Talk:Akmal Shaikh/Archive 3

Change title and emphasis

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shaikh is not notable; but his execution is. I suggest that the page is retitled Execution of Akmal Shaikh and much of the bio material be removed. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. It's true that only his execution is notable; however I think the bio material should stay unless it's clearly unsourced. Laurent (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The title change is good. However, since much of the argument against execution was based on purported mental illness, background information should be kept (99.241.169.146 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment: Is he notable for anything else, such as his businesses or previous offences? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the individual is not notable beyond this event. SGGH ping! 23:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, although not in support of wholesale slashing of background information. The reader needs a good sense of the individual's background to more fully understand the issue of his execution. JBarta (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are now considerable media coverage on Shaikh's background. The topic extends beyond the lethal injection and post-execution reaction. The crime, his past behavior, financial problems, psychological history are essential parts of this topic.--Vsion (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Execution of X" -type names should be reserved for articles like Execution of Saddam Hussein, where the actual act of execution is the focus.  This is not the case here, as the article is nearly entirely about Shaikh's culpability (or lack thereof) for drug smuggling, and the lethal injection is nearly incidental.  Other articles about executed drug smugglers use their names, see eg Johannes van Damme, Shanmugam Murugesu, Van Tuong Nguyen. Jpatokal (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the article is about the event of execution itself, then a move is appropriate. However, as readers need some background info of him, and he does not deserve seperate articles for his bio & execution(like Saddam Hussein) - essentially making this article sound more like a bio than an article describing an event only, the title change would seem strange. Blodance (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was notable before his death, and had an article named after him then. He hasn't become less notable since then, and in any case notability is not temporary. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no problem with broadening the title, for example to Prosecution and execution of Akmal Shaikh or similar and this, obviously can include backgroumnd details on him. Simply. this seems a case of being notable for one event and he is not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply As stated by Jpatokal above, "Execution of X" is usually used for people that have separate articles for their bio and execution, where the article of "Execution of X" focuses solely on the event of execution itself. There's plenty of precedents that articles about notable drug smugglers executed used the subject's name, see the See Also section(atm), or the links provided by Jpatokal above. Blodance (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think for user-friendly sake it is better to keep the title as Akmal Shaikh, after all, the first instinct of readers would be search for Akmal Shaikh, not his execution. Besides, searching Execution of Akmal Shaikh will redirect you to the execution section anyways. As a reader, in addition to the event of his execution (which I believe is explained in the execution section in great details already) the background of him as a person is of much greater importance. Kesaer (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

First EU national to be executed in 50 years or 60
There seem to be two references in the article both stating different numbers of years. The first at the top says 60 years, and the second 50 years. Can someone please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.166.102 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The observation is correct, however the first reference says "nearly 60 years" and the second says "over 50 years", so technically it's still correct, although a little odd to look at. --222.155.162.229 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The last European national to be executed in PRC was Antonio Riva and that was in 1951, 58 years ago. So yes, both "nearly 60 years" and "over 50 years" are correct. Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian Q&A states unequivocally that there is doubt over whether this assertion can be proven: "''How often are foreigners executed?

According to Reprieve, Akmal Shaikh could be the first national from a European Union country to be executed in China in decades. But with few public records, this is hard to confirm. ''" Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible that at some point between Riva and Shaikh's executions, another person from an EU country had been executed in China without the media ever knowing. A person who has no friends or job and has had no contact with any family members for years would not be missed; no-one would try searching the world for him. I think it likely that the Chinese authorities would try, convict and execute such a person who was found with a large amount of drugs without telling the authorities of his country. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Drink-driving
This article used to contain info about Shaikh being convicted of drink-driving in Poland; I believe one of the Polish news articles was used as a source. Is there info in there, or elsewhere, saying he was convicted? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Online polls
The public reaction section currently includes info of online polls. Online polls are generally not considered RS. Well-published offline surveys are. Maybe they should be removed? Blodance (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm... I understand your concern, the first reference was from a newspaper article that cited the polls so I think it should be fine. But the second survey result was cited several times by multiple newspaper articles (the results were slightly different depend on the time of retrieval) so I added a direct link to the poll itself to make it more consistent and easier to refer to. What do you guys think? Kesaer (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I would avoid online polls that are not enforced to be representative, as they will not give a balanced "public" view unless they are so. YouGov style polls and surverys should be fine though, if they actually do represent the "public" rather than a segment of it. --Taelus (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I think if this poll result was cited by newspapers it should be reliable, after all, I could just cite the newspaper for the same effect.Kesaer (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I for one will not use online polls here in this particular case. Think further into the whole thing - Chinese netizens tend to be the younger generations. The majority of them are between like 16~40, and the vast majority of these young people are not that interested in politics. Those who would vote in such polls are generally those who are either interested in politics, or ardent patriots, or both. As a result, they might simply voted support in support of their own state. Additionally, as Chinese media reported this incident using incentive titles like "China can say 'no' to Britain", they are more likely to vote in support of Shaikh's execution. Note the significant difference between the results of offline survey and online poll - I think it would prolly be better to take this into consideration.
 * Of course, the opinion above is OR, and there's nothing wrong with citing a newspaper, but when we write an article about a controversial topic, I personally would like to take greater care. In any case, I mean merely to express my own opinion. It's up to your choice, mate. Blodance (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blodance, online surveys are always susceptible to sampling bias - only internet users can vote, but nonetheless it represent the opinion of a particular group of Chinese people, albeit a very specific group. So I think the correct thing to do here is to present this survey as representative of the opinions of Chinese netizens and only Chinese netizens, after all, they are a very influential group in the Chinese society and their voice should be heard too. Kesaer (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if they are properly attributed to the netizens of China, I've no objections.
 * But I still won't do that myself - actually it would be extremely surprising if less than 95% of them supported. When it comes that China is one of the "belligerents" in any given incident, online polls tend to get that result. Blodance (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)