Talk:Political offences in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated List-class, Mid-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Like I've said at your talk page, this is a good topic for an article and something that should be covered, but I think it still needs a lot of work. First of all, the introduction is written in a POV manner; even if that POV is correct, we editors shouldn't be passing judgment. I'm about to remove the first sentence, "People's Republic of China judicial system, can be described as harsh and brutal when compared to the Western judicial system.[1][2]", because out of the two references, the second (ECOI) is not a real source, it's just an aggregator of other sources (for example, its whole RTL entry is just copies of the Laogai Research Foundation's book), and in the first reference I can't find this claim (and even if I could, it's just one reference, not enough to make a strong blanket statement like this at the beginning of the article). The second sentence, "During the Maoist era, judicial system was geared towards political persecution," is true, but needs sources (check the article Re-education through labor#History, I believe you will find some helpful sources there, specifically the pages from HRW and HRIC, as well as the Laogai Handbook).

"Though there are civilian lawyers, but their independence is to be doubted, and very often the lawyers also end up in prison with no explanation offered" also needs a source; I have one that mentions the disappearance of lawyers involved in RTL appeals cases, but only in that context, and it doesn't really make this general claim.

All in all, I think there are still a lot of neutrality issues in the lede that need to be cleaned up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, there is still a lot of work to be covered, at least it is a start, and I hope other editors would join in. Please remove contents that you think is POV, before someone put a AfD tag on it. Arilang talk 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Another POV statement is referring to those imprisoned as "victims". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am on the job[edit]

Removing POV statements and respecting WP:NPOV.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think the article is ready to have the {{neutrality}} tag removed yet, and I have restored it. Regardless of the content of individual statements in the article, right now the whole premise and structure of the article is somewhat POV, and it will take a while to clean up. For example, the examples given of laws and of accused are only the ones that we perceive as "unjust"—as far as I can tell, it's not a full list of laws and cases (most of which would probably be mundane anyway), and it gives the impression that these laws are used for nothing other than wrongfully imprisoning state enemies. The intro presents mostly information about how these laws were used under Mao, with little information or evidence for how they are used now; all in all, the selective nature of the current list, as well as the examples that are chosen for each law, make the article look more like a platform for criticism of China's judicial system than an actual article. Anyone who has worked with me before on related articles probably knows that I have little love for the PRC judicial system and even less love for PRC police, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and we need to give everything a neutral treatment, and not try to use it as a platform to crusade against perceived injustice.
One thing that would help would be to find a source that has a comprehensive list of all the laws that fit this definition, and include all those laws in this article, using the source to support that those are all of them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Teen, the term overthrow was hardly ever used by international media, subversion is the commonly used term instead.

@ Rjanag, thanks for your comment, like I said, we need more editors to join in, this is a joint effort.

There are many terms used in Cultural revolution that shall need new wiki articles, terms like 牛鬼蛇神, 抄家, 牛棚, 專政, 上山下鄉, 貧下中農, would anyone like to help? Arilang talk 03:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of those would be better on wiktionary than en-wiki. Some might be appropriate on zh-wiki, but I don't know if they would work well as articles here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
專政(dictatorship) can be a good wiki article,
  1. it was used extensively during Cultural revolution
  2. it is written in the PRC constitution(人民民主專政, whatever it means)
  3. it is still widely practiced nowaday, as PRC is still under one party rule, with no sign of any political reform. Arilang talk 04:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


我國人民民主專政的國體與社會主義政黨制度 google translationBelieve it or not, this is actually the official national policy of the PRC! Whoever invent this term must be either a genius, or a idiot. How can any normal person invent such a term? Democratic dictatorship? Two words with complete opposite meaning, put together and form the constitution of PRC, these people must be insane. Arilang talk 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The name seems that way in English yes, but the original meaning under the constitution is that this is an authoritarian government which rules by the consent of the people. Of course, this seems extremely awkward when it's rendered as "democratic dictatorship" in English, but the word 專政 could mean "authoritarianism" rather than "dictatorship". Colipon+(Talk) 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


is this really the most appropriate title for the article? (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

The page's current name is very unwieldy, plus a bit POV-ish. I suggest moving it to "Political offences in Chinese law" or something similar. Plus this isn't exactly just a list, if we are also going to give background to each 'offence' and what their role was historically. Colipon+(Talk) 04:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)