Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen

Luo Shiwen

• ... that Luo Shiwen (pictured) led a secret cell of the Chinese Communist Party while detained at a Kuomintang concentration camp?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anaïs Gallagher (3 of 3)

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Much of the article is cited to sources like "Devoting One's Efforts to the Party and the People is the Least of One's Worries——Deeds of Martyr Luo Shiwen", which doesn't speak well to their reliability. There is no consensus that Chinese government published sources are reliable for heroic deeds of party members (see, eg, WP:XINHUA).
• Neutral: - Unclear, see above
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ? Unable to evaluate translation copyvio from Chinese language sources

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Hook could use improvement. Such underground groups developed in so many locations that political prisoners are jailed together

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - Bad quality pic, main page viewers would be better served by not running it

Overall: (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Buidhe. Thank you for taking a look at this article, though I note that you are supposed to notify the article's creator if you find issues.

Referring to WP:XINHUA, which you mentioned in your review, the quorum mentioned there reads "Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua." Little mentioned in the Luo Xinhua article crosses the bar of "extraordinary claims", and what does cross that bar is specifically attributed to the source (with an indication that it is state-owned). He lived, he did something, he was detained, he was executed. Where these government sources have been used, I have been careful not to use their description of persons whom the CCP has no reason to like (for example, the conflict with Zhang Guotao is cited to Howard rather than the decidedly less neutral CCP sources, and discussion of Xifeng is cited predominantly to a Harvard University Press book). Likewise, I have deliberately excluded politically charged claims such as Luo's father being bankrupted by the high ROC taxes.

As per WP:PARTISAN, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS clarifies that "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." In this case, the sources are used specifically for basic statements of biography. Where statements were extraordinary, such as Mao and Zhou specifically asking for Luo's release, it has been attributed to the source with an indication of the source's potential bias.

As for the hook, I am deliberately avoiding claims that are sourced exclusively to state-media. How do you feel about:

ALT1 ... that Luo Shiwen (pictured) led a secret cell of the Chinese Communist Party that negotiated better conditions for inmates at their concentration camp?

That ALT is supported entirely by Mühlhahn. Regards,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Xinhua is, according to consensus, generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda, but this topic is exactly one where the Chinese government would have an interest in distorting its own history in order to make the CCP look better. Perhaps other reviewers would have a different opinion, but I don't think that Chinese government published sources should be cited so heavily. (In case you are looking for additional sources, this one is accessible via TWL and seems to mention the article subject). (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think I have Wakeman sitting around somewhere. I'll cite that for a few points, and I can cite some more to the pithy provided by Howard. That being said, a blanket prohibition against mainland Chinese sources (we've been talking about Xinhua, but Sichuan Annals are cited more prevalently, and both the original books and the web edition have the same government ties) for a figure of little interest to KMT historians does seem counter-productive. It may be best to have a third opinion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Have your concerns been resolved and is this approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think we were looking at having a third party take a look, but I wasn't sure how to proceed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think there should be a ban on CCP sources for uncontroversial statements. I'll investigate further when my head's a bit clearer.--Launchballer 10:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Or indeed, any Chinese government-backed sources; claims should be assessed on their merits. (They probably aren't making up "son of a saltmonger", for example.) @Buidhe: what specific sentences are you objecting to?--Launchballer 13:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation (see above) is that there is a consensus that the Chinese government sources are not reliable where they have an incentive to lie for propaganda purposes. When it comes to the heroic deeds of a Communist party member, there is an obvious incentive for propaganda. This does not apply to basic biographical information that does not reflect positively or negatively on the subject (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)