Talk:Bo Xilai

Lack of Objectiveness in Language?

"Known for his good looks, articulate speech, open-minded work ethic, and a generally liberal outlook, Bo's phenomenal rise from a municipal official to the Central government has been of great media attention and has since elevated his status to that of a political star. The archetype of a politician Bo presents is seldom seen with a generally serious and conservative leadership in Beijing. He has a reputation of a Kennedy-esque figure, his charisma known to media from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and even abroad."

It is unsourced, and seems irrelevant. Thoughts? Kunoichi 4 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of this is now sourced, but I would really like to know where the author of this paragraph got the rest of this information. It is consistent with how Bo is often portrayed publicly. Noting Bo's public persona is important because it relates to his relationship with the public, the media, and other senior members of the CCP.Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Minister of Commerce" to "CCP Secretary of Chongqing"?

That's a huge demotion~! What happened? Anybody? TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Might be all the lawsuits he's getting for genocide of Falun Gong practitioners?--Asdfg12345 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The CCP doesn't care that much about that. I think it's more like corruption or "ethics" stuff (aka relationship w/ short skirts secretaries, etc etc). Might be worth looking into it. I don't know, his political career might even end here. TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a demotion. In fact, he was raised to the Politburo just before he received this position. Chongquing is arguably the largest municipality in the world; it is not a place to put the disgraced or the incompetent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Collinson (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I like how you put ethics in quotation marks! But I thought this kind of thing was commonplace and even less to prick an eyebrow? I was also under the impression that the CCP is shaking in its boots over these cases. After Bo got a default judgement against him in a relatively recent case in Australia, where he was being sued for torture, the CCP got Australian immigration department to intervene in later cases and request immunity for the people who were getting sued--this happened soon after. These guys are also traveling around less as the cases get pushed forward; I guess time will tell.--Asdfg12345 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bo is very high up, (well, was...) and on the track to be a star. You can see the praises of propaganda sites everywhere. He must have tons of emeries. Something big must had happened, so that someone in the party, poked out all kinds of "ethics"/corruption problems against him. Otherwise, in order to bring down the Son of Bo Yibo, you better do your homework. Honey traps are minor, but I wanna point out 1 thing tho --- His kid, Bo GuaGua (薄瓜瓜), went to Harrow school and now studying at Oxford. How can Bo afford to send his kid to Harrow is still a question. Besides, the kid got way too much attention --- He went on photo shoots for varies magazines, including Esquire and stuff. This must got tons of hates from ppl. Well, we will see.

http://i22.tinypic.com/23ifrtc.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/chinas-blue-bloods-ignore-call-of-politics/2007/02/09/1170524304074.html (Aus. Newspaper Reporting, check it out) TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the People's Republic of China, a Party Committee Secretary, colloquially termed a party chief (党委书记), is the most prominent regional Communist Party leadership office, usually the number-one figure in their respective regions. For example, Yu Zhengsheng, the Communist Party Shanghai Committee Secretary, is the city's highest ranked leader, higher than the mayor." "Chongqing is the largest and most populous of the People's Republic of China's four provincial-level municipalities" Take a look at past Ministers of Commerce and you would see that they serve between either 3 or 5 years. Bo served his 3 and naturally goes to serve somewhere else. His current post of Secretary of Chongqing is hardly a demotion. Hanfresco (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Sure, Party Committee Secretary, sure Chongqing, sure 4 municipalities, sure…etc etc. The central committee is a place that every single CCP member wanna get in. It’s every Chinese bureaucrat’s dream to get in there. Bo was there (almost), he was born w/ the “Red Revolution Blood”, he is well connected, his family is powerful, heck, many people even think he is good looking. Just take a look – Guangzhou, Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjing, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Chongqing, all these are the most powerful cities in China. How many of these “party secretaries” actually made to the central Committee? Any provincial official would tell you that they would trade everything to go to the central government. Bo himself came from Dalian, not a bad start, one of the most important cities in Manchuria. So according to the “unofficial party rule” that he “has” the “local experience” already, sending him back to any provincial government is surely a demotion. Of course, I don’t think he will stay in Chongqing forever, he is there to stay out of sight, to go “low profile” for a while, then when the time is right, he will come back. (I think) TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have a great deal of knowledge on the inner minds of China's most powerful politicians (sarcasm btw) and you already have the preconceived notion that regular party shuffling is a form of demotion. Bo is doing important work wherever he goes and whatever he does. Saying he is where he is purely because of his family and connections is disrespectful to not only Bo, but all of China. You too, should take a look at holders of important posts. Many have served in different parts of the country. China is a vast country and it is ridiculous to think one area is representative of her in entirety. In your future mature discussions, do not dismiss other people's arguments with a simple "sure". To prove other people wrong and to prove yourself right, you proud evidence that support yourself. So far the only thing you've convinced me of is that you often make assumptions and like to guess. You only needed to direct me to Political position ranking of the People's Republic of China page where it is clearly shown that ministry heads are ranked higher than provincial party chiefs to convince me. Hanfresco (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince you. The only thing I said was – “I disagree.” As far as I can see - You guess as much as I do. I posted the question here to ask people to share their POVs on issues, that's all. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The post of Mayor of Chongqing isn't a low-profile position, but is considered a less-prestigious position than Minister of Commerce, and Bo himself must have been hoping to move higher within the central government. Among the people I know who follow internal Chinese politics closely, this is considered a sort of demotion that is not serious enough to cause a serious loss of face. The main cause of Bo's move to Chongqing is usually cited as the number of serious consumer-quality issues that occurred (and were widely reported by the international media) during his term in office, and a general dissatisfaction among the more senior leadership with how Bo handled these issues. Suggestions that Bo moved to Chongqing because of anything to do with Fulan Gong are ridiculous and imply a poorly-informed interpretation of Chinese politics.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone, and everyone who is interested in the inner working of Chinese communist system should read this book:The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers. Arilang ^talk 08:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Coolcool. I'll have to add it to the list.Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Party Secretary = Ministerial rank Within the party hierarchy, every provincial party secretary is equal in status to a member of the national government cabinet. There are three provincial party secretaryships that frequently, not always but often enough to matter, also carry membership on the Politburo: Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin. Others that frequently show up include Guangdong and Sichuan.

The following provincial party secretaries were members of the 17th Politburo: Liu Qi (Beijing), Yu Zhengsheng (Shanghai), Zhang Gaoli (Tianjin), Wang Yang (Guangdong), and Wang Lequan (Xinjiang). Bo Xilai was Commerce Minister at the time of his elevation, and Zhang Dejiang was about to be promoted to Vice Premier; both had provincial backgrounds. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo's role in the persecution of Falun Gong

Highly notable: The High Price of Diplomacy With China--Asdfg12345 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His Son,

Recent featured on BBC News showing corruption and how a modest politburo member could afford to send his son to Oxford University. Plus, who wrote that he was expelled? The links are:

http://search.tianya.cn/shareview.jsp?id=5f0c3a973d5bb366f3856f05a78fa0ac http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/05/oxford-star-bo-guagua-scoops-top-award-in-britain/ http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/bo-xilai/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jamesreynolds/2009/06/conflict_of_party_and_private.html#comments

Im not sure how to fit them in, sorry guys --CorrectlyContentious 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added the "CN" Tag...I wanna know if he was really expelled also. The links above are not RS. Most of them are saying things like "I heard it from a friend" or "My friend who is at Oxford" or "Blah blah blah told me". Nah, doesn't work like that. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Really suspicious

how all the additional links at the bottom lead to FLG websites. It's really quite infuriating how the FLG members have hijacked countless Chinese-related articles, yet still have their bullshit propaganda quoted as legitimate sources on Wikipedia.

Don't you all have something better to do, like burning yourselves to death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.159.247 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IP editor 68.149.159.247, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources :Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered;

1. Jiang Weiping is a world famous Chinese reporter who had been thrown into jail by none other than Bo Xilai, because Jiang knows too much dark secrets of Bo and even dare to publish the secrets, so I would not call them bullshit propaganda. Arilang ^talk 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The truth is somewhere in between. Jiang Weiping does have a grudge against Bo, that much is for sure. As far as I can tell he is not against the Communist Party itself like the Epoch Times, but has certainly partnered with them because they all seem to be critical of some part of the CPC bureaucracy. In any case, I would warn against using Jiang's sources unless it is clearly stated who he is and that he is writing on behalf of the Epoch Times - a newspaper that does not have a shred of credibility. Colipon+(Talk) 00:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, please remember Wikipedia is not about Truth or Lies, True or false, it is about Reliable and verifiable. And your comment Epoch Times - a newspaper that does not have a shred of credibility is highly questionable, to say the least, and is there any difference if he is writing for The New York Times or The Epoch Times? Arilang ^talk 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arilang, are you serious? How many does Epoch Times have to be discredited before you admit that they are not a reliable news source? NYT and Epoch Times are the two extremes of good and bad journalism that you can possibly find. Are you serious in your claims that they could be possibly put into the same level? Have you ever read Epoch Times? Go on it now and read some of their BS.192.17.205.72 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, come on guys, I thought we were over the fact that the Epoch Times is a literal propaganda rag during the Falun Gong feuds that originally led to my extended wiki-break. Do you have to go and start inserting this undue nonsense into articles that aren't related to the cult?Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Kristof NYT piece

On the topic of Falun Gong, here are some fairly heavy words from The New York Times China's Donkey Droppings By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: December 1, 2004

So what are China's new leaders, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, really like? Are they visionaries who are presiding over the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever known? Or are they ruthless thugs who persecute Christians, Falun Gong adherents, labor leaders and journalists in a desperate attempt to maintain their dictatorship?

Jiang Weiping

China Releases Investigative Reporter Whose Jailing Had Upset U.S. By Philip P. Pan Washington Post Foreign Service

Jiang Weiping, a former bureau chief for the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Hui Bao, was arrested in December 2000 after writing a series of articles for the magazine Frontline that exposed corruption among senior officials in the northeastern province of Liaoning. He was then sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of revealing state secrets and inciting subversion. A higher court later reduced the sentence to six years. Jiang also reported that one of the Communist Party's rising stars, Bo Xilai, covered up corruption among friends and relatives during his years as mayor of the city of Dalian. Bo, who is the son of the party elder Bo Yibo, was serving as the Liaoning governor when Jiang's reports were published, and is now China's trade minister.

“ Jiang's reporting uncovered several corruption scandals involving high-level officials, including such well-connected leaders as Bo Xilai, governor of Liaoning province and son of Communist Party elder Bo Yibo.

http://cpj.org/awards/2001/jiang.php

”

Arilang ^talk 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Jiang Weiping is well-known and has been widely reported within the mainstream Western media and by nonprofit organizations representing the interests of international journalists. I don't know anything about his relationships with either Fulan Gong or media related to Fulan Gong, but the basic facts of his life and career have been openly reported by non-Fulan Gong sources.

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2009/02/a-twisting-road-to-canada-for-a-chinese-journalist.php

Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resignation from Politburo?

Rumors are swirling that Bo has offered to resign his Politburo position in light of the Wang Lijun scandal.[1] This is still hearsay at this point, but it may develop quickly. We should keep an eye on it.Homunculus (duihua) 02:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as how the New York Times had already reported this, it doesn't really matter whether this is hearsay or factual... verifiability takes precedence. Colipon+(Talk) 04:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but unless I'm missing something, the NYTimes piece doesn't make it clear which position he offered to resign from (Chongqing party chief or Politburo member).Homunculus (duihua) 04:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

It's good to see this page getting more attention of late, though there's still quite a bit that can be improved upon. When I have more time I'd like to make some more substantive proposals and/or edits, but in the interim, I'd like to propose abandoning referenced to the political "right." Bo may represent the new left, but the opposite of the new left is not the right. Moreover, use of these terms is profoundly confusing to Western audiences uninitiated in Chinese politics. Most readers will invariably fail to understand how left=conservative in China, or that the opposite of the left are the progressives and would-be reformers.Homunculus (duihua) 06:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than redact references to the 'right' because people might not understand it, wouldn't the better approach be to link it to the relevant articles (or to create relevant articles) that would explain this distinction? Also, with a bit of digging one finds that the Chinese political spectrum is really not all that different from that of elsewhere in the world - Left means generally means socialism, redistribution of wealth, high public spending, high taxation, Right means market-economics, less government regulations, lower taxation, low public spending. It just happens that China's 'status quo' was the statist 'left' model, and thus to maintain the status quo is to be 'conservative'. Colipon+(Talk) 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, well, first, the sources that are used on the page don't classify Bo's opponents as the political right. Nor should they. Bo, in spite of his statist, populist policies, belong's to the faction of 'elitists' (ei. the Jiang faction, or the princelings), which advanced policies leading to unequal growth and promoted private enterprise in the first place. The opposing faction is commonly known as the populists (The Hu faction / the Tuanpai, which, in a general sense, is more representative of the new left). In their tenure, Hu and Wen promoted wealth redistribution and strengthened state-owned enterprises (often at the expense of the private sector). A more accurate characterization would be to contrast Bo to the liberals or reformers within the party. This is still reductionist, of course, just as any other attempt to distill Chinese factional politics into some kind of neat binary opposition, but it's better than left v. right. On another note, are you serious about creating a page to explain this? I don't envy the editors who would have to wade through that mess. Homunculus (duihua) 16:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that this should not be portrayed as solely a left-right divide, but it has been portrayed as such by numerous Chinese and foreign media sources - particularly the war of words between Wang Yang and Bo Xilai. I don't think the left-right issue should be the focus at any point in the article, but it should be mentioned in passing. Colipon+(Talk) 16:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we create a section titled something like "political alignment," where Bo's positions, ideology, and factional affiliations can be summarized.Homunculus (duihua) 22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the approach that I wanted to take as well - somewhat akin to a "political positions" portion of a US politician - it would mean, however, a drastic overhaul of the section currently called "political positions and ambitions". We need to maintain some sort of chronological order in the lead-up of the Wang Lijun scandal. Colipon+(Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made an attempt, but there is more to be done. In the process, I gutted much of the previous section that contained remnant, unsourced opinions, and moved some of the relevant content into the new section on political alignment and affiliations. Take a look, let me know what you think.Homunculus (duihua) 00:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hom, your section on Bo's political views are very well-written! Great work! I do think, however, that his 'leftist' credentials need a bit more elaboration. In particular his 'cake' theory and his opposition to Wang Yang (which is very well-sourced) should be reinserted into that section. Also, I hope you don't mind moving that section to the bottom of the page as is the template on most other 'politician' articles. Colipon+(Talk) 01:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Cake is undeniably important. I don't know what the structure of the article should be. I'll defer to your judgement for now.Homunculus (duihua) 01:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy with where the article has been going with our collaboration. I think we can take it to GA, even. Colipon+(Talk) 03:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we should make the article as good as possible, but I'm not sure about the viability of achieving GA status right now, given how fast the situation is evolving. If we were to accomplish this, we would need to keep close watch of developments to ensure it remains up-to-date and of a high quality. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't aim for GA. Just that we need not rush into it, lest we succumb to recentism. Speaking of evolving stories, it appears there is now a concerted crackdown on Maoist revivalism,[2] and new revelations about the catalysts for the Wang Lijun defection attempt.[3][4] Homunculus (duihua) 04:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fascinated to look over this article, especially since I was reading about Xilai in the American papers recently and didn't know the background to his political "fall." I'll spend more time in the coming days, but I'll mention a couple of my impressions right now, for the two of you and for others working on this article.

First, I sometimes have the impression that the article is written by two groups of editors, because some paragraphs look like they might have been written by a PR campaign manager, and others by those critical of him. The following three paragraphs are illustrative of the first type of writing:

Described in the Asia Times as good-looking, articulate and open-minded in his approach to problems, Bo's rise from a municipal official to the central government generated great media fanfare and elevated his status to something of a 'political star.' Bo's political persona was considered a departure from the generally serious and conservative leadership in Beijing. With his youthful vigour, populism, and purported popularity with female reporters, Bo's political rise had been compared to that of John F. Kennedy. He became a darling of the media both in China and abroad.

Bo's term as Minister of Commerce saw a continued rise in foreign investment. His daily schedule was dominated with receiving foreign guests and dignitaries. By the time that he held the position of Minister of Commerce, he spoke relatively fluent and colloquial English, much to the delight of his guests, who were accustomed to dealing with translators. In May 2004 Bo was one of the few hand-picked Ministers to accompany Premier Wen Jiabao on a five-country trip to Europe. The trade policy of the United States toward China also sparked significant controversy, during which Bo kept a cool head as he attended talks in Washington.

Bo also oversaw the restructuring of the Ministry, whose formation was the result of the amalgamation of the National Economics and Commerce Bureau and the Department of International Trade. Bo sought to balance the amount of attention given to foreign investors and domestic commercial institutions. He began tackling the imbalance from the retail sector, whose success was largely dependent on foreign companies. He drew out plans to protect Chinese industries so they would not lose their place inside the Chinese market.

Much of the language above ("good looks... articulate... open-minded... youthful vigour... populism... popularity with female reporters... darling of the media... delight of his guests... kept a cool head... tackling imbalance from the retail sector...") is repetitious and doesn't feel encyclopedic.

Secondly, all these statements above have only one source, if they have any. I noticed that at one point Bo Xilai's tenure was described as free of corruption allegations, and this statement was followed by a sourced paragraph on allegations of corruption.

Would anyone mind if I took these kinds of paragraphs to the chopping block? I don't doubt that there may be truth buried in these various statements, but these assertions need to be referenced and written with a neutral tone.

Am looking forward to contributing! All best, -Darouet (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking those over. Actually, those specific paragraphs were written a long time ago, prior to the proliferation of sourcing policies on WP. I agree perhaps a more neutral tone is necessary. I have added a source to that section - a Chinese language article from 2005. It was an admittedly sympathetic piece, but there's little else out there that goes into detail about Bo's tenure as Commerce Minister. Colipon+(Talk) 16:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick suggestion: we may want to consider including a section that deals specifically with Bo's public image, and the media accounts of his character and style. His personality is among his main sources of notability, after all. Homunculus (duihua) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

22 March (Allegations of impropriety)

An editor is removing allegations of impropriety and torture, saying in edit summaries that these allegations are fringe, etc.[5] I'm seriously tired of editors (always the same ones) deleting credible reports of human rights abuses. Bo was indicted for genocide in Spain, and found guilty of torture (by default judgement) in Australia. These lawsuits were cited by Wen Jiabao as a reason Bo should be ineligible for promotion. Yet Shrigley has changed this paragraph to read simply that "Adherents of the banned Falun Gong movement have filed several unsuccessful international lawsuits against Bo for overseeing the suppression of the group in Liaoning"—an edit that is patently misleading. Other sources allege Bo was involved in organ harvesting. This is to say nothing of serious corruption allegations. Reliable sources have reported on these things, they are notable, and they deserve more than passing mention. As to Wikileaks as a SPS, I raised this question on another page once, and was pointed to a RS discussion that concluded that these documents can be used. Homunculus (duihua) 21:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not personalize our comments, or induce editing patterns based on prejudice. I likewise tire of followers of small religiopolitical movements adding large amounts of poorly-sourced protest material to the biographies of provincial Chinese officials, but my feelings are irrelevant to the discussion.

Wikileaks' being an SPS does not mean that we cannot use it entirely. However, we should note that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so": preferably somebody with the relevant expertise for the weighty question of why Bo was moved to Chongqing. Reading the cable, the need for context about Wen's comment is apparent. "Bo's move to Chongqing puts an ambitious, arrogant and widely disliked competitor for a top position in a trouble-filled position far from Beijing... Wen's arguments found fertile soil among officials who still harbor resentment against Bo for his treatment of his family--particularly his father--during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76)." By using Wikileaks as a primary source, we are acting as historians and answering the complex question of "why was Bo moved from a national position to Chongqing" with a simple and tendentious answer: "because he persecuted Falun Gong". No doubt this reasoning makes sense to practitioners, but Falun Gong was never a major part of the narrative told by the reams of reliable secondary sources produced on this man.

I will defend my description of the lawsuits as "unsuccessful". First, the article on the Australia "default judgment" noted the dozens of frivolous lawsuits that Falun Gong followers had filed in similarly irrelevant jurisdictions. Second, it quotes an Australian law professor as saying that Bo is immune from the judgment by Australian law, and that Bo would not even dignify the lawsuit by invoking such an immunity. Likewise, the decision made in absentia against a broad range of Chinese officials by an eccentric Spanish judge had no practical consequences for Bo that reliable sources note, either personally or professionally.

On the Jiang Weiping issue, there is no need to survey Jiang's life and career in this article; he even has his own article. His corruption-related allegations must be given appropriate weight, against our sources that say there were few corruption complaints, and that Bo is perceived as clean and aggressively anti-graft. So we can note Jiang's contrarianism in a sentence, and readers can follow the footnote if they wish, but it is not appropriate to repeat the allegations in detail, as if they had widespread currency outside of the Epoch Times rumor mill.

If you have reliable sources that assert great significance to Falun Gong in this man's life story, then produce them for discussion. But despite the high visibility of this slanderous material in what should be a conservatively written biography over the past few days, my internet news search has produced no such results. May you be more successful than I! Shrigley (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you may be overreacting. The evidence seems to suggest that Bo is indeed a Big Bad Maoist, and his father was responsible for pushing Deng to fire on students in Tiananmen 1989. Probably for that reason, he opposes the vindication for the protesters sought several times by Wen Jiabao. His role in Liaoning needs to be kept in perspective. It was merely a part of his career, like his attempting to whip up Cultural Revolution II in Chongqing. His specific role in alleged unsubstantiated crimes is built on a foundation of cream cheese. Sure, he was probably terribly nepotist and corrupt too; Wang Lijun seems to suggest so, and I'm sure his allegations will be investigated. So yes, there's plenty of dirt on this guy, plenty of allegations. Like most of the dirty linen of the top brass, Bo's alleged transgressions will probably be dealt with behind closed doors. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the allegations against Bo by Jiang Weiping interesting and have studied them extensively. Bo and Jiang clearly have an axe to grind against each other - Jiang was angry that he was jailed for writing a few critical newspaper articles while Bo was angry that he was the subject of that very criticism. Whatever it may be, Jiang Weiping has penned a large number of attack pieces against Bo Xilai since his emigration to Canada. Many of those appear on Falun Gong newspaper Epoch Times; others appear on other Chinese-language newspapers and websites based in North America. AFAIK, Jiang is not actually linked to Falun Gong, he merely hates Bo Xilai's with passion and will vent this through whatever channel available. In any case, we should exercise some degree of caution with Jiang's reporting on Bo - but I would not go as far as Shrigley in reducing the Jiang narrative to a single sentence. Bo's corruption allegations are discussed on some of the recent news articles but very few go into detail or substantiate the allegations. However, if there are 'mainstream' news articles about Bo's corruption charges, especially those that relate to Jiang Weiping specifically, I would like to see it and I see no problems with incorporating it into the article, given due weight.

As for the 'torture' allegations and Falun Gong, I endorse Shrigley's position. The way that section was pieced together - from a hodge-podge of mostly 'primary' articles sourced to human rights websites and Wikileaks Cables, amounts to a textbook case of synthesis. Again I acknowledge that some secondary news sources have reported on the Falun Gong allegations but they evidently do not give much weight to it in the context of Bo's life. I would not remove the references to FLG entirely but I would keep it down to a sentence or two. The lawsuits are agreed upon by academics such as David Ownby and Heather Kavan to be a major part of Falun Gong's public relations campaign and should be taken as part of advancing the group's well-known political agenda.

I do think discussions need to remain civil on Wikipedia, and personal attacks should be kept to a minimum. While I have expressed concern and frustration over User Homunculus' edits at pages related to Falun Gong, I found working with him on this article to be a pleasant experience, and deliberately avoided editing the Falun Gong-related sections of the page lest we damage this environment of cooperation. But now the genie is out of the proverbial bottle I must voice what I think is reasonable to the subject matter at hand, which is not Falun Gong, but Bo Xilai.

As an aside, could we please mark the section titles of discussions with a subject rather than a date? It's easier for editors to find the topics of discussion that way. Colipon+(Talk) 13:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley, I don't know how you purport to know the religious beliefs of IP editors. But if by some gift of divination you have insight into this question, it is completely unacceptable to comment on another editor's religion, race, ethnicity, etc. as an form of ad hominem attack. I hope it won't happen again.

Regarding the Jiang allegations, I'm glad there's some agreement that these merit more than one sentence, given the fairly prominent coverage they received. Particularly since allegations of this nature turned out to be prescient. I don't know how much you have followed the news, but a couple days ago there were independently verified reports that Bo had sought to impede an investigation into his family, and this seems to have precipitated the Wang Lijun incident and Bo's sacking.

On the Falun Gong issue, you have all noted, in one form or another, that you do not believe that Falun Gong's claims of torture are true, (eg. stating that such allegations are 'based on cream cheese,' or are merely part of some inexplicable publicity campaign, for instance), and that if they are true, these "misadventures" are a "fringe concern" (to quote Quigley). One does not elicit an indictment for genocide on the basis of cream cheese, nor does one win a torture case without having been tortured. Torture and genocide are not fringe concerns, and if a person has been indicted or found guilty on these crimes, it is notable to their biography. In any event, your beliefs about the veracity of these claims does not matter for the purposes of this article (though, as a personal note, I find in these statements a callousness that is, frankly, disturbing).

The fact is that Falun Gong has filed a number of lawsuits against Bo Xilai, that some have been rejected due to jurisdictional issues and sovereign immunity, but that two of these at least have been successful (if only at a symbolic level). As such, Shrigley's characterization of them as "unsuccessful" is simply wrong. It is also apparently the case that these lawsuits were a source of some contention with the Hu/Wen faction, and may have been one factor in Bo's failure to receive a promotion in 2007. Finally, at least one reporter with a major newspaper has recently noted Bo's "ruthlessness" in pursuing Falun Gong as a source of controversy within the party. I don't think it's necessary to include Kilgour's discussion of Bo's involvement in organ harvesting; there's no way to state this concisely with all the necessary caveats and qualifications in place. However, it may be notable that Bo is on an RCMP watchlist, "among 45 alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity accepted by [the Canadian] federal government's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program." As to synthesis, I don't really see it, but you are welcome to try to devise a better presentation.Homunculus (duihua) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored some of the deleted content, corrected the mischaracterization of the lawsuit outcomes, and replaced a Renminbao source that did not support the statement it was attached to. I tried to keep the Jiang allegations concise, because I don't want casual readers to think that Bo himself was the one with mistresses and a gambling problem. Now, if we can get off the ideological debates, there are some pragmatic ones to discuss here. First, there is a real paucity of information on Bo's tenures in Dalian and Liaoning—so much so that they're not even given their own sections. This is not hard to remedy, as there is a fair bit of information available that speaks to the way in which Bo transformed Dalian, etc. It's actually pretty interesting (for instance, there is more continuity than I thought between his policies in Liaoning and Chongqing). I can work on building this out, but Colipon had previously alluded to the idea of a larger restructuring that moves away from the chronological approach. Colipon, I'd like to hear your ideas on how that might look. Homunculus (duihua) 16:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To your accusations of "callousness", I note that the Wikimedia Foundation implores us to be extra cautious when writing about individuals (such as Bo), rather than about corporations, cults, or other collectives.

I'm glad we can agree that our own beliefs about the significance of the accusations don't matter, and that secondary sources' judgments are what matter. So far, you've brought a new source from the Telegraph. Although I still have concerns that including it is cherry-picking (if 1 source mentions Falun Gong, and 10,000 don't, are we doing the subject justice?) I have retained that source.

On the other hand, you noted yourself that there is agreement against putting Bo on trial-by-Wikipedia. In other words, although we can report basic facts such as that Bo was sued, we don't have reliable sources to comment on the relevance of any judgments. There is simply a lack of reliable sources asserting that the lawsuits had any direct impact on Bo's life trajectory. I hope "ineffectual" is more agreeable word to you than "unsuccessful", since you yourself describe them as "symbolic".

No new sources were provided on Jiang Weiping's allegations, except a CPJ blog which detailed Jiang's arrest. The arrest is not directly relevant to Bo's life, and says nothing about the veracity of the allegations, so I have removed it as better appropriate to the biography of Jiang. Likewise, the Kilgour-Harris opinion piece attacking Bo is not an appropriate source for facts. At the time of this writing, I still worry that the article implies that FLG was a major reason why Bo got (or didn't get) certain party posts, but I am optimistic that this imbalance can be rectified with more text exploring conventional explanations, rather than with the removal of material. Shrigley (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view Quigley is overreaching in his role as a Wikipedia editor. (I've been watching this dispute but did not want to get involved in yet another drawn out discussion.) Simply put, the Taipei Times or Australian source cited doesn't say anything about the lawsuits being ineffectual. And Quigley is not the one who decides whether a lawsuit does or does not have an effect. On the other hand, Homunculus's additions about the torture allegations and suits are simple, brief (too brief, in my view), and clearly cited to reliable sources. I don't see any justification for the removal of this obviously notable and wp:rs material, and as such have restored it, and would ask Shrigley to please guide his editing by our content policies. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I speak for everyone (or, at least, for most of us) when I say that I'm not interested in continually litigating these ideological struggles. I'm interested in improving this page, and am dismayed that constructive collaboration has been derailed. Shrigley, this section should state the facts of what happened. It is not the place to editorialize on the impact, success, or effect of these lawsuits, nor is it appropriate to attempt to delegitimize the seriousness of these charges by calling the victims members of a cult, or by making insinuations about other editors. I hope that's clear. Homunculus (duihua) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added some stuff and will add more later. Hopefully no one will see cause to delete it. That would be unfortunate. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will consider assisting in the task of building out other portions of the page. Relative to other information on Bo's time in Liaoning, the FG issue is currently given inordinate weight. I think the paragraph you added could be reduced while retaining the essential meaning. More important is that other facets of Bo's policies and position need to be described in greater depth (and with better sources).Homunculus (duihua) 21:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• will have some more ideas on this later, but if the cables are RS then we have a reliable source saying that the reason Bo was sent to Chongqing was because of the FLG lawsuits. in those circumstances I'm not sure the issue has been given enough weight? Anyway. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can extrapolate that this was the reason Bo was sent to Chongqing. More likely there were several reasons. One hypothesis I've seen is that when Bo Yibo died, it became easier for oppositional factions to send Bo the younger to the interior. Also, note that Wen Jiabao has never particularly liked Bo Xilai. The international lawsuits may have given him leverage to argue his case against Bo's promotion, but it would have been only one factor among many. Also, I'm not 100% comfortable with using diplomatic cables as a source to begin with, so I wouldn't want to hang too much on them.Homunculus (duihua) 17:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• What does it matter what particular editors are comfortable with if the sources are reliable? How is this source any less reliable than any other possible source on a topic like this? And do your theories above have any reliable sources at all? We can only use what we've got. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Completely fine to summarize the content and whatever else, but what about this change [6]  ? It changes it from saying that it was because of the Falun Gong lawsuits that Wen opposed Bo's ascendancy in the central government, to his "negative international profile". I eagerly await an explanation. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • There's no need to flog it to death unless you're the Epoch Times. When I changed it, it was part of the 'Falun Gong', er, Liaoning section. And it's then more than obvious to what that "negative international profile" referred. It was only later on that I moved it. Where it's currently located, its also suited because it's more general, and not a departure from what Wen apparently said. And it then becomes obvious when reading the whole article to what that refers; that said, we shouldn't be taking leaked cables as gospel. The lawsuit issue, as mentioned hereabove, is not the only reason Wen opposes Bo for the top body but just a convenient peg to hang his objections on. Wen is a reformist and dislikes hardliners, particularly such "objectionable" ones as he. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the cable:

26. (S) Nanjing's Professor Gu said Bo's move to Chongqing puts an ambitious, arrogant and widely disliked competitor for a top position in a trouble-filled position far from Beijing. Gu noted that Bo had been angling for promotion to Vice Premier. However, Premier Wen had argued against the promotion, citing the numerous lawsuits brought against Bo in Australia, Spain, Canada, England, the United States, and elsewhere by Falungong members. Wen successfully argued Bo's significant negative international exposure made him an inappropriate candidate to represent China at an even higher international level. Wen's arguments found fertile soil among officials who still harbor resentment against Bo for his treatment of his family--particularly his father--during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). In order to make himself politically above reproach, Bo, at the time, had made a public statement denouncing his father and renouncing his kinship ties. Gu said that people value familial feelings above all else and many see Bo as a "base traitor" who is "less than human" for his actions.

We're not concerned with what other, non verifiable reasons Wen might have had (and I agree with you, he probably had a gaggle, and even more after Bo started his antics in Chongqing), but in the above it seems that there is only this one issue mentioned: the FLG lawsuits and the negative exposure they brought. The idea of keeping Bo out was then welcomed by others for other reasons. You deleted the part about the "negative exposure" being related to the lawsuits. You haven't explained why, instead presenting your own theories for what is significant. I suggest it be restored to how it was so the page is in line with the reliable source. I have no particular affections for this group, anymore than any other group in circumstances such as these, but I see no need to try to tippy-toe around issues associated with them. Let's just tell it like it is. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not RS, or V, but really undue weight, which is one of the fundamental aspects of WP:NPOV. So far, in mainstream sources, only a handful out of hundreds articles on Bo make mention of Falun Gong's allegations against him, and even those that do (such as Malcolm Moore's article) mentions it only in passing - barely half a sentence in length. What we have done is essentially cherry-pick what we could find out of a disparate series of primary sources of Falun Gong-related material and plastered it in the section on Liaoning when it truly has little bearing on Bo's life. Even if you argue from the Wikileaks cable that Wen had beef against Bo because of Falun Gong, you have to think about why this wasn't reported on any stories from major newspapers regarding Bo's downfall. If the lawsuits really did have such a negative impact on Bo then we should see that reflected prominently in our collection of secondary sources, which we don't. In fact, a search for the keywords "Bo Xilai" and "Falun Gong" yields only results from Falun Gong advocacy websites New Tang Dynasty Television, The Epoch Times, and and Faluninfo.net, and this Wikipedia article. As such, I repeat my position from earlier: I am not against the inclusion of Falun Gong material, but only if it is given the due weight commensurate to the actual impact it had on Bo's life. Colipon+(Talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, your changes are fine to me. OhConfucius, I'm a little reticent about moving the Wikileaks cable, but it's okay where you put it. I would advise that it be edited slightly to reflect the actual content of the cable, however. As has been pointed out, it did not refer to negative media exposure; it referred explicitly to the lawsuits brought by Falun Gong. I hope we can set this aside now. I'm going to start working on other aspects of the page.Homunculus (duihua) 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight? What is due weight, then? It was 100 words in an article of 4,000 words. That is 0.025%. Is that undue weight? Now it's 69 words, which is 0.01725%. Colipon, I would be very intrigued to see how you made the calculation of what weight was due, accurate to so many decimal places! Please help me here. And the way the lawsuit issue was sidelined hasn't been addressed. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make a comparison. U.S. President George W. Bush has a large number of 'crimes against humanity' charges, indictments, lawsuits, etc., coming from multiple jurisdictions and a wide array of interest groups. There is absolutely no mention of this on his Wikipedia page. That makes due weight on his article 0%. If it were up to me, I would say a case can be made for 0% on this article as well. But I have chosen to compromise to find a solution that is acceptable to us all. Colipon+(Talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, your calculations are wrong. 100 words/4000 is 2.5%. Now it is at 1.75%. Colipon+(Talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge George Bush has not been indicted or found guilty of torture or genocide. Bo Xilai has, and the lawsuits against him appear to have played a fairly significant role in shaping his political career. There's no need to obfuscate here; we can state the facts clearly and concisely. I think what's on the page now is fine. I also think it was fine before. Can we move on now? Homunculus (duihua) 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell you're on about, considering that the reputable human rights organizations like Amnesty International has called for the arrest of George W Bush [7] over waterboarding, and the CCR also filed similar suits against the Bush Six [8], which is far more notable than stunts from an alleged cult. And Bo Xilai wasn't indicted or found guilty of torture either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.198.242 (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is not a forum
• The use of pejorative slurs against a religious group is a violation of one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, WP:Civility
• Bo Xilai was found guilty of torture in Australia in 2007, and was indicted on charges of genocide and torture in Spain in 2009.
• While we're on the subject, the article on George Bush devotes considerable space to describing his controversial policies on torture, and the international response to them. In fact, it appears to be the source for the criticisms you've cited above. If we were actually to use that page as a guide to notability on such things (it has achieved good article status, after all), its treatment of this subject would suggest that we have been extremely conservative in handling the very serious accusations against Bo. Homunculus (duihua) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Epoch Times sheep, shouldn't you be loitering outside the Chinese embassy? I'm simple calling a spade a spade, and since when it's wrong for me to call Falun Gong what it is yet it's ok for you to use slurs against the CCP government? LMAO I know that everyone has to make a living, but could you please stop making it so obvious? And I take Amnesty International and CCR's authorities over over the cult anyday. Falun Gong is a C-C-CULT dead with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.198.242 (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai & Hu Jintao

Currently a passage from the "organized crime" section reads:

“ Reports from the Jamestown Foundation suggest that the final decision for such a large-scale crackdown originated from the central authorities and CPC General Secretary, President Hu Jintao, and Bo has been careful to not make the case look as though Chongqing is "trying to set an example" for the rest of the country so he could benefit from the success politically. ”

While ordinarily I trust Willy Lam's analysis, and I authored the passage in question myself, this case may require further corroboration, given recent developments, which raise sufficient doubts about how 'in line' Bo was with the central leadership. It would seem that Bo's 'go-at-it-alone' attitude was part of what got him in so much trouble, and would seemingly disprove the idea that Hu was calling the shots from Beijing. The original passage from Willy Lam (via Jamestown Foundation) is as follows:

Hong Kong papers have reported that the Chongqing “anti-triad tornado” was made possible only after President Hu Jintao had personally given approval to the unprecedented crackdown. Bo indirectly confirmed this by saying late last month that the “anti-triad operation was handled by the party central leadership” and that it was “not a case of Chongqing trying to set a sensational example” (Guangzhou Daily, October 17; China News Service, October 29; Chongqing Daily, October 29). While Bo seems to be striking a delicate balance between praising Beijing’s leadership on the one hand and claiming credit for having done the right thing on the other, neither the CCP authorities nor the gung-ho regional “warlord” has been able to reassure the nation about the viability of China’s legal apparatus.

Any opinions on how to best represent this passage would be welcome. Colipon+(Talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that in his recent grand defense Bo said that it wasn't just him and his Chongqing boys involved, but all sorts of other judicial and law enforcement apparatuses, including the central government's politico-legal committee etc. etc. He was spreading the responsibility. Truth factor unknown, but it may be a bit early to discount this central-involvement thesis entirely. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Still missing - Taxi strike, rural rights, Dalian

I think the article is really coming together with the help of multiple editors. There are just a few more things to consider that still lack coverage here - significant projects/achievements of Bo. First is the Chongqing taxi drivers strike. It happened in 2008, just a year after Bo took over as party chief, and a large number of articles have been written about it in the Chinese media (English language coverage here). In fact, if we had more resources, it could very well be an article in its own right. The second is the rural rights campaign, which is part of the reason Bo is so popular in Chongqing. He gave residents subsidized housing, education, and health care privileges once only accessible to 'urban' residents. Finally, his time in Dalian needs to be given more due weight. Sources could be hard to locate for that, though. If we can achieve these things I forsee this becoming a 'good article' candidate, and the most comprehensive resource on learning about Bo Xilai for general readers and Chinese politics enthusiasts alike. Colipon+(Talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll add to the to-do list. The Dalian section should include a discussion of his establishment of free trade zones and other 'special favors' he procured for the city. There should be a section about his media and public image. The "Chongqing model" should have a section that presents it as a holistic approach to resolving a variety of social, moral, political and economic needs facing China, with a brief discussion of why that was potentially challenging to the party brass in Beijing.Homunculus (duihua) 23:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And another: I suggest that the page should have a section dedicated to discussing the significance of Bo, and of his ouster from Chongqing. And to that end, this article from Foreign Policy[9] is quite excellent. It's mostly focused on Wen Jiabao, but speaks to the overall significance of the factional divisions. It is the most detailed and evocative account I've seen of Bo's experiences during the Cultural Revolution, though some of these details focus more broadly on the Red Guards at the No. 4 High School, and don't explicitly implicate Bo. Homunculus (duihua) 03:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I read that article, and was about to do an injection of content on the Wen Jiabao article. Just lacking the time to do this right now. Perhaps we can just add a paragraph into the "political alignment" section? Colipon+(Talk) 04:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to start adding a couple things. Roll me back if it's too much.Homunculus (duihua) 14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't mind the "Long Live Red Terror" line, but I am wondering if this really has that great of impact on Bo's life per se or if it is just trivia for No. 4 Middle School. After all, we don't know if Bo himself actually took part in the 'cafeteria re-branding' campaign. Colipon+(Talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I had that concern too. A couple sources I've read have said that Bo was active in that particular red guard faction, but yes, it doesn't directly implicate him, and might be a bit sensational. Also, I added a bit on the 16th party congress. Let me know your thoughts.Homunculus (duihua) 15:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hom, I went through and did some more research and dissecting, resulting in the current revision. I tried to frame things in a greater context. Please take a look to see if it is satisfactory. Other editors are also welcome to contribute. Colipon+(Talk) 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look soon. I was sort of hoping to take a couple days to tend to real life things, but just when I get out...well, you know how it goes.Homunculus (duihua) 05:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Small notes

I have just some small formatting notes:

• I would suggest that we stick to the non-slanted quotation marks, since they are recommended at WP's Manual of Style, and they are rendered best on mobile devices, different browsers, OSs, etc.
• Please try to use the "Cite" tool in the editor to compile references to ensure formatting consistency. Or we can just invite a gnome to come and clean up the refs once we put it up for a GA or FA candidate.

Colipon+(Talk) 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Place of Birth is Beijing

The reliable sources seem to point to Bo as having been born in Beijing, not Shanxi province. Shanxi province is his jiguan, or "ancestral home", but not his birthplace. Colipon+(Talk) 03:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed someone fixed that. Thanks for the clarification. On another note, I saw you started the GA process. I'll return to this in the next few days, as there are some sections I'd like to see built. They are not prerequisites to GA status, but would be valuable. In particular, I think we should have something on Bo's media and public image, as well as a section dealing with his significance. In particular, the significance of his downfall in undermining the myth of institutionalized succession processes, laying bare the factional struggles in party leadership, leading to coup rumors and at least initial calls for greater reform and transparency, and so on.

On another note, there has been a good deal more media coverage on Bo's family, including Guagua. I've been reluctant to create an article on Guagua, or to say much about him here, because his only major source of notability comes from being a princeling with a "strained relationship" with books, extravagant tastes, and questionable manners. In other words, he's sort of tabloid fodder, and the encyclopedia value is questionable. But in the last couple weeks, there have been a number of feature articles written about him in major papers. It might be worth expanding a little on Guagua, particular insofar as his escapades impacted Bo's image as an egalitarian reformer, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone plowed ahead and created the article on Bo Guagua. I wouldn't say I'm thrilled, since a lot of the stuff is, like you said, tabloid fodder. This is not to mention that Guagua, who is internet-savvy and speaks English at a near-native level, will probably be reading his own article from time to time. But if the NYTimes wrote an article featuring him, perhaps he has now passed WP:GNG.

As for the implications of Bo's downfall, I would almost suggest creating a separate article called "Dismissal of Bo Xilai" or "Bo Xilai affair", perhaps even merging it with the Wang Lijun incident... this article is getting quickly bloated with recentist content that may create serious WP:UNDUE issues. Colipon+(Talk) 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes....I've been meaning to do a lot of things, both here and on the growing collection of peripheral pages, but am still tied up in real life. I will do it soon, if no one beats me to it.Homunculus (duihua) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Article created at Bo Guagua. There's more to do, but plenty of material there. The articles used as references contain a wealth of information to draw on.Homunculus (duihua) 15:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

GA - that was fast...

Um, did this just pass as a good article? Is there an assessment page? I was expecting there would be a period of review and feedback, and was actually thinking of reworking a section or two to reflect more recent coverage (the section on Bo's downfall, in particular, had been written as events evolved, and could benefit from renewed attention). I'll probably still revisit the downfall narrative, and also continue pondering a 'media/public image' section. But in the mean time, hazah for GA status. Homunculus (duihua) 21:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can't seem to find the review page anywhere. It ought to reside at Talk:Bo Xilai/GA1 but isn't there for some reason. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, apparently it was not properly reviewed. More time to improve it, then. I didn't want to say so, but in its current state, I don't think it quite meets GA status. Maybe my standards are too high. I'm not sure. Homunculus (duihua) 03:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on drafting changes to the section on Bo's tenure in Chongqing. I intend to expand on the chongqing model, including creating new sections to address social and economic policies, as well as leadership style. Something also needs to be said about the wiretapping of senior leaders, as it was among the major contributors to his downfall. I plan to make these changes within 24 hours or so.Homunculus (duihua) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work! Do you read Chinese? while you're at it perhaps also look up some sources on the Taxi strike. Colipon+(Talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to hold your praise. I'm still working on it, but once I'm done I suspect there will still be ample room for revision. I can pull together some material from the taxi strike, sure. Homunculus (duihua) 02:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Chongqing career

Per above conversation, I've just expanded the section on Bo's career in Chongqing considerably. Hopefully I didn't go overboard. There is a small amount of material that was lost, and I'll paste it here for posterity. Ideally this could go into a section on Bo's public image:

Wary of the potential for social chaos similar to that created during the Cultural Revolution, attributed partially to Mao's personality cult, the public images of modern Chinese leaders tend towards stoic reserve. In spite of Bo's popularity among the public, and the "fawning" attention of the international media, Western media described him as a "divisive figure, creating enemies by riding roughshod, at times, over the hierarchy of the party and by his unwavering support for Mr Jiang."

I didn't yet get around to the taxi strike, but I will. I also think there's a still-pressing need to revise the section on Bo's downfall to tell a more complete and coherent narrative. The significance of his suspension also needs to be addressed. There is much to do. Other editors should feel welcome to do what they will with these new additions, or to question my rationale for whatever. Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the work you've put into this article, its quality has noticeably improved over time. It is rather sad, the field of Chinese politics is rather specialized, and there are only a handful of users who edit in this field. Otherwise an event as big as this would have received more attention from editors, I'm sure. But then again, most "recent events" related articles are a mess. I think in retrospect the team here did a fairly good job of containing the 'recentism' on the article to a minimum. My only concern now really is article size... I feel like perhaps the Chongqing section is given too much weight... perhaps a "Chongqing Model" article is due? But, that is a lot of work. Anyway, as far as I can see now, I would not hesitate recommending this article to friends as the best comprehensive and neutral source on Bo's biography on the internet. This means GA (and perhaps even FA if we are ambitious) is not too far away, only if a user would show up to review the damn thing. Anyway, overall, great work! Colipon+(Talk) 04:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you also think it would be a good idea to merge sections on "public image" and "leadership style"? I feel like there would be some overlap between the two. Colipon+(Talk) 05:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of the material at least from leadership style would fit in within a discussion of public image. I was thinking of working on that section this week, though I would also like to do an update to 'downfall,' perhaps dividing it into three parts: Wang Lijun fallout/incident, removal from posts, and aftermath. Or something like that. Sound good? Homunculus (duihua) 04:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I did some edits to the sections. Overall they are very well written and comprehensive. Again, I'm not sure about the abundance of so many quotations... they look very unencyclopedic, and are often too personal, so I will do my best to remove them without damaging the central message in the content. Colipon+(Talk) 18:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bo Xilai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 01:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose of this article is solid.	✓ Pass
(b) (MoS)	This criteria has been followed.	✓ Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	115 great refs.	✓ Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Many reliable citations.	✓ Pass
(c) (original research)	A pass here...	✓ Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major facets addressed.	✓ Pass
(b) (focused)	Article is clear and focused, or in PRC words, it follows the glimmering, golden path towards harmony.	✓ Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article is neutral.	✓ Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article has high stability.	✓ Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	A pass here...	✓ Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Suitable captions.	✓ Pass

Result

Result	Notes
✓ Pass	This review has been pending long enough, the article is stable, textbook ad a GA.

Discussion

I will be reviewing this for a bit, but during that time, please feel free to comment and help make this article a GA one. I also will be completing the review at intervals, so if you see the review half-done, be aware it will be completed soon. Thanks for the comments and input! I also attempt to make my reviews as concise and accurate as possible. Oakley77 (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to review the page. As you may have noticed, there are still some fairly significant revisions being undertaken (see above discussion). I anticipate that these changes can move forward expeditiously and smoothly, but would you be willing to perhaps delay a final review for...I don't know, a week or so? Homunculus (duihua) 17:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the writer; the very first thing I saw is stability concerns, since a lot is being modified right now. Once the revisions are done let us know, and this will be tagged for second opinion to make sure everything's set. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"re-education through labour"

I just wanted to follow-up on the passage: "It reportedly involved widespread arbitrary detention, reeducation-through-labor, as well as the use of torture to extract confessions." It is sourced to a Berkeley Law op-ed, which further interprets a Financial Times article. The original was "To carry out the campaign, the Financial Times says, “heavy use” was made of “measures that allow police to lock people away without trial,” presumably a reference to the use by the Chongqing public security bureau (PSB) of sentences to “re-education through labor” (RETL)." Here it would appear as though the author of the op-ed is speculating and interpreting rather than decisively asserting it as fact. Moreover, the author points out later on that "An unnamed legal activist quoted in the Financial Times report mentioned above appears to suggest that the damage done by RETL in Chongqing is not permanent. “It is an administrative measure and can easily be reversed through administrative mean.”" So in my view, the passage as it stands is an example of sensationalism, not to mention potential BLP violation since it is speculation, and should be removed from the article. I am not opposed to keeping references to "arbitrary detention"; the torture allegations need to be better-sourced, and while I do not doubt that Chongqing police forces tortured to extract confessions, I worry that we are attributing too much to Bo personally. Colipon+(Talk) 04:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, the Financial Times describes people being imprisoned without trial, and while it's safe to assume that's a reference to administrative sentencing to RTL, the op-ed it is a little speculative. The Washington Post (cited below) is an alternate source on the forced labor claim. We might rephrase to something like ""It reportedly involved the misuse of the courts system, widespread arbitrary detention and reeducation-through-labor, and the alleged use of torture to extract confessions." I think these statements are abundantly supported by reliable sources. The allegations of torture are difficult to prove definitively, of course, which is why we can only say they are alleged or reported. Here's a small selection:

• Washington Post[10] "The thousands jailed in the campaign, also called “hard strike” in the Chinese media, included gang members, wealthy businessmen, police officers and local government officials. About 1,000 people were sentenced to forced labor, and dozens executed, many after hasty trials that ignored even rudimentary judicial procedures. Many have alleged that they were tortured while in custody and confessed under duress."
• National Interest[11]: "...assorted reports now contend the anti-gangster campaign [Wang] directed on Bo’s behalf included shakedowns of legitimate businessmen, jailing lawyers who tried to defend them and widespread use of arbitrary arrest and torture."
• Financial Times[12]: "Tens of thousands of people were caught up in the campaign and at least a dozen were executed following hasty trials. From the start, this campaign was dogged by persistent allegations of arbitrary law enforcement, show trials, illegal asset seizures, torture and even murder."
• The Guardian[13]:"The anti-gang campaign saw "crazy and massive detentions" of people who were mostly innocent, said Li. He was one of them. His client, alleged triad boss Gong Gangmo, said he confessed after more than a week of torture. But when Li used the testimony in Gong's defence, he too was arrested, accused of falsifying evidence and strapped into a "tiger chair" – a sleep-deprivation device – for three days and nights."
• Financial Times[14] "His campaign against crime syndicates in Chongqing was arbitrary and brutal. It included swift executions and the use of torture."

Hope that helps. I'll add a couple of these references. Homunculus (duihua) 04:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Even without going into the articles and judging from those quotes alone, none of them mention RETL directly. The closest thing is the "forced labour" reference in the Washington Post. I would say the only recurring themes in these articles is that Bo's administration ran roughshod over normal judicial operating procedures, and that there was a lot of arbitrary detention. The torture allegations are notable, but they should be presented as allegations - since most of it is reported by individuals who report they had first-hand accounts. I'll do a couple of edits to see how that could be balanced, but I hope we can agree that RETL reference is a little tangential. Colipon+(Talk) 13:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

1,000 people being sent to forced labor is not tangential. You can say "forced labor" instead of "reeducation-through-labor" if you want to cleave extremely closely to what the source said.Homunculus (duihua) 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a comprehensive re-editing of that section; I hope it is workable. Some recurring themes you read from sources include arbitrary detention, arrest of political opponents, and allegations of torture. I included all of these in the article tried to give more context. That said, after reading the sources I still do not see 'forced labour' being a significant part of the campaign (judging by the weight it is given by sources, even with the articles provided above alone) and thus chose not to give it space in the article. Colipon+(Talk) 17:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I just removed the Falun Gong section under "governor of Liaoning" on this page, for several reasons. The sources are cherry picked to prove a point. Very few of the stories (conceded, there were a few) that has been written about Bo since the scandal broke discuss Falun Gong, and none of the pieces of Chinese politics experts mention it, and even in those stories that do mention it, they are mentioned in passing - with no mention of torture etc. Evidently, to the vast majority of journalists who have written about him, it is simply not considered an important part of his tenure in Liaoning. Even Jiang Weiping, Bo's declared enemy, writes very little about Falun Gong, choosing to focus on his corrupt record instead. The only people who have made a point to emphasize this role are Falun Gong-related media such as the Epoch Times, as well as Falun Gong supporters such as Kilgour and Matas. Repeated insertion of this content onto the page is classic WP:TE and I ask that editors refrain from doing so. Colipon+(Talk) 13:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the material that was removed:[15]. Sources include the National Post, the Financial Times, The Independent, the Taipei Times, El Mundo, and The Autralian. I'm trying to understand why it is that some editors have so persistently sought to delete this; the information clearly satisfied verifiability, the sources are of a high quality, and the information itself seems highly notable—Bo was found guilty of torture by an Australian court, and indicted for genocide in Spain. The Financial Times piece, which was a retrospective of his career, apparently found this to be one of the more notable aspects of his tenure in Liaoning. And, according to U.S. government reports, these lawsuits against Bo were among the main reasons that Wen Jiabao had him moved to Chongqing, rather than allowing him a promotion to a higher national position. I'm curious what other (uninvolved) editors think : should this material be included? Homunculus (duihua) 14:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much knowledge when it comes to Falun Gong, other than that I know it's a very contentious issue in general, let alone on Wikipedia. The sources themselves seem fine; the concern to me would be whether the paragraph constitutes undue weight in his article (FG only has one other mention in his article). I'm not a fan of the second sentence (Sentences starting with "some people" or a form of that strikes me as awkward, whether the source says that or gives direct people. I'm fine with the first sentence. The last part is a tough one, since I'm not sure myself if judgments from other countries are generally useful in articles. On that last point, a back-and-forth (and long as it's courteous and doesn't involve digging in) may be beneficial, as it's an issue I've wondered about myself. Hopefully this helps somewhat. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Agree that the "some party members" is less than ideal. It may be more precise to say something like "According to Malcolm Moore of the Daily Telegraph, Bo "was said to have dismayed some party members with the ruthlessness of his persecution of the Falun Gong movement". The sentence may not be necessary, but it—along with the information on the lawsuits—relates to an important point that is revisited later in the article. Namely, Bo's suppression of the group and the consequent lawsuits brought against him earned the ire of some senior party leaders, notably premier Wen Jiabao. This was apparently a fairly decisive factor in his later career path, resulting in his effective demotion in 2007 to the city of Chongqing. From a rather different perspective, it also appears there is a good deal of legal literature about these lawsuits, as they provided tests both of international statutes on extraterritorial jurisdiction, as well as of bilateral relations with countries such as the United States. These discussions have little to do with Bo the man, but it does speak to the notability of the cases themselves.Homunculus (duihua) 16:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fly in the ointment. I seem to recall there's been copious discussion about this before. It was disputed then, and there was never consensus to add this back. All the cases were identical and brought by Falun Gong all around the world as part of their propaganda war, endlessly trotted out against the CPC in an attempt to gain publicity and cause maximum embarrassment (mud sticks if you fling enough of it and often enough). Reporting of the trials (on their own) never got more than a column inch or two where it got published, and verdicts were never taken seriously by the mainstream media – what we call here "trivial mentions". It amounts to undue weight. Colipon was bolder than I was, but I'd say Falun Gong got a mention. and between the the version I edited (the 'all') and the current version (the 'nothing'), I'd go for the latter any day. The party is notoriously opaque when it comes to these details. Press interest has resulted in heavy speculation about the exact reasons party leaders decided to pull the plug on Bo. Basically, any commentator can say anything they want, but they will remain unsubstantiated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius, I don't think comments like this are helpful. Not only does it serve to polarize discussion, but many of the things you are saying are simply not true. There are articles in major papers dedicated to discussing Bo's human rights abuses against Falun Gong and the lawsuits against him, and the subject also appears in books and academic journals. That amounts to more than "a column inch or two." Articles such as the Independent and Financial Times devoted only about a paragraph each to the topic, but those article were surveys of Bo's career as a whole. You have again noted your belief that victims of torture who attempt to seek redress are merely participating in a publicity campaign intended to cause embarrassment to PRC leaders. Surely you recognize that you cannot possibly divine their intentions, and that your theories on their motives is irrelevant in any case; Wikipedia is governed by content policies. Finally, I am confused by your claim that the lawsuits brought by Falun Gong are all identical; a quick look through the literature shows that there were many different plaintiffs involved in different countries. The fact is that this information satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, and represents an important and notable part of Bo's career, thus suggesting inclusion is in order per W{:NPOV. The specifics of the wording can be discussed in a civil and constructive manner. Homunculus (duihua) 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong. My comments were strictly in the context of this article – that is to say Bo Xilai's role in the alleged torture of Falun Gong adherents, and the associated coverage; also my sentiment on how the press are reporting (or more like speculating) on what the leadership apparently feels about Bo and his achievements (sic). I don't see where I have been uncivil, but I apologise if I was. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Even a cursory reading of the above sources, you can tell that they are obviously cherry-picked with little regard to context of the article itself, not to mention resembling synthesis. As I stated in the previous discussion, a mention of "Bo has been criticized for his readiness to carry out suppression of Falun Gong and has been the target of lawsuits by Falun Gong adherents abroad" is fine. I can restore that part.

Moreover, I am still unsure about the Wen Jiabao line about Falun Gong - it is, after all, sourced to a Wikileaks cable, and as of yet no major media sources have reported on this, including the NYT article that chronicles the 17th Party Congress and surrounding affairs. I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way. Colipon+(Talk) 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this material is cherry-picked or original synthesis. The presentation of that material was comparable to how it was presented in articles such as the Financial Times and the Independent, so I don't see where the synthesis comes in. Moreover, it was also balanced insofar as it presented both failures and successes in the litigation efforts. I would ask that you clarify the problems you perceive. I'll also propose some tweaked wording here as a basis for further discussion:

Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters have accused Bo of torture, and describe him as leading one of the harshest crackdowns on the group during his tenure in Liaoning. According to Malcolm Moore of the Daily Telegraph, Bo was also said to have "dismayed some party members with the ruthlessness of his persecution of the Falun Gong movement." Falun Gong adherents have filed lawsuits against Bo in over a dozen countries alleging torture and crimes against humanity.

Are there concrete, policy-based suggestions on how this could be improved? Homunculus (duihua) 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Falun Gong" section is not only notable enough to be included, the refs are good enough to pass. Being indicted for genocide and torture are notable enough crimes to be a seperate section.Oakley77 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In the current revision, I summarize the content by talking about other officials being dismayed at Bo, and the group filing lawsuits against Bo. Apart from that, I seriously do not see why any more rehashing of Falun Gong is necessary for a subject that has very little to do with Falun Gong. I am against including "crimes against humanity" and such sensationalist content; ordinarily, if an official of any kind is indicted for this type of crime, it would garner heavy reporting in a vast number of news sources. There is only one source that explicitly mentions this (hence the 'cherry-picking'), and that source makes it clear that the accusations are coming from Falun Gong adherents themselves. The majority of suits have been dismissed by courts all over the world - some due to 'jurisdictional limitations', others because they were found to be frivolous. In any case none of the cases were 'big news' anywhere, except for the Epoch Times, it is mentioned extremely rarely by China scholars studying Bo, which is why I am skeptical that they are of significance. Colipon+(Talk) 18:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your edit adequately captures the tone or content of the reliable sources. The sources describe "ruthless" persecution, extrajudicial imprison, torture, and murder on a scale that exceeded what was occurring in most parts of the country (and that's saying a lot). To say only that Bo's colleagues were dismayed by his "readiness" to suppress the group, and that there were lawsuits, does not do justice to the subject. Moreover, I am again confused by your comment. What do you mean there was only one source that mentions these lawsuits? There are many. We've established that. Moreover, I'm having a hard time finding evidence that some of the lawsuits were "found to be frivolous." The sources I see describe cases being dismissed either because the courts lacked jurisdiction, or because of concerns that the cases would have serious ramifications for bilateral relations with China. I've seen no sources dispute the validity or seriousness of the allegations themselves. Do you have any comments on the wording proposed above? It is very close to the version that was previously arrived at through consensus, minus the weasel words.Homunculus (duihua) 19:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I did the best I could using summary style and also giving the content due weight. My concern with this sort of Falun Gong content, again, is that they have no mainstream currency vis-a-vis its effects on the life of Bo Xilai, and as such should be treated with commensurate weight. The only strong argument against this was its citation by Premier Wen Jiabao, which again is not reported by any mainstream sources. This was established at the previous discussion above, where you agreed that the revision then was "fine". The only thing that has changed from then and now is the increase in article length, which is not a good excuse to go back and re-insert content without any discussion. I will not talk in circles. My concern stems from the fact that almost all sources I can locate on lawsuits (see for example) are directly churned out from Falun Gong media vehicles. Mainstream media articles discussing Bo and Falun Gong (and particularly the "lawsuits") are few and far in between. Thus lending a paragraph of prominence is really misleading wrt the biography of Bo Xilai. That is all.

I maintain that my current edit: "Bo has also disappointed some colleagues with his readiness to carry out suppression of Falun Gong and has been the target of lawsuits by the group's adherents abroad." is the most appropriate to address the situation, and an accurate reflection of the due weight it deserves in the context of a Bo biography. Colipon+(Talk) 19:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Oakley77, I think these are notable enough to warrant a separate section in the article and it should detail the outcome of the cases.ProliferatingJade (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — ProliferatingJade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Colipon's compromise is much closer to the consensus version that was disrupted on 15 May. Homunculus affirms himself that what is significant about the lawsuits was that they (possibly, according to leaked cables) annoyed some senior party officials. Therefore, this is the maximum mention of the lawsuits due in this article. Homunculus's proposed text shows its flaw in the first sentence: "Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters have accused"; i.e. this stuff is only important to a fringe political group. Reliable secondary sources that specially cover Bo Xilai's biography and Chinese politics have consistently deemed this material not worthy of inclusion. This moralistic language about "doing justice" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content policies. Wikipedia has no obligation to use, and indeed has an obligation to militate against, language such as "ruthless persecutor" to describe living people. Shrigley (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a separate section. Would this be a sub-section under 'Provincial governor'? Or would it go somewhere else? It seems to me that a short paragraph within the existing section would likely suffice. Another idea—which I don't personally favor, for reasons I will elaborate—is to have a section somewhere else in the article about lawsuits against Bo collectively (Falun Gong adherents were not the only ones with grievances, though to my knowledge theirs were the only successful cases). The reason I would advocate against this is that I haven't seen sources describing all these lawsuits as a stand-alone subject; they are generally better discussed within some other context. In the case of Falun Gong, the context is that Bo was apparently particularly brutal in carrying out the crackdown. In other contexts, it relates to his treatment of businessmen, political rivals, and targets of anti-corruption campaigns. I think a short paragraph is all that's necessary here. If we're to include a brief discussion of the outcome of these cases, perhaps it can read as follows:

Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters have accused Bo of torture, and describe him as leading one of the harshest crackdowns on the group during his tenure in Liaoning. According to Malcolm Moore of the Daily Telegraph, Bo was also said to have "dismayed some party members with the ruthlessness of his persecution of the Falun Gong movement." Falun Gong adherents have filed lawsuits against Bo in over ten countries, including Canada, the United States, Australia and Spain. Although several cases have been rejected due to jurisdictional restrictions and diplomatic immunity, in 2009 Bo was indicted in by a Spanish judge on allegations of torture and genocide, and was found liable for the torture of a Falun Gong practitioner in Australia in 2007.

I think this touches on all the major points, and is still a rather short paragraph. There is actually another thing we may consider including here: according to the U.S. State Department reports, the lawsuit against Bo in the United States "caused considerable foreign policy tension...that tension has been aggravated by the nature of this case, which challenges the official policies of the PRC with respect to the Falun Gong...the suit has interfered with the President's ability to conduct foreign relations in China and will likely continue to do so."[16] Although this was not widely reported in the media (to my knowledge), the fact that there was a major diplomatic spat may also be notable. Homunculus (duihua) 20:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hom's above suggestion is good enough for now. I'll put it at the end of the provincial governor section and delete the current sentence. Later we can explore having a section or sub-section on the topic if appropriate. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is, this edit is totally out of line. Clearly no consensus has been established. Colipon+(Talk) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, Colipon, none of the edits to this section today achieved consensus. Least of all your decision to delete the entire paragraph—most of which was content that had been painstakingly agreed upon in a previous iteration of this discussion. To be clear, there was a stable version of this paragraph, which I evidently disrupted yesterday by adding two references and a short sentence on lawsuit outcomes.[17] I apologize that my edit catalyzed this dispute, and am sorry that the discussion regressed as it has. I am going to try to steer this back to the specific points being contested:

• It seems that several editors here agree that the article should note the outcome of these lawsuits. Based on a series of edits made by OhConfucius just now, it appears he also feels that these outcomes are worthy of a brief mention. Do we agree on that much? If so, there may still be legitimate questions over the exact wording employed. I've written a version that I think is very fair and even-handed in its description of the outcomes,[18] but would welcome any constructive suggestions on how it might be improved.
• There seems to be some disagreement over the Malcolm Moore quote. Wizardman expressed concern about the use of "some party members." That this phrasing originates from the source may not assuage those concerns. Personally I think this is notable, partly because it relates to broader factional disputes that are a consistent theme throughout this article (as an aside, I actually find it rather remarkable that there would be party members dissenting about the suppression policy). However, I concede that there may be a better way to present this information. I've tweaked the wording a little bit to be closer to the version that we previously agree on, but which attributes the statement to Moore. I am interested if there are further thoughts on this sentence.
• Some of the editing conflicts seem to stem from the inclusion of particular references (ie. the Financial Times, El Mundo and the Australia). These are all reliable sources, and I haven't seen anyone articulate why they should be omitted. If I am missing something, please explain.

I hope we can discuss these issues in a civil and constructive manner. Again, I'm sorry that my edit yesterday prompted this; I know it can be distressing and takes up everyone's time. However, I am concerned that rather minor adjustments to this section cannot be made without causing us to re-litigating issues that were previously agreed on. If and when more notable literature appears discussing Bo's role vis-a-vis Falun Gong, how should we handle it? Homunculus (duihua) 05:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• As has happened before, we now find that the FT attributed with narrative that was never part of the source. The article was a whistle-stop tour of Bo's career. The single sentence related to Falun Gong, the court cases is:

  Practitioners of Falun Gong say Mr Bo presided over one of the harshest crackdowns on the banned religious sect in Dalian and have filed lawsuits against him in more than 10 countries, alleging torture and crimes against humanity.

  So, as we can see, the paragraph that Homunculus and TSTF attempted to repeatedly reinsert is undue weight at best, and a faintly disguised copyright violation at worst. Funny that he decided accuse me of edit-warring when it takes two to tango (only in this case, TSTF appears to have been cutting into the dance too). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only thing I attributed to the Financial Times was this: "Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters have accused Bo of torture, and describe him as leading one of the harshest crackdowns on the group during his tenure in Liaoning." (the refs here, by the way, are from the National Post and the Financial Times). This is clearly supported by the sources. Homunculus (duihua) 06:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for admitting that that line was closely paraphrased. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There were four sentences in the above paragraph that I inserted. They were simple and presented the most basic information about the Bo Xilai/FLG issue. I came, read through the discussion, saw the last suggestion on the table, thought it was good information that belonged in the article, and thought that another person showing support for a commonsense and simple solution would perhaps bring an end to the bickering. As someone not as heavily involved in the editing and fighting over the editing in this topic area, the course of this is really strange. Colipon complained that my edit had no consensus (yeah, like any of them did? That's why we edit iteratively, to hammer our versions that everyone is happy with - if possible), then Ohconfucius reverted it with a personal remark. Then he restored most of it in two other edits, leaving out the Malcolm Moore part and the result of some of the legal actions (without explaining why that information should be excluded). H and Ohc then edited back and forth, with the latter seeming to break 3RR in the course of deleting information that he does not think suitable. I have no idea what point Ohconfucius is trying to make in the above exchange with the Financial Times source. I have stopped myself from making broader remarks. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the removed material, and I think at least some mention of Falun Gong criticism should be present/restored. Perhaps not all of it (the "some party members" sentence seems bad), but overall, the criticism and lawsuits seem notable. Regarding the undue weight, I don't see how it applies. Notable criticism is notable. Is there more criticism that is not present? Expand the article, rather than cut info from it. Are there any voices saying he was friendly to FG, or dispute the claims in another way? Add them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have not contributed much to this article recently, but I want to give my perspective just for the purpose of generating consensus. I agree with the editors who believe that FLG is POV and unreliable on issues related to modern China, and that its views on subjects related to China should not be included in Wikipedia articles without making it clear in the body of those articles that FLG's views come directly from FLG. I am also skeptical of the claims that Bo's persecution of FLG was a major factor in Bo's transfer to Chongqing, since the persecution of FLG is standard Party policy, and because I believe that better explanations exist.

I also agree with editors who believe that, because reliable international news sources have decided that FLG's views on Bo have been notable enough to report, there should be some minor, qualified statement of FLG's perspective on Bo. I would support the inclusion of FLG's views on Bo if it began with a statement like "Fulan Gong claims that...", followed by one or two sentences detailing what FLG has claimed. I do not believe that one or two sentences, qualified in this way, constitute undue weight.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for weighing in to move this forward. The opening sentence (at least, as it has been proposed) does essentially what Ferox Seneca is suggesting, which is to note that Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters describe Bo as doing x. We might expand that to two sentences (the David Kilgour piece in the National Post detailed several of the allegations in more depth), but it may not be necessary. The Malcolm Moore piece seems tricky: on the one hand, there appears to be agreement that "some party members" is problematic. Yet this is a reliable source, and the information does add another dimension to this story that Moore, at least, found to be an important aspect of Bo's career. Is there another way to capture the message that other Chinese leaders were dismayed by his treatment of the group? Is this worth retaining? Finally, there is the question of the lawsuits. Several editors have expressed that the lawsuits—particularly the finding of guilt for torture and the indictment for genocide—are notable aspects of Bo's biography. Piotrus, FS, do you think these outcomes (along with the unsuccessful ones) should be described? Homunculus (duihua) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when some media publishes some development related to FLG matters, this does not make such reports "Falun Gong views" or claims, does it? The four sentences that I inserted were not "from Falun Gong" as such but independent reports on FLG-related matters. This has nothing to do with the "reliability of Falun Gong" writ large, whatever that might mean. On the question of the significance of the lawsuits for Bo Xilai, we should just site the Wikileaks cable, right? Who cares what we think? (Ferox, it was not his involvement in the campaign per se but that he got sued and generated negative publicity, I believe). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the current revision states:

Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters have accused Bo of torture, and for leading a harsh crackdown on the group during his tenure in Liaoning. They have filed lawsuits against Bo and other Communist Party leaders in over ten countries. Only in one instance was Falun Gong successful: Bo found liable in an uncontested civil case filed by a Falun Gong practitioner in Australia in 2007; a legal scholar noted that Bo may enjoy immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act of 1985.

I'll let the other editors weigh in. I think this version is fine. Also, David Matas does not constitute an impartial source on Falun Gong. He is a well known advocate of Falun Gong causes. Colipon+(Talk) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, do you mean to say that he is not a reliable source, or are you merely pointing out that he is supportive of the Falun Gong (something I presume we all know, but which is a separate question from his reliability under Wikipedia's content policies)? It is important that you clarify precisely what you mean. I can think of many other fields where those engaged in scholarly work on some matter also openly hold views on it that they express, but who remain reliable sources despite having formed some set of views on some matter through their research. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

David Matas was never one of the sources. David Kilgrour and David Harris were. Apparently everyone in Canada is named David. In any event, their op-ed in the National Post was used to support a sentence about the views of Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters, so this seems like an appropriate use of the source. I'll suggest a proposal here based on the earlier feedback that the indictment is relevant, the Moore citation is problematic, and that perhaps we could use a little more about the criticisms from Falun Gong:

Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters have accused Bo of torture, and described him as leading one of the harshest crackdowns on the group during his tenure in Liaoning. They have filed lawsuits against Bo in over ten countries, including Canada, the United States, Spain and Australia. According to a filing on behalf of Falun Gong in the United States, during his time in Liaoning Bo "planned and carried out a sustained and deliberate set of policies" that "resulted in arbitrary and unlawful arrest, detention, persecution, and in some cases execution of the plaintiffs." Although several cases have been rejected due to jurisdictional restrictions and diplomatic immunity, in 2009 Bo was indicted in by a Spanish judge on allegations of torture and genocide along with four other officials. In 2007 he was found liable for the torture of a Falun Gong practitioner in an uncontested civil suit in Australia, though a legal scholar noted that Bo may have been entitled to diplomatic immunity in that case.

Are there further thoughts on his this might be improved? Homunculus (duihua) 03:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it is David Kilgour, not David Matas. My apologies. I stand behind my point earlier. Again, Falun Gong activism, charges, court cases, etc. have never been highlighted or even discussed by any China scholars as having had any discernible effects on the man's life. The el Mundo article only says that Bo was sued and indicted, but did not elaborate on any significance. No other source elaborates on the significance of this indictment, which can only mean one thing - it is not important. As for the civil cases, not only were the majority of them rejected, but even the ones where court hearings went through, no charges were ever proven in court. The tone of the above paragraph essentially is weasel wording to make all the charges look like fact. I personally see it as textbook WP:TE and cannot countenance its inclusion in an otherwise very well-balanced article. Fly in the ointment indeed. Colipon+(Talk) 14:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius asked me to comment here a couple of days ago (I am a little late). Looking for sources I can't find much at all about the Falun Gong cases or the one conviction in third-party media publications – the cited Australian piece is much the best. [19] Given the dearth of sources, I feel the paragraph as it stands in the article now is still a bit long and could do with shortening. The matter is worth a (brief) mention though. Note also this LA Times article from yesterday which notes that the Falun Gong media groups are benefiting from the scandals, and does mention that "Bo was a key figure in the persecution of Falun Gong members in China". JN466 08:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good find. It actually hadn't occurred to me before to conduct a more systematic search through databases, but a lexisnexis search turns up dozens more articles on this subject, most from the period ~2004 - 2007. Few of them offer many details of exactly what Bo did to FLG in Liaoning; for the most part, they speak to the trouble he had as commerce minister when he was being served lawsuits in dozens of countries. In any event, it seems we're at an impasse, and I can't say I feel equipped to negotiate this space beyond what I've already attempted. One of the immediate problems with the version currently on the page is that is it factually inaccurate in the assertion that only one case against Bo succeeded—the Australian torture charge in 2007. This phrasing suggests that a case resulting in his indictment for genocide was not a success, by whatever measure is being used. I'm not sure where to go from here in correcting this, however, as any attempt to modify this section seems to engender some very strong feelings. Is there a procedure in place for deciding these things? Or an RfC proposing some different alternatives, perhaps? Homunculus (duihua) 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The assertion that only one case against Bo succeeded—the Australian torture charge in 2007 is per the source, which may be out of date. Either way, the developing consensus seems to be that what is already in this article has probably exceeded WP:DUE. I suggest that you take it out if such an "inaccuracy" offends you. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will correct the final sentence to accurately reflect the outcome of the lawsuits. When I performed a lexisnexis search on Bo Xilai & Falun Gong, it turned up ~90 articles from reliable sources, a majority of them about the legal actions brought against Bo (unfortunately few seem to be indexed on google). These cases are also noted in legal journals and books. I therefore have a hard time conceiving of how one of two sentences here amounts to undue weight. I am also adding in some new references, as well as restoring some that have been lost through various iterations. I presume that the addition of reliable sources will not be controversial, but if I am wrong in that judgement, please let me know.

There are a number of issues remaining here that have not yet been agreed upon — for instance, some editors here have expressed that the nature of Falun Gong’s accusations could be expanded upon slightly. There are reliable sources that elaborate on these allegations in more depth, and this one also offers some insight in the credibility of these claims:[20]. However, some have expressed that the three or four sentences total here is already allocating too much weight to the issue. WP:UNDUE is a tough policy to navigate, I’m finding, as it can be highly subjective. I would be curious if anyone has devised a more objective measure of appropriate weight. I’m going to keep thinking about this, and may revisit this issue later.Homunculus (duihua) 03:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that it's subjective, but this is not an article focussed on Falun Gong, and it isn't Wikipedia's job to see the world through the eyes of the Dafa. If you had to dig so hard to get all that, it would indicate to me that it's only truly of academic interest, and that we needn't be delving excessively into various 'expert sources' to find such small details. You seem to be very good at playing up the "some editors here have expressed that the nature of Falun Gong’s accusations" and downplaying the "other editors feel that the content here is more than warranted". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, the sentence "Several cases have been rejected due to jurisdictional restrictions, diplomatic immunity, and concerns about the implications for bilateral relations with China." stands out as obvious and sophisticated weasel wording. It implies that the charges themselves were totally legitimate, but that they were rejected on a few legal technicalities, downplaying the fact that they were, well, rejected. This phrase is thus inconsistent with the source information. Also note the use of "several cases", which seems to imply that only a few cases were rejected, and that they were rejected because of extraneous circumstances only. If Bo indeed committed "crimes of humanity" and other such sensationalist charges, then I reckon we can dig up something significant about it in the Financial Times, New York Times, The Telegraph, or perhaps the politically neutral Chinese-language website Duowei. Indeed, I was unable to locate anything on Falun Gong (apart from a passing mention) from any of the above sources. At this stage I feel like we are going in circles, and we can probably agree to disagree on this matter. Colipon+(Talk) 04:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. What are the weasel words? This is a statement of fact. Cases were indeed dismissed because of jurisdictional restrictions (Spain, until it was overturned), diplomatic immunity (UK), and concerns about the impacts on bilateral relations (United States). These are the only causes for dismissal that I have found. Contrary to your earlier statement, I have found no evidence that any of these cases were dismissed for being "frivolous." Ohconfucius, why did you again delete mention of the genocide indictment? Homunculus (duihua) 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting ridiculous. Your persistence in having these points added has taken on the 'esoteric' dimension of the Epoch Times. My rationale is well encapsulated by Colipon above, and was indeed clearly indicated in my edit summaries. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I refrained from reporting you the other day for your breach of the 3RR. It is not in my nature to act punitively, and I wanted to see if your behavior would improve after being warned. It has not. You have continued to delete reliably sourced content that nearly all the uninvolved editors here agree belongs on the page (if not as its own section). Your edit summary defending your latest deletion — that the genocide indictment was "only an indictment" — explains nothing. I recommend that you self-revert.Homunculus (duihua) 16:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you re-examined your own actions in this regard: You are guilty of edit warring. I'm sure you are aware that nobody will block me punitively, but they will block you, pre-emptively, if you are intent on warring to insert material for which there is little or no consensus. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting is that both Homunculus and TheSound acknowledge that it was the former who came and disrupted the original 'consensus' version, which was authored by myself and agreed by Homunculus: "I think what's on the page now is fine. I also think it was fine before." Indeed, the editing environment of this article was very collegial until the re-insertion of the Falun Gong content by Homunculus. Colipon+(Talk) 02:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I should involve myself in the content discussion in question at the moment, but just a small remark to Colipon's, so I am not being misrepresented inadvertently or not: I never claimed that Homunculus "disrupted" the existing version. I noted that he made a relatively small change (adding a sentence, I think, and some stronger sources) and that was the tipping point for another altercation. The interesting point is not the change itself, which I don't think is particularly contentious, but the response to it. This seems to be the edit, by the way: [21] Ohc then appears to have reverted it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bo_Xilai&diff=492658323&oldid=492646937) citing NPOV (he removed the Financial Times source too). The rest is history. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the consensus to keep the paragraph on this subject relatively short? I thought that everyone agreed on the inclusion of a short paragraph. I'm against expanding on this subject as if it were a major episode in Bo's career.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

At no point has this paragraph exceeded four or five brief sentences. I'm not sure "short" was ever defined, but given the volume of reports on this (~90, including news features dedicated entirely to the topic) and the seriousness and notability of the accusations, I don't think four sentences is an inordinate length. Moreover, several editors who have contributed here (Piotrus, Proliferating Jade, and Oakley77) all appear to support some form of expansion; two suggested this should be its own section, noting in particular that the genocide indictment is worth mentioning. I hope I have not misrepresented their positions. The paragraph may look long in diffs because it's very densely referenced. Homunculus (duihua) 05:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hu as General Secretary

An IP user insists that Hu be known as "General Secretary" instead of "President". I would agree with him/her that "General Secretary" generally takes precedence over President in the Chinese political hierarchy (if the two were separate positions), however, since 1993 the practice has been that they are one in the same. As such the vast majority of media sources (including the New York Times and the Economist) refer to Hu as simply "President", regardless of context, perhaps even as a simple matter of style. I believe WP should do what reputable English-language sources are doing on this issue. Colipon+(Talk) 13:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is a no-brainer. The idea of using GenSec is presumably to emphasize the Party-side and subtly detract from the credibility of the role. We should use "President" since it has become standard. Colipon, do you have any idea on how and why the translation morphed from Chairman to President? I've wondered about that. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The decision of whether to use General Secretary or President to refer to the Chinese heads of state need not be absolute. I think it depends on the context. When referring to the individual's function as head of the party, use General Secretary. If intended to emphasize the civilian role as head of state, use president. Homunculus (duihua) 04:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The last CCP Chairman was Hua Guofeng; Deng Xiaoping (et al) decided to move away from the legacy of strongman rule, and toward a more collective decisionmaking. Prior to that, the General Secretary (sometimes Secretary General) was the Politburo Secretariat executive in charge of managing day-to-day party affairs. Deng himself held the job prior to the GPCR, and Hu Yaobang in the late 1970s.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Hom that using President and GenSec depends on the context. In this article, for example, it is the President who nominates the Premier and cabinet posts, not the GenSec, so Bo's appointment as Commerce Minister is by virtue of Hu's position as President, not GenSec. However, his Politburo appointment may well refer to Hu as GenSec. TheSound, the origins of the term "President" comes from a 'modernization' of Chinese politics in the Deng era - it was a conscious decision (much like Gorbachev's ascension to the same position in the USSR) to make things more in line with the rest of the world and to have a 'head of state' equivalent to conduct ceremonial functions, especially when receiving dignitaries. During the Cultural Revolution there was no head of state, period. course, the term "President" is simply a translation - the Chinese term remains "Chairman". Colipon+(Talk) 13:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But we had a "Chairman Mao." Why not "Chairman Hu"? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum, guys.Homunculus (duihua) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am glad that for once we do not have to discuss Falun Gong :). Anyway, "Chairman" in "Chairman Mao" describes his position as "Chairman of the Communist party" and not Chairman of China - though he was also Chairman of China until he relinquished that position to Liu Shaoqi after the failed Great Leap Forward. But we are now really digressing. Colipon+(Talk) 16:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Revert - Bo's lawsuit content.

I placed back content about international lawsuits against Bo that was well-sourced, relevant, and neutrally presented and that has been argued about a great deal previously, whereupon the ultimate decision was to keep the content in the article. I see no change in the consensus, such as it is. The content has been restored. If there is disagreement, let us discuss. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

mistaken link?

In the section "Provincial Governor" there is a reference to someone named Wen Shizhen. But the link provided goes to a Wen Shizhen who died in 1951, while the Wen Shizhen in the article must have been alive in the 2000s. There does not appear to be any other article titled "Wen Shizhen" on Wikipedia. Should the link be removed? Thanks. Tryefor (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Paging DaltonCastle

DaltonCastle I recently reverted one of your edits that didn't seem properly sourced. Your next edit is walking a fine line with WP:NPOV I don't want to editwar with you at all so I thought I'd talk to you here. Could you please discuss your last two edits and the reasoning behind them? Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the civility. I want to avoid edit wars too. If this is a page you've been editing for a while I'll leave you as the authority. Its just a well documented instance that has been big in Chinese-language media. I enjoy expanding pages to account for all details on political pages. If this walks a fine line with NPOV then by all means, feel free to work with it. Im simply taking what I find in credible, non-biased as possible news sources, and adding it to pages.DaltonCastle (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

With articles like Bo Xilai, because of the extent and complexity of the controversy, we often keep the language simple, clear and factual. It helps to avoid inserting any WP:NPOV into the article. I don't suspect you of anything like that, of course, just making sure you understand. Thank you for contributing.Simonm223 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Added

In this edit, I changed the intro, which now includes

Bo's dismissal, which "many observers believe [was because he] threatened Mr Xi’s future grip on power",...

is based on a quote from this Economist article

Eight months before Mr Xi took over, a fellow member of the ruling Politburo, Bo Xilai, was purged; ostensibly for corruption and abuse of power but also, many observers believe, because he threatened Mr Xi’s future grip on power. The mopping up continues. Mr Xi is now trying to eradicate the influence of Mr Bo’s powerful patron, Zhou Yongkang, who was the country’s security chief until he retired in 2012.

72.244.204.182 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Careful of Chinese whispers"?

@Ohconfucius: Can the editor responsible for this edit please explain what it means that the cited, verifiable information counts as "Chinese whispers"? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• My edit was to ensure correct attribution. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Five indicted for genocide

I see no reason why the number of other officials also indicted for Genocide with Bo shouldn't be included in this article.

I don't think an adequate reason has been given for the deletion of a paragraph in this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bo_Xilai&diff=654231131&oldid=654043151

20:07, 30 March 2015‎ Simonm223. Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would say that the article is not necessarily misstated without it. I didn't see a huge issue with the assertion, because it is largely factual and cited to a reliable source (which is why I didn't remove it outright). However, I do find it more than a little curious that a court in a country several thousand miles away from where an individual is domiciled can choose to indict that individual through an extra-territorial judicial process for crimes allegedly committed in the individual's own country, and not the one in which the court is based. An indictment is where someone accused of a crime is charged with that offence, and that person would be innocent until proven guilty in court beyond all reasonable doubt. And if we add to that the extreme unlikelihood of any government extraditing one of its own citizens for trial under such a charge (and supply evidence to condemn him), I'd say its inclusion was at best an item of trivia, made possible by a technicality. The accused, still innocent in law, would still have the right to a fair and trial in open court, suggesting to me that its inclusion would tend to diminish that individual in the eyes of the reader and may deserve circumspect treatment under WP:BLP. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• I take a harsher view than OhC on this. The way I see it, this is a perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP policies. It's a court that was solicited by the Falun Gong and took up a spurious lawsuit against a person who, serving a life sentence in China for crimes he actually committed, will never go to Spain It's a court with no jurisdiction making a show-trial style headline grabbing move. It's not appropriately notable, and WP:BLP encourages us to show particular caution regarding how we treat untested allegations regarding living people. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

wasn't the news reported on the major news wires and in the outlets of those countries? the behavior that they are accused of is presumably notable. if there are other sources which make the legally-oriented argument of ohconfucius, then lets include that too. in the meantime there seems little cause to suppress or exclude this information from the articles. the above arguments are interesting but they do not countermand the notability of being indicted for genocide by the judge of a sovereign state. not everyone can claim that dubious distinction, and i think it would be remiss to prevent it from being part of the record, which it is.Happy monsoon day 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

i just now reverted simonm223, having noticed that he not only deleted the reference to the lawsuit, but other published material about bo xilai's activities vis-a-vis falun gong. am i not au courant with the policy? in what way does the judicious citation of published material about an individual fall foul of wikipedia's content or blp policies? is there a genuine suspicion that the claims are untrue, or merely that they reflect poorly on mr bo? if there are no genuine content policy issues here, then it shouldnt be deleted again. if there are, please cite the content policy or present your argument. if more reverts happen then perhaps we can get a third opinion. i hardly edit these articles, but i've noticed the recent fracases and thought id try my hand. so far the loci of dispute are really a little petty.Happy monsoon day 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're being very hasty reverting as it's apparent that there isn't consensus about what should be there. OhConfucius and I both have misgivings about that inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

address the substance of the issue please. the content seems to have been there for over a year. i actually think it's written quite shitly but whatever. no reason to delete it as far as i can see. unless there is, in which case speak upHappy monsoon day 03:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I did address the substance of the issue. Specifically that it is an irrelevant piece of trivia about a living person. And WP:BLP discourages this sort of trivia, especially in cases where doing so involves spreading allegations of genocide. Bo Xilai is a corrupt politician, he has tried to cover up murders. He's done all kinds of awful things. But he didn't steal organs from the Falun Gong. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Wu_Guanzheng for additional clarification. Exactly the same justification applies here Even awful people can be victims. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, note that not just for BXL, Wu Guanzheng, the same editor placed similar assertions based on the Falun Gong court cases in the biographies of the others (Jiang Zemin, Jia Qinglin, Luo Gan). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

just fwiw, i know that ohconfucius is in hot water for his flg editing, but this particular edit seems to me warranted and sensible. i'm not sure that the falun gong suit appear in the lede, or in that glib form. whether bo's other anti-flg activities should be so mentioned is another matter. that would depend on sourcing etc. in any case, this is a preemptive comment agreeing with moderating the emphasis of that info in the lead.Happy monsoon day 02:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I think at the last sentence in the lead section should be in the first paragraph.

"On 22 September 2013, Bo was found guilty of corruption, stripped of all his assets, and sentenced to life imprisonment." Aaabbb11 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130824222904/http://www.webcitation.org/66B76VL6m to http://www.webcitation.org/66B76VL6m
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120305151356/http://pl.cqnews.net/sz/200908/t20090831_3551716.htm to http://pl.cqnews.net/sz/200908/t20090831_3551716.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120319082015/http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c8eb8bf690716310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News to http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c8eb8bf690716310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120404062744/http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=ba22138f4817f210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News to http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=ba22138f4817f210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120324170350/http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=bc02f2516b026310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News to http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=bc02f2516b026310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Marxist reading?

anyone object to my adding something of a marxian reading to this saga - including the downfall and the chongqing model? I'm talking about the commentaries of Lin Chun, Zhao Yuezhi, Wang Hui, mainly, regarding theories of neoliberal conspiracy on Bo's downfall and what they consider the unfulfilled promise of the CQ model.Happy monsoon day 19:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this certainly sounds very interesting so I'd say be bold. Colipon+(Talk) 12:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

hah! I can't tell if you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek - but anyway, they are published in what I believe count as reliable sources (Monthly Review?) so let me collect them together a bit and make a section for that. it's just about getting this perspective on the record really. (though at the same time, there are actual economists who don't think the CQ model was really any different than a hypertrophied version of 'the China model' - probably would be good to has that out a little too.)Happy monsoon day 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I would be most interested to see someone analyze Bo's policies in Chongqing and Xi's current policies in China as a whole. Colipon+(Talk) 20:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stnn.cc/ed_china/200811/t20081126_912600.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512043148/http://www.law.berkeley.edu/13236.htm to http://www.law.berkeley.edu/13236.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.gmw.cn/2011-04/20/content_1864216.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-05/04/content_11308222.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717052558/http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB465.pdf to http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB465.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331195739/http://politics.dwnews.com:80/news/2007-11-29/3524783.html to http://politics.dwnews.com/news/2007-11-29/3524783.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stnn.cc/ed_china/200811/t20081126_912600.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827191145/http://english.gov.cn/2004-10/19/content_23754.htm to http://english.gov.cn/2004-10/19/content_23754.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106213411/http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/3580 to http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/3580
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106213411/https://www.cpj.org/blog/2009/02/a-twisting-road-to-canada-for-a-chinese-journalist.php to http://www.cpj.org/blog/2009/02/a-twisting-road-to-canada-for-a-chinese-journalist.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110121532/http://finance.people.com.cn/GB/42774/3463563.html to http://finance.people.com.cn/GB/42774/3463563.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.dwnews.com/news/2007-11-29/3524783.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.gmw.cn/2011-04/20/content_1864216.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-05/04/content_11308222.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501075952/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0816_china_li.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0816_china_li.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126085058/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-15/news/31196060_1_bo-xilai-wen-jiabao-bo-yibo to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-15/news/31196060_1_bo-xilai-wen-jiabao-bo-yibo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823011430/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120319000101&cid=1601 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120319000101&cid=1601

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bo Xilai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108200345/http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2013-08/22/c_117042997.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2013-08/22/c_117042997.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108175800/http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2013-08/18/c_116986449.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2013-08/18/c_116986449.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405213618/http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2007-10/22/content_6924941.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2007-10/22/content_6924941.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Maoist party

Epoch Times is not a reliable source. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times certainly has its angle, but then again so does the Xinhua News Agency, Fox News, and the SCMP, all of which are references in this entry. Annacoluthon (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The four sources you name are not quite in the same category. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is he dead?

According to some Chinese sources, he might be dead. Please confirm

https://m.creaders.net/news/page/988075 MetaTalks (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)