Talk:Ai Weiwei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

confusing sentences[edit]

"His father was Chinese poet Ai Qing, who was denounced during the Cultural Revolution and in 1958 sent to a labor camp in Xinjiang with his wife, Gao Ying."

This sentence is confusing because it seems that Ai Qing was sent to a labor camp because of the Cultural Revolution. The CR took place from 1966 to 1976. When somebody was detained in 1958 that was because he participated in the "Hundert Flower" movement (baihua qifang - baijia zhengming)in allusion to the many schools of thought in ancient China. That campaign was suppressed by the Anti-Rightist campaign in 1957, that Mao launched after heavy intellectual uproar - and that was the reason why Ai Weiwei's father was detained in 1958.


the following is confusing, what is quoted material and what isn't?

He has since distanced himself from the project, saying, ""I've already forgotten about it. I turn down all the demands to have photographs with it," saying it is part of a "pretend smile" of bad taste.[2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.17.48 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ai Weiwei had emergency brain surgery in Munich on Monday night for injuries sustained in a beating by the authorities[edit]

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090916-21969.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,649346,00.html

New pics[edit]

I have added a number of photographs (on Commons) of his art, which I took during the recent exhibition in Munich, Germany. Maybe somebody is interested in using them here, in my opinion the article is a bit under-illustrated in its current form. 92.117.153.49 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

see also?[edit]

Steven Spielburg? WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.187.242 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

some details about the Shanghai studio controversy[edit]

(reference: http://www.ntnn.info/it/articles/rassegna-araba-08-novembre-2010.htm?bcsi-ac-07BA615BF9E246FC=1C1620A900000005mamcXWDOrZ0WcRJkZsEj6f7kxPc1AAAABQAAAEXhMACAcAAAAQAAAGstAQA=)

1) Construction of the studio was not at the invitation of the Shanghai city government, but by Jiading District official Sun Jiwei (嘉定区区长孙继伟) as part of a new village construction within Malu township (马陆镇大裕村新农村建).
2) on July 23, 2010 Ai Weiwei was notified of the lack of building permit application by Shanghai National Resource Planning Bureau, based on Article 34 Section 1 of Land Management Law (违反了《土地管理法》第四十三条第一款的规定).
3) It appears neither the district nor township government that proposed this construction made the relevant permit application (区、镇两级政府承诺主动办理却未办理的相关许可证和审批手续).
4) Construction continued for another month, to completion, was due to delay by the Malu township and Dayu village government's in halting the construction (再一月,当马陆镇政府城建办和大裕村村委会通知停工时,工作室已全部完工).
5) on October 29, 2010 Ai Weiwei was notified of the demolition, based on Article 8 of Shanghai City Illegal Construction Demolition Regulation (《上海市拆除违法建筑若干规定》第八条的规定,拟做出责令限期拆除违法建筑决定).
6) While Ai Weiei suspects selective enforcement, Malu township stated the other eight artist's projects were unaffected because they have obtained building permit thru proper channel (马陆镇方面则解释,其他几位艺术家均通过正式渠道领取了合法的土地证明).
7) There were efforts to save the building. By donating it to the village collective that owns the land, it would qualify for public project exemption under aforementioned Article 34 Section 1 (乡(镇)村公共设施和公益事业建设经依法批准使用农民集体所有的土地的除外).
8) The Jiadin district official, Sun Jiwei, stated this is a simple land use case. Jiadin District offered Ai Weiwei compensation for the studio, but Ai refused (孙继伟称,“从我的认识和理解,目前还是一个单纯的土地和土地执法...嘉定区政府愿意赔偿艾未未承受的损失,但被艾拒绝).
Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobby --- i think these are important facts if they can be cited to.

Anyone who reads Chinese --- could somebody please check that the source Bobby gives essentially backs up his summary, and then perhaps edit the corresponding section in the article if so (and if the reference is deemed acceptable, etc etc)? This would be an attempt to give the article, or the section at least, a more neutral flavor. Son of eugene (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing[edit]

According to BBC he is missing at the moment, after trying to fly to Hong Kong. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12950863 85.237.211.249 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

NOT DEAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.188.188.30 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source: Yoon, Eunice. "Chinese artist Ai Weiwei reportedly detained." April 4, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we know he's been detained, perhaps we should change it from disappearance to arrest. Disappearance, especially in states such as China, has a negative connotation that we may not want to come across in the article. I haven't changed it, but I am throwing it out for consideration. Jtodsen (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Economic crimes"[edit]

Do any reliable sources have a better translation or explanation of this phrase? What does it usually mean in China when someone is being investigated for "economic crimes"? Does it mean tax evasion? Violating employment law? Laundering money? Counterfeiting? Violation of zoning laws? Insider trading?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase could mean all of above. --阿pp (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC).
All crimes about economic are generally called "economic crimes" in China to discriminate the violence crimes.Raintwoto 05:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
"Economic crimes" is a nice catch-all used primarily as an initial arrest reason while the authorities "collate" their evidence and then decide whether or not to "hone" it to a more detailed charge. 85.211.123.79 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ai weiwei may be the only "dissident" been arrest because "economic crimes", for example, liuxiaobo is arrested on charges of "suspicion of inciting subversion of state power".Raintwoto 18:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talkcontribs)
As seen on Twitter: "we're sure he's guilty of something, we just need to find out what." F (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is highly likely that PRC is crawling back into it's old shell: Maoist China, where millions of Chinese just disappeared into thin air, on rediculus and fit for all charges such as "Rightist", "Capitalist Roader" and "Counter-revolutionary", and millions died in forced-labor camps. Arilang talk 04:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And that's POV...Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq, what I said is not POV, it is fact, which can be easily backed up by scholarly research, and published and peer reviewed books. Arilang talk 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Maoist China has nothing to do Ai Weiwei. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

just to clarify[edit]

Uhm, it seems like that people just assume that when someone in China is arrested and the person is an activist, it has to be 'the-government-is-trying-to-oppress-anyone-who-doesn't-agree', I just want to clarify that whilst this may be true in some cases, there are many RS to support that this isn't one of them.

Ai Weiwei was arrested due to 'economic crimes', specifically (as reported), tax evasion. And it seems like that the police do have some solid evidence. [1] He is also (according to the reuters report) under arrest for spreading 'porn' (as in indecent images) on the internet. Examples can be found here. [2] And another reason for the arrest is bigamy.

tax evasion, about 60 million yuan, specifics are in the link [3]Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User Zlqq, please double checked the two references provided by you, one is Boxun, which cannot be regarded as WP:RS, and another is Wen Wei Po 香港《文汇报》, see Press Freedom and Political Transition in Hong Kong:A Summary of the Hong Kong Journalist Survey 1996 which is a well known propaganda arm of the Chinese government, should also be dismissed per WP:RS. The wikipedia golden rule of Reliable Source should always be applied. Moreover, " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." per WP:BLP

Arilang talk 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes BLP is appllied, though that happens after the source is proven useless. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) That's what I thought. Though User:AKMask pointed out to me that WP:RS doesn't say anything about propaganda/activist groups, nor does POV. Here [4]. And I quote "Just to make a note since you lead your argument with it, WP:NPOV does not say that sources must be NPOV to be reliable, WP:RS does not say this either. Sources need not be neutral to be reliable, to give just one example MMFA is cited extensively on-wiki. -- ۩ Mask 17:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)" After a quick read through NPOV and RS, what he says seems to be true. Please discuss here before changing the article. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt, you can always raise the question at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, alternatively, you can seek help from experienced bilingual editors like user:Ohconfucius, who is more than willing to help anyone. However, in this case, WP:BLP needs to be applied. Arilang talk 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User Zlqq, allow me to remind you again:"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. WP:BLP" Don't you think the content added by you could be "potentially libellous" ? Arilang talk 05:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Fine, remove them. do what you want. I won't try to argue on something I'm not familiar with. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Zlqq is not writing that Ai Weiwei did x; he is writing that the government is formally charging him with the crimes of x, and claims to have evidence y and z. If you think that that is libellous, then please explain why. Quigley (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The million dollar question is: Are Boxun and Wen Wei Po WP:RS? My answer is, they are not, that is why these content should be removed immediately, unless it can be proven otherwise, or, other proven Reliable Sources provided. Arilang talk 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that Boxun is not a reliable source, for a want of solid editorial oversight, and the Reliable Source Noticeboard concurs. (Maybe then we can work together to remove citations to Boxun from articles like Chen Wei (dissident)!) Wen Wei Po, on the other hand, seems to be a mainstream newspaper with the usual editorial oversight. Its Wikipedia article says that some people accuse it of being pro-Beijing, but then again similar accusations appear on the article about the South China Morning Post, which we seem to regard as reliable; the New York Times, which in related discussions Wikipedians seem to regard as reliable, is often accused of having a liberal bias; few newspapers can claim that their coverage is not controversial to some group of people. I contend that Wen Wei Po is a reliable source, and if you maintain—as you asserted above—that Wen Wei Po is a "well known propaganda arm of the Chinese government", then prove it. Quigley (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good to meZlqq2144 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have raise the question at:[5], now we just need to wait it out. Meanwhile, please read:Hong Kong Journalists Association Annual Reports Annual reports on the state of freedom of expression & media self-censorship in Hong Kong

Arilang talk 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion reached:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wen Wei Po Arilang talk 11:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Have we? didn't see the new comment there... scratch that, me being dizzy, we haven't reached a consensus at RSN. Apart from you and me, 3 people commented. None of them gave clear support to either side. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the above argument may be entirely moot, since there are many reliable sources reporting that he is being accused of tax evasion. Google news shows headlines from, for example, NPR, Voice of America, CBC, New York Times, etc. Looking a bit closer, most of them seem to be getting their information from Wen Wei Po. So at least these reliable sources consider that reliable enough to report on as a simple matter of fact.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What the... Jimbo the Great has been deployed. (Oh, dear my god) ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 13:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In my memory he has been inactive since 2006, wh.. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Same here. What the... Though from his contribs, he seems to be quite active, though I never though I's see him...such a small chance. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I am very active in Wikipedia, editing almost every day. My interest in this article was sparked by meeting Ai Weiwei briefly last year. I have no opinion about his guilt or innocence on tax charges, etc., and I think it incredibly important that Wikipedia remain steadfastly neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As aptly pointed out by Jimbo, if the world's media regard Wen Wei Po as a reliable source, so would Wikipedia, fair enough. However, I would also like to remind editors that Wen Wei Po is currently conducting a smear campaign against Ai Weiwei, as can be seen here:Wen Wei Po editorial, and it's google translation:[6]
That is an opinion piece written by one editor representing that editor's opinion. It's like the comment section of, say, the Guardian([7]), they cannot be used as fact, only as opinions. It is not a wide campaign conducted by the newspaper to smear Ai Weiwei, just like, say, an anti-US piece in the Guardian comment does not mean it's campaigning against the US government. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the Cultural Revolution style rhetoric, derogative terms like "dog feces garbage", "eccentric", "crazy", "group sex", "cheap propaganda prostitution trafficking", terms normally reserved for low budget pornographic movies are being employed to attack Ai Weiwei. My question is, where do we draw the line? Arilang talk 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how 'eccentric' and 'crazy' classifies as wrong? 'Dog feces garbage', although it sounds rather bad, is used quite a lot in especailly opinion pieces. 'Group sex' refers to this piece of 'artwork' created by Ai Weiwei [8]. Low budget pornographic movies? Well, these pieces of artwork will certainly enlighten you. [9] 'Cheap propaganda prostitution trafficking' refers to the fact that he raised his middle finger towards Tiananmen and write FUCK on himself, standing in front of Tiananmen (although political due to '89 incident, it is actually a historical building which many people admire for non-political reasons as well) [10], both 'artwork' created by Ai Weiwei. I don't know which country you came from, but I'll use the US as an example. It's like doing the same thing in front of, say, the White House, or the Washington Monument. I think a bit of anger from one editor in an opinion piece is warranted. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq, political innuendo is different from calling someone "dog feces garbage", which is definitely defamatory:

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.WP:Libel

Arilang talk 01:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't use that opinion piece though. It is used as evidence to say Wen Wei Po cannot be used, at all, as it is campaigning against Ai Weiwei, and I say no it's an opinion piece. The source I used (where reuters cited Wen Wei Po) is a proper news article. They are different. As I said, for example, you can use a guardian news report as a reference but need to be careful when you want to use a comment article as reference. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Zlqq2144 on this point. Wen Wei Po needs to be handled very carefully. Also, there is a subtlety here about WP:BLP - and keep in mind that I am a very strong supporter of a very strict interpretation of BLP policy. If Wen Wei Po calls the man "dog feces garbage", we obviously don't repeat that as fact. However, subject to concerns of relevance, WP:UNDUE, etc., it can very much be necessary for us to report that Wen Wei Po called him that. Additionally, since "dog feces garbage" is not a normal expression in English, it may be hard to present in a way that makes it comprehensible to English speakers. (i.e. as an expression, it may be much milder than it sounds).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
With WP:UNDUE in mind, the dog feces garbage was written as an opinion article by one editor. The editor is not famous/notable and his opinion does not represent Wen Wei Po's. Therefore, we shouldn't use it. 'Dog feces garbage', if literally translated, would be just 'shit'. Although in Chinese, it is not a swear word on the same level as 'fuck', like 'shit' is in English. It's more along the lines of 'crap', 'rubbish' or 'garbage'. Whilst still radical and bordering 'criticising' and 'attacking', it's not entirely unwarranted (considering Ai Weiwei insulted Tiananmen and took nude pictures next to the famous and historical 圆明园兽首, the Old Summer Palace animal head sculptures. Links to both examples have already been given above).
Anyway, the main point is that I am not trying to say, in the article, that Ai Weiwei is just dog feces (in fact, I didn't even know that this article existed before Arilang pointed it out). I am not referencing this article. What I am referencing is a piece of proper news report by Wen Wei Po, and as Jimbo said before, numerous definite RS treat it RS and reported it. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 12:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
dog feces garbage is a extremely derogative personal term that is often used by Chinese all over the world. First of all, in a westerner's mind, "Dog" is man's best friend, dog is pet, dog means companion, loyalty, as there are many true stories of dogs risking their life to protect their owners. But in the traditional Chinese world, "Dog" is bad, like "running dog of the western imperialist", a rhetoric frequently used in the Cultural Revolution to attack one's political opponents. There are numerous "dog farms" in both China and South Korea, where dogs were farmed for culneraly delicacy, and very often, in poor rural area, human feces would be the only food source for them, yet another attack swear word: "shit-eating dog". Now, to put it in perspective, in traditional Chinese's mind, "Chinese dog" had the habit of eating shit, and to call someone "dog feces", would be the lowest of the low. Arilang talk 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was looking into including details as to the 'economic crimes' allegations, and looked at what was written in the South China Morning Post. Here are three paragraphs from the article on the matter:

Citing unnamed sources, the Wen Wei Po said investigators had gathered “a large amount of evidence that Ai Weiwei is suspected of avoiding taxes, and the sums are quite large”.

“A source revealed to this newspaper that firm evidence has been collected about Ai Weiwei’s suspected economic crimes,” the newspaper said.

The Wen Wei Po is a paper published in mandarin in Hong Kong by mainland authorities and is sometimes used to make Beijing’s case on contentious issues.

True that the Wen Wei Po is widely reported, and I would usually consider this to be 'reliable' if dogmatically loyalist, but a big question remains as to the source of the more specific allegations we might otherwise consider including in the article. To me, the critical point about us writing about the mentioned allegations hinges entirely on "Citing unnamed sources". I find that the non-specific, unnamed source is enough to make me inclined to exclude it for the moment, pending more precise and sourced official allegations. With all the furore, I'm sure the CCP realise they need to be highly transparent about their allegations and investigations. When that comes, it'll be up to us to decide whether to believe it or not. As to the more general rhetoric criticising Ai, I do not feel we need to explicitly quote it, we could just to note in the article that they strongly criticised his art or his private life (or whatever the precise criticisms were) without descending into the rhetoric. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

After checking with WP:RSN here, the conclusion is that when quoting Wen Wei Po, intext attribution and qualifiers must be applied, my suggestion is, per WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.

Taking into consideration Wen Wei Po as a major Chinese media backed up by Chinese government, it should not be treated as "minority views", thus Wen Wei Po's political motivated editorial stance against Ai Weiwei should be reported in Wikipedia, with "intext attribution and qualifiers", of course. Also, just a reminder:

According to The Challenge of Hong Kong’s Reintegration With China, a book written by Ming K. Chan, Wen Wei Po is a "mouthpiece" of the PRC government.

quote begins:Despite their low credibility and dismay circulation in Hong Kong, these mouthpieces are well-financed by advertising revenues from the PRC companies...Wen Wei Po has received more funds...Both papers print many Xinhua-initiated commentaries under pseudonym aimed to criticize and intimate China's critics. Quote ends.

Arilang talk 08:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Wen Wei Po attack editorials[edit]

That's not an attack editorial. It's just a normal comment piece. Not every anti-Ai Weiwei article is an attack piece.Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 02:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
And that is even less of an attack piece. Most of it actually quotes sources from other newspapers and comments on that. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 02:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Chinese-English translation of Wen Wei Po editorial attack rhetorics[edit]

  • 狗屎垃圾==garbage not worth of dog shit
  • 集体淫乱==orgy
  • 宣淫贩贱的变态行为== sexual perversion[edit by Zlqq2144, it's more like 'the pervert-y action of publicising pronorgraphy/obscence materials]
  • 假艺术家==Fake artist
  • 西奴==Minion of the Westerner
  • 裸露阴茎癖患者==Indecent exposer who like to expose the private part
  • 卑鄙无耻下流==contemptible, shameless, obscene
  • 反华小丑==Anti-Chinese clown
  • 污糟邋遢的卑鄙人物==absolute dirty and contemptible person
  • 传播淫秽物品罪==[edit by Zlqq2144: spreading indecent/obsence materials][Zlqq2144:hmm...how's that attacking? It's the name of a crime]
  • 涉嫌重婚罪==alleged multiple marriage crime[Zlqq2144: and that's attacking because...it's the name of a crime too]
  • 不肖子孙==bad child not worthy of his parent
  • 充当西方反华势力棋子==to be a pawn of western anti-Chinese force
  • 反祖国的小丑==anti-motherland clown
  • 老流氓==old hoodlum
  • 愧对其父==ashame in front of his dead father
  • 三流艺术家==third class artist
  • 猥琐行为==nasty and dirty deeds
  • 屁股更要干净些==should wipe clean his bum first

Arilang talk 10:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with you that material sourced from WWP (if exclusive) needs specific attribution, in the same way as we would generally cite Xinhua, but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to establish with all these translations of rhetoric. It's not very encyclopaedic. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think (correct me if im wrong) that he is trying to say that WWP is just trying to deface Ai Weiwei so we have to stay away from WWP as far as possible. BTW, I'm taking a Wikibreak (see userpage) so I may not be participating further discussions. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors are here to report "facts", and the fact is, WWP, a mouthpiece of PRC, who chose to use a particular colorful language to "criticize" someone, so be it, we report some of these(not all of them) "colorful language" on Wikipedia, with strict and proper attribution to avoid any "potentially libellous" situations, then is OK. Arilang talk 10:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to add Wen Wei Po's editorial "remarks" aimed at Ai Weiwei[edit]

I have managed to translate(with the help of Zlqq) about 20 colorful remarks on Ai Weiwei. Editors are invited to discuss here the pro and con of adding these Wen Wei Po's remarks, which is seen to be China's unofficial "mouthpiece". Arilang talk 02:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is more productive to add substantive criticism from editorials in WWP rather than epithets. Why don't you translate some reasonable arguments instead? Quigley (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User Quigley, you are more than welcome to point out those "substantive criticism and reasonable arguments", and I shall proceed to translate them for this discussion. Arilang talk 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Spreading indecent images? You may disagree, but I think those images qualify. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 03:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq, what about "garbage not worth of dog shit"? Arilang talk 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought you were asking Quigley 'to point out those "substantive criticism and reasonable arguments"'. I did. Spreading porn. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, why don't you get that it's just an opinion piece? If anything, Ai Weiwei himself isn't all that civil and polite. Apart from the 'fuck motherland's and porn images, he also outright said '不反华还是人吗’, that's insulting too, should we include that? For those who don't understand Chinese, it means 'If you don't go against China, are you human' in a rhetorical way, i.e. 'if you don't go against China, you are not human'. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq, this thread here is to discuss which "colorful comments" to be included, if you like to discuss "how nasty was Ai Weiwei", start another thread. Arilang talk 04:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
And you are ignoring the example of "substantive criticism and reasonable arguments" I gave out. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, Zlqq, (1)"Spreading indecent images" to be included, we need to pick some more, (2),(3), (4) at least. Arilang talk 05:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That's better, we are getting back to the point.
  • (2)Insulting PRC/China as a whole. I mean, criticising is fine. In fact, everybody seems to be doing it, but outright insulting and attacking is bit far. I refer to the 'fuck your mother, motherland's. Also the bronze head sculptures. They have nothing do to with PRC. They are famous historical artifacts. So is Tiananmen, it is a historically important and culturally important landmark which many have non-political but still strong feelings for.
  • (3)plagiarism. It's not final yet, and there are certainly people saying that he's not doing it, but just as many say that he is.
  • (4)bigamy. Disputable. See this [15] I know it's not RS, but just to give you an idea.
  • (5)tax evasion. Still disputable.
  • Some of these are, of course, opinions. But so are the views of the people critisising the government. As of yet, there's no reliable, solid evidence to say the Ai Weiwei should not be arrested. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 05:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Global Times[edit]

Richard Burger quotations[edit]

*The Global Times showed its truest and most sinister colors with a now infamous editorial warning that Ai Weiwei was about to hit a “red line,” and if//when he does he is asking for trouble.
  • (on GT editorial)This is disturbing on so many levels I don’t think I need to drill down. It speaks for itself. It’s nauseating.
  • Detaining Ai Weiwei was the worst thing you could have done, trumped only by your idiocy in attacking him in savage, ugly, deranged editorials.
He also says 'Sure, they toe the party line on certain topics, but even on the most sensitive of these, they seem willing to present alternative viewpoints, even if they are directly and outspokenly critical of the government. I think this will be their signature, a panoramic view of the news with lots of analysis and discussion. As I said, it does tow the party line, but they seem genuine about allowing serious dissent and disagreement. ' from the first link you provided. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq, just to let you know, if we are to quote Burger in the article, there should be only one concise sentence. There is no way to include everything he said. Arilang talk 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
And we need to quote him because... this isn't an article about Global Times or its reliability...Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to add Burger's comments[edit]

Discussion open to add Burger's(one of The Global Times editors) comment in relation to it's "infamous" editorial. Arilang talk 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Against As seen in the quotes provided by you and me, he seems to be contradicting himself. On the one hand he thinks that GT, although still under CCP regulations, is relatively reliable and provides arguments to both sides of controversial issues. On the other hand, he outright calls it 'distrubing'. Also, as he is a former GT editor, there may be a conflict of interest there. We already have a lot of sources criticising the government. We don't need to include every single one of them. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Western media[edit]

No, I am not linkspamming, the links here are to invite discussion among editors in order to reach a consensus on which sources are to be used, so that there is no edit war. Also, I still have WP:Copyright violations problems yet to be resolved, plus, I don't need another ANI targeting me. I hope you understand. Arilang talk 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ohconfucius. If you want to add something and feel it may be controversial, write out the paragraph/sentence you want to add, reference that, and put in the talk page for others to discuss. Instead of spamming links with news articles about Ai Weiwei, what's the point? Editors are capable of doing research themselves, they don't need you to point out every news article about Ai Weiwei. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 02:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The spamming is a bit annoying. All 3 above are generally accepted reliable sources. In case you haven't noticed, 'Ai Weiwei held for 'obscene' political art' is already referenced in the article. You've been through the CV treadmill, and you're getting better at knowing what not to do. I think you can just be WP:BOLD. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment OHF, I shall remove those links once the discussion begin. However, it pays to be on the cautious side, it is no fun to be blocked, or banned, like those pro-FLG mod. Arilang talk 03:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to add Blake Gopnik of Newsweek[edit]

Blake Gopnik:Ai was a suspect in unspecified “economic crimes”—code for “we hate you, and we’re taking you down.”

  • "as his work... become more directly political, and more clearly in the face of the people who could hurt him. "
  • "This points to the central irony in this whole story: while many Chinese artists are in it for the money, Ai is acting like the perfect communist cultural worker intent on advancing a people’s paradise on earth."

Arilang talk 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Against He isn't citing any sources so this is just as much an opinion piece as the WWP editorials you listed above. Sure, it's less radical, but still opinion. Also, as I said above, we already have a lot of sources criticising the government. We don't need to include every single one of them. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Zlqq, please read WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, editors here are to report what Reliable Sources said, editors should not take side either way, nor engage themselves in any ideological battle. Arilang talk 04:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reporting what reliable sources say =/= include every RS you can find.
  • I have no problem saying things like 'most western media criticise the government for arresting Ai Weiwei (accompanied by some quotes). But the pro-Communist WWP claims that it is a lawful arrest and the western media are just critisising cos they don't like PRC.' (rewording of course needed). What you seem to propose is that we include every comment critisising the government. That's not dueweight, that's leaning towards WP:POV and WP:POINT. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no objection in principle to including opinions in the article, but these ought to be in balance. Exhaustivity is not and should never be the goal. Just like in brainstorming, we must start off by not denying all ideas, however zany. Thus, I would not hesitate to include any form of opinion except for obviously fringe views at the article-building stage - it is from this pool that we draw material to keep during the consolidation phase. The best ones to use ultimately are those that summarise or encapsulate the mood of the various commentators, whether for or against a certain viewpoint. This one is fringe, and seems a bit too strong on the rhetoric. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to add Jonathan Jones of The Guardian[edit]

Jonathan Jones

  • "Ai Weiwei's work to defend human rights would stand even if he were guilty – but it's safe to assume these charges are fabricated"
  • Even if all the charges China are apparently raising were true, it would not alter anything – and given his brutal detention it is reasonable to assume they are false.

Arilang talk 05:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that write out the paragraph you want to include in the article (with references of course) instead of scattering different quotes everywhere. I, and I think Ohconfucius, think that we should compare them together and see how different sources go when put together (i.e. representing all points?). Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 05:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes. What I detest in certain articles about political events is the tendency of including masses upon masses of quotes and [often] bland statements from countries or politicians or other leading figures (that I call "sweet nothings"), each attributed and separate. I always look to summarise or group these 'soundbytes', trying to draw a coherent thread through them all with a simple sentence or paragraph, depending on the importance to the central subject. Comments or opinions in this one will be no exception. I put in some comments by Frank Ching, and it's quite possible I'll take them out if I find something better. By all means put all the various quotes in, I'm sure we could thrash out what the common themes are in the opinions and knit them together. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
"I always look to summarise or group these 'soundbytes', trying to draw a coherent thread through them all with a simple sentence or paragraph, depending on the importance to the central subject." Well, we all know that OCF is the expert in this sense, there is no deny of it. That said, "it's safe to assume these charges are fabricated" would be commonly agreed by all the pro-Ai Weiwei forces combined? Arilang talk 06:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Something like that is fine, it seems like that what they are all saying. And adding a bit of POV here, really? At least the indecent images part is true. This is outright hardcore porn. [16] I propose we add this image to the list of 'indecent images'. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 07:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If I could make out more detail, I might just be offended, but it doesn't look like work is being performed on the body part I would normally associate with fellatio, so it's clean enough for Wikipedia. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, apparantly it's a fake. [17] Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 07:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That photo wasn't a fake, it was the same group of life size sculpture, taken from a different angle, to imply that it was a life sex show. It was a cheap shot at Ai Weiwei. Arilang talk 08:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just read it. Maybe there's something in that article we can use there, but I was much put off by its pomposity. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to add Alison Klayman, Gao Ying comments[edit]

Alison Klayman: "Ai Weiwei is not a criminal. He is an outspoken proponent of free speech, human rights, and transparency in China's government and judicial system. Ai has violated no law."

Klayman:User:Arilang1234/Draft/Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry<

Ai's mother, Gao Ying Gao Ying:"Ai Weiwei is not a criminal, he is an artist who is in search of justice" Arilang talk 05:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  • by all means put them into the article. I'll get the dough to the right consistency and knead it into the shape we want. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Indecent"[edit]

In response to this edit summary: the word was actually "obscene" per Sheridan. I already softened it.--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes "obscene" but not obscene so that are not the words of the author of the article. It think is a bit unclear whose words that are and it would be only one opinion. Thanks for telling me where it came from. Can we find consensus to let it out for the moment? IQinn (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry, i maybe have expressed myself a bit unclear in the edit summary. I also would like to know what is the original meaning of "草泥马挡中央". Do you know? IQinn (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for working that out. You think it would be possible and useful to add this to the image description? Anyway i leave this up to you do as you wish. Cheers - IQinn (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • AFAICT, only the political meaning has been cited by sources. Is there any risk that the literal meaning be considered OR? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Good question. :) I think it would be ok as it it a kind of common knowledge that can be taken from a dictionary. Not sure what other say. I personally would not have a problem with using it. Cheers. IQinn (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The literal meaning of 草泥马中央 is definitely a original research, it has no place in wikipedia, the same as taking "river crabs" literally, it is meaningless. Arilang talk 06:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Alleged torture[edit]

There appears to be confusion on whether or not Ai has been tortured or not while in custody. I can think of a few reports off hand that suggested that he was. But his wife recently said that he is in good health. Should alleged torture be mentioned or should it only be mentined if we know for a fact that he has been tortured while in custody? There have also been several notable protests in support of Ai. Should those be mentioned? SunRiddled (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't know where you are getting your information from. The reports I have come across indicate he has not been mistreated in any way – at least that's what his captors want the whole world to know – and there is no evidence to the contrary. You will never stop all the conspiracy theorists. Refer to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ai's art in Houston[edit]

I found a page related to Ai's art being exhibited in Houston:

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fake Design Company[edit]

According to lawyer Liu Xioyuan, http://twitter.com/#!/liu_xiaoyuan, the 20 million yuan fine is directed at Fake Design Company, not at Ai Weiwei. A new section(or subsection) maybe needed to deal with this new development. Arilang talk 13:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that Fake is Hanyu Pinyin (a pun of fuck), not the English word fake? Or that's not important in the article? By the way the lawyer's name is Liu Xiaoyuan. :) --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Day and month of birth[edit]

These were added without source ([18]), but several sources can be found ([19], [20], [21]). Then someone changed it ([22]), referring to the Chinese wikipedia. There, however, no source is given, but a comment referring to the Chinese calendar ([23]). I don't understand it, can someone explain it to me? Thank you! --84.130.156.88 (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've found the source in the edit summary in the Chinese wikipedia ([24]): a twitter post by Ai Weiwei himself ([25]) on May 18th, 2010. Since he seems to be joking around this, I'm not so sure about the reliability of this information. --84.130.156.88 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WSJ. resource[edit]

The Art of Resistance October 28, 2011. 141.218.36.43 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Protest art. 99.181.142.144 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Exhibition 2012, February 3 - June 10 at Magasin 3, Stockholm, Sweden[edit]

I would invite someone involved in the Article to update the list of recent exhibitions with this one. For further information (which works represented,etc): http://www.magasin3.com/en/blog/exhibitions/ai-weiwei/?postTabs=3 Brommabo (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Image of Ai Weiwei[edit]

I stumbled across this article and noticed it didn't have an image. Mr. Ai is a very notable person so this didn't seem right. I found a free (creative commons) image already uploaded to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai_Weiwei.jpg). The use of the image in this article does not appear to violate Mr. Ai's personality rights as determined by the jurisdiction in which the image was both taken and released. So, I added the image. Please feel free to remove it if, without my realisation, this use violates some rule or law. |Privateiron (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://aiweiwei.com[edit]

Good day!

Does anyone know since when his website is offline and why specifically?

regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.19.172 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Works[edit]

As of now now only "Sunflower Seeds" is listed under the "works" section below his picture. Ai Weiwei has many other famous works, many of which were diplayed in museums in the UK and US, and some of those should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

re:publica 2013 interview[edit]

Interview with Ai Weiwei aired at the Berlin based re:publica 2013 conference

I've added the interview which was aired at the re:publica 2013, the questions are nearly impossible to read if you don't fullscreen the video. We could add the questions via subtitles (Commons:Timed Text), I don't have the time right now to do it but I'll maybe do it in some days. --Sitic (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)