1182:::::::::Sorry do not understand your reply. The point is not whether or not he went but 1. Is attendance by a Committee 100 member at, so far as I can tell, an inconsequential meeting fostering the Committee 100 goal suggested by Henry Kissinger of looking for ways where possible to collaborate with China, something that should be in the opening paragraph of a bio - you have apparently re-inserted several times in looking at the history of this page so would be interested in your thoughts on this. And 2. The use of the English translation "overseas representatives" may be technically accurate but seems misleading to suggest it is something more than just an invited attendee. I might also note that the United Front article cited is noted as having a Class C Content Assessment so perhaps not an appropriate reference to explain why you feel attendance at this meeting should be in the opening paragraph of the bio, or even in it at all. I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you
2089:. The statement of fact has been referring to Ng's connections to China-based organizations, not the significance of his position in them or nature of the entity itself. In saying he had terminated his membership in one of the organizations under scrutiny, you have proven that Ng had connections to China-based organization. Even if you don't agree that the issue is noteworthy, it makes up a third of the article. So it's quite the hyperbole to say, objectively, that the material isn't important even if nothing is actually found about Ng. If neutrality is the underlying concern, then we can incorporate his and the Democrats's response into the proposed lead material. But we have agreement that, at least in principle, the information about Ng's appointment controversy can be included in the lead section - including from you
2470:, you don't agree that describing Dominic Ng as "controversial" is negative framing right up-front? That doesn't make sense. To simply state his positions at East West Bank or APEC is inherently neutral, since we're not calling him a good CEO or a bad one. We're just saying that he is one. Similarly, mentioning the APEC appointment itself is neither positive nor negative. Bringing up a brief controversy that stems from partisan Daily Caller reporting and fizzled out, on the other hand, is obviously negative framing and disproportionately so, since the guy has been a publicly notable, seemingly non-controversial CEO for decades. And I never pushed for the APEC material's inclusion in the opening paragraph. I'm totally fine with it being excluded, if it means stronger NPOV in that paragraph.
3004:
indication that this attracted significant (let alone "unusual") political attention. Given the tightly divided congress and the intensity of partisan conflict at the moment, all appointees are receiving scrutiny and many congressmen are mouthing off about them in various ways; if it's just one news cycle, with no indication that it went anywhere beyond a few pull-quotes of grousing by the opposition, then it doesn't deserve more than a sentence or two in the body of their article, if that. Every indication from the available sources was that this was a momentary blip of no significance to the subject's biography, which went nowhere. --
1043::::I am a long time user but beginning editor. This sentence in the introductory paragraph - that someone attended a meeting - does not seem appropriate, especially when basically the same sentence is also found later on in the article. It is also I would suggest misleading to say someone "served as a representative" by observing a meeting. A guest invited by a US Congressperson to observe the House in operation does not make the guest a representative. In any event, it does not follow Knowledge protocol to make attendance at a meeting a prominent part of a biography. I will delete the sentence. Thank you
2559:, but by suppressing information about the dispute which the appointment caused, you are clearly attempting to put a positive "spin" on the appointment. Throughout the discussion, you never really address the substance of the controversy which is that it is rare for the candidacy of such an obscure position to attract such a polarized response from members who sit at the highest level of the American government. Your defense that the dispute was brief or stemmed from a partisan source doesn't take away from that, particularly when coverage of the dispute takes up one third of the current article.
870::Also, the source for all this is questionable. The Hill is a reputable source but it is only reporting on a story on this topic by the Daily Caller, which is generally not viewed as a credible source. The Hill reported the story because it attracted Congressional comment by a 6 Congressmen who sent a letter to the FBI based on the Daily Caller story that was called out by others as being unfair and political theater to attack President Biden who appointed Mr. Ng to APEC. Knowledge is supposed to be objective, reliable and relevant and not a source for political spin.
1118:::::::Apologize to not be clear. The sentence does not seem relevant in the lead paragraph of a bio, if relevant to include at all. It also seems a misleading characterization to imply that attending a government sponsored meeting makes one a representative or part of that government. Several Committee 100 members seem to have additions to their bio's that imply this. Committee 100 was started at the suggestion of Henry Kissinger to have ethnic Chinese Americans be part of the US government goal of seeking ways to collaborate where possible with China.
2137:. We should weigh the notability of this alleged controversy in light of Dominic Ng's whole life so far, since there is much more to his career than the APEC involvement, based on a wide range of news stories out there. The China connection does appear to be brief and superficial too. Focusing on that in the opening paragraph, without then also mentioning the Democrats' defense of him, would come across as very unfavorable in the lede. Not that it should be favorable either, but the opening paragraph should be balanced as encyclopedic content.
1848:
statement of fact that he has connections to China-based organizations and to say that a majority of it has either been denied by him or not proven would be false. I also don't see how it could be construed as negative material - an opinion which you share with the sockpuppeter who started this discussion - and even if it could, we have no obligation to exclude it given the strong sourcing. The majority opinion - Amigao and I - is calling for this material to be included in the lead section, so I would ask, with respect, that you not remove it.
318:
1785:
another editor, it forms not only the basis of the appointment controversy but also the majority of the most noteworthy material in the current article. To have that not reflected in the lead section would be quite bizarre. I also don't think it's enough to say his appointment was "questioned" by
Republicans when they asked for the involvement of a national security agency specifically to investigate Ng. There is clearly an escalatory element at play here so more forceful wording to describe their reactions would be warranted.
867::I am not sure this is a credible source for the insertion that Mr. Ng is an executive director of the Chinese Overseas Friendship Association. Per comments below, this seems to be a google translation to imply a high ranking position where there does not seem to be any support that he participated in this group. The inclusion would seem at best irrelevant and unsupported and, in the context of the current political climate and changes made to this bio, an aspersion that a U.S. citizen is not loyal to his country.
1536:
have a situation where the bulk of the most noteworthy material in the current article - the controversy over his appointment to the APEC Business
Advisory Council stemming from his connections to China - is not mentioned anywhere in the lead section. I would implement my recommendations directly into the article, but I do not have the editing powers to do that given the protection status of the article. So I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter and hope that you can take onboard my advice.
2399:
time or that a security agency did not pursue them does not take away from the controversy's notability which was established by a different source, namely the dispute between
Congressmembers who ran with the partisan allegations. If you have an underlying concern about endorsement, then that would be quite a misunderstanding of how an encyclopedia functions. To say that Ng's appointment was controversial is not us saying it, it is us saying what the sources/other people have said about the situation.
2968:
public, involved direct and extensive intervention by him (he gave interviews and his company issued statements denying the allegations), attracted an unusual level of political attention (it is rare for the candidacy for an obscure, theoretically non-partisan position like a seat on APEC's BAC to attract such a polarized response at the highest level of
American government) and the corresponding "APEC" section takes up a significant amount (one-third) of article space.
308:
287:
201:
183:
489:
211:
565:
1653:
assertion about that person. I'm not sure if you misread the policy or something I wrote, but now that I've clarified what I think is the source of the confusion, would you be willing to reconsider your position? As for your proposal about what we should do with the appointment controversy, I'm in agreement as it was along the same lines with the one that I had in mind. Getting to specifics, I suggest adding
2169:
material given the extensive amount of information about his connections to the country in the rest of the article, such as his efforts to promote ties between the U.S. and China when he was chairman of the
Committee of 100. The latest proposal was already "short without going into the details" - it replaced the part about his connections to China-based organizations to his connections to the country.
1988:, I don't think it goes quite far enough. There is still no mention of Ng's appointment controversy in the lead section despite the agreement from the previous discussions that the inclusion of the material in that part of the article is warranted. If repetition and preemption are the concerns, then I suggest we tighten the language and add the following to the end of the current sentence in the lead:
113:
95:
1471:. Amigao is still paying attention; my past experiences have been positive with you both. I hope now that some bats in the belfry are exposed, a normal discussion can reach and maintain a consensus despite the subject's multiple paid contributors. If you'd like to refine my talk page edits, please hit the notice board. If you'd like to refine this article, this is the best place. I am neutral as to
64:
413:
392:
2278:
say as fact that Ng had connections to China/China-based organization. All of my suggestions now say there were merely allegations he had connections to the country/organization. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but right now I don't see the same level of willingness to compromise on your part. The final outcome is going to involve concessions from everyone involved, and that includes you.
524:
2316:
statements of fact, and neutral ones (NPOV). Including the “controversy” would clearly tilt the scales in an explicitly negative direction, since it suggests that Ng is therefore a controversial figure, when that isn't really the case based on how the minority far-right allegations seem to have fizzled out in a matter of weeks, weighed against a decades-long career.
2187:
his APEC appointment has been significant enough to be included in the lead. But if that is the case, then it will also have to be accompanied by a line about the controversy. The dispute in
Congress is what brought Ng's appointment to the public's attention and I don't think it's possible to have one without the other without falling afoul of neutrality rules.
1194::::::::::I did not get any response from Amigao about why attendance at a meeting as part of Committee 100 duties is relevant in a biography and in particular in the lead of a biography. I deleted but am glad to submit this and seek additional views other than the ones already commenting to get a broader consensus to delete this than we have now. Thank you
615:
1304:
100. Note that the importance of such invitations to the United front system is by itself largely irrelevant in this article. What matters in this article is the importance of the detail to the life of
Dominic Ng. Anyway if you cannot resolve the dispute by further discussion just from people already here, I'd suggest some form of
2237:
perhaps the "Career" section itself can be expanded to better describe Ng's business career over the decades, followed by an additional sentence or two in that opening paragraph down the road. There is a lot of independent, feature-style news coverage about him that hasn't been referenced yet, based on just a quick Google search.
123:
2998:
given that. How much coverage is there that isn't from
February 2023? Even within that timeframe, a quick search suggests that coverage is extremely sparse. If it must be mentioned, C is the least bad; A and B are unacceptable because the article itself doesn't even mention the CCP, and only a single
2550:
We aren't describing him as controversial. We are describing his appointment as controversial. But to stress once more, that is not us saying it. It is us saying what the sources/other people have said about what happened. Allegations were made by the
Republicans that Ng had ties to the CCP which the
2277:
and not just discussing how the APEC material should fit into the lead. It's a give and take process - I've already come down quite a bit on my initial suggestion. My newest suggestions do not note only how the
Republicans reacted to the appointment (this incorporated your suggestion) and it does not
2266:
I don't think removing the APEC sentence from the lead section would make any sense. As I have taken pains to point out quite a few times now, it is summarizing a large and important part of the article. To not have any of that reflected in the lead would be quite bizarre. I also think it would be at
2186:
Going through the past edits more carefully, it seems there has been a concerted effort by you two to keep Ng's appointment to APEC in the lead section while removing any mention of the controversy that came with it. This indicates, at a minimum, that we have an agreement between the three of us that
1652:
I think you are misunderstanding the crux of the disagreement. It isn't over the type of source that is being used, it's over how the source is being used. There isn't a blanket prohibition on using public documents as a source of information about a living person, you just can't use them to build an
2893:. Reminder: this discussion was originally initiated and maintained by several confirmed and blocked socks. Additionally, it is worth closing as a non-issue or failure of proponents of edits to achieve a consensus. If an unrelated party has a proposed edit, from scratch is indeed the answer. Cheers.
2673:
I'm not trying to speak for other editors. I'm only pointing out the inconsistency between your words and actions. You said you wanted as many people participating as possible but only notified people who you thought would agree with you. Calling that out as bad faith solicitation was just stating a
2071:
It doesn't appear to be that important, unless they actually find something. LAist refers to another source which claimed that Ng led organisations were "allegedly" front groups, so this is far from a statement of fact. He has since denied one connection and the significance of the other one, saying
1303:
still feels this belongs, so further discussion will be needed to resolve the dispute. Amigao, can you explain why you feel this particular detail is important enough in the life of Dominic Ng that it belongs in the lead? Also considering the things we don't mention e.g. his role on the Committee of
1279:
Alerted to this thread. It seems there's consensus to removing the reference of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in the lead paragraph but it was reversed several times. What is the process of escalation if multiple editors agree on an edit but it's consistently reverted by one
2753:
It has been quite some time now, but there has been no movement on this discussion even though some of the editors who have been notified of the outstanding issues here have been active on other articles. Given the state of how things currently and formally stand, it appears there is a stalemate. I
2319:
Not only that, but including this phrase would suggest Ng is some Chinese government puppet, despite the fact that the page already says his family fled Chinese communism in 1949 and he’s been a U.S. citizen since 1988. To suggest this guy is some CCP puppet, based on allegations that went nowhere,
2163:
notable. It takes up a third of the article due in part to the statements of defense made either by him or on his behalf that the two of you have posted on the current article. His company has issue denials on the matter on his behalf and he's given interviews on it. Members of congress have gotten
2043:
guideline which the section would not be adhering to if the material was excluded. As I have taken pains to point out quite a few times now, the event forms the bulk of the most noteworthy material in the article and to have that not reflected in the lead would be quite bizarre. So for the reasons
1576:
I think there are two issues that you are conflating. One is his participation in the conference and the second is the controversy over his appointment. I did not say or imply that there was a connection between the two, so i am not quite sure why you are making the noteworthiness of his conference
1535:
of the information from the entire article. The crux of the disagreement in the previous discussion seemed to be whether it was appropriate Ng's attendance at the conference should be included in the lead section. I personally don't think it's prominent enough to be there, but the problem is we now
2807:
I also don't have a strong preference but would lean towards excluding it from the lead as it seems to be a typical kerfuffle in the current hyperpartisan political environment without any clear consequences. Perhaps of the US House had actually gone as far as to investigate Ng themselves it would
2738:
be mentioned in the lead, not that it should or must. I am not seeing any contradiction in saying that and you also saying you don't think it can be mentioned in the lead. It does not seem like you want to get entangled in this disagreement any more than you already have, so out of respect, I will
2398:
happen. It is notable. It is an oddity as it is rare for the candidacy of such an obscure, theoretically non-partisan position to attract such a polarized response at the highest level of American government. The fact that the allegations stemmed from a partisan source, that it did not last a long
2236:
Gotcha. I still think that, when there are only two sentences summarizing someone's decades-long career, adding controversy to one of them comes across as a bit harsh. It feels disproportionate, especially since the controversy seems to have gone away months ago (according to media reporting). But
2114:
I'm saying it can be but doesn't necessarily need to be, we should view the notability of this controversy in light of his whole life so far, balanced against his nominal China connection, which seems to be a very brief and superficial one and would be somewhat unfavourable to have in the lead. So
1690:
Would it be better if we notified the other editors who have commented in this section? We would not need to wait for them to start from scratch as they would already be familiar with the issues at play even though they have not been directly involved in our discussion. As for my proposal, I don't
1441:
was suggested during the closure of the DRN request, that's always a possibility but I was hoping this could be resolved without needing something so formal and long since I feel we might just need the participation of a few more experienced editors especially those who know more about the issues.
2967:
I explain my position in further detail in the larger discussion which this request for comment is based on. But to give a quick summary, the dispute should be mentioned in the lead for a number of reasons. These include the facts that the event is what brought Ng's name to attention of the wider
2210:
a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over allegations he had ties to the CCP; a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over Republican allegations he had ties to the CCP; a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged membership in organization with ties to the CCP; a move that
1695:
was added to the end of the current sentence in the lead which details his appointment? If so, could you add the part in? As said before, I would implement my recommendation directly into the article, however I do not have the editing powers to do that given the protection status of the article.
2388:
Policy is quite clear on this. We don't weigh what goes in the lead based on what we think is important in the article. We weigh based on what is in the article. Since the appointment controversy takes up about one third of the article, it would only make sense that it gets a mention in the lead
2323:
There are obviously levels to “controversy.” Now, if Ng had been charged or convicted of something, that would be an entirely different story. If there was an FBI investigation, that would be more relevant too, but there's been no investigation, lawsuit, or anything else, according to the recent
1963:
On a general note, I have had real life commitments that I have had to take care of, so I am sorry for the delayed response. I have been able to meet some of them which has allowed me to continue my discussion participation here. I cannot make any guarantees I will be able to respond in a timely
1847:
That is quite a distortion of what the sources say. The LAist article says Ng said he was a member of one of the two entities which were alleged to be front organizations. It also details his relationship to another China-based organization which is not mentioned in the main article. So it is a
1784:
which I think is your response to my request to have my proposed text included in the article. Assuming that's the case, I don't think your edit satisfies that request. It leaves out any mention of the crux of the issue which is Ng's connections to China-based organizations. As I pointed out to
2272:
So this new proposal of yours to gut the material from the lead section entirely seems to indicate you are attempting to shift the goalposts in order to achieve your ultimate goal of removing any material that you construe as negative to him there. I think at this point I have to stress we are
2168:
one, would not have existed if even Ng's nominal connections had not existed. If we look at the controversy more holistically as the two of you suggest, then it would make even less sense to not mention his connections to China in the lead section. It would not make sense to see it as negative
3003:
that mentions it at any length at all - a single article is not enough to put a highly BLP-sensitive accusation in the lead of a BLP. There is no indication in any of the sources that this is significant to his notability, no indication that this brought his name to the "wider public", and no
2393:
reason to exclude it as it would be providing balance to "positive" information like his positions at East West Bank and APEC which could be read as a mere listing of his accomplishments. Once again, I should stress here that since you believe the APEC appointment is significant enough to be
2315:
However, let’s look at the current opening paragraph: It is bare-bones and strictly down the middle, simply stating Ng's position at East West Bank and the APEC appointment. It does not speak to his business notability in any positive way, nor does it praise the APEC role. They are just short
819:
regarding an addition you had made stating that Ng was an executive director of the China Overseas Friendship Association. I have no ability to read Chinese language so the referenced cited is fairly opaque to me, but it looks like the statement has been publicly refuted. I feel like basic
2939:
None. I don't think this is relevant for the lead, but may be added under a separate section such as "controversies" as is standard practice -- OR, my preference is to leave it out all together since it is an accusation and he hasn't been convicted of a crime. We need to tread carefully.
1371:
Good point regarding a mention of the C100 role in the lead. That's important biographical context, especially the dates of the role, and it has been included. It helps the chronological flow of the lead better. Interestingly, Ng was no longer chair of C100 when he served as an overseas
1615:
If we cannot agree on whether or not to include the conference material, then can we at least agree on putting something about the appointment controversy in the lead? The material makes up a sizable chunk of the article and I think we can both agree has inherent noteworthiness
1528:- which you can find from the English language translation of the article - "During the meeting, Wu Jianmin, former president of the Committee of 100 and chairman of East West Bank from the United States, spoke on behalf of the 38 overseas Chinese attending the meeting."
2573:
I'm sorry, but why are you trying to speak for the other editors now? There's also no need to cast aspersions like "bad faith." I just want to hear other people's thoughts within this specific conversation, since it's been just us two going back and forth for a while.
1308:
as there are still very few participants in this discussion and even fewer who seem acquainted with our policies and guidelines. BLPN seems to have had only limited success so maybe something else could be tried, or as an alternative a more focused thread at BLPN.
1298:
I don't think there's consensus, otherwise editors wouldn't be reverting. I'd note that while I'm mildly supportive of the removal, I don't know enough to feel particularly strongly about it, so my opinion counts very little towards any consensus. And it appears
1550:
What you call a statement of fact is still an assertion. If being the overseas representative is that noteworthy, there should be independent secondary reliable sources that comment on that as being part of the controversy and establish that the information is
2463:? The more feedback, the better, so we can come to a rational decision together. In any case, the opening paragraphs should eventually be expanded based on the "Career" section having room to grow, if the APEC material can occupy so much bandwidth throughout.
1671:
No, I understand that you are trying to distinguish between "assertions" and "statement of fact". Assertions are supposed to be all information that we post about a living person, even what you consider non-controversial information. You can check with the
2320:
is a strong suggestion to make in the first two sentences of his Knowledge page. There should be a very high bar when highlighting such claims in an opening paragraph, so we should be careful about the “guilt by association” repercussions here, that’s all.
2240:
In any case, what if the one APEC sentence was just taken out of the opening paragraph entirely? And then that content was kept in the APEC section, describing the controversy like it is now? The controversy is already well-documented in that section
2285:
to the end of the lead section. I think it is the closest we can get to a fair, accurate and appropriate summary of not just the information in the APEC section, but the reality that it is trying to capture. If you can agree to this, then I will ask
3063:
and others to omit, let's just keep the content in question out of the lead, although it can remain in the APEC sub-section for now. Most editors agree that it shouldn't be highlighted in the opening paragraph, so we can just leave it at that.
2603:
What part of having "no opinion about including the appointment controversy" did you not understand? I have no opinion on whether it should be included! If the controversy is to be mentioned in the lead, it must be brief and balanced.
1634:, to support assertions about a living person" so no, I don't agree about including the conference. I don't have an opinion about including the appointment controversy in the lead beyond limiting it to a sentence or less to maintain
1524:
because the information from the source wasn't being used to make or support an assertion about Ng. It was being used only to make a statement of fact about him - he served as an overseas representative to the CPPCC in Beijing
2778:
can you tell us which proposal you support? (It does not have to be one or any of these three. If you have a proposal that you've come up with on your own and that hasn't been discussed before, you can list that here too)
961:"...Mr. Ng never attended COEA meetings nor paid membership dues," ... said, adding that Ng "has had no connection with COFA or ever agreed to serve as an executive director of COFA" and later withdrew his name from COEA.
2436:
Depending on how you count it, at this point there are up to four and at least two people who are saying this material can be included in the lead section. You are the only person who is insisting on keeping it out.
1065:
I don't mind the deletion since it seems too minor to be in the lead, but the reason given in the edit summary makes no sense. Of course the sentence duplicates content in the body. That's the whole point of the
2213:
The list isn't exhaustive, but it will be by default if it doesn't generate any response from you two. In that case, I will pick the one suggestion that I think best represents the compromise position and have
2327:
Plus, the allegations originated from a right-wing news source that the Knowledge community doesn’t even hold in high regard. The Daily Caller is regarded very poorly among many Wiki editors, after all.
1429:
I see that was closed because Amigao didn't participate. I've warned then that they really need to explain why they feel it is due if they are going to continue to revert. I've also asked for help at
3127:
2267:
odds with how you've edited that part of the lead in the past where you were very keen to keep the information on Ng's APEC appointment and only edited out the "controversy" bit that followed it.
3162:
2394:
included in the lead, then it needs to also be accompanied by a line about the controversy. Borrowing your terminology, we can't have "praise" without the "criticism." The fact is, the dispute
2389:
section. I don't agree with the negative framing you are giving the information. It's no less a statement of fact than his APEC appointment. If it was negative information, then that would be
1598:
I am not seeing this. I gave you a source that directly says he attended the conference in his capacity as an overseas representative. Maybe we can tinker with the wording, but the point is he
1581:
appears to suggest the conference material is noteworthy on its own. We can say he attended the conference and just leave it at that. No need to make any reference to the appointment issue.
2762:
and Doctorstrange617 proposes that the sentence be excluded altogether. Morbidthoughts doesn't have an opinion on the issue. That leaves Amigao and Nil Enne as the tie-breaking votes, so
3142:
2208:
I think some changes can be made to reflect the Democrat's response to the Republican criticism of Ng's appointment in order to maintain neutrality. So here are a few more suggestions.
467:
457:
952:
3147:
3137:
2039:
From the discussion above, there is agreement - between 4 editors - that the material about Ng's appointment controversy can be included in the lead section. There is also the
1093:
who had added the sentence in the first place - what coherent reasons are there for its inclusion? It seems more than a few editors support deleting it. Thanks for responding.
1814:
1434:
1373:
1233:
1147:
43:
433:
2822:
BTW, I'm on wikibreak and won't be replying further and as I said, I don't have a strong opinion so feel free to do whatever without awaiting further input from me.
1964:
manner due to the fluidity of my commitments, but I will make my best attempt to do so and hope that this disagreement will be resolved at the earliest opportunity.
3107:
2164:
directly involved. Nominal or not, the point is those connections are, objectively, real and have been the fulcrum of the controversy. The controversy, or at least
263:
1250:
Was Ng still the chair of C100 or in a position of authority with C100 when he acted as an overseas representative? If so, that should probably be included with a
3122:
751:
747:
733:
364:
2294:
to put it into the current article. I don't know if I can speak for you, but I think we have spent more energy and time than we care to to resolving this issue.
2086:
The "material" is what prompted him to give the interview with LAist, his company to issue denials on his behalf and you to post his defense on the main article
3157:
420:
397:
3087:
48:
3117:
269:
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
2912:
Should the lead section mention the dispute in Congress which stemmed from Dominic Ng's appointment to APEC's Business Advisory Council? If so, how?
3152:
3112:
3102:
1020:
I'm new to Knowledge editing. Asking if other editors could weigh in on how this sentence about a meeting conforms to Knowledge's guidance on lead
3097:
3092:
2499:
as well. Notifying just those users who you think are predisposed to agree with your position is "looking" in bad faith. Morbidthoughts's opinion
141:
23:
1021:
374:
933:
239:
145:
2551:
Democrats disputed. To call it a dispute between Congressmembers over Ng's alleged ties to the CCP is a transcription of what the sources
689:
3132:
649:
149:
1908:
Pursuant to what I wrote above, please restore the article to the state it was in prior to the removal of the material in question.
1781:
I won't go through your point about the sourcing issue as that's already been discussed at length. Instead, I'll take up your edit
140:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
2836:
Thank you all. Unfortunately it seems that we are still at a stalemate so it looks like this issue will have to be resolved by a
2312:. It’s not my goal to just scrub this page of content that comes across as more negative. Both sides of the story should be told.
1430:
505:
to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to
340:
224:
188:
1799:
Most of it has been denied by the person and apparently not proven, so BLP should be respected because it is negative coverage.
999:
599:
583:
551:
495:
136:
100:
575:
543:
535:
699:
1529:
510:
1305:
794:
625:
506:
502:
75:
1630:
You gave me a BLPPRIMARY source which is prohibited to use: " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or
331:
292:
2555:
said. It is an uncontroversial statement of fact, no different than saying Ng was appointed to the APEC BAC. You say
1146:
Prominent Chinese diaspora business leaders can be and, in fact, are invited to be "overseas representatives" of the
1813:
It's actually very positive coverage in Chinese-language media. Keep in mind that being an overseas delegate in the
3069:
3032:
2594:
2586:
2486:
2478:
2347:
2339:
2257:
2249:
2150:
2142:
628:
require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
339:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1990:
a move that attracted US congressional scrutiny and criticism from some Republicans over his connections to China.
828:
note the denial, but given how poorly supported that table is (e.g. no photo or DOB or anything that ensures that
2040:
1280:
editor? Are there other editors that can chime in on this or what is the suggested procedure on resolving this? @
1024:
The lead now does not stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's subject with a questionable NPOV.
750:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2609:
1749:
I am not sure if you missed this but if you have no problems with what I am proposing, then can you please add
1681:
1643:
1560:
1503:
2999:
one of the sources does. A quick search suggests that this is because the Hill is the only potentially-usable
1767:
The conference attendance has sourcing and WP:DUE issues but the questioning by Republicans can be mentioned.
1751:
The appointment attracted Republican scrutiny and criticism over his connections to China-based organizations.
1726:
The appointment attracted Republican scrutiny and criticism over his connections to China-based organizations.
1520:
I can't speak for the other editors, but it looks to me that the core of the CPPCC material would not violate
63:
1098:
1029:
982:
785:
681:
643:
579:
32:
2324:
reporting online. Some Republicans said one thing, some Democrats pushed back, and that is apparently that.
488:
2916:
a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP.
2734:
I understood what you said, but it doesn't quite seem like you understood what I said. I said you said it
1467:
A BLPN tread remains active for right now. I've significantly edited this talk page to reflect or remove
3065:
3028:
2756:
a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP
2668:
2590:
2582:
2482:
2474:
2343:
2335:
2334:? You’ve been involved here before. Would love to hear more input, as we all work together on this one.
2283:
a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP
2253:
2245:
2146:
2138:
2034:
895:
769:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
757:
633:
81:
1404::I have submitted this sentence to Notice Board for consideration to stop the delete and revert cycle.
680:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2902:
2065:
1507:
1414:
1353:
1236:
is part of a C100 chair's "duties"? If so, that is important context and should probably be included.
1204:
1128:
1053:
986:
690:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150717084121/http://www.unitedwayla.org:80/about-us/boards-and-cabinets/
3050:
1635:
1578:
1521:
1495:
1151:
842:
724:
621:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
3009:
2991:
2945:
2890:
2827:
2813:
2729:
2605:
2452:
2331:
2124:
2077:
1836:
1804:
1772:
1677:
1639:
1571:
1556:
1515:
1499:
1447:
1348:
1314:
1075:
593:
2808:
reach a level of significance making it lead worthy but to be blunt, it seems mostly noise to me.
953:"House Republicans ask FBI to investigate Biden appointee over potential Espionage Act violations"
432:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
238:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1424:
1094:
1025:
978:
639:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
754:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
2793:
No strong preference, but the first sentence makes for a more substantive summary of the body.
2054:
Once again, pursuant to what I wrote above, please restore the article to the state it was in.
1657:
to the end of the current sentence in the lead which details his appointment. Would that work?
770:
2495:
If you were honest about looking for the widest input possible, then you would have notified @
1288:
1007:
307:
286:
216:
2798:
2211:
sparked a dispute in Congress over his alleged ties to organizations associated with the CCP
1822:
1715:
1409:
1381:
1259:
1241:
1199:
1187:
1159:
1123:
1048:
903:
878:
856:
128:
2244:
That could maybe solve the proportionality problem. Look forward to hearing your thoughts!
777:
693:
3046:
2995:
2898:
1480:
839:
39:
2578:'s thoughts are obviously welcome too, so we can all try to find reasonable consensus...
700:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120311071129/http://aemf.org/award/2009-amf-award-winners/
3060:
3042:
3024:
3020:
3005:
2973:
2941:
2929:
2845:
2823:
2809:
2784:
2773:
2744:
2564:
2460:
2456:
2442:
2299:
2227:
2177:
2134:
2120:
2097:
2073:
2061:
1996:
1969:
1832:
1800:
1790:
1768:
1758:
1753:
to the end of the lead section. I cannot as I do not have the editing powers to do so.
1733:
1701:
1673:
1662:
1621:
1541:
1458:
1443:
1344:
1336:
1310:
1281:
1071:
1067:
736:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
653:
629:
589:
776:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
3081:
2933:
2837:
2044:
stated, I would ask, with respect, that you stop removing the material in question.
1552:
1475:
and I am not planning to edit it. But I can discuss ideas and concerns here. Cheers!
1438:
1002:? It sounds out of place but much of the article seems to have been heavily edited.
821:
1693:
albeit after Republican scrutiny over Ng's connections to China-based organizations.
1655:
albeit after Republican scrutiny over Ng's connections to China-based organizations.
3000:
2920:
a move that sparked a dispute in Congress over allegations he had ties to the CCP.
1284:
1251:
1229:
1003:
323:
2505:
They have both explicitly said the appointment issue can be mentioned in the lead.
200:
182:
2172:
To cut it down any further would be falling afoul of basic rules and guidelines.
2794:
2765:
2575:
2496:
2289:
2217:
2049:
1980:
1903:
1818:
1744:
1711:
1462:
1405:
1377:
1340:
1300:
1255:
1237:
1195:
1183:
1155:
1119:
1090:
1086:
1044:
899:
891:
874:
852:
810:
743:
703:
873::I would invite comments from other editors on whether this should be deleted.
523:
112:
94:
2894:
1476:
742:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
673:
429:
313:
234:
229:
206:
118:
2473:
We clearly won't agree on this, so we should see what other editors think...
836:吳建民), I think cutting might be better. Your thoughts are welcome, of course.
574:
to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
2969:
2925:
2841:
2780:
2740:
2560:
2467:
2438:
2309:
2295:
2223:
2173:
2093:
2057:
1992:
1965:
1786:
1754:
1729:
1697:
1658:
1617:
1537:
1070:
of the article to introduce the subject and summarise the important points.
3045:, could be added under a separate section such as "controversies." Thanks.
2455:' perspective, since they have been involved here before. What about you, @
938:
412:
391:
2754:
propose a sentence about the controversy which includes the allegations (
424:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
2557:
mentioning the APEC appointment itself is neither positive nor negative
851:
Added the response for additional context. Thanks for the source link.
425:
2758:), CurryCity proposes a similar sentence but without the allegations (
148:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
3073:
3054:
3036:
3013:
2977:
2949:
2849:
2831:
2817:
2802:
2788:
2748:
2613:
2598:
2568:
2490:
2446:
2351:
2303:
2261:
2231:
2181:
2154:
2128:
2115:
probably a sentence that is short without going into the details:
2101:
2081:
2000:
1973:
1840:
1826:
1808:
1794:
1776:
1762:
1737:
1719:
1705:
1685:
1666:
1647:
1625:
1564:
1545:
1484:
1451:
1385:
1318:
1292:
1263:
1245:
1163:
1102:
1079:
1033:
1011:
907:
883:
860:
845:
799:
336:
3041:
Agreed that it is not included in the lede but, as suggested by
2990:
down to a sentence or two at most. At a glance it seems to lack
1724:
Ah yes you are right, that was a total misread by me. How about
1435:
Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dominic Ng
609:
559:
518:
483:
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
3027:. Omission from the lead makes the most sense in this case.
2924:
His appointment was questioned by six Republican lawmakers.
709:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
550:
here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or
522:
2760:
His appointment was questioned by six Republican lawmakers.
928:
2581:
As I said, the more, the merrier. It's all in good faith!
2117:
His appointment was questioned by six Republican lawmakers
1232:
stating that serving as an overseas representative of the
684:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
572:
contributor may be personally or professionally connected
1596:
What you call a statement of fact is still an assertion.
694:
http://www.unitedwayla.org/about-us/boards-and-cabinets/
228:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
2503:
2500:
2270:
2268:
2170:
2090:
2087:
2055:
1986:
1909:
1782:
1532:
1526:
1472:
1468:
815:
677:
547:
2739:
not reference your opinion on this issue any further.
3019:
Thanks for advancing the discussion, and agreed with
632:. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
3128:
Start-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
335:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
3163:
Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
3059:It seems to be settled then. Per the preference of
746:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2908:Request for Comment: Dominic Ng's APEC appointment
1815:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
1676:about the appropriateness of this interpretation.
1374:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
1234:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
1148:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
972:Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
268:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1710:The scrutiny came after the appointment, though.
971:
3143:Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
1577:role contingent on the appointment controversy.
509:regarding potentially objectionable content and
501:Images or details contained within this article
2994:coverage. The amount in the body already seems
1498:if it is cited to a Chinese government agency?
732:This message was posted before February 2018.
442:Knowledge:WikiProject Finance & Investment
3148:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
3138:Start-Class Finance & Investment articles
977:Why is this reference in the lead paragraph?
704:http://aemf.org/award/2009-amf-award-winners/
445:Template:WikiProject Finance & Investment
8:
1831:Not exactly relevant for English Knowledge.
1335::::::::I have COI, so I'll chime in to echo
937:(in Chinese). 23 August 2021. Archived from
1691:know if you missed it but would it work if
1431:Knowledge talk:WikiProject China#Dominic Ng
61:
1254:to back it up as it is important context.
1150:. That's a well-documented feature of the
386:
281:
177:
89:
2072:it was honorary and has been terminated.
672:I have just modified 2 external links on
503:may be graphic or otherwise objectionable
2988:drastically reduce coverage in the body
920:
532:Individuals with a conflict of interest
388:
283:
179:
91:
3108:Unknown-importance California articles
2759:
2755:
2556:
2282:
2209:
2116:
1989:
1750:
1725:
1692:
1654:
1595:
1022:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lead section
548:request corrections or suggest content
542:not to directly edit the article. See
3123:Low-importance China-related articles
1531:So I would not quite agree with your
934:China Overseas Friendship Association
805:China Overseas Friendship Association
721:to let others know (documentation at
7:
3158:Articles with connected contributors
1494:How does any of this not fall under
421:WikiProject Finance & Investment
418:This article is within the scope of
329:This article is within the scope of
222:This article is within the scope of
134:This article is within the scope of
3088:Biography articles of living people
80:It is of interest to the following
3118:Start-Class China-related articles
1469:technical sockpuppet contributions
14:
2222:put it into the current article.
1817:is considered quite prestigious.
676:. Please take a moment to review
448:Finance & Investment articles
2907:
613:
563:
538:the subject of the article, are
487:
411:
390:
316:
306:
285:
248:Knowledge:WikiProject California
209:
199:
181:
121:
111:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
3153:Knowledge objectionable content
3113:WikiProject California articles
3103:Start-Class California articles
1000:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
824:standards would demand that we
511:options for not seeing an image
462:This article has been rated as
369:This article has been rated as
251:Template:WikiProject California
158:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
3098:WikiProject Biography articles
3093:Start-Class biography articles
1485:00:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
1452:02:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
1415:21:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
1386:02:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
1354:19:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
1264:02:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
1246:02:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
908:04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
884:03:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
544:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
507:Knowledge's content disclaimer
161:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
2749:09:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2614:22:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2599:21:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2569:21:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
2491:21:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
2447:23:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
2352:15:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2304:21:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2262:16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2232:17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2182:00:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2155:23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2129:20:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2102:20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2082:07:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2066:03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2001:11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1974:11:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
1841:10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
1827:17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
1809:08:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
1795:03:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
1777:08:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
1319:13:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
1293:22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
1205:18:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
816:the little reversal situation
800:00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
436:and see a list of open tasks.
343:and see a list of open tasks.
242:and see a list of open tasks.
24:biographies of living persons
3074:19:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
3055:18:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
3037:20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3014:10:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2978:19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
2950:14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2934:19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
2903:00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2850:19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
2502:is clear as is CurryCity's.
2451:Again, I would like to get @
1985:While I welcome your change
1763:13:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1738:06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1720:01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
1706:01:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
1686:18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
1667:02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
1648:02:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
1626:08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
1565:17:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1546:10:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1508:08:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
1192:13:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
998:Does this reference satisfy
146:contribute to the discussion
2832:15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2818:15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2803:03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
2789:04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
1164:22:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
1129:22:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
1103:20:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
1080:06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
1054:03:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
1034:17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
1012:14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
987:04:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
894:, you might want to review
349:Knowledge:WikiProject China
36:must be removed immediately
3179:
3133:WikiProject China articles
2308:Appreciate your feedback,
1089:edit has been reverted by
861:17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
846:15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
763:(last update: 5 June 2024)
669:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
468:project's importance scale
375:project's importance scale
352:Template:WikiProject China
270:project's importance scale
496:Knowledge is not censored
461:
406:
368:
301:
267:
194:
106:
88:
2281:My suggestion is to add
570:The following Knowledge
439:Finance & Investment
398:Finance & Investment
665:External links modified
554:if the issue is urgent.
1632:other public documents
1602:attend the conference.
1372:representative to the
527:
355:China-related articles
225:WikiProject California
70:This article is rated
1306:WP:Dispute resolution
1085:Hi everyone! I noted
584:neutral point of view
534:, particularly those
526:
137:WikiProject Biography
959:. 15 February 2023.
744:regular verification
622:Wikimedia Foundation
576:conflict of interest
2986:from the lead, and
2330:What do you think,
929:"中华海外联谊会第五届理事会人员名单"
734:After February 2018
713:parameter below to
652:) has been paid by
254:California articles
2041:WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY
941:on 23 August 2021.
788:InternetArchiveBot
739:InternetArchiveBot
528:
164:biography articles
76:content assessment
1428:
764:
662:
661:
608:
607:
558:
557:
517:
516:
482:
481:
478:
477:
474:
473:
385:
384:
381:
380:
332:WikiProject China
280:
279:
276:
275:
217:California portal
176:
175:
172:
171:
56:
55:
3170:
3066:Doctorstrange617
3029:Doctorstrange617
2777:
2769:
2733:
2672:
2669:Doctorstrange617
2591:Doctorstrange617
2583:Doctorstrange617
2483:Doctorstrange617
2475:Doctorstrange617
2344:Doctorstrange617
2336:Doctorstrange617
2293:
2254:Doctorstrange617
2246:Doctorstrange617
2221:
2159:The controversy
2147:Doctorstrange617
2139:Doctorstrange617
2053:
2038:
2035:Doctorstrange617
1984:
1907:
1748:
1575:
1519:
1466:
1422:
964:
963:
949:
943:
942:
925:
844:
818:
798:
789:
762:
761:
740:
728:
617:
616:
610:
567:
566:
560:
540:strongly advised
519:
491:
484:
450:
449:
446:
443:
440:
415:
408:
407:
402:
394:
387:
357:
356:
353:
350:
347:
326:
321:
320:
319:
310:
303:
302:
297:
289:
282:
256:
255:
252:
249:
246:
219:
214:
213:
212:
203:
196:
195:
185:
178:
166:
165:
162:
159:
156:
142:join the project
131:
129:Biography portal
126:
125:
124:
115:
108:
107:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
3178:
3177:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3169:
3168:
3167:
3078:
3077:
2958:
2910:
2771:
2763:
2727:
2666:
2287:
2215:
2047:
2032:
1978:
1901:
1742:
1674:BLP noticeboard
1569:
1513:
1473:current content
1456:
1413:
1352:
1339:'s question to
1203:
1191:
1127:
1052:
974:
969:
968:
967:
951:
950:
946:
927:
926:
922:
882:
871:
868:
837:
814:
813:—I happened on
807:
792:
787:
755:
748:have permission
738:
722:
682:this simple FaQ
667:
614:
564:
447:
444:
441:
438:
437:
400:
354:
351:
348:
345:
344:
322:
317:
315:
295:
253:
250:
247:
244:
243:
215:
210:
208:
163:
160:
157:
154:
153:
127:
122:
120:
74:on Knowledge's
71:
12:
11:
5:
3176:
3174:
3166:
3165:
3160:
3155:
3150:
3145:
3140:
3135:
3130:
3125:
3120:
3115:
3110:
3105:
3100:
3095:
3090:
3080:
3079:
3017:
3016:
2957:
2954:
2953:
2952:
2909:
2906:
2891:Morbidthoughts
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2730:Morbidthoughts
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2606:Morbidthoughts
2601:
2579:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2471:
2464:
2453:Morbidthoughts
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2332:Morbidthoughts
2328:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2279:
2242:
2238:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2131:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1740:
1678:Morbidthoughts
1640:Morbidthoughts
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1572:Morbidthoughts
1557:Morbidthoughts
1516:Morbidthoughts
1500:Morbidthoughts
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1403:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1334:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1248:
1228:Do you have a
1193:
1181:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1117:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1042:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
973:
970:
966:
965:
944:
919:
918:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
896:WP:NOTCENSORED
872:
869:
866:
864:
863:
806:
803:
782:
781:
774:
707:
706:
698:Added archive
696:
688:Added archive
666:
663:
660:
659:
658:
657:
654:East West Bank
634:WP:COIRESPONSE
618:
606:
605:
604:
603:
568:
556:
555:
529:
515:
514:
500:
492:
480:
479:
476:
475:
472:
471:
464:Low-importance
460:
454:
453:
451:
434:the discussion
416:
404:
403:
401:Low‑importance
395:
383:
382:
379:
378:
371:Low-importance
367:
361:
360:
358:
341:the discussion
328:
327:
311:
299:
298:
296:Low‑importance
290:
278:
277:
274:
273:
266:
260:
259:
257:
240:the discussion
221:
220:
204:
192:
191:
186:
174:
173:
170:
169:
167:
133:
132:
116:
104:
103:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3175:
3164:
3161:
3159:
3156:
3154:
3151:
3149:
3146:
3144:
3141:
3139:
3136:
3134:
3131:
3129:
3126:
3124:
3121:
3119:
3116:
3114:
3111:
3109:
3106:
3104:
3101:
3099:
3096:
3094:
3091:
3089:
3086:
3085:
3083:
3076:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3062:
3057:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3044:
3039:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3002:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2984:Omit entirely
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2975:
2971:
2966:
2962:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2923:
2919:
2915:
2905:
2904:
2900:
2896:
2892:
2889:I agree with
2851:
2847:
2843:
2839:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2775:
2767:
2761:
2757:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2737:
2731:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2670:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2602:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2577:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2554:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2504:
2501:
2498:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2469:
2465:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2397:
2392:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2311:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2291:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2271:
2269:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2219:
2212:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2162:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2133:Agreed with @
2132:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2056:
2051:
2045:
2042:
2036:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1987:
1982:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1910:
1905:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1783:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1746:
1741:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1694:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1636:WP:BLPBALANCE
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1580:
1579:WP:BLPPRIMARY
1573:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1523:
1522:WP:BLPPRIMARY
1517:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:WP:BLPPRIMARY
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1426:
1425:edit conflict
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1411:
1407:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1277:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1189:
1185:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1121:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:StoicAurelius
1092:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1046:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:StoicAurelius
1023:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
995:
993:
992:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
979:StoicAurelius
962:
958:
954:
948:
945:
940:
936:
935:
930:
924:
921:
917:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
880:
876:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
847:
843:
841:
835:
831:
827:
823:
817:
812:
804:
802:
801:
796:
791:
790:
779:
775:
772:
768:
767:
766:
759:
753:
749:
745:
741:
735:
730:
726:
720:
716:
712:
705:
701:
697:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
683:
679:
675:
670:
664:
655:
651:
648:
645:
641:
640:East West AOT
638:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
612:
611:
601:
598:
595:
591:
588:
587:
585:
581:
580:autobiography
577:
573:
569:
562:
561:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
525:
521:
520:
512:
508:
504:
498:
497:
493:
490:
486:
485:
469:
465:
459:
456:
455:
452:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
417:
414:
410:
409:
405:
399:
396:
393:
389:
376:
372:
366:
363:
362:
359:
342:
338:
334:
333:
325:
314:
312:
309:
305:
304:
300:
294:
291:
288:
284:
271:
265:
262:
261:
258:
241:
237:
236:
231:
227:
226:
218:
207:
205:
202:
198:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
168:
151:
150:documentation
147:
143:
139:
138:
130:
119:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
3058:
3040:
3018:
2992:WP:SUSTAINED
2987:
2983:
2964:
2960:
2959:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2911:
2888:
2735:
2552:
2395:
2390:
2274:
2165:
2160:
2046:
2031:
1631:
1599:
1493:
1402:
1333:
1278:
1180:
1152:united front
1116:
1084:
1041:
1019:
1016:
997:
994:
991:
976:
975:
960:
956:
947:
939:the original
932:
923:
915:
865:
833:
829:
825:
808:
786:
783:
758:source check
737:
731:
718:
714:
710:
708:
671:
668:
646:
626:Terms of Use
596:
571:
539:
536:representing
531:
494:
463:
419:
370:
330:
324:China portal
233:
223:
135:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
2275:negotiating
1301:User:Amigao
725:Sourcecheck
72:Start-class
3082:Categories
3047:Path2space
916:References
840:jameslucas
795:Report bug
674:Dominic Ng
552:contact us
546:. You may
430:Investment
245:California
235:California
230:U.S. state
189:California
3061:Slacker13
3043:Slacker13
3025:Slacker13
3021:Aquillion
3006:Aquillion
2942:Slacker13
2922:Option C:
2918:Option B:
2914:Option A:
2824:Nil Einne
2810:Nil Einne
2774:Nil Einne
2461:Nil Einne
2457:CurryCity
2135:CurryCity
2121:CurryCity
2074:CurryCity
1833:CurryCity
1801:CurryCity
1769:CurryCity
1459:Nil Einne
1444:Nil Einne
1345:INFjorder
1337:Nil Einne
1311:Nil Einne
1282:Nil Einne
1072:Nil Einne
778:this tool
771:this tool
590:Poeticoda
155:Biography
101:Biography
40:libellous
2996:WP:UNDUE
2961:Option A
2956:Comments
1594:You say
1154:system.
957:The Hill
826:at least
784:Cheers.—
650:contribs
600:contribs
2241:anyway.
1533:removal
1343:above.
1285:Wifruit
1068:WP:lead
1004:Wifruit
832:吳建民 is
711:checked
678:my edit
630:WP:PAID
466:on the
426:Finance
373:on the
2838:WP:RFC
2795:Amigao
2766:Amigao
2576:Amigao
2497:Amigao
2466:And, @
2290:Amigao
2218:Amigao
2050:Amigao
1981:Amigao
1904:Amigao
1819:Amigao
1745:Amigao
1712:Amigao
1553:WP:DUE
1463:Amigao
1439:WP:RfC
1406:Dpkpdr
1378:Amigao
1341:Amigao
1256:Amigao
1238:Amigao
1196:Dpkpdr
1184:Dpkpdr
1156:Amigao
1120:Dpkpdr
1091:Amigao
1087:Dpkpdr
1045:Dpkpdr
900:Amigao
892:Dpkpdr
875:Dpkpdr
853:Amigao
822:WP:BLP
811:Amigao
719:failed
582:, and
78:scale.
3001:WP:RS
2895:JFHJr
2674:fact.
2459:and @
1477:JFHJr
1437:. An
1252:WP:RS
1230:WP:RS
346:China
337:China
293:China
3070:talk
3051:talk
3033:talk
3023:and
3010:talk
2974:talk
2970:HiFX
2946:talk
2930:talk
2926:HiFX
2846:talk
2842:HiFX
2828:talk
2814:talk
2799:talk
2785:talk
2781:HiFX
2770:and
2745:talk
2741:HiFX
2610:talk
2595:talk
2587:talk
2565:talk
2561:HiFX
2553:have
2487:talk
2479:talk
2468:HiFX
2443:talk
2439:HiFX
2391:less
2348:talk
2340:talk
2310:HiFX
2300:talk
2296:HiFX
2258:talk
2250:talk
2228:talk
2224:HiFX
2178:talk
2174:HiFX
2166:this
2151:talk
2143:talk
2125:talk
2098:talk
2094:HiFX
2078:talk
2062:talk
2058:HiFX
1997:talk
1993:HiFX
1970:talk
1966:HiFX
1837:talk
1823:talk
1805:talk
1791:talk
1787:HiFX
1773:talk
1759:talk
1755:HiFX
1734:talk
1730:HiFX
1716:talk
1702:talk
1698:HiFX
1682:talk
1663:talk
1659:HiFX
1644:talk
1622:talk
1618:HiFX
1561:talk
1542:talk
1538:HiFX
1504:talk
1461:and
1448:talk
1433:and
1410:talk
1382:talk
1349:talk
1315:talk
1289:talk
1260:talk
1242:talk
1200:talk
1188:talk
1160:talk
1124:talk
1099:talk
1076:talk
1049:talk
1030:talk
1008:talk
983:talk
904:talk
898:. -
879:talk
857:talk
830:this
809:Hey
715:true
644:talk
620:The
594:talk
428:and
144:and
2963:or
2736:can
2396:did
1600:did
834:our
752:RfC
729:).
717:or
702:to
692:to
636:.
624:'s
586:.
458:Low
365:Low
264:???
232:of
29:BLP
3084::
3072:)
3053:)
3035:)
3012:)
2976:)
2948:)
2932:)
2901:)
2848:)
2840:.
2830:)
2816:)
2801:)
2787:)
2747:)
2612:)
2597:)
2589:)
2567:)
2489:)
2481:)
2445:)
2350:)
2342:)
2302:)
2260:)
2252:)
2230:)
2180:)
2161:is
2153:)
2145:)
2127:)
2119:.
2100:)
2092:.
2080:)
2064:)
1999:)
1972:)
1839:)
1825:)
1807:)
1793:)
1775:)
1761:)
1736:)
1728:?
1718:)
1704:)
1684:)
1665:)
1646:)
1638:.
1624:)
1563:)
1555:.
1544:)
1506:)
1483:)
1450:)
1384:)
1376:.
1317:)
1291:)
1262:)
1244:)
1162:)
1101:)
1078:)
1032:)
1010:)
985:)
955:.
931:.
906:)
859:)
765:.
760:}}
756:{{
727:}}
723:{{
578:,
3068:(
3049:(
3031:(
3008:(
2972:(
2965:B
2944:(
2928:(
2899:㊟
2897:(
2844:(
2826:(
2812:(
2797:(
2783:(
2776::
2772:@
2768::
2764:@
2743:(
2732::
2728:@
2671::
2667:@
2608:(
2593:(
2585:(
2574:@
2563:(
2485:(
2477:(
2441:(
2346:(
2338:(
2298:(
2292::
2288:@
2256:(
2248:(
2226:(
2220::
2216:@
2176:(
2149:(
2141:(
2123:(
2096:(
2076:(
2060:(
2052::
2048:@
2037::
2033:@
1995:(
1983::
1979:@
1968:(
1906::
1902:@
1835:(
1821:(
1803:(
1789:(
1771:(
1757:(
1747::
1743:@
1732:(
1714:(
1700:(
1680:(
1661:(
1642:(
1620:(
1574::
1570:@
1559:(
1540:(
1518::
1514:@
1502:(
1481:㊟
1479:(
1465::
1457:@
1446:(
1427:)
1423:(
1412:)
1408:(
1380:(
1351:)
1347:(
1313:(
1287:(
1258:(
1240:(
1202:)
1198:(
1190:)
1186:(
1158:(
1126:)
1122:(
1097:(
1074:(
1051:)
1047:(
1028:(
1006:(
981:(
902:(
881:)
877:(
855:(
838:—
797:)
793:(
780:.
773:.
656:.
647:·
642:(
602:)
597:·
592:(
513:.
499:.
470:.
377:.
272:.
152:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
