Talk:Wu Guanzheng

Indicted for Genocide
If an official has been indicted for Genocide, I see no reason why that information and the number of other officials also indicted for Genocide in the same case shouldn't be included in their article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The FLG spammed lawsuits everywhere, and a judge in Spain with absolutely no jurisdiction picked it up. This is inappropriate content as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP policies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

copied from the jia qinglin page, but we can probably just keep the discussion to one page. "can you explain precisely how this information violates either of those policies? simply 1) dismissing the material because the judge has no jurisdiction over China, and 2) referring to the policies, does not therefore mean that the material violates those policies. thanks" Happy   monsoon  day   03:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLP:

Avoid victimization[edit] Policy shortcut: WP:AVOIDVICTIM When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.


 * In this case we have a religious organization that deliberately pursued pernicious lawsuits against perceived foes specifically to smear their name with indictment for trials which everybody knows will never happen - to use that as part of the person's bio is specifically playing into the pattern of victimization the religious organization is trying to perpetuate. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * He was one of the major leaders of the Communist Party of China during the administration of Hu Jintao, mayor of Wuhan and governor of Jiangxi. So "noteworthy only for one or two events" doesn't apply. If you look at the edit history Ohconfucius doesn't seem to have a problem with the indictment being mentioned as he put it back in 3 minutes after removing it. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

i see. you are arguing that 1) the information is trivial because the courts have no jurisdiction, and 2) the purpose of the lawsuits was pernicious and meant to smear their reputation, which 3) therefore makes these officials victims of flg's propaganda. right? and we shouldn't keep perpetuating their victimhood? this is a very novel argument. in any case, your key policy locus for this argument is a violation of the wp:blp policy. given that i am new to this area and have no wish to get into the old disputes (i've read through the arb stuff and talk pages. what a mess) i think it will be simplest to go to the blp noticeboard with this and see what people who regularly deal with blp issues think. thanks. Happy   monsoon  day   18:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So we got a clarification from a user on WP:BLP that supports removing the "indicted for genocide" bit. If I go ahead and pull it back out are you going to challenge? Simonm223 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the stance of the Falun Gong to work towards the downfall of the Communist Party. This appears to manifest in the strategy where they would target any PRC official who they think may have a connection with this or that crime, then they bring their cases to court in countries which have systems loose enough to allow this abuse even though the country doesn't have any jurisdiction in international law although the Falun Gong know there is a greater chance in hell freezing over. It's transparent then that such actions are a part of the Falun Gong propaganda campaign.
 * wikipedia is not a forum. in any case, i agree with the general thrust: of course their bringing the suits, when they know it wont result in a conviction or anything, is part of a propaganda or publicity campaign, aimed to show that they're innocent and these officials are bad. etc. i dont really care about that, as such, and the relation of this material to flg's publicity efforts has little to do with our role as encyclopedists (unless we consider it part of our job to struggle against flg's propaganda efforts qua those efforts...) the general argument for inclusion is the basic notability question: is it notable and significant? yes, and yes. flg also uses the fact that it's persecuted by the ccp as part of its public campaigning. expunge all that too for that reason? its just a pretty dumb, dead-end form of logic.
 * in this particular instance, i think the sentence should be qualified by saying that the court lacks jurisdiction, or similar qualification, and be crisply noted.
 * for bo xilai and maybe jiang, a little more may be warranted given that tibetans brought suit against jiang (in a similar manner to the flg), and the suits against bo, in particular, became diplomatic issues in both australia and the united states (so much for 'systems loose enough to allow this abuse'...). Again, i am for crisply noting this information and then moving on. and in general, i think our arguments and judgements should revolve around policy and stuff, rather than whatever the fuck we think the falun gong is up to. Happy   monsoon  day   21:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * in the end neither the victimization issue nor the criminal issue in the blp policy explained why this info was irrelevant, and the best we got was that it could be used for a soapbox. yeah, my dog could be used for a soapbox, i guess. point is that it's appeared in a lot of places and its a rather notable event. i think, however, that it's important to clarify the legal context - i.e., it's not a ruling that is likely to result in a conviction. Happy   monsoon  day   18:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)