Talk:Bo Guagua

"Guagua" vs "Bo"

As much as his notability is attributed and a result of the eminence of his father, I do not think it is appropriate to refer to him as "Guagua" in the article. Instead we should probably just use "Bo" just like Bo Yibo and Bo Xilai. It would be like referring to Justin Bieber as "Justin" in his article purely by virtue of his youth. Colipon+(Talk) 04:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

+1. I had a crack at some of the language. Whose idea was it to have so many adjectives? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That was me. I think it's important that people understand Chongqing is "sprawling." ;) Homunculus (duihua) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Image rights?

It's nice that the article has an image, but I don't think it's free use. The image appeared on VOA, but is credited to Reuters. I imagine Reuters holds the copyright. Homunculus (duihua) 06:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete award section

Any objections? Just read it. Sounds like an astroturf award which is being documented through original research. Perhaps better not to mention it at all. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning. These awards have been mentioned (albeit in passing) in major news reports about him. But it does seem like overkill to devote a whole section to it, and the details that populate that section seem like overkill. Look through the page history and see what was done before. Might consider some kind of middle ground. Homunculus (duihua) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The section needs wikifying. Agree that some awards might not be so significant and can be condensed. Colipon+(Talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be more than just a formatting issue. These are the two references for the actual award: [1], [2]. It's the same article. So we have one article from the overseas propaganda site China.org. In this context it's SPS. The rest of the section is original research showing how the award was essentially made up. We can do without this. If there's evidence of notability, i.e., "major news reports" then please present it. Right now we have notability, SPS, and OR violations. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To make things easier I just removed the original research and unsourced claims. Now we are left with the China.org publicity. I think that should be removed too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, probably the violation we're looking at here is not SPS, because young Bo didn't publish it himself, but it's an RS violation: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." China.org is not a reliable, third party source. And it has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel strongly about the awards either way. If it were up to me, I'd mention it in passing, perhaps a few sentences. But they don't add too much to the article. It is true that young Bo has been recognized, and China.org may not be a good source for this. But I've read it in RS. Don't want to comb through it now though; it's not all that important in the grand scheme. Colipon+(Talk) 20:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

those are not "original research", those are facts. if any of those things are not FACTS, you can delete it as much as you want. just like 1+1 = 2, it is a fact, not an original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:953E:CF78:4C31:415F (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, even "1+1=2" would have to be sourced if it were to be cited in a Wikipedia article.... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the WP:OR policy. I'm again removing the original research. If you add it again, 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:953E:CF78:4C31:415F|, we can start some kind of dispute resolution proceeding to gain a definitive conclusion. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is a biography of a living person, so there are stricter rules about inclusion of content and neutral tone. Please discuss further changes. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

stop saying "original research", show me where they are, and tell me why they are NOT facts. go ahead. do it. stop vandalizing the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:953E:CF78:4C31:415F (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP user: I'm trying to get clear on what's going on here. If appears that you have added this section back onto the page[3]. There are legitimate concerns that what you've done is original research per WP:OR, which is prohibited. You may want to read that policy. The things that you have written about the status of these websites and the authenticity of the award may be true, but Wikipedia requires that verifiability, and statements challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported with reliable (ideally secondary) sources. You've written, for instance, that "after 2009, British Chinese Youth Federation web site (http://www.bcyf.org.uk) has ceased to operate. Their other web site ukbcyf.org was abandoned in 2010." The only source given is a link to a web archive. Other statements you added have no source at all. Is there a published news article somewhere that describes this controversy? Homunculus (duihua) 21:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It's difficult if you haven't read the policy. Please read the policy on reliable sources and original research WP:RS and WP:OR. I'll give you some time to process those pages. The point is that we can't go out and figure out for ourselves the background of this award. We have to cite it to a source. Someone has to publish this information in a reliable source. If we link to the website to show that it is closed down, making a comment meant to show this, that's original research. Regarding the headline, it is just long and awkward. Please let me know when you have finished reading those content policy pages. In the meantime, this is a biography of a living person and we have unsourced information on it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

if you have "free" time to vandalize, i suggest you to edit this page. stop deleting the entire section. if any of the things are NOT facts, feel free to delete them. if you have time to read policy, i am certain that you MUST have the time to edit this page.

once again, if any of your so-called "original research" is not the truth, feel free to delete them. otherwise, stop calling those facts as "original research", that makes you look like bo guagua's personal publicist.

and go to: http://www.bcyf.org.uk, were you not able to go to that site and see it for yourself, is it still the "british chinese youth federation" or not? does it have ANY information about bcyf any more? is it still operating under its name? unless you are blind, i am sure that you can see that that web site is not functional any more.

what are my "Other statements" that you can't find proof. do you need me to take a picture in order to show you that those are facts? those things are not what you wrote "may be true", they are the truth. i challenge you to verify any of those things are not true.

once again, if any of your so-called "original research" is not the truth, feel free to delete them. otherwise, stop calling those facts as "original research", that makes you look like bo guagua's personal publicist.

the name of the fake award

that is the name that was given to him, this is actually the longer version "EF∙Royal Cornell 2009 Big Ben Award and Ten Outstanding Chinese Young Persons Selection in the UK Charity Ceremony". no matter how you feel if it is award or not, but he was the one who accepted it in a hotel in london, not in a public institute or a government building. just look at the top picture on this page, you will see it. http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_17791048.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:953E:CF78:4C31:415F (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with our biographies of living persons policy, our no original research policy, and our neutral point of view policy before making any further edits to this page. These are not negotiable. It is perfectly obvious from your edits what your point of view is on this person -- you labeled him a criminal under investigation in the very first line of the article, and without a source -- if you are truly editing from a neutral point of view if should be impossible to tell. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Here are the things that got deleted by the pro-communist administrators.

EF∙Royal Cornell 2009 Big Ben Award and Ten Outstanding Chinese Young Persons Selection in the UK Charity Ceremony

According to Taiwan Apple Daily newspaper, the award he won was entirely fake.

On May 9th of 2009, a charity organisation registered in UK - British Chinese Youth Federation (BCYF), whose owner is Yinya Li from city of Fuzhou of Fujian province, gave Bo Guagua an award during the first annual "EF∙Royal Cornell 2009 Big Ben Award and Ten Outstanding Chinese Young Persons Selection in the UK Charity Ceremony (TOCYP-UK)". at Le Meridien Hotel Piccadilly in London. No one from the UK government or any UK royals were present during this ceremony, but Chinese Consul Jin Shihong and his wife, the director of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London - Hu Baozhu, representatives from the Malaysian Embassy, the Taipei Representative Office and Singapore attended the ceremony.

The five judges were: Lord Tom Pendry, Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London - Hu Baozhu, Chairman of 48 Group Club Stephen Perry, Dr Xiaojiu Zhu who doesn't have a law degree who was hired as a legal counsel and to provide notary service for BCYF. , and the owner of BCYF.

Marco Fu was also given the award, even though he lives in Hong Kong, and is a Canadian permanent resident. Daniel Jacoel who was the chairman of the 48 Group Club Young Icebreakers, was also given an award.

Let Me Be Me performed during the event. This event was only widely reported by news media in mainland China. Most mainland Chinese were given the impression that he won the award that was given by the UK government.

After 2009, British Chinese Youth Federation second web site (http://www.bcyf.org.uk) has ceased to operate. Their first web site ukbcyf.org expired. The web site of second annual EF∙Royal Cornell Big Ben Awards for the Top Ten Outstanding Young Chinese in the UK was moved to a web site based in China. . Meanwhile, Big Ben Award Corporation started to offer awards to Chinese all over the world. Its English page is still empty. Their Chinese page "Contact Us" has no name, phone number or email address listed. Both web sites are registered to Yinya Li. The current address for "Big Ben Award Corporation" is located in a dental office in London.

bo guagua's nationality is UNKNOWN.

his student visa expired in 60 days after his graduation in May of 2012, where he is, no one knows. you can't prove that he is currently in china, either. so if he is staying in the usa legally or illegally, no one knows. therefore, you can't say that his nationality is chinese unless you can prove it.

Nationality is not defined by one's current place of residence. Homunculus (duihua) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

that is right. but he is assuming still living in the usa, and if he has a student visa, that expired after 60 days after he graduated. therefore, either he is an illegal alien or he has a green card.

how can wikipedia prove that he still has ａchinese passport? did you people see it in person?

$100,000 paid for guagua.com

this part was also deleted by the pro-communist administrators.

In 2010, he paid $100,000 to buy guagua.com from Antonio Marin, a 53-year-old university administrator from Tenerife, Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:4D70:9DFC:84BF:5CEF (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The fellow who reverted you is not an administrator. Also, please refrain from commenting on what you believe to be the ideological orientation of other users.

Some of the information that you added is valid and reasonably well supported (there are better reliable sources available for the above, by the way; use the Guardian[4] rather than wantchinatimes.com). I might have framed some of these issues differently than you, but the information itself is fine and policy compliant. Some of the other material that you wrote is more questionable. You need to be wary of conducting WP:Original research, and also of giving undue weight to one aspect of the topic, especially in biography of living persons. As such, a lengthy section about the big ben award probably does not belong here. If you want, you could request an article about the award itself, provided there are enough sources on it. That would be my suggestion. The Tea house is a good place to ask for advice if you have any questions.

Also, in the future, you might consider proposing changes on the talk page and asking more experienced editors to review them and offer feedback. Homunculus (duihua) 14:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

this is plain simple very lame! what I added is 100% true, and i quoted from a web site. how can you people not add it, and call it "vandalism"? you explain it to me. which part was incorrect or untrue? show me.