Talk:Qin Gang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Face the Nation interview[edit]

Qin Gang's interview with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation got a lot of coverage in WP:RS, particularly the part she asked why China didn't condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said, "Don't be naive... condemnation doesn't solve the problem," and they would continue to promote peace talks.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/qin-gang-chinese-ambassador-face-the-nation-03-20-2022/

Transcript: Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Qin Gang on "Face the Nation," March 20, 2022

--Nbauman (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forced?[edit]

@JArthur1984: - Regarding this edit; I grant that sources aren't explicitly using this term, but I'm curious what kind of disappearance you think this is, if it's not a "forced" one. NickCT (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how we would characterize it, but how the sources do. As the next subsection explains, he was removed from office shortly thereafter. Keep in mind that "disappearance" without any further explanation suggests that someone is a "missing person." It is clearer and consistent with the sources to say "Disappearance from public life" (BBC: "About a month ago, he had disappeared from his normal duties"), (Quartz: "Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang, who disappeared from public appearances for a month amid a series of high-level diplomatic meetings, has officially been sacked").
It is important not to get ahead of ourselves or the sources in speculating on these matters. Wikipedia is Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. I am reminded of the flurry of weak reporting when Hu Jintao was removed from the 20th Congress, only for him to "reappear" shortly thereafter as part of Jiang Zemin's funeral committee and in public at the funeral. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JArthur1984: - There are sources that characterize him as missing, right? He can have disappeared from public life and have disappeared completely. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Do you know where he is?
I'm sure Qin will reappear. That doesn't mean his current status isn't "disappeared". NickCT (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization from that source of “missing” is in the headline, and the polices require our edits be supported from the body of news articles, not the headlines. I quoted
Either “Missing…” or “Disappear…” are fine ways to begin the heading, but if that’s the language we use, then to avoid departing into conjecture or confusing readers, the second part has to be something supported by the sources, like “…from public life” or “… from public appearances” or “… from normal duties.” JArthur1984 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I guess “missing” wouldn’t be appropriate based on that headline but I suspect there would be another source available that would say he’s been missing from public appearances or public life.
the key is to qualify it as the sources do and not get ahead of ourselves - namely to specify that his absence/disappearance was from public life/his normal duties, etc.
there is no sourcing to suggest he is “missing” or “disappeared” in the sense of a “missing person” and we do not want to confuse readers JArthur1984 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JArthur1984: I'm finding your point really hard to follow. Yes lots of sources say he has disappeared from public view. But a lot of sources say he's simply disappeared. Here are some :
You understand that "disappearing from public view" and being "disappeared" or "a missing person" are not mutually exclusive, right? If I say "Mary disappeared from the classroom", that doesn't mean Mary is not a "missing person". You're right that Qin's disappearance is a little different from a normal missing person. That's b/c it was obviously a forced disappearance. But you seem to be against using that language.
I'd imagine that you might argue a kidnapped person is not missing, b/c the kidnappers know where the person is. That's not really a defensible kind of logic. NickCT (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to re-phrase my position.
The basic principles are: we strive for precision in articles, including in headings. We also must avoid OR and Synth and track what the sources support according to their weight.
Applying these principles here:
"Disappearance" as a one word heading is not appropriate. It gives our readers a sense that a person is nowhere to be found, or is a missing person. For example, that we have a disambiguation page for "Disappeared," which includes Missing persons. Another disambiguation page refers to "Disappear" in reference to a forced disappearance.
What the sources support as to Qin Gang is that he has disappeared from public view, or from his normal duties. It is important to specify as as not to give the impression that he has disappeared in the sense of a missing person.
You cite Politico. The Politico article makes this clear consistent with how I have edited: "Qin had been missing from public view for more than three weeks..."
You cite NPR. The NPR articles makes this clear consistent with how I have edited: "He disappeared from public view"
You cite the Guardian. The Guardian article does take a different approach to clarifying the issue: "The fact that after Tuesday’s meeting Qin remains on the State Council, China’s top administrative body, has only added to the confusion about his fate, as it suggests he has not been completely purged."
And the two sources currently in the article:
BBC: "About a month ago, he had disappeared from his normal duties"
Quartz: "Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang, who disappeared from public appearances for a month amid a series of high-level diplomatic meetings, has officially been sacked"
Any of the following would be fine headings if you want to use "disappearance" or "missing":
"Disappearance from normal duties"
"Disappearance from public appearances"
"Disappearance from public view"
"Disappearance from public life"
Or a similar formulation. The key is to include a phrase that does not give the reader a mistaken impression that Qin is a disappeared or missing person in the typical sense of the term. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep pointing out that lots of sources use the "from public view" language. I thought I made it clear above that I already accepted that that was true. I don't know why you keep pressing the point. Do you understand my point about "disappearing from public view" and simply "disappearing" not being mutaully exclusive? I'm confused why you think sources saying he's "disappeared from public view" are right, and why sources saying he's just "disappeared" are wrong.
Let's look at it this way; here's a story that says a woman "disappeared from her Southern California home". Could we use this source to talk about this woman's "disappearance", or would you insist on talking about her "disappearance from her SoCal home"?
Your percision point makes no sense, because saying "disappeared from XXXX" misses the point that the person has also disappeared entirely. NickCT (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Qin-related sources do not go so far as to say Qin has disappeared entirely. That is the whole misapprehension we want to avoid. In fact, one of the sources you posted here observes that he continues to hold his position on the State Council.
Let's see if anyone else joins the discussion. And if not, we can seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion if an impasse remains. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "Qin-related sources do not go so far as to say" - That's a mind boggling statement. I've pointed to half a dozen sources that say simply "he disappeared". What does that mean?
You're not even acknowledging the basic point that "disappearing" and "disappearing from public view" are not mutually exclusive. Can you at least admit that someone can both disappear from public and completely disappear? NickCT (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Disappearance" or "Disappearance from public view"[edit]

There's been a debate in the section above about the subsection about Qin's disappearance should be titled simply "Disappearance" or something like "Disappearance from public view". Here are couple proposed options for titles.

  • Option A : "Disappearance"
  • Option B : "Forced disappearance"
  • Option C : "Disappearance from normal duties"
  • Option D : "Disappearance from public appearances"
  • Option E : "Disappearance from public view"
  • Option F : "Disappearance from public life"

Please weigh-in below on what you think the best option(s) would be or propose your own alternative. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support B, then A - As nom; it's pretty obvious this guy has been forcibly disappeared. That said, not many source use that language. Sources seem split between saying he's "missing", "disappeared" or some version of "missing/disappeared from public". Some 50 cent army types would argue that "disappearing from public life" is somehow meaningfully different from simply "disappearing". The reality is, using "... from public life" a simple attempt to euphemize a forced disappearance. If essentially no one knows where you are, you have disappeared. We should be concise and precise and either say "forced disappearance" or simply "disappearance". NickCT (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any of C-F, firmly oppose A or B The reliable sources characterize Qin as having "disappeared from his normal duties" or "from public life" and so forth. For a specific breakdown of how sources use this important qualification, see the prior topic on this talk page where I list them individually. It is important to track the sources and avoid WP:OR or SYNTH. We want to be careful in our phrasing to avoid giving the unsupported impression that Qin is a missing person or "forcibly disappeared" -- as opposed to having been politically sidelined and then removed from some (but not yet even all!) of his positions. The sources do not support a conclusion like an unqualified "Disappearence," much less a "forced disappearance." JArthur1984 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that because this is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is another reason to be cautious and not go beyond what the sources support. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending my response to say that I now strongly favor @Mx. Granger's suggestion as best of all -- simply combining this with the subsequent subheading for removal from the foreign ministry post. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support C – F, oppose A and B When a high-ranking politician is going to be removed from their post, they "disappear" from the public in the weeks leading up to the official announcement, as their boss is searching for a replacement and formalizing their separation. As I pointed out in NickCT's talk page, this is not unique to China. In the US, for example, before Rex Tillerson and John Bolton were fired, the press was reporting on how they were absent from certain meetings and foreign policy missions. That did not make them "missing people" or victims of some shady plot by the GOP to "disappear" insubordinate members. We would all agree that this is common sense and applies to Qin, except since it's happening in China with the "CCP," people want to read into it too much. This happens every few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:C86:4E00:4517:2B97:E05D:DEA5 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) — 2A02:AB88:C86:4E00:4517:2B97:E05D:DEA5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2A02:AB88:C86:4E00:4517:2B97:E05D:DEA5 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support C-F When in doubt, sticking to what is supported in the sources is best. A and B are on the opposite ends of the spectrum: A is too vague and B adds a little much color. C-F fall somewhere in the middle (descriptive of the facts without embellishment). Theoretice (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess vague is better than inaccurate. He hasn't just disappeared from a single place. He's disappeared entirely. NickCT (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support C - F - Following the expressions used most often by RSs spares us the need to go into too much politics with this. By the OP's own admission options A and B are rarely used by sources, so I don't see why we should give them priority over the others ones. PraiseVivec (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Own admission? I said "B" wasn't frequently used, and that sources were "split" between A and the others. NickCT (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A - per NickCT Sources seem split between saying he's "missing", "disappeared" or some version of "missing/disappeared from public". "Disappearing from public life" is not meaningfully different from simply "disappearing" if his whereabouts are unknown. The reality is, using "... from public life" a simple attempt to euphemize a forced disappearance. If essentially no one knows where you are, you have disappeared. We should be concise and precise Sources don't seem to use 'forced' but it is clear the guy is wholly unavailable - unexplained is often used as an adjective. On balance, the clearest and simplest descriptor - without resorting to euphemism - is simply "disappearance". Pincrete (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A key part of what you write is, “if his whereabouts are unknown.”
    What is the best RS you are aware of to support the view that Qin’s whereabouts are unknown?
    No source has been presented yet that goes that far. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • E, second choice D, third F, oppose A and C, strongly oppose B No evidence of force so far. Disappearance seems too strong given that the only information available is that he has not appeared in public. He has not just disappeared from his duties, but from public view. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's sourced is that he disappeared from public view after falling out of the CCCP's "good graces". I really struggle to understand what kind of disappearance a reasonable person thinks that is. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support F. Given the lack of adequate sourcing for 'forced disappearance' - a very strong claim - we can't go with that. We don't base article content on our own speculations. F seems most reasonable to me, given what the sources have to say, though I don't find C, D or E objectionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose B - I agree, reading this article, [1] where it talks about censorship of Netizens who discuss his disappearance, suggests something... well, really bad. But put that kind of content in the article instead, as it can be sourced. He no longer has his position, hasn't spoken, discussion is censored... the sources paint the picture but do not make direct claims, we can paint the picture to - but not make direct claims. Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Trust me, I totally get frustrated when I can't just type out the super-obvious thing because the sources think it's so obvious they don't bother saying it! Denaar (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • F first choice followed by A or E then D then C. Oppose B. As others have said, there doesn't seem to be sources sufficiently supporting forced disappearance. Instead what we mostly have is editor OR. This is highly problematic since forced disappearance is sort of a term of art, which doesn't seem to apply to this particular circumstance. Notably, it generally means the person has disappeared from all public life with even their family having no definite idea where they are other than educated guesses; and very often by the time it's clear it's a forced disappearance the person has been murdered. There seems to be good reason to think this isn't the case here, AFAICT, it's not even clear whether he's out of contact with his family or they're just keeping quiet because they know they have to. In other words, while there's a high degree of totalitarian state control including coercion and force, it does not fit the general meaning of the term forced disappearance. This is probably why sources are not generally using the term. The idea that any disappearance which is "forced" is a forced disappearance is a classic etymological fallacy. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support F, then E - I think the current framing "disappeared from public life" is the most accurate description of the situation, and "disappeared/vanished from public view" appears to be the one most widely used by reliable sources including USA Today, NPR, CNBC, FT, and CNN. Also this page was added to "Enforced disappearances in China" -- that's not accurate (especially looking at others in the category) & should be removed (Per OHCHR enforced disappearance "is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law" - current publicly available information doesn't present sufficient evidence about Qin's case to meet this definition. W9793 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the "Enforced disappearances in China" category. At this point it is supported neither by the article, nor by consensus. Therefore I have removed it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all This guy got fired from a high level job. That is not a "forced disappearance" or anything like it, according to the actual evidence now available. Summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say, and do not add any unreferenced speculation or inferences. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine with the "Removal from office" subsection, as this is part of the same chain of events. If we must use one of these options, option F is the best choice. Option A seems to imply that he's a missing person, option B is unsourced as far as I can tell, options C and E seem to suggest unsourced implications (is he still active in abnormal duties? Is he still active behind the scenes but not in "public view"?), and option D is awkwardly phrased. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded earlier on Talk within the framework of the listed options, but this is the best approach of all. I suspect the subsections developed separately because each was a result of a different news cycle (i.e., one for having not appeared in the usual duties, and another news cycle when he was actually removed from the foreign ministry post). JArthur1984 (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qin_Gang&oldid=1204423671"