Talk:Chinese rioters storm Japanese embassy in Beijing

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Inaccurate title?[edit]

"Chinese rioters storm Japanese embassy in Beijing"

There is a big difference between storming and attemping to storm. Which is it? (<-- unsigned comment left by anon IP)

The rioters successfully broke through a police line (which was strangely unarmed) which was guiding the "parade", massed in front of the embassy, and started throwing rocks and other objects, damaging the property. This report says, "They (the police) made no attempt to stop the rally or the throwing of objects at the Japanese Embassy." There is now extensive damage to the embassy which must now be repaired.
So, was the "storming" successful? It depends on what their objective was. If they were attempting to damage the embassy and make a political point, the answer is yes. If they were attempting to take over the embassy, the answer is no, but then I don't believe the definition of "storming" includes physically taking possession of the property under seige, as that would go beyong storming, wouldn't it? (i.e., storming a property is the first step, taking it over would be the second step) So they did more than attempt - they actually stormed the property in question.
Let's put it another way, the police "attempted" to quell the rioters, but the rioters were still successful at damaging Japanese property. So did the police attempt to stop the protesters or did they stop them? There is a big difference. Which is it? — DV 01:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by accident[edit]

I apologize to DV and to all for the accidental/unintentional deletion on the page. Dpr 00:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for helping to improve the article. — DV 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Le Monde[edit]

Maybe someone can incorporate the Le Monde info... I'll try to do it if I have time. Thanks! Dpr 02:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dpr, although you have a good history here on Wikinews, is it prudent for us to take anyone at their word and trust that they have faithfully used non-English sources? If we trust you to interpret the Le Monde story, someone else with less of a reputation may feel insulted if we say they are too new and we cannot take them at their word when they supply a source in another language.
For this reason, although it is not a policy that I am aware of, it's not practical for Wikinews to use sources that aren't in English. Also, most contributors would not be able to participate and help to verify those portions of the story which rely on the cited article, which goes against the "wiki spirit".
I'll leave the link to the Le Monde piece in the External links section in case someone on the fr.wikinews finds it useful for a translation. (Although not much is going on over there these days.) — DV 02:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some policy should be decided, DV...it is well known that the Wiki projects seek a non-Anglo-American bias. Moreover, non-Anglophone sources often report excellent information unavailable in the English-speaking press. Can we simply ignore this and leave out potentially groundbreaking pieces of information? It's understandable that Wikinews would want stories to be veriable by other users, but does this outweigh the potential sharing of new information?
Frankly, DV, considering how excellent the Wikinews project is, it would be a shame to think that we couldn't use it to reveal new, previous-unknown information to the Anglophone world. If we can't use Wikinews for that, where should we go?? As ardent Wiki supporters, we surely wouldn't want to point people elsewhere when the potential for greatly boosting Wikinews' usefulness is at stake. If we can be a clearinghouse for translations from non-English sources, wouldn't that widen our appeal? The alternatives are to send people outside Wiki, or to create a new reference-translation Wiki-site, and thus compete with Wikinews, watering down already-thin resources.
Your points are well taken, but some policy should be decided, for this issue is one which potentially could helpe Wikinews a lot. Thanks for listening! Dpr 03:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Had you cited a non-French news source, I would embrace your suggestion of providing a translation of the article in question, but the French seem to frown on that kind of thing, don't they? AFP just sued Google for using tiny little excerpts of their stories, so surely we would be in trouble for translating an entire article?
I would defer to Eloquence for this question, because the Foundation may incur liability if something questionable was hosted on their servers. It's too easy for those contributors who don't use their real names to slink away into the night should some sort of legal problems crop up, leaving Wikimedia holding the bag.
Thanks for considering the other points I raised. I'll make a note of this discussion on the water cooler. — DV 03:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To follow up, I added a question about non-English sources to the Policy section of the Water cooler. Hopefully some of the regular contributors will continue the discussion over there. — DV 04:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This icon (French) is missing twice. 82.224.88.52 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Day two of protests[edit]

I restored the bit about it being rare for China's state-controlled news outlets to report about a protest. I can't take a claim that this is an unsupported assertion very seriously, but it's in the Kyodo and Associated Press sources (which were there all along) for any naive editors who don't follow Chinese news every day.

I also added a bit from a BBC report which may open more eyes to realize that the authorities had signaled "tacit acceptance, if not approval" by allowing Saturday's protest to happen in the first place. Any flowery diplomatic statements after the fact to deny culpability are artful dodges of responsibility for the damage that has been done to Chinese-Japanese relations.

I'm starting a new story about the second day of protests, which have spread to Shenzhen and Guangzhou, leaving this story to focus on the first day's events. — DV 18:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I understood from quotes in the other sources that formal approval was not sought, and therefore not granted, for the initial demo, but it was 'tolerated' regardless. From that I understood the ensuing riot to have been 'regrettable' etc. The Chinese authorities are in a difficult spot if they are damned when they disallow a demo, but also damned when they allow one and it has a violent component.
But I would assume they may tacitly accept the level of violence, without tacitly hoping that greater violence had occured. Again, compared with western demos, this would have parallels, I believe. Of course there are always other possibilities with such events, that the violent component are agents provocateurs to make the main protest look bad. - Simeon 12:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

China Daily / People's Daily[edit]

The Chinese state-controlled media, which rarely reports about protests in China, provided reports about the event through the People's Daily and Xinhua news agencies.

18:03, 10 Apr 2005 David Vasquez (This is a well-known fact to any reader of Chinese news. It's silly to remove this claiming it is not cited. (But it is in the Sources if you insist.))

OK, it was me who removed this par earlier. I would still like the par to be attributed. It is an opinion, and we outside China are not really qualified to back it up. It is 'common knowledge' but I think that even millions of people outside China are not really qualified to form an opinion on this without millions of people having some direct experience.
If you reference it to the specific source then the reader gets also a bit of info. I simply did not have time, and thought that since it is such common knowledge, that readers would understand this fact immediately when they see the words Chinese People's daily .. so why do we need to take up space emphasising the common belief outside China that they have cencorship and that their newspapers are run by the government?
If this is the case, I'm not arguing that it is, but if it is, there must be plenty of references that you could plonk in to back up your statement. I think the correct attribution right now would run like this, and this wordiness is exactly why I removed it in favour of the reader using their noggin to figure it out for themselves:
The Chinese state-owned media, which The New York Times says rarely reports about protests in China, provided reports about the event through Xinhua news wire agency.
Both Chinese stories came through Xinhua I think.
I think there is wide agreement that there is some form of censorship within China. There is some form of censorsihp within Australia. Just what the censorship chooses to omit and allow, I think you and I are not qualified to say. Does the New York Times know? Probably. But they may also have a bias, and so it is appropriate to attribute a claim by them, to them, so the reader can think 'will I believe this statement?'.
- Simeon 04:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whatever. If you're going to make the amazing claims that such an assertion must be attributed to a specific source such as the NYT, and that only citizens of China (I'm married to one) can possibly know that state-controlled media rarely reports on protests, I will just chuckle and move on.
Since you've gone to the trouble of inventing a completely new excuse to remove that line a second time, and writing your lengthy defense of the deletion, you must feel strongly about it. I won't edit war with you. Do whatever you want - it's a wiki. I can always grab the version of this article that I want out of the history. — DV 05:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DV, Amgine has told me (and you've verified since I wrote this text) that you probably are in a position to have understanding of how Chinese media works. I don't, personally, except that people say things like 'government controlled'. This to me needs to be quantified, but it could be in an external source. I do want it attributed if used, the government controlled, and the do-not-usually-report-protests. For flow reasons, I removed it, because the quote from People's Daily is the best explanation of the protestor demands, so works well at the top of the story, but a complex attribution of a qualifying statement then would stuff up the flow, and as I explain above, I thought the qualifying statement was not needed. But if you want it, I suggest add an explanatory par last or second last in the story, to the effect of 'Such-and-such points out that reports on protests in China such as that provided by state-owned Xinhua news agency are rare.' or whatever .. whatever you have a ref to back up. Reason I didn't make this change myself is that I have something urgent I need to do, and I don't know which of your sources contains this info. I don't have time to read all of them again looking for it. Sorry if it seems I made the change for some other reason, please don't misunderstand my reasoning. - Simeon 05:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to attribute well-known facts in the body of the text. Wikinews stories will start to read as if they are aimed at juveniles if well-known facts must be littered with inline external links or "according to". Attributing something that millions of adults already know to the New York Times is just silly.
As I said before, if millions already know, why interrupt the flow of the description of the riot with needless comments about chinese censorship?
Should I mention in a discussion of the Baxter protests recently in Australia that countless similar-sized and larger protests occur in Australia around the same issue, but go unreported by our National Broadcaster? Perhaps, but I should leave it to last, and I should back it up with a qualified source, or admit that it is from my own research, my own opinion, or just something someone said that I believed. - Simeon 07:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to debate your point, but it is completely lost on me. I restored the edit once. I won't do it again, because I have no inclination to edit war in the main article space. DV 05:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are the one who perceives it as war. I am simply trying to make the article better. If you believe articles do not benefit from discussion, why do you write on a wiki? - Simeon 07:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm simply not going to talk down to our readers and insult them by attributing well-known facts to American news outlets. You seem to want to write Wikinews articles for a very unsophisticated audience (high schoolers?). I'll continue to write for adults who I can count on to be well-read enough that I don't have to explain the ways of the world to them in every article.
I was hoping for a more elevated level of discourse on this site, but I think I'll go back to reporting another silly Wendy's chili story if this is the level of intelligence we are now assuming for our readers. — DV 05:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If your Wendy's article contains contentious assertions, and uses ten or so sources, like this one, then I hope you will go to some effort to make it easy for the next person to cross-check (which you did! and thank-you - your attribution was above-average). Of course, if you don't there is no penalty apart from the frustration of that next person.- Simeon 07:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

w:Xinhua News Agency: "The Xinhua News Agency (Simplified Chinese: 新华社; Traditional Chinese: 新華社; pinyin: xīn huá shè), or NCNA (New China News Agency), is the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China..." First sentence. - Amgine 05:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, you are both making a point which I already made, which is that it's not necessary to mention in an article about a riot, that china censors. The article already mentioend that the protest was state-sanctioned. Did they If you want to mention it regardless, fine, but follow wikinews policy and good journalistic methods, and attribute. And for flow, put it near the end, which is where DV originally had it anyway. I moved it because it was a useful quote for explaining the reason for the protest. Should I have moved part and left part at the end, I did not judge it to be worthwhile, but I said it's OK if you do that, since I didn't have time to do it for you.
Who is arguing? I think you agree with me in essence, but you are too mean to say so. You admit that people don't need to be told china cencors to know that it is said that china censors. We agree. You also do not think its worthwhile to track down someone to attribute this statement to, and you also are tired of editing the story. Me too. So? - Simeon 07:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What's more, I think Xinhua covered the initial peaceful protest, but not the later riot? Is this so? Then this is worth mentioning. The report you gave implied that xinhua covered the riot. - Simeon 07:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=riot+beijing+japan+site:xinhuanet.com
http://news.google.com.au/news?q=protest+japanese+xinhuanet&btnG=Search+News
We're now almost halfway through April 11th. This story is old news. Why are you still arguing this point, Simeon? I'm already two stories ahead of this one, and I hope you are too. Thanks for trying to get your point across. I appreciate your passion for what you are doing. There is some sort of bizarre cultural divide between us that causes you and I to think differently about this point, so I have accepted your edit and moved on. You don't need to defend it any longer. I promise not to change it back while you are sleeping. I will not edit war with you in the article space, OK? — DV 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am labouring the point I suppose because I would not want what I have done to come across as censorship or anything other than an attempt to improve the article as a news article, on basis of readibility and NPOV.
I myself am extremely curious about the censorship in China. I find all forms of censorship abhorrant in principle, but there are plenty of other abhorrent balancing factors. But I find the issue of censorship in China curious because like in the cold war, people unquestioningly repeat what they have heard about it, even though the details any of us hears are fairly scant.
I was quite serious about comparing censorship in China with censorship in Australia. Here censorship is widely unacknowledged as a significant effect, and most would argue that commercial influences that Chomsky et al describe very well do not amount to censorship. Similarly, many Chinese may argue that the system they have is perfectly justified when seen against the mores of their culture and history.
And yes, OK, so I maintain my 'bizarre' addiction to attribution. I was simply hoping I suppose that you did want to keep the info, and would indiciate which source it came from. I did in fact look for info to back up the assertion, for example wikipedia has no mention of censorship on their page on China. The Chinese government maintains that there is no censorship of news in China.
The Constitution provides for a wide range of political rights to citizens. In addition to the right to vote and to be elected mentioned above, citizens also enjoy freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. There is no news censorship in China. Statistics show that of all the newspapers and magazines in China, only one-fifth are run by Party and state organizations, and the others belong to various democratic parties, social organizations, academic associations and people's organizations.
And yet we hear continually about the 'Great firewall of China'. My government wants to implement the same thing. I live in a modern western democracy, one at the forefront of both technology and human rights. And yet, if you look, you will find it also commits a fair share of human rights abuses. I would be interested to see how it would rate if scaled up to a billion people.
So ultimately, to go back to labouring the point, I think it would be nice to attribute such a piece of data, and by following the lead back, to find more information on it. Is the lack of reporting of demonstrations really because of 'government control' .. in the sense that someone looks over the journalist's shoulder and says 'no'? This is the picture we are presented with.
In Australia, the censorship would come about because of a policy to cover only a certain amount of public dissent, for commercial reasons, to keep the paper attractive to readers, and to keep on-side with the government.
It would be implemented through the same quiet commercial forces - the journalist's need to be paid to feed their family, the editor's similar need, the boss's desire on the one hand to publish but on the other, to keep the paper selling and keep the government from favouring his competitor.
This is the best that we can hope for, allegedly, in capitalism. Unless something like wikinews works. And I think we have seen through discussion that even wikinews users think that wikinews will always rely on mainstream press as a source for big stories.
I will try to find a source for the info (but can't spend a great deal of time on it), it is interesting and relevent — as an aside from the main story — and more so if the Chinese press covered the main rally but not the riot, something which would really be indicitive of deliberate censorship of dissent, rather than just censorship by favouring other stories for reasons of space, or perceived reader interest, etc.
Thanks anyway, for your contribution. - Simeon 12:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, I just noticed you reply above this section, where you mention its in Kyodo and Associated Press. I will add it at/near the end of the article. - Simeon 12:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)