Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 22 September 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)

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

The issue is that we need to actually mention the person before we can talk about what affiliations they have. Currently those people aren’t mentioned on the page. The statement its currently being used to verify is not that "its authors include X, Y, and Z” but that members of the tribunal have written for ET which the source does not say. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Totally incorrect. The article does not claim that Tribual members have written for ET. It currently states that the management of ETAC have written for ET, which the sources does say (in exactly the same manner as they say who the members of the tribunal are, or that the tribunal is initiated by ETAC). --Havsjö (talk) 19:46, 8 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)

I didnt add that text/source, I just restored it from the edits you removed. And since I have demonstrated that the sources which you leave intact and have no complaints about are the exact same as the ones you removed and I restored I need to understand how the former provides information in the correct way before I can explain how the latter ones of the same type also does. Otherwise I can refer to my multiple previous explanations above explaining how they unambiguously support their respective statements in the same manner as the other sources in the article --Havsjö (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoring it is the same as adding it. If you want to delete all the information we can, is that really your argument? Its also been the better part of a week and we have no direct quotes from you... At least *try* to support your position. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I wont give an answer as long as you are arguing in very bad faith. As ive repeatedly asked: How are those sources "invalid" vis-a-vis the ones of the same type you allowed to go unmolested? They are the same type of sources used in the same way. Since this is all of this is just based on your personal opinion regarding an arbitrary selection of identical-type sources I must understand why ETAC-management list + ET staff-credit fail while the Tribunal-member-list pass. Only if this is made clear can an adequate response as to be given. Any answer regarding the "wrong" sources would not be allowed by you personally as you have already made up your mind that these are "wrong" even though you refuse to explain why with arguments that does not also to apply to the sources you have never removed, complained about, added "failed verification" tags to. How those sources are okay needs to be understood first. In case you want an explanation anyway I can refer to the very top of this TALK-section, where I lay out the entire articles information-flow while how it is sourced (all in the same way, mind you). This clearly lays out every claim in the article and shows the unambiguous support given in the same way by each source.--Havsjö (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t need to give an answer to your question, however per WP:BURDEN you do actually need to give a full explanation for yours. The individual statements are not supported by the sources given, statements which are supported by the sources given could in fact be created but they haven't yet been. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Claims and sources in the article
Claim: China Tribunal is chaired by and includes members X, Y and Z. Source: Tribunal's own membership list (listing its people)
Claim: China Tribunal is created by ETAC Source: Tribunal's own admission
Claim: China Tribunal claims it has no Falun Gong members Source: Tribunal's own statement regarding this
Claim: However, ETAC management consists of ET writers Source: ETAC's own management list + ET's own writers credit (both themselves listing the same people)
All equally clearly shown, using the same types of sources. If the latter are not "supporting", how are the former? --Havsjö (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I slightly reworded the contested phrasing. The ETAC website clearly lists its management, and the ET sources clearly show that Hughes and MacVicar have written articles in the ET, while the Minghui source says that has practiced Falun Dafa for 14 years. I think these failed verification tags can be removed. — MarkH₂₁ 21:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I did a bit of one myself, at the very least we need to list the actual people as on their own the management piece and the individual association pieces would be synth as none of the association pieces refer to the individuals as ETAC managers. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better now. — MarkH₂₁ 21:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

:This is still unacceptable. How do we know they are the same Susie Hughes and Margo Macvicar? This is why we need a reliable source that explicitly states that these Epoch Times journalists are the same people as the ETAC members. As it stands right now, the sentence "ETAC Executive Director Susie Hughes and ETAC National Manager Margo MacVicar have written for the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong mouthpiece" is purely original research and should be removed per WP:NOR. The source cited does not say that Victoria Ledwidge is ETAC manager or a "member" of "Falun Gong", so this sentence should also be removed per WP:NOR and WP:VER. Swmpshield2 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we are still well below the normal standards for BLP but when it comes to FG topics normal standards will rarely be reached without a block or two. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you know Geoffrey Nice from the China Tribunal being the same Nice from the Yugoslav tribunal? The tribunals own claims? Maybe its just the same name? Why did no person here complain about the identical sourcing for this claim? or for the other tribunal members? --Havsjö (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been complaining about the inherently synth nature of the material the entire time... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Struck sock edits. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources for its findings

For expanding the article without using primary sources:

• The British medical journal BMJ (March 2020): Chinese doctors admitted in undercover calls that harvested organs were available, informal tribunal finds
• Reuters (June 2019): China is harvesting organs from Falun Gong members, finds expert panel
• NBC News (June 2019): China forcefully harvests organs from detainees, tribunal concludes
• The Guardian (June 2019): China is harvesting organs from detainees, tribunal concludes

--Pudeo (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Added to the article --Havsjö (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2's previous edits are now removed and reverted.

His question on "how do we know Susie Hughes and Margo Macvicar with same names and pictures are, in fact, them?" is clearly invalid. How do we know the Isaac Newton who invented Calculus is the same Isaac Newton who found gravity? It is reasonable to question the name of one ETAC staff being identical to a Falun Gong member, but having a large group of people with names from Falun Gong members is extremely unlikely. The level of certainty here makes the statements he deleted valid. His reason falls into the category of conspiracy theory. I'm glad his account is now banned by Wiki, as multiple of his edits are clearly censoring important information from the page.

According to Misplaced Pages's rules, deprecated sources are valid as long as they are cited to back the fact that they made the statements. Falun Gong's media, the Epoch Times, New Tang Dynasty, and Minghui, are valid sources to discuss what Falun Gong claimed in the past.