Talk:Akmal Shaikh/Archive 3

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Timotheus Canens in topic Change title and emphasis
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Change title and emphasis

edit


First EU national to be executed in 50 years or 60

edit

There seem to be two references in the article both stating different numbers of years. The first at the top says 60 years, and the second 50 years. Can someone please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.166.102 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The observation is correct, however the first reference says "nearly 60 years" and the second says "over 50 years", so technically it's still correct, although a little odd to look at. --222.155.162.229 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The last European national to be executed in PRC was Antonio Riva and that was in 1951, 58 years ago. So yes, both "nearly 60 years" and "over 50 years" are correct. Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Guardian Q&A states unequivocally that there is doubt over whether this assertion can be proven: "How often are foreigners executed?

According to Reprieve, Akmal Shaikh could be the first national from a European Union country to be executed in China in decades. But with few public records, this is hard to confirm.

" Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is possible that at some point between Riva and Shaikh's executions, another person from an EU country had been executed in China without the media ever knowing. A person who has no friends or job and has had no contact with any family members for years would not be missed; no-one would try searching the world for him. I think it likely that the Chinese authorities would try, convict and execute such a person who was found with a large amount of drugs without telling the authorities of his country. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Drink-driving

edit

This article used to contain info about Shaikh being convicted of drink-driving in Poland; I believe one of the Polish news articles was used as a source. Is there info in there, or elsewhere, saying he was convicted? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Online polls

edit

The public reaction section currently includes info of online polls. Online polls are generally not considered RS. Well-published offline surveys are. Maybe they should be removed? Blodance (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Umm... I understand your concern, the first reference was from a newspaper article that cited the polls so I think it should be fine. But the second survey result was cited several times by multiple newspaper articles (the results were slightly different depend on the time of retrieval) so I added a direct link to the poll itself to make it more consistent and easier to refer to. What do you guys think? Kesaer (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Personally I would avoid online polls that are not enforced to be representative, as they will not give a balanced "public" view unless they are so. YouGov style polls and surverys should be fine though, if they actually do represent the "public" rather than a segment of it. --Taelus (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well I think if this poll result was cited by newspapers it should be reliable, after all, I could just cite the newspaper for the same effect.Kesaer (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I for one will not use online polls here in this particular case. Think further into the whole thing - Chinese netizens tend to be the younger generations. The majority of them are between like 16~40, and the vast majority of these young people are not that interested in politics. Those who would vote in such polls are generally those who are either interested in politics, or ardent patriots, or both. As a result, they might simply voted support in support of their own state. Additionally, as Chinese media reported this incident using incentive titles like "China can say 'no' to Britain", they are more likely to vote in support of Shaikh's execution. Note the significant difference between the results of offline survey and online poll - I think it would prolly be better to take this into consideration.
Of course, the opinion above is OR, and there's nothing wrong with citing a newspaper, but when we write an article about a controversial topic, I personally would like to take greater care. In any case, I mean merely to express my own opinion. It's up to your choice, mate. Blodance (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Blodance, online surveys are always susceptible to sampling bias - only internet users can vote, but nonetheless it represent the opinion of a particular group of Chinese people, albeit a very specific group. So I think the correct thing to do here is to present this survey as representative of the opinions of Chinese netizens and only Chinese netizens, after all, they are a very influential group in the Chinese society and their voice should be heard too. Kesaer (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, if they are properly attributed to the netizens of China, I've no objections.
But I still won't do that myself - actually it would be extremely surprising if less than 95% of them supported. When it comes that China is one of the "belligerents" in any given incident, online polls tend to get that result. Blodance (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.