, to abstain. Better? :-) I tried to add a section as was requested above. I went and dug up citations, and I tried to write the bit in a fair and unbiased way; including the last sentence on Chinese-American concerns. Yet, I just get a blanking war and accusations of making racist comments. So, I would suggest those users take a big ole' step back. That is all -- and of course they can do whatever they want...

I find the term POV pushing and racism is frequently used in wikipedia often for the wrong purpose. It is quite obvious that this is a content dispute. I ask all involved parties to come to a resolution on the talkpage rather than making blank statements and personal attacks toward one another. Other than that, George Bush is someone who has way more fame and controversies than Wang Wei. Wang Wei is a single-incident character and the wrong way use ties in with this particular incident that resulted in the creation of this article.--Certified.Gangsta 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

hear, hear! These users have just used a low-quality method of black-marking others in order to get their way across. That user Zoe should flat out apologize for their accusations. I don't find one racist remark made on the article page. Besides Wang Wei hitting that plane, this was the second-most prevalent "15 minutes of fame" that was attributed to him in the US and the greater English speaking World. Sorry if it hurts some people's feelings, but this is not racism. I am of Taiwanese ethnicity myself and an American. Lighten the heck up.

Racist or not, the joke did exist, and Wang Wei's significance and memorability hinges, in part, on that fact. I say, include the reference to the joke, cite that it has been said to be racist, and leave it at that. Otherwise, delete this page and include any information about Wang Wei in the plane incident article. Danielsan1701 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The joke is racist in that it's an ignorant attack on another language from a point of view of a supposedly superior language. I will not apologize for the accusation, and I stand by it. I have also restored the {{fact}} tag at the end of the last paragraph. Do not remove citation required tags, that is vandalism. And the citation needs to come soon, or the claim will be deleted as unsource. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
To Zoe: You really have the intellectual capabitity of a mule. You make personal attacks on here (i.e., calling others racist), but your own arguments are utterly asinine; in fact disturbingly racist in themselves. This absolutely-idiotic statement about this joke referring to a language as being "supposedly superior"; you have created this ridiculous concept all on your own -- my compiments!! If in Japan they feel a word sounds funny when translated from Zulu, they are being racist? and vise versa? The individuals pulling the race card, especially you, are just miserable examples of human beings... absolutely disgusting. That you have admin priviledges, and abuse them on here, just shows a wonderful example of how low-quality people compensate for their lowly lives on here.
To enochlau: On User talk:Sumple, you said, "How about taking a look at your own behaviour before trying to put together some posse to reinstate edits you personally do not approve of? That's the problem here - each side believes the other is violating POV because, well, you all have an opinion. enochlau (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)". Ah, more intellectual prowess on the loose! Where is this so-called posse of mine?? I edited in good faith an addition to this article based on a request above. I went out of my way to write it as neutral as possible and shared both points of view. I also added references (Hey Zoe, if you bothered to read the references I posted, there is one that fills your precious fact) as is policy in Wikipedia. The only person I asked to come and read the discussion was the user who had requested the section be added. He did not revert any edits. The only posse I've seen is the Chinese-consortium: Nic tan33, who cried to Sumple, who then has you and Zoe back them up in this moronic war -- all instead of actually discussing things. You all are just plain pitiful. You both unilaterally blank edits and say "in case you didn't notice, i've actually explained myself on the talkpage". Way to look for consensus! If you had an ounce of backbone you would give up your admin rights (yeah, as if either of you could!). LOL.
To Nic tan33 and Sumple. All I can say is grow a set. I've never been so ashamed to be associated by race with you two blithering babies.
Good riddens to you sorry sods. Sorry to myself to even waste my precious time trying to educate dimwits such as yourselves. As if you will learn even -><- this much; I predict you'll definitely just go about convincing your arrogant selves what you've done (and what you do) is "right". Wish the minority on here some luck at countering such low-quality individuals. I'm out of here, I don't have time for that unsavory job. To Danielsan1701 and Certified.Gangsta, good luck. I seriously doubt it is worth the time to argue with these .......
Ah, farewell. I can't say I'm going to miss you. enochlau (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Err... bye. I have only said one thing about this topic, which I reproduce below for completeness:
"The "joke" cited has unencyclopedic. It is non-notable, because it has not become a cultural phenomenon or a regular expression - see Why did the chicken cross the road? or Hitler Has Only Got One Ball as examples of notable jokes worthy of inclusiong in an encyclopedia."
I don't know what irked you so about this statement, but it must have, since you have posted, what, 3 times on my talk page, each time in a rude and unreasonable tone, and without signature. So I must say I am glad to see you go. As to your problem with my race, or your race, I'm afraid that's not something I can change, although an authoritative source tells me they have the technology to change that these days. Good luck with it. --Sumple (Talk) 06:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wrong Way thing has nothing to do with language barriers. George Bush's name rhymes with "bullshit" (pointed out by enochlau above). Just like I said before, the only reason someone made a wiki article for this pilot is because of that particular crash, so of course such a common usage in his name needed to be included in this great project.--Certified.Gangsta 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hesitate to call that common usage. I'm sure that when you're talking about the incident itself, in an objective manner, you would use his real name. enochlau (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Other than the fact that the 'joke' is racist, it strongly implies that the pilot was to blame for the crash; whereas both governments in question have never (formally) agreed as to who was responsible for the collision. The premise of the 'joke' is thus questionable at best, and hardly NPOV... Nic tan33 10:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. enochlau (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

If someone removes the fact tag from the final paragraph of the opening section without supplying a source one more time, I will start blocking for vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Because this is not getting anywhere, I'll hold a straw poll to gauge consensus once and for all; all parties to this debate don't seem to be budging. Include "Wrong Way" or not? We'll hold the poll for 14 days, unless anyone really wants it closed earlier. enochlau (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support (include Wrong Way)

  • Support, see above. Either add it, or delete this article and tack his info onto the incident page. Danielsan1701 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose (exclude Wrong Way)

  • Oppose, per my reasons above. enochlau (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I have explained above, I don't feel notability or encyclopaedicity has been established. --Sumple (Talk) 05:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As it stands now, there is no overwhelming reason as to why that section should be included in the article in the first place. - Nic tan33 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting is evil

How else do you propose we resolve this conflict? I take it all of you want to go the full way and go to WP:RFC? enochlau (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The question should be whether we have a reliable source for this "nickname". I would argue that a stand-up comedian isn't such a source, but if major newspapers have called him "wrong way" that'd be a different matter. (Radiant) 11:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My thought exactly, since his only significance is that particular incident.--Certified.Gangsta 01:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we should therefore agree that we should leave it out? All of the links in that paragraph are to blogs and opinion articles - even the ones on newspaper websites. None of them have used "Wrong Way" in an objective piece of news reporting. enochlau (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since his name rhyming is both controversial and also put a significant twist in his death.--Certified.Gangsta 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't address my concern in the above paragraph. You have simply repeated your argument. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent activity

Apparently all sides have agree to leave the version as it is until a resolution can be reached. Unfortunately Nic tan defied all expectation and blank the wrong way part.--Certified.Gangsta 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Apparently all sides have agree to leave the version as it is until a resolution can be reached." Really? Says who? Oh, you mean everyone on your side? Of course. enochlau (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is just a waste of time when we are discussing here while edit war at the same time (that is exactly what Nic tan is doing without actually making attempt to discuss). There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer and the point of the talkpage is discussion. Enochlau, please lay off the personal attack.--Certified.Gangsta 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack; I was criticising your argument, not your person. I disagree with edit warring on both sides, but the discussion above isn't getting anywhere and you seem to want to leave the section in by attrition and wearing everyone down. In any case, a bot reverted your edits this time. enochlau (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for a way forward.

As I've said before, I don't feel the notability or "encyclopaedicity" of the "joke" has been established. I will deconstruct the version favoured by Certified.Gangsta below. Further discussions are welcome: please post it below.

  • Wang Wei in English can sound very much like Wrong Way'.

There are no major verification issues with this segment, although I would contend that "very much" is exaggerating the similarity, and "in English" should be placed after "Wrong Way", since Wang Wei pronounced in Chinese sounds like Wrong Way in English

  • humourous to some considering the PRC pilot killed himself by crashing his jet fighter into the slow-moving propellor plane.

This segment is factually incorrect. As the rest of the article indicates, all we know is that the two planes collided. We don't know who crashed into whom. Saying that Wang Wei "killed himself" also places responsibility for the collision on him - which, again, is inaccurate because we don't know who ran into whom. Furthermore, no evidence points towards a deliberate act on his part in order to run into the American plane, so he can't be said to have "killed himself".

Examining the sources provided for this sentence:

    • the first source is a column from a university publication. It is difficult for me to say whether it is intended to be humourous or deliberately offensive to people from other countries - that is not the issue. The problem with this source is that it simply illustrates that the columnist believed 1) that the fault for the incident lies with the Chinese, and 2) that "Wang Wei" is pronounced "Wrong Way". What it does not illustrate are whether 1) anyone else is calling him "Wrong Way", or whether 2) either the columnist or anyone else think the pun is funny.
    • the second source does not even mention the pun: it only quotes a poem that rhymes "wrong way" with "Wang Wei". Rhyming A with B is a far cry from playing a pun on A with B. This source does not support the sentence.
    • the third source is not even about Wang Wei or the Hainan incident. All it mentions is: "Because his name sounds like 'wrong way' he became fodder for late night comedians amongst others." Firstly, this is a blog, hosted on blogspot, and is thus not usually regarded as a reliable source. Secondly, it has only a passing reference to his name sounding like "wrong way". Thirdly, nowhere does it say that the author thinks that the pun is humourous, or that anyone else thinks the pun is humourous.
  • Talk show comics, such as Bill Maher, played on this joke at the time. [4]

The source is a forum post!!! Okay, I'm not even going to dignify that with an analysis.

There is nothing wrong with this statement per se. My only problem is that the Darwin AWard nomination has nothing to do with the "Wrong Way" pun. Is being nominated for (not winning) a Darwin Award notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?

  • Some Chinese took offense to this poking fun at his name; also fearing it was part of a larger backlash. [8]

No-one in the news item even says that his name sounds like "Wrong Way". The only person who talks about the "Wrong Way" connection is an anonymous caller to a racist radio station, who said that the pilot "should change his name to Wong Wei", not "wrong way".

In summary, there are many problems with both the factual accuracy and the citations for this section. I would appreciate it if editors on both sides of the debate can address the issues I have raised here. Chenquieh --Sumple (Talk) 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These sentiments echo mine entirely. The "references" are indeed a problem, and the entire section has nothing to stand on. enochlau (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The bot did not specify which source it has a problem with. It is also worth noting that I did not personally added the sources, the anon user did. The other issue was that, the references has been there for a while now, but the bot only reverted once for unexplained reason. Anyway we need to fix the alledged spam and re-add the section.--Certified.Gangsta 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we should not re-add the section. The concerns raised above still stand regardless of whether the external links are "spam" or not. Furthermore, given that the section is unsubstantiated with external links, I can't imagine how it can be better without them. enochlau (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the spam. I'm talking about the quality of the section and its references. If you think the section should be re-added, please respond on each of these points and state why you think they're not problems.
On a separate point, I know you didn't put in those sub-standard references. However, you have reverted to that version on a number of occasions, so I surmised that you endorse that version. --Sumple (Talk) 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

--Sumple (Talk) 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the edit by the bot is this edit. enochlau (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page to see if in Chinese "Wang" more or less rhymes with tang or with gong to see just how funny the joke is. I assume the "racist" element isn't in that we think it reminds us of wrong way, but the reason that it does is that basically every American has encountered native Chinese speakers doing their best to speak English and due to the massive phonetic differences having a hugely noticeable accent. For example the 'l' 'r' difficulties. It's biased (in a racist way) to expect a person's English to be flawed for every Chinese person, it's also biased (in a racist way) to ignore the fact that Chinese speakers who learn English as a second language often share similar difficulties with certain words/sounds. It's not racism to just accept the world as it is instead of pretending it is what you want it to be. Is Monty Python missing the point when they make jokes on a character named "biggus dickus"? Would it not be a joke until the guy's name is actually "big dick"? When your name sounds similar to an English word it can be the target of jokes. Any child can tell you this. Do we have pages for every person killed on ships bombed in Pearl Harbor? Are there pages for every person shot down in a helicopter in Iraq? But we have a page for Wang Wei (pilot). I'll give you one guess why he has a page. Because his name became a joke. If one of the helicopter pilots in Iraq was named "diedin dadessert" he'd have a page on here too. Nintendo named their next game system Wii which sounds like an English word for urine, I guarantee some of the jokes/controversy of that name choice is on the Wii page. Esper256 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the perceived racism of the joke per se. What concerns me is the way that paragraph has been written (poorly) and the standard of the references (frankly, crap). If proper references are assembled to show that the joke is notable, and the paragraph is re-written in an encyclopaedic and neutral tone, then of course it can be added, even if it was racist. Wikipedia is not censored.
Some separate notes:
1) I thought this guy has an article because his death was a major part of an incident that became a diplomatic crisis. In fact, if he had not crashed into the American plane, the American personnel would not have been forced to land in Hainan. You could say that it was his death that elevated this from an ordinary military incident (like the recent Chinese submarine "tracking" US aircraft carrier incident) to a diplomatic crisis and potential hostage situation.
2) Wii#Name does indeed deal with the name's similarity to other words, but notice that it does so in an objective, neutral way, backed up by authoritative sources. both of these things are lacking in the Wang Wei jokes paragraph above.
3) The "r" and "l" difficulties is Japanese, not Chinese. Both sounds are approximated with the Japanese "r" sound, but in Chinese there are distinc "r" and "l" sounds.
4) To your original question: Wang pronouncedin Chinese does indeed rhyme with Wrong.
In any case, if you would like to pitch in and help us improve that paragraph to proper Wikipedia standard, most importantly finding some verifiable sources, that would be greatly appreciated. --Sumple (Talk) 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I find your points well stated and I agree with all of them. What I mean is, the crash has a wikipedia entry because it plays an important roll in history. The only real information on this page is about the incident. The incident completely covers the importance of this individual with one possible exception. So why is this page here? I would either move any information on this article to the crashes article and delete this article entirely or add information that plays up the importance of this individual outside of the historic crash. I would suggest something such as "Following the Hainan Island incident, Wang Wei gained a small amount of notoriety in the US due to the ironic similarities of the name Wang Wei to the English phrase "wrong way" and the circumstances of his death". I can tell you that you will have a hard time finding references to articles that mention the joke. Any company or organization cannot come close to doing anything that can be considered racist (even though I don't see how this could be, poor taste maybe). But still the US is so touchy about these issues that no journalist is going to go there. This joke is passed by word of mouth and comedians. But without references it's hard to show that it really has any kind of historical significance. I mean if 80% of Americans had heard the joke, I don't think anybody would disagree that it's significant. But at 0.01% I think most people would agree that it has no historic significance. So at what level of public recognition does something become important regardless of media coverage? Esper256 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Notoriety in the US? Says who? Unfortunately, it being difficult to find references, especially for a contentious topic as this, should mean that this content is excluded. Word of mouth and other such hand-waving support do not suffice for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I also don't believe your assertion that this article should be deleted and merged without this joke has any basis. After all, all parties are now, at the very most, agreeing that if it were to be included, it should be scaled down, because it's not really all that important (see below). Wikipedia contains a lot of articles about people you would never have contemplated reading about, and they have gotten their fame through an innumerable variety of means - the incident in itself is sufficient as a basis of discussion of this person's biography. enochlau (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be reworded maybe scale down the portion of "Wrong Way" but it definitely is part of the incident and should be included in the article.--Certified.Gangsta 08:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"definitely is part of the incident" - that's just your assertion. The incident is the collision of the planes; it still happened regardless of what some people in the US called him. We need to address referencing issues. Find us a good reference and that will help the discussion along. enochlau (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A reference doesn't seem needed to support that he is considered a hero in China. Do you live in China and consider him a hero? Because at the very least there are people who have turned this incident + his name into a joke. I think you need to come to terms with the fact that you are biased on this topic. http://www.mediamonitors.net/edna47.html http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad7b207707d.htm In his vote for getting a Darwin award 12,547 people voted to give him one, 2,304 voted no, and 2,768 voted that it "wasn't funny". Esper256 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A reference doesn't seem needed to support that he is considered a hero in China. Why? Everything on Wikipedia should be referenced. Do you live in China and consider him a hero? No, I don't live in China. Sure, some people have turned his name into a joke, but the key issue is one of referencing. Remember, references aren't just any old references on the Internet - opinion articles and satirical pieces hardly count as good evidence for an encyclopedia. But I think you have found sufficient evidence for the Darwin nomination, and a sentence or two could very well be added to the article. enochlau (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the possible spam links and re-added the wrong way section.--Certified.Gangsta 08:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have always just tried to skirt around the big problems with that section in the discussion above. There is nothing supporting that section, yet you keep adding it. Do not use deceptive edit comments. This edit did not remove any spam links at all? You didn't remove any links at all - instead you added some, in the section you re-added. This is unacceptable conduct. enochlau (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the section wrong way. [[9]] while deleting 2 links. Calling my good faith edits "sneaky" is personal attack.--Certified.Gangsta 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/n/Talk%7EWang_Wei_%28pilot%29_c76a.html"