Talk:Gao Zhisheng/Archive 1

Nomination for version 0.7

This article needs to be a lot stronger, to be included in Version 0.7. A typical lawyer article on the release is more like Earl Warren. Right now the article is mainly a timeline of harrowing events, but it needs more breadth. I appreciate that because of the nature of the subject (and the barriers to information), some things may be hard to cover as well as one would like, but I think more could be done here. Please renominate if the article reaches a solid B-Class. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Gao Tortured

The article should say that he was tortured. See: "Defence lawyer and human rights activist Gao Zhisheng remained under tight police surveillance throughout the year after his conviction in December 2006 for “inciting subversion”. Between 24 June and 4 July and again between 22 September and early November, he was held incommunicado and tortured in unknown locations, before being returned to house arrest in Beijing." http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/asia-pacific/china --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

heads up

just a quick note that I have a refurbished version of this article in the works, and I'll copy it over the next few days. --Asdfg12345 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done with the clean-up, it surely needed it. I didn't have a close look, but I think that some of the details that were removed could have been refactored rather than removed. Many news articles remark on some of the details of the torture he suffered, including some op-eds by Jerome Cohen. Also, it's unclear whether the word "alleged" should be used--will check some of the articles around on this. Of course, if they use alleged, then that's that, but if the most reliable sources don't, then we shouldn't. I think there should also be another section on "Advocacy" or something like that, since some quite high profile people have written about this (like Cohen), and ChinaAid just ran a campaign on Drudge to raise awareness about it; that all seems pretty notable.--Asdfg12345 04:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you were rewriting it...

Anyhow, most of the material I removed was either unsourced, from primary sources, otherwise not reliably sourced, or in violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. I did not go out looking for sources, as what was there was good enough for a concise profile. It's not totally clean - I have tagged some as needing citations, and I have left some of the Epoch Times stuff as important but still needing better quality sourcing. If not forthcoming, these will be removed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point about primary sources (referring to ChinaAid thing). Before you remove ET sources from this article, please make a post on the RS noticeboard to see if uninvolved parties agree that that source is not reliable on this subject; I would suggest that on things like human rights lawyers in China, it is. I'll go on a source hunt sometime in the next few days and fill in some info. --Asdfg12345 08:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Although an organisation appears to have a particular slant in favour of human rights, the Epoch Times/Falun Gong is clear about favouring regime change. This puts any information in this connection highly suspect. Anything remotely polemic news item not reported in other sources ought therefore to be removed without any great hesitation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alive

Hello, I've edited the article saying he was found alive. I don't know how to add references, but they are needed... If someone knows how to add them, here are two: NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/world/asia/29china.html Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62R0EC20100328 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.238.211 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of neutrality

OhC, can you please tell me how mentioning that he wrote three open letters about the Falun Gong persecution is biased? You removed this from the lead citing NPOV. You also said that the info appears later in the article, but since it's a central reason he was kidnapped and tortured, I think it belongs up the top. Your primary complaint is apparently neutrality. I would be interested in a deeper understanding of your views here. -- Asdfg12345 01:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Once again, we have a case of someone being first lavishly praised and then dumped on from a spectacular height when (s)he becomes too powerful for the PRC government. Gao has been a thorn in the side of the authorities since 2005, and even before. I do not see any direct connection between the letters and the series of "disappearances"; any such connection, if drawn by him (or indeed anyone else) must be explicit and attributed. Without such, it is merely original research. What is more, the removal also boils down to the status of the Epoch Times – as a questionable source, is only good enough to be used to attribute comments made by the ET or the FLG. I have so far been unable to find any mention of the content of these letters except for the ET, so their general notability appears to be insufficient for the lead. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, your point is entirely reasonable: bring the evidence that shows the letters he wrote are important or crucial in the story of his persecution. I will dig around on that and get back to you. Regarding ET as a source, I think it should be treated similarly to, for example, China Daily, or something. -- Asdfg12345 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)