Jump to content

Talk:Ni Yulan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNi Yulan has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
July 12, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 10, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that civil-rights lawyer Ni Yulan, sentenced after recording the forced demolition of homes to make way for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, was prevented from leaving China to accept awards?
Current status: Good article

NYT resource[edit]

China Set to Punish Another Human Rights Activist by Andrew Jacobs published January 2, 2012 (page A6 in print) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ni Yulan. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI template[edit]

@PaleoNeonate: The content of this article is completely backed by mainstream media reports, which almost focus entirely on Ni Yulan's hardships and awards, and what I've done here is a plain rewording/summary of their reports. If you find any other reliable sources that report in other POVs or on other aspects of Ni Yulan's life (which are very hard to find), please feel free to add them.

Note that I participate in the human rights Wikiproject, and I don't have any relations/connections with Ni Yulan. Other Chinese human rights lawyers' pages are similar to this one (e.g. Wang Quanzhang, Li Heping, Gao Zhisheng, etc), and it's quite common for reliable sources to focus substantially, if not entirely, on their hardships and recognitions. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this page is very easy to fix. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Ni Yulan[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

A. Serious concerns with "Verifiable with no original research"

I have compiled a registry of the sources used in this article: New York Times (x4), Eurasia Review (x1), Radio Free Asia (x1), Chinese Urgent Action Working Group (x1), Frontline Defenders (x3), Human Rights Watch (x1), Christian Science Monitor (x2 - erroneous double cite [7][13]), Reuters (x1), Amnesty Int'l (x1), Lawyers for Lawyers (x1), BBC (x1), HK Free Press (x1), Government of the Netherlands (x1), Radio Netherlands Worldwide (x1), SCMP (x1), Voice of America (x1).

There are 23 sources in sum. While sources themselves are generally consistent with perennially reliable sources, each of the guidelines for several of the sources used (Amnesty, RFA, etc.) carry recommendations or disclaimers that citations of these sources should be done with caution (either amending the language for neutrality, or disclaiming a relationship to the U.S. government). However, the *majority of sources* as expressed (Lawyers for Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, China Urgent Action Warning Group, etc.) are primary by nature, have express political leanings and incentives, and are used as the guiding citation for several contentious claims in places where substantially more reliable sources may be called for.


B. Strong issues with WP:NPOV

Language in the text appears flaired or put in substantial excess of what the sources themselves say. For example, the sentence

having her passport arbitrarily denied by Chinese government authorities

is not found anywhere in the BBC article that the clause cites - at all. The article only indicates that Ni was released from prison and that she uses a wheelchair, which the article proceeds to suggest (without further provenance) that some of her supporters say are due to the hands of police - hardly sufficiently reliable to justify any unqualified claim regarding police brutality.

The passport claim, which is then repeated several times in the article (unqualified), may be found in some other sources (e.g., the New York Times), but such sources, e.g., [18], carry no particular provenance for the claim other than a direct interview with the person herself - by definition, a primary source for which the publisher has repeatedly and clearly disclaimed as content from the interviewee herself. This phenomenon repeats frequently and is once again an example of flawed authorship in the article.

Continued claims in the article about alleged social hardship, such as source [17] indicating her eviction, are themselves uncited and of dubious quality. No evidence, provenance, or citations are offered in the source. The only other source where the alleged 2017 window-smashing case is mentioned is in Hong Kong Free Press - once again, only through an interview by the subject herself.

These issues are present throughout the article. Overall, by inspection of about six sources, the article dramaticizes content with theatrical effect, relies overly on a persona constructed by the article subject herself through interviews, and offers no explanation connecting any of the disparate phenomena observed (e.g., window-smashing with passport denial, etc).


C. Cursory initial approval round

Upon inspection of WP:Peer review/Ni Yulan/archive1, it appears that no particular analysis or work was conducted on the article other than the addition of certain sources and basic formatting. No particular comment as to relationships with the GA criteria were discussed at all. Moreover, no commentary in relation to writing quality exists at any point, in any form, at any time. Augend (drop a line) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]