Talk:Fenggang Yang

Untitled

The article was originally Draft:Fenggang Yang. The creator of the article, user "Phoenixhill" (who I suspect being related to the article's subject), has not waited for a draft review, creating the article bereft of the sections about criticism, which I later integrated. I don't know if the article's subject is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

who is User:Amorphophallus Titanum

User:Amorphophallus Titanum appears to try to make a defamatory biography of a living person. He/She made broad assertions with a single reference and that reference does not support his/her assertions. This is a very suspicious behavior of a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixhill (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are becoming annoying. Your insinuations were already rebuked here, by the user 90.202.160.23, as follows:

There is nothing to suggest that Amorphophallus Titanum is any less legitimate a user than you, Phoenixhill: he appears to have only began editing on 2 June 2018, but you yourself apparently only began on 23 May 2018.
You and Amorphophallus Titanum appear to disagree over article content, and I notice that two other Users have on your own Talk page criticised some of the edits you have tried make to the article, and still more Users in addition to Amorphophallus Titanum have reverted some of your edits. It is not obvious to me that Amorphophallus Titanum's edits are "defamatory", but this is a highly specialised area of scholarship, and I am suspecting that a Real World scholarly (and/or political) dispute is spilling into Wikipedia here.
Disagreeing over content is not Vandalism. You should both/all discuss the matter (calmly) on the Talk page of the article, where I notice Amorphophallus Titanum has already responded to a complaint by the longer-established User Ian Johnson (some of whose phrasing is oddly similar to yours above).

I responded myself to the insinuations of your (?) other account here:

The part about Goossaert's opinion has been fixed. However, I have introduced the names of several other scholars who have criticised the theories of Yang (specifically the religious market theory), which proves that Yang is indeed a minor figure in the study of religion in China. Besides this, it is unquestionable that Yang has been involved in the wave of hysterical mediatic propaganda (yellow journalism) about the claim that "China will be the largest Christian country by 2030", a claim based on nothing—not a single scientific survey finds a Christian population in China larger than 2.5%. And, ehm, no, I am not an agent paid by the Chinese government for saying this.

By the way, the claim that the phrases that I have introduced are unsupported is false, and academic critical reading does not constitute "defamation". Having a critical intelligence is radically different from being paid by some agencies. It happens that I have a critical intelligence, I am not controlled by anyone, and I am good at doing researches. This is the way I found that Fenggang Yang is paid by the Templeton Foundation and the way I found academic sources critical of his ideas.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User Phoenixhill added the false claim that scholars who criticize Yang are "Communists". I hope he realizes that scholars based in the West including Stephan Feuchtwang, Adam Chau ad Vincent Goossaert are not Communist at all, and some of the scholars based in China are Confucian. Wang Mingming is a prominent contemporary Confucian anthropologist.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User: Amorphophallus Titanum made assaults on a living person. If scholars outside China have indeed made criticisms of Yang's theories, please include the quotes of these scholars in their publications. Phoenixhill (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting academic criticism does not constitute any "assault on a living person". It is really curious how after having been granted funding by the notorious Templeton Foundation, this Fenggang Yang suddenly emerged out of nothing as an expert repeatedly quoted by major Anglo-American newspapers. When one chooses to become a public personality highly publicized by the media, he has to accept that he will likely be exposed to criticism. That Yang is funded by Templeton is not a secret, it is made clear in a public statement sourced in the article. So, please, stop removing this sourced information, and stop with the allegation that all the critics of Yang are "anti-Christian Communists". There are long-standing tenured scholars among them.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Phoenixhill is Fenggang himself

The Chinese 凤岗 fènggǎng, which is the first name of the author, perfectly translates as "phoenix hill" in English.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fenggang Yang, please read the Wikipedia policy about conflicts of interest. Stop with self-promotion of yourself, removal of academic criticism, and allegation that academics who are critic of your theories and claims are "Communists".--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You self-expose yourself as a Chinese agent from the Communist China? Stop your personal attacks on Wikipedia.Phoenixhill (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not a Chinese and I am not paid by the Chinese government. I am an independent researcher completely free (of funding from Christian organizations). Please refrain from editing articles about yourself and your connections with the Templeton Foundation.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User: Amorphophallus Titanum has done nothing but attempted to make defamatory editing about Fenggang Yang and John Templeton Foundation, and the expressed views are what the Chinese Communist authorities have made about John Templeton Foundation and about Fenggang Yang. Wikipedia administrators must investigate and stop Chinese Communist propaganda.Phoenixhill (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Academic criticism and public statements are not defamation. And I am not a communist or an agent of the Chinese goverment. I am not even Chinese. This hysteria seriously undermines your credibility.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you reveal your identity and motivation of making the editing?Phoenixhill (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I will not reveal my identity since it is not important. As I have already said I am an independent researcher, from Europe. I am not a known scholar and I have even researched your field of study. The motivation of my editing is that Wikipedia must report neutral information from unbiased academic sources. However, with your insinuations that I am a Communist agent of the Chinese government you have said enough. Please refrain from promoting your own person and ideas on Wikipedia. This is against WP:COI.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You self-expose yourself as not knowledgeable in this field of study. In fact, your editing shows that you have not read Fenggang Yang's article or book, and you did not use the right terms and phrases (for example, you used "three-tiered markets", which was not used by any scholar in this field). You are not qualified to make the editing until you have done your reading and homework. Phoenixhill (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I used my words to express the concept in the title. Wikipedia must reword the sources, not report them verbatim. And besides this, one has not to read your books to become a knowledgeable person. Stop self-promotion.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Other fake data published by Fenggang Yang

It appears that Fenggang Yang (and Templeton) have been spreading other types of fake data about religion in China through the media. This map which he gave in 2015 to Reuters, for instance, claiming that it represented "the major religion by county". False information. Actually, as shown in this video (minute 5:25) which is from the original publisher of the map (Center on Religion and Chinese Society), the map is about the "religion with the largest numbers of places of worship by county".

It is a completely different type of information, given that almost all the places of worship of Christianity and Islam are registered while most Buddhist and Taoist temples are not, and all folk religious temples (which are the most numerous, about 1 to 2 million compared to the few tens of thousands of the formal religions) are not registered.

The map deliberately mispresents information to give the impression that Christianity and Islam are the largest religions.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this entry owned by Amorphophallus Titanum?! He has kept reverting my editing, which I did to provide better sources and accuracy of Fenggang Yang and his theory. Amorphophallus Titanum claims that newspapers are less credible than the single working paper. And he quotes a working paper to make multiple biased statements, which look like over-interpretation or misreading. I added sources of New York Times, CNN, and Telegraph, which are highly respected major media organizations. Amorphophallus Titanum is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. Avatarskywalker (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)