Talk:Chen Guangcheng

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChen Guangcheng 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 14, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
November 22, 2012Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 29, 2012.
Current status: Good article

Update request[edit]

three is an update. i'm unfamilar with how to edit the article in the correct format and i'm posting this between classes now. he was sentanced to 4 years and 3 months in prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5281440.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6104868.stm

Updated, thanks. --Vsion 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand from Chinese wiki[edit]

After reviewing the Google Translation of the Chinese wikipedia article, there doesn't appear to be much of substance that we don't already have in this one. I'd suggest simply adding remaining missing information manually instead of leaving this tag atop it, unless the editor would like to be more specific about her/his concerns.

Khazar2 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life activist?[edit]

Some news sources have been calling Guangcheng a Pro-life activist. Is this true? Thismightbezach (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of what you're looking at? To the best of my limited knowledge, Chen only fought against forced abortion. It seems misleading to call him "pro-life" if that's the basis. For comparison, many women's rights groups also oppose forced abortion, but support abortion rights generally and identify as "pro-choice". If news sources are referring to him this way, I'm of course fine with it appearing in the article in some way; I just haven't encountered it personally in the sources I've looked at. Khazar2 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most of the sources that refer to him as "pro-life" are American Christian groups. I don't think that Chen would frame his activism in the same terms. Homunculus (duihua) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

according to the relevant policies and regulations statements such as this need a source especially on such a contentious topic for the american right. Happy monsoon day (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely not a "pro-life" activist in our understanding of the term. Pro-life groups are exploiting his cause to add a hero to their ranks. He is not against abortions on religious or high-moral grounds, but against the system that enforces the one-child policy. It is a very different story. Calling Chen "pro-life" activist is inaccurate and significantly narrows his cause. Cosainsé (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few personal details ?[edit]

I looked around a bit on the web after the News said he had multiple children. However I could find nothing beyond that several articles use the phrase "his children". Given the stuff out there about chinese culture and the one child policy I think if he has multiple children their ages and whether they are male or female might be relevant. Especially given that he is asking to goto USA. It could also explain some of his stance against the one child policy. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. My understanding is that Chen has a 6-yr-old daughter (who we do mention) living with him and his wife and a slightly older son living with another relative. I can't give you a source for that off the top of my head, though. If I find one I'll add it. Khazar2 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i fixed up some things in the first paragraph but i sometimes have the feeling that the article was a bit grovelling with lots of adjectives meant to conjure sympathy. i tried to improve this somewhat please anyone let me know what you think.Happy monsoon day (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the question was answered. Can someone archive this question? Or should it be erased?Cosainsé (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not erased. And it doesn't seem like this page has gotten so long that we really need to start archiving, though I suppose you can if you want. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality issue in language[edit]

i made some recent edits to try to improve the page and make it more neutral as i understand the policy exhorts editors to be. please see here for example words such as 'experience' 'wrong' 'regardless' 'undue' and so forth seemed to be implicitly normative on the side of chen's activism which we as objective writers should not do so i attempted to clarify these points with more precise language if there are any errors please let me know. Happy monsoon day (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this case has been in the media a lot recently and china is very important so the information should be absolutely accurate and careful. however, such words as 'brutal' should be avoided shouldn't they?? furthermore the article says Chinese national regulations prohibit such brutal measures. but there is no citation provided and the word 'brutal' of obvious biased. Happy monsoon day (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with about 70% of your fixes (especially that "brutal" should definitely not have been in the article). However, a few things you've removed (like the detail that Christian Bale was punched) are clearly sourced in the article, and to the best of my knowledge, not disputed by other reliable sources. In those cases, I've restored the relevant details. Khazar2 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you. i wondered whether 'punch' was not neutral and i changed it to physical violence or something. same with others. it seems that as long as the source says it or something like it its fine. Happy monsoon day (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to me this now reads like someone on the side of the Chinese government has "sanitized" it. The "alleged" violence and forced abortions etc. makes it seem like maybe Guangcheng was just making this stuff up. These are documented human rights abuses that he was fighting against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.9.171 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the assaults are documented, we can change the wording, but a source will need to be provided per WP:V. Most sources tend to say "Chen says that..." or "Chen's family states that..." which isn't quite enough to present it as fact; we need the source itself to say it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the unsigned comment above, the word "alleged" also caught my eye. I am going to remove it from the first paragraph.Cosainsé (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

christian bale[edit]

bale is a hollywood actor. he knows a thing or two about image and public relations. he attempted to visit chenguangcheng //with CNN reporters in toe// right after being criticized for shooting a chinese propaganda movie with i believe zhang yimou. i think this happenstance of events might want to be briefly mentioned, lest the article leave our crucial background. any ideas? 22:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy monsoon day (talk • contribs)

My understanding is that to make this connection ourselves would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. It might be worth a one sentence mention if you can find it in a Chinese government official statement (or perhaps state media), but since it's not commonly mentioned in stories about the incident, it might also be WP:UNDUE to include it here. Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
quite right. i thought sources would be plentiful but well see. Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Commercial flight[edit]

Hi! About:

It says that Chen Guangcheng boarded United flight 88 to Newark Airport.

Is this level of detail too much for the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a bad thought, but I'd say it's probably more than needed. =) Khazar2 (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment: I applaud the editors involved in this page for trying to have it be a solid source of information throughout a fast-evolving saga. However, with the benefit of a bit of hindsight, it will likely be necessary to revise the sections on Chen's escape and the embassy negotiations with an eye towards reducing WP:Recentism. Homunculus (duihua) 05:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I already had a go at rewriting the escape section into a more coherent whole a few days back. This section will probably still be the largest in the article--I can't imagine Chen will manage to cause an international incident of this size again in his life--but once we get a more coherent, retrospective narrative from the newspapers, we can cut it back down again. Khazar2 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

financial times[edit]

recently that respected british publication (which i subscribe to here in the u.s.) did a brilliant exploration of how chen escaped and the diplomatic wrangling and so forth which went on behind the scenes. im going to start adding some material from that article and hopefully no one will object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy monsoon day (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry kinda ran out of time but ill do this at some point the link is here if anyone else wants to jump on it http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e046b9be-a550-11e1-9a94-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1w2JDDGNo ft is a good read. much better then us msmHappy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lede was too long just moved a paragraph to the bottomHappy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial[edit]

Chen wrote an editorial:

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do we need to be careful about quoting from this because chen is a primary source?Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be treated as an op-ed per WP:RSOPINION. No problem using it so long as it is attributed to Chen. (Note too that op-eds are fact-checked just as news articles are, but opinions are still just opinions). Homunculus (duihua) 04:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok good seems like theres a rule for everything around here.Happy monsoon day (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, including one imploring users to ignore all rules. Do you know you can sign your posts by typing four tildes? Homunculus (duihua) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seems unnecessary but ill see about adding some parts of the editorialHappy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books...[edit]

The article's soruces are a little heavily news-based - I've popped over to Google Books to pull out the following in case the come in useful.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vOYj6TO9I2IC&pg=PA389&dq=Chen+Guangcheng&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z9zmT-atD4XO8QPO4czDCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Chen%20Guangcheng&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LK9EbyPGBm0C&pg=PA105&dq=Chen+Guangcheng+taxes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e93mT7bPBMP18QPpprWnCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Chen%20Guangcheng%20taxes&f=false

and…

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d7EuvEl5loQC&pg=PA163&dq=%22Chen+Guangcheng%22+blind&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0d3mT7bpJaag0QXNyZ2DCQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Chen%20Guangcheng%22%20blind&f=false

Back soon. Fayedizard (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of escape[edit]

Wall Street journal has date of escape as 22nd... [1], but BBC has 20th... [2] - can we reconcile these? I'm presuming the problem is that it took several days to *actually* escape...Fayedizard (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm double-checking more sources, and it seems that most say he escaped from his home on the 22nd, and thereafter spent many hours struggling on his own before meeting up with other activists who took him to Beijing. Homunculus (duihua) 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chen Guangcheng/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 00:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Initial comments[edit]

From a quick scan of the article, it looks to be pretty close to GA standards. However, a few things popped out at me that will need corrected:

  • There are a few [citation needed] tags that need addressed
  • (minor points) The lead should be all referenced or all non-referenced. (The latter is more normal.) Unless the date is important, that level of precision is not necessary in the lead.
  • Currently the article suffers form recentism: it focuses heavily on Chen's escape from China. While important, it is by far not the most important part of his career, yet it receives the most weight. Either that information should be pared down, or the other sections expanded (or both).

Once these issues are addressed, I will conduct a more formal review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The concern about recentism is one that's been noted a couple times before. I'd mentioned I would do some work on this, and I think Khazar has maybe said same. Will put this higher on my to-do list. Homunculus (duihua) 01:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning and lovely to hear from you. The timing is particularly good as I'm just entering what should be a freeish week at work so can be around quite a bit to respond to issues raised. I've dealt with the [citation needed] tags - I've been looking for sources for them since I tagged the statements and haven't been able to find anything reliable enough so the section has been rewritten. Similarly the lede has now lost it's training wheels, so to speak. The article's focus on the escape was a significant problem (see, for example, this previous version) but this has been pared down signifcantly and I have done some more in the last few hours. Also I think it's quite important to note that the escape is (so far) the thing that Chen has done that has best highlighted the issues he wanted to raise with his activism. I'm aware we might run into criteria 3(b) here, but could we take that on a case-by-case basis? I'm looking forward to your full review. Fayedizard (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is more one of balance than unnecessary detail. That is, the detail on the escape is not necessarily unreasonable, but as it currently stands the article is roughly 40% material from the last 5 months. If you want to keep the current detail level for the escape, then I suggest working on expanding the rest of the article. For example, right now the article has 4 paragraphs on 10 years of activism, and 11 paragraphs for 2 months of escape. Surely the activism itself deserves greater weight than it is now receiving. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is the lack of good, reliable, sources for his activism - is balance part of the GA criteria? My wariness about the detail was criteria 3a, but if you're happy with the level of detail then are we okay on that one? Fayedizard (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Balance is a part of neutrality. Putting a large emphasis on the activity of the last six months creates a biased picture of Chen's life. I'm not saying there if a huge amount of material available on the pre-Linyi complaint activism, but there is certainly some. (The Chinese Wikipedia lists 4 or 5 examples; unfortunately, their article is not well referenced.) Chen apparently was already drawing national (but no international) attention in China before 2005. I find it hard to believe that none of the hundreds of English stories run in 2005-6 contain any information about his prior career, and I'm sure Chinese stories on that period exist.
However, Chen is clearly known primarily for the Linyi complaint and its aftermath. Unfortunately, this area also receives less weight than the recent escape from China. More can and should be written in this area. (Chinese Wikipedia has a decent-sized article just on the case.) As the article stands, the implication is that it is primarily the escape is what makes Chen important, which is certainly not true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been efforts to expand on Chen's early life and activism, and more can be done there. Thaddeus, any thoughts on a reasonable timeframe to allow the page authors to address these issues? Homunculus (duihua) 03:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as progress is being made, I am happy to leave the nomination open indefinitely. However, I don't anticipate the necessary additions taking more than a couple weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can't imagine it will take too long. Thanks for your patience. Homunculus (duihua) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - since the GA review started Homunculus has done an amazing job with the article (Changes here [3]). ThaddeusB, does this go some way to satisfying your concerns? Fayedizard (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work indeed. Yes, my general concerns have been met. I will go over the article with a fine-toothed comb within the next two days or so to see if there are any minor concerns and post a formal review at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was unexpectedly away the last week or so. I'll try to post a full review tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Look forward to seeing your review, and hopefully we can address any outstanding issues promptly. Homunculus (duihua) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus hasn't edited since the above comment. Should I put it back in the queue or are you fine waiting a little while longer for his return? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say we would appreciate guidance on what would normally happen in such situations... what's the usual process? Fayedizard (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and the follow up question is - what date would it go back with - the 1st of July, which is the time it was nominated and, which would make it one of the older articles on the page - or the X of September, which might mean that by the time it got around the loop again it would be a six month turnaround on a GA...? Fayedizard (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's put back in the queue, then it will go in July 1 where it is now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking out, Wizardman.Homunculus (duihua) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for it to be put back on the queue - with the proviso that if ThaddeusB comes back okay then we'd definitely like them to continue - does that work for everyone?Fayedizard (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, did so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America section[edit]

Hi guys, I'm looking at this paragraph:

As of 20 May 2012, Chen resides at a housing complex in Greenwich Village, Manhattan in New York City with his family. The complex houses faculty and students of New York University.[1] Chen and his wife spend two hours every morning studying English, while their children, 6 and 10, are picking up English in a New York public school. Chen spends his afternoons meeting one-on-one with legal scholars learning about the American legal system, and plans to write a book.[2]

and considering removing it as a bit recent and a bit trivial, does anyone have any thoughts? Fayedizard (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to pare this down and/or rephrase this a bit, but not to completely remove it. For instance, it could read as follows:
Following his arrival in the United States, Chen, his wife, and the couple's two children settled in a housing complex for students and faculty of New York University, located in Greenwich Village.[1] He reportedly began studying English for two hours per day, in addition to having regular meetings with American legal scholars, and is in the process of writing a book.[2]
I'm sure it will work out whatever you decide to do. Homunculus (duihua) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, I've thought about adding a timeline to the page to help readers quickly navigate the important events in Chen's life. There is a dearth of photos available to us, so it would also add another non-text element to the page. Thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 22:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a timeline. I'm sure someone with actual design experience could do something more interesting, but hopefully this adds some value. If not, it can be removed. Homunculus (duihua) 21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love your work! :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, very nice work. Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chen Guangcheng/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thedropsoffire (talk · contribs) 07:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I will review this article within the next couple days.--Thedropsoffire (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a note, I have skimmed through the initial review talk page, where the review Thaddeus went m.i.a., and will take this into consideration in my review. At first run, the article looks pretty good, but I will due diligence and scan the article thoroughly, and provide sufficient comments soon.--Thedropsoffire (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly finished a thorough read-through. I have been making verbage touch-ups and grammar edits as I've gone along. I am enjoying the article; it is generall pretty well-written and well-sourced, and great testament to a guy who really took on Goliath.

A couple notes:

  • So far, I have listed one citation needed (on the article).
Citation added.
  • The second last paragraph in the "Negotiations and exit from U.S. embassy" really needs to be reworked; I wasn't able to rephrase this satisfactorily
I took a pass at it; let me know what you think.
  • A couple of in-wiki links not working (i.e. red)(maybe you can do a quick look-in/correction of this)
The Beijing Daily redlink should probably stay per WP:REDLINK; it's apparently a big newspaper and referenced hundreds of times in Wikipedia. We just don't have an article on it yet. Dongshigu is a more borderline case. I've got no objections if anyone wants to remove that one.
Regarding the "Beijing Daily," I just did a little research. Since a google search turned up little, I looked into the Reuters article referenced. The article refers to the Beijing Daily as the "main mouthpiece of the Beijing city Communist Party authorities". But according to the website of the People's Daily :"Launched in January 1998, People's Daily Online is a website built by People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China." The People's Daily is based in Beijing. So is it possible the newspapers are one and the same?--Thedropsoffire (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a good chance they're the same, but am not sure. The description does sound the same. Perhaps we could create a redirect for now and leave a note at WikiProject China that we've done so? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the Beijing Daily is overseen by municipal-level party authorities in Beijing, whereas the People's Daily is overseen at the national level under the auspices of the CCP central committee (which also just happens to be in Beijing). In either case, they would run much of the same content produced by Xinhua News Agency. It would be a good project for someone to create a page on the Beijing Daily. Homunculus (duihua) 20:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can remove most instances of the word "reportedly"; this is a redundancy when you reference a news article.
In most instances here (I can't speak for all), it's used to show that the news source is saying that someone else is making this claim, for example here: [4]. Radio Free Asia hasn't verified these claims itself and isn't ready to report them as fact, but is still attributing them to Chen. This article is a tricky one to write because so much of it does boil down to Chen's word against that of local authorities (who rarely comment on the case). So there's a lot of hedging in the text--it's notable that Chen and his family made these claims, but no news agency can really verify one way or another.
All that said, I'm fine with finding alternate phrasings where you think it's called for; I'm just laying out what I suspect to be the original rationale.

--Thedropsoffire (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for taking on this review, especially for the prose tweaks! I'll work on your other points after I go make myself some more coffee... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure; sounds good :)
  • Was there a rationale for placing family at the end (usually bios have family near the top, and it does seem a little strange at the bottom, especially after all the preceding comments about his family throughout the article...)? --Thedropsoffire (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading through the end of the family section, I believe the reason family is at the bottom is because many of these events relating to Chen's family happened near the end of the whole saga, or are still ongoing (i.e. still up for arrest). But I really think this section can be separated - the first paragraph could still be part of the "family" section, but moved near the top, and the last two paragraphs could either be merged into other sections, or made into their own section (i.e. "aftermath", or something like that). Let me know what you think. --Thedropsoffire (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I can't tell you off the top of my head how that one evolved. It would probably be best to integrate that information throughout the article since, as you say, his family plays such a major role in events (both as hostages and helping him escape). Looking at the overall structure here, I'm also not a fan of having one massive "Biography" section that contains almost the entire article. I wonder if this might be a better structure:
1. Early life and activism
2. Trial and house arrest
3. Escape and emigration
4. In the U.S.
5. International recognition
The current subsections could be maintained, just within the above structure. What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar, the family section evolved at the end of the article during the expansion a couple months ago. I think I had recently been looking at a few FA-class biographies that do similar, putting family and personal life at the end of the page (eg. Barack Obama), so I did likewise. But I agree it's not the most intuitive or natural order of things. His relationship with his wife, and the fact that the couple had two children (possibly in violation of the one-child policy), is valuable as background to some of his later activism. And the material about the harassment of family members can also be folded into the chronological narrative. Here's a slight tweak to that proposed structure, one that would allow us to more naturally integrate the family section in rough chronological order:

1.Early life and family
2. Activism
3. Trial and house arrest
4. Escape and emigration
4.1 Harassment of family and associates
5. In the United States
6. Awards and recognition

Thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's go with this then :)--Thedropsoffire (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I made a few more tweaks and rearrangements to the text (actually changes to content kept to a minimum). Hopefully these were improvements, but if not, feel free to revert. Was there anything else? Homunculus (duihua) 05:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is looking quite good and in my mind up to GA standard. I will answer all the formal GA bullet points within the next day or two, and then approve it to GA. Good job guys. Also, as a side, please see my comment above on Beijing Daily. I'm not positive my deductions are accurate, but I think they are. If they are the same thing, we could just add a redirect link to the People's Daily.--Thedropsoffire (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Review


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good work guys. This article is fairly comprehensive, and I'd even say its almost FA ready. To make it FA ready there are a couple minor things that could be improved: the timeline pic would need a caption, the two red link articles may need to be addressed (not sure of FA policy on this one, but to me this still stands out), and the activism section, which is rather long overall (understandibly since that is really what he's known for), and could be divided into subsections under activism(perhaps something like disability petitioning, environmental work, class-action lawsuit - that is very off the top, but you get the idea). Also, the Zhang Yaojie article is referenced rather heavily.--Thedropsoffire (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and thorough review! I was also thinking we might take a run at FA with this one. Homonculus, what do you think? Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks much for conducting the review. I've never attempted to take an article to FA status, so I'll defer to your judgement on whether it's ready. Thedropsoffire's suggestions for further improvement sound reasonable, and I would also suggest that we try to find some more retrospective literature that we can reference, and see if we need to provide any additional updates. I've also added a couple photos, though what I'd really like is to convince the copyright holder of these images to release them under a Creative Commons license.[5][6][7][8]
A quick note: there's a discrepancy in the sources as to which day Chen left the embassy. Images furnished by the U.S. government give the date of May 1, but the New York Times says the 2nd. Does anyone know how to reconcile this? Homunculus (duihua) 05:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters also reported Wednesday, May 2 in very unambiguous terms.[9] Perhaps it's just a typo or error by the US gov employee putting up the images? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right. All the sources say May 2. I also looked up the same handouts as they appear on Getty Images, and the correct date of May 2 is given on those.Homunculus (duihua) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away for a little while and - wow - well done everybody! Spectacular! Fayedizard (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Free at last: Blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng enjoys new life in New York as he takes family to playground". dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 21 May 2012. {{cite news}}: Text "20 May 2012" ignored (help)
  2. ^ a b Erik Eckholm (18 June 2012). "Even in New York, China Casts a Shadow". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2012. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)

Conflicting account[edit]

According to this article, which relies heavily on Chen's little press autohagiographies, Chen was in complete harmony with the villagers and even something of a political representative of them. Not so, according to a report from the Global Times, which surveys the opinions of Chen from Dongshigu residents circa December 2011.

[A]ccording to other villagers, Chen's imprisonment a few years ago had nothing to do with his [litigation] work. It was actually a pretty common local conflict. They told me that Chen built a deep well using funds he received from a British source. But that well sucked out water from other wells in the village, which meant Chen effectively controlled the village's water.

They claimed that Chen charged high fees for the water and caused discontent from villagers, some of them then openly voiced their unhappiness and that angered Chen. So he asked his family members to attack the village committee and blocked public roads in order to vent his anger.

Chen's relationship with the locals worsened when Chen was protesting his jail term after he was released, particularly when he called people outside the village and even outside the country to cry for him.

While this article cannot be considered a definitive account of the reasons for his arrest or of the villagers' perceptions of it - only because we also have sources partially attributing his legal troubles to his pronatalist harassment of family planning resources - ours cannot be considered complete or neutral (to a "Good Article" standard) while excluding this information. Shrigley (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Times is run by the government. The government has an interest in depicting Chen in as negative a light as possible. It doesn't count as a reliable source, and neutrality is based on presenting competing views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Independent journalists who've traveled to Linyi have reported that the villagers there are unanimous in their praise of Chen's work.
That said, we could very briefly mention the depictions of Chen in state-run sources, but caution is in order per WP:BLP; we certainly shouldn't publish potentially libelous rumors whose only source is the Chinese government. Homunculus (duihua) 01:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tarring the Global Times with the "government" brush elides some very important distinctions between the interests of the central and of the local governments. Nationwide laws often guarantee rights to Chinese and supervise corrupt officials, while those local officials tend to cut corners to produce good statistics for career advancement. We're not just talking "rumors" either, nor sources just in both the government and the press: there's sworn deposition and other court documents which explain Chen's sentence. To neglect those is to imply that the charges are completely fabricated, which seems unlikely: if the sentence was purely "political", why not use the most popular charges of subverting state power or leaking state secrets? Here's more information from the public court session:

Chen was upset with workers who were sent to carry out poverty-relief programs in East Shigu Village, in Shuanghou Town of Yinan County.... on February 5, 2006, Chen (who is known to be blind) rushed to the office of the village committee and damaged doors and windows.... Chen then went to the home of Chen Guangyu and instigated Chen Guanghe, Chen Guangdong and Chen Gengjiang to damage and smash cars belonging to the Shuanghou Police Station and the town government.... Chen Guanghe and Chen Guangdong also instigated other villagers to damage government cars, and they chased and beat officials from the town government.... Using clubs and stones, the mob smashed the windows of three cars from the police station and the town government, overturned the cars in roadside ditches, and beat police officers from the Police Bureau of the county...

[O]n the evening of March 11, Chen Guangyu, who was then drunk, claimed he was beaten by some people, and he attacked the office of the village committee and damaged things in the office.... at about 6:00 pm... Chen Guangcheng organized a group of people, including Chen Guangyu, Chen Guangjun and Yuan Weijing, under the excuse of seeking justice for Chen Guangyu. They interrupted traffic in the Yinghou Village section of the National Highway 205.... Chen Guangcheng stood in the middle of the road to stop vehicles and directed the mob, including Chen Guangjun and Chen Guangyu to yell out and stop traffic.... police arrived to reopen the road, and to try to persuade Chen Guangcheng to desist from leading the mob and stopping the traffic. Chen refused to comply and continued to direct the mob to block vehicles.... the mob stopped the traffic for three hours and delayed more than 290 vehicles, including an ambulance carrying a pregnant woman to hospital.

Shrigley (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A deposition from a closed trial that international observers say was heavily politicized, in which Chen's lawyers were detained and not permitted to represent him, is not a reliable source in my books. Neither is a report from the state-run Global Times. Homunculus (duihua) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with including a few statements from state-run media in the article as long as they're clearly identified as such in the article (just as we identify material sourced directly to Chen as "according to Chen", etc.). I don't agree with including primary source material from the court deposition, though, both for the reasons outlined by Homunculus and because it's heading into original research territory. What would be best would be if we could find an uninvolved secondary source expressing Shrigley's concerns. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the last point — a good, reliable secondary source that provides a context and analysis of the state's accusations would be my preference. We've already very briefly noted that Linyi officials accused him of working with "foreign anti-China forces" (the British government) in constructing the well. I'm hesitant to include specific accusations that Chen monopolized the water supply and angered villagers, however, because a) it is potentially a violation of WP:BLP; b) the publisher of this account is not a reliable source; and c) it is difficult to reconcile with reports available in reliable sources.
As to the incident in which Chen is alleged to have obstructed traffic and damaged property, we could potentially expand on that a little bit based on the coverage in reliable sources. The Washington Post interviewed Chen's lawyer and residents from his village, who said that the charges against him "stem from an incident in March in which Chen is accused of leading a protest against local officials who had illegally confined him to his house and who were beating villagers who tried to help him."[[10]] Homunculus (duihua) 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, let me try to work in some comments based on Shrigley's sources and that WP article in the next day or two. I think as long as this is attributed clearly in text, it'll be a good addition to the article. This is a minority viewpoint in terms of independent secondary sources (outside of Chinese govt.-owned media, it seems barely to appear), but it's a worthwhile viewpoint to note as representative of one of the actors in the conflict/dispute. I'll take a pass and then you both can look it over. (Or if somebody wants to take a shot before me, I'm good with that, too.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a welcome effort. I know you're mindful of these things, and most likely don't need reminding, but do be careful that we don't put ourselves in a position of making potentially libelous claims that aren't backed by reliable sources. Even if clearly attributed to the government, it would need to be handled very delicately. Maybe you have some ideas on how to achieve this that I haven't considered. But I do wish you luck finding some reliable sources that discuss the divergent accounts of the traffic-obstruction incident. Homunculus (duihua) 03:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the sentences read "Source X stated that Chen was..." I'm sure libel won't be a factor; it's both true and nonmalicious. Tell you what, I'll post proposed additions here first, or if that's not practical, in my sandbox. Anything you're not 100% happy with, we can doublecheck with the BLP noticeboard. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my intent isn't to have you walking on eggshells. As long as the sources used are reliable, I don't anticipate there being major problems. Let's see what you can come up with, and we'll go from there. Homunculus (duihua) 03:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I agree caution is called for; it's a controversial case! More soon -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got distracted by real life and probably can't get to this till Jan 2 or 3. Anybody else is welcome to take a pass in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The pace of life is supposed to be slow this time of year. Enjoy some extra time with the family, and we'll revisit this next week. Homunculus (duihua) 15:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looking at these sources more closely and think about how they could fit into the article, I've come to share H's skepticism about the well thing. The well/water claim doesn't even appear to be reported in other Chinese government media stories on CGC, so adding it to the article based on this blogger alone seems excessive. As an extreme minority viewpoint from a non-independent source, it'd be undue weight to include it.
As for the destruction of property charges, this seems more worth including detail on, since these are the formal charges that led to his jail term. What about adding a sentence stating that "Xinhua, the news agency of the Chinese government, stated that Chen had instigated others 'to damage and smash cars belonging to the Shuanghou Police Station and the town government' as well as attack local government officials."more into the section "Detention and trial"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a good idea, though we may want to provide a couple other viewpoints to round out Xinhua. This is not the easiest task, and there's a good deal of conflicting information. I've gone through much of the coverage of the trial, and could find very few instanced where journalists gave more than a column inch or two to discussing the actual charges; they were almost universally framed as retaliation for his work in Linyi. But there are a couple other perspectives we could draw on. I already mentioned the Washington Post, which noted that the officials he was apparently agitating against were those who "illegally confined him to his house and who were beating villagers who tried to help him."[11] This Time article notes, albeit very briefly, that witnesses on the scene disputed the government's account of the protest (see bottom of first page). A HRIC profile, which is from a partisan source but nonetheless seems like quality reporting, includes a footnote which claims that Chen had been released from house arrest on March 11 to discuss his case with an official. According to this account, "police reportedly halted traffic, took photographs and then charged him with 'disrupting traffic'." It cites a news article that is no longer available. The New York Times reported that Chen's lawyers "argued that the charges against him were fabrications. The crimes would have been difficult for Mr. Chen to commit, they said, given that he cannot see and was under constant police guard at the time."[12] This last point—that Chen was under police guard and therefore could not have organized a protest—is repeated in a couple other news reports I came across, including this post by Donald Clarke, a professor of Chinese law[13], and this Globe and Mail commentary[14].
Do you think it might be possible to expand on your earlier proposal to account for some of these viewpoints? Homunculus (duihua) 02:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Thanks for the sources. I'll try to do this in the morning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added the Xinhua account, the Time account, and the NYT quotations from the lawyer, as well as (a little further down), a quotation from the Globe and Mail criticizing the legitimacy of the sentence. This seems to me to have resolved any issue, though I'm up for further opinions. If nobody has further objections, let's take down the tag in a few days. (It can of course be restored if needed.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done—I think it does a serviceable job of presenting the divergent accounts of the protest, and I'm glad that we've been able to expand on that aspect of the story. How are you feeling about the article now? Do you think we should make a push to bring it up to FA standards? Homunculus (duihua) 01:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling good about where the article's at, but honestly a little skeptical of the FA process itself these days; I read through some sample reviews recently at WP:FAC and was turned off by the negativity and combativeness there. Obviously you'd be welcome to go for it, and I've no doubt the article would improve as a result... but I don't think I personally want to be involved. Sorry about that, as I know I'm the one who suggested it initially. A good intermediate step in the meantime might be to take it to peer review and have reviewers there look at its readiness. Your call. I will still be on hand to take care of any issues that crop up on the talk page like the above, though. =) As always, a pleasure working with you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I've had no experience with the FA process myself, but I am inclined to hold off on nominating for now and continue making incremental improvements. If Chen publishes an autobiography in the fall, we would have a lot of great new material to draw on, and maybe we can revisit the issue at that time. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot all about that book coming out--that should definitely be a help if it indeed arrives. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere recently that was torn between partisan interest groups in the U.S. that were hoping he would align exclusively with their causes. It's something to keep an eye on (in addition to the other events that have been in the news around his departure from NYU). Homunculus (duihua) 02:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The South China Morning Post has been covering the Chen-NYU stuff quite well. Want me to post additional story links? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another:

Wednesday, 26 June, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 55 external links on Chen Guangcheng. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chen Guangcheng. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Chen Guangcheng. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chen_Guangcheng&oldid=1206639556"