Talk:Wo Weihan

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


Untitled[edit]

The western media has never reported the execution of Guo Wanjun, the missile expert from whom Mr Wo Weihan got sensitive information and executed on the same day when Mr Wo was condemned to death by putting a bullet into his head. [3]

this is not true

nytimes reported that at November 28, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/world/asia/29china.html?_r=3

Yes, I read that article but it failed to report that Mr Guo Wanjun was a missile expert participating in design of DF-31. I will modify it in the wikipedia though. Thanks for reminding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberranger79 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section was not true, so I changed.

was not aware of his execution and his family had received no official notice of the SPC's approval of the sentence, so neither Wo nor the family had a chance to say their last goodbyes. Wo was not able to leave a will or testament. Mr. Guo, the alleged missile expert, did was not allowed to see his family at all before his execution.

for a ref: "2008年11月28日，沃维汉、郭万钧被执行死刑。在死刑执行前一天，沃维汉与妻子、小女儿见面，依法行使了探视权。"http://news.cctv.com/china/20081207/103528.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/simp/hi/newsid_7750000/newsid_7752800/7752874.stm 

--刻意 13:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as with International Amnesty, I have to add a few more notes: The institution has released some reports on Chinese citizens' trial due to copying photo from public available magazines which are available everywhere. This should be added and I have to admit that Mr Wo is a taiwan spy which should be considered his profession. Espionage is a profession, no matter a part time job or a full time job, it is a job. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberranger79 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the report of Amnesty International itself has several big deficiencies in it, I have to state it in the article: Wo was executed due to copying photos from public available magazines. The information was then declared classified. But how about the people working for the magazines? It is the they that published the photos first which leads to enormous impact on national security. then they should also be executed or tried? Why Amnesty International Report never mentioned that? It is the first deficiency of the report.

Second, the information of seniro Chinese leaders might be passed on to Mr Wo from some internal source. Once Wo's case is closed, the internal source should also be found. Why no mentioning of the internal sources in Amnesty International's reports?

Third, the report should at least tell the name of the magazines. But it did not.

Fourth, according to Chinese law, the maximum punishment for leaking and discusssing senior leaders' health status is 15 year imprisonment.

So, with such large deficiencies in the logic of the report, I add it in the article to leave the reader to think about it themselves.

Any body that can found the deficiency in the Chinese media report, please also write it in the article. So we can balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberranger79 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The latest version on Wo's case is well-written and balanced. Nnow the opinions of both sides could be published and heard. It is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberranger79 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

There are so much POV in this article. I will change them as I see it and post the changes here if there is controversy.

-Putting non-neutral modifiers in front of cited news sources, like "according to jingoistic Global Times", "government owned global times or "NASDAQ listed Sina". In other articles, people don't put "conservative FOX news", "ultra-liberal NYT", "republican party owned FOX news", or something similar. You list the news source and let the reader decide what to believe.

-The ridiculous and minor charges, like "revealing health status of senior officials", are put before more prominent main charges, like leaking missile structural secrets. The main charges were almost hidden in a large body of text at the bottom of the page.

-Large paragraphs of unsourced or poorly sourced pure speculation material. I copied and pasted it here, so that it can be modified or that sources for it can be found.

76.227.77.85 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"1. The names of the magazines publishing the photos are unknown. Since the leakage of intercontinental ballistic missile information itself can lead to the death sentence, the people working for the magazines might also be tried and executed. But, as of now, no reports concerning the fate of people working for the magazines who leaked the photos have been released. 2. One of the few specific charges contained in the verdict states that "Wo might have discussed a senior leader's health". The Chinese wording for "might have" as used in the verdict is "ke neng". Because Wo did not work for the government, it is not clear how he "might have" known the health status of senior leaders in a direct way. Assuming the prosecution presented evidence of an internal source passing information to him, what about the fate of the internal source? 3. It is not clear if discussing and leaking health status of senior leaders alone is a crime subject to maximum 15 years imprisonment, or, as a top secret, could alone result in the death penalty. In any case, it appears that if it was perpetuated together with other activities subject to capital punishment, then the suspect may be subject to death sentence in China. State Secrets laws make such details opaque to anyone outside the process. 4. The recently introduced Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases should have resulted in a commutation of Wo Weihan's and Guo Wanjun's death sentence. According to John Kamm, Executive Director of the Dui Hua Foundation, which represents prisoner rights for prisoners in China, the "vile and heinous consequences" that merit the death sentence according to Chinese law, a standard pointed out by former Supreme Court justice Xiao Yang, were not specified in the verdict. There were also serious questions about the likelihood that the confessions of the accused were coerced - a practice that the death penalty review was supposed to correct. Wo Weihan was interrogated for ten months without legal counsel. During this time he suffered a life-threatening stroke and spent the rest of his incarceration in a prison hospital isolated from family and only allowed limited access to a lawyer."

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wo Weihan. 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) 04:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wo_Weihan&oldid=1206007540"