Talk:Stern Hu/Archives/2014

This is an archive of past discussions about Stern Hu. 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.

Refs

Additional refs:

Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The following article has some detailed background information about Stern. Maybe someone would like to incorporate this into the article?

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 000ace000 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OT RANT: It is surprising how many times "Qin Gang" appears on Wikipedia, yet he does not have his own article, while similar people like Mark Regev do. Is Mark Regev as notable than Qin Gang? Qin Gang is just as significant as Regev, appearing in more articles than him (just do a quick search); I may be able to start a stub on him and expand it as I find the time to do so. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

Besides the introduction having a very POV feel to it, there are several other factors that made me conclude that it was a POV article. For example, it has a whole section for the PRC's response, including a section for their minister, Qin Gang, yet it hasn't got one for Australia. Even the fact that Kevin Rudd the Australian PM had many strong statements with regard to the Stern Hu case, it wasn't mentioned at all in this article. On top of that, the allegation that Australia or Rio Tinto has caused 100 billion worth of damage are countered by many other sources, yet none of them are mentioned here. Example, Jiang Ruqin the author of this piece has admitted that this article is his own opinion. His article was consequently deleted and the Chinese government has distanced itself from his allegations. Never mind the fact that he admitted that his 'numbers/data' came from the China Youth Daily, which unless I am mistakes is considered state media, notoriously unreliable. ^[1] These are just some of the problems that needed to be worked out before the POV tag should be taken of. Capital Markets (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "considered state media, notoriously unreliable" - Ad hominem, Straw man. Complain complain, but your arguments aren't all that cutting. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are just picking on one of the many things I said and that is in itself not right. The main reason I put up the POV tag was that while the Chinese government view was represented with a section of their own, the Australian government view wasn't. This is the reason why POV tags are placed, unless I am mistaken. I also didn't specifically name or shame any editor/author as there are a number of hands which have edited this article. Now back to the thing you quoted me as saying, I haven't seen anything that clarified wikipedia's view on quoting state media. I have read of using mainstream media of high quality standards, like Bloomberg which I referenced above. Unless I am mistaken, state media is in fact the mouth piece of the government it serves and therefore may not always tell the truth or fact as it is. Capital Markets (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography or Pro-China government article?

Having just browsed through this article several times I noticed that this is supposedly a 'biography' on Stern Hu. Never mind that 99% of the article is about the alleged spying case, most of it representing China's official government view, shouldn't there be more about his wife, supposed education, family background, upbringing, political motivations and everything else that belongs in a good biography? Does he even have children? The article doesn't even mention that Stern Hu was a Tiananmen Square protester, even though it is a well known fact within the Australian media, and that this was a motivating point for him migrating to Australia. I would support this article to be merged with the existing Rio Tinto espionage case article, because that is where it belongs. If it was to be merged, it should be done immediately, because I suppose the article would go into a different direction. Much of this article isn't even about Stern Hu, even though it pretends to be a biography about him. Capital Markets (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are able on finding WP:Reliable sources for it, then go ahead and be WP:BOLD in contributing. The article won't just write itself; however, you must be able to prove points using WP:RS, otherwise it would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, which is against WP policy. Also, I don't really see how this article is a "Pro-China government article" - it is merely listing facts provided by WP:RS. There are Chinese sources used, and there are Australian sources used. Remember, if its not WP:RS, its not on Wikipedia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The main point I was trying to make or inquire about was in fact the question of is this indeed a biography or an article about the Rio Tinto espionage case. I think it is important to make this distinction before further editing this article, because when I first read it, it didn't sound like a biography, even though it supposedly is. And if it is about the Rio Tinto espionage case, then it belongs there. So that's why I suggested those 2 articles be merged if they are about each other and not about Stern Hu's biography. Capital Markets (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a better idea, I am going to remove all the unnecessary or excessive information with regards to China's government view as well the Australian media view. There is no need to have this sort of information in a biography, especially considering there is almost NO OTHER information considered biographical in this article. I will wait about one week to let someone respond, re-edit or what not before I delete the unnecessary information. Alternatively, someone might want to transfer it to the Rio Tinto espionage case if they deem it important enough. Capital Markets (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

我能读懂上面所说，但不会用英文表达出来。就个人感觉而言，本文的确如Capital Markets所言，很多信息是关于the Rio Tinto espionage case，而不是Stern Hu‎本人。因此我也赞成把部分内容转至 Rio Tinto espionage case.另外，因为我个人觉得相对于事件人物，事件本身更为值得关注，这也许是我一直在编辑the Rio Tinto espionage case而没有去编辑Stern Hu‎的缘故吧。PS：Hope someone would like to help me to translate those words into English.Thank you. --奔流沙|_(Talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[Attempting to translate the above text by user 奔流沙 (Ben Liusha)] I can understand the above, but I can't express myself in English. Just my personal feeling, this article is just like Capital Markets said, a lot of the information is about the Rio Tinto espionage case, and not Stern Hu himself. Therefore I also agree with moving part of the content to Rio Tinto espionage case. Also, because I personally feel, in regard to events and people, events are more worthy of attention, this perhaps is the reason why I am constantly editing [the Chinese Wikipedia article] the Rio Tinto espionage case and not editing [the Chinese Wikipedia article] Stern Hu‎. [ translation by ralmin (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ]

^ "Rio Tinto Accuser Says Article Was His Own Opinion (Update5)". Retrieved 15 August 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

[1] "Rio Tinto Accuser Says Article Was His Own Opinion (Update5)". Retrieved 15 August 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

[1]