This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, realise, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards and prizes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.
"The decision drew not unanimous praise from intellectuals and politicians in China and around the world, but was bitterly attacked by the Chinese Government. "
I removed this sentence so it can be checked and repaired. It does not seem credible to me.
The decision probably drew near (not "not") unanimous praise from intellectuals around the world but I expect that most politicians in China, if they approved of the award, would have kept quiet.
Will someone else please look at this? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did insert the qualifier, based on criticisms which exist and which are detailed in the body of the article, for example from Geim and Novoselov. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'not credible'. Is it the construction you have an issue with, perhaps? --Ohconfucius¡digame! 22:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It should probably be worded as "The decision drew near unanimous praise from intellectuals and politicians around the world and some praise from such in China, but was bitterly attacked by the Chinese Government." Does that work better? SilverserenC 22:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose using the wording "all but unanimous". All but means "very nearly". __meco (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, either would be better than 'not unanimous'. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. "Not credible" might have been be too strong. I said that because I was amazed to read that politicians in China were strongly in support of the award. Based on my limited knowledge of the matter, opposition from the Chinese government was a foregone conclusion. Given this, it would seem remarkably brave for any Chinese politician to praise the award.
As for "praise from intellectuals and politicians" elsewhere in the world", saying it was "near unanimous" or "all but unanimous" or a similar wording suggests to me that a strong majority of intellectuals and politicians around the world expressed praise. I'm reasonably sure that a great majority of the "intellectuals and politicians around the world" did not express any opinion on the matter. Rather than possibly straying into exaggeration and hyperbole, how about the wording: "The decision drew strong praise from many intellectuals and politicians around the world including some in China. The award was bitterly attacked by the Chinese Government."
Wanderer, while I understand your point that the vast majority of intellectuals didn't give public statements on the award, I think the salient issue is the nearly universal support from those who did go on record. But you're right too that the sentence, by implying wide support from politicians within the PRC, is potentially misleading. The points of emphasis should be (i) nearly unanimous support amongst intellectuals (ii) widespread support from politicians and (iii) opposition by PRC govt. With this is mind, how does the following work for everybody:
The decision was widely praised by intellectuals and politicians but bitterly attacked by the Chinese Government.
I think that conveys the majority view without slipping into hyperbole. Thoughts?Spinner145 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I do think keeping it simple like that would be the most neutral way to go about it. SilverserenC 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Spinner145's version is an improvement over what I saw initially. It seems to me that the points about 1) praise from around the world and 2) praise from some (very brave) people in the PRC are both worth including.
I won't amend the article; I leave that to someone closer to the subject than I am.
Thanks for all the discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems we are coming full circle again with this last suggestion. Whilst I would agree that there appears to be fairly widespread support from those who have gone on record, there are also some prominent voices other than the propaganda department that disagree with the award to Liu. I had attempted to capture this with my 'not unanimous' qualification in the lead, feeling this was necessary for the lead to adequately summarise the contents of the body. I will solicit comments from one or two other editors who have helped me in the past with WP:NPOV issues. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 03:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's actually a more tricky situation than first appears, and would need a bit more than a sentence re-jig to sort out. Doing a Google search for "Liu Xiaobo unanimous support" shows that there are notable pockets of unanimous or "near unanimous" support around the world, particularly from politicians: , , but also that there are pockets of disagreement from political dissenters within China - . I note that the main body of the article does cover in detail the domestic and international reactions - though I'm not sure if the complaints by a few of the local dissidents that Liu Xiaobo is too "soft" is present in the article.
The current situation, in which the line has been cut entirely from the lead, is inappropriate, as the main content of the article is the domestic and international reaction, which reliable sources report has been considerable support in face of hostile displeasure by the Chinese government. Indeed, my anecdotal experience of the event, is that the media was reporting rather more on the reactions to the award than on the reason for the award. The media also found it interesting that the recipient was imprisoned, and his wife was under house arrest. The Charter 08 manifesto gets very little mention! I will reinstate a version of the sentence, as it is better to have mention of the main aspect of this topic, than nothing at all, and then people can gradually edit it to find a better wording. SilkTork *YES! 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Work needs doing in case of a challenge to GA listing
I think the article would benefit from the lead section being built up. The nature of the domestic and international reaction to the award is long and complex, and more of that needs to be in the lead. Also, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to have a section in the article on why he was given the award. There is barely a mention of Charter 08 in the article. Also, I can't see a reference to the citation. The article is admirably detailed on the international reaction, but gives us little on Liu Xiaobo, little on the work he did to be given the award, his imprisonment for that work, and the Nobel citation. Coverage is far from broad enough for GA listing, and the lead fails WP:Lead. Someone could challenge this as a GA. However, I don't think it would require too much work to put these things right, and I'll see if I can help out. SilkTork *YES! 12:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)