Jump to content

Talk:2011 crackdown on dissidents in China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents

Please help me to improve the article by adding further references. I will add references to each of the listed names within the next hours myself but need your help. The idea for this article complies with the Wikipedia:Content_forking#Related_articles policy. Waikiki lwt (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Analysis for the article

The Economist had an article a week or so ago with some interesting commentary from the commentator Banyan that might be useful to this article. I would suggest adding a summary of what Banyan had to say and then add the reference. John Smith's (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I am still struggling with the formatting of the references. Do you have time to add the summary? Waikiki lwt (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody help with the formatting of the references? I have several references in plain text because I do not know how to use WP:reflinks. Help would be greatly appreciated. Waikiki lwt (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Please leave your opinions in the correct section below.

Agree - the article should be deleated

Nor one way or the other - Just some infomation

Disagree - The article should stay

A breakdown of the contents of this article (and why it should be deleted)

This is mostly related to the AfD discussion but because it gets a bit long so I will put it here. This is a breakdown of the content of the article as of this version. [1]

Content

Beatings

The first bullet point refers to the 2011 Chinese protests article. The second bullet point, the one about Liu Shihui is also related to the 2011 protests article (Jasmine revolution). The third bullet point concerning Mao Hengfeng isn't about the 'Jasmine revolution', but it is a trivial event since she's being going through this for a long time. Also, she has her own article. [2]
The April one is just a link the 2011 'riot'.

Arrests

Ai Weiwei has his own article, and although the Western media tries to make it look like it's a political arrests, many evidence suggest otherwise. For more info, see my comments on Ai Weiwei's talkpage. [3]
Bi Mingkai has one sentence, with no reasons whatsoever, it's trivial. A quick search on google will show that he is almost unknown.
Chen Wei is related to the 2011 protest article and is mentioned in there.
Chen Li gets four words, two of which are his name. He is unknown to google and google news at a glance. Trivial.
Chen Wanyun, 2011 protest again.
Ding Mao, 2011 protest yet again.
Gao Huaqin. Unknown to google, trivial.
Gao Gai. Two words. Trivial.
Guo Weidong. 2011 protests again.
Hua Chunhui. 2011 protests.
Huang Xiang. Trivial.
Jiang Tianyong. 2011 Protests
Lan Jingyuan. Unknown to google. No reference.
Li Hai. Unknown to google.
Li Shuangde. Ah finally one known by google and referenced and not to do with the 2011 protests.. Though his arrest was on credit card fraud so it is 'suspected' to be politically related.
Li Yulan. Nearly unknown by google.
Li Haiyi 2011 protests
Lin Xianbin 2011 protests
Liu Huiping Unknown by google apart from the CHRD site.
Ma He Unknown by google. And don't be fooled by the wikilink. He doesn't have an article. It's a completely different person.
Mo Jiangang Reference!
Quan Lianzhao Another perhaps referenced and non-trivial one. Too bad there's only one and he isn't that famous.
Ran Yunfei 2011 protests. Ugh.
Sun Desheng Unknown to google apart from CHRD site.
Tan Lanyin Trivial.
Teng Biao 2011 protests
Wang Lihong unknown to google
Wei Qiang 2011 protests
Wei Shuishan Trivial. plus, he's related to Ai Weiwei incident.
Wen Tao Trivial Nearly unknown by google.
Weng Jie Unknown by google. No reference.
Xu Zhiyu He was released in a few hours...and he's got his own article.
Yang Qiuyu nearly unkown to google
Zhang jiannan No reference.
Zheng Chuangtian No reference.
Zhu Yufu Own article...
Zhui Hun. No reference.

Temporary Detention

  • sigh*

People Missing

I cannot be bothered to go through similar list of names again. Btw, this section is badly organised and mostly cites names from one source. Assuming it is valid (which I doubt), just put xx many people are missing(source:...). Most of the people themselves are trivial.

The other sections

I'm ignoring them... cannot be bothered...too long...


Analysis(in a way)

References

It is extremely biased. Although there seems to be a lot of references, the ones most used are 2, 6 and 15 (where most of the names come from). 2 is just the 2011 protest. 6 is from Chinese Human Rights Defenders. An activist group. I though we don't use POV sources (unless it's balanced by POV from the other side to create NPOV and explain opinions of different people). It is an unreliable source. (And that just got rid of about half the content...) 15 is from Chinageeks. After using about 10 different proxies, I cannot get on the site. But a quick google search says that they are A:relatively unknown and B:possible activists/POV. A means that this much emphysis been put on it (it's cited about 30 times) is very unrealible. B just means it can't be used.

And why it should be deleted...

Content fork. As you can see in the long list of names. Most are about 2011 Chinese protests, a lot are unknown to google and the handful few left have their own articles. So why gather them in this article.
BLP In the list of names, there are more than a few which are unreferenced, i.e. violation of BLP.
POV Uhm....
Reference issues See the section above.
A list of names... Self explanatary. Wikipedia is not a list/directory. This article is just a collection of names from the 3 sources.
Notability Few major media has reported this as a trend, instead they just have reports on individual incidents. This is just speculation and POV from the creator.

Zlqq2144 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

CHRD as RS

This refers to the edits between Benlisquare, Waikiki lwt and Zhangjiandong concerning CHRD as a reliable source. Please discuss here before it becomes an edit war.

CHRD is an activist group (says its own page Chinese Human Rights Defenders) and activist sources should only be used when you are talking about themselves or if it balanced by the POV from the other side of the argument, thus creating a NPOV situation. This has nothing to do with the AfD and everything to with the article itself violating obvious policies. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

copypasta

Copypasting my earlier edit from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents here, so that there is no ambiguity behind my intentions:

Just happened to be brought to my attention: many of the citations used are problematic. First of all, pages from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website cannot be considered WP:RS as it is not a WP:NPOV website; activist websites have never been accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia, unless detailing on the activists themselves (for example, it is justifiable to cite Amnesty International within an article about Amnesty International); Chinageeks is a blog, which is certainly not a WP:RS; most if not all of the links to boxun.com are 404 links that lead to non-existant pages; "Google groups thread" is a self-published site, and is not a reliable source. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

rationale for removing CHRD as a source

To those of you who claim that CHRD is a "valid source" - let me make an analogy. People.com.cn is a news site, and is practically the voice of the Communist Party of China. Now, if I were after information regarding the outcome of the 2009 National People's Congress, the outcome of local prefectural party elections, or any of the details regarding an official CPC policy, then People.com.cn would no doubt be a valid source to use. However, given the partisan POV that the source has, I wouldn't use People.com.cn to reference an article on, say, ethnic equality, drops in corruption rates in 2006, or anything relating to dissidents. Similarly, Amnesty International would be a great source to cite when dealing with information on the organisation itself, and the organisation's beliefs, stances and viewpoints (for example, "AI's attitude towards China's one child policy is that..."), that would be perfectly A-OK when it comes to valid sources, however, it would not be alright to cite Amnesty International to prove, say, abortion rate figures in 2011 or the number of people arrested in X city in Y year. It is acceptable to say things like "AI claims that..." or "AI believes/predicts/estimates/asserts that...", given that they are the viewpoints of AI, however you cannot cite AI to prove "actual facts", that is, you cannot write "The number of people forcefully given abortions within the city of Ningbo in 2011 has risen by 87%", and write that as a fact whilst citing AI. Organisations such as AI have no solid evidence, and can only make estimates and guesses for many things. Now back to the whole CHRD business: This current article claims pretty much everything as fact - not speculation, but fact. It is absolutely not alright to cite CHRD for the points in this article, given the POV slant of the source, and then claim that the list of dissidents is something that is of actual fact. "Facts" should be cited by third-party reliable sources, whilst "opinions" can be cited by any source from any side, regardless of whether the source is partisan or sided. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTRELIABLE, Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources (6th point). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Asianews as RS

Asianews is cited throughout the article but I want to raise the question of whether it can be used as a factual RS or not. According to its 'About us' page [4], it is a pro-christian, anti-Chinese government (arguably partisan) website. And I quote:

'Hence our dedication is a missionary gesture'

'This urgency becomes even more heightened because of two facts:

1) the Chinese government is empowering and promoting atheism in schools and the mass-media (even in television soap operas) without giving any space to religious education;

2) China's youth want to know more about Christianity, but Christians have not spread their faith to Chinese culture due to past and recent persecution. This fact often renders them silent when confronting questions about the faith.'


Please discuss. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously partisan and missionary; this can be seen in every article that deals with Christianity and the government, and also in related topics like Islam. The website is controlled by a missionary organization; see the AsiaNews article. Its factual inaccuracies, such as in reporting claims by dissidents as fact, for example when dissidents claim that they were tortured, makes AsiaNews unreliable for statements of fact, especially when it comes to Chinese government-related BLP topics. Quigley (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it complies as a WP:RS, I checked a few articles and they seem WP:V, since it has a good coverage and the articles read WP:NPOV for me, if you read WP:NPOV carefully. The articles seem not to reflect minority views, but try to apply a global view on China, many articles are available in Chinese, English and Italian. Also there seem to be no own researched articles, all of their topics seem to be reported on also in other newspapers and by other agencies. I wonder why all the AsiaNews references have already been deleted although this discussion has just started. Please be so fair and add the references again, when this discussion shows that AsiaNews is a WP:RS. — Waikiki_lwt Talk | contribs | email 10:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Examples?
    • Their About Us page, IMO, shows quite clearly they are a partisan group. Having different language version means...what? I could say that it's just trying to spread its views to more people. The article cited before in the article [5] is their OR? Since it came from their own 'Beijing (AsiaNews / Agencies)'.Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to start a small discussion on the redlinks. The list of the arrested dissidents displays a lot of names with redlinks because there are no articles corresponding to them so far. Benlisquare, who contributed a lot to the ongoing discussions, nominated some of the few articles which ARE existing (Li Hai, Chen Wei (dissident), Li Shuangde, Ding Mao) for WP:AfD. You find all of them listed here WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/China. Due to

  • these AfD nominations and
  • the large number of redlinks (it would take a lot of time if one wants to write separate articles on all of them)

it seems unlikely that all the redlinks will become articles in a reasonable amount of time. In those cases, especially if many redlinks appear in a list of names, WP:redlink recommends: "rather than using red links in lists [...] editors are encouraged to write the article first". Although I applied the redlinks in the first place, having read this explicite rule, I rather recommend to remove the redlinks. I would like to hear from the other editors what they think about it. — Waikiki_lwt Talk | contribs | email 10:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WSJ isn't a RS?

The Wall Street Journal doesn't meet reliable source standards? Ziqq2144's recent deletion explained, "i have removed all wsj references since it's a subscriber-only feature, thus it cannot be used per WP:PAYWALL". Really? According to WP:PAYWALL, "the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". Keahapana (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It also says 'Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source.' But anyway, add them back on if you wish, I am no longer involved in this article. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 00:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't currently have time to restore these refs. Would someone else please do it? Keahapana (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Kirti monastery

Should there be a section about the crackdownn on Tibetan Monks? [6], [7] - IQinn (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because the events at Kirti are not related to the February calls to "Jasmine Revolution". The "crackdown on dissidents" that this article describes is specifically linked to the 2011 Chinese protests. The scope of this article does not extend to all repressive measures in China instituted in 2011. Quigley (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not so sure about that. There are some sources that contradict your view.

Christians and dissidents are not the only ones affected by the crackdown. There are reports, confirmed by the Global Times, of a stand-off between Chinese security forces and residents outside the Kirti Tibetan Buddhist monastery in Sichuan province.

[8] IQinn (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
One source makes an insinuation rather than a direct connection between the events, while most of the sources describing reports of Kirti (like your initial two links) do not make these conclusions. Quigley (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There are many other sources and they are growing by the day [9]. You agree now to have a section in this article about this crackdown? Otherwise i am going to start a new independent article about it. IQinn (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Add an independent article as you will, but to add it here, you need to prove that the monastery incident is related to the Jasmine nonsense. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"Jasmine nonsense" the article is about the 2011 crackdown on dissidents in the People's Republic of China. What is a fact and not nonsense. It is in fact the biggest crackdown since 1989. IQinn (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you apparently didn't know about the many ways I use the word "nonsense". in this case, I use "nonsense" to mean "rubbish", not nonsense in its true meaning. Biggest crackdown or not, it pales in comparison to June 4th. And I was voicing the same opinion as Quigley: this article is related to the events surrounding the Jasmine 'Revolution' and you need to prove connection to include the monastery incident on here. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "this article is related to the events surrounding the Jasmine 'Revolution'. Now you say there is a Jasmine Revolution? We got you. :) No that is "rubbish". This article is about the "2011 crackdown on dissidents in the People's Republic of China" a clear defined topic. If and how this is connected to a "Jasmine Revolution" is irrelevant as there is no "Jasmine Revolution" in the PRC. IQinn (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents → List of dissidents arrested by the People's Republic of China, 2011 – 1) Per policy set forth, use PRC instead. 2) Crackdown is certainly not an encyclopaedic name, and may not accurately reflect the scope of the PRC government response. 3) And it (the article) is what it is: a list. HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I will consider any title that does not simplify the PRC to "China". --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed title in the nomination. It's 2011 and the ROC lost in 1949. Get over it. China is unambiguously a state. "Crackdown" is also used in a number of Wikipedia articles (note here). However, the "article" is mostly a list of those arrested in the 2011 Chinese protests so support a move to another more appropriate title to reflect that. Any remaining text can be moved to 2011 Chinese protests. —  AjaxSmack  04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
And you can stay off this page if you choose to flaunt policy (WP:NC-ZH) like that. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a guideline, not a policy and there's no requirement that users agree with all guidelines while discussing issues on talkpages (as opposed to mainspace edits and, even there, guidelines are "best treated with common sense...occasional exceptions may apply" as in the case of the title "2011 Chinese protests"). However, I have nothing else to add so I'll stay off your discussion. —  AjaxSmack  05:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
clearly you do not have the common sense to see that the title you mentioned involves the word "Chinese" so the China/PRC/ROC issue is irrelevant. If the title were to be some form of "...of the", "...in the", we encounter issues. This title is certainly treating China as a state, and we have many series such as Law of the PRC, Human rights in the PRC, not simplifications to China. We need formalisms, not informalities. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose have seen no evidence that the China in the title confuses people about whether the crackdown was in Taiwan or the PRC, although with enough popular support I wouldn't be that opposed to a simple China -> PRC change. there's too much background for this to be called a list though, proper course on that matter would be to expand the article further. -- ۩ Mask 06:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Having background information is never justification that a page is not a list. Many of the "List of ______ Season 4 episodes" fancruft pages have background information sections and introductory ledes outside of the list containing prose the size of a C-class article. (before you mention WP:OTHERCRAP, I was simply noting an example to consider) Given that the main section of the page is centred on a list, I would consider the page to be a list. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Im not one to often throw 'WP:OTHERCRAP doesn't count!' around much so dont worry, although I do get the point behind it I also view it as a way to see what else we've done as a community. I think there is something of a conflict between what the page became versus what its supposed to cover. Some of that might be from one off ip's adding names that were personally known without much thought to the article structure. Instead of a rename, what would be community thought on saving (and expanding) the information on the crackdown and response on this page with only the most notable names (such as Wei Wei) and splitting the long catalog of names to the page title suggested by this move? -- ۩ Mask 06:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
So it seems you are opposed based solely on the "list" concern? Keep in mind I am open to anything that does not simplify the PRC to just "China" --HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you read my oppose at all? I said it was because it seems to be a solution in search of a problem. And I explicitly made the point that if theres enough people who are inconvenienced in some fashion by the current title that would actually demonstrate a problem and my opinion would be swayed. The list issue is seperate, although it is something we need to get a handle on because Benli is more then a touch correct above, however we have to find a way to jive the fact that he's rightly pointing out this is a list not an article with the fact that the concept of an article on this event itself is what survived VfD, and what should be here. -- ۩ Mask 07:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my 02:48 (UTC–4) is well outside my functional awake hours. "China's" is simply an unacceptable title for anything and we always have WP:NC-ZH in mind. Issues of what people can be expecting are irrelevant for a title but pertinent for a re-direct. To be blunt, I won't tolerate POV pushers from the mainland or enforcers of the China = PRC view from the West, especially the US. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If it's truly 'unacceptable', and if this is how we as an encyclopedia handle this issue in other cases, just be bold and make the People's Republic of China change. Im certainly not motivated to revert. The encyclopedia goes by most common english name, not self-declared names per WP:COMMONNAME. If you say 'Point to China on a map' to those in the US and UK, you'll be shown the PRC. I suspect a very large number would also be able to tell you the full name was the People's Republic of China, and the terms are indeed used interchangeably in the news. The english-speaking public is also aware of a country almost universally known in english speaking media as Taiwan. The fact that there's a 'thing' between the two is also known, although I'd bet most people under 35 or so wouldn't know anything about the civil war or that the country known as Taiwan here is the Republic of China. The fact that PRC and China are understood by most english speaking readers to mean 'the entity on mainland china' means I honestly dont care which one it's at. -- ۩ Mask 14:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, [I believe] WP's policies can be so unclear and tangled that I simply exercise my own discretion. If the move is done to an active page such as this one, I am always more cautious. Secondly, China, whether referring only to the mainland, the PRC, or including Taiwan, refers to the same large landmass, assuming that countries are not labelled. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: My only requirement is that the title does simplify PRC to China. In other words, it must spell out PRC in full. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This name change seems like it would be uncontroversial so i treated it as such. I did tweak the word order to avoid two possessive apostrophes(the People's Republic of China's), but that may just my personal preference. -- ۩ Mask 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so, assuming there is no opposition (via RV), can this Move Request be concluded then? Thanks --HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. -- ۩ Mask 17:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

from Portal:Current events/2011 December 26, Radio Television Hong Kong 99.181.157.27 (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

From Talk:Ni Yulan ... China Set to Punish Another Human Rights Activist by Andrew Jacobs published NYT January 2, 2012 (page A6 in print) 99.181.147.68 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 crackdown on dissidents in the People's Republic of China → 2011–2012 crackdown on dissidents in the People's Republic of China – crackdown continues. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 99.181.157.73 (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2011 crackdown on dissidents in China. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_crackdown_on_dissidents_in_China/Archive_1&oldid=1146828699"