This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keyboardwarrior (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 1 July 2020 (“Propaganda organization” and “anti-China NGO”). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:54, 1 July 2020 by Keyboardwarrior (talk | contribs) (“Propaganda organization” and “anti-China NGO”)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)“Propaganda organization” and “anti-China NGO”
First sentence says “China Tribunal is a propaganda organization founded by the anti-China NGO International Coalition named Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC)”.
Why is China Tribunal a propaganda organization? Its panel members Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, Martin Elliott and Arthur Waldron (among others) suggest that this is not a propaganda organization. Calling it a propaganda organization is making an unsubstantiated political statement. As an analogy, should Misplaced Pages call Human Rights Watch a propaganda organization? Where is the line?
Also, calling ETAC “anti-China” also seems to violate neutral point of view. ETAC is an organization interested in transplant abuses in China; labeling it anti-China is making the implicit statement that the organization isn’t really interested in transplant abuses. As an analogy, Misplaced Pages doesn’t call Free Tibet an anti-China organization either, since labeling it anti-China is making a similar biased statement.