Talk:Akmal Shaikh/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mental health section not NPOV[edit]

I'm astonished that the mental health section reads like a statement from the PRC. I presume that we've got a bunch of determined PRC editors here. Given that there are multiple reports of evidence that casts doubt on his sanity, the exclusion of these reports is astonishing. There is no doubt that that there were representations to the Chinese about his mental health, and the fact that the court considered it "to be within its right to refuse an assessment" despite this has been widely regarded with astonishment, and there are many reports that reflect this. The section as it stands at the moment is grossly one-sided.--Farry (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I completely agree - as it stands the current section looks like a WP:SYNTHESIS with various sources put together to support the view of whoever wrote the section. I think we could almost delete the entire section and rewrite it from scratch. Laurent (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Its "According to the law of PRC" that the court has such right. Does this really sound POV? Hmm, on the other hand, it is one-sided indeed. Any inclusion of statements(evidence, that is, not all speculations) disputing his sanity is welcomed. (Specifically, it would be good if we could know exactly what evidence did the British govt provided to PRC court, which it rejected.)Blodance (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed it is sourced, among others, off Xinhua. No wonder the whole section sounds like PRC propaganda. Laurent (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, references shouldn't be ruled out because they're from Xinhua. Although to us, in the democratic world, the idea of a news agency that can't criticize its government is astonishing and seems antithetical to what a news agency should be about, that doesn't mean that they are liars, just that they are unbalanced. Comments from Xinhua should of course, be used with caution and in contrast with counterpoints from independant news agencies, but the PRC point of view is relevant in this article. The section needs balencing.--Farry (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this does sound like what Chinese websites said (xinlang) for example. Though I'd wish somebody could really check the facts from some reliable sources. Did sufficient documents PROVING his mental health issue reach the hands of the Chinese court? Were those documents made BEFORE his arrest? This is extremely important and a problem totally ignored by the media and the British government. The rule of law in China is extremely corrupted, and paying a doctor to give a false mental health assessment is VERY COMMON and is of common knowledge among the public. So sending in a doctor, though reasonable in the eyes of westerners, is viewed as a deliberate attempt to falsely clear his guilt, which the public will not accept. This is sad, but the claim of mental illness, unsubstantiated by paper evidence, can only be detrimental to the cause. (But of course if such evidence was presented to the Chinese court then the whole nature changes, but I'd like to see that) ---awacs123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awacs123 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By xinlang do you mean Hmm, I concur Awacs123. I strongly wonder what on earth were the evidences that British govt provided. Btw, being a PRC editor does not neccesarily mean we possess POV toward the Chinese gov't - please don't imply that on us. Blodance (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. In the West, we'd expect that the Court would appoint a doctor, if there was the slightest doubt of the sanity of the accused, let alone if he might face the death penalty. The doctor would normally be obliged to produce as balanced and justified a report as possible, because his report would be carefully scrutinized by both the defense and prosecution, and if either was able to show that the report was incompetent then the doctor's reputation would suffer. I guess that it just didn't occur to me that this would be unavailable in a 21st century technologically-advanced society.--Farry (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well... not morally-advanced... not here. Sigh. Blodance (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda sad. Even worse is the failure of the British government to recognise that, and the fact that their "pleas" are actually detrimental to Mr. Shaikh's case —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awacs123 (talkcontribs) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... actually, there are allegations(as I see on online forums) among the British public that the govt is not sincerely trying to save Shaikh anyways, because as this event become public, the PRC govt is left no choice but to kill Sheikh, or face a public outcry for the resemblance of this event to the Opium War. As I'm prolly not a right person to talk about this, I'll stop here. Blodance (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The PRC government is very concerned with domestic reaction, and couldn't care less about international reaction in this case. It has to be seen to be tough on crime, and the fact that this guy occasionally said and did loopy things holds no sway. To the Chinese, the use of 'mental illness' as a mitigating factor is but a namby-pamby defence which is regarded with scorn by the cold courts. Add to that, the complete lack of judicial independence means that the notion of a fair trial, as is known in the west, does not exist. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Btw, insanity defense is rarely successful even in the West, especially when defendants have not been previously diagnosed. Some states in US even prohibit this defense. --Vsion (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to revamp this section by doing the following:

1) removing the links to Chinese language only sources and replace the information, where possible, with English language sources such as Xinhua,
2) Remove irrelevant final paragraph,
3) Shorten it and try and make it sound less like a statement from China's foreign ministry, and
4) Add a link to the NY Times discussing the actions of the Chinese courts.

Hopefully this can resolve some of the POV issues. Spinner145 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, in reply to this post, there is nothing wrong with having "determined PRC editors". In some articles there is a subtle anti-PRC bias, and having more editors who are supportive of the PRC can help achieve neutrality when there is more cooperation. If there are conflicting viewpoints, we should incoporate both viewpoints into the article. However, I don't think that everybody who has bipolar disorder ever gets diagnosed. If Shaikh lived in several countries prior to his arrest, then it is unlikely he went to a doctor to see into his condition, as individuals with bipolar may be unlikely to take responsibilty for their own health. Therefore if someone with bipolar does not ever start taking medication, then there is not likely to be any documentation on this. In some cases in Canada, medical marijuana is a type of medication used for bipolar. If there were documents, he probably did not take them into China. Mental disorders are seen as severely detrimental to society in China, as are drugs, unhealthy information, bad influences and overpartying. Symptoms of a mental illness could be interpreted as signs that the accused has commited the crime. But in countries such as the United States and Canada, the mentally ill are often incorporated into society and drugs are not seen as such a big deal as their use is common among youth. The American person facing similar charges probably got out of it because the notion of paranoid schizophrenia re-affirms the idea that mental illnesses are bad for both oneself and society. China is worried more about social stability than the rights of the individual, especially after the recent July 2009 Urumqi riots. But Westerners like to support causes, and take political direct action in the form of protests which do not work because governments are not going to budge on issues of internal sovereignty. And since protest movements such as the 2008 Uyghur unrest and 2008 Tibetan unrest are influenced by overseas political incentives as a means to disrupt social order and the Olympic Games, this further degrades China's view of Western society. Moreover, when members of the Chinese public learn about this, it degrades their view of Westerners and makes them feel like half the world wants to take one-fifth, two-fifths of China away from the country. This is not going to happen, and only makes the situation worse. In the case of bipolar, saying that one is 'sometimes confident/happy, sometimes not confident/maniacal' as may be the case would not serve as an excusable defense, especially without documentation. Hopefully this helps to resolve some of the POV issues after looking at both sides. ~AH1(TCU) 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this post was directed at me or was more general and whether you're saying my edits were POV. I certainly would not call myself a "determined PRC editor" as I'm anything but; I'm actually disgusted, albeit not surprised, at the way Shaikh's case was handled. Previously this section just parroted the government line as faithfully expounded by Xinhua and China Daily, right down to the sentence order and word choice. While I believe that the outcome of this case had nothing to do with whether or not Shaikh suffered from mental illness and everything to do with PRC leaders wanting to improve their image to domestic audiences in China, I tried to present the official Chinese version neutrally. I'm happy to hear more suggestions for improvement, hopefully we can resolve the NPOV approach for this section. Spinner145 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This was directed at the entire section, not any single editor as I have not been watching this page. I tried to present both viewpoints neutrally and combine them together. ~AH1(TCU) 03:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the weasel words "other legal experts" with the one in the source cited. Weasel words may bring POV, and it did, as if this view received far wider support than it actually did. Blodance (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have made a couple of other minor tweaks. Are people satisfied that the neutrality tag can be removed? Spinner145 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that still doing everything to be dismissive of the testimonies of his mental problems provided to the court, and promoting the utterly astonishing requirement (to Western sensibilities) of requiring *proof* of mental illness *before* the trial rather than *obtaining* an assessment (which seems the only possible natural justice to Western sensibilities). I'm sorry, but that section still seems to be on a different planet -- it really does look that astonishing.--Farry (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not like that. The Chinese law is like this: if a person claims mental illness then someone needs to provide the court with documents of previous medical history, family history of mental illness, or other acceptable documents in order to obtain a doctor's assessment. Obviously, media reports and anecdotal evidence are not regarded as "acceptable" documents. This is hardly "astonishing". In some states of USA there are similar rules. Every year Chinese courts sentence nearly 2000 people to death (and not to mentioned others with less penalty) and many of those people try to use all kinds of execute to escape the punishment. So it is quite reasonable to put a limit on it. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

I don't want to get into an edit war with Ohconfucius (whose editing work I greatly respect) so I want to propose here deletion of this paragraph

"According to Chinese criminal laws, only cognitive-impairment can be used as insanity defense and therefore, Shaikh's alleged bipolar disorder, even if proven true by mental evaluation, cannot be used as a defense to reduce his sentence."

I can't get the link to work and my Chinese reading ability is very limited in any case, but if (as Ohconfucius says) it's just a link to somebody's thesis I agree that it's probably not a reliable source. Additionally, none of the major outlets such as Xinhua, China Daily or the Chinese Foreign Ministry have raised this point so there is no evidence that this theory about the application of Chinese criminal law was applied Shaikh's case. Spinner145 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the compliment. I'm OK with your proposal, as it's not supported by any sources at present. It can always be reinstated later when a suitable one is found. I'm not familiar with Chinese criminal law, but many things are known to happen within this opaque world that ought not to. The point I was trying to make was that although only a Chinese sources were available for that piece of information does not mean they cannot be verified; I'm happy you found the equivalent English link I posted. As to the other link, I would regard it with some scepticism (from the point of view of it being a reliable source) as it seems to be a site offering help to students with their theses. And while the information may be accurate, and is probably best not used here. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason that the "mental health issue" *section* is tagged as unbalanced is that it mostly just contains the official PRC stance as stated by Xinhua as though that were the summation of the mental health issue -- but the article does contain balancing text regarding the mental health issue outside that section. It's probably possible to remove the "unbalanced" tag by rearranging the sections slightly and changing the section header names, while keeping that text intact, but labeling it as the "official PRC response" or something, rather than the "mental health issue". I'll look at the issue sometime later, and see if we can find a rearrangement that we can agree on.--Farry (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As of it "being dismissive of the testimonies of his mental problems provided to the court", the court did dismiss them, and we don't know exactly what was the evidence, So I don't think this is an issue. And it is not "promoting" anything, it clearly says "according to PRC law", and the PRC law is like that. Just that you don't like it does not make it "promote" anything. Blodance (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I altered the section a bit. Hopefully this would be okay. Blodance (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Farris that "Mental Health Issue" is not the proper heading for this section. This heading is misleading as this paragraph doesn't deal with the issue whether Shaikh had a mental illness, only with the decision of the courts not to allow a psychiatric evaluation of Shaikh before executing him. Also its placement within the article doesn't make sense. As it deals only with legal questions, I think it would fit better after the third and before the final paragraph of "Arrest and Trial" (without the separate heading).Spinner145 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archived[edit]

I decided to be bold and archive sections here which have been addressed in the article, thus making it easier to see the disputes which are not yet resolved. Please feel free to create a new subsection if you want to re-raise a previous issue. Also, I removed a few comments which were not related to the article, as Wikipedia is not a forum or location for debate. I hope that this helps the talk page to be a bit easier to read, and thus allowing us to improve the article more easily. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns[edit]

To whoever added the paragraph describing a law in New York State, it seems to be copy & pasted from the source you provided... It would be better if it's described in your own words.Blodance (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it anyway. I can't see why there is a paragraph denoting a trial in New York, on an article primarily about UK-China law disputes. Seems like original research if the user is trying to tie the two together. Jolly Ω Janner 03:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree... well, at least it's sourced and I could see he means to describe how bipolar is ineligible for a defense, so I didn't remove it right away. As for now, let's just leave it dead. :P Blodance (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I understand you are trying to illustrate that "the majority of British public supports the execution", but online forums are generally unacceptable as sources - please cite reliable sources. Actually, although I dismissed it at first, by now, after checking a few online forums and seeing these totally overwhelming supportive comments, I'm now convienced that the British public might actually do support it. But we still need reliable sources, like surveys conducted by major media, not threads on netforums. And another thing, please don't remove whole sections without giving a reason or comment whatsoever, either on the talk page or in the edit comment. Blodance (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've looked at the BBC forum that this guy referred to, and I think that of those that actually stated their support or disapproval for the death penalty, there seemed to be more supporting the death penalty than not, but not overwhelmingly so. Also, it looks like the supporters of the death penalty seem more incoherent and jingoistic, which lines up with my experience of them. As a matter of interest, every decade or so since the UK death-penalty abolition in 1963, the UK Parliament has looked at the issue again, and it usually starts with most MPs supporting the death penalty, then as they debate the subject and begin to understand the legal problems and ruinous effects on society of such a penalty, support drains away and the abolition is re-affirmed.--Farry (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Check out "most recommended" - it is overwhelming, I'm not exaggerating it. I don't quite know the situation in UK, I'm just genuinely surprised at the threads. >_> Blodance (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we are having some tag-editing here. The above IPs editing is very similar in intent (ie to put in the BBC Have Your Say forum material), to temporarily blocked User: (see Talk:Akmal_Shaikh/Archive_1#.22Public_reaction.22. I know one (91.103) is in France and the other User: is in the UK, but their similarity in intent and reliance on a single, unreliable source and repeated re-insertion of material despite requests to stop as it is unreliable is ... hmm, interesting. If he or she can find a reliable third party source that has noted the majority pro-execution opinion on the forum, fair enough, it can go in. (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's none, and I don't think we could find one in the near future(If there is to be one, it would presumably be published by PRC media... hmmm, and even them are unlikely to do so at this moment) - that's why I reverted it. Blodance (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has now closed its comment's section. It would be difficult to get a 'reliable third party' to review them. Perhaps, a public survey is indicated. One would also question why they have decided to close down the comment section so early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginekierkegaard (talkcontribs) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexual harrassment[edit]

Re: this edit [1]. Is the 2004 sexually harrassment incident relevant to the background section? This could well be the first documented sign of his mental deterioration. Please share your thoughts on whether this should be included in the background section. --Vsion (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a supporting citation, then yes, it is relevant, as this is an article about the person and that is related to them. --Taelus (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, an already present citation supports it. I boldly re-added it, however rephrased it slightly to avoid being POV. It is definately relevant however, and has been covered by other news outlets. --Taelus (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
His sexual harassment is the fact. Facts should be included. Whether it indicates his mental dererioration, or his previous bad behavior, is the irrelevant thing. We just present facts - if the speculations are not sourced, we do not include them. Leave it to the readers' judgement, imho. Blodance (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with Blodance. If they are factual, it ought to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginekierkegaard (talkcontribs) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This piece of reliably sourced, relevant biographical info is being repeatedly removed, mostly by, on false grounds. These are that it is a BLP vio, when in fact the only two people involved are the subject, who is dead, and the victim, who chose to bring the harrassment to outside attention. The other 'reason' used is that it is irrelevant to the case, but this article is not just about the smuggling case, it is a biography, hence about his whole life. There is no legitimate reason to exclude this info. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just checked to see if that was me and I'd forgot to logon, but it wasn't. :-) Anyway, I've deleted it myself now. It's cherry-picked to present him in a bad light from a long article that charts his mental deterioration. So what if he was a deadbeat -- it's not relevant to this encyclopedia. I could, myself, have picked many quotes from the same Daily Mail article of people saying how his mind was deteriorating which would have been far more relevant to the case in point and thus emphasizing the injustice of his treatment, but I haven't because you have to keep an encyclopedic article pruned down to convey the important facts. And, Lkjhgfdsa, I know that you fee strongly about this -- you said "Why portray this selfish, irresponsible criminal who shirked his debts and responsibilities as a saint? Justice finally caught up with him.", but you might consider if that really is the appropriate attitude for a contributor to an encyclopedia where NPOV is considered important.--Farry (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sourced, relevant, biographical info should be included in this biography; it is an important fact. It is picked because it is a relevant event in his life. If you think relevant info is missing from the article, add it. This is an article about Shaikh, not only about a drug-smuggling incident.'Who cares if he was a deadbeat?' Well, it does matter - it is relevant to a deadbeat's bio that he was a deadbeat - such a man should not be presented to readers as a martyr or naive innocent who thought the best of everyone and was unwittingly led from his honest, hardworking life into danger. The article should give its readers a good idea of what kind of man Shaikh really was, not the whitewashed version of him that his supporters want to portray. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
See my previous comment. Sorry, Lkjhgfdsa, but the man's claim to fame is entirely the execution, and the wiki article should reflect this. I'm a little surprised that you should talk of whitewashing (thus implying bias) in the light of your previous comment that I just quoted. Please understand the requirements of NPOV.--Farry (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Information about a person in their biography is not limited to what they became known for. When a famous sportsperson, actor, musician, politician, artist etc. is then involved in sexual misconduct, it is added to their bio. Note Tiger Woods biography, and he has not even had any legal action taken against him. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Tiger woods is a celebrity, and his public life is well documented. Akmal is famous for one thing only, therefore the article should concentrate only on facts relating to what is notable, not what suits your own personal agenda, (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense - relevant biographical info should be include on every biography, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere online or on paper. Until last month, Woods was only famous for one thing - golf. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, see my previous comment about cherry-picking, the actual balance of the article that you selected it from, what I could put in the article if I had an attitude similar to yours, and the quoted comment that clearly shows your own attitude while you imply bias in others. We should not try to portray him in a certain light.There's an additional problem of somebody trying to insert a whole bunch of facts about him in Poland that are not supported by the referenced Polish articles. Whoever is doing that certainly has an agenda.--Farry (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing relevant, sourced, biographical info is biased. Give the reader all the relevant facts rather than removing them because they disprove his supporters' claim that he was a good, loving family man. If you think the article needs additional info from the Mail article or elsewhere, add it - just don't remove info of Shaikh's proved wrongdoing. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I want to repeat my humble opinion, that whether it indicates his mental deterioration, or his previous bad behavior, the "light" is entirely irrelevant - people like you see this as a probable sign of his mental issue and people like Lkjh see this as a proof of his bad behavior. Either way (proving his guilty or innocence), it is relevant to this case, so it absolutely makes no sense of calling this fact "irrelevant to the article". We just present facts - they are sourced, we include them. the speculations are not sourced, we do not include them. The matter is simple. Leave it to the readers' judgement. Blodance (talk)
It shows both Shaikh's bad behaviour and his psychology. The sexual harrassment info is stated in a neutral way, yet it is repeatedly being removed. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
We're not including all those statements by the man's supporters either because they would bloat the article. There is a problem of somebody inserting a whole bunch of stuff not supported by the references. Seems that and are having an edit war over this at the moment.--Farry (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not cherry picking, sir. Cherry picking is that you selectively include some facts and ignore others. Here we are trying to include all facts with reliable online sources, as required by a BIOGRAPHY entry. If you think something is missing, just add it. Ironically, it would be real cherry picking if we ignored the sex harassment story. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Please be careful when undoing peoples contributions. Whilst the removal of some of the content may have been correct, part of the area removed by reverts is supported by citations. Please do check before doing blanket reverts, we should not reject entire segments of contributions due to part of it being an issue, as that does not help continuous improvement. Thanks! --Taelus (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which would be a reasonable point normally, but see the comments in this section and the previous section about bias - and the reason for leaving that out.--Farry (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Response to edit summary: I do not see what cherry picking has to do with it. It is a fact which is supported by a reliable source, which is related to this persons article. This article is not supposed to revolve around the execution, thus I do not feel it is suitable to treat the article as some kind of 'character reference'. I will not revert further to avoid edit warring, but if we cannot include factual, reliable, sourced information, then what can we include? --Taelus (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok then, taken from the NPOV and Bias policy here: Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.
We should have all relevant sides of the debate, where does it say to ignore some of the factual, reliable, sourced evidence because there is an imbalance of arguments on each side? Don't remove content to fix it, add content to fix it. We cannot represent everything if we won't add to an article due to the other side not being fully covered. --Taelus (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This shouldn't actually be a debate as such, not in an encyclopedia. The "other side" would be a whole mass of stuff from the same articles about his deteriorating mental state, which could be used to show the injustice of his situation. Hence the desire to prune the article to stuff that is NPOV. I can understand how this might appear to you, but see the talk section entitled "Bias against Akmal Shaikh" and this section, and you might appreciate the situation.--Farry (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If you believe there is relevant info that is not present, add it. Removing reliably sourced info due to a (perceived) lack of balancing info is ridiculous. This article is too short, there is no reason to remove the sexual harrassment info, he was found guilty. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh... Let's make it straight.
  • Did he commit the harassment? YES, SUPPORTED BY RS
  • Did he commit it because he was mentally ill? PROBABLY, BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY RS
  • Did he commit it deliberately? PROBABLY, BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY RS
  • Is this incident relevant to this article? YES, as it either indicates his bad history or his mental illness, either would prove relevant.
  • Should the harassment incident be included? YES
  • Should claims stating that he was mentally ill be included? NO
  • Should claims stating that he was a long-time criminal be included? NO
Now I really can't understand... what on earth is the problem with this...? Blodance (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's good evidence in the talk sections that I referred to that it was cherry-picked for an agenda, when there's a whole bunch of other stuff that could be included to counterbalance it, but I won't revert it myself again. I might check occasionally for the unreferenced stuff though.--Farry (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Then use stuff to counterbalance it; the article needs more info about Shaikh, not less. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
With the consensus to include the info, why has one IP removed it so many times? Should the article be semi-protected? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No. There's others here who think he had justification.--Farry (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If you think the content about sexual harassment is cherry-picked, then go ahead and add other info, instead of removing existing info, please. When there's two POVs, NPOV means describe them both in a neutral way, not removing both of them. Blodance (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Since when has mental deterioration been an accepted excuse/ reason for committing sexual harrassment? In his native Pakistan Mr Shalikh would have been executed or perhaps have his dicky and balls removed (if he was lucky) for sexual harrassment. (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Straw man. And slavering over castration. Uh huh, no agenda there.--Farry (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:SARCASM. Blodance (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Ah, according to the news, the Chinese ambassador to UK was summoned twice, and had a 40min long "very difficult" conversation with Ivan Lewis. And the relationship between UK and China is harmed in some ways, such as some human rights summit was cancelled, etc. (The source is RS, of course, albeit in Chinese.) Are this kind of news worth their inclusion in this article, possibly in a section named like "Aftermath"? Blodance (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's also this: Anger After British Man Executed In China which is now in the "Spotlight" section of Google's News page. I understand that the spotlight section is auto-generated by aggregating the news-searches to find "hot" news. One quote that I think highlights the dichotomy between the Western and the PRC's views is:
His cousins, brothers Soohail and Nasir Shaikh who visited him in the hours before his death, said "We are astonished at suggestions that Akmal himself should have provided evidence of his own fragile state of mind. We find it ludicrous that any mentally ill person should be expected to provide this, especially when this was apparently bipolar disorder, in which we understand the sufferer has a distorted view of the world, including his own condition. That this was regarded as sufficient grounds for refusal by the judicial authorities to order any mental health assessment is shocking to us."
That, really, is what the whole dispute is all about. And that it was expected by the PRC that prior proof should be provided of mental illness rather than their obtaining an assessment of his mental condition to establish the facts. A contributer from the PRC said here that it's not possible to get the Court to appoint an impartial doctor due to the social/political conditions in the PRC. I'd like to find an article, that we could reference, that actually analyses this point. I think it is the key issue, and the cause of the strain of the diplomatic relations.--Farry (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not himself - this is absolutely distortion of truth. Either his lawyer or other parties can provide such evidence - the British govt for example, and the reason of refusing to assess his mental condition is the Chinese court deemed the evidence presented by British govt insufficient to prove him mentally ill. Statements like ""We are astonished at suggestions that Akmal himself should have provided evidence of his own fragile state of mind."" is entirely nonsense - where in the whole world can this sort of situation be found? His relatives are not saints, their statements are by no means automatically true. He was allowed to defend himself, but it was not the ONLY way to defend him. If he was not allowed to do so, someone will yell "What evil regime, the defendant was not even allowed to defend himself!" instead.Blodance (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence of Shaikh's story being true?[edit]

Have any witnesses confirmed Shaikh's story, such as the existence of the two men who Shaikh and his supporters said gave him the heroin? Has any CCTV footage, such as that from the hotel he said he stayed in in Tajikistan been produced? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the past history right?[edit]

Shaikh was born in Pakistan, and he migrated with his parents during his childhood to the United Kingdom. Shaikh was a Muslim, he married a Hindu who converted to Islam. They had two sons and a daughter together. His marriage ended in divorce. They lived in the United States in the 1980s, where Shaikh was an estate agent. They moved back to the United Kingdom when the business failed. He then started a mini-cab business in London but fell into bankruptcy. He subsequently moved to Poland where he married in Lublin; he had a son and daughter from that marriage. He then divorced and was wanted in 2007 by a Polish court for not paying alimonies. In 2006 he was sentenced by a Polish court for driving under the influence of alcohol with suspended one year jail sentence and prohibition of driving for three years. On average every 6 months he was visiting the Lublin City Council with new business proposals.--Godlajg (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It would help if someone who is fluent in Polish and English could translate the sources in that language so that we can confirm details regarding his time in Poland. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


The infobox says taxi driver, but I am unclear as to whether he owned a taxi / minicab firm, ran the firm, actually drove a cab himself, or a combination of those things. Can anyone clarify? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw a news describing him as "a taxi driver" somewhere - but I can't remember. >_> Blodance (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
How about musician, then? ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
HELL YA! XD...Um, to be serious, I found a few news sources describing him as a taxi driver. [2] for example. Blodance (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Family's claims[edit]

His brother and cousins had no contact with him for the last few years of his life, so how can they think they know that in 2007 he was severely mentally ill and intending to become a pop star in China? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

They probably didn't. I like to think that they just want Shaikh not to die because he was family despite the overwhelming evidence against him. However one hopes that they accept that what Shaikh did was very wrong and the drugs would have seriously harmed many, many people, and that he was treated by China just like She would treat anyone else in her country. And the fact was, the chap didn't sound as though he wanted to live because he felt himself to be such a failure in life. I am sorry for his death, he was not insane but a fairly intelligent man, but it was the right thing to do. (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say completely disregard his family's claims... Statements like "he was executed just because he failed to prove himself mentally ill" is utter nonsense. Given his family is probably the most heavily biased party, I don't think their claims are of any value at all. Blodance (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

I just removed, again, a paragraph which an IP editor insists on reinserting with comments attributed to MDF The BiPolar Organisation. From what I can tell, it's some low profile local charity. I found it bizarre that this was cited when Amnesty had not been (so I redressed the situation). I won't be reverting this again, and I'll leave it to you to decide whether this bit stays or goes. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


How did he manage to get through airport security on departure in Tajikistan? Shanghai 10 (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea, is there a source?--Yuka Chan (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.