Jump to content

Talk:Sichuan schools corruption scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

I don't know why is it so hard to keep things neutral here. We have all our rights to write about the PROBABLE local official corruption, central government initial inaction and later tardy investigation of collapsed school buildings, even later unwelcoming of some foreign journalists, detention of foreign reporters, police sealed the site from everyone for further investigation, etc.. Yes, we can do all that. However, we can't assume that the local official corruption is actually took place before the earthquake, because we don't have source or evidence to support it. Even I personally believe it's not only took place, but on very large scale, not only in the devastated area, but the whole PR China. But what I believe has nothing to do with the fact that I have neither source nor evidence to back my "believes" up. Same thing goes to those bereaved parents. Obviously, those emotionally motivated and impatient average people has no access to the very-real REAL figure, and for an earthquake of this magnitude, it's not possible for those parents to collect reliable data first-handed in the field across the whole area, hence the doubled figure is not credible, IMHO it's simply just a human natural reaction upon government's ill handling of this issue, showing their doubt and lack of confidence in their government. Marmy mappy (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making any assumptions that aren't stated in reliable sources. You, however, adding into the article bits such as "there is no hard data or evidence to verify it or back it up" editorializes the matter (how do we know what sources of information they do or do not have available?). Instead of stating the plain facts, as I did (grieving parent claiming that real figures are twice as high as official ones, as stated in the source), you wish to add that they base this claim (or belief, as if there is a difference between the two synonyms) that they are "emotionally motivated and impatient average people"? It goes beyond plain reporting of reliable sources. El_C 10:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now you delete the source that speaks about "faith in school construction being shaken," claiming my wording of "an erosion in confidence" is somehow not a mere paraphrase of that title; then you add a citation tag? That's unacceptable. What is the difference between saying "quake shakes faith in school construction" and "quake erode confidence in school construction"? Just as with [parents] "believe" versus "claim" [figures are twice as high], this comes across as attrition, and as far as single purpose editing goes, is reaching the limits of what is acceptable. El_C 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you go on to imply that there's a problem with the word "scandal." Okay, I therefore added a source whose title is "School quake scandal". And now you further argue that the "quake shakes faith in school construction" source is about "school construction," per se., in a vacuum, somehow unrelated to & disconnected from criticism of the govt. regarding this construction? El_C 13:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower construction standard for schools

[edit]

This article needs to point out that compared to other official buildings, schools were built to meet a lower construction standards anyway meaning that some could have still failed even if they were built to meet them. I've no idea why this is, though I would guess that this must be a carry-over law from pre-one-child-policy when many schools had to be constructed to educate all children.--Revth (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not following that (built to meet lower standards —why?), nor the one-child-policy connection (pre or post? why would it impact standards?) El_C 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, GB 50223-2004/2008 contains no special provisions for government office buildings; they would be classified according to population density and height just as any other building of the same size. However, the old standard does require that schools exceeding 600 in capacity, kindergartens and child care centers exceeding 300 should apply Class B of seismic design, meaning the resistance should surpass the zoned fortification intensity by at least 1 liedu; however, it contained a provision to allow low rise buildings (3 stories and below) to just meet the zoning standard. The revision after the 5.12 earthquake eliminated both the provision regarding number of students and the one regarding the height of the building so all schools must be built to Class B. Sillyvalley (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out

[edit]

That under the section: Suppression of dissent. All the cases mentioned aren't "supression" because the government didn't stop them. The government certainly doesn't like what they are doing, but the government aren't stopping them either. Considering the type of action, a more appropirate term would be "Interfer". I will go ahead and reflect this, I'll be here to check back on any changes. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was at the time I wrote it. Someone else added the BBC arrest, which was before the school scandal started. Suppression of dissent is a well-known term and is the focus of that section, whereas there is no such thing as "Interference of Dissent" (unconventional uppercase capitalization, too). Anyway, perhaps we should remove, or move, that bit —it isn't as pertinent. Makes more sense than renaming the section, which works to obfuscate (i.e. it would be a pro-PRC govt. effort, whose influence here I am trying to guard against). El_C 14:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the original poster, I've been checking his edits and he's been trying to censor a large number of Chinese articles. Coolgamer (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of schools

[edit]

That section in the earthquake article is longer and more informative on certain aspects of this topic than this (the main) article. Using the information in that section, I think somebody expert on the subject should expand this article. --haha169 (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

[edit]

I have moved the page from "Allegations of XXX Chinese schools" to "Sichuan schools corruption scandal" for three reasons. Firstly, the former name is too long, too unwieldy, and doesn't really describe the contents of the article. Secondly, the allegations made were largely targeting schools constructed in Sichuan, even if the allegations bring to light construction policies of Chinese schools in general. Thirdly, the term "Allegations" does not need to be included, as the case has been reported upon by third parties, and the 2007 Chinese slave scandal does not include this appellation either. Colipon+(Talk) 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sichuan schools corruption scandal. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sichuan schools corruption scandal. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sichuan_schools_corruption_scandal&oldid=1207935247"