Talk:Transnational repression by China

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.

China Low‑importance

	China portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Removed unreliable sources

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]

Please also see the following conversation that I opened at RS/N to get additional feedback. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Freedom_House Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 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]

Hong Kong POV problem

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]

Returning to this it's no surprise that Transnational repression by the United States is a red-link. In fact the only other country with a specific "by them" page is Transnational repression by Russia - the other major rival of the United States. I suppose this would be one for the Bias in Wikipedia article if anyone else ever notices and writes about it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 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]

I don't have access to the Wikipedia library. I think my account is not old enough. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Once you have access I strongly recommend it. It's a wonderful tool for finding good sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]