Talk:Transnational repression

Should it be moved to "Transnational repression"?

1.Most sources are using and talking about "Transnational repression" but they are written here as "Transnational authoritarianism" , for example:It is "Typology of Transnational Repression" by the source, but here "Typology of transnational authoritarianism". Is that go against Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability? Or "Transnational repression" ="Transnational authoritarianism" ?

2.And could any one give the quote to "A number of actors; principally countries governed by authoritarian states are known to engage in transnational repression of dissident and diaspora communities abroad including but not limited to: China, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Turkey and Iran. " and "A range of states engage in these actions, from Russian assassinations to forced disappearances of Chinese and Hong Kong citizens abroad. Freedom House details the extensive use of transnational authoritarianism by a rising number of countries across the world."? I cannot find it, so I think it may be "Synthesis of published material": A. These countries are authoritarian states + B.These countries have transnational repression → C. These countries are transnational authoritarianism.

3. About Edward Snowden, he is forced to in exile in russia(From Snowden’s perspective, the U.S. government is seeking his return for the purpose of persecuting him), so is he under the transnational repression from U.S. government? If not, why? MINQI (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: 3 Question about the Page "Transnational authoritarianism"

1.Most sources are using and talking about "Transnational repression" but they are written here as "Transnational authoritarianism" , for example:It is "Typology of Transnational Repression" by the source, but here "Typology of transnational authoritarianism". Is that go against Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability? Or "Transnational repression" ="Transnational authoritarianism" ?

2.I can not find the quote to "A number of actors; principally countries governed by authoritarian states are known to engage in transnational repression of dissident and diaspora communities abroad including but not limited to: China, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Turkey and Iran. " and "A range of states engage in these actions, from Russian assassinations to forced disappearances of Chinese and Hong Kong citizens abroad. Freedom House details the extensive use of transnational authoritarianism by a rising number of countries across the world.". Are these "Synthesis of published material": A. These countries are authoritarian states + B.These countries have transnational repression → C. These countries are transnational authoritarianism?

Since most sources used "transnational repression", should it be moved from "Transnational authoritarianism" to "Transnational Repression"? And take "Transnational authoritarianism" as a subset of "Transnational Repression", because transnational authoritarianism is "an authoritarian state repress one or more existing or potential members of its emigrant or diaspora communities". The essence of transnational authoritarian is transnational repression.

PS:I am still want to know about the definition of the situation of Edward Snowden. He is forced to in exile in russia("From Snowden’s perspective, the U.S. government is seeking his return for the purpose of persecuting him..".;“We have forced him effectively into exile ...”), so is he under the transnational repression from U.S. government? If not, why? MINQI (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Response:

1. I think "Transnational repression" and "Transnational authoritarianism" are synonymous enough to be identical in meaning There is no Wikipedia:No original research issue
2. Regarding the second issue, all five of the governments you mention above are mentioned in the secondary source that is referenced. There is no synthesis of published material; the sentence is an accurate description of what is being described in the secondary source
3. Regarding the renaming of the article from "Transnational authoritarianism" to "Transnational repression", I have no objections to an alteration of the article name in that way.
4. Re: Snowden, to my knowledge the US government hasn't attempted "including assassinations, unlawful deportations, detentions, renditions, physical and digital threats, and coercion by proxy" against him while he resides in Russia. If you have reliable sources to show any of the above, it may be appropriate to add them to the article. (Personally I doubt you'll find any)
5. I am going to revert your most recent edit because it has deleted content from the page without proper justification.

Jack4576 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

1.If "Transnational repression" ＝ "Transnational authoritarianism", is that mean "repression"="authoritarianism"? Some democratic countries also used state repression, so can a democratic country be an authoritarian state too at the same time? It seems to comes to a shortage of logicality.

2.Could you find the excat quote to them? Or it based on " 'Transnational repression' and 'Transnational authoritarianism' are synonymous"?

4. <Putin refuses US request to extradite Snowden>,<Putin: No grounds to extradite Snowden>. So US government has purposed to the detentions and renditions for him, am I right?

5. You can do it first, let us edit after the end of this talk. MINQI (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes, democratic states can have authoritarian tendencies. Many historical examples. Turkey is a democracy
2. Each country is presented throughout the piece, by name, as involved in repression activities
3. ...
4. Extradition / detention requests for the purpose of domestic detention, is different to attempting to detain someone while they are in another country. Countries mentioned in this report have a track record of illegally attempting detainment abroad
5. I've completed the reversion, and will keep an eye on this page

Jack4576 (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

About 4. point I can not agree with you for "Typology of transnational authoritarianism-Exile:The direct and indirect banishment of dissidents from the home country, including when the threat of physical confinement and harm prevents activists from returning.". It has not said about a track record of illegally attempting detainment abroad MINQI (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add Snowden as an example to this article then. Assange too Jack4576 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your patience and reply. MINQI (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. : A litte question: Is that needed to change "transnational authoritarianism" to "transnational repression", because of the original sentences' using "transnational repression"? Or it's OK for "Transnational repression" and "Transnational authoritarianism" being synonymous--MINQI (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Close RFC There has been no previous discussion on this issue. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, this RfC should be closed and a new topic started to discuss the issue and attempt to reach consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Y MINQI (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Digression

@Jack4576I as one party just as translator for zhwiki，regarding all the talking by you and other local members in this case.As I have repeated in WP:ANI and other report,I full agree the judgements on the orignal works and edits by orignal editors and authors in enwikipedia ground.

And for more issues about the question on MINQI's orignal reasearch,you could check in zhwikipedia endless battle inrecords from here1,here2,andhere3.

There may be other new records in zhwikipedia for more if someone respond disagreement to MINQI,for the record. Longway22 (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You may want to raise this with an administrator to have MINQI banned if appropriate Jack4576 (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yap,but you should know we the members of zhwiki out of hands ,

here are some recenct records and complaint cases involing MINQI responses in zhwikipedia for consider,

you see,as our fellows like user百战天虫 and user維基百科最忠誠的反對者,will not leave any comment on MINQI more,all we tired of endless messing up by that guy above As the zhadmins now wouldn't deal with all the issues of MINQI (FOR SAME ENDLEES MESSING),so WE ALL HAVE NO IDEA OF ending this.SORRY.

I would agree all the proposals from local parties to end the crusade of MINQI. Longway22 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Abuse on the Chinese Wikipedia does not effect their ability to contribute here. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

M would not leave anyone a break until they surrender to it, this is the case of its ability. Longway22 (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What he wants just to be a purger（WP:POINT）. MINQI (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way,I have been reported by MINQI as usual in zhwiki for all the other members that have been in the same cases,adims have also ignored my reports and the matters of cases Longway22 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Questioning piece of original research

@Jack4576@LemonakaI have found the original source of what Anthony Cordesman discussed about Snowden in here CNN，that could prove the MINQI's assertion on Transnational authoritarianism wouldn't stand on. As the reprint quote in 中國新聞網 for MINQI's editing，the Chinese version didn't fully give the topics of options for the United States in getting Snowden back to face espionage charges，that could be found in section Demands for Snowden to return as section＂要求交出斯诺登＂in Chinese delete contents substantially.It could be unreliable of editing based on the Chinese version of force exile,and making false statement to shareholers of wikipedia. Longway22 (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Is there anything in my busssiness? -Lemonaka‎ 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like somebody known the discussion be one party acting as neutral witness to the cases，this is one traditon in zhwikipedia，and notice as the Snowden example of case relevant to false quoting，I also file for reviewing the Chinese source in zh WP:RSN,suggest shareholders could keep an eye on it. Longway22 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

TBH, I really have no interest in your disputes on Chinese Wikipedia. Call for someone who is really interested in such political junks or just leave me alone, alright? -Lemonaka‎ 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So could it overthrow the Snowden case as an example to this article？ Longway22 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Longway22，“‘We have forced him effectively into exile – there’s not much to be gained from pushing this issue’”is written in the CNN Links! Stop original researching or disrupting for illustrating your points! MINQI (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@MINQI @Longway22 This is your own business, I'm not familiar with this topic at all, how can I be a judge in that case? Just leave me alone and stop pinging me for a while. -Lemonaka‎ 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Assange as example

In my view the links that are presently on this page regarding Assange are fair, well-supported. There have been accusations that WP:BURDEN has been breached, and I disagree.

Let us not worsen the American NPOV issues on this site by removing reference to one of the most internationally notable instances of transnational repression; though it may be one that sits uncomfortably with prevailing western narratives.

The international pursuit of Assange is well-established, including in the sources that have been linked. WP:NOTCENSORED. Jack4576 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to a cite a WP:RS that actually speaks of Assange as a case of transnational repression. Until then, inclusion is just WP:OR. Amigao (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No, its not. The exact term doesn't need to be used, this is a wikipedia article about a topical subject, this is not Wiktionary. Where an idea is expressed using terms that clearly show the same idea being expressed in this WP article, the inclusion of such articles as a source is fine. No one can seriously claim that Assange isn't a 'political dissident being targeted abroad' as articulated in the lede. Hence this isn't WP:OR. Nevertheless, I've linked a New Yorker article that more clearly spells it out. Jack4576 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS that the USA has been accused of transnational repression. We do not need conclusive proof that the repression occurred, to merely note that the accusation has been made. This is a RS for the accusation having been made. Jack4576 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you cite a Wikipedia policy to that effect? If sources do not even mention the topic at hand then this is looking more like WP:COAT. Also, if you want to use an op-ed piece to base a statement then you have to follow WP:RSEDITORIAL and include in-text attribution to the author of the claim. Amigao (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

They do discuss the topic at hand, which is the subject of this article, using different terminology. WP articles are not restricted to terminology usage. Transnational repression is a concept, and the articles cited clearly fall within this concept in my view and also in Minqi’s view. If you want to start an RfC and achieve consensus, be my guest; but the consensus view on this page appears to be the inclusion of the Assange and Snowden cases are warranted.

Re: in-text attribution, that is unnecessary. We are not relying on the editorial for the content of its statement; we are merely noting that an accusation has been made. If you feel like the article would be improved by adding a qualifier that the accusation was made in op-ed of the SCMP, feel free to do so. Jack4576 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have no WP:RS to directly back up the statement being made, it must be removed. WP:RS is a core Wikipedia WP:POLICY and you now seem to be engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Amigao (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement being made is that an accusation has been made. It is fine to note that the USA has been criticised for transnational repression. It doesn't need to be established itself that the repression actually occurred. This is not a WP:BLP article.

You are yourself engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Not to mention a 3RR breach. Jack4576 (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words, we have a WP:RS, in fact, a primary source, to demonstrate the mere fact that an accusation has been levelled. Are you going to acknowledge this or continue to refuse to get the point? Jack4576 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether the statement in question is an accusation is not the issue. You still have not produced an WP:RS that explicitly alleges an act of "transnational repression." This is clearly an instance of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Amigao (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The passage in the Wikipedia article merely notes that some people have accused the USA of transnational repression; without commenting on the veracity of those accusations.

The SCMP is clearly a reliable source for the mere fact of the accusation.

We do not have to reliably establish that transnational repression has occured. That would only be necessary if the Wikipedia entry was to state "the United States has engaged in transnational repression" which plainly it does not.

I'm not sure what about that you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT

Also, are you going to address your 3RR breach or do I need to take this to ANI? Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You still have not produced a WP:RS that makes an explicit accusation of "transnational repression" regarding Assange. The op-ed by Alex Lo in SCMP does not exactly make that particular accusation. Amigao (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"As the top US State Department official decried China for committing “transnational repression”, her government has been engaged in arguably this century’s most infamous example of the practice: the persecution, sorry, prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

There it is, right in the opening paragraph; the author Alex Lo explicitly accuses the USA of engaging in transnational repression regarding Assange. This seems to me relatively straightforward to comprehend, so I am not sure what you are taking issue with. Alex Lo quite clearly has made an accusation that the USA has engaged in transnational repression in relation to Assange.

Hence, the existence of this article is a RS for the fact that the USA has been accused by some authors of having engaged in transnational repression.

Excluding the Assange case from this article completely, despite the SCMP post showing its clear relevance to many commentators in relation to this issue; would be a USA-centric NPOV issue to the extreme.

Also, again, are you going to address your 3RR breach? Jack4576 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As already stated, a statement of opinion requires WP:INTEXT per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Now, if you want to state an accusation in WP:WIKIVOICE, you need a WP:RS (preferably WP:GREL) to back it up and not just one person's op-ed piece. Amigao (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Amigao :please translate the CN source with google translater. As U.S. Gov. identified Chinese police station is a type of transnational repression,Chinese goverment identified what UK & USA done to Assange is transnational repression:"英国在配合美国逮捕引渡阿桑奇方面可谓不遗余力，迅速推进相关程序，充分显示英方维系同美特殊关系的忠诚，以及美英配合对特定人士跨国镇压的事实。".The person and the occasion, these words are said, is Wang Wenbin （a currently spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, deputy director of the Foreign Ministry Information Department of PRC）and at a regular news briefing （by ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China） in Beijing. If you say it's only an opinion,tell me：

1.why the words from Freedom House or FBI not only an opinion but a fact in you eyes?

2.why can these opinions not be showed in this entry？

3.have these souces about Assange / Snowden been disscussed and "not reliable" as the conclusion？

4.you always said "WP:BURDEN", I have given the quotes (you can not understand is not my fault——"Non-English sources"). Why you still using that reason?

By the way I agree with Jack4576 about "Where an idea is expressed using terms that clearly show the same idea being expressed in this WP article, the inclusion of such articles as a source is fine". I just need to say one example: "Jews runed away because of Nazis' persecutions" = "Jews escaped because of Nazis' persecutions". What you are doing now likes playing on words. MINQI (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from quoting an accusation by Wang Wenbin with proper WP:INTEXT attribution as long as you're using a WP:RS to back it up. Amigao (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed this addition - agree with @Amigao that it needs (and didn't have) a reliable source Superb Owl (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Why TDM (Macau) is not a reliable source. It's just like Norddeutscher Rundfunk in Germany. MINQI (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is state media, not public media, which has editorial independence from its government and thus more reliable, especially on political topics Superb Owl (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1.Sorry but PBS and NPR are state media too(in the list), so are they not reliable sources? By the way, RFA and VOA are also in the list, which means they are viewed as state media, but according to "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources", they are both considered as reliable sources. And at least one message from RFA has been remained in the text here or other political topics about China.

2.If TDM (Macau) should be removed just because of "public media has editorial independence from its government and thus more reliable, especially on political topics", why the sources like Freedom House(Most of the organization's funding comes from the U.S. State Department and other government grants) has been remained? Or even FBI, DOS, DOJ and CSCE, all of them are showing the points from Federal government of the United States, especially on political topics.

3. On the other hand, TDM (Macau) here just only reported that news, what Wang Wenbin said. MINQI (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

PBS and NPR are not considered state media by reliable sources and are both considered reliable. Superb Owl (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Show me the link or Page(discussion), the one shows clearly that, none state media or these two resources(I gived) are not reliable sources.By the way, I have added cite from “Xinhua News Agency”, which has been discussed in EN-Wiki. MINQI (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:onus is still on you to show it merits inclusion. You have 3 editors (including User:NoonIcarus who do not agree with its inclusion and you are the only non-banned editor in favor. Please revert any text or citations not supported by WP:RS and get consensus from this talk page if you are unsure about anything. See WP:RSPNPR, WP:RSP (and search PBS), and WP:XINHUA. NPR and PBS are rated generally reliable, while Xinhua is not on topics that could be used for propaganda or misinformation (this clearly seems to be one of those topics). Superb Owl (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What you have done are just definiting these sources as state media or not non-primary source. I have no responeibilty to prove your bias. 3 Editors, who has ever gived any link or Page(discussion), the one shows clearly that, none state media or these two resources(I gived) are not reliable sources? None! EVEN one of you the reason is these sources not in EN.You said the source is not non-primary source, prove it! If you can prove it, it means none of any news can be used -- all Journalists did the interviews or the investigations. MINQI (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to convince other editors that the sources are reliable, not the other way around. The Paper (newspaper) and TDM (Macau) also do not have editorial independence from CCP on political topics. Superb Owl (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the disputed text that was removed from the article until consensus can be formed around its inclusion: During a June 2022 briefing by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Wang Wenbin accused the US and UK of cooperating in transnational repression of Julian Assange.

In Assange's 2024 October speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, he recounted the legal attacks (“lawfare”), surveillance, and various illegal CIA plots against him and described it as a form of transnational repression. Superb Owl (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to convince other editors that the sources are not reliable(none state media is reliable), not the other way around. MINQI (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also your responeibilty to prove your point the source "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin" is not non-primary source. MINQI (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin is not a primary source but you are not quoting Jacobin, you are quoting Assange. I don't think his opinion, as a defendant, carries much WP:DUE here since he is directly involved. Superb Owl (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Tell me the reason for I need to prove "The Paper (newspaper) and TDM (Macau) have editorial independence from CCP on political topics".That means you need to prove my point "2+.News media:" is not applicable here. Or simply you can tell me which chinese agency has editorial independence from CCP on political topics OR can as RS in your opinion.

By the way,please notice that :

1."Each party has the burden of proof of its allegations(in ZH: 谁主张谁举证)". I have proved why state media or state-controlled-media can be used here and why these meida are non-primary source. So it's clearly on you to prove your allegations.

2."Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury)(in ZH: 无罪推定)". Or we have to discuss every agency over the wolrd, especially news organisations in countries with low press freedom, one by one before they can be used(not just as RS) in Wiki.It's obviously against WP:NOTCENSORED.

PS: Please reply "IN THE NEW TOPIC". It will be easier for others to read and attend. MINQI (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

noting here that i disagree with your claims as discussed below Superb Owl (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Amigao your most recent reversion is a 3RR breach. In 24 hours you have reverted MINQI once, and me twice. Please stop edit-warring, and undo your most recent reversion. Jack4576 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Why "Extraordinary rendition" can not be added to See also?

"Extraordinary rendition" is a euphemism for state-sponsored forcible abduction in another jurisdiction and transfer to a third state, a type of state-sponsored extraterritorial abduction. Why can not that be added to See also as "Extraordinary rendition/Extraterritorial abduction"? Even when "Extraterritorial abduction" is added? MINQI (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I support its inclusion in the See Also section Jack4576 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Amigao:, I have started the discussion as your suggestion. Please explain it for your that insisting. MINQI (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition is a specific type of extraterritorial abduction (as explained in the 'extraterritorial abduction' article) so it's redundant here. Best to keep the 'See also' list fairly tight. See: MOS:SEEALSO. Amigao (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's a specific type of extraterritorial abduction and sometimes will be misunderstanded, just as what you have done at 17:09, 9 July 2023, it should be written here. MINQI (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

So how exactly is it not redundant then? Amigao (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Other one may misunderstanded what is "Extraordinary rendition" just like you(I do not know what have you thinked about the meaning of "Extraordinary rendition" for you saying "is not mentioned at all to this article, even tangentially" ).

"One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. ","Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.",so it should be:

• Extraordinary rendition - a specific type of extraterritorial abduction

And I agreed what Jack4576 said at 15:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC). MINQI (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s merely a subtype of induction. In some sense, yes. But its notoriety as a concept stems from it primarily being a charge laid politically against the united states. The counterveilling claim against US adversaries is often ‘transnational repression’. So in some sense, the two terms are often used in opposing political contexts. Given this article is mainly about criticisms laid against China & Russia, I think ‘Extraordinary rendition’ would be a fair inclusion here. Jack4576 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the addition. Why not?Chamaemelum (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Support (though weakly) - I alphabetized the 'see also' so that it's right above Extraterritorial abduction. It's also a higher-rated article (so probably more useful) and seems different enough to put in a separate category though open to changing my mind here Superb Owl (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason for Assange's affair should be added.

1.It's clearly showed that, Chinese goverment thinks what U.S. and UK goverment have done are "Transnational repression". Please the one, who added "WP:TOPIC"("relevant?"), to prove why chinese goverment's opinion about "Transnational repression" is not relevant to this page's topic "Transnational repression". In his speech, the one to PACE, he described what he has suffered as a form of transnational repression too;

2,These sources are from china and definited as state medias in EN-WIKI. But any agency from red China not definited as a state media in EN-WIKI? And does any Wiki-principle-Page show that, none state media or these resources(I gived) are not reliable sources? If none can prove it, it clearly means it is someone's prejudice and double standard "None news form chinese angency can be used in EN-Wiki";

2+.News media:
  "State-associated or state-controlled news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News have also been described as propaganda outlets for the government.However, such sources may be reliable for determining the official positions of their sponsoring governments. Similarly, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other US state media sources may also be unreliable as to facts, as they have been described as propaganda, but may be reliable regarding the official position of the United States."

3.About non-primary source, none can say one news writted by a journalist is the journalist's imagine or hearsay. He/She/Mx must do the interview and investigation. Please tell me why these sources are not non-primary source. Especially, the source "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin";

3+.WP:PRIMARY:Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,
 "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

4.WP:NOTCENSORED, “Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased.” MINQI (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion on this issue together in the section above where it is ongoing Superb Owl (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please try to refute my 4 points not just reapeted prejudice and double standard again and again. MINQI (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with #2-3, but #1 and #4 are the main issues. Who says that the opinion of the Chinese government is relevant? Chinese state media obviously is not a source that can establish that relevance. That is why we need reliable secondary source that says that the opinions of the Chinese government are relevant for this discussion. You have not provided any independent sources that do that. Superb Owl (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly thank you for your agreement on my 2nd. and 3rd. point. And sorry for the offense and displease.

Sorry but since you agree with 2. Point. why you think an accusion about "Transnational repression" from chinese goverment is not not relativ? The Topic of this page was changed, before was "Transnational authoritarianism" but now is "Transnational repression". You should notice that change. The problem is that, it makes you seems mean the opinion on "Transnational repression" from chinese goverment is different from or not "Transnational repression". It makes you are playing on words. It also needs you to explain why it is not or what is the difference. If it is a propaganda from chinese goverment, you need RS to show that information. And it also means you should show the Opinion before your explanation. At the same time, according to "News media" Policy in Wiki, Chinese state media obviously is a source for determining the official positions of their sponsoring governments.( Or we can make it simply —— tell me which chinese agency can as RS in this case, and I go to find news. I think they have published the same news because of its importance). About "the due weight" from NoonIcarus, if it is showned here, we can simply not use these sources. But now is not, no information about it has been showed, so no reader will know it happened. I think you do not want to censor, but it is doing censor in fact —— Silence for dissents or oppositions.

I cannot catch you on your marking the source "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin". Is it, you misunderstand what Assange did and said in his speech is written by CHIP GIBBONS? It seems you think the wrong person of my cite. MINQI (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I will wait for others to weigh-in but until you get more buy-in, please stop edit warring and refrain from inserting disputed material where the talk page consensus is still to exclude it under WP:DUE.

"This came at a cost. Assange recounted the legal attacks (“lawfare”), surveillance, and various illegal CIA plots against him, describing it as a form of transnational repression." - Chip Gibbons is quoting Assange, not making a case from himself or independent experts that it amounts to transnational repression. Superb Owl (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

1.I said that, you or others have 2 weeks to prove your/their opinion. If none of you have enough arguments to defend your behaviour, I will do the right thing. You can also publish what we talking about to RFC to let more editors to discuss, and I will wait. PS: PLEASE RELISE EDIT WARRING WAS INCITED BY THE PERSON, WHO HAS NOT NOTICED THE CHANGE OF THE PAGE'S TOPIC, PLAYING ON WORDS OR QUOTES "News media" BUT DENIES TO FOLLOW. If one insist to using so-called consensus(almost "50VS50") to censor, he/she/Mx not only breaks WP:CENSOR, WP:POINT,WP:GAME but also may ask someone to WP:MEAT.

2.Why must Chip Gibbons making a case from himself or independent experts that it amounts to transnational repression? According to your logic, the cite from Times for "In April 2023...station in Manhattan." and the cite from Forbes for "In March 2022...campaign of transnational repression." are also not a non-primary source. They also need to be removed. MINQI (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1. What change in the page's topic? I am not sure what you are trying to say in all-caps but you may want to read WP:CIVILITY and WP:Advice for hotheads
2. They are actually quoted in WP:RS (unlike the state media quotes you keep (WP:BLUDGEONING)) and are quoting a more reliable source (a democracy, not an authoritarian regime) on the topic of transnational repression. Superb Owl (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1.The topic of this page was "Transnational authoritarianism" not "Transnational repression". It's why I and others talked about whether example of "Transnational repression" should be added before. I am sure you have not noticed it. And the other one is the same. In all-caps, I have clearly showed who incited and continues edit warring.

2.When is "Jacobin" a state media? Your words was " Chip Gibbons is quoting Assange, not making a case from himself or independent experts that it amounts to transnational repression" and these two are all quoting U.S. goverment. It clearly showed your going back on your word again and your refusal to "get the point".

PS:

①I have been friendly enough to explain why these resorces can be used here. You have quoted 2 WIKI rules to try to prove your opinion. I explained why these two accuctally poved my points. I even, can be said as begging, quested which chinese agency can as RS in your opinion. But what you have replied? Only repeated your words and insist to so-called consensus.

②Have you ever relized "so-called consensus" can not be an argument in this case? And the other user's blocked cannot be a reason too, beacuse his blocked is not based on it.

③It seems that you insist your edits are reasonable. And I will leave it. Each reader can judge it him/her/mxself since it left on the talk-page and edits' history. MINQI (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1. I was not aware of that history and am not sure how it is relevant
2. I never implied (or intended) that Jacobin is state media. One source does not make something WP:DUE.
ps
1) Friendly enough is subjective and not sure I would agree with that characterization. Quoting wiki rules does not make one correct if they are superseded by other rules (like WP:DUE)
2) Please explain - I do not understand your point here. WP:ONUS is important, and it is up to you still.
3) Let's see what others have to say - not sure how productive any more back-and-forth is going to be between just us. I am always open to seeking a WP:Third opinion (though it seems we already have a third opinion from @NoonIcarus - if they could clarify or weigh-in that would be appreciated) Superb Owl (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Do not play on words.

2. Please read WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.

PS:

1+2 You are refusing to "get the point" and . And it is up to you to prove your opinion——conclusion about Xinhua News Agency in WP:RSP is wrong. PS: It's clearly written, "some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence". I surely can accus anyone for what has been done by him/her/mx(This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary, nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism).

3.No, we have not. If as a senior editor has not clearly knowed what happend and why it happened just suddenly came to a rarely touched topic doing a controversial edit with a obviously wrong princip and can not explain any point or reasonable argument more, this behaviour will be suspected and not accepted.

If you always open to seeking a WP:Third opinion, please put it to Rfc likes what I have done before. MINQI (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not the only editor not convinced by the section that you keep trying to add and expand. This year, both @NoonIcarus has reverted this section, as has @Amigao.
Open to third opinion, but again WP:onus is on you to start it "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Superb Owl (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You are breaking WP:onus, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. MINQI (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

How? Superb Owl (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on the "Inclusion of Assange as example" section, the due weight and original research editors concerns, as well as the lack of concensus for the addition, are clear. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus What original research？Do you mean "Transnational repression" accusion from chinese goverment is not relatived to "Transnational repression"? According to your haven't noticed the page's topic now is "Transnational repression", you are just repating your prejudice,double standard and doing censor. You even can not refute one of these 4 points. MINQI (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether 1.TDM (Macau), The Paper (newspaper) and Xinhua News Agency as RS in this case; 2.the accusation on US goverment should be added here?

Should the accusation on US goverment be added here and TDM (Macau), The Paper (newspaper) and Xinhua News Agency as RS in this case?

1. Chinese goverment has accused US goverment transnational repression on Assange. And the news was reported by many chinese agency. Can these chinese agency as RS in this case?
2. Assange has recounted the legal attacks (“lawfare”), surveillance, and various illegal CIA plots against him and described it as a form of transnational repression in his speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. And it was reported/written by "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin" and RFI. Should this case added to the topic and not be deleted bacause of WP:DUE?

Thank you in advance.MINQI (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks many editors for their relplies but I need suggestions for both question, so please reply the second point(the source is from Jacobin and RFI) too.Thank you.--MINQI (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• No: So far, most of the content is based on reports from Freedom House and independent media outlets. These accusations don't meet the due weight needed for inclusion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you reply for the second point? Thanks. MINQI (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• No adding more propaganda won't improve this article. However, if the statement above that most of this article is sourced to Freedom House is correct, then there could be many avenues for vast improvement using academic sources. I would suggest hitting Google Scholar or even a local library and you're bound to find plentiful sources far better than Freedom House or Xinhua. Simonm223 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you reply for the second point? Thanks. MINQI (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Xinhua News Agency is the official state news agency of China. The Paper (newspaper) says The publication was intended to be "smarter" and "sexier" state propaganda. Are you asking if Chinese state propaganda is reliable? Polygnotus (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you reply for the second point? Thanks. MINQI (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am not even sure what you are asking. This RfC should be closed because it is unclear what you want. And it is not just unclear to me because you just posted this same question 4 times.[1] Polygnotus (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because all you 4 just replied the first point but I need suggestions for 2 question. The second is whether Assange's accusation on US goverment should be added? It was reported by Jacobin and RFI. MINQI (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  But the second question is not clear. Explain in detail exactly what you want. Polygnotus (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Why don't you provide a sample draft for what you want to include cited to Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good idea. I open a new Rfc so it will be clearly and this one can be closed. Thanks. MINQI (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No. I think Xinhua can be a decent source, but this is certainly a matter in which the Chinese government has a very vested interest and we aren't missing key information by not including it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you reply for the second point? Thanks. MINQI (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

(Here from RSN) No see WP:XINHUA for prior consensus on Xinhua News Agency. I would expect the other sources suffer the same issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• No for TDM and Xinhua as RS. Never heard of "The Paper". Please provide URL to the site. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  • The Paper

  Amigao (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Should the case of Assange(the written or reported) be added here?

There are two news/articles about Assange's speech and mentioned transnational repression.

1."This came at a cost. Assange recounted the legal attacks ('lawfare'), surveillance, and various illegal CIA plots against him, describing it as a form of transnational repression. "—— Chip Gibbons, Jacobin

2."The PACE resolution said it was 'alarmed' by reports that the CIA was covertly surveying Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and 'allegedly developing plans to poison or even assassinate him on United Kingdom soil'.[PACE] reiterates its condemnation of all forms and practices of transnational repression"—— In the chapter "Transnational repression" Radio France Internationale

Should these information to be added here? Someone insists to delete these with the reason WP:DUE. But I think these should be remained for

1. Assange is name prominent adherent; "Jacobin" and "RFI" are mainstream media; So it is qualified for WP:DUE.

2. The removing of these information is against "does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.", because none point of these information will be remained.

I want to write these as:

"In Assange's 2024 October speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, he recounted the legal attacks (“lawfare”), surveillance, and various illegal CIA plots against him and described it as a form of transnational repression. The PACE resolution saided that, it was "alarmed" by reports that the CIA was covertly surveying Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and reiterated its condemnation of all forms and practices of transnational repression." diff

--MINQI (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned before it's not enough to know you want to use these citations - can you draft the copy you want in the article? Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the suggestion. MINQI (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (invited by the bot) What we know for a fact is that the US sought to prosecute him, and what was alleged was a clear cut violation of US law. That's not transnational repression. The stuff above looks like "somebody claimed that the US was thinking of trying to do something else" which IMHO is nowhere near a credible reason to classify his treatment as transnational repression. And including such in this article is implicitly a statement that it is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the reply but we cannot analyse the sources' points, positions or meanings(WP:OR). MINQI (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  You'd have to be a lot more specific on what you believe is prohibited, where you believe it is prohibited(article content vs. talk page) and exactly how you think my point was based on whatever you are concerned about. North8000 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So the source of the claims of transnational repression, per the Jacobin article, is Assange himself, not PACE nor Jacobin. Jacobin quotes Assange saying that it was this phenomenon and does not venture to say itself "this was this thing." As such while the source might be due mention at Julian Assange I don't think this is due inclusion here as constructed. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose -- if the only source is Assange himself, given it seems to be wrong (attempting to prosecute people for hacking the government and publishing state secrets in a way that is illegal is not really transnational repression as far as I can tell rather than attempting extradition), it should not be added. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have noticed that PACE agreed with him. However, the basis for the transnational repression claims appear to be reports that he may be the subject of surveillance or assassination plans. If those suspicions are included they should be noted as such and attributed. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have noticed that PACE agreed with him, in general terms PACE sympathised with him, expressed concern about some of the reports of assassination having been discussed. They also used the term transnational repression in passing, but they did not refer to his case as 'transnational repression' at any point. Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) certainly oppose Assange's own account of his 'travails'. He would present himself as a wholly innocent victim of an overarching global power, wouldn't he?. The PACE text is more problematic IMO, on the one hand this is a serious HR body, on the other hand the 'reports of attempts to assassinate Assange', never seem to have risen above the level of idle speculation from a small number of individuals in the US administration. How the CIA was supposedly "covertly surveying Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy" is not stated. Certainly British authorities and at times the British press were overtly monitoring the Embassy at all times - at enormous expense- because the Embassy housed a notorious bail defaulter. On balance, I don't see this as meaningfully an act of 'transnational repression', nor as being reported as such. PACE itself only uses the term in passing, not to apply it directly to Assange's case. The US itself - and most other major powers - have probably done much more sinister things than 'find out what Assange was up to' and possibly idly speculate about whether it could 'neutralise' him in some way & seemingly, no one, apart from Assange himself, has actually called the US treatment of him 'transnational repression'. Pincrete (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have said this is Assange representing himself as a victim, its not new. Moreover, if he breaks the law, he has broken a law (one he in fact pleaded guilty to). MUsh of the rest was (or is) idle speculation. This seems wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @North8000, Simonm223, Mrfoogles, Pincrete, and Slatersteven:

Firstly, thank you for the replies. Secondly, I will tell my opinion about your replies:

1.Most of you said it's only from Assange.

No, also from Chinese goverment. But because none source from a democratic country（I also found the same news from Russia's agency and Iran's agency）or so-called RS(Dailymail 1; Trtworld 2) and it is deffinited as a propaganda of red China so no information can be added.

2.Some of you said it's from Assange himself and Jacobin, PACE just used his words.

Not only. a. From RFI's news, we cannot get that point —— or we are analyse the sources' points, positions or meanings.

b. If we can not use these news, why we can add the words from Antony Blinken or US goverment? Are these RS not quoted Antony Blinken or US goverment saying? It's a typically double stand.

3.Some of you said it should not be added because he has broken a law.

But according to "does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.", we really should not make the exclusion of certain points of view. "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" and "WP:ALLOWEDBIAS" also point it out.

4.I agree with @Simonm223's "adding more propaganda won't improve this article". But we must describe both points of view and work for balance. So at the same time I really think more propaganda should be added because it's a real subjective political issue. If we just add one seit's propaganda, we not only unintentionally do censors but also make this article a propaganda for that seit. I also do not think "Delete 'Governments accused'-Part just Rremain the theores from academic sources" will be a consensus although I think it's the best way to this article. MINQI (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

TherE you have it, we need a lot of RS describing this as "Transnational repression" not synthesis or OR deciding it is. Otherwise, it is wp:undue to include a contentious claim (that is by its very nature BLP content). Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Slaversteven. It should not be in there. And I made the main point in my posts above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto others. We weren't asked whether anybody thinks US/UK/the West are hypocritical in wanting to control their own secrets, but expose those of their 'enemies'. Nor whether Assange was treated unjustly. We were asked whether a sufficient number of RS have described the treatment of Assange as 'transnational repression'. They just haven't. A small number have reported Assange saying it is and a fair few have criticised aspects of the way he has been treated - to a greater or lesser extent - and aspects of US actions, but that still doesn't make it a case of transnational repression.Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support, Assange's claims are notable and supported by the book The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution written by Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that looked at Assange's case in great detail.

Here one of the many excerpts from Melzer's findings that support Assange's statement:

I write this book because, when investigating the case of Julian Assange, I came across compelling evidence of political persecution and gross judicial arbitrariness, as well as of deliberate torture and ill-treatment. But the responsible states refused to cooperate with me in clearing up these allegations, and to initiate the investigative measures required by international law. I visited Julian Assange in prison with a team of medical doctors and spoke to the authorities in charge, as well as to lawyers, witnesses and experts. [...] At the same time, the persecution and mistreatment of Julian Assange intensified, violations of his due process rights became increasingly blatant and my public appeals calling on the authorities to respect human rights were ignored. [...]

When confronted with a request under the Freedom of Information Act on whether the CIA had plans to assassinate Assange, the agency on 27 October 2010 responded evasively that ‘the existence or non-existence’ of such plans could be ‘neither confirmed nor denied’. As so often in the assessment of evidence, it is of crucial importance to ask the right questions. In this case, the right question is not, of course, whether the CIA’s reply explicitly confirmed an assassination plan against Assange (which the agency would never do), but whether the agency would have given the same answer with respect to someone whose assassination had never been considered. Just as in the case of Hillary Clinton’s ‘joke’ response to allegations that she had contemplated ‘droning’ Assange, the absence of a firm denial is more revealing than the verbal content of the reply. In fact, according to an extensive investigative article published by Yahoo News on 26 September 2021, several former officials of the Trump administration confirmed that, after WikiLeaks exposed the CIA’s worldwide hacking operations in the Vault 7 release of March 2017, various options for direct action against Assange were discussed at the highest level of the US government, including his kidnapping, rendition and assassination. These allegations were corroborated by evidence emerging from court proceedings against UC Global in Madrid.

The legal attacks, surveillance and harassment is so well-documented at this point that doubt I even need to cite excerpts on them.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No one doubts that many people think that Assange was badly treated by various authorities, by where is tramsnational repression mentioned there? Pincrete (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly - there are three matters here:

1. some of the proposed sources are unreliable. WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:RUSSIATODAY and WP:XINHUA all apply.
2. an appeal has been made to WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting the presence of pro-US propaganda should be countered with anti-US propaganda. I would contend, instead, that propagandistic sources should be removed in favour of using WP:BESTSOURCES - preferably from peer reviewed academic publications.
3. without the unreliable sources it becomes WP:SYNTH to describe what happened to Assange as transnational repression specifically. The effective logic of the argument is: RS describes these actions have been taken against Assange > these actions constitute transnational repression > therefore what happened to Assange is transnational repression. The problem arises because reliable sources are not saying the middle part. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

References