Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 4 August 2020

“China Tribunal and ETAC are backed by Falun Gong”

The following paragraph contradicts many claims of the Tribunal and is problematic:

Both the Tribunal and ETAC are believed to be backed by exiled Chinese religious group Falun Gong. For example, ETAC's UK national manager, Andy Moody, is reporter of Falun Gong backed media NTD. Other claims from the group include practicing Falun Gong cures cancer, and its founder, Li Hongzhi, possesses the power of God.

First, while the Tribunal was initiated by ETAC, it claims to be independent of ETAC (Point 17 of https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ChinaTribunal_JUDGMENT_1stMarch_2020.pdf):

“All members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, volunteer lawyers and the editor of this Judgment have worked entirely pro bono publico (for the public good) which for those unfamiliar with the term or practice means completely without financial return of any kind. None of the members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, the editor or the volunteer lawyers working with Counsel to the Tribunal is a Falun Gong practitioner or has any special interest in Falun Gong. Two advantages flow from this: first, all those engaged on the work are completely free of any influence from Falun Gong practitioners; second, worthwhile work otherwise unaffordable is done. Where funds have been required, for hire of rooms for evidence hearings, travel to London of non-UK Tribunal members etc, these have been provided by ETAC.”

Saying the Tribunal to be backed by Falun Gong is biased and unsubstantiated.

Second, the claim that ETAC is backed by Falun Gong also contradicts the following (https://chinatribunal.com/about-etac/):

ETAC is an independent, non-partisan organisation that has no alignment with any political party, religious or spiritual group, government or any other national or international institution. Members are from a range of backgrounds, belief systems, religions and ethnicities.

ETAC's UK national manager being a reporter of a Falun Gong media does not support the claim that China Tribunal or ETAC is backed by Falun Gong.

Finally, even assuming ETAC is backed by Falun Gong, saying that Falun Gong’s founder Li Hongzhi possesses the power of God is completely irrelavent to China Tribunal.

For the above reasons, I have deleted the paragraph.

Keyboardwarrior (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not censor available information

Please do not censor any available evidence linking the tribunal or ETAC to Falun Gong. Rather, add the tribunal's claim that multiple positions do not contain Falun Gong practitioners to it, and leave the judgement to the reader. Simply deleting what you disagree with will mislead readers. Thank you!

AshleyCh628 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the evidence linking ETAC to Falun Gong may appear on ETAC’s page (which doesn’t exist), but it’s a bit of a stretch to mention it in China Tribunal’s page.

Even assuming ETAC is backed by Falun Gong, the purported connection between China Tribunal and ETAC (and hence Falun Gong) is very weak and denied by China Tribunal. Also, the purported connection between ETAC and Falun Gong is original research, forbidden by Misplaced Pages.

Also, claims about Falun Gong (such as founder Li Hongzhi possesses the power of God) is irrelevant to China Tribunal. For instance, Tom Cruise is a famous Scientologist. Should we mention Scientology’s teachings in Mission Impossible page, since the movie may be backed by Scientology (which again is a dubious connection)?

For that reason, I have deleted the Falun Gong’s claims from China Tribunal’s page. You can create a page for ETAC and include those Falun Gong claims there (but they will probably be challenged, too).

Keyboardwarrior (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification(?)

@Horse Eye Jack: There seems to be problems regarding "failed verification". This is of course false. The article now shows 1. What the China Tribunal is and who is on it (source going to their own site), 2. Who is responsible for the Tribunal, i.e. ETAC (source going to their own site claiming this), 3. Showing that while the Tribunal calls itself free of Falun Gong members (source going to their own site) the management of ETAC (source going to ETAC's own site's management section) are members of Falun Gong/Epoch Times writers (source going to Epoch Times staff section/source with statements from ETAC management). Since all aforementioned source are of the same type (including both the ones you try to remove as "un-constructive" and the ones which remained) they should be equally valid and constructive and help provide the full, sourced picture regarding the Tribunal and ETAC. One (or more?) source's get flagged as "deprecated" (I suspect the Epoch Times), however, it is not use as a "literal source" but instead just showing the staff list and corresponding management list of ETAC.--Havsjö (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times is WP:deprecated as it is beyond unreliable, even for statements about FG. Please review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also please self revert, you are WP:edit warring which given the WP:BLP nature of some of the contested material is completely inappropriate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that deprecated sources can be used to verify statements about themselves (WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources). In this case, it reasonable to use Epoch Times itself to verify that a person wrote for the Epoch Times. — MarkH₂₁ 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats not what its being used for though, its being used as a source for the entirety of "the organisation responsible for the Tribunal, consists of Falun Gong members and writers for the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong mouthpiece.” I see nothing in any of the linked source about ET being a FG mouthpiece, that part appears to currently be entirely without support (although it is true). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t it being used to verify that Margo MacVicar and Susie Hughes (both listed on ETAC's management list) wrote for the Epoch Times? I agree that the latter part would have to be cited to other sources. — MarkH₂₁ 20:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it links to a collection of articles by Margo Macvicar. Neither Macvicar or Hughes are currently mentioned on the page though, the statement which this link could theoretically be used to support (e.g. "Macvicar has had work published by the Epoch Times") has never been made and even then given that its about a living person who has written for ET rather than ET itself I don’t think we can use it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So the issue of wording can be alleviated by the minor change writers for the Epoch Times to have written for the Epoch Times. The collection of articles written by MacVicar and the article by Hughes are sufficient to verify that these people wrote articles for ET; it's only using ET to verify a statement about ET – that its authors include X, Y, and Z. — MarkH₂₁ 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Worry not, I have now provided a source for ET being an FG mouthpiece --Havsjö (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The Tribunal's own website is used without problems as a source to show what the Tribunal is and who initiated it? But a link to ETAC/Epoch Times owns website to show who runs it cant be used? What is the difference between the direct links to the Tribunal website showing its members (okay by you) and to ETAC's website showing its members (not okay by you)? Epoch Times website may be deprecated, but its not used as a source to the claim of "the sky is red", only showing the ETAC management listed = same as Tribunal website showing its members listed, which is okay? How are both instances not guilty of the same thing, in that case? --Havsjö (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

But the sources you linked don’t even say that. At best we have weak synth here, in no world is this well sourced text. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The source do actually show that. As explained in the opening message of this talk-section: the source show it in exactly the same way as the sources which are apparently okay. The ok-source offer a direct link to the Tribunal page showing a list of its members, it is an "allowed source" for showing the Tribunal members. In exactly this way have the link to ETAC's site shown its members, and as MarkH21 pointed out, the link to Epoch Times showing its members (which are the same as ETAC management). How is the former not OR if the latter is? --Havsjö (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide direct quotes from each source which unambiguously support the statements you claim they support. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide direct quotes from the tribunal website's "who we are"-page (currently used as a source (as allowed by you) for the members of the tribunal) that unambiguously support the statement of them being the members of the Tribunal. --Havsjö (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add that text/source, please review WP:BURDEN. Quotes please, you are at risk of becoming WP:Tendentious. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)