This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Wang Liqiang is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Despite the appearance of objectivity and evenhandedness, this article is pretty slanted towards the PRC viewpoint. Of course there is reason to doubt the veracity of the subject's claims, and the constant assertions that Wang's claims are not verified could thus be construed as "objective". But the fact that the term "ROC" is not expanded or explained (Republic of China), while it is helpfully characterised as "a state with limited recognition", strongly suggest that writer is sympathetic to the PRC position. Topics related to China seem distressingly prone to this kind of writing. 66.181.179.99 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Different sections of the article were written by different people. I am the person who added the 'ROC' abbreviations and elaborated slightly on the political statuses of Hong Kong and Taiwan. The reason for doing this is to indicate why and how China is interfering in the affairs of the two states. The Chinese (PRC) government and the Pan-Blue Coalition of Taiwan both believe that Taiwan is part of China, and hence there is an extensive level of co-operation between these two groups that has facilitated Chinese interference in Taiwanese affairs. Meanwhile, Hong Kong is a sovereign territory of China according to Chinese law, Hongkongese law, and international law. As such, China has the legal right to interfere in the affairs of Hong Kong, though the extent of such interference is limited by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The characterisation of Taiwan as a 'state with limited recognition' is on par with many other articles on Wikipedia relating to Taiwanese politics. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on the zh.wiki article, written by different people from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Australia. The only reason why there are so many statements questioning Wang's allegations is because that's what the majority of reliable sources are claiming. If you see any good, reliable argument in support of him (that the article hasn't already mentioned), by all means, be bold and add them, or post the sources here and I'll add them for you. ---- 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚 （Talk）22:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current article is more biased against china. For example, I think it's neutral to state that many of Wang's claims are still being investigated and largely unverified as of 12 Jan, 2020. To be honest, I will be shocked if china didn’t have spies in australia. But that still doesn’t necessarily mean Wang is a spy. Until Asio confirms Wang is a spy, it is not right for the aussie mainstream media plus politicians to jump the gun and say he’s a spy when ASIO are still examining whether his case stacks up and be verified.
On the current wiki article, it quotes scott morrison saying, "“I find the allegations deeply disturbing and troubling" yet then completely omit his very next sentence~ ""I would caution anyone leaping to any conclusions about these matters. And that's why we have these agencies."
Additionally The Age, is owned by Aussie TV Channel Nine and the network promoted the wang story hugely in Australian press. The Age papers are categorically stating that this man is a Chinese spy without a single doubt. They could have written “ a man claiming to be a Chinese spy….”, but they did not. Alot of aussie politicians mirror that same notion and one of them are quoted here, as if they are a neutral authoritative info source. 202.52.36.54 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added " A Taiwanese media source later used PRC developed facial recognition technology to compare the faces of Wang Liqiang and the person in the video, coming to a 55% match, far lower than the threshold of 70%." to the article. That is interesting info but where is its source? You cannot add that level of bombshell info in, without giving any sources. Had googled it but cannot find any article that says that. If somebody can please add in a source to back that info. That would be appreciated. For now, I am deleting it for not having any sources at all but ask the person who added the info, to give their source or risk deletion, particularly if they are just adding false info.
202.52.36.54 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the guy who added photos to biden laptop story and told his associates to lie? If this was investigated to the source, it would prove to be a made up smear. 98.27.183.205 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fast forward 4 years and Taiwan dropped their spy investigation as they found Wang's claims to be invalid. Australia also has banned Wang from coming to Australia and rejected his Asylum visa because they don't trust his credibility. Given that he is barred from living in Australia and his bid for asylum is rejected, is he still considered a defector to Australia, or is he no longer that anymore? 49.180.87.160 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
