Talk:Liu Qiangdong

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liu Qiangdong. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831000018/http://hurun.net/EN/HuList.aspx to http://hurun.net/EN/HuList.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * B-liu-a-20180904.jpg

Mugshot
Should Liu's mugshot be included in this article? According to WP:MUG, Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. Accordingly, the mugshot does not belong in the infobox, where it is "out of context". However, I don't see a problem with including it in the relevant section of the article. Thoughts?  Λυδ α  cιτγ  04:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is clearly disparaging under any circumstances and anywhere in the article. In my view, it likewise presents the person in a false light until and unless he is convicted. Fortunately, the photo has been blacklisted for now. Bongo  matic  05:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, blacklisted when/how?  Λυδ α  cιτγ  05:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I blacklisted it because we don't put mugshots of living people in articles unless it's relevant to the article. In this case, it's not, because Liu has never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.  As the only free image we have, it can't be used anywhere in the article at the moment.  It has been nominated for deletion at Commons, but it will be kept there because most Commons editors couldn't give a **** about whether we should display something, only if we can. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the mugshot to the relevant section (not infobox) twice (this and this). I also don't see any problem with doing so. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned on WP:BLP it's a violation of WP:MUG so probably best to leave it out. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed." It does not prohibit using mugshots, but only prohibits using them "out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". In this case, WP:MUG might be interpreted that the mugshot of Liu Qiangdong cannot be used in infobox, but it does not mean that the mugshot cannot be used in the relevant section. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neo-Jay, your interpretation of WP:MUG is rather narrow, and I would think not within the mainstream. I don't see how the plain language of the policy distinguishes between the use of that photo in an infobox versus elsewhere in the article (and if you think it's because of the phrase "out of context", I think you're missing the import of that phrase in the context of the policy&mdash;it appears to me to refer to the context of the photograph, not the context of the photograph within the article). The nascent discussion of this at WP:BLPN supports my interpretation. You could investigate this further with an inquiry at WT:BLP or WT:NPOV if you want to solicit more views. Bongo  matic  17:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bongomatic, is your interpretation of WP:MUG that the mugshot should not be used until and unless he is convicted? The plain language of WP:MUG states that images of living persons should not be used to "present a person in a false or disparaging light". A mugshot only indicates the person is arrested, and does not indicate that he or she is convicted or charged. So using a mugshot for a person who is arrested and not convicted or charged does not present a person in a false or disparaging light, and does not violate WP:MUG. If the "text" about the arrest (not conviction or charge) can be included in the article, the "photo" about the arrest (not conviction or charge), i.e., the mugshot, can also be included in the place where the text is, i.e., the relevant section, because the photo reveals the same fact as the text. Using a mugshot in infobox for a person who is not primarily famous for his or her arrest would give undue weight to the article, and is, IMHO, what "used out of context" in WP:MUG means.--Neo-Jay (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned previously, the consensus of (the small number of) editors and administrators who have reviewed the situation is that your interpretation is outside of the mainstream. If you wish to solicit broader views, please do so. Your statement that "a mugshot only indicates that the person is arrested" is an assertion about what what happens inside the heads of people other than yourself, and I think it is an inaccurate assertion at that. Bongo  matic  11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The opinion of a small number of editors and administrators cannot be automatically seen as the mainstream. Wikipedia defines "mug shot" as a photographic portrait of a person ... taken after a person is arrested (not convicted). Wiktionary also defines "mug shot" as a photograph ... taken in conjunction with somebody's arrest (not conviction). I don't think that any English dictionary would define "mugshot" as a photo for a person who is convicted. How can a reasonable person think that a mugshot indicates that this person is convicted? If the statement that "a mugshot indicates that the person is convicted" is an assertion about what happens inside the heads of people other than yourself, I think it is an inaccurate assertion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point that the evidence so far doesn't prove that my view is the mainstream is correct, and one that I agree with. All I'm saying is that the limited evidence so far suggests that it is. As I have recommended before (this is the third time), if you want to test the hypothesis, there are places to do it. Here, your view has been rejected. By all means, solicit wider input at the appropriate forum. This is my last comment on this in the current setting per WP:STICK. Bongo  matic  12:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the limited evidence can even suggest that your view is the mainstream. I do not have to go to other places to achieve consensus. The consensus can be achieved here. Although administrator Black Kite seems to blacklist the mugshot for now, I don't think that the decision is the final judgment and should block any further discussion here. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest it might be time to accept that consensus disagrees with inclusion of this image on this page at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:STICK? You need to put yours down. Nothing good comes of attempting to win content disputes by exhausting the opposition, trust me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:STICK, and I don't think that the discussion here "has come to a natural end". Why do you think that WP:STICK is relevant here? And on what ground do you think that "consensus disagrees with inclusion of this image on this page at this time"? --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Three different editors have come up to you and explained why your inclusion is inappropriate under WP:MUG while nobody has come forward to support you. There's no new discussion just back and forth that could be summarized as "no, you." But it's pretty clear the mug shot won't be included on the page, so it's all kind of just wasting people's time to keep arguing about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, two different editors (including me) think that the mugshot can be included in the relevant section. And achieving consensus is not voting. You, as one of the three editors you mentioned above, unfortunately have not provided any specific reason why WP:MUG should be interpreted as not including the mugshot in the relevant section in this article. And no other editor has explained why using a mugshot, which does not indicate that the person is charged or convicted, in the relevant section presents a person in a false or disparaging light. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, we provided clear policy reasons why to exclude the photo, you chose not to listen. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you did not. No one did. It would be great if you could explain why you think that a mugshot indicates that the person is convicted or charged. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A mugshot depicts someone as a criminal, and intentionally does so&mdash;it's as simple and as obvious as that. You can tell from all kinds of reporting and other uses of mugshots and simulated mugshots that this is the case. For example, photoshopped or posed mugshots used humorously suggest that the subject was caught doming something illegal or wrong. Fundamentally, a photo of someone in prison garb (whether a mugshot or otherwise) has undue weight, which is why other editors and admins here disagree with your narrow interpretation of "context" (and seeming lack of comprehension of the applicability of "false or disparaging"). Why this is the case is a question for sociologists or psychologists. But the fact that this is the case seems to be obvious to most. Bongo  matic  00:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Naively thought the explicit request for explanation was sincere. Bowing out (again) per WP:STICK. Bongo   matic  04:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of a mugshot, which is taken after the person is arrested and does not mean that he or she is a criminal. O. J. Simpson was found not guilty in his murder case, but his mugshot is used in the relevant section of Wikipedia article "O. J. Simpson". I don't see any problem with that. Do you? If a person is arrested by the police and then found completely innocent by the court, using this person's mugshot is not claiming that this person is a bad guy and should have been convicted, but is only revealing the (unfortunate) fact that he or she has once been (wrongly) arrested. It is obvious that the news reports using Liu Qiangdong's mugshot only say that Liu was arrested, and do not depict him as a criminal or intentionally do so (see, e.g., CNN report, FoxNews report, etc.). How could a reasonable person think that those news reports present Liu in a false or disparaging light by using this mugshot? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of knowledge, not a parody website for humorous purpose. Using a mugshot in Wikipedia should be like using it in serious news media. So those "photoshopped or posed mugshots used humorously" are not relevant here. As I put above, the mugshot reveals the same fact as the relevant text in the Wikipedia article, which is about the arrest, not conviction or charge. If the text can be included, so can the mugshot (in the relevant section).--Neo-Jay (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Richard Liu.jpg