Talk:Gao Rongrong

Notability
from Notability (people) Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1]

1. Press coverage

It is not in the interests of the press, young children or sensitive people for graphic pictures of torture in China to be published in mainstream newspapers. If mainstream press are not interested in having information online about such a high profile torture case its a reflection of the mainstream press and supports Ethan Gutmanns explanation of the Third Rail of Journalism. It also demonstrates that the Epoch Times has a strong focus on human rights perhaps unmatched by any mainstream newspaper.

2. Embarrassing

Because you only have to look at the before and after pictures of her face to realise what happened, the Gao Rongrong case is highly embarrassing for the government of 20% of the world's population, which spends lots of money on soft power despite being only 89th on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and having a large gap between rich and poor in China, which means that many people in China are very poor.

3. Stupidity of the people who tortured her

There are probably many ways to torture someone without leaving irrefutable evidence that someone has been tortured. Her torturers demonstrated a lack of intellect and which was compounded by her death, which increased the likelihood of interest in the case.

4. Extreme case

If anyone can find a more extreme case of someone's looks being destroyed by electric shock torture I am interested to know of the case.

5. The Omega Research foundation (one of the sources used) is a significant organisation. No one has written an article about it yet. Googling omega research foundation gives 1,240,000 results and an article could be written about it.

6. Ignore all rules. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
 * While not all these arguments are valid, I find the article is well-supported by the cited sources and notability is established. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Gao Rongrong
You reverted a sentence about the media coverage of the Falun Gong three times, against the opinions of two other editors. I can understand you may feel that this statement is a SYNTH, but actually the source cited talks extensively about the reluctance of Western media to cover these types of cases, and the quote by Ethan Gutmann provides relevant context. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read - WP:COATRACK. STSC (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with WP:COATRACK, and that's not much of a response. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @STSC The heading you edited under is Media Coverage. So its appropriate that Ethan Gutmann's explanation of the taboo in the journalism community about Falun Gong is mentioned or explained. This would seem to be an area for expansion of this article. Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's coatracking because this article is about Gao Rongrong but you're talking about media coverage of Falun Gong. STSC (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @STSC The heading is Gao Rongrong. First 2 sentences show media coverage of her story is poor. The third sentence which you want to delete is pointing out this isn't an isolated.
 * WP:COATRACK says "This page in a nutshell: Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing", which doesn't apply in this case. So I think you misunderstand what a Coatrack is. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)