While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Transnational repression by China is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
I've gone through specific allegations and removed unreliable sources. This included all the sources used for Hong Kong and Falun Gong. Better sources should be used if that content is restored. Principally I removed American political advocacy groups; these are generally not seen as reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AwerDiWeGo I'm not opposed to having a section about Hong Kong or Falun Gong. But we need better sources. If the best that can be produced is Freedom House we have to doubt the veracity of the claims. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AwerDiWeGo thank you for adding a solid source to the Uighur section. I made a small tweak to attribute the statement but this is precisely what I meant when I asked for better sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current POV assumes, in wiki voice, that extradition of people wanted for suspected violation of Hong Kong's laws are automatically being repressed. This is a significant problem, especially considering the low-quality of the sources used. @AwerDiWeGo do you have any good-quality (preferably academic) sources that say either that extradition is, in general, repressive or that describe how extradition to Hong Kong differs from extradition to, for instance, the United States in terms of its repressive character? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that a lot of people just want to say Chinabad and call it a day but Wikipedia needs to remain neutral to the conflicts of major states and should, thus, be skeptical of their propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This problem likely still exists although I have not checked the recent news sources. I do not criticize this editor, rather it is a problem with having pages like this -- "Repressive conduct by Country". I am afraid that "transnational repression by country" is not a typical or frequent framing in English. I do not recommend such article creation. It invites these sorts of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Extradition is global practice of states. Instances may or may not be "repressive". There is likely wide disagreement on particular instances. The sourcing needs to address the framework of the page, and pages like this need careful focus on the sourcing to avoid degenerating into SYNTH or WP:COATRACK. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree. But I also find that AfD often doesn't feel the same, especially about articles where there's a certain level of WP:RGW going on. And so when I stumble across articles like this I watchlist them and try to clean out as much POV and as many low-quality newspaper sources as I can. But usually I'm forced to accept there's a local consensus that largely disregards WP:NPOV and WP:BESTSOURCES and just try to keep the language as neutral as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source that the US, China, and Russia engage in equivalent levels of international repression? You're crying bias but you don't actually have anything which supports that position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are academic sources. I'll look for them. For the record, I cited The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, CNN, The Sidney Morning Herald... It might be better if you tell me what sources you consider reliable, just for saving me time. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. My distaste for use of news media and preference for academic best sources is pretty well established at this point. I mean look at the citations I insert when I make edits. They're uniformly to academic sources. I'd suggest you go to Wikipedia library and look there. I'll leave the HK section alone for now since you're looking for better sources but, especially British, news media is pretty heavily compromised on Hong Kong and often makes significant errors as well as blending a lot of opinion into regular reportage. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AwerDiWeGo even the new (low quality, anti-communist advocacy group) source makes no compelling argument for how extradition constitutes repression when China does it as opposed to other countries. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you express criticism about your country's government and your government wants to punish you for it, wouldn't you call that repression? If your government tries to do that outside its borders, isn't that transnational?
If I am accused of breaking a law, flee the country and then ths country in which I am accused of breaking the law seeks to extradite me, no, that's the normal way extradition works. Regardless, you need better sources than an anti-communist advocacy group to claim in wiki voice that extradition to stand trial constitutes transnational repression. Simonm223 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The HongKong material assumes, in wiki voice, that extradition = repression in that this is not explicitly claimed by the anti-communist advocacy group. Also 10k bits for examples,of specific BLPs that are subject to possible extradition is grossly undue. Simonm223 (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you saying that if you criticize your government and that's against the law and your government wants to punish you for it, that shouldn't be called repression? There are no repressive laws, is that what you mean? Because we're not saying that extradition is repression; read the article. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem I commented on earlier in the topic. “Transnational Repression by (Country)” is not a typical English usage and therefore a page with this title is improvidently created and invites WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or WP:COATRACK of the type you are (understandably, but also incorrectly) attempting to add.
Your question indicates a basic misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policies. The question is not how @Simonm223 or you view extradition, but do the sources characterize them as transnational repression by China and whether the sources are afforded WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE weight. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources, many of them academic sources, that define what transnational repression is. Some of them are cited in this article and I guess there might be others that are cited in the general article about transnational repression. I've read some other sources that I haven't seen cited (and haven't had the time or the will to add to Wikipedia with appropriate text citing them).
We cite those sources (the ones that define what transnational repression is) in every section and subsection. And in the paragraphs where those sources are not cited, what we do is apply the definition of transnational repression that those sources provide. Those sources also cite news media, but are not exhaustive nor updated.
When I told Simon223 that the answers are in the first paragraph of this article, what I meant is also that the answers are sourced there. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tht isn't synth and your proposal to limit ascribing motivations to ABOUTSELF has no basis in policy or guideline... You appear to be taking advantage of a new editor's naivite by repeatedly lying to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest AfD but any such attempt is likely to get bogged down more in international politics than the problem of pervasively synthetic articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep jumping from one thing to the other, mixing everything. Organize your head, maybe write down some notes, before wasting other people's time. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to you be civil. You are the one who is incorrect. What I think is that you do not policies on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH yet. The other editor is posing the correct question - we go by how the sources characterize the incidents. If you think that editor is mixing or jumping topics by asking that, you do not know the OP or SYNTH policies well enough yet. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You encourage me to be civil after he wrote: "you still insist that it's repression just because China did it".
I keep telling you that it is WP:SYNTH to claim extradition constitutes transnational repression. Please point to a source that describes extradition as transnational repression. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From reference number 1 in the current version: "Other forms of transnational repression that involve working through the legal and political systems of foreign countries—including detentions and extraditions—or that involve diplomatic staff at embassies and consulates, run through agencies like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom House should not be used to sole-source the claim that extradition is repression in wiki voice which makes that extensive section on individual hong kongers both undue and also still synth. Should we create an article called Transnational Repression in the United Ststes that individually lists every individual extradited to the United States on the basis of that citation? Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely I placed the inline synth tag there, because that's what you have more repeatedly disputed. Do you see how we're jumping from one thing to the other again and again? I don't know what we're talking about any more. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An academic source about transnational repression that mentions extradition: [1]
"The wave of this new scholarship demonstrates in depth how authoritarian states attempt to control and silence their dissident populations abroad including through the use of threats, surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations, physical attacks, abduction, politically motivated extradition requests or International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) Red Notices..."
"The database further identifies three stages of TR developed inductively from the study of Central Asian political exiles. Each indicates an escalation of action taken against the exile. (1) Put on notice includes informal warnings and threats to individuals and intimidation of family members and formal arrest warrants, including Interpol notices, and extradition requests."
^Dukalskis, Alexander; Furstenberg, Saipira; Gorokhovskaia, Yana; Heathershaw, John; Lemon, Edward; Schenkkan, Nate (31 December 2022). "Transnational repression: data advances, comparisons, and challenges". Political Research Exchange. 4 (1): 2104651. doi:10.1080/2474736X.2022.2104651.
There are other good academic sources that cite certain instances of extradition as one of multiple tools of transnational repression. For example: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa061
Another academic mentioning extraditions in the context of transnational repression: Alexander Cooley, Columbia University professor of Political Science. Written Testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe: "Tools of Transnational Repression".[1]
"Importantly, the repressive effect of INTERPOL abuse does not just hinge on whether a political opponent is successfully extradited. In most democracies, properly functioning judicial systems tend to, eventually, weed out the obvious politically motivated extradition requests. However these alerts still have devastating consequences on targeted individuals: they disrupt their professional and personal lives; they can prevent them from travelling or lead to unexpected detentions in third countries; they incur costly legal bills and consume time as listed individuals await their court hearings; and they make it difficult for listed individuals to conduct banking and other financial transactions. Moreover, governments use the very act of listing to tarnish the reputations of exiled targets in the media and public sphere, intimidate their family members still residing in the home country, and confiscate their properties and businesses."
^Cooley, Alexander. "The International Dimensions of the New Transnational Repression." Congressional Testimony: Written Testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe "Tools of Transnational Repression". September 12 (2019).
Linking biographies should require sources that describe the cases specifically as transnational repression. Extradition and other methods can be used that way, but this should not be assumed to be true in every individual case. Vacosea (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources say that the international arrest warrants are politically motivated, or are issued to silence dissent, is that not enough to put them within the definition of transnational repression (which is sourced in the first paragraph, in the background section and in other sections, including the one about Hongkongers abroad)? I'm just asking.
If it was a statement by the U.S. State Department (now taken offline), it should be mentioned as coming from the State Department. The sources do not seem to cover each individual in detail, so instead of a long list, it needs to be summarized. Vacosea (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources do not seem to cover each individual in detail? (By the way, I do think this would be better if written more concisely, but preserving the links to the seven individuals who have articles on Wikipedia).
Is there any answer for the question I asked in the first paragraph of my previous comment?
Mentioning the names should be fine, but the current line by line list is too much. Sources that mention transnational repression and sources that cover each individual need to be the same ones for how much you are trying to include. Otherwise articles would become longer and longer because you can find even more sources for newly added details and repeat that process. Vacosea (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The long list of former Hong Kongers is established after citing a BBC article, which does not say much at all about transnational repression, making most of the list original research. The lead of that article reports what critics call a climate of fear in the city. Vacosea (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The news articles are reliable sources in this context... We prefer academic sources, but we don't disqualify non-academic ones. @Simonm223: you are acting like your personal opinion trumps policy and guideline, it doesn't. You also keep accusing AwerDiWeGo of OR but I just don't see it, you appear to be playing the magic word game and you should know better. If there are issues they appear to be due weight ones, but we don't appear to be talking about that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
