Talk:Akmal Shaikh/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archived

I've archived most inactive(for a week or more) discussions, as this talk page is getting extremely fat. If anyone want to check them out, they can be found at the header of the page. Thanks. Blodance (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Western sources"

Funny. It's usually taken to be more reliable in the context of China-related articles... ;-)

Anyhow, I've yet to see that information from Chinese sources. I'm sure it exists (perhaps I missed it), so we just need to find it. Hope you don't mind the wording staying like that for a short while pending finding that information. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

haha. Well I don't think I have the time any more to fight over every single phrase that people try to water down. Sigh... Spinner145 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Sina source

This Sina source given by Kesaer has a number of interesting revelations which is making me question it, and the possible existence of selective under-reporting in London. Firstly, it states at the top that it is written by a trainee reporter. The article does not make clear how it's sourced, but it looks like parts of it (mostly before Poland) are directly translated from recent press articles about his story. However, there is divergence with the story in Poland. A number of details of his life in Poland, as apparently told to the reporter by Saunders (阿克毛在波蘭時的好友加雷思·桑德斯向本刊記者回憶) and Diaz (從2007年初開始用相機記錄阿克毛生活的西班牙攝影師路易斯·貝爾蒙特·迪亞茲在接受本刊記者採訪) which is considerably richer than what I have read in Western reports. It includes, for instance a whole paragraph where Saunders describes attending a wedding where Akmal sang his 'rabbit' song. However, there was this incriminating line: 桑德斯說他曾在華沙市中心的一家書店裡遇見過阿克毛，阿克毛指著坐在樓上看書的一個黑人對桑德斯說他是個毒販子。(Saunders said he once met Akmal in a bookshop in the centre of Warsaw, where Akmal pointed to a black man seated upstairs reading and told him he was a drugs trafficker). I have mentioned before there are passages where the reporter cites a court employee, and some details from the defence attorney which might be considered privileged in the west. Whilst I am not surprised that a Chinese reporter will obtain more information from official Chinese sources, it surprises me somewhat that the picture painted by this portrait is pretty much at odds with anything in the western press. But then, maybe not. Reprieve has done such a good job spinning this one... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, thanks for giving some color on this. I am not surprised that this source puts a vastly different gloss on this story than Reprieve (who make no mystery of the fact that they were fighting on his behalf). By the same token, does anybody really expect that there will be any PRC news sources rising to Shaikh's defense and criticizing the actions of the government? I think it's become symptomatic of the problems I'm having with this article that we have so heavily qualified critical comments by someone as respected as Cohen, and criticisms by Alston which are directly on point are nevertheless relegated to "international reaction", but this source has been taken at pretty much face value and deeply integrated into the article. Spinner145 (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My biggest problem with the text is the comments attributed to 'a court official', not to what is clearly official; it is often unclear in the article whether a comment or 'fact' is attributable to same. I would say most of them are out of place (unreliable, irrelevant and not pertinent – hearsay) unless we have a clearer idea the identity of this person (but I don't think this will ever happen). This is a throwaway piece credited to an unlikely trainee reporter which could be retracted with only minor embarrassment. Among the stuff attributed to this 'court official' (not attributable to anybody, in actual fact) is that Akmal behaved "like a normal person" during the two years in prison. All undoubtedly impertinent and highly questionable, much much more so than the psychiatrist who was '99% certain' Akmal was suffering from bipolar. Great care is needed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Trainee reporter? To be honest, I'm reluctant about whether we should cite it at all. I think the Clemency Campaign section is pretty good now - can we please get rid of that POV tag? It really seems ugly between paragraphs anyway. :P Blodance (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blodance, I'm also reluctant to rely too heavily on this article as it is reporting a lot of information that hasn't been reported by anybody else, nor has much of it been verified. As to the tag, I think this section has come a long way, but I'm not sure it should come off just yet. Let's see where we end up in the next 24-48 hours as the tone of this section can, as we've seen, swing back and forth quite a bit. Spinner145 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I typically don't remove these tags where I'm the one who has done the cleanup. However, I'd be happy to remove the NPOV tag once consensus is achieved that it is not needed any longer. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this text might be useful because it fills in a few gaps in our knowledge. However, how it deals with the sensitive issues is rather suspect, and I get the very strong impression that we are witnessing some new tactics employed by the "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China". Therefore, echoing the above remarks, I have concluded that, this source is not sufficiently reliable or credible on the contentious issues. No reliance at all is placed on the source on these points. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, how convenient, disregarding direct quotes from Shaikh's lawyers and court officials just because it portrays Shaikh in negative light? What if they are facts? Just for your information, this article is not written by Sina.com, it is written by and published on 三联生活周刊，a famed magazine known for its independence from the government (see 三联保卫战 in 2004, where the employees managed to impeach their appointed chief editor with support from the entire intellectual society in China). Just because it is Chinese it doesn't render any of the facts less believable, and just because western media didn't get any quotes from Shaikh's lawyers or court officials, it doesn't make those obtained by Chinese media any less reliable. And just so you know, this article had been cited (directly or paraphrased) by many Chinese media in the past few days, including 腾讯，新浪 (two of the biggest sites used in China)，郑州晚报（published http://zzwb.zynews.com/html/2010-01/13/content_151829.htm)， 中国选举与治理(http://chinaelections.org/NewsInfo.asp?NewsID=166143 , a site that often criticizes the gov) 法制日报 (http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/gsjdw/content/2010-01/12/content_2022623.htm?node=8298) and many more. Why is that western media's comments automatically becomes reliable but when Chinese media publish something without the western media publishing similar comments - it becomes unreliable, does the voice of China on this matter not deserve to be heard? Or is it just your inherent bias against China, considering our media to be liars without any investigation or proof? If this article still cannot be considered reliable then I suggest removing all comments and 'facts' suggested by the western media that was not confirmed by the Chinese media, just to be fair. Kesaer (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would have had no problems having it included if the pieces came from Xinhua. As it stands, it is not, and it leads me to suspect that it is a back-channel propaganda from the Ministry. I believe I have made myself crystal clear why the piece (and indeed several of the other sources) should be used with extreme restraint. Others seem to agree with me about the Sina piece. Let's not kid ourselves that there is press freedom, and no propaganda, in the PRC. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that Chinese media is propaganda-free, but if you just selectively disregard information presented by Chinese media which had been cited repeatedly by various sources from a broad political spectrum in China for the sole reason that you 'suspect' it to be propaganda, I cannot agree with you. Sina.com had been used frequently in Wikipedia as a rather reliable source of information and I believe it still is in this case. And may I remind you again that this article is not written by Sina.com, but by a much more prominent and reliable magazine source. I think we should present the information and specify in the article that they came from Chinese sources, not hide it just because of suspicion without evidence. Kesaer (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

if you seriously doubt the reliability of the source, please check up on 三联书店 (Joint Publishing), the owner of the magazine 三联生活周刊 (http://www.jointpublishing.com/magser/magezine.asp), I don't even think it is based in the mainland (I may be wrong but looks like it is Hong Kong-based). It might still be susceptible to bias, but propaganda? I seriously doubt it. Kesaer (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are all reliable sources, but when it comes that the PRC govt gets involved, sadly, pretty much all Chinese media become primary sources. It's not about whether a source is reliable, but we would need to take great care on citing them. Blodance (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While not dismissing Kesaer's remarks out of hand, I would say that not all sources in Hong Kong are reliable, and many sources are thoroughly pro-PRC. Those that are genuinely reliable most of the time can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Many journals remain critical of the Hong Kong Government's actions and inactions, but when it comes to mainland, there is the increasing tendency to auto-censorship by newspaper editors-in-chief. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this is indeed a mainland weekly magazine, and originates from Beijing (not Hong Kong). Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken this matter to a wider expert audience, at RS noticeboard. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have only peripherally paid attention to the discussion here and the article editing. But I do want to comment on the issue of Chinese sources. For this particular article, when pretty much most of the notable Western sources are on one side of the argument, it would be a terrible loss to the readers to exclude information from Chinese sources. However, I do think that if we are using sources like Xinhua, it is imperative in a controversial topic like this to state in the content of the article that the information comes from a state-owned media source. But if you are talking about Chinese sources that are not state-owned, for example HK newspapers, I think we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt as long as they are considered reliable under WP guidelines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Found this from the RS noticeboard. Since I have recently been accused of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party I want to preface this comment by saying I am personally opposed to the death penalty. It should never be used and is certainly over-used in China. Notwithstanding my personal views on the matter it's been clear that BBC coverage of China over the last 3 months has not been neutral or balanced.

We can expect that an in-china source will be spun approximately the same amount in the opposite direction (IE: a pro-china spin as opposed to an anti-china spin). As such, in order to maintain neutrality in this article I think we should use the source - being careful to attribute it to the source, including that it was written by a trainee reporter - so as to provide a neutral perspective on this difficult and dubious string of events.

Quite frankly the fact that the BBC bought that Mr. Shaikh somehow thought smuggling drugs into Xinjiang would make him into a pop star is something that stretches their usually strong credability. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that, although imbalanced, Mr. Shaikh was aware that he was involving himself in the drug trade. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• One thing which has been bugging me since I came across the article is the operational logic of the news-gathering for this, bearing in mind the piece is credited to a trainee. It seems that quite a bit if material is unique to this journal, so the reporting is likely to have been on the ground. As the journal's editor in chief, would you send a rookie to Poland and possibly London unaccompanied by a senior editor? If not, would you give the trainee the by-line instead of the senior? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As a freelance journalist I can think of a few reasons why a publisher might decide to do it that way.

1) The journalist may have run with the story of his/her own volition and come to his/her editor with the story after completing it.

2) The editor may have been concerned about the quality of the sources and confirmed reporter was a trainee in order to insulate the publication in the event that the reporter misreported or distorted information.

3) (I doubt this one, the first two are the likely scenarios) There may be deliberate distortions in the article which the editor insulated the publication from by blaming it on the new guy.

I would suggest one of the first two is the reason although this is entirely conjecture. I haven't ever been an actual employee of a publication. I edited a newsletter as a volunteer and I am a freelancer when I write for periodicals so there may be a reason I am not aware of. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to adding in the ref that the source was compiled by a trainee journalist, but really, we have no way to qualify what that actually means to Sina, or whatever organisation Sina got the article from. Beyond citing that it was written by a trainee, in my opinion there is not much else to be said about the issue. The fact that it was published by Sina is what lends credibility to the article, being that Sina is considered a reliable source by WP guidelines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hong Qigong that Sina is a reputable source. I also agree with OhConfucius that the "trainee reporter" thing is anomalous enough to mention. I am not supporting a WP:Synth inclusion of my conjecture in the article. :D Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, all very helpful indeed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still concerned if a report written by a trainee journalist is considered reliable. Sorry if it is already discussed elsewhere, I can't open the noticeboard... :'(

In this particular case, I'd concur Simonm223, i.e. citing the source and attribute it to a trainee journalist.Blodance (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

UK press reactions

I'd just like to comment that the press reactions listed show an imbalance as the Daily Mail is given undue weight - two Mail sources are cited, whilst other major newspapers receive no representation. This is particularly important given the Mail's reputation as being "racist trash" in the UK - as Shaikh adhered to Islam, assessing the position of the Mail's readers without regard for other sources is heavily skewed. --Muna (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest taking that up on the WP:RS noticeboard if you feel the daily mail is an unduly biassed source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the Daily Mail sources is now put into better use as a reference for Beijing Youth News' claim of support for its position - it is actually cited substantially in the BYN article. I have merge McKitry's criticism of hypocrisy with White. Also bearing in mind the Mail is adequately attributed, I believe the concerns expressed above have been addressed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Simon223, that comment seems to be entirely irrelevant to what I was saying. Ohconfucius, it may be a lack of clarity, but I'm not sure that addresses the point I was raising; I was expressing concern about the balance of the press opinions within the United Kingdom section of "Reaction to execution". I believe a wider range of reactions are needed, especially as other major newspapers are completely ignored, though the Mail is given prominence. As it stands now, from an international standpoint, even if the Mail is named, it's still misrepresentation, as even though the name is provided, it's meaningless without a level of cultural understanding.

Currently, I'm seeing a problem with the usage of this quote: "In a discussion on the Daily Mail website, participants were overwhelmingly in favour of the execution." I can't read the Chinese source's text, but the title in conjuction with what it's being used as a citation for appears to imply that the Daily Mail represents the views of Britain, which is obviously incorrect (and in fact, The Guardian is the most popular in terms of online following).

Stating that a racist publication's readership were approving of the death of a Muslim isn't really all that surprising; the Mail has repeatedly made use of Islamophobia to direct its rabble-rousing. Presenting the opinions of a publication and its readership as though they were a grave fact by ignoring their biases simply isn't acceptable.

If verification of the Mail's reputation for racism is required, one only needs to make a Google search, like so: [1]. --Muna (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I get you. You will see I added a comment from the Indie a couple of days ago. Yes, that is what the Chinese article is implying by citing the Mail. Will return to this article in a few days to clarify the points raised, and hopefully with more 'quality journal' sources. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Muna, please understand that I have not ever read the Daily Mail and have no opinions on it. I'm simply saying that if you feel there is a source being used that is not reliable the appropriate venue is the reliable sources noticeboard. Google is not really a valid source to attribute claims of racism in and of itself, after all: According to the same google based logic the inviisible pink unicorn is real. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Simonm223, please do not make false analogies to attempt to discredit me. The purpose of the Google search was to provide for evidence of a reputation, not to establish a fact. Please research the topic before delivering a fallacious objection. My apologies if this appears overly-critical, and your honesty is appreciated - I am assuming good faith, though it is difficult to properly discuss something when one of the parties has not researched the topic. --Muna (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

British sources

I only now noticed that one of the British sources used to present views against the execution is the Daily Mail... Are you freaking kidding me? This newspaper is a tabloid. I have said that Chinese state-owned sources should be treated with care, and in the same token, so should the Mail. Its article reads just as one-sided as the Chinese state-owned sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• What part of the article is particularly of concern? I don't think there is, in any event, any citation against execution in the Mail. Most of the material in the 'Biography' section is available in other sources, so can be added to shore up the facts. If after that, you really believe the citations to the Mail (including McKistry and the citation in the Chinese media) should be removed altogether, then maybe we will have a problem. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think they should be removed. But for example, we are using it as a source to back up that the UK government was only informed of Shaikh's case six months after his first appeal was rejected. I did not notice this piece of information on the Chinese state-owned sources. So what we have here is a tabloid vs. government-controlled press. We could do the readers more justice to say that this information comes from a tabloid, just as we mentioned when Chinese media used a journalist in training, or when we mentioned that Xinhua is an official government mouthpiece when saying that it agrees with the Chinese courts. We are also using the blog of a law professor who is clearly against the execution as a source for Shaikh's initial trial only lasting 30 minutes - this fact was also reported by the Mail. Do we have more credible sources to back this up? Again I am not saying we remove these sources and the facts they are verifying. I am saying we should be careful when using these sources, and consider mentioning in the content of the article where one-sided information like the above is coming from, instead of presenting it as a matter of fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I have expressed my misgivings previously about the quality of the sources, but we are doing the best with what we got. It's not an easy article to work, with the very polarised material available. The usual sources which we trust as being reliable are all tainted with some sort of nationalistic conflict of interest; what little other information available looks like it's being fed by Reprieve. However, I would say that all the information is there, and we must resist the temptation to spoon-feed, and just have to correctly attribute, and trust the reader to know what all the news sources represent in terms of inherent bias. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish woman's children

As there seems to be some conflict in the sources, so it is unclear to me how many children she had/has, or whose they were with. Now the reading of the Mail seems to give her two with Akmal, while the Polish source gives her two, including one with her new husband. There is no mention of any third child, or that Akmal or anyone else having custody. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The end of extraterritoriality

Thanks to OhConfucius, Silktork and other editors who have done so much good work on this article; sorry I've not had the time to contribute more. The final sentence of the introductory paragraph states that "The decision marks the end of extraterritorial rights of foreign powers over Chinese courts." This is in fact not correct.

The extraterritoriality rights of foreigners in China came about through the Unequal Treaties, beginning with the Treaty of Nanking. These rights were abolished in 1943 by agreement between Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists and the other Allied Powers in WWII. (The China Daily Article says as much, although still managing to turn even this into a basis of criticism towards the KMT.) Shaikh's case highlights this fact, but didn't really mark the end of anything. Of course his case and the reactions to it were heavily influenced historical grievances about Unequal Treaties, and these grievances doubtless should be mentioned.

As such I propose changing it to read "Shaikh's execution contrasted with the extraterritorial rights that many foreigners had in China during the era of the unequal treaties." Any thoughts? Spinner145 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Spinner has a point; I thought it could be cited as fact because reputable sources in China and the West both asserted this, so perhaps wording could be improved. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully I think that Han's article is problematic on a number of levels. He is murky on a lot of his facts, stating for instance that extraterritoriality "was a concept imposed first by the British government, and followed by other western imperialist nations, on China and other third world countries in the age of western imperialism and colonialism." This is wrong as the concept of extraterritoriality existed before the opium war--diplomatic immunity, for instance, is a form of extraterritoriality that long predates the unequal treaties. This article actually clarifies this point better than Han did in his piece (although it perhaps could still use a bit of work). Also his use of "third world countries" to describe Qing China is anachronistic as that term dates only to the latter half of the 20th Century. I think the point of view he states is an important one and deserves to be featured, but Han's article itself should be treated cautiously.Spinner145 (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of his article that deserves an entire paragraph including his background information? It reads as a self serving promotion of a minor editorial that doesn't seem to be well written, read and cited. Since he is not a reputable scholar on international law, politics, or history, his personal opinions about extraterritoriality do not seem to warrant space in the article as there is no evidence that this is an opinion can be imputed into the reactions in 'People's Republic of China.' I believe it gives an undue weight and am removing it under wikipedia guidelines. WP:UNDUE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.93.166 (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good work! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)