This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
God knows the last thing this article needs is any more discussion, but there is a fundamental difference between claiming that the depositions refuted some claims and that they confirmed some claims. We should be very careful defaming anyone, especially people who are not here to defend themselves. It is inherently unfair to imply that un-named allegations have been proven true without being able to spell out exactly what and how. The problem with depositions, as I am sure we all remember from last time, is that they have limited probative value unless tested in Court. Keep the original wording imho. We also ought to be careful of involvement by any of the parties concerned in writing this article. Lao Wai15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're constantly watching for involvement by concerned parties at all articles. The depositions were made under oath and are part of the public record, and are acceptable reliable sources as pointed out here before. The former passage, recently added, uses weasel words ("refuted some but not all") to impugn Zeleny's allegations, the gravamen of which was supported by testimony in the depositions for anyone who bothers to actually read them. The latter passage is accurate and balanced. Either go with the latter passage or none at all. Why is this an issue again? FeloniousMonk16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we need to keep watching. Actually that is not my recollection of what was said before at all. At best they show what Ms Zhu's state of mind was at the time. I do not see that as weasel words. I am happy to agree on cutting it altogether. I reject that characterisation of the depositions as it happens, but I think we should not go into that here. This is an issue because someone did not let sleeping dogs lie and changed it. If you're happy with cutting the entire sentence, I am happy with cutting the sentence, consensus may be easier than last time. Lao Wai16:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the unsourced negative claims in this article, per WP:BLP. I did leave in - for now - the claim of his retirement, which was the only sourced bit, but it is important to note that this is currently "sourced" only to a 404 not found error. I am leaving this for now, but will remove it in due course unless a proper source is found.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
