Talk:Weiquan movement

Non-neutral POV

Ex: 'However, because the legal system is not independent and mature, and the fact that the central government is suspicious and local governments even hostile toward it, weiquan movement has been encountering difficulties in the course of its development.' Obv. POV pushing. Bunch of external links to stuff that are only remotely related, and are already in the infobox. removed. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also references are shotty. removed crosswiki reference, and only remains a site with (appearantly, sp?) a bias, so fails WP:NPOV as it doesn't present the other side's POV (unbalanced). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not Merge?

Explain to me why this isn't a part of Human rights in the People's Republic of China? TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

@TheAsianGURU, Weiquan movement covers wider scope, and more detailed, than Human rights, such as forced eviction, illegal land development, plus others. With China's political tension getting worst by the days, Weiquan movement will be a big topic. It deserved to be on it's own. Plus 'Weiquan' is a verb, it conveys 'action', pro-active.

And Chinese wiki has an same name article:zh:中國維權運動 Arilang ^talk 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotation from Chinese wiki: 同樣是2003年，中國企業ST輕騎出現嚴重虧損，四川小股東趙剛認為，ST輕騎並非經營性虧損，而是因為被母公司輕騎集團佔用的30多億元資金被「一筆勾銷」所致，開始提出「股東維權運動」(Share holder Weiquan movement)；[5]這此數年間，全國各地亦出現多宗業主維權運動(Landlord Weiquan movement)。 Arilang ^talk 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No merge. Weiquan movement is a specific issue in Human rights in the People's Republic of China. And it's long enough to deserve a separate article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a movement, or a generic/poorly translated term/idea?

The article states:

A new adjective is being applied to people and activities: weiquan, meaning simply “rights defending,”

which implies that it is a sort of neologism/new word created to describe something, or a group of people/activists not necessarily describing themselves by the name. Apart from the two basic citations sources on this article, there aren't really any that attempts to balance the view, or present a complete picture. I have yet to actually see a source that verifies the people consider themselves to be part of this "movement", and it is not in the three people mentioned's wiki article either. If these people don't consider themselves part of the "WeiQuan Movement", and are only in the article because the adjective "describes them correctly", then that to me seems to be OR/SYNTH. Just because a source calls a person by a adjective doesn't mean its correct or notable. If so, then the article needs clarification in the text.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding new sections?

I was considering adding two or three new sections to this article, but wanted to solicit some feedback beforehand. The first of these proposed sections would enumerate what type of impact the Weiquan movement has had (if any) on legal culture and processes in China. At the very least, it could explain what has been attempted (for instance, the lobbying to have elections to select the leader of the Beijing all lawyers association). I would also propose a section explaining the response by the party-state to these efforts. About two dozen Weiquan lawyers have been disbarred (to my knowledge), and several have been tortured, detained, or sentenced to RTL or prison terms for their work. This is significant. Finally, I might suggest including a list of notable Weiquan lawyers as its own section. Notable might include individuals who have been featured in articles by reputable news organizations and/or been the subject of human rights reports. This would mean not only including the Chen Guangchengs of the world, but also folks like Zhang Kai and Tang Jitian, etc.

I suggest that the following individuals may be noteworthy. This is a partial list, of course:

Chen Guangcheng, Hu Jia, Gao Zhisheng, Liu Xiaobo,Tang Jitian, Zhang Kai, Liu Wei, Li Heping, Gao Fengquan, Zhang Lihui, Li Jinsong, Li Fangping

Thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No comment until someone answers my question above. I'm more concerned that this article is actually a synonym for an article that already exists which just has the title translated completely into English. From my guesses based on pin yin quan means rights and wei means protecting or for (depending on which word), so it is not far-fetched for this to be just a mistranslation by western media to refer to "human rights activists." The article probably also needs to distance itself from associating the word/term based on my above guess with a specific movement since it feels very generic to me (definitely would not strike me as a new word), as seen by the above references to landlord rights or whatever. (anyone can claim to be fighting to rights, noble rights, capitalist rights, lack of rights, etc. etc. A general article on the word or idea "fighting for rights" should not be limited to one type, and probably should be merged into a better translated title if it already exists as it feels very much like it overlaps with already existing articles) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 10:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably know more about this than me though. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My exposure to the Weiquan movement has been almost exclusively in the context of lawyers who seek to uphold and defend rights, broadly defined. Human rights activists, dissidents, petitioners, and the like are therefore (in my understanding) not part of the Weiquan movement, strictly speaking. Your translation is correct, but I would argue that the Weiquan phenomenon is a distinct movement in China, particularly given the potential implications for the rule of law and the tight-knit nature of the group. Homunculus (duihua) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I created a new section, and will build it out later. If anyone wants to get to it first, that would be nice too.Homunculus (duihua) 03:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed a section from overview that did not transition well from the overview of Weiquan as a word/idea/collection of civil right lawyers. I could not think of a way to fix the section without major reorganization/addition of other sections. It is more of an organizational issue, as I feel it more aptly belongs in an article about criticism of CCP rather than this idea as a whole. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Focus of Article/Themes

I feel like the large section on themes is inaccurate since themes implies the section will talk about the movement as a whole and their position on the theme, rather than the partial biographies that I see now. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I've started collecting research to do this, but it is snowballing into a rather large task. Part of the challenge is that there are several more themes that ought to be included beyond those currently listed, including reproductive/women's rights, religious freedom issues, labour rights, judicial independence, and a good number more. I will get to it, but the changes may be incremental....or maybe not. We'll see. Homunculus (duihua) 04:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?

What's with the neutrality tag? The section previously discussed as a potential problem has been removed. What outstanding issues are there? Please discuss. Homunculus (duihua) 04:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality tag was there from back in the day when the article was blatantly POV. I looked at the article again, and I agree with removing the neutrality tag. (although like the Human Rights in China article, further separation of PoV's into categories such as western, public, and government, is possible) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The nice things about a page that seems to have only two editors is that it's easy to reach consensus. Do you have any thoughts on my earlier proposals of how the page might be expanded? I like the idea of building out sections dealing with the government and western response (I'm not sure what there is to say about public response. I could look into it.)Homunculus (duihua) 04:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Yesterday I restored a background section with all new content detailing the environment that gave rise to the Weiquan movement. In the next couple days I am also going to work on building out the section on the government's response to the movement, including its 'socialist rule of law' campaign, and a more complete description of the suppression of lawyers. On another note, we currently have an empty section describing the public (Chinese) response to the Weiquan movement. I am at a loss of what to put in here. Maybe I'll check some Chinese blogs, but this is not a topic that Chinese citizens can openly express their views on, so it will be tough. Any suggestions? Homunculus (duihua) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Try this one:http://twitter.com/aiww, and http://www.youtube.com/user/aiweiweidocumentary. Ai Weiwei has become the champion of Weiquan movement in China. Arilang ^talk 05:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added some content to the section on minorities regarding defense of Tibetans. It is by no means comprehensive, but it is a start on this topic. I notice that there is a section on women's rights waiting to be filled out. I may have a go at that in the coming days. —Zujine|talk 03:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good start, but please bring in a couple more citations (ie. on Li Fangping's involvement, and on the statistics you cite concerning imprisonment and execution after 2008 unrest). I was hoping you might be lured into women's rights too. Not sure how familiar you are with this topic, but Chen Guangcheng may be a good place to start, FYI. Homunculus (duihua) 04:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am removing or reordering the last vestiges of the "other initiatives" section, which until now contained one-sentence biographies of random assorted human rights activists, writers, and intellectuals. Xu Zhiyong is already mentioned elsewhere in the article, and I am rewriting the line on him to be about the Open Constitution Initiative more broadly. Feng Zhenghu, while notable, does not seem to be involved in the Weiquan movement from what I can find; he is an economist and pro-democracy activist with "some knowledge of the law," so I am removing him from the list (I am open to challenge on this one, though). Yang Chunlin is similarly not a lawyer, but a farmer-turned-activist. I moved his story to the section on land rights, adding that he was defended by Weiquan lawyer Li Fangping. Wu Gan, also, does not seem to have any involvement in the Weiquan movement, but is instead a dissident writer, so I am removing him. There are innumerable Chinese activists and dissidents, but not all of them, no matter how "prominent" or "notable," can be counted as part of the Weiquan movement. I would like to suggest that we define Weiquan participants only as those who are lawyers (whether legitimate or 'barefoot') or legal scholars like Teng Biao. If someone does not fall into either category, but is prominently associated with the Weiquan movement by reliable sources, exceptions could be made. The 'other initiatives' section is going to be pretty bare after I make this edit, but that's not for lack of possible content. There are a number of other things that could be included there, such as the tainted milk scandal, Sichuan earthquake parents, environmental issues, or isolated but high-profile cases, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Uighurs?

I've been looking at expanding the section on ethnic minorities (namely Tibetans), but realised that we've yet to include any information on Weiquan lawyers taking up cases on behalf of Uighurs. I'm not as familiar with the topic as some editors, so before diving into research blind, I wanted to see if anyone has good leads on this topic, or would like to contribute themselves.—Zujine|talk 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I recall Jiang Tianyong having some difficulties for getting involved with Uyghurs. L ^talk 01:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   For a non-native speaker such as myself, this reads well enough.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Problems exist: 1) two disambigs needed (run the disambig tool from the toolbox to the top right of this review section) 2)four dead links (run the respective tool) 3) the article could use more blue links, and they are not always where they should be; for example the link to the Chinese constitution in the first para of the first section is used on the second, not first mention of the word constitution (both in the context of the Chinese one). This para should also link the court system, an important concept. On a more prominent note, Falun Gong is linked only on its third mention. The first mention of "legal authority in China" should probably link to the judiciary in China. This is just a sample of how underlined this article is (WP:BTW).

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   While this is not necessary, it would be nice to see links to all references, some are not linked to their respective journal article urls or Google Book entries.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Insufficient reference density: not only there are numerous unreferenced sentences, but there are entire unreferenced paragraphs (for example, the second para in the very first section (Background) cites no references. At least one entire section (Women's rights) is unreferenced. Online links mentioned previously would help; some references look shaky without a link for verification (in particular: "Suqian Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province Criminal Verdict [in case of Guo Quan]").

   C. No original research:

   This cannot be checked till the reference density is improved.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Perhaps I've missed it, and it is a minor issue, but the article could use a section on the etymology of "Weiquan". Who came up with that name, is it a given name, why isn't the name simply translated into English, etc. I couldn't find a good explanation in the article for "why is this movement called the "Weiquan movement" instead of a "[insert random word here] movement".

   B. Focused:

   Seems fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article makes many claims which are not referenced and which are critical of the Chinese government (example, not the only one: "Although freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, Chinese authorities enforce restrictions on political and religious expression"). While my knowledge of the field suggests those claims are justified, such criticism needs to be referenced. As things stand, this article makes a lot of unreferenced criticism, and hence is not possible to judge the neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See below.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No images at all, where some could be found. Don't any of the activists and lawyers mentioned here have images on Wikipedia? Are there no images that could be uploaded under fair use? If all fails, an image or two of the Chinese courthouses or such should be available.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Currently this is a fail, but of course interested editors are expected to address the issues raised above and improve the article. Please ping me on my talk page if there are any questions, or when the article is ready for a re-review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping. No response for almost two weeks... I will fail it at three weeks if there is no response. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I've started making changes per your review, but am not yet finished. Should be done in a matter of days. Homunculus (duihua) 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

All's fine then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not totally done yet, but I have added images, resolved the disambiguous and dead links, added more sources, and added and corrected the location of blue links. I still need to add more sources and fix up a couple things, but also wanted to press you on your suggestion regarding the entomology of "Weiquan." I've re-read some of the more comprehensive sources on the subject, but could not find a discussion of the origins of the term itself. Weiquan translates literally as "safeguard/defend rights." In english, the term seems awfully broad (see the talk page for the article for evidence—people unfamiliar with the movement speculated that this term could just refer to human rights activists and dissidents), but in this context, it takes on a distinct meaning as referring to a group of lawyers and legal experts engaged in rights activism through (mostly) legal channels. Since the english translation is not very illuminating, Western observers have just adopted the Chinese term. But this is my personal interpretation; I cannot find it supported in the sources. Is it alright to omit it, unless and until I can find it from a published source? Homunculus (duihua) 05:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, per WP:NOR, we have to omit such an explanation from the article. If it is not there, well, we cannot demand for it to be included, and I'll strike it down from the comprehensiveness requirement. You may want to create a separate section on the talk page with the above explanation, so it is easier to find by others in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still actively working on this, but will need a couple more days. Apologies again. I'll ping you when I'm done.

Alright, after a considerable delay, I think the page is more or less ready. I've resolved the dead and disambiguous links, added many more references and fixed redundant references, added external links to all the references, added and corrected the placement of links, and added images. If there are outstanding issues, please let me know and I'll seek to resolve them in a more timely manner. Homunculus (duihua) 04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thank you for bringing this interesting issue to English Wikipedia. I'll pass the article now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)