Talk:Charter 08

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

Signatories[edit]

Why have a blank section? It almost looks like it was removed. Are we hoping people will just voulunteer names? Wouldn't that be dangerous if they were chinese? Should we remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgmiller (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion[edit]

Related discussion please see:User talk:浙太湖 or [Talk:零八宪章]. Only in Chinese. Somebody please help translate. -浙太湖 (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, the user above has been blocked in zh.wikipedia because it's a sockpuppet of a famous vandal there.--Bencmq (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama and 1989 ?[edit]

Is it pertinent to push the Dalai Lama and the 1989 photo here ?

  • Dalai lama is an highly disliked pesonallity in China, because of an other fight, he have nothing to do here.
  • 1989 tank repression and today sitations are really far, we don't have to 'make the show' by pushing choc-image into this article.

Chinese people is slowly fighting to get more right, in a new economically liberal context, that's already an huge fight, please dont push other issues into this articles. Yug (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the 1989 photo. I already removed an image of the Magna Carta. The Dalai Lama is being quoted, so its more relevant. There isn't much in the way of imagery to include as of yet, so I'd say keep him now.--Patrick «» 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get this either. Why break the whole thing into sections like that anyway? It gives way too much prominence to one person's opinion, and he was not even instrumental in this case. Does every commentator get their own section, with a long quote, and a photo? I've not seen this sort of treatment before. For now it would seem appropriate to combine all these responses into one section of prose. If there were distinct themes in the responses, perhaps they could be separated by themes. Or perhaps if they got so large, it would make sense to break them up. At the moment the flow of the article seems missing. The Dalai Lama thing is a prominent problem, in my view. --Asdfg12345 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this completely. There should really be only one response section, separated into Chinese (govt) response and international response (including govt, ngos, and other e.g. press, Dalai Lama). As it is now, it's giving too much prominence to particular individuals or groups. L (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual leader is paramount[edit]

China is very much lacking in spiritual leadership.After 60 years of Marx-Leninist indoctrination, nearly all the Chinese (specially right now) need some sort of Spiritual guildence. 30 years of 'free enterprise' may have enable some Chinese to improve the living standards(rich in material only), but the Chinese is actually living in a spiritual vacuum, the return of the Confucious Teaching is a solid proof. Arilang talk 05:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage them to return to Confucius (respectful and efficient !) and to learn more about Jesus (inefficient but... nice, kind and equalitarian ;) Things improves slowly~ Yug (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduce of full text[edit]

[Here, Arilang1234 posted an email from someone at New York Review of Books, giving permission to copy the translation of the text of the Charter 08; however, there are questions about whether the format of this copyright permission statement satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. I'm deleting the email for privacy reasons.]

Hi. Clearance must be provided through the Communications Committee and an OTRS ticket logged in order to allow us to display this. One potential problem here is that Robert Silvers may have translated the text, but the copyright of the text is not owned by the translator, but by its original authors. Translation is a derivative work, and only the copyright holders have the right to control derivative works. Do you know who holds the copyright of the original Chinese document? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left you a note at your talk page with more information about how to verify permission to release text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bigger question: Do we want all that text on this article? Wouldn't that be more of a WikiSource sort of thing?--Patrick «» 22:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking that: that it might be better in Wikisource. We would still need the GFDL or compatible license for that, too. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move to Arilang/sandbox[edit]

users Patrickneil, Coppertwig, Moonriddengirl, and me we all agree that the full text really should go to Wikisource instead. While we are sorting out the copyright issue(which will take time), my suggestion is for the time being the 'Full text' shall be moved to Arilang/sandbox as temporary measure. Any suggestions from other editors are welcome. Arilang talk 14:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to draft an email to be sent to Robert Silvers[edit]

Teacher Coppertwig, could you help me to draft an email to be sent to the NY Time Book Review, to let them know the exact requirement of wiki copyright issue? Meanwhile I was thinking, since Charter 08 was draft by a group of people(300 plus), which one of them would be the holder of 'copyright'? Arilang talk 06:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NGO responses[edit]

Is it really necessary to state the responses of NGOs? There were responses from many NGOs, including those with many China ties, including China Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights in China, the two who provided translations of the Carter. L (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Translation[edit]

The translation by Perry Link that is given on the very first paragraph of the article is incorrect. It includes references to Tiananmen incidents that are not in the Chinese original preamble. A different translation should be used, for example this one: http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/85717. Source: chinese original http://www.canyu.org/n4460c6.aspx. From Chinayouren blog at http://chinayouren.com/eng Chinayouren (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over it and agree. Shall we use the Human Rights in China translation instead (and note that there is a discrepency in the English translation from Perry Link / China Human Rights Defenders)? L (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are also a few more discrepancies further in the text. It is a pity because I find Proffesor Perry's translation to be better in terms of style. It seems that he was working in parallel with the Chinese authors but for some reason did not incorporate some last minute changes. I have been unable to find proof of this on the internet, but a commenter on my blog tipped me off about a note on MCLC reading list where Proff.Link admitted it himself. It is very strange that he has never corrected his translation, perhaps suggesting some disagreement with the Chinese counterparts. The point is that the original Chinese signers only signed the Chinese version so the article should follow the most accurate translation of that signed version. Chinayouren (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.243.183 (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the published Chinese version found on Baidu, section III "What We Advocate", item 1 does not say "A new constitution", rather, it says "Amending the constitution" (修改憲法). Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Bobby fletcher, I think that was meant to be a compromise, because if calling for a new constitution is equivalent to calling for a new government. Arilang talk 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going to agree with Bobby Fletcher here. It should be changed to "amend" (or "revise"). Even if it was meant to be a compromise, it is what was written, and therefore how we should list it.
Additionally, I'm not too fond of the translation found in MacCartney's article and quoted in the "demands" section, but that's neither here nor there. L (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL lisence granted[edit]

Good news everyone, I have just received another email from Professor Perry Link:

Quote:P.S.: I would request that note that "this translation by Perry Link frist appeared in the New York Review of Books in January 2009". P.L.

Perry Link wrote: > I grant Wikisource a GFDL permission to publish my translation of > Charter 08. > > Perry Link > Unquoted. Arilang talk 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"5,000 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists" Claim Dubious[edit]

The Boxun article cited does not substantiate above claim. It only says there are 5000 signatures:

- Some signers are neither a intellectual nor a human rights activist

- Some signers are not Chinese

- Even the Title section of the citation states "5000 people"

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bobby fletcher for pointing out the error, I shall amend it. Arilang talk 07:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Dalai Lama picture[edit]

Dalai Lama is an important spiritual leader, please keep his picture there. Arilang talk 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama may or may not be a spititual leader (depending on people's view point); but even if he were a spiritual leader, he is not a particularly important one. 86.174.209.93 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to original Chinese text?[edit]

I'm very new at this, so putting this in 'talk' rather than trying to edit the article. Could we also include a link to the original Chinese text? Perhaps in the Wikisource article with Perry's translation? ([1])

My Chinese is rusty, but this site [2] appears to have the original text and 303 signatures. It's by "独立评论" (The Independent Review). Whether it's the 'original' site and who owns the copyright I don't know, but presumably a link to the site is allowable.

Cheers

OzJohn OzJohn (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I do not understand your question. There is a link to the original Chinese text under External Links. Regarding your comment on linking the original Chinese on en.wikisource.org, please bring that up on that talk site and also refer to 零八宪章 and its related discussion. L talk 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the original Chinese in the External Links section seems to have been blocked: my browser says "This web site at www.canyu.org has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences." Is this true or just censorship? Tamino (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. canyu.org is a site run by "overseas Chinese" with human rights-related news. Those sites are commonly targetted by groups who add malicious code to attack the visitors of such sites. I'll change the link to a non-canyu page, as the Charter is available on many sites. Thanks for the notice, btw. L talk 15:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

"As a document of Chinese origin, it is unusual...."

Why is it unusual? Has the concept of saying what they want not entered their heads any time in the past simply because they are Chinese? I have edited it to make it a far less cynical sentence to the original.

81.111.120.73 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need the whole chunk of text in the lead?[edit]

Seems a bit odd. I would suggest a summary of what it is, then include that large excerpt elsewhere. Homunculus (duihua) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems[edit]

This article has several problems. The worst is that it uses draft language and third-party quotes that are not in Charter 08 and represents this information as being in Charter 08. The official English translation of Charter 08 is on the Charter 08 website[3]. Quotes like "All kinds of social conflicts have constantly accumulated" and "The current system has become backward" are from a news article (and someone's seemingly casual explanation of what Charter 08 says), and not from Charter 08 itself. The signature count is out of date and comes from third-party sources, instead of from the (Chinese-language) Charter 08 website, where the current tally is kept[4] (if you scroll down, the table on the left is a list of signature batches and a count of how many signatures are in each batch. Add them up for the current tally. The batch without a number is from a website that is independently updated. Check the link to see how many signatures are there (290 as of my count)). The list of 19 recommendations is given the aggressive title "Demands," as opposed to the charter's use of the term "recommendations," as in, "we offer the following recommendations." Further, while some of the terms in Charter 08, like "freedom to assemble," are well-defined and understandable on their own, others require more explanation to understand what the authors mean by them. For example, republicanism just means a head of state that is not born into the position, but Charter 08 uses the term to include separation of powers, equal access to government, and representation and deliberation of competing interests. There needs to be explanation, not just a list of out-of-context phrases. I spent some time improving this article, but my edit was silently reverted. You can see that edit here[5]. Feel free to use it. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst many issues, the English translation that you linked at 2008xianzhang.info is not the "official" translation -- as you were told via email (hi!), it was based on an older version of the document. Rather than making the changes en masse, please discuss them. L talk 06:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I misunderstood. If 2008xianzhang.info is not the official resource for Charter 08, what is? 98.246.191.164 (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Charter 08 Chinese, yes, the version posted at 2008xianzhang.info is effectively the most official version (as "official" as such can be as there is no real organization behind it). But the English translation of Charter 08 posted there is the one done by Perry Link and published in the NYRB which is based on an older (draft) version of the Charter. As you can see on the page, it has been copied and pasted directly from the version on NYRB down to the editors' note at the top. (The NYRB page has since been changed and no longer includes the editors' note.) If you look on 2008xianzhang.info you'll note that there are a number of articles reposted without regard of copyright, which is typical of the Chinese-language internet. Reposting articles in no way implies that they are "official" in any way.
Ok, you're right, sorry about that. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that there was good information in your edit and am working on incorporating it whilst checking it against Chinese sources; I endeavour to provide a sandbox version soon. Sandboxes are our friends. Why not register and play around in them a bit? L talk 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know what sandboxes are about. That does make sense, thank you. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Free Market"[edit]

Does anyone know what they mean by "free market"? Do they mean the classical definition of a market free from monopoly power, business fraud, political insider dealing and special privileges for vested interests. A market freed from Feudalism and serfdom, or more formally, one free of economic rent, in the formulation by David Ricardo of the Law of Rent. Or do they mean the anti-classical definition of a market free for fraud, monopoly rents, etc? WjtWeston (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Charter 08. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 06:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charter 08. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charter 08. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charter_08&oldid=1195074539"