Talk:Jan Wong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jan Wong article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This entry lacks balance. It appears to be an ad hominin attack on Wong. Whatever the merits of her analysis of the shooting at Montreal's Dawson College, her comments in respect of the race based nature of Quebec society is very real. It is a topic, similar to Muslim extremism, that people are afraid to comment upon because of a hostile, and perhaps violent, reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.248.186 (talk • contribs)

what do you mean by race based nature? Quebec (and especially Montreal where the three shootings happened) is a very diverse and inclusive society... There has not been any violent reactions to Jan Wong's comments (or those of Diane Francis or Laferty, or Barbara Kay). Even Prime Minister Harper condemned her comments. Jack Jedwab, a respected Anglophone Montreal Jew was on the radio with her, arguing against her (in my opinion not racist, but just plain ignorant) views, just this Monday. As federalist editorialist André Pratte put it in his response letter to the Globe and Mail (Sept 20, 2006): "separatists in Quebec already have started to use the article to bolster their case, deploring the insulting perception of Quebec society held by English Canadians. When such a suggestion as Jan Wong’s appears in print, federalists like myself are hard put to contradict them."
The material you complain of is unsourced and can be removed if no reliable source is provided. Fred Bauder 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we would call comments such as Jan Wong made "original research" and delete them, see Wikipedia:No original research. Fred Bauder 21:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyond your biased judgement on the situation, how the bloody hell can you compare the fear of islamist murderous terrorism in a post 9/11 world with any reaction whatsoever expected of contemporary Quebec? The modern Quebec where protest is peaceful and democratic. This is the New Racism in some parts of English Canada: the racist attacks that use the deceitful tactic of accusing the other of racism themselves, therefor rendering their own denunciation of racism as repetitive and non-potent. The article does not lack balance or consist of an ad hominem attack in the case of the passage on the Controversy. It states that: Jan Wong wrote an article. She drew a link. It was denounced. Those are all facts. If you don't like how it looks like, maybe you're starting to understand it.
Stating that people are afraid to comment is ludicrous: horrors of Quebec defamation showing no restraint have been written in newspapers of Toronto, New York, Germany, etc., tarnishing its reputation in a fashion that is called: Oppression. The thing is that the only distinct status these people give to Quebec is a distinct status about a right to drag it into the mud and kick it in the teeth as most other ethnic groups would never be allowed to be, to see it as endemically incapable of most civilized things except having nice-looking European cities and to consider it as the only people on the face of this earth for which seeking or maintaining simple sovereignty/autonomy or actually not wanting their culture to be wiped out is illegitimate. --Liberlogos 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources

It is more convenient for most of our readers if you link to references in English. Fred Bauder 12:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is this addressed to, Fred? I have added one in English and Montrealais one in French. --Liberlogos 12:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously to whoever used the source in French. Still a good source, though. Fred Bauder 12:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was useful as a primary source (i.e. an article directed at Wong). - Montréalais 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The user who added the NPOV template did not explain the reasons here and the arguments of User:64.228.248.186 have here been refuted. Do we remove the NPOV template? What is NPOV in the article? --Liberlogos 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced material on Tibet and the POV template. Fred Bauder 10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Good. About Tibet, the material can be left with a 'sources required' banner-template, so we give it a chance to be proven or disproven. --Liberlogos 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, unsourced negative material must be removed from biographies of living persons; removal is exempt from 3RR. Fred Bauder 21:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Banned in China

I keep hearing from my chinese professor that because of her critical writing on China, she is now banned from entry there. Is this a fact? I find it interesting, and useful in the whole issue of China's censorship and lack of freedom of the press. 74.99.17.52 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. She has been back but I think she may have not disclosed the whole story when she was admitted. (Probably just used her married name). You certainly won't find Red China Blues in most libraries there. I think her husband has looked at the articles. He might respond to you if he sees this. Fred Bauder 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from My Home

It continues to amaze me that this woman can publish books and write a newspaper column without getting negative feedback for being a snitch. Granted it was a quarter century ago, but Jan Wong ruined another person's life by reporting her to the Communist authorities. Ms. Wong shows no remorse for this act, nor has she done anything to rectify it. (What became of this young woman who was expelled from the university? Did she die in a labor camp? Does anyone else care?) I regard Jan Wong with same contempt that I have for those who helped blacklist the Hollywood Ten. 71.132.222.109 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Eli Weinraub 26 December 2006

Your comment does nothing here but add your own POV. What is the point in that? Everyone knows she ratted on another student because she was very naive and mentally deficient enough to believe in China's 'communist revolution'. People haven't figured out yet that they only help her sell more books when they get upset over her idiocy. Ignore her. She's a hypocrite and a moron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.50.94 (talk) 22:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from My Home Too

On NPR's Fresh Air, I heard Jan Wong mention the episode in which she informed on her Chinese classmate, which caused that young woman to be expelled. Ms. Wong did not sound contrite or the least bit disturbed by the consequences of her actions. When she told this anecdote to Terry Gross, the story focused on Ms. Wong's youthful ignorance rather than the tragedy that befell its real victim. It was too easy for her to blame the paranoid Chinese government of the Red Guard era. If Amnesty International keeps a list of collaborators to human rights violations, Jan Wong belongs on that list.

Later, I learned that Jan Wong would be appearing at a local bookstore to promote one of her books. Originally, I planned to attend the signing so that I could ask her the questions that I never heard Terry Gross ask: Do you know what became of the woman who was expelled because of your actions? Have you ever done anything to help her or her family? However, I decided against making a scene at Wong's book-signing. It would only get me ejected from the store or arrested for disturbing the peace. It would only call attention to someone who should fade into obscurity. ABC Dude DOES NOT ABIDE!