Talk:List of re-education through labor camps in China

New page

I created this page to merge all the pages at Category:Lists of laojiaos in the People's Republic of China and delete the 20-some pages there, as well as the category. To be honest, though, I find this whole thing kind of frivolous, given that the user who originally created these basically did nothing but copy a list out of a single source. I may put this whole page up for deletion later. Just giving everyone a heads-up. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See discussion of the speedy deletions here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Update (I forgot to mention this earlier): I made all the lists redirect here, rather than delete them. The Category, however, is still up for deletion; it is at CFD here, and if no one deals with it there within 4 days when I will put it up for speedy deletion since it's now an empty category. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tables

I just realized, I have been formatting all these tables to fit optimally on the page (no sidescrolling, but trying to get them wide enough to minimize the number of cells that go to two lines), but I am doing all of this on Firefox 3.0 on my laptop (1200x800 screen resolution). If anyone else editing this page has other browsers or uses a different resolution, please let me know here if there are any problems (i.e., if the table is too wide). —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I also tried looking at the page on IE7 on my computer (same resolution), and had no problems. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rudong

A Judong RTL in Judong County in Jiangsu is mentioned. According to Rudong County article Rudong county is in Jiangsu. Hence I suppose Judong County is a misspelling. Sarcelles (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

These all come directly from the 2006 Laogai Handbook; I'll check the original source and see if I made a typo in the transfer. If "Judong" is what it is in the source, though, that's how it'll stay here. Most likely, I imagine Jiangsu province might have both a Rudong and Judong (and the Laogai Handbook isn't always specific about what level of division it's talking about, so sometimes it says "county" when it means "prefecture" (bigger) and on the other hand sometimes it means township/district (smaller)...so just the fact that WP has no "Judong County" doesn't necessarily mean Judong doesn't exist. Anyway, I'll look into it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just checked. It's on page 350 of the document, and is definitely not a misspelling; it's listed in Chinese as 句东县 (jùdōng county), which is different than 如东县 (rúdōng county). It looks like Judong County is just a small place that doesn't have a WP article yet (here or on zh wiki). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have searched in this wikipedia for Judong. There is no mention of a Judong in Jiangsu excluding this List of Re-education Through Labor camps in China. Sarcelles (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another mention of Judong off-wiki. The source is affiliated with FLG, but that's not a huge concern here, I'm mostly just looking at it to verify that some place called Judong exists and it's not just a mistake by the Laogai Research Foundation. (Also note that it shouldn't be confused with Judong in Hsinchu County, which is in Taiwan.) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Laogai Handbook

At http://www.laogai.org/news2/book/handbook2008-all.pdf a new Handbook has been issued. Sarcelles (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In quest for "Judong" or Wikipedia Laowai Handbook?

The following discussion 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.

---

Nothing constructive here, discussion is "just for amusement". Archiving to prevent further disruption. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The guessing-game in the discussion above shows the nonsense of a list like this in Wikipedia: every information seems to be taken directly from only one source: the Handbook (with added mistakes). As the case "Judong" shows, the English Wikipedia community is not able to any criticism or corrections. This is not enough. Therefore this list should be checked seriously or deleted. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate it for deletion if you like. It is one of the first articles I worked on when I joined WP and since then I have had little time or inclination to work on its upkeep. As for my two cents, I think it obviously has problems with being mainly from one source (although there are two or three entries in the list that come from other sources), but that is mostly a systemic bias problem--ie, that there are not many other sources, at least in English, that provide information on this subject. Obviously it could be an encyclopedic topic—ideally, it would include all verifiable information about all known laojiao facilities, using all sources available. In practice, though, someone needs to find that information, and that someone will not be me (at least not in the foreseeable future) because I have other projects I am working on. Anyway, if you do take this to AfD I will probably !vote "keep", for the above reasons and because the amount of time I put into formatting this means it's not really fair to say "someone can re-create it once they've found sources" (since that someone would again have to put in tons of hours worth of formatting), but I understand why you are concerned.

Also, if you do think this needs to be deleted, you should also have a look at all the "list of" articles in Category:Prisons in China. They are, like this, just repetitions of a single LRF source (the only differences being that those use an outdated one whereas this uses the most recent one, and in this I have tried to at least digest some of the important facts out of the LRF book and present it in an organized format here); in fact, this list was originally a collection of lists, just like that, until I merged them into one and deleted all the original lists. In any case, any problems that there are with this article are also present in all those lists.

Other editors who have been involved here are Cdogsimmons and Sarcelles, if you are interested in getting input from them as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All we are saying is give China a chance. The English Wikipedia community is not able to any criticism or corrections (as the case "Judong" clearly shows). --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

China has a chance. Anyone may edit this article, and many members of English Wikipedia are native Chinese speakers and even are from China. As for Judong, first of all I don't see how that shows shortcomings of en-wiki (as far as I know, we reached the right decision about it), and secondly the fact that an article has one editor who is not a native speaker of Chinese doesn't mean that it should automatically be deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your aforementioned lists of prisons in China (eg Hainan: where is "Danxian Prison"?) are not better. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't my lists, I have nothing to do with them. I was just pointing them out so you will be aware of them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also the main source seems to have serious problems with modern Chinese administration terminology. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that several months ago in the section above. I have tried my best to organize things (sorting the locations into columns, adding or removing "city/county/etc." wherever I could figure out what location was intended) but I'm not perfect. You are welcome to make improvements. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would obviously be better if we had multiple sources confirming the existence of these facilities. Does the Chinese government publish that data? Are there other independent sources we can add besides the main one? I don't think deletion is in order because the existence of these facilities has been confirmed by multiple sources and there should be a list of them somewhere on Wikipedia. If the existence of certain facilities is in doubt, those should be marked as such so that a search for sources can be commenced. I would recommend enlisting the Chinese Wikipedia's embassy in this pursuit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to exist a quasi-religion around the main source. And unchecked One Source Wikipedia Articles support its fanatics. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "religion" about the main source, it's just the only source I have found. If you want to add more sources, add them. Your tone is getting offensive and you are not doing anything helpful here by badgering people. Are you actually going to do something constructive, or are you just here to pick a fight? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My criticism of this one source article is just for amusement. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC) PS: Did you find "Danxian"?

Since you are only here to amuse yourself, I'm closing this discussion to prevent any further time-wasting. If you want to contribute something constructive, you are welcome to start a new discussion, but don't try to waste everyone's time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Clarification

I've gone the long way from German Wikipedia to tell you some mistakes and inconsistencies, therefore I'm not interested in every detail. The lists have been (are) over one year old with the same mistakes, and that was (is) really amusing for me. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Name of column

There is a column town/village. It says in this column 21 kilometers from Hai District or similar. Additionally it has street names. Should they removed or the column be renamed? Sarcelles (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe...basically I just created the left column to give the "big" location (ie, large administrative division such as county or city) and the right one to give the "small", more specific location (village, district within city, etc.). Another thing that might help would be decide on a standard for what info should and should not be included; as I did this list over a span of several weeks, I may have included more detail in some sections than others, simply because I didn't always remember what I had done before. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of re-education through labor camps in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161017235210/http://laogai.org/system/files/u1/handbook2008-all.pdf to http://laogai.org/system/files/u1/handbook2008-all.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161017235210/http://laogai.org/system/files/u1/handbook2008-all.pdf to http://laogai.org/system/files/u1/handbook2008-all.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

For your information, there is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reeducation.
提尔巴 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC).