Template:Did you know nominations/Kidnapping in China


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues remain, including a newly added "Kidnapping of foreign businessmen" subsection that doesn't have any real information about such kidnappings

Kidnapping in China

 * ... that since the 1980s, kidnapping in China has become a bigger issue than ever, with an estimated 70,000 children kidnapped there every year?

Created by OccultZone (talk). Self nominated at 08:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg It was nominated six days after creation. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg - I think we can let that slide this time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , it was not really 6 days, but 5 days, and few hours.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg As I said, I think that having a whole section for one incident gives it undue weight, especially in such a short article. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 11:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is removed, at least for now.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg gtg then. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is stub-sized - should be more expansive. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , expanded article, with about 185 characters. Yes the article can be expanded much more, but it can be said that it has passed the basic requirement.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 19:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg With much new materials added after the review in April, this nom needs to be re-reviewed. --PFHLai (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'm starting over with this review. The article was nominated within an acceptable time period. The content is nicely cited, the hook is very interesting (and disturbing). I don't see any problems with close paraphrasing or copyright infringement. Approved.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg This article seems to have some of the same issues that led to the failure of Template:Did you know nominations/Kidnapping in the United States. The review noted Prevalence completely ignores the kidnapping of adults (read the kidnapping article if you don't realize why this is an issue)., which is certainly true here. Furthermore, significant issues have been raised with the author's recently front-paged nomination of Child sexual abuse in Australia in a post at WT:DYK here. Until a very thorough examination of this nomination can be done, I don't think it should be approved for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , it is more about the content than it is about some editor's opinion. If you see any issue, simply write them down. Just "some of the issues" is not helpful.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The article is far, far too superficial to do the subject any justice at all. By being so grossly oversimplified, it creates a host of WP:NPOV issues, and I don't think this should be approved at this juncture even though it meets the basic requirements.It conflates old with new: Why start with 19th century (and provide a mammoth citation) if you aren't going to elaborate on it? It also lumps Hong Kong together with the PRC, where the problem is pervasive at a whole different level. I also agree with the removal of the Chiang Kai-shek kidnapping section, which is unrelated to the core subject and of a political nature. It doesn't belong at all, and as such I would disapprove of its removal marked as "temporary".Kidnapping in HK happens but is rare, and any instances immediately become very high profile. The use of the HK example is in violation of WP:UNDUE, and you might as well have chosen that well-known cases of Walter Kwok or Victor Li. Ref 6 (Global Post) and Ref 7 (Foreign Policy) are OK and more should be made of them; but Ref 5 (Livingwithdeadhearts) is a lobby group which I would not feel comfortable with as an independent RS. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , that section is gone, so there's no need to think about it anymore. There is no problem with any sources, as each of them are definitely reliable sources.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Added 2000+ bytes to the article, it includes the Law' position, and the crackdown on kidnapping.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: When I reviewed this article, I looked strictly at the DYK rules, I did not take things like scope into consideration. My question is, when addressing such a huge topic as kidnapping in China, how much is the minimum requirement for a new article DYK submission? Is it even possible, or do we have to wait until this reaches Good Article status?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that what a huge subject it is. I can see thousands of thousands results on googlebooks itself. But sometimes, we happen to read similar information in multiple sources. Concerning question, I don't know, I will ask other editor to comment. Maybe 1500 real characters(excluding section titles, lists, refs) is basic rule for all articles.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the ref for the hook, but I can see nothing there about "since the 80s" or "bigger than ever". Coupled with the concerns above, this seems a clear "no" for this DYK.Fram (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , it did, still do, but the foreignpolicy's source has been added to next line. Article is undergoing some changes, so when you were objected the hook, I was replacing the source because Ohconfucius objected it above. Still we had foreignpolicy that support the hook.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, reply to earlier version of your post)Poor source, and poor "translation" of the source. "Since at least the 1980s" means "it may have been earlier, we don't know". "Sine the 1980s" means "as compared to the 1960s and 1970s", not "we don't know". Fram (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. A new hook can be proposed.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)