Talk:Akmal Shaikh/Archive 1

Was he executed?
Does anyone know if he was/wasn't executed as planned at 2:30, I stayed up this late to know... From: Sean Passaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.172.3 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We wont find out for awhile. So therefore the page shouldn't be updated that he has been executed until confirmation has been given. --Jordanjj (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some idiot has altered the page to say he was executed, although it's not yet known. I've put fact tags in but don't have time to revert the vandal's edits. Perhaps someone can do it?218.14.50.125 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sky news/AP/foreign office have confirmed it. Thisrain (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC, The Guardian. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Firing squad or lethal injection?
In the present circumstances it is just a stupid technicality, but I wanted to point out that I have read sources which say he was executed by lethal injection. for instance NASDAQHektor (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See here and here. For now I think it best that the article not mention the form of execution until we have more confirmed/sourced info in the next few days. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what I meant, we have conflicting sources. Hektor (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to lethal injection per and the Chinese source I cited in the article; there's no reason to think that they would lie on this point. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Xinhua is likely to be definitive here. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, just saying, using firing squads in executing common criminals is virtually unheard of here in PRC(Never heard of it in my whole life time at least... not by the civilian police forces), fyi. If executing by gunshot, typically the condemned receive one single shot in the head. Blodance (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Story verification
His background is not supported by reliable 3rd party sources. Schnarr  09:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, reprieve has an agenda to portray the subject a certain (halo'd) way, and other sources need to be found to support/confirm what the current citations infer. SGGH ping! 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added citations from the Chinese media and embassy, as well as some other published media which are not campaigning groups, plus qualified some of the wording to make it clear that this is reported; there are only so many times one can add "reportedly" without sounding clumsy, but I hope this addresses your concerns. If you would like other citations added, please do so, otherwise I hope the NPOV tag can be removed.7ofclubs (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think the POV tag is appropriate, because the whole article does not describe the origin of the heroin involved. In other words, it would sound like this man is perfectly innocent, albeit a package of heroin miraculously appeared in his luggage. I personally think this man might be used by someone as a mule as this article suggests, but this does not neccesarily assert NPOV. IMHO, there should be (sourced)speculations regarding the circumstances of the event, at the very least. (I'd appreciate if anyone could... Sorry, but as news here in PRC are highly censored, I'm very unlikely to get any useful info out of them.)Blodance (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The circumstances you mention are actually described in several of the cited news sources in this article, written by journalists. A range of news sources are cited, presenting a range of views,as well as official PROC statements. You may wish to add more if you feel you wish to add other published views, and I'm sure the detailed sources can be improved, but on balance I'd say this article reflects what is being reported by media now, both for and against the execution. NPOV seems a little strong. 7ofclubs (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's indeed statement about the Chinese Supreme Court denied that the defendant is mentally ill... but what about the defendant's claim? "Shaikh denied all knowledge of the heroin, and claimed that he was duped into carrying the drugs as an unwitting mule after falling for a confidence trick in which a gang of fraudsters pretended they would help Shaikh become a pop star." Why did the court disregard this? As far as I know, according to PRC law, the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor (to prove the defendant's action was deliberate). Sorry, but lacking the reason of this is giving me a strong feel that he is effectively lynched without listening to his defense whatsoever... it would be better if there is some reason given. Blodance (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I failed to find any. I won't be surprised if they simply ignored his defense, but it's frustrating not being able to make the article sound more NPOV. Blodance (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it would be appropriate to keep the NPOV tag a bit longer until more editors have had a look at it, rather than remove it the moment that overt, immediate concerns appear to be removed. That way, we get any underlying issues as well. SGGH ping! 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag as I couldn't see any problems with the article. I assume the tag was placed in the wrong section? Anyway even after reading the above I'm still not clear what the potential NPOV issue was? -- Pontificalibus  (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph appears to have went a major overhaul - I did not add the tag, my concerns were stated above. Anyway, it might no longer be neccessary. Blodance (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Public reaction"
Footnote 33 cites the BBC.co.uk "Have Your Say" message boards as being indicative of public opinion. This is absolute nonsense. I don't know how the general public viewed the execution, and without a referendum no-one ever will, of course, but the "Have Your Say" boards are notoriously populated by right-wing, anti-New Labour people, and are in no way whatsoever representative. I suggest the footnote, and the line supported by the footnote, are removed to avoid bias. 87.112.226.159 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed this a couple times. There's no way an online poll is a reliable source for public opinion. JBarta (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am removing this again. It is probably original research to infer a particular consensus from a variegated online discussion.  Even if it were not, the notability of such a consensus is dubious.  The sweeping generalisation being made is probably an embarrassingly stupid attempt to defend the PRC government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.188 (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP keeps reinserting it. I have reported it on WP:ANI. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly POV on the PRC side. As he is blocked, issue resolved for now. Blodance (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So public reaction section should be removed completely? If you don't believe in online polls then I don't know how you can establish a consensus on what the public thinks. Just because something is in favour of the PRC makes it bias and NPOV? Its blind stupidity.


 * Whatever you say in WP articles, you need reliable sources. Surveys conducted by reputed sources are reliable. online polls are NOT. And posting unsigned comment doesn't make it so either. Blodance (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow attacking me just because I forgot to sign my comment. There happy now? 203.218.215.195 (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just surprised that it was not autosigned. Any more point? Blodance (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Opium Wars in the See also section
I'm not sure how this is related. I read the article on Opium Wars and it doesn't seem to mention how China's stance on drugs back in the 19th century has implications into the modern era. What do other users think?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it's vaguely related to drugs and to England, however I don't think it's relevant enough to be in the "See also" section so I removed it. I've also read this comment on TimesOnline which may be related to the addition of the link: "What stupid and hypocritical comments comments from government . Don't they know that Britain fought two Opium Wars forcing China to accept the British imported drug trade into China". Laurent (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Opium Wars is also about British drug smugglers killed by Chinese and backed by the British government. Well, not exactly. But Chinese human rights, which is a topic too generic, is not more relative. I would actually suggest to remove both of them. As Laurent removed one, I will remove the other. --Mongol (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But what relevence does the Opium Wars have to this event? Would it really help user's understanding of this article by reading the article on Opium Wars.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When a Chinese hear about this story, he/she (very very possible) will recall Opium Wars firstly and support that he should be killed a 4030g/50g times. See 近99%网民支持中国政府判处英毒贩死刑 and the comments of related articles, if you can read chinese.--刻意(Kèyì) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would a Chinese person recall the Opium Wars after hearing this story? Also, I don't know much about ifeng.com as there is no Wikipedia article on it. Is it reliable?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Chinese human rights are eminently important in this case. That is what this page is here for, isn't it? Akmal Shaikh is not famous in his own right. (If we're to be as rigorous as we're supposed to be, should this article not be re-titled 'Execution of Akmal Shaikh'?). I think there's a stronger case for removing the link the drug trade link—though I wouldn't, because I think that is the main issue here from the Chinese perspective. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is probably a place in the article where human rights in China can be wikilinked anyway; therefore removing the need for it to be in the see also section.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... actually, yes, there are indeed some Chinese who would recall Opium War when they hear about this incident. Further, as you see from the link above, "毒贩" in Chinese, while it is the direct equivalent of "drug smuggler", it indicates that the smuggling is deliberate in nature, and Chinese news generally made no or very little mention about his defense that he has no knowledge of it. If I participated in such a poll, i.e."Does a British who deliberately smuggled 4kg heroin into China deserves dying?" maybe I would have supported as well. (When it comes that capital punishment is not abolished by the gov't, people tend to support or even be joyful about executing a felon, at least it's the situation here.) So, I don't think this kind of online poll is reliable. On the other hand, ifeng.com is one of the few media who dare speak out some truth... it's probably the most reliable source you could find among PRC media. While the website doesn't have an article, it's TV channel does - Phoenix Television.Blodance (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how linking Opium Wars would help the user expand their understanding of the article?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just stating the fact... I personally don't think the link is relevant, but the user who added it might have a reason. maybe explaining the public attitude in China?Blodance (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the source articles mentions the Chinsese sensitivity to Opium trafficking, but did not specifically mention the Opium Wars. There might be a case for mentioning the connection in the article about capital punishment in the PRC, but I do not believe linking the death sentence to the Opium wars is an issue which is sufficiently germane to warrant inclusion in this biography. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok as someone who has alot of experience living in China I can confidently say that when people hear "Britain" and "drugs", at least 70% of then will immediately think "Opium War". This is the first lesson　any Chinese kid since 1950 learned about international history, and basically forms the basis of the chinese people's interpretation of the foreign world, especially the western world in general. As part of the consequences of that war was treaties that foreigners be from chinese laws, it is of great importance to the general public that now, when China is no longer "opressed" by western powers, that foreigners breaking chinese laws be treated the same way as a Chinese criminal would, aka execution. Failure to do so by the Chinese government would certainly arouse great ire from the general public，which the chinese government certainly takes much more seriously than empty pleas from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awacs123 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I wanted to describe, thank you. But it still doesn't establish the ground that link to Opium War should be included unless it is actually mentioned in the article, or at least the article mentioned Chinese public opinion. I failed to find any survey conducted upon Chinese public about their opinions of this event, apart from online polls. Blodance (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are two articles linking this event to Opium War: . UK government should have seen this coming. --Vsion (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, it's worth mentioning in the Reaction to Execution subsection now, rather than See Also. Blodance (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That he was executed in Urumqi speaks volumes. The Chinese have had a rocky relationship with Muslims since 1862. They do not like anyone even remotely connected with separatism, especially drug smugglers. The same applies to the British who plotted to destroy China and its culture, and fought two aggressive wars to keep millions of Chinese addicted to these same drugs. Executing this drug smuggler became a statement about Chinese sovreignty, and not executing him would have been very detrimental to China's standing in the world. This man regrettably had to die. (Mtloweman (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtloweman (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The third party articles that mention the link and other user's comments now validate the need for the wikilink. Case closed I think.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Twitter and Facebook groups
Do we really need a paragraph about the Facebook and Twitter groups? There are groups about just about anything these days, and these two in particular don't seem notable as I haven't read about them in the news. I suggest removing the paragraph unless there is a consensus to keep it. Laurent (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. SGGH ping! 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of YouTube link
In general, youtube is not considered as reliable source of information on wikipedia, and the one which was repeatedly removed/reinserted recently appears as such. It also looked offensive, and misplaced (wrong section, no link to the article). I understand that Telegraph newspaper mentioned a youtube rabbit song, but note that they did not link to that specific youtube file, and thus misinformation and misrepresentation is well possible. Materialscientist (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we know it is his voice on the video, or that the video was made before the drug smuggling in September 2007? It could have been made more recently by his supporters to give a fake explanation for his visit to China. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The video IS the one linked the Telegraph news paper. I don't know why people are so keen on removing it. It is published by the human rights organization Reprieve on its official youtube channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.122.38 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reprieve has potential coi on this issue. Any 3rd party sources? If the video was made early, then for a person that is so eager to become a star, it would presumably be published, or put on sites like YouTube, long before his execution. (Or is the video of very poor quality? I can't watch it, as a PRC citizen there's no such site named YouTube in the world. :P)Blodance (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The singing voice is dreadful, but the picture is fine. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the link in an "External links" section at some point but I don't know why the section has been removed, or why the link ended up in "See also". Personnally, I think it's a good idea to leave the video as an external link because it is referred to in the text, and has been quoted in the Telegraph article so there are good chances it's not a fake. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was involved in an edit war with some unscrupulous users who seemed to have some sort of underlying agenda in not having this video be displayed on the page. Yes I know it's YouTube - but that shouldn't preclude any content on that site being linked to on that single basis. As others have said - the video is referenced in the Telegraph article - and in other articles from other newspapers. Please see the same video here at the Reprieve Website: How much more legitimacy does the video and ultimately the song require. It is paramount to the article since this is the reason he ended up in China and has now been subsequently executed. Please can someone re-instate the link either to the reprieve website I have posted here or to YouTube. It is very relevant to the article as I say. Volatileacid (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As of "Legitimacy", it would prolly require a reliable 3rd party source, as I stated. As it is published by Reprieve, who has potential COI in this event, it's not that automatically legitimate, is it? And for the Telegraph article, seriously, it's biased like hell... I really can't help saying "What a holy man".....Blodance (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blodance, Reprieve is a charity - an organisation working against the death penalty. They have no ulterior motive - this is not a conspiracy - they took it upon themselves to represent him. There is no malice, and no gain for them. The organisation is legitimate. It's the same organisation that had Stephen Fry, a respected and revered British Actor/Writer/Comedian/Author/television presenter and film director make a direct appeal. You can watch it here: http://www.reprieve.org.uk/stephenfryappeal Again, I state, that those who don't want this very relevant video which highlights the mental state of mind of this person just executed, are approaching the matter with a bias of some sort. It is legitimate. Blodance, as you say, you're unable to access much of the net since you're in China and most of the internet is being filtered for you and in addition, you seem to be a one man team in opposing this. I urge the rest of the community to kindly review the video and approve its linkage within the article. Volatileacid (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph and Reprieve are reliable sources no matter what one thinks of them. Also there's no reason to believe they would link to a fake video - surely it can't be hard to find a copy of this video so why would they bother with a fake, and why would they risk their reputation on that? Finally, it's not for us to decide if the video is legitimate or not: it has been linked in reliable sources so it can be included, it's as simple as that. Laurent (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I managed to watch it on the website of Reprieve itself. By every means, I'm not assuming the video is false, nor did they deliberately published a false video. I'm only stating that, the video is not automatically legitimate, and in order to meet WP standards, its inclusion would require 3rd party RS. If the community consensus is against my opinion, I'll gladly accept the consensus. Blodance (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the Telegraph article, Laurent, I know its a RS, and I'm not denying its reliability, rather, I'm just saying the article itself is really biased beyond redemption - its clearly describing the POV of Reprieve. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the video. Blodance (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blodance, this isn't about your personal POV. It's about fact. You seem to be the only one here rejecting the notion of the legitimacy of Reprieve, an organisation cited across the web by reliable media sources. You keep saying how there should be another reference, but if there is only one origin of a source, then how are more supposed to be generated. You've already stated earlier how you support the execution, how you're from China, and even how you are unable to access the internet in its entirety - yet you continue to vehemently object to legitimate sources. I'm approaching this article from an entirely neutral POV, I have no interest for or against. I'm sorry, but I feel you have a personal agenda. Volatileacid (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Attacking me personally won't help, nor claiming NPOV will. What personal agenda would I have? Being a PRC citizen does not automatically mean I support the communist regime, and I take serious offense of this. From the very beginning, I did not "rejecting the notion of the legitimacy of Reprieve", nor did I try to promote a POV. I made it clear that I'll be supporting the community consensus regardless if it supports or denies my opinion. The only thing I did, is stating that a 3rd party RS would be better, and as I already said, if this man is really eager to become famous, then the video would presumably be published earlier than this. Is this a ridiculous statement? Blodance (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To make it clear, is XINHUANET not enough of a reliable source? And is its claim that Shaikh did it deliberately, and the evidence is insufficient to prove his mental instability, automatically true? Being a RS doesn't automatically assert its NPOV... That's why I asked for a 3rd party source. Blodance (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blodance, you say "and as I already said, if this man is really eager to become famous, then the video would presumably be published earlier than this. Is this a ridiculous statement" And what I'm saying to you is - this chap was clearly a mentally ill patient to believe that such a video would gain him stardom or a pop career. He was a deluded individual - and the purpose of the release of that song by reprieve is to highlight this. There are millions of people out there looking to become pop stars, however, only a fraction ever make it. For the rest, they are consigned to oblivion and their songs never make a public airing. The only reason this song has made it to the public domain is because he was executed. So no, in direct answer to your question - it would not have been published earlier. Volatileacid (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC.co.uk played the video of Come Little Rabbit yesterday. That is a WP:RS. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For "this chap was clearly a mentally ill patient", source please? Reprieve? No, I could cite a handful of PRC domestic sources to claim he is reasonably sane, xinhuanet for example. That's why we need a 3rd party RS, check out WP:PRIMARY pls. Anyway, if there's truly no secondary sources, the link could be provided with a description like "The video of a song claimed by Reprieve to be recorded by Akmal Shaikh, Come Little Rabbit""", but its really not very desirable. Blodance (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the British Foreign Office (see 43 seconds through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaZe6Z8pfko ) there were clear concerns to his mental state of mind. Next you'll tell me that the British Foreign Office isn't a reliable! OR that the Chinese equivalent is more reliable!?! Even in the face of Chinas human rights record. I can clearly see your biased stance on this entire matter but please stop letting it interfere with fact. Volatileacid (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volatileacid (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is my second time to point out that personal attacks are not helpful. And the Chinese one is not more reliable, nor the British one is. I never made such claims, yet you state that he is indeed mentally ill just because the British Foreign Office claimed it(citing YouTube in the process while aware that I cannot access the site at all), citing "Chinas human rights record" with no source whatsoever, and actually accused me of promoting POV, even after I actually stated how a primary source could be cited. Very well. I've been avoiding conflict throughout the whole discussion, but if you continue to make such personal attacks, this issue goes to ANI. Blodance (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the Chinese regime is blocking, censoring, filtering, and monitoring internet connections in China - another example in the restriction of free speech we enjoy here in the west. But I am not aware of the individual websites that the Chinese authorities have blocked. I apologise if you are unable to view the youtube link. I'm not sure how harsh the restrictions are, and maybe you're unable to view much of the same sources of reference I have. You can search the web to verify my claims, but then again, since a large portion is unavailable to you, I'm not sure how I can help, or how much time I can devote to one objector who has limited access to the internet. I'll try again. Here's another source: http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/miliband/entry/akmal_shaikh - this is of the British Foreign Secretary Dsvid Miliband who states "It is about whether a man with a mental health condition has become an additional victim of the deadly trade." I hope you will now accept he suffered from some sort of mental condition and not use that in argument against the addition of a reference to Akmal Shaikh's song. Volatileacid (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not about whether a source is reliable or not - its about primary and secondary sources. We got plenty of RSs claiming both ways - is the Supreme Court of China unreliable? Maybe not. In the article, we describe both claims on a neutral basis. And as of here, as no 3rd party sources(secondary sources) are available, I have made it clear that you could cite the video using a description like "The video of a song claimed by Reprieve to be recorded by Akmal Shaikh, "Come Little Rabbit"", just that it won't be very desirable, and might be challenged and removed in the future. I never stated this video can not be included, just that it would be better if there are secondary sources available. I said I can't access YouTube above, and I thought you saw it by stating you know my net connection is censored. (Yes, I admit the human right is violated in this aspect, one of the reason I hate it here, but this is completely irrelevant to the subject we are discussing.) Blodance (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And for clarifying my point, if we cite the video in this manner, it is to be remained as a "External Link", as it is from a primary source. But if a secondary source could be found, we might as well put it into the article. Blodance (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the majority of your last couple of comments - just not sure how we can get a secondary source - there may be none. Perhaps I can contact reprieve and ask them for further details on how they got hold of this bit of music. I feel the reliability of this single source, especially since cited by major news organisations and endorsed by Stephen Fry is pretty solid however, that may not be enough of a validation for some. Volatileacid (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Personally, I'm especially concerned that Reprieve only states that the video is released by Shaikh's "supporters", and no further info provided regarding the origin of this video. While it is true that the video is endorsed by Reprieve and notable individuals like Stephen Fry, their reason for supporting its verifiability is not stated, and the supporters are not neccesarily reliable. This compromises its verifiability, as only claims by reliable parties are not enough - even Heads of State can and had been wrong. If any 3rd party can actually confirm the reliability of the video, then the entire issue is resolved. Hopefully there would be one. Blodance (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of the link. However removing the link threw the paragraph about his song into confusion. There is mentioning of "rabbits", and there is no mentioning of the name of the song, "Come Little Rabbit", which does not make much sense when you read the paragraph. The paragraph should be clarified, if the link will not come back. Since there is ongoing discussion about the link, I did not do it myself. Deniz Feneri (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The link itself is available at External Link section. Blodance (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the song has been mentioned in various news sources, and is relevant, it seems important enough to be included, but some people here think that it shouldn't be categorized as a reference-source, so I've rendered it as a note which allows it to link to the paragraph.--Farry (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage
Should the media coverage of this case be mentioned in the article? It has received a great deal of coverage in the UK. What have the Chinese media said about it? Is it a high-profile story there? How about in Pakistan, where he was originally from, or the US or Poland, where he had previously lived? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, this is really not high profile at all in China, as there is very little controversy. I was very surprised at some comment I read elsewhere which hopefully said that if this case were focused on earlier by the press the Chinese gvmt might yield to pressure. What do you guys think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awacs123 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If what Shaikh said about being duped were true, why didn't his family members and the press plead with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and the 5-star hotel to come forward with CCTV pictures of Shaikh with the so called accomplices Carlos and Okole? Why blame the Chinese legal system? Why not just come forward with some proper evidence. Why rely on pleading that Shaikh was a "nutter"? Nazi criminals couldn't plead that they were "nutters" to escape punishments of a court of law. Courts all over the world hand out sentences based on the crime, the evidence and sentence according to their local laws. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually whether he was duped or not is irrelevant in this case. The Chinese criminal code provides the death penalty for transporting heroin as well. The prosecution only has to prove that he transported 4Kg of Heroine.
 * The only defense for him would be the insanity plead, which unfortunately failed in this case. IANAL Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I either didn't know this person at all, or have only seen him in such a minor news that I totally forgot, till I read this article, despite him being arrested in Sep 2007. As there's virtually no opposing opinion in China, this event was almost ignored by mainstream media. (Until he got executed, of course.)Blodance (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Banners in background section
Should they be there? Such banners are usually, when needed, at the top of the article. Is it just that section that has the problems mentioned? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, and I think there's templates specifically made for uses in sections(not articles), but I'm not familiar with them. >_> Blodance (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - should be okay now. Blodance (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Background section
Much of this information is irrelevant, I've removed the most irrelevant stuff. SGGH ping! 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourced, relevant biographical info has been repeatedly removed on false grounds; the truth about Shaikh's bad behaviour should not be removed, no Wikipedia policy says that it should. A tribunal found that he sexually harrassed an employee, he was told to pay damages and refused to do so. He often borrowed money then ran away from his debts to avoid repaying them. He fathered children whom he tried to avoid paying child support for. He was convicted of drink-driving, even though as a Muslim he shouldn't have drunk any alcohol at all. There is no BLP issue; he is definitely dead, and none of it reflects negatively on anyone else. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Lkjhgfdsa said. Someone removed those information again without any good reason. I will reinstate that. There is no reason to remove those information. This is an article about a person Akmal Shaikh (and not solely about the execution of this person), hence important biographical information from his life should not be removed. Its removal is pure vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.182.93 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See long discussion about bias and material not supported by references in subsequent sections.--Farry (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sexual harrassment info is sourced, and is presented in a neutral way. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed you making sure that everybody reading the article knows that he's a Middle-Easterny type as I thought you would ;-) But you've managed to overtop my boredom threshold regarding the Daily Mail reference about sexual harassment... so ho hum... I'll ignore that. But here I was referring to the stuff inserted by 92.9.182.93 that's not supported by Polish references.--Farry (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not biased. You are. I presented only the facts. Every sentence is supported - translated from the articles. My only motivation to publish it was that there was no information in the article about his life in Poland where he spent many years of his life, so I found the information, translated it and inserted it in the article. There is no reason whatsoever to remove it. Removing it is hiding the facts - it is pure vandalism. It took me a bit of time to gather those infromation and translate it, so I will not tolerate any vandalism destroying my work, destroying my input to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.182.93 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that nobody owns the article. The content is decided on by consensus view, and not the view of any one individual. Referring to others' removal of text you inserted as Vandalism does not make it so. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He falsely claims that my input is not supported by references, therefore I consider his actions an intentional vandalism, because he uses lie to achieve his goal of removal the input. Consensus must be based on truth and not lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.182.93 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See section in this talk page entitled "Bias Against..." regarding the problems with that material.--Farry (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked there, and there is nothing interesting there. This is not true that "the articles gave plenty of evidence about the Shaikh's poor mental condition, and that whoever inserted the Wiki text went far beyond cherry-picking text to make Shaikh look bad, and in fact seemed to be making defamatory comments that are simply not supported by the articles." I do not need any translator to read and understand the articles. I did not went "cherry-picking text to make Shaikh look bad". I have no reason to. These were the most interesitng facts of his life in Poland given in those articles. If you find some other, which are worth mentioning, feel free to write about it. I believe that in fact those facts, which I translated support the theory that he had some mental problems, as nobody sound on mind would threat authorities or send messages to institutions claiming that he was involved in terrorist attacks. Anyway, there is no reason whatsoever to hide the facts. So stop deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.182.93 (talk)
 * The consensus there was not to include that material. It's been superseded by the "previous investigations" section in the article anyway, which looks much better, *and* it's referenced by english language sources that everybody can check. So you're partly duplicating stuff now. You could improve that section, if you want, but please add a reference for *each* assertion as has been done in the rest of the article.--Farry (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus not to include it. The previous investigations section AFAIR did not exist, when I included this text. Most of those information are repeated in those 5 articles in Dziennik Wschodni, so it would look silly to include after every sentence the same references, hence I put them at the end of paragraph. Stop destroying my work, there is no reason to do it. I'll see if I can divide it into two sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.182.93 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You need a reference for each statement -- and *only* those references that actually contain mention of it. Look at the rest of the article to see how Wikipedia references are done. References shouldn't be duplicated either -- you re-use the reference by assigning it a name at its first use, then subsequently just use the name of the reference -- again see the rest of the article for examples of that. In Wikipedia, articles don't have a whole bunch of statements followed by a whole grab-bag of references at the end that might or might not be relevant, because that's impossible to check. I've removed the duplicate mention of the email about 7/7 and removed stuff where the references aren't done correctly -- but I've left in the text where the references seem to be done correctly, although I've not yet checked those references.--Farry (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Any previous involvement with drugs?
Had he ever been in trouble for drug misuse, dealing or trafficking prior to smuggling the heroin into China in September 2007? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Van Tuong Nguyen
I think he is worth mentioning in See Also section. Nguyen's and Shaikh's execution had very similar circumstances - of a Commonwealth nationality, of Asian origin, smuggled heroin into an Asian country, and executed despite various pleads from their gov'ts, heads of state and human rights orgs. The only major difference is Nguyen admitted he intentionally smuggled the drugs while Shaikh denied it. Blodance (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Nguyen's case had nothing to do with the UK or China. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Be it so, it's probably the most similar incident we could find. Thus it prolly wont hurt mentioning it in See Also section.Blodance (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether Shaikh denied it or not is irrelevant. No court in the world will believe that you did not intentionally know you had 4 kg of drug on you. The only flexibility is in the sentence. In the UK you will get 20 years or maybe even life. In China, Singapore, perhaps the USA you can get death. Then it is whether they will carry it out or not. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He didn't know that the suitcase had heroin because, due to his mental illness, he unthinkingly trusted the criminals who told him to carry the suitcase with him on the plane. --75.13.226.103 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When you check in at the desk they always ask you whether you had personally packed your lugguages. Well if there were anyone else involved they didn't show up, even after the Chinese police set up a sting. I don't know whether you know anyone with bipolar disease, but the symptoms described here did not seem like the symptoms of bipolar disease. If the bipolar disease was that serious he would not be able to function and live in several foreign countries (and apparently without medications) for so many years nor would he have been able to get on a plane. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many mentally normal people who get scammed by criminals. I think in most jurisdictions, the only defence is if you were a minor or if you can prove that you were under duress. Neither seems to be case for Mr Shaikh as he was perfectly able to lead an independent life. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias against Akmal Shaikh
The story started out with what looked like a bias in favor of Akmal Shaikh, reflecting the views of Reprieve more than anything else, but now the bias has gone completely in the opposite direction. I've just removed this lot: When the city councillor Dariusz Jezior was not enthusiastic about his idea of building a mosque, he started to send text messages to the councillor and several other people with threats. He also sent threats to institutions and people who did not want to support his ideas financially. He sent an e-mail to a bank in Poland where he had an account, claiming that he had something to do with the London terrorist attacks. All this prompted search of his home by ABW, but no charges were levelled against him. The prosecutor only made a case owing to his threats against his Polish wife, but she did not want to punish the father of her children and because of that the court remitted proceedings in the case. There were four references to a a Polish Newspaper site apparently supporting these (which I've left in place), but when I put the four articles through Google translate, I discovered that the articles gave plenty of evidence about the Shaikh's poor mental condition, and that whoever inserted the Wiki text went far beyond cherry-picking text to make Shaikh look bad, and in fact seemed to be making defamatory comments that are simply not supported by the articles. The text was inserted by 92.9.182.93 on 29 Dec 2009 at 18:52, so has been there for most of a day (and it does raise the suspicion that it was inserted with reference to a foreign language newspaper because that is not so easy to check). Whoever was responsible for the insertion, please give better references.--Farry (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the rest of the background info that was linked to the Polish newspaper source has now been removed by somebody, which was probably a justified deletion because it was still unbalanced and still contained an unsupported assertion or two, but that deletion has also removed the references to the Polish articles. I still think that the Polish articles could still be used as a source by somebody that does not have agenda, if anybody is interested, so I'll put them here:     --Farry (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A source in foreign language is eligible like English sources, but Google translation is of poor quality and cannot be cited.


 * In any case, since there are statements indicating he lacks definitive evidence/previous medical records to prove his mental disorder, the paragraph you mentioned could simply be removed to avoid OR, imho. Blodance (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In London Shaikh could have been shot dead without a trial for making terrorist threats just like de Menezes was shot dead. In China he got a trial and he was convicted on the evidence. So it's a fair cop in Shaikh's case. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why has the info from the Mail been repeatedly deleted? It is relevant to his life, reliably sourced and demonstrates his personality and behaviour. Without the info it leaves Shaikh painted as a good, loving, family man who tried his best for his family. Actually, he was aggressive and demanding. He was a deadbead dad who dodged paying child support. He sexually harrassed an employee and refused to pay damages. He repeatedly borrowed money and ran away from his creditors. He drove whilst drunk. How can you justify removing all this? Why portray this selfish, irresponsible criminal who shirked his debts and responsibilities as a saint? Justice finally caught up with him; he was not a persecuted innocent. He got away with his appalling behaviour in the UK and Poland, but China didn't let him. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The removals occurred because the references pointed to Polish articles which did not support the assertions, not the Daily Mail. You do need to make use of the reference template.  If there were some details in the Mail that seemed similar to the Polish articles, then it's likely that the Mail journalist used those very same articles as a source, but if your characterization of the Mail article is correct, then those Polish sources might well have been "spun" heavily to support the usual Mail agenda.  Could you post a reference to the Mail article here in this talk-page so that we can check?  I agree that some background info would be useful, but what we've seen so far has been grossly unencyclopedic. If we can pull all the facts together, we might be able to go part way to addressing your concerns, but bear in mind that an encyclopedia is a place for verifiable facts, and not for opinions or commentary .--Farry (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This Mail article provides most of the deleted info I am talking about. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to say that even the Mail article looks balanced when compared with what was placed in this Wiki article. The problem is that whoever inserted the text did cherry-pick the article to place Shaikh in the worst possible light. I think that some background info would be informative, and the Mail and Polish article could be useful in that regard, but needs to be done in an NPOV way.--Farry (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... this question might be irrelevant but I'm too curious to keep silent. Does executing by firing one shot in the head(or mouth, whatever) of the condemned count as "firing squad"? I'm very, very surprised to see this Mail article...Blodance (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One executioner cannot be a firing squad. There has been a substantial amount of confusion as to whether the execution was going to be by means of shooting or injection. I don't know where 'squad' came from. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article mentions marriage, then it should mention divorce, this is obvious. For the rest, I think probably should mention about the erratic emails (i.e. if verified and sourced), because it shows irrational behaviour. --Vsion (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is biased against Mr Shaikh? I find it hard to believe the only help the British PM Gordon Brown and his ministers offered was to plead clemency with the Chinese. What did they plead with? Given that Shaikh claimed 2 other men, Carlos and Okole (the real culprits) were involved and that they were in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and that they were staying in a 5-star hotel, did Gordon Brown perhaps suggest that they would persuade these places to release any CCTV pictures of these men Carlos and Okole? It would appear Chinese law enforcement is a lot fairer than the British, because in the case of the Brazilian de Menezes, British Police just shot to kill first then ask questions later. There was no opportunity to be questioned and no trials in British law enforcement before an innocent person is killed by government agents; at least in China there was a trial and hard evidence. So who is the British government to complain, why don't they just sort out their own house first? 81.156.181.215 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Akmal Shaikh didn't get a trial; the "trial" was a kangaroo court. --75.13.226.103 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And the 4 kilos of powder was all chalk dust? 81.156.181.215 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was heroin, but he wasn't aware that he had it in his luggage due to his mental illness. --75.13.226.103 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ho, ho, ho!! That's too easy and too naive a legal argument. I am sure drug smugglers try that line in courts all over the world. Well if he had such a serious mental illness how did he manage to persuade 2 women (presumably mentally normal women) to marry him and have children with him, and to survive in a totally strange country such as Poland for so long, apparently without medication? 81.156.181.215 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal position is, if his previous mental condition is deemed "fit for travel alone", then he ought to be deemed "fit for realising the situation and take consequences" as well. if he is really that mentally ill, why is he allowed to travel alone worldwide anyway? That would be tantamount to deliberate crime... for his family ,and whomever issued him his passport. Blodance (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Human rights in the People's Republic of China
Why should this category be present? There are no other people in the cat, I don't think it is for people who have been executed by the PRC. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that there are other individuals, or incidents involving one induvidual... That Zhou Yongjun one, for example. Sorry but I can't verify everyone of them, as I simply can't access some of them via PRC network(get banned from accessing the whole WP site for like 5mins if I try to). Blodance (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One article about an incident is in the cat, but this article is the only biography in there. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this one is indeed relevant to the title of that cat, so I'd suggest keep it in atm. As of no other people in the cat, well, just that not every one executed in PRC deserve an article. Blodance (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This one could always be sorted to "execution of Akmal Shaikh" for just that one category. SGGH ping! 12:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is only a human rights issue in the eyes of the British government and its supporters. Most people are in favour of the death penalty. Putting a drug trafficker in the cat seems pro-Labour POV. Liu Xiaobo is in a subcat, he is in prison for peacefully criticising the Communist regime, something that is legal in the democratic world. Trafficking heroin is not a human right anywhere in the world. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Nah, it seems to me that when people talk about human rights ,a substantial part of them are talking about capital punishment itself, rather than the execution of this particular person, so, I'd say categorizing this as a human rights issue still sounds more NPOV, although I myself am opposed to British govt pointing its finger, and support the execution. Blodance (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not just a stance by the British government, it is a stance on ethics, morals and ultimately human rights. If a human-being is not in a fit mental state - then regardless of where they are in the world, and regardless of the crime, they must be assessed accordingly. Akmal Shaikh was not assessed despite the presentation of a plethora of evidence. This isn't a political argument - it's one of human rights. Volatileacid (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is sad that the word "human rights" has been so overused in China-Western relations that it doesn't carry any weight for the Chinese now. Do you really think that when Britain mentioned "human rights" the Chinese govnt or the Chinese ppl thought "human rights"? No! They think "Crap another one of those meaningless lectures on a bogus concept you invented as an excuse to criticise us". This might be surprising but it is true, that a normal chinese ppl will react with exasperation and disgust at that word. So the matter here should not be whether this is a human righs issue or not, but whether the chinese court and the chinese public opinion consider it a human rights issue or not, and public opinions other than of the chinese don't really have leverage in this case. (seriously, i'd say the use of the word "human rights" did more damage to the case than any other, as the Chinese might actually take it seriously if Gordon Brown did not refer to such a cliche term)awacs123
 * What is Gordon Brown on about, what human rights abuse in China? In Britain, take the de Menezes case, an innocent man was shot dead by British police. There was no evidence and no trial. In the Shaikh case, the guy was caught with 4kg of heroin, and a trial followed. In China (not uniquely the only country in the world) the law says if you are caught with so much hard drugs, you are sure to be executed. In Britain, the law says it is OK to shoot an innocent man dead, on nothing more than suspicion of terrorism, without further evidence and without trial. So please tell us which country has more respect for human rights. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This has nothing to do with human rights. He was caught with Heroin and subsequently convicted. The UK Govt seems to make a big fuss and siding with criminals. If only Gordon Brown spent more energy/effort elsewhere.... 203.218.216.98 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does this article have a human rights category and its talk page a human rights banner? Should all articles about people executed by any government have such a cat and banner? The death penalty is not really a human rights issue in China, as the vast majority of Chinese support its use. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, the public support does not make it anything less of a human right issue. To be fair, the death penalty was well established as a human right issue long before this incident, as does convicting a mentally ill person(although his mental illness is disputed). So, not categorizing it as a human right issue would sound POVish to me. And yes, I, as my own POV, found calling this a "human right issue" extremely disgusting. (We Chinese have an old proverb, "Pay back debt by money, Pay for murder by life." 4kg heroin is tantamount to mass murder.) But POV should not interfere with the article. Blodance (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Carlos and Okole, if you are real and reading this; next time drop your 4 kilos off in London. If you are caught then Gordon Brown and david Milliband will get you off. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And Gordon Brown had already tried doing a similar thing in the Laura Spence Affair. Did Oxford University reverse its ruling? No. Gordon Brown lives in his own world. 81.156.181.215 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reaction from the other China
I came here in search of a statement from the Republic of China as I've seen most of the rest in the news but have yet to see anything from Tiawan and I think the opinion of said peoples would be intresting given the relationship between the two. (Morcus (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
 * There are quite a few news on Taipei Times but no official reaction from the government. It's quite understandable though as Taiwanese generally support the death sentence, and in any case, politically there would be no point siding with either China or Britain on this issue. Laurent (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No official reaction here, actually it would be strange if there is any because this event has hardly anything to do with Taiwan. -- Anonymous Taiwan Dweller, 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.120.160.253 (talk)

Reaction
How about reaction of Britons of Pakistan origin, muslims in British and Government of Pakistan over this incident? --Saqib talk 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On the relevance of opium wars in the See also section

 * I added that link because I felt it was relevant. The opium wars were fought over the trade deficit that China enjoyed by creating an artificial demand based on addiction to drugs by those suffering from the trade deficit - i.e. Chinese goods were in high demand, but China had low external demands, therefore its goods had to be paid for dearly, in expensive silver, and not until the creation of widespread drug addiction by the foreign trading powers did the silver values flow back out of China in significant amounts. China is in a similar trade deficit situation these days, and has in the past 300 years lost many military conflicts trying to assert its internal policy against drugs and abusive free trade, being forced into signing numerous unequal treaties. Executing a EU citizen, especially a citizen of the UK with whom the opium wars were fought and lost against, is more of a message, and believe me, it is not taken lightly by either side. One cannot truly understand the depth of such a decision without the historical background. China does not want opium, and it never did in the past either, it just never had the power to assert its internal laws in face of external military threat. The opium wars page details the history, and they are very relevant.
 * While the western tradition regards individual liberties as utmost ethical values, the Chinese or eastern cultures in general are willing to sacrifice individual liberty and human rights in the name of peace, prosperity, and tight harmonious, cohesive relations between people and within a nation, even if it requires trampling on individual liberties. I personally am western, I cannot imagine my life without feeling free, or striving to be free, but I can see and acknowledge and respect how China is. China has weathered and lost to many external aggressions in the past, with responses such as isolating itself and building a Great Wall instead of counterattacking. It has never attacked a foreign entity, other than for defense reasons, with the exception of Tibet and Taiwan, whose foreign status is vehemently debated by China, and instead is considered a territorial integrity issue. Even if the present and past history of China is plagued by corruption compared to other nations, in general, the Chinese culture is the most peace loving and also the longest lasting as a coherent and continuous culture in the history of humanity so far, and deserves the highest reverence and respect for that. To question such a peace and prosperity loving nation with a credit record of no aggression, on ethics, is a sort of hypocrisy, especially by nations whose nonaggression credit record is much shorter or even zero. I personally don't believe in capital punishment, and will speak vehemently against it whenever possible, but when it comes to the Chinese, Hindus and Jews, I will not question or interfere in their internal affairs, as long as they don't interfere in mine. From my personal experience, they are each deeply disturbed by having their morals questioned, and that in itself is enough, even if they don't believe in personal liberties like I do. Sillybilly (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is highly relevant and should be included in "see also". British op-eds were the first to mention this history linking to this event. Then the Chinese embassy refered to it, thereafter British politicians practically stopped protesting. One cannot fully understand this event without knowing the context of the opium wars. --Vsion (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By convention, we do not have an additional link in the 'See also' section if an article is already linked to in the body of the text, which is the case here (in the People's Republic sub-section). Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ohconfucius - "Opium war" is already properly linked, in context, in the relevant section so there is no need to add it in the "See also" section. Also it seems a bit out of context there amongs the more general topics such as drug smuggling, capital punishment, etc. Laurent (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a whole section discussing this issue in the archive - in the end, after someone found RSs, I added a wikilink into the article. And if a wikilink is provided in the content, we usually don't add the link into See Also section too. Case closed, lets move on. :P Blodance (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I like to make myself believe that the Chinese don't actually execute all people they say they execute, just release it as news, to deter, and the people are actually imprisoned somewhere. In the US the executions are real. For things such as serial killing rapes. I don't think drug trafficking should qualify for capital punishment no matter how serious the stance of government, whether in Singapore or China. Corruption, bribery is another such crime, it's extremely hard to deter and root out, and similar tactics of news-only executions could be used, with the actual people imprisoned for a long time. They are not direct violent crimes against human life. Sillybilly (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)