Talk:Judicial system of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judicial independence[edit]

What do outside observers say about the independence of China's judiciary? In this radio program, one environmental activist claims that a judge in one of her cases was under strong pressure from the local government. This article implies that this does not happen. -- Beland (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


In it's current form, it is cut-and-pasted from the uncritical, state-run

If anyone has read academic sources on the topic such as Randall Peerenboom's books from Cambridge University Press, please contribute to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spieragastini (talkcontribs) 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Page needs work indeed[edit]

This is certainly among the longest article I have found on Wikipedia that cites no references. Moreover, it would appear that the lede is largely plagiarized from Chinese government websites[1] (unless this is a weird feedback loop, which I doubt). I am going to clean some of that up, and in the coming days will aim to propose a reorganization of the page. Any suggestions on sources or other aspects of this project would be greatly appreciated (I will slack off if left alone).Homunculus (duihua) 06:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging Court system of the People's Republic of China with this article.[edit]

Proposal: Court system of the People's Republic of China should be merged into this article, as the content of the articles is similar, and also this is a more suitable title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Many of these top-importance Chinese law articles need a great deal of work, and (at a most pragmatic level), such a merge can help reduce the workload a bit. Also agree that this title is more appropriate, as it encompasses the court system but can also be understood a bit more broadly.. Homunculus (duihua) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Done! -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed the plagiarism problem as well, fixed the lede and planned on fixing the rest, but wasn't bold enough to just delete all the copied material. I'll try to re-prioritize this page.Homunculus (duihua) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a certain wretched irony in the fact that there are hundreds of scholars of the Chinese judicial system (Westerners, proficient in the English language) who are busy publishing obscure treatises in select journals about arcane aspects of their field of study, but who never took the time to see to it that one of the most widely consulted sources on the topic, by non-specialists at least, was in any way useful to the world. Such are the incentives of the modern academy. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that the rest of the body seems to have been copied from this source. Wayback confirms that they have had it since 2005 ([2]). I can't find any sign that this was already present on Wikipedia at that time, say in another article. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! (unless it was actually original Wikipedia content recycled by the other site). Either way delete. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)