Talk:Bernard Boursicot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refs[edit]

I've added the auto reference tool in and wikified all of the page's ref.

perfectblue 08:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VERY much. At the time I was expanding this article, I was not very adept at that. Your aid is appreciated.Lisapollison 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

I have replaced the category of LGBT people from France that was removed by an editor asserting that boursicot is not gay. In the book on the subject cited in the article and in numerous news articles, Boursicot self-identifies as either Gay or Bisexual and continues to live with the boyfriend mentioned in the book. Considering this fact, the category is wholly appropriate and potentially of use to other editors looking to improve LGBT articles on Wikipedia.

It has been my experience that category tags relating to LGBT people are often the subject of revert wars and vandalism by editors who often assert that the category is a "labelling" or a "slander" even when the fact is widely acknowledged and not in dispute. Here it seems to be a misreading of the facts. I will go back to the book and find specific page cites and some quotes from Boursicot on the matter. He is unashamed of his relationships with men ,women or men posing as women. He cooperated fully with the book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the case. If you can believe that the story is even more convoluted than the article dares get into. Affairs of the heart are often complicated.Lisapollison 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heteronormative bias in this wikipedia page echoing the bias in public reception of the case[edit]

Reading this wikipedia page on June 25th 2021, I would even add that it reads like a wikipedia-entry written from a narrow heteronormative perspective. I recommend that the page-contributors and readers refer to the following article, which seems a bit less narrowly heteronormative at least in comparison to this wikipedia page's formulations, at https://www.messynessychic.com/2019/07/04/loving-monsieur-butterfly-a-tale-of-espionage-romance-and-the-transgender-soprano/ Here is an example of how that article gives what reads like a more sensible account: "Lest we tangle the details: at this point, we have a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man, to seduce another man who may also be gay. In later interviews, Boursicot vaguely explains that his first and only sexual encounters were brief, and with men, before changing the subject. Pei Pu meanwhile never confirmed what exactly his/her/their gender identity was – but it was likely fluid. In one 1988 interview, Pei Pu explains, “I used to fascinate both men and women. What I was and what they were didn’t matter,” and in another, says, “I never told Bernard [Boursicot] I was a woman. I only let it be understood that I could be a woman. I thought France was a democratic country. Is it important if I am a man or a woman?” The closest we can come to an intimate understanding of Pei Pu, says playwright David Henry Hwang, was that “he was, above all, a performer”. "

Compare this to the language in the Wikipedia page... The Wikipedia contributors here seem to be, like the public media in this affair, obsessed with collapsing gender and biological sex into one and the same thing, while also taking for granted the racial white normativity of their gender/sex constructions. Maybe, maybe, the wikipedia contributors could take a slightly less naive perspective and consider that maybe, the two main protagonists in this affair were not as obsessed as you are, with equating biological sex and gender, or with fixating gender altogether,at least until the legal system violently forced them to...

I recommend also the chapter on "queer race" in Nikki Sullivan's book A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory (2003), which inlcudes a long discussion of Cronenberg's fiction film, using it to deconstruct white heteronormativity and its fantasy of Orientalism. It seems clear that this whole affair, if read with some cultural scholarship, could reveal a lot more, not only about the lives of Boursicot and Shi, but more tellingly about how the public media debates, from the official trial to this very wikipedia entry, flatten and distort such complex lives (as well as how homophobia functioned in 20th century China).

--95.90.191.166 (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ..[edit]

"Shi insisted in later years that he never claimed to be female to Boursicot. It was a misunderstanding that Shi simply allowed to stand without correction." -- "In 1965, Shi claimed to be pregnant" I should think claiming to be pregnant sort of implies a claim to be female. Muad 12:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't notice this comment from almost a year ago. Yes, Shi Pei-Pu has said many things about his/her affair with Boursicot and the degree too which he/she participated in the honeypot scheme at the behest of the Chinese government. A lot of the conflict comes from comparing what Shi stated at his/her trial in France and then what Shi stated upon repatriation. Joyce Wadler's book on the affair entitled Liaison is the best source to begin with if you want to get an idea of the shifting realities manifested in their relationship. I've read the book several times and each time I come away with a slightly different judgement about how much Boursicot could have known. In helping to edit the article, I have tried to let each participant speak for themselves, using their own words as I could find citable references. Any reader looking for more info would be well advised to pick up a used copy of Wadler's book. She had Boursicot's full cooperation and access to most of the documents and other players in the case. There's a lot more that could be done with this article and I welcome any help you may care to offer.LiPollis (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shi is a spy, would it fair to say that he is an unreliable narrator? (i.e. he lies) V. Joe (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Sheng?[edit]

What is the source for the claim that Boursicot was recruited by Kang Sheng? In Joyce Walder's book LIAISON (p. 94) there is only reference to a "Kang" who appeared to Boursicot to be a "low level cop of some sort". Pn p. 293 of the same book, the author speculates about the identity of "Kang" but nowhere is it suggested that he was Kang Sheng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.19.26 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is the source of that information for the purpose of this article but there are several Chinese sources as well that are IN CHinese. I chose the NYT article at the time since it was in English and since it was the source of maost of the paragraph or at least vacked up all the assertions, I left the citation at the end. I can see how that might be confusing now. If you read more about Kang Sheng's career in separate books about him and that time period, the Boursicot Affaire is mentioned. However, since it is now referenced only once in the greatly abbreviated body of the current version of the article and Kang's larger role is now relegated to the "Legacy" section (same as Trivia, really), I feel that the single source is all we really need at the moment but I will look for more. If we were to expand the importance of this bit espionage case within China, than perhaps we would certainly need more sources and quotes. I find his minor particiaption intriguing but it makes very easy sense. Boursicot was a Western diplomat carrying on with a Chinese National he assumed to be a woman or maybe knew was a man but let the artice persist to hide his bisexuality... who knows? It all screams "EXTORT ME! EXTORT ME NOW!", doesn't it? Kang Sheng was a rising Party member and wouldn't that have been a nice feather in his cap if he had ever gotten anything of serious value outof Boursicot? Since you've read LIASON, it appears you know that Boursicot never handed much of anything but routine correspondence over but this was during the Viet Nam War Era so he might have handed over some things, the value of which, even he, Boursicot, never truly understood.
As for Shi Pei Pe and his/her versions of the story, one should recall that before his/her death, Shi Pei Pu is now the subject of his/her own article that differs somewhat from this one, since this one is about a living person and subject to stronger rules. After Shi's trial and release in France, Shi Pei Pu was re-patriated to China and then began giving interviews to the press after performances, having become something of an international curiosity following the success of the Broadway play and film adapatation. Highlighting Kang Sheng's role in such interviews only served to add a level of mystique and importance to what readers of Joyce Wadler's sensitive and accurate book LIASON usually see as just another akward love affair in a far away place that was hijacked for the purpose espionage due to a confluence of time and circumstance. Kang Sheng's later fame in all liklihood had little to do with this Honey-Pot Trap but, he was Shi's controller and he did go on to become far more important than he was at the time and admitted as much so... the fact was mentioned AND referenced perhaps not clearly enough, with the Times article (now a dead link...ARRGGGH) more than 2 years before you even asked about it. But no matter, It's taken me forever to answer your question so, we're even. I DO understand you concerns. if you would feel better having links to the articles printed in either French or Chinese, I can link to those as well but the article has beengreatly truncated since I first expanded it. Neverthless, I will write Kang Sheng down on my list of characters in this story that could stand better referencing and see what else I can come up with. I did at least put in a working link to the article's abstract and will work on getting a few more sources for other facts.
Thanks for taking the time to read the article and raise your concern. It pleases me that you have read the Wadler book, which I think is an excellent source, and it pleases me further that you cared enough about that detail of Kang Sheng's possible/probable involvement to ask about it. I still find this such a fascinating story. Love, espionage, intrigue and gender confusion all make for such a heady mix. People seeing the play or film still come away scratching their heads or angry somehow that Boursicot could have been "fooled" or that he "must have known" and indeed, the willoften google the matter and wind up at this small article so as editors, we DO want to be as precise as possible with our sourcing wherever possible. Thank you again. I had left this article alone a long time and now I see it could use some gentle attention. Had you never asked about Kang Sheng, I might have just ignored this on my watchlist and wandered elsewhere to deals with tedious article housecleaning matters.LiPollis (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernard Boursicot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this is plagiarized[edit]

Plagiarized from another website. 173.228.198.236 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernard_Boursicot&oldid=1206395929"