Template:Did you know nominations/Ni Yulan

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ni Yulan

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Ni Yulan with her crutches after being maimed by the PRC's police

• ... that because Ni Yulan (pictured) filmed the forced eviction of a neighbor's home in Beijing, she was beaten by the PRC's police for 15 hours and consequently maimed?
  • ALT1:... that after Ni Yulan's (pictured) home was forcibly demolished to make way for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, she was arrested and beaten by the PRC's police at the Xinjiekou Police Station until she lost consciousness?

Improved to Good Article status by Thomas Meng (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC).

• Article was promoted to Good Article status on March 2, 2021 and nominated for DYK July 13, 2021. The nomination was not sufficiently sooner after promotion to Good Article status to be eligible for DYK. Hanjaf1 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hanjaf1, it looks like it was nominated for GA on March 2, the review began on June 11, and it became a GA on July 12. (The date on {{GA nominee}} was left in place when it was changed to {{GA}}. I've now fixed that.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• In that case, the article and nomination are within guidelines. The hooks are appropriately sourced, but I would prefer a more mainstream media source than Human Rights Watch, since the facts have been reported worldwide. Hanjaf1 (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• The second hook is 203 characters. Hanjaf1 (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hanjaf1 and Thomas Meng: Just to confirm, this is a full approval? Regarding hook length, "PRC's" can be removed from both hooks, which brings the hooks under the character limit and is unnecessary given Beijing is mentioned. Further, are there no other hooks that don't focus on her injuries? This is a living person, so it is worth considering if that is the best item to focus on, especially as it hides what per the page is quite a career. CMD (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Hanjaf1, Thomas Meng, and Chipmunkdavis: Further to that comment, I haven't seen any conviction of the police in the sources, so per WP:BLPCRIME that best we can say is "alleged", I think. What else can we say about her. Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Appears stale, new reviewer requested. Desertarun (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Desertarun: A new reviewer for what purpose? The last comments were by two separate reviewers. CMD (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I can't tell if there has been a full review yet, it looks like comments only, and nothing much for two weeks, which is quite long. Pinging nominator. @Thomas Meng: Desertarun (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The submission was reviewed and approved by Hanjaf1. I then queried the approval based on the hook, and Kingsif applied the new status upon agreeing with this. CMD (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand now, so we're waiting to see if the nominator wants to object to the words "alleged" and a slight trim. I also think the words alleged should be added to the hook. I've added an ALT below which would appear to clear up the objections. If the nominator doesn't return after this latest ping I suggest ALT2 be used. Desertarun (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Desertarun: Thank you for following up. I am in agreement with the other comments. I was hoping that the nominator would respond with improvements, but as that has not happened I do approve the modified version of ALT2 below. I would prefer "resulting in permanent disability" to the final phrase. Hanjaf1 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2 ... that because Ni Yulan (pictured) filmed the forced eviction of a neighbor's home in Beijing, she was allegedly beaten by the police for 15 hours and consequently maimed?

• I'd like a new reviewer to take a look at ALT2, not just the wording, but the juxtaposition of "allegedly beaten..." and "resulting in permanent disability" or even "consequently maimed". CMD, might you be able to propose a new hook that doesn't focus on her injuries as you suggested should be done? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unsure if it would be correct to describe as a lawyer in the present tense, but I have come up with: CMD (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3:... that civil rights lawyer Ni Yulan (pictured), sentenced for recording the forced demolition of houses to make way for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, has been prevented from travelling overseas to accept awards?

• CMD and BlueMoonset, the hook citation at the end of the line for ALT3 is to this link, which doesn't mention the incident. There is this article, but it seems to be careful to attribute any blame to the Chinese government or anything external to Yulan, instead of saying it with their own voice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm unsure what line you are referring to for ALT3, I wrote it from two parts of the article, one on 2008 and the latter on the awards at the bottom, both of which are sourced. I don't think ALT3 explicitly attributes any blame. CMD (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3a:... that civil rights lawyer Ni Yulan (pictured), sentenced after recording the forced demolition of homes to make way for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, was prevented from leaving China to accept awards?

• @Chipmunkdavis: and @BlueMoonset: I've reworded ALT3 to form ALT3a. ALT3 was a little long and the the sentencing occurred months after the recording incident and the grounds given were not officially for the recording, but for "obstructing official business". So I think "after" is a better choice than "for". I've also added inline citations to support the sentences with this information, using: 1 and 2. ALT1 was too long, so I struck that as well. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom! I'll approve ALT3a on its sourcing, neutrality, and interestingness, and the rest of the review per Hanjaf1's original review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

T:DYK/P5

References