This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tgeorgescu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You edited this page before so I am urging you to keep a watch over it because apparently the subject himself is whitewashing this article to reduce any criticism and retain the article as a fansite. Thanks Ratnahastin(talk)05:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ratnahastin: Sorry, I don't know much about Chellaney. I only objected once to calling him "conspiracy theorist" while the sources disagreed about that. I.e. he wasn't 100% right about the debt trap, but it wasn't a conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Noticed this ANI notice. I'm definitely not in agreement with the IP—I've interacted with you enough to know there's no reason to suspect you of racism—but I wanted to point out something that could stave off similar false accusations. In this edit, you refer to Chinese people in a very generalized way. I think it's a phrasing thing, as you and I both know exactly what you meant and that it's not against Wikipedia policy to disparage the Chinese suppression and censorship of scientific scholarship. Generalizations are often interpreted in overly broad ways, as the IP did. Let me know if they pester you at all again, as I would be more than glad to testify against any such claim. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Avoiding racism does not mean "speak no evil of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot".
If they want that their scientific research prospers, attacking objective criticism is not the way to do it. They should not be shooting the messenger, since admitting they have a problem would be the first step towards improvement. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This is more of what I'm concerned about. Again, it's not what you're saying, but how you're phrasing it. When you refer to a they, that can be interpreted as Chinese people or Chinese scientists or the Chinese government. When using generalizing terms, you leave more room for someone to be hurt by your words, even if they are accurate and said without the intention of doing harm. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me tell you something: me, as a Romanian, and many Romanians I spoke to, have no problem in admitting that scientific research from Romania is crappy. I don't feel offended by it, and neither do most Romanians, since they know it's a real fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Cool. Anyway, that was just some advice about how to reduce the abrasiveness of future comments. Things you say have proved inflammatory before despite you not intending them as such, so I figured I could offer a perspective on how to avoid that. If you get bothered again for your principled stand on Chinese scientific scholarship, let me know. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
My two cents are that either the IP does not know what the word "racism" means, or the IP is throwing everything at the wall, hoping to stick. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu you said: "If they want that their scientific research prospers, attacking objective criticism is not the way to do it."
"Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time. Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow."
is "objective criticism"?
It is not only speaking evil of Mao, it is speaking evil of all Chinese medical scientists.
You have talked about the Cultural Revolution more than once. [1][2] You are right that it is part of Chinese history. However, it happened almost fifty years ago, and the Chinese government officially admitted that it's a mistake:
"Deng and Hu helped rehabilitate over 3 million "unjust, false, erroneous" cases. In particular, the trial of the Gang of Four took place in Beijing from 1980 to 1981, and the court stated that 729,511 people had been persecuted by the Gang, of whom 34,800 were said to have died.
In 1981, the Chinese Communist Party passed a resolution and declared that the Cultural Revolution was "responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the Party, the country, and the people since the founding of the People's Republic."
It is unacceptable for you to attack Chinese with a mistake that had already been admitted and corrected. I think you need to learn from the Chinese government and have the courage to admit and correct your own mistake. Even if you do not have that courage, you should STOP spreading inaccurate information about Chinese, and stop adding "content meant to attack, harass, threaten, or disparage certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity'. You need to read THIS. I do not know how many admin friends you have and how UNBLOCKABLE you are. You were able to get me blocked, but everyone should know who is in the wrong unless they are blind.
Science should be separated from politics. Traditional Chinese Medicine exists long before Mao's time. It has thousand years of history. It is your choice that you "have no problem in admitting that scientific research from Romania is crappy", but that does NOT mean you can spread inaccurate information by saying that "scientific research from China is crappy" and that "Chinese medical scientists lack blah, blah, blah." Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
See Vickers, Andrew; Goyal, Niraj; Harland, Robert; Rees, Rebecca (1998). "Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials". Controlled Clinical Trials. 19 (2). Elsevier BV: 159–166. doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00150-5. ISSN0197-2456. It's like filtering water with a filter which does not stop anything from passing. The role of science is stopping bad stuff from passing for legit. It is not endorsing popular superstition.
For the Western context see Otto, Shawn Lawrence (2016). The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Milkweed Editions. ISBN978-1-57131-353-9. The difference being that in the West politicians and money did not win the war against science.
The Chinese medical scientists cannot be taken seriously as long as they continue to pander to TCM superstitions. That's not logically possible. And there's nothing racist or nationalistic or colonialistical about it.
If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists? — User:WLU
Wikipedia isn't a billboard for WP:SOAPBOXING for alt-med. We hate alt-med. We don't hate Chinese people, but we deeply hate alt-med. And our boss, Jimmy Wales, explicitly endorsed it at WP:LUNATICS.
So, you are right that we hate TCM, and homeopathy, and Rolfing, and Reiki, and Ayurveda, and Unani, and chiropractic, and naturopathy, and so on. But this is not racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.
My puzzlement is not why you get offended by it, but why everybody doesn't already know that it is the official stance of Wikipedia.
Adepts of quackery get offended by publishing mainstream scientific information. We knew that, it's nothing new. What puzzles me is why they don't already know that Wikipedia opposes them.
You're not fighting against me, but against the system of Wikipedia. The whole system of Wikipedia is a well-oiled machinery meant to lambaste quackery.
You can't win this dispute, since Wikipedia endorsing TCM is completely unrealistic, and your definition of racism is completely fanciful. The definition of racism isn't "this guy hates quacks". As long as you continue to claim that, admins will regard your edits as some form of misplaced joke.
Lambasting TCM is not due to a few bad apples, but it is deeply ingrained into the system of Wikipedia. So, you have a wholly unrealistic view of Wikipedia, and you use the word "racism" in a meaning that is incomprehensible to us.
You see TCM as a matter of racial pride, Wikipedia sees it as medical claims which can be investigated by empirical science. And the verdict of science is merciless: TCM is mostly pseudoscience.
Criticizing the educational-scientific system from mainland China as promoting pseudoscience for political-economical reasons is not the same as criticizing Chinese people for racial reasons. You note that Deng has lambasted Mao. Well, to undue Mao's legacy, Deng should also have lambasted TCM. Precisely because the health of Chinese people is important, and should not be left in the hands of quacks.
Me, and generally speaking Wikipedia, also lambaste the Anthroposophic medicine, which gets taught at Western universities, including in Germany. So, you see, I do not lambaste quackery on racial grounds. I lambaste it because it is incompatible with mainstream medical science.
You claim that I lambaste TCM for racial reasons, but I pretty coherently lambaste quackery regardless of race and geographical location.
Hey, tgeorgescu: you have spent 11 hours making 17 additions and alterations to your initial response here, with no further commentary from the IP in question. Last month, you received a CTOPS sanction that told you to stop this kind of behavior. The sanction is visible in the next section of your talk page. I would encourage you to just delete the IP's comments and move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
