Talk:2011 Fuzhou, Jiangxi bombings

Censorship

To Found5dollar Please list the strong relationship between the incident and the censorship. I strongly hate internet censorship, but we should not emphasize this here. If you can type and read Chinese, you can easily find various Chinese news about this incident. Truthdigger 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not beign emphasized, a few sentances, sourced, about how first responders to the site dealt with the media by erasing pictures and confiscating materials is extremely notable. The burden of proof to it's non-notability lies of you. The information is sourced and is related to the event. Once the article expands, hopefully with your help, a smaller percent will be devoted to the censorship because the rest of the article will have more mass. Please do not delete the section again untill you can prove that sourced information directly related to peopel involved with the event does not belong. --Found5dollar (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't give the strong connection between a bombing and the censorship. And obviously, you can easily access to this incident both in English and Chinese. So I will insist deleting the unimportant and not-related parts and focus on the truth and progress behind this incident. I hope you can do some work to improve this part. Truthdigger 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MECHEMENG (talk • contribs)

There was a bombing, people took pictures of it, reliable sources say the cops deleted said pictures. Censorship. I don't know how one can have any stronger of a connection.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't use feel, please give reasons. List the logical relationship. Thanks.Don't be the judge. (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I found that this incident may match up the requirement of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N/CA#Criminal_acts

Maybe this is not suitable for an article,a better place to put his article is wikinews. Don't be the judge. (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This article does not fall under "Criminal Acts." Please do not blank the page again. It is counterproductive.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You just deleted the "Censorship" section again statign that you can nto find the information in the reference. the ref clearly states "local police deleted photographs of the explosions taken by passersby, and later blocked roads in surrounding neighbourhoods. Little information was released by local authorities. " i am reinstating the section. please do nto delete it again--Found5dollar (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please supply the official orginal report about the suspect. And also there is no evidence that the external link is from you so called "suspect".Don't be the judge. (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have brought this article to the attention of the administrators noticeboard as you continue to delete sourced information as well as posts by other users on your talk page.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am here to invite everyone to expand the incident. The background of the suspect and social debate content. Thanks. Truthdigger 12:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MECHEMENG (talk • contribs)

References

Right now this article only has 10 references. I'm sure there are more reliable sources covering this incident. In particular, this article should cite whatever the state media are now saying about it. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref 8 and 10 have exact the same content(It seems that one website reprint the news.). Can you just change to one link? MECHEMENG (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Page title

How about 2011 Jiangxi bombings? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The current title is much better. Truthdigger 19:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MECHEMENG (talk • contribs)

Using simply "Jiangxi bombings" is too imprecise, as Jiangxi is a very big place. The use of the x (comma) y format is necessary; the current title distinguishes 撫州 "Fuzhou City" in Jiangxi Province to the 福州 "Fuzhou City" located in Fujian Province. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wife quote in Chinese

Voice of America is quoting 钱明奇妻子 so I don't think "she has been dead for 2 years"

事发当天，一位自称是钱明奇妻子的人在微博上留言说，“今天抚州爆炸，摧毁的是几辆车子，几座房子，唤醒的是这个社会的良心，揭露的是强拆的黑暗。我丈夫一条生命值的[得]。” 江西爆炸案在网上引发热议 2011年 5月 27日

(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation: Day of the incident, one claiming to be the wife of the man the money minch microblogging on the message said, "Today Fuzhou explosion destroyed a few more cars, several houses, awakened the conscience of this society, exposing the demolitions the dark. my husband the value of a life [was]. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Qian Mingqi lost his wife. In Chinese, "据了解，钱明奇丧妻，有两子一女，均在外务工。他家境一般。1995年左右，因抚临公路改造，他经历了第一次拆迁。2001年左右，他刚盖好的五层楼房又因京福高速而被拆迁。" 江西连环爆炸嫌犯微博心路 MECHEMENG (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation: It is understood that the money minch death of his wife, two sons and one daughter were overseas workers. His family in general. Around 1995, due to temporary road reconstruction ask, he witnessed the first demolition. Around 2001, he had just covered the five-story building was demolition because of Fuzhou. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another source of his wife's death.(Fuzhou Police Report) In Chinese "钱明奇妻子已去世多年，他有两子一女，都已成家育子。关于三个子女的情况，说法不一。钱明奇岳母唐水娇说，钱明奇大儿子一直带着妻女在外打工，二儿子和钱明奇住在一起做冰棺生意，女儿则外嫁他村。但钱明奇的一位邻居则说，钱明奇大儿子的妻子带着女儿走了，大儿子几乎不回家。二儿子在外打工，一年也就回来一两次，钱明奇基本一人住在家里。“七年了他没来过我家我没去过他家，他家做冰棺生意，那个东西拉进拉出很脏的，我都不去。”而另一位邻居也表示，认识是认识钱明奇，但只是见面时候点个头或者寒暄一句。"

抚州警方勘察钱明奇住所取证 MECHEMENG (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation: Money minch wife has died for many years, he has two sons and a daughter, have a family child-rearing. Three children on the situation vary. Tang Shui Jiao Qian minch mother said, the money has been minch son who work with his wife and daughter, two sons and live with the money to do the ice coffin minch business, his daughter is marrying his village. But money minch a neighbor said that the money the wife of the eldest son Minchin walked with her daughter, the eldest son almost did not come home. Two sons who work, will come back once or twice a year, the money minch basic one at home. "He never been in my seven years I have not been to his home, his family make ice coffin business, pull out the dirty stuff, and I do not go. " while another neighbor said, knowledge is knowledge Minch money, but only when meeting or greeting a nod. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: All translations by Google. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Response section

nice propaganda from The Christian Science Monitor, they should look at the most liked comments in this CNN article[1]. Why are some people supporting Joseph Andrew Stack and this guy is a good question for the psychologists, but the section for that in this article is not neutral. Pilotkjl (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A number of news organizations and bloggers have picked up on the same angle as the CSM. I'm not sure why you think it constitutes propaganda, nor do I see how the parallel to Joseph Andrew Stack is relevant.

I would like to work on the response section to make it more complete. I have yet to find secondary sources that report on anything but the outpouring of sympathy that Qian received from the Chinese public, though I admittedly have not looked very hard. If you find some, you are most welcome to add them in, or direct me to them and I can do it. I also want to make clear that by reporting information on the expressions of popular support that Qian received, these news organizations are not endorsing that perspective. They are reporting on it because it says something about the state of China today, about the frustrations of its people and their attitudes on acceptable forms of protest, etc. I think it's worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia for the same reason—not because I endorse violence.Homunculus (duihua) 04:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing we need to pay attention, the other two victims are weak people (security guards). Not government administrators. We need to find some news about response for their death. MECHEMENG (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. As I said, I have yet to find good secondary sources commenting on that aspect of the response, but that owes to not looking very hard. If you find something, please add it in. Homunculus (duihua) 05:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If no one protests, I am going to remove the tags on the section now that it's been updated.Homunculus (duihua) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)