Talk:Liu Xiaobo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criticism

Re: Liberation Monthly (解放月报) quote: I am unable to find anything other than extremely negative second-hand sources for this quote. ("三百年殖民地。香港一百年殖民地变成今天这样，中国那样大，当然需要三百年殖民，才会变成今天香港这样。三百年够不够，我还有怀疑。") Can anyone verify that this interview indeed exists and, if so, offer a better source than obviously biased articles? L (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

After searching online, I found that Open Magazine (開放雜誌) is in fact Liberation Monthly. (I didn't know that!) Liu Xiaobo quoted himself in an article from 2006, "我與《開放》結緣十九年" (My 19 Years of Ties with Open Magazine). I've translated the following quote It references the original quote as "三百年殖民地。香港一百年殖民地變成今天這樣，中國那麼大，當然需要三百年殖民地，才會變成今天香港這樣，三百年夠不夠，我還有懷疑" and provides context for the quote. Liu then follows up with his thoughts on the quote. Here's the following paragraph in full, with the part that I translated in bold: "儘管，六四後，這句「三百年殖民化」的即興回答，變成了中共對我進行政治迫害的典型證據；時至今日，這句話仍然不時地被愛國憤青提起，以此來批判我的「賣國主義」。然而，我不會用接受採訪時的不假思索來為自己犯眾怒的言論作辯解，特別是在民族主義佔據話語制高點的今日中國，我更不想收回這句話。" (Translated in the article as "even today [in 2006], patriotic 'angry youth' still frequently use these words to paint me with 'treason.'")

I would appreciate it if someone could inform me of the proper method of translating items and refering to translations of this type within wikipedia articles. To my knowledge, there is no accepted translation of this elsewhere. L ^talk 10:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose to add funding section to article

I believe the fact Liu Xiaobo receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy(NED) should be mentioned:

1) Liu Xiaobo is the President of Chinese dissident group ICPC:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Xiaobo_Liu_378792980.aspx

ICPC received $135,000 from the NED in 2007:

http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html

$135,000 in 2006:

http://www.ned.org/grants/06programs/grants-asia06.html

$85,000 in 2004:

http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html

2) Liu Xiaobo is the founder of Minzhu Zhongguo (Democratic China) magazine:

Minzhu Zhongguo received $145,000 from the NED in 2007:

http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html

$136,000 in 2005:

http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-asia05.html

$135,000 in 2004:

http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Has LXB himself received the funding, or has these magazines and the ICPC? It seems that such should both be listed on articles for the ICPC and Minzhu Zhongguo. L ^talk 10:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Liu's article at times reads like a press release from RSF. I'll work on cleaning this up (I've currently moved that all to the "Background" section), editing the section, etc. and have it reflect information found in the Chinese version as well. Any suggestions and assistance would be most appreciated. L (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed many of the POV comments and added some bio information. We need to continue to clean it up. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the image be labeled as a demonstration on behalf of Liu Xiaobo and not "Liu Xiaobo"? Rosecrans (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Someone has changed that. Also, it is a demonstration on behalf of Liu in Hong Kong, which should continue to be noted. (To note, it was a demonstration by the HK Alliance, the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group [HK politicians sit on their board], the Justice and Peace Commission of the HK Catholic Diocese, and ICPC representatives. Source) L ^talk 10:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LXB's arrest announcement from Xinhua

This may be useful. I'm basing my recent edits regarding LXB's arrest on Xinhua's announcement. (I've not actually seen Liu's arrest notice, which would have been given to his family.) The Xinhua announcement, per China Review News:

刘晓波因涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪被依法逮捕

Liu Xiaobo formally arrested according to the law due to suspicion of inciting subversion of state power

中评社北京6月24日电／新华社从北京市公安局获悉，刘晓波因涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪，于23日经检察机关批准后依法逮捕。

China Review News | Beijing, June 24, 2009 | Xinhua News Agency learned from the Beijing Public Security Bureau that, upon receiving approval from the procuratorate on June 23, the PSB formally arrested Liu Xiaobo according to the law on charges of suspicion of inciting subversion of state power.

据公安机关侦查掌握，近年来，刘晓波以造谣、诽谤等方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度，违反了《中华人民共和国刑法》，涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪，北京市公安机关依法对刘晓波立案侦查，2009年6月23日经检察机关批准逮捕。

According to the public security organ's investigations, in recent years, Liu Xiaobo has incited the subversion of state power and the overturn on the socialist system through methods such as spreading rumors and slander, in violation of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. Liu was suspected of the crime of inciting the subversion of state power. The Beijing public security organs filed a case against Liu according to the law and investigated. On June 23, 2009, they formally arrested Liu upon receiving approval from the procuratorate.

经初步审查，刘晓波已对公安机关指控的犯罪事实供认不讳。

In the early stages of investigation, Liu Xiaobo gave a full confession to the charges of the public security organs. L ^talk 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

推翻社会主义制度-isn't it relevant to mention the "undermining the socialist system" part? I understand that it is somewhat vague, but I imagine the US equivalent would be "anti-American" activities. For some reason English language sources leave this out. It's in the source text, it should be in the target text. Wugou (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

His charge was only "suspicion of inciting subversion of the state." I didn't write in the article that the police were accusing him of using rumors and slander to incite subversion and undermine the socialist system because a) these things are practically set phrases for these types of cases, because that's how it's set out under article 105 in the Criminal Code, though the crime is listed only as "(inciting) subversion of state power" (第一百零五条 【颠覆国家政权罪、煽动颠覆国家政权罪】组织、策划、实施颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的，对首要分子或者罪行重大的，处无期徒刑或者十年以上有期徒刑....), and b) I didn't want to give the impression that there was a crime of "[suspicion of] undermining the socialist system" with which with LXB was charged (the crime listed under 105 is simply "(inciting) subversion of state power." That said, you're free to add it if you feel it relevant. L ^talk 23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I will often (but not always) leave "set phrases" as they are in translation and I was loathe to leave out the socialism bit. It depends on the audience. 那么这个情况下用“视而不见”的方式比较恰当。24.7.179.230 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I ended up thinking about it over lunch with a friend from Amnesty, who said in their press release they noted the phrasing from the BJPSB for the same reason you brought it up. My mind has thus been changed, so I've added that the police alleged such. :) L ^talk 08:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really should note, however, that my initial reaction to it was less because it was a set phrase as a set phrase but because it was a set phrase in the context of law -- the PSB was just repeating article 105 of the Criminal Law:

第一百零五条　组织、策划、实施颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的，对首要分子或者罪行重大的，处无期徒刑或者十年以上有期徒刑；对积极参加的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑；对其他参加的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者剥夺政治权利。

Article 105: Among those who organize, plot or carry out the scheme of subverting the State power or overthrowing the socialist system, the ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; the ones who take an active part in it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than 10 years; and the other participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights.

以造谣、诽谤或者其他方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的，处五年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者剥夺政治权利；首要分子或者罪行重大的，处五年以上有期徒刑。"

Whoever incites others by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights; and the ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years.

L ^talk 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Additional source section

@Alainna, please discuss the merit of Additional source section, please note that there are increasing numbers of everyday readers who can read Chinese too. The Additional source section does provide more in-depth understanding of the relevant topic.

• (in Chinese)零八憲章本地簽署者到深圳投案 三人加一記者被公安拘捕 Translation: Hong Kong signatories intended to confess to Mainland China arrested at border checkpoint.
• (in Chinese)草虾：刘晓波一审判决书之笑话 Translation:The Chinese court's verdict on Liu Xiaobo is a joke.
• s:zh:刘晓波一审判决书
• 劉曉波判決由中共最高層決定 来源：開放雜誌 Arilang ^talk 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Find English versions of the articles then, Arilang, and provide significant background within the LXB article itself and use these as references -- there is no reference to the protest at the HK-Shenzhen border, for example, and there is no reference to the reaction to LXB's verdict and sentencing by Chinese activists and netizens. English Wikipedia is not written for Chinese readers but for English readers, so providing a bunch of Chinese articles without any reference even within the wiki article itself is pointless. L ^talk 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• 零八憲章本地簽署者到深圳投案 三人加一記者被公安拘捕 is a internet video, it is near impossible to locate English version. And exactly what do you mean by no reference?
• 草虾：刘晓波一审判决书之笑话 is a internet blog, when Chinese main stream media was prohibited from reporting LXB's case, sometimes internet blogs(or twitter) would be the only source of info, reliable or not.

• And do you know that there is a twitter account called Freeliuxiaobo, which is mainly in Chinese. What should we do about it?

• s:zh:刘晓波一审判决书 is a very important document in Chinese, again, until someone is able to translate it into English, like Professor Perry Link who translated Charter 08, it is again near impossible to find English version.

Alainna, what I am saying is, when there is no alternative, it is better to leave the Chinese links in section Additional source, until one day when the English version is available online, because there is something like Goggle Translate, though not perfect, a little bit of info is still better than no info. Arilang ^talk 03:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Links to a *twitter search* should really not be included. This is not a twitter account. Do you not understand how twitter works?

2. Human Rights in China has already posted a translation of LXB's verdict, which I have linked several times in the article, including in the external links. HRIC has also provided a PDF of LXB's original verdict, which shows the original text and not all of the typos that are within s:zh:刘晓波一审判决书.

3. If you wish to include the video, then add a section under international response about the HK protest and then link the video. This gives English readers an idea of what the video is on.

4. 草虾：刘晓波一审判决书之笑话 is not an internet blog, it is an article reposted by Boxun in reaction to LXB's sentence. This could be summarized in English under "international reaction" with a reference (in <ref> tags).

As such, I shall be again removing these links. They are not relevant to English readers (and in one case are inaccurate whereas an accurate version has already been provided) unless you are going to go through the trouble to actually add them within the entry under "response". L ^talk 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs more on human-rights activities

So far this article is very vague on what exactly he did. The section on "human-rights activities" is fairly short, general, and focuses on peripheral things like controversial remarks and getting arrested for his activities. It needs to discuss what exactly he did and why it's so important that the Chinese government repeatedly jails him and the international community celebrates him. Brutannica (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation of charges

I've added a table to list clearly the prison terms for LXB but I'm wondering if there's any official translation for those charges on him? Let say, should it be "Anti-Revoluntary" or "counter-revoluntary", "re-education through labor" or "labor education camp"? --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

I thought standard Wikipedia policy was to leave important pages linked from the main page open for editing. 69.140.102.40 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The protecting admin is Airplaneman and the reason given was Semi-protection: vandalism, per request at WP:RFPP. using TW. It will be unprotected in three days. --I dream of horses (T) @ 05:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also the Wikpedia standard policy to stop vandalism by semi-protecting the article. Since yesterday, few IP users have kept removing all texts in the article, replacing it with "This guy is Asian" or similar stuff. Currently only new users and IP users can't edit. This is justified--Winstonlighter (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Grumpsdigit, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The chart showing Mr. Liu's his current jail term should note that he is currently imprisoned at Jinzhou No. 1 Detention Center in the city of Dalian, in Liaoning Province. Source Citation: "Chinese Dissident Liu Xiaobo Wins Nobel Peace Prize," Time Magazine, Oct. 8, 2010, at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2024405,00.html Grumpsdigit (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. sonia♫ 11:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I like how 1st the US is mentioned for calling for his release on 22 Dec

and then a paragraph later the EU and the US jointly call for its release on 13 Dec. The US defender of security and freedom in the world and misleading news. --Leladax (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. China is the sole provider of truth in the news. Or maybe Russia Today.99.103.231.61 (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case more I think of "article written by committee" and someone not reading the whole article before writing. Fixed now. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Can someone who's mother toungue is the same as Liu's please upload a sound file pronouncing his name correctly and/or add the IPA transcription? In the German media at least, I can hear very differing ways of pronouncing his name. --Madden (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an IPA transcription here, which you may add if you like. Lfh (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! 84.58.158.29 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

About Liu's colonialist comments

User: PaxChina, plus other IP users, as I have pointed out repeatedly in my edit summary, the content added by you is in the wrong section. I have no objection of you adding content about what Liu had said or didn't not say, but you have to pick the right place for it, and that is your job, not mine. Please remember, that section is about "Responses to the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize". Any further adding, and I shall call for the intervention of a wiki admin. Arilang ^talk 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is appropriate, because his comments are the basis for Chinese netizens' negative reactions, just as the leaders who had positive reactions were allowed quotes lauding his human rights history. Quigley (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Quigley, if you can read Chinese, I suggest you go to follow Ai Weiwei's Twitter account, plus the reactions from all his netizen friends. As far as I know, the whole mainland China blogosphere is under heavy censorship by the Chinese government, preventing the mentioning and discussion of Liu, and Twitter is the only free internet forum for mainland netizens, provided they know how to scale the GFW. Arilang ^talk 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So do you want to balance the nationalistic netizens' comments with those from Twitter dissidents? Quigley (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Quigley, please give me some links so that I can read these " nationalistic netizens' comments", and then I might be able to make some comparisons between these two camps. Arilang ^talk 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Were they not in the sources cited in the section you removed? Quigley (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Quigley, when reading Chinese netizen's blogs, it is very important not to be misled by those 50 cents party, and I value those real people's blogs, people like Ai Weiwei, Feng Zhenghu, among others. Arilang ^talk 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also recommend that the English, particularly in the latter paragraphs, be cleaned up, as it seems to have been written by a non-native speaker (editor...) I would make the minor edits myself, though it seems the page has been protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.236.245 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged-in. I'll make the appropriate cosmetic changes.

Its astonishing that some would think comments on Chinese online message boards or responses from "netizens" would be "relevant material" for an encyclopedia article, or anywhere for that matter. Would you think the countless user comments from articles on Yahoo news, Fox news, etc. would be appropriate for articles on Barack Obama or Sarah Palin or other public figures. Or would you think posting online community's comments and opinions on Gay rights would be appropriate for these topics' Wikipedia articles? Yeah, because we all know how "wonderful”, "polite", "non-inflammatory" and “composed” these internet comments can be. Would you suggest to measure the responses of the public by tuning to internet message boards? Guaranteed to make your head spin. When did it turn into, suddenly, random anonymous comments from online users in China became so important that they should even be mentioned?--Sevilledade (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What's astonishing is how you could make such an easy comparison between China and the United States. Because of the free speech situation in China, the relative anonymous internet is the only place where citizens can express themselves. You will not have people submit to candid interviews on the street. As to why the views of Chinese citizens matter in the first place? Well, Liu is said to (and may even claim to) represent the views of ordinary Chinese, and if that assumption is unfounded, that is important to add. Quigley (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Arilang1234, I checked Liu's page three days ago as he was a big contender for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. I remember these texts were in a separate section called "criticism" which I think comply with the rule. I'll take pains to recover this secton. But if they were to be moved into the Nobel reaction section again, I wouldn't help but think someone must have done it on purpose just to get an excuse to eliminate relevant information. Cheers, CJG (Talk) 08:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Now to all the ppl who removed these texts, On your suspicion of the source, it's a Hong-Kong-based magazine and has been very friendly with liberal dissidents. And I don't understand what you mean by saying it's 'not verifiable' when the full reference is provided. Also, I don't find the translation problematic in terms of accuracy -- you may say it's not 'good' English -- and then I would direct you to the prescriptive linguistics page here on Wiki. As to the complaint of not having an official English translation, I have to say: if you can just remove the text bcoz it's in a wrong section and practially say 'screw you' to the ppl who added them, then I may say 'screw you' too if you don't read Chinese. Of course, you're not obliged to edit and put them in the right place, but it's a matter of being nice. So may I say: you're mean. I also find the title of this section is insulting and stereotyping, as if everyone who cares about this colonialist issue must be using IP (I'll not mention further implications as they're not spelt out and I don't want to be called 'paranoid'.). So I edited the title to make it clearer and relevant to the issue at hand. The person who started the 'Censorship in Wikipedia?' discussion section is obviously misled by your title, Arilang1234. You seem to be an experienced user, so pls make it easy for ppl to find things instead of directing your title at certain individuals. Cheers, CJG (Talk) 08:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User CJG, "if you can just remove the text bcoz it's in a wrong section and practially say 'screw you' to the ppl who added them, ", as a wiki editor, to add/remove content is what I am here for, and I have no intention to "screw" anyone.

Haha, I'd like to remind you the talk page has an archived hisotry as well (see below for instance). If you like, I can get to the preview page and take pics for you. Being sensible is always good.

1. (cur | prev) 08:23, 9 October 2010 Abel.CHN (talk | contribs) (36,888 bytes) (→About Liu's colonialist comments) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 04:09, 9 October 2010 Arilang1234 (talk | contribs) (27,368 bytes) (→To user:PaxChina, and other IP users) (undo)

CJG (Talk) 14:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User CJG, your comment : " The person who started the 'Censorship in Wikipedia?' discussion section is obviously misled by your title, Arilang1234.", can you tell me what exactly is wrong or misleading about my title : "To user:PaxChina, and other IP users", and why it is "insulting and stereotyping" ? Are you sure you are not making up something from nothing ? Arilang ^talk 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Sevilledade. Unfortunately I really can't find any 'reliable' translation and I guess some scholarly blog would be called 'unreliable' by you. Also, Wiki doesn't seem to have specified how to prove there's absolutely no translation. But no worries, we'll do our best and add it back asa there's a 'reliable' translation. Thou shalt not cover the truth. CJG (Talk) 08:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Peace Prize

Liu Xiaobo is NOT the first Chinese to win the Nobel price, not even the peace price: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.187.144 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Article states (though its not referenced properly), and is correct, that he is the first Chinese citizen to receive a nobel peace prize. I dont think the Dalai Lama considers himself a Chinese citizen, nor does anyone except maybe the Chinese government. The article does not comment on other chinese nobel laureates, nor does it need to, as the others are for science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Peace Prize has not been censored in China. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/08/c_13547668.htm

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://news.xinhuanet.com/book/2010-09/29/c_12619354.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dxinhuanet%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1C1SVEA_enFR372FR372%26prmd%3Dn&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&usg=ALkJrhhBxNDZP9GEEMEYq6U8CCEpktchTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.110.31 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand the reference to the word "blaspheme" and there being an internet meme related to it. its unsourced as well. it needs to be sourced and explained more clearly. I did just create an article for Li Zehou, the scholar mentioned in this article, which was previously linked to the chinese WP instead of to an article here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"blaspheme" is definitely not a meme now on Chinese internet. Related discussions and posts are being strictly censored and blocked in China, there shouldn't be many wide-spread observable discussions on internet in China, let alone a meme. And it's also not interesting enough to become a meme. --125.70.164.246 (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He is the first chinese national to win the Nobel Prize. All former winners have either been citizens of the Republic of China, have been forced out of the country, or are Chinese-born but are no longer citizens of China. --haha169 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here quoting the previous comment about Dalai-Lama, he is a Chinese citizen. Tibet has been a part of China longer than the Independence of United States of America, earlier than the French Revolution, and heck, even Christianity. We have no right what so ever to intrude upon China and its politics.

How would Canadians feel if China completely supported the independence of Quebec, and sign trade agreements to make it more powerful than Canada? How would Americans feel, if China throw its full weight behind the indepence of Hawaii? Hawaii has its own royal family, it was an indepent country, and it was CONQUERED by America 51 years ago! Tibet has been a part of China for centuries. Let the simple fact leak into our brains, and think about it.

There are things in the Chinese political scene that we in the Western world simply do not understand. If you look at the people yelling anti-PRC slogans, they are mostly uneducated or undereducated. Large percentage of university professors and political analysts look at things in a much more reasonable way.

The People's Republic of China has survived 61 years, and at its head the Chinese Communist Party continues to govern the country, there MUST be a reason why it is still alive. One can say it's their military power, but France also had a formidable army, but the army was of the people - so is the Chinese army. Back in the days of the French revolution, there was a lot greater sense of loyalty to the monarchy, and still, the unfavored king was defied and killed. Now a days where everything has less "loyalty" (as in a sense of absolute loyalty), how is the Chinese Communist Party still in power? Because it is still favored by the people, and they are ultimately still of the people. The quality of life has dramatically increased after the Chinese Communist Party came into power, so what right do we have to slander their reputation? Let the Chinese people choose, they have (in great majority) chosen to support their government and allow it to survive, so why should we as outsiders interfere?

Democracy has to be chosen by the people, and not forced upon the people.

Edit request from Grumpsdigit, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The section on the Nobel Peace Prize should note that on Oct. 10, 2010, Liu Xiabo was allowed to meet with his wife, Liu Xia, and told her in tears that he was dedicating the award to victims of the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters at Beijing's Tiananmen Square, his wife and a close friend said. His wife said in a Twitter message that his jailers had informed him a day earlier of his prize. "Brothers, I have returned," Liu Xia wrote. "Seen Xiaobo. The prison told him the news about his award on the night of the 9th." Grumpsdigit (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: No longer protected. Celestra (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Blocked in China

I don't know if it is relevant, but when I tried to access this article from Beijing on the day it appeared as a Wiki news article, the download was interrupted and for the next minute or two (as is usual when you try to access "forbidden" articles from China) I was selectively blocked from accessing the Internet. I am now in Mongolia and therefore finally able to access the page. I wonder whether it might be relevant to add information about the blocking of the article in China. Bathrobe (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound rude in asking this, but was that your first time in the PRC Mainland? (guessing not given your user page.) Likely "Liu Xiaobo" is now considered a "sensitive" topic (and he probably has been for a while). Considering how often Wikipedia is blocked and unblocked, and considering that pages within unblocked websites can (and likely shall) be blocked if they cover "sensitive" topics, this is not really that notable (save to perhaps note his name amongst "sensitive" topics on the GSP article). Were one to be able to access wikipedia in Beijing (or Shanghai or anywhere else in Mainland China), and then tried to go to a page on a "sensitive" topic (e.g. human rights in China, Tibet, Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo), one would be blocked to those individual pages. Try to access them several times in a session and one might block the entire wikipedia domain temporarily on one's ISP. This is typical for the Golden Shield/Great Firewall. English researcher/activist Greg Walton did an excellent report some years back on the shield, should you wish to read more on it. L ^talk 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the blocking issue, although not in the detail that you appear to. I brought up the topic because, given the subject of the article, I thought it might be relevant information for people that the page they are reading is not available in China. Bathrobe (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be more useful/relevant then to propose that all items which are or have been at times blocked within the PRC Golden Shield be referenced as such, rather than just the article LXB. Perhaps proposed in Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China? or a related category -- frequently blocked topics in PRC, etc. L ^talk 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind somewhat after reading a comment at talk:Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China:

The tone of this article opposes the Internet censorship of mainland China. Wikipedia says to avoid self-references by avoiding mentioning Wikipedia as a blocked site. 71.175.43.242 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is then mentioned as a blocked site at List of websites blocked in the People's Republic of China.  :) It doesn't seem that there is a full listing of blocked topics (especially as they change so often), just listings of blocked/unblocked websites with a short description of the "sensitive" topics. I don't often deal with the censorship topics (I mostly lurk around the pages of activists for when I have time to edit), so I don't know whether such has been proposed before. L ^talk 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is too many non-China-based sites blocked and too many China-based sites censored so we can't list them all.--Joseblanc (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As of 13.41 China Time 9/08/10 this page is NOT blocked and neither are the BBC and CNN, all can be accessed freely here in Shanghai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.91.36.59 (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In China there are much fewer English sites or pages censored than Chinese language sites or pages. zh:劉曉波 and some other "sensitive" articles on Chinese Wikipedia and BBC Chinese, CNN Chinese(Sorry there's no CNN Chinese, but there are Chinese version of VOA, RFI and DW blocked.) have been strictly blocked for a long time. ps. ppl outside China can use this to test if a web page is blocked in China.--Joseblanc (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Censorship in Wikipedia?

Why the critism section and later the following text is removed?

In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong's Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu replied to a question on what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation: "(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would take 300 years of colonialism for it to be able to change to how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough." Liu later admitted that the response was extemporaneous and used as evidence against him, commenting that, "even today [in 2006], patriotic 'angry youth' still frequently use these words to paint me with 'treason.'

If wikipedia claim to be a independently medium why things like that will be censored? Area511 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The user that has been removing it thinks the content is okay, but is in the wrong section. He created a section for discussion here. Quigley (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Area511, the action I have taken up is not about "Censorship", it is about "Wrong section", and mixing what Liu had said in 1988 with the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 is misleading, to say the least. You and other editors are welcome to add content, but please try to keep the article's integrity intact. Arilang ^talk 03:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, just saying that Chinese netizens were mad for no reason is misleading, to say the least. If the 300 years comment he made was particularly relevant in his career, that could be added to that section, but if it is only relevant to the criticism/response section, it should be added there for appropriate context. Quigley (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The text was removed because the source that was provided was not verifiable. The article should have verifiable, reputable references. The cited source was entirely in Chinese, with no available English translation at all, and it seems whomever wrote the statements translated themselves, which is a major no no. Please provide reputable references (or credible third-party translation) for this article.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Open magazine is a reputed hong kong-based magazine focusing on human rights, politics , economics of China. The text you questioned was written and submitted by Liu Xiaobo himself and the translation matches the article. The removal seems to be a relentless ignornance of the Wikipedia guideline --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, were these guidelines ignored: "unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Did the original poster bother to try to find English sources, instead of directly posting inverifiable Chinese sources? Further, the guideline clearly stated "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians." Also, OPEN Magazine, Open (magazine)? I don't think there's much information about the said magazine, unless it is the two above.--Sevilledade (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It probably means that Sevilledade isn't familiar with this topic and the background information. This source is not inverifiable. It can be easily verified by many other wiki editors if you ask. {{clarify}} seems to be more appropriate in this case if you've never heard about Open magazine which itself is well known among many human right activists in China. I've just spent some minutes in checking if there's an English source for this LXB's article but no results are shown. Again, you're obviously not familiar with this topic so I advices that before you remove others' hard work in translation (except vandalism) , please ask first. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The source linked is completely legitimate. It's on the official website of the magazine itself, and the article is written by Liu Xiao Bo himself. The section that was there also translated the relevant parts verbatim. Your rule about "only articles in English" being permissible as reference is complete BS. It's ironic that there is no freedom of speech here on a wiki page about the very person who received a Nobel for advocating freedom of speech. I'm disgusted by this.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.219.79 (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC) 

Also why are you even editing sections involving a Chinese primary source when you can't even read Chinese?

Wikipedia prefers English-language sources, true, but it does recognize that some source material is not available in English, not even in translation, and allows it, hence the practice not being "preferred" but not being forbidden. There is absolutely no requirement that the published source have its own Wikipedia article to be considered reliable. Quigley (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

BUMP, this section was deleted again. Ridiculous hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.88.94 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please editors, let the people have their say. Though it is not a forum, discussions should be allowed. Do not be a facist AND a hipocrit. Wikipedia is getting almost as bad as the CCP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.239.196 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A gross and quite startling inaccuracy in the Wikipedia page on Liu Xiaobo ought to be addressed.

At http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Official_Chinese_government_response , under "Nobel Peace Prize," we read:

"All news about the announcement of the award was immediately censored in China. Foreign news broadcasters including CNN and the BBC were immediately blacked out after mentioning the award in China.[53] Web searches for Liu Xiaobo were immediately deleted and no information can be searched about him in China."

The last sentence is patently false. I am writing now from my home in Jiujiang, China (PRC), where I am an expatriate (American) college instructor. I've had no trouble reaching the Wikipedia main page on Mr. Liu at any time since the prize announcement--and am now commenting upon it here! I'm doing so without recourse to VPN or any other censor-evading modality.

Furthermore, I've discussed the award in class with my students (at a state college), and was told just yesterday that the news is readily available "on the Internet."

While not meaning to deny the reality of Internet blocking and other forms of censorship in the PRC, I nonetheless must dispute the factuality of Wikipedia's claim that "no information can be searched about him [laureate Liu Xiaobo] in China." Again, this is patently and manifestly untrue. If I can look up his Wikipedia main page--the very page on which this falsehood is asserted--from my home in the PRC, through a Chinese ISP, anyone else can as well. To reiterate, my college students affirm as much: they've read about the award online.

Unable to edit out the inaccuracy directly (since the page is protected), I can only hope that someone with authority to do so will consider a correction.

The larger issue at stake here is that the PRC government, while unmistakably authoritarian and at times quite heavy-handed in its exercise of power, is not today, by any stretch of the imagination or intellect, totalitarian. Its censorship of the news, and of the Internet, is porous. To pretend that all news of the Peace Prize award is being withheld from the Chinese public is simply absurd. They've only got to read Wikipedia! (Oh, the irony.)

218.95.46.66 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC) signed, D.W., Jiujiang, China 218.95.46.66 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote : They've only got to read Wikipedia! Unquoted. User D.W., may be you do not know that majority of the Chinese internet users do not read English, plus PRC has something called Golden Shield Project, 50 Cent Party, and Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China ? And please allow me to remind you that PRC police would throw Black Jail, and Re-education through labor at people they do not like. Arilang ^talk 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence since it did not have a source. Furthermore I have removed the protection of the article. Anyone can edit the article now. Rettetast (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have verified that his IP address indeed originated from China. For future reference, Wikipedia is merely using information it can find from reliable media sites. If anything, they are at fault for over-sensationalizing the news. --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not in China at the moment but from some Hong Kong-based newspapers, it seems that the news of the award has been widespread and, according to one report, "10 students of Beijing Normal that your correspondent interviewed" said that they know the award. When I asked my friends in China, all of them also know about it.

A quick test on QQ (the biggest instant messenger) and Douban (one of the biggest community):

* QQ: no relevant words seem to be censored.

* Douban: words such as LXB, Nobel Prize, Peace Prize, Liu Xiaobo...are all banned!

Just for reference. --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the West care about news accuracy? Anyone who reads Chinese can see the report is all over the Internet on Mainland websites. 121.7.18.139 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize 2009...does anyone remember? IMHO, the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee would certainly win it the year Jimmy Wales gets incarcerated. 121.7.18.139 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Censoring of the name/search term "Liu Xiaobo" in China

Two days ago, I posted here at Wikipedia to argue that, yes, news about Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Prize is in fact available online in China. (I live and work in mainland China as an expatriate American college instructor.)

What I wrote then remains true. Nonetheless, I've more recently (just today) noticed the following:

If I attempt a Google search with the terms "Liu Xiaobo," I immediately get an error message.

Also, if I try clicking on any of the links at Wikipedia's page "Liu Xiaobo," I immediately get the same "error" message: "The connection was reset . . . "

Funnily, when I *mistyped* "Liu Xiobo" just now, I immediately got Google results. But when I corrected the spelling to "Liu Xiaobo," I was just as quickly denied access.

My agenda here is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. In all truth, Chinese citizens do, in some numbers, know about Liu Xiaobo. But full and unrestricted access to information about him is unmistakably being blocked, if my own online experience is anything to go by.

Meanwhile, Sweden, Norway, the United States of America, and other shall we say decent, regular countries have no political prisoners at all, have never assassinated any of their more progressive leaders, never hold a man in prison for a day without trial, etc. and so on.

And of course Barack (if that's his name) Obama (really?) got the Peace Prize last year for withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan--right? right?

So you see it all gets to be very, very difficult indeed if we really ARE trying to be honest, and so on.

Oh dear, veering off-topic . . . !

D.W. in Jiujiang, China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.95.46.66 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, JFK assassination may still be a mystery, but I am sure none of the "decent, regular countries " in modern time would have 20 to 30 millions people starved to death, in the way like Great Chinese Famine ? Arilang ^talk 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ]]

Let's remember that the experiences of editors (while useful for perspective) do not qualify as Reliable sources. Any comments in the article about the status of internet blocking (or not) needs to be sourced to a reliable 3rd party source.

Also, this talk page for discussing the wikipedia article on Liu Xiabobo, not the place to make general criticisms of the Chinese government, please do not clutter the page with such talk. Ashmoo (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He has the Chinese IP address but the reliable sources say this article is censored in China. So it is obvious to conclude that he is a Chinese security services collaborator, probably hired to access this talk page and say it is not blocked in China. I would not believe any of his words.--MathFacts (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha how easily said MathFacts. It's not all that sinister as you may think. The Chinese government has better things to censor than Wikipedia.

Sad about the famine deaths in China. But the British starved the Irish in the Potato Famine, and the (white) Americans allowed native Americans to perish. Let's face it White Americans are well fed and watered because they are good at robbing other people's resources. 86.178.163.246 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another point for you people assuming the original commentator of this section is a Chinese propaganda officer: CHECK THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THAT IP ADDRESS!! Look at the topics he contributed to, they are not at all sensitive topics that the CCP might censor. Again, I stress, the CCP does a lot of censorship, but they do not censor everything, they definitely do not have time for Wikipedia talk pages >.> Ellano 04:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellanow (talk • contribs)

Someone above said the PRC government is authoritarian as if the US government or other governments are not. Come on, read Wikileaks about what the US gets upto, including getting DNA and finger-prints of diplomats, and plans of destroying other countries. The PRC government is by most standards a very courteous government, you respect them and they'll respect you. 86.174.209.93 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

86.174.209.93 -- You've added at least 3 comments that have little to do with the editing of this Wikipedia page. Guidelines state that this is no place to complain about unrelated issues (WikiLeaks, DNA prints, America, etc.) Your history shows no edits, but several pro-China arguments on talk pages. This is not a soapbox. We're told not to bite the Newbies, so I won't. Just a gentle reminder. (Pumpkin888 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Oh come off it Pumpkin. My comments were in reply to other contributors. Why are you singling me out as soapboxing? Because if I were soapboxing, so were the others, why don't you go and have a go at them? I was not being pro-China, I am pro-truth. Nobody, even the US government has not denied the information coming out from Wikileak is not the truth. This article is about Liu Xiao-bo and not about China. Liu Xiao-bo has his views on China, nothing has been said that those are his views, but not necessarily the truth, nor that the US is probably more repressive of the truth than China, so this has to be pointed out somewhere in the discussions. 86.176.49.125 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just an administrator's reminder to everybody, not just 86: Pumpkin888 is indeed correct that Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums for debating personal opinions of our article topics — they're for discussing the content of our article itself and nothing else. That is, they're not for debating China's human rights record, or Liu Xiaobo's opposition to it, or whether Julian Assange was standing on the grassy knoll; there are plenty of other places on the Internet for that, but it's well beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia talk page can be expected to accomplish. The talk pages here are for discussing proposed changes to our content, such as factual corrections and/or disputes about the validity or invalidity of a particular source; any discussion that isn't specifically about what should or shouldn't be in our article is inappropriate and happening in the wrong place. And again, that's a reminder to everybody here: stay on topic, please. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Entire Discussions

How is this possibly allowed? The last edit on this page was to remove an entire section!!

User: Alandeus removed the section on "What would be the view of Liu Xiao Bo on the recent student protests in London?"

How can you simply remove an entire section? What ARE we suppose to talk about? How stupid the Chinese are? How corrupt their government is? How good western democracy is? How open and unbiased Wikipedia is? How intelligent and neutral User Alandeus is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellanow (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• What ARE you suppose to talk about: How to edit and improve the CONTENT of the article.
• What ARE we NOT suppose to talk about: How stupid the Chinese are? How corrupt their government is? ...And so forth.
• What MAY we talk about: How intelligent and neutral User Alandeus is? (Yes, thank you.)

Please read the contents of the preceding section and also try to understand the basic purpose of the Discussion/Talk pages Alandeus (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I need a like button for your attitudes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellanow (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted section reinstated. The reason for Alandeus's edit is false. It is clear from the wording that there was no hypothesising of Liu's views on the European student demonstrations. It was an invitation for his supporters and mouthpieces to put forth their views, not to hypothesise about it. The purpose of the discussion page is to improve the article through discussion. Improvement to the article can sometimes only be achieved through extensive discussions. There are no limits within the rules of Wiki to say how long the discussions are limited to. The discussions were therefore all within the rules of the Wiki Talkpage. Alandeus' dictatorial editing should earn him/her a ban. 86.178.230.146 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My reasons are not false. Take the first line of the disputed section: "I just wondered what would be Liu or his associates' views on…" That is the beginning of making hypothesises. What followed was a spiralling discussion for example on what kind of people should rule China or the significance of student demonstrations. This had nothing to do with ideas for improving or editing the actual article.

Please observe and adhere to what is posted at the top of this discussion page: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

My editing was an effort to maintain this standard. It is not the 'extensive' quantity of the discussion, but rather the quality of the discussion that counts. It is unlikely that I would be banned for that. However, if it pleases you (Anonymous in China? 86.1…?), I shall leave the disputed passage for the moment and wait for it do be moved to the achieves sooner or later. Besides, no one would know otherwise what the discussion in this section is all about! Alandeus (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Alandeus. Deletions stifle open, frank and fair discussions that could lead to a better article, and creates an atmosphere of hidden agendas, which go against the spirit of Wiki. 86.178.230.146 (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this article about Liu Xiaobo or about his views on China?

Is this article about Liu or about his views on China? Everybody has his/ her own views; has anyone not considered Liu's views could be incorrectly formed, and therefore point it out in the article? Take the links below to the British Police agent who infiltrated the UK "Eco Warrior" movement. If the UK government who claim to be "poor" are prepared to spend so much money on spying on a bunch of effectively "hippies", what are they spending on more serious activities such as direct terrorism and what's more importantly, how are they going about it? So is the Chinese government that much different from any other western government? Of course Liu has lived in the USA, he must know that the in the USA you are free in the sense that you are free to be immoral. So called artivists such as Chai Ling found that out herself. Wu'er Kaixi got out of the USA ASAP. Liu should wake up from his dream of lies and present to the Chinese people the reality of life in the West, which is their governments spy on people a lot more than the government in China does because they have a smaller population. And we are talking about the 2010s and not the 1960s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347320/Undercover-PC-Mark-Stone-used-double-life-seduce-idealistic-young-women.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347747/Call-inquiry-undercover-policeman-Mark-Kennedy-supervised-sex-cash-spree.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347478/Mark-Kennedy-Undercover-policeman-tells-story-8-years-eco-warriors.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349647/How-undercover-officers-squandered-millions-pounds-flash-cars-luxury-flats-14-hours-overtime-day.html

81.159.182.125 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New section on Disinclusion on Chinese Search Engine

If you look up Liu Xiaobo on a chinese search engine in China it is restricted to the point where you will find no results of Liu Xiaobo. I would like to cite and include this information in his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedubaipost (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Liu and the NED

While Mr. Liu's "300 years of colonization" comment is getting some play here, the connection to the NED or Democratic China magazine, of which he was the president, and the Chinese chapter of PEN, of which he was the editor-in-chief, got no mention. I have seen two pages of Democratic China's 2008 Form 990 where it is stated that the NED specifically instructed the magazine to pay Mr. Liu while he was in jail. I'm wondering if anyone would like to take a crack at this.

I think it's a good idea, especially if you can provide some way of citing the Form 990. But it will take some work and skill. Perhaps it could come in through a "career" or "positions held" section, or something similar to what is in other wikipedia biographies. In this career section, one point could be "Liu served as President of the Democratic China magazine, which was funded by the US Government's National Endowment for Democracy" with the citation added. Or, alternatively, in the "Major Publications" section, the magazine could be presented (it is, after all, a publication), with a parenthetic note "Funded by the US Government's ....". So i think it may be possible to tell this truth about Mr. Liu, but it cannot be in the form of "original research", but rather in the form of presenting facts from reputable sources. (These sources could of course be Chinese language.) I hope somebody with the right experience and patience can do this. 76.254.57.222 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone finished the PEN part. The Form 990 of Democratic China magazine (www.Minzhuzhongguo.org) I mentioned can be found here: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2rykrv6.jpg and here: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2qajojl.jpg . Please note that the payment is described as a "salary", not "royalty" etc. Mr. Liu has been the president of that organization since the mid-1990s.

The source of funding is relevant, in the spirit of full disclosure. If a magazine claims that smoking 2 packs a day is good for your health or, in this case, paying for its president to sit in jail, its funding source should probably be of some interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzerkom (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

References

What was exactly his human rights activity?

This article does not specify any of his activities other than struggle against the Communist party. Are there any other human rights activities becides political struggle against the government? Or he is called 'human rights activist' only because he is in the opposition? --MathFacts (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Charter 08 is one of his notable examples in promoting human rights, along with a series of articles. He's also regarded as one of the leaders (an icon) of the academic fields in 1989 to show support to the protest of 1989. However, under China political environment, there's a hardly Martin Luther King-like figure who can freely organize a big protest, big rally and big demonstration. Even Dalai Lama couldn't do much other than voicing his objection over the China's policy. --Winstonlighter (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a link to this Charter in this article would be useful. Besides this my impression about the Charter 08 is that human rights is a secondary issue in the Charter (I think nobody in Chinese government would ever object to rural–urban equality or civic education, so these demands only a pretetext), but removal of Communist party from the rule is the main issue and demand. As such, human rights activism is only a secondary activity (if sincere) of Liu Xiaobo, after right-wing political activism.--MathFacts (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments hidden. Please see: Wikipedia is not a forum.

He has done nothing much really in comparison to others. They use Liu Xiaobo to demonize China as the villain. Dalai Lama has been used and is still being used extensively in the same way. The same west that props up Liu Xiaobo and claims to be the moral compass of the world also supports the brutal Zionist occupation of Palestine. When will a Palestinian rights' activist get a nobel prize? When will someone fighting for democracy in the US-supported dictatorships of Egypt or Saudi Arabia get their recognition ? Never —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedChilkop (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That is true. The `human rights' is everything that is pro-capital. It means anti-communist definitely. The capital controls the world and appreciates this definition. All the liberals, market proponents, democrats, reformists, human right activists, western lifestyle, CIA and imperialism advocates are all the same company, sponsored by the satanic cult of money. They have ruined Eastern Europe and USSR and want to complete the success in China. Yes, these were Gorbachev-started market reforms that killed the economy but he put these anti-human dissidents on air to demonize our human-friendly civilization. The `free encyclopedia' must be hostile to these demons of privatization. But I see the opposite -- everything that is critical to capitalism is 'inappropriate', 'not encyclopedic', 'has no reliable sources' and etc. Obviously, when class of owners finances their representatives in their media, the only `respected' picture that is created is 'good, free and liberal' capital vs. 'evil' communist tyranny. Wikipedia takes over this bullshit very naturally, without any censorship! Since Civil War, American business have succeed to use `human rights' as a noble mask for promoting its interest. --Javalenok 13:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"When will a Palestinian rights' activist get a nobel prize?" See: Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, he received the Peace Prize in 1994. Aaker (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear MathFacts, now a days there are many so called "activists" that use "human rights campaigns" as a cover for furthering their own political, economic, or other position.

Simply calling the CCP bad names will get you attention and praises from our Western Media. What are they REALLY fighting for? The CCP must be willing to do what the people really want, otherwise it would be toppled, but they are obviously, as any other political organization are, not willing to simply hand over power.

The answer to the question in the title is none. It is easy to shout out "I want people to have this and have that" and try to make out "I am the champion of the people", but what is the reality? Look at the current situation in the UK about the student protests about university fees. At this year's UK general election, both parties in the current coalition government said no increases. Once they are in power, the reality is exactly the opposite. The students are the people, the students do not want such a drastic fee increase; that is to say the people do not want a fee increase. The government is supposed to represent the people and guess what they are doing, the exact opposite to what the people wanted. Don't forget it is "democracy" that gave the world George W Bush, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc. At the moment it would seem the Chinese model of choosing its leaders is much more effective that that of the USA or the UK. Chinese leaders are highly educated technocrats who can personally understand major technical, scientific, numerical and engineering problems and understand solutions being put forward. What do US and UK leaders understand? Well, Obama and Blair are lawyers and their ideas to solve problems appeared to be putting forward more and more complicated laws that nobody understands, which will generate lots of money for lawyers (at the expense of ordinary people). In other words, their ideas do not and will not work. Take Obama's so called universal health care bill that says if people don't have health medical insurance, then fine them. That is really going to give them health care isn't it? One of the reasons people don't have health insurance is because they can't afford it. And take the finance ministers of the UK, Gordon Brown and now George Osborn. What subject did they study? History. The only numerate subject these gentlemen understand are probably dates. How do you expect them to run the UK's economy when they are not experts in dealing with numbers? At least in China people with responsibility have the right qualifications for the job. If Mr Liu wants to influence a country like China, he will do well to get the proper training and qualifications first. 86.178.163.246 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll say democracy in the West is dysfunctional...which is why your IP address shows that you live in the United Kingdom. Oh the irony.Sauuce (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-pht-newscorp-britain-corruption-idUSTRE76J25L20110720 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.189.247 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Take the current Rupert Murdoch saga, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14212485, and decide for yourself whether democracy in the west is dysfunctional. A true democracy will simply result in anarchy. The trick in politics is to give the bulk of a country's population just enough so that they begin to believe the illusion that they are living in freedom and that they are in charge of their destiny, and that there are enemies all around who threaten to take away their dream of freedom. 86.178.227.155 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Saauce, is the Norwegian massacre another example of your idea that democracy in the West is dysfunctional? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14266815 86.178.227.155 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Saauce, the UK must be a paradise to live in? Maybe the UK government will now invite Liu Xiaobo to sort out the rioting in London? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/08/daily_view_what_are_the_reason.html 86.178.73.141 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Chinese anti-communists

He has been detained, arrested and sentenced repeatedly for his peaceful political activities, beginning with his participation in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and on four other occasions since.

He is currently imprisoned for his criticism of the communist regime. Anyone who opposes a communist regime (and such regimes in general, as Liu Xiaobo, a fighter for democracy, does), is by definition an anti-communist. He belongs in the category Chinese anti-communists. His activism against the communists and for democracy is well sourced. DeDeer (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that word. The Chinese government is technically Communist and is still influenced by Mao and Marx, but its economic policy is currently corporatist-Tianmen was in fact a protest against privitization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.50.169 (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They are always communists when they are doing the paying. Which is why so many events have "volunteers". But when they are receiving money, they are capitalists. Expect Liu's prize money to be taxed heavily. Most people expect 90 to 100% of the prize money to go toward the communist party under loop hole rules. Benjwong (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no tax on the prize money in China. Income is taxed at a flat rate of 25% over the threshold. For example Tony Blair paid 25% tax on the money he was paid for lectures in China. 86.174.209.93 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is tax in the UK though, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15663240 86.178.72.22 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The category: Anti-communist often contains a distorted meaning and should be avoided. In the west, communists are often linked degoratively with facism, nazism and nationalism but in communist countries, communism sometimes refers to a "left wing" ideology and socialism. Some supporters of Liu Xiaobo seems to think themselves as a "true communists" who pursue human freedom, human rights, and equality of the society. It's particularly true of the Chinese community party whose members exceed 80 million, even bigger than the total population of many countries and which looks more like an umbrella organization that covers different sects. One common fallacy is to assume all those 80 million people think in the same way and this often attributes to the lack of knowledge on the history of communist parties. Don't you know that many dissidents in China are in fact a member of the Chinese communist parties? I doubt that if Liu Xiaobo would agree that he's an "anti-communist". --Winstonlighter (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think their self-image as "true Communists" is just a trick, intentional masquerading to gain popular support because Communist ideology is still popular (and/or because open anti-Communism may lead to a legal action). In the USSR also many dissidents in the 1980s portrayed themselves as "true Communists", called for "return to Lenin's principles", portrayed themselves as being more left than the government (for example, attacking the use of state cars for duty purposes by the state officials as 'luxury' privilege), often attacked Stalin as if the state officials were Stalinists (dipite already 30 years had gone since he was dead and denounced), for "socialism with human face" etc. If they openly called for restoration of Capitalism or dismantlement of Socialist system they most probably would not gain any popular support and even not permitted to participate in elections. Instead they called for "democracy" which was very similar to the official propaganda for "people's democracy", for national and ethnic separatism (paving way for dismemberment of the USSR under the pretext that Lenin also supported national autonomy), for human rights (which were in fact demands for legalization anti-constitutional movements, removal of CPSU monopoly on state power and permission for private ownership, not what usually considered human rights), for disarmament and reduction of military and scientific spendings (arguing the money should be better spent on the needs of ordinary people), concessions in foreign policy "to prevent a nuclear war" and also under pretext of saving money, without demanding similar concessions from the West, and in the latter years for "market economy" and "market socialism" (also under pretext that Lenin introduced NEP and Stalin later canceled it so claiming that market economy is in fact a return to Lenin's principles). Nothing to say that most of those "democrats" later completely denounced Communism and even called for re-establishment of monarchy or even a right-wing dictatorship modeled after Chile's Pinochet regime, ban on Communist party, lustrations etc not to allow Communists to return. So I completely support that Liu Xiaobo should be labelled as anti-Communist.--MathFacts (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Liu's Attitude towards Iraq War

Liu actually supports the Iraq War, quoting from his own article (in simplified Chinese) [1]. There are also discussions about his personal attitude towards wars. Can anyone add this into the section of "Criticism", or just translate the information from Wikipedia Chinese version zh:刘晓波? Mrseacow (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not widely discussed. You need to summarize Liu's works, and it seems to be a no for Wikipedia. As I think, he may be a conservative about the Iraq war, but a moderate democrat not refusing to cooperate with Chinese govt about Chinese issues. zh:刘晓波 mentions his I have no enemy (English ver.) detracted by his radical companions.--Joseblanc (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fact checking Liu's statements about Iraq, etc.

Someone has inserted statements that give the impression that Liu supports Western colonialism and liked the Iraq War, etc, etc. Just to be fair, I noticed this source did some fact checking and said that much of this is taken out of context. I hope someone will include this in the discussion to provide a fair perspective (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/liu-xiaobo-media-and-culture-wars) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.116.55 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The "fact-checking" piece by Lee and Loftis you cited says nothing about colonization or Iraq. On Iraq, Liu ended his 2004 piece by

无论倒萨的行动要冒的多大风险，不行动的风险将更为巨大，二战和9•11就是明证！所以，无论如何，倒萨之战是正义的！布什总统的决定是正确的！

The translation given in the opinion piece of Sautman and Yan is quite accurate:

However much risk must be endured in striking down Saddam Hussein, know that no action would lead to a greater risk. This has been proven by the second world war and September 11! No matter what, the war against Saddam Hussein is just! The decision by President Bush is right!

Lee and Loftis did accuse Sautman and Yan to misquote Liu on Vietnam and Korean Wars. Sautman and Yan have since provided the source of the quote

美国所领导的自由世界，几乎与一切践踏人权的政权对抗……美国所卷入的主要战争，在道义上都有可以辩护的理由。

which again matches their translation:

The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.

Daltac (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop using this page as a forum

There are increasing number of users without sign-ups who seem to contribute nothing to Wikipedia but irrelevant comments on this talk page. Whether you are one or the same, I don't know. As the admin said above, pls reserve this space for people genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia. Some comments above have already been blocked. You can take your discussion of "idiots" and other insults to a blog or other space. Pumpkin888 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pumpkin. But I believe so far the discussions have been relevant because the article as it stands today is not about Liu Xiaobo, but about his somewhat puerile attempt to brainwash people into thinking the American way is the best and the only way for the world. To make the article unbiased, it must be pointed out somewhere within that his views are only his views and bear no semblance to the reality; he has offered no pragmatic solutions to things he saw as problems, nor that his policies will cause even more and bigger problems than ones at present. Also the vast majority of the peoples of the world (including western Europeans) do not want to be like the USA. They do not want to have a gun culture, nor a culture of invading other countries, or to claim any decisions they make are the ones God would have made, nor disfunctional families, nor pornography. How would the world feel if China behaved like the USA? They would not feel safe would they?

The article should stick with the truth about Liu. For example he is not a human-rights activist, he wants to dictate to a Chinese people on how they should live, that is live like Americans. That is to say he wants to remove the rights of Chinese people, making him in effect an anti-human rights activist. He has given no thought to the fact that the vast majority of Chinese people have no idea how American live, nor would they embrace the idea of living the American way if they knew. The other thought is that America will not allow the Chinese people to live like them, because they are well aware that if the Chinese used as much of the earth's resources per capita as they do, then there will be much less resources left for the Americans, and they can't allow that to happen. The American policy is therefore to put and keep the Chinese down at all opportunities. 86.178.74.6 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine if it were not for the vigorous discussion on this article, nobody would know about Mr. Liu's stand on the war against Iraq, for example; including information (with cited references, of course) that does not conform to the dominant narrative of a particular culture improves the article. Son of eugene (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Liu's Publications

Fog of Metaphysics is not mentioned in any of the ENGLISH-LANGUAGE book listings I could find. I have checked quite a number of sources, including many booksellers and Worldcat.org. I have no knowledge of Chinese, but I encourage someone with that knowledge to doublecheck this small piece of Liu's listing.

David Shapiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwiaei (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

First Chinese citizen to win the Peace Prize?

The article currently describes Liu as the first Chinese citizen to win the Peace Prize. Actually the Dalai Lama has that distinction. He was born in the territory of a warlord who recognised the central government as the supreme authority. Installed as Dalai Lama with Chinese central government approval in 1940. While briefly claiming to be head of an independent state, he functioned as part of the government of the People's Republic for several years. His current position is unclear, but he says now he seeks autonomy rather than independence, which if it were ever accepted would make him definitely a citizen again.

--GwydionM (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• According to the 14th_Dalai_Lama page, In the 1970s, the then-Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping set China's sole return [from exile] requirement to the Dalai Lama as that he "must [come back] as a Chinese citizen.... that is, patriotism". Since he didn't do that, it can be assumed that he refuses to be a Chinese citizen. He is also "head" of the Central Tibetan Administration which considers China in Tibet to be an illegitimate military occupation. The 14th_Dalai_Lama page also says, "A charismatic speaker, he has since traveled the world, proselytizing for Tibetan independence and Tibetan Buddhism, though his role in the former is diminishing." Therefore, I don't think he considers himself Chinese and thus he would be considered Tibet's first citizen to win the Peace Prize, not China's. -- Fanra (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Gwydion's right. To say he didn't come back therefore he is not and has never been a Chinese citizen is a logical fallacy. He may not have come back for any number of reasons, perhaps the curtailment of his freedom for being a suspected trouble maker. Perhaps he didn't come back because he won't until he is satisfied with Tibet's level of autonomy. Whatever the reason, the Dali Lama's absence in China is not evidence for him not being Chinese. Also, if we're getting technical; Tibet does not exist as a separate country, only a region of China. No country recognises Tibet and the UN has affirmed that Tibet is part of China so if the Dali Lama is supposedly Tibet's first citizen to receive the prize then a Chinese citizen must have received the prize, as a Tibetan is also a Chinese because Tibet is a part of the PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.70.134 (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama was [and still is] a Chinese citizen at the time of his award, so Liu Xiaobo cannot claim this distinction. It doesn't matter what he thinks about Tibet. Quigley (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I follow this logic also. To say Dalai is not Chinese just because he is Tibetan means a denial of the existence of anyone's dual citizenship and thus not NPOV. Dalai never gave up Chinese citizenship and PRC never took away his Chinese citizenship. The fact he possesses or doesn't possess certain travel documents is irrelevant to his citizenship. HkCaGu (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not even an issue of dual-citizenship because there was no such thing as Tibetan citizenship. Quigley (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here quoting the previous comment about Dalai-Lama, he is a Chinese citizen. Tibet has been a part of China longer than the Independence of United States of America, earlier than the French Revolution, and heck, even Christianity. We have no right what so ever to intrude upon China and its politics.

How would Canadians feel if China completely supported the independence of Quebec, and sign trade agreements to make it more powerful than Canada? How would Americans feel, if China throw its full weight behind the indepence of Hawaii? Hawaii has its own royal family, it was an indepent country, and it was CONQUERED by America 51 years ago! Tibet has been a part of China for centuries. Let the simple fact leak into our brains, and think about it.

There are things in the Chinese political scene that we in the Western world simply do not understand. If you look at the people yelling anti-PRC slogans, they are mostly uneducated or undereducated. Large percentage of university professors and political analysts look at things in a much more reasonable way.

The People's Republic of China has survived 61 years, and at its head the Chinese Communist Party continues to govern the country, there MUST be a reason why it is still alive. One can say it's their military power, but France also had a formidable army, but the army was of the people - so is the Chinese army. Back in the days of the French revolution, there was a lot greater sense of loyalty to the monarchy, and still, the unfavored king was defied and killed. Now a days where everything has less "loyalty" (as in a sense of absolute loyalty), how is the Chinese Communist Party still in power? Because it is still favored by the people, and they are ultimately still of the people. The quality of life has dramatically increased after the Chinese Communist Party came into power, so what right do we have to slander their reputation? Let the Chinese people choose, they have (in great majority) chosen to support their government and allow it to survive, so why should we as outsiders interfere?

Democracy has to be chosen by the people, and not forced upon the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.239.196 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To the above contributor: "There are things in the Chinese political scene that we in the Western world simply do not understand." Not only that, people in China do not really understand western democracy. The ordinary Chinese people will very happily vote for the person who will pay them most (upfront). They think a vote is something they have been given to sell. In the West, democracy means you have chosen us (the election winners) to rule over you, once we are in power you people do as we tell you; we tell you to go to war and you go to war whether you wanted to or not. Oh, and financially, you people also have to pay us lots of money for ruling over you, whether you wanted to or not. The Chinese people's attitude to democracy is, if you pay us (the people) then we want democracy, but if we have to pay for (western) democracy then no thank you, we'll rather have Chinese democracy.86.174.209.93 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what do you mean by selling votes? what do you by they don't understand democracy, now there are more university students in China than the US by far (though a low percentage) and they have all read literature commonly known in the Western world, though there is censorship, China is not going to read every single book brought in, it is too much work with too little effect. To the Chinese government, to stimulate economic growth and spread prosperity and please the people is a much easier way to stay in power than having to crack down on everything, censor everything and brainwash everyone. It's easier to be loved than feared now a days.Ellano 01:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Ellano, I didn't realise you are not up to date in your knowledge about Chinese societies or life-styles. But any way this is what I mean:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10722684

So called "western" democracy is not such a good idea in China, or perhaps to be more pedantic, Chinese societies, because basically Chinese peoples are always into business, so a vote like anything else is there to trade for. There is also a fundamental difference in view between Chinese and "western" peoples about governments and the ruled. To the Chinese, a government is there to give, for example to give money to the people it ruled, whereas in the west, the government is there to take money from the people it ruled, and in theory redistribute the money. Also western-styled democracy will cause rampant corruption (yes even worse than it is perceived to be at present) among its people and politicians because of the psyche of the Chinese people. Chinese people view their politicians as there to serve and give their all, whereas in the west politics is a profession, with politicians thinking of ways of feathering their own nests when they leave politics. Examples of this can be clearly seen with Bill Clinton of the USA and Tony Blair of the UK, and also Chen Shui Bian of Taiwan. People such as Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping might have been very powerful upto their last breath, but they were unable to make a penny for themselves, unlike Clinton, Blair or Chen Shui Bian. At the moment, it is the CCP that checks politicians and people in office do not go OTT with their "expense" claims. There is no doubt corruption, but those who are corrupt forever live in fear that there will be a knock on their door. Without the strong grip of the CCP and its present system of rule, China will just be same as it had always been during imperial rules, a boom and bust country ruled by a succession of families that give little thought to the ordinary people. 86.178.74.6 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The other thing Ellano you raised about the number of students is that I don't know what it's like in your place, but the students from China I've met here are generally as thick as two very short planks when it comes to taxes. They don't know all the different types of taxes we have to pay. There is always the question from them as to why we have to pay this tax and that tax because they don't pay that in China. They have come across western propaganda to say how free things are in the west, until they got here and realised nothing is free and you pay the government even if you don't use anything from the government. 86.178.74.6 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An example of how 'free' the west is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15663240 86.178.72.22 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Liu showed read the following article in the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20178655

86.181.64.132 (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

US is so free that this citizen of hers runs off to Hong Kong. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338817/NSA-whistle-blower-Edward-Snowden-reveals-lines-door-pillows-fear-eavesdroppers.html 81.129.180.29 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)