Talk:Soft detention

Dubious

Chinese terms

I have tagged the three non-English terms as dubious. The first of these is not Chinese, and it is by no means clear what the other two are even though they are Chinese-sounding. All three are sourced to a Youtube video (it appears), which is not normally a reliable verificable source. If the subject of this article is a real concept which is distinct from house arrest, it should be documented in verifiable sources that is not a Youtube video, and therefore it should be possible to reference those sources instead. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The source is The New York Times article , a generally reliable source, although obviously American editors can misunderstand Chinese history and current practice. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube video can be considered generally reliable as it was uploaded by nyuschooloflaw on Nov 18, 2010 and is a video of Professor Jerome Cohen of NYU School of Law who would be considered an expert in the United States on the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Having read the cited source in more detail, it seems that Tatlow is reporting the claims of Wang Songlian, of the Hong Kong-based Chinese Human Rights Defenders. Given the unusual claims made, I feel it may be prudent to qualify the relevant claims (specifically, 1. the implication that "soft detention" is different to house arrest; 2. the claim of "soft detention" dating back 1000 years, and 3. the claim of "soft detention" being divided into three categories) as being claimed from the said Ms Wang (as reported by NYT), rather than facts being reported by NYT. This is because, while I agree that NYT is a reliable source, in this instance it is perhaps only a reliable source for these claims being made by Ms Wang, rather than the truth of the claims themselves. (I am basing this on a principle of evidence law in Australia, I would guess that you have something similar under New York law, too).

Good point, this is what we call "fact laundering". It is not at all obvious that Ms Wang or Chinese Human Rights Defenders was the original source, although a close reading might reveal it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the explanations in the article, I think I have been able to find the three terms referred to. They are, respectively, juzhu (居住), which means "to reside", anzhi (安置)， which means "to relocate and accommodate", and finally bianguan 编管, which means "to enlist [into the local bureaucracy] and control". I agree with you that these seem to be Song dynasty terms being applied to modern situations, and I'm not sure how encyclopaedic Ms Wang's claims of the equivalency between Song dynasty claims and modern practices are. For one thing, the ancient system applied only to government officials who had misbehaved or offended at court, it was not for commoners. Perhaps we should make it clear that the claim is not that the modern system is divided into three levels, but that the ancient system was and there have been claims of parallels between the modern and ancient systems?

On the equivalency of "soft detention" with house arrest, I note that the NYT article itself says "house arrest, or "soft detention"'". This supports the view, I think, that "soft detention" is simply the over-literal translation of the Chinese term for house arrest, and not a distinct concept per se. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As applied in China soft detention appears to be a much more flexible set of restrictions than western house arrest, although in the West the same sort of flexibility can be achieved through conditions attached to bail or through restraining orders. There is, however, in the United States, a constitutional "right to travel" which forbids broad restrictions based on political considerations. Thank you for the Song era research. Why don't you add that to the article, along with the sources you used. Chinese sources are acceptable even if they are not accessible to English speakers or not on the net. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not had an opportunity to view the YouTube video yet but will respond further after I have done so. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is a mixed bag; some solid information combined with an extended rant. It is a source only for the information included, not for his prescription for political reform. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yuan Tengfei

The statement about Yuan Tengfei is made as if it is fact, when it is in fact speculation and not very credible stuff at that. Yuan Tengfei has lectured publicly since the history lecture controversy, and as far as can be determined, is still living a normal life. Yuan is not a dissident and his lectures, while controversial, are not far beyond even the historical discourse within the Communist Party in China. Again, if Yuan is really under house arrest, then a more reliable and verifiable source than a Youtube video would need to be supplied, especially given BLP considerations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The New York Timess article, not the YouTube video is the source for this. The information in the article is that he is under the least restrictive level of soft detention, "The lightest, “juzhu,” or “dwell in a fixed location,” permitted individuals to travel, but only within their district — much as the high school history teacher Yuan Tengfei was confined to Beijing last year for teaching students about famine and rebellions against Communist Party rule, subjects omitted from history textbooks." I think part of the problem may be use of Song era words, as, if you read the article, there is an attempt to relate contemporary practices to Song era practices. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As to your "concerns about the article Soft detention, starting from whether the concept is a separate concept to house arrest; this is how most dictionaries translate 软禁." I think the point of the article is that the concept of house arrest has deep historical routes, and is applied with considerably more sophistication in China than the corresponding American practice. When the concept of house arrest was developed in China Englishmen were painting themselves blue and living in wattle huts. (That, to make it plain, is a joke, during that period England was beginning to develop a relatively sophisticated system of law under their new Norman rulers, but still primitive compared to Chinese law.) User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As to Yuan Tengfei the original coverage regarding him in the NYT's does not mention that he was confined for a time to Beijing. Information about restrictions applied by the security forces of The People's Republic of China for political reasons would not ordinarily be considered negative information for the purposes of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; such restrictions have been applied to winners of the Nobel Prize. (Obviously there are limits to that idea, but an historian whose version of history is different from official views of what should be taught falls well within those limits.) This information comes from a reliable source in any event.User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. Having read the NYT article in more detail I think I understand what is going on with the terms (which I will address under the subheading above).

About Yuan specifically, there is no mention of any house arrest in the earlier article, as you say. The later article does make the claim. I did a search on Chinese language internet sources dealing with the matter, but I have not been able to find a further source for this claim other than an internet forum post that first circulated on Chinese internet forums in May 2010 that claimed that he had been either arrested or placed under house arrest, and follow-up posts to that. Some examples are collected in this blog post. There are significant sources against the claim, although the most authoritative of them comes from government-owned media, for example this article originally published by The Beijing News (a major newspaper in Beijing) in May 2010 (just after the arrest rumours circulated). In case you do not read Chinese, the relevant text in that article says (my translation): "In response to recent claims on the internet that Yuan Tengfei, "the most awesome history teacher in history", has been arrested, yesterday the Beijing police clearly stated that this is not true", then later in the next paragraph, "[The internet response service of the Haidian district government] responded to enquiries saying, the Education Committee of the Haidian District has requested that the Haidian Teachers College to which Yuan is attached investigate the issue. The College has requested that Yuan recognise the serious error he has made in the speech he made in the internet video, and cease all teachinga ctivities in private schools ... and to endeavour to minimise the imapct of this incident", and finally "Yuan's lawyers has confirmed that Yuan has written a scathing self-criticism, but only for internal purposes within the College, relevant government authorities and the police have not pursued the matter, he has not been arrested, and his teaching, publishing activities and television appearances are proceeding as usual.".

Of course, government owned media in China can never be entirely trusted, but from a common sense perspective based on my experience it just does not seem likely that a person would be arrested for simply offering up a controversial view of history in China today. Based on this, I am not sure to what extent Tatlow is simply repeating the initial internet forum posts. As to the claim that he was put under a particular form of house arrest, that goes to the terminology issue above, but I have not been able to find supporting sources. Given the presence of competing sources, I think that at best we can say that there have been "claims" or "rumours" that Yuan was either arrested or put under some form of house arrest.

As to whether being arrested by the Chinese government is a negative - I agree that most people would not deem it to be negative, but for someone who lives and works exclusively in China and has a public reputation there, and who (media reports suggest) is not a dissident and is in fact a member of the Communist Party, such a claim may well be negative in the sense of damaging his reputation where it is actually relevant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only one source, basically that one reporter, who, if she is based in China, may have knowledge of the matter other than what we can access or she may care to disclose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the claim is that his travel was restricted, not that he was arrested. Could "soft detention" be properly used, as a term in English, for that situation? To a certain extent inclusion of a term in a New York Times article can amount to coining of an English word as a Chinese practice is described in English. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The term is used in a report on China by the US State Department: "increasingly the government resorted to extralegal measures including enforced disappearance, "soft detention," and strict house arrest, including house arrest of family members, to prevent the public voicing of independent opinions." http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160451.pdf Note the distinction drawn between soft detention and "strict house arrest". Something to remember is that "soft detention" is an English word, regardless of whether it is translated or translatable into Chinese, or whether or not there is an actual Chinese practice with conforms to the English concept. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for abandoning this discussion for a while. I will attempt a re-write of this article at User:PalaceGuard008/Soft detention, using the sources which you have found and any others that I can find. Progress may be slow, though. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, I think we all know a lot more about this practice now after the Chen Guangcheng incident. It seems to be more a local tactic than a national policy, but doubtless reliably sourced information will be hard to come by. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)