This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/09/30/reports-china-organ-harvesting-cult-falun-gong/ "Research’ overseen by a cult that sidelines real doctors Turning to the China Tribunal’s report itself, it is apparent that, despite the authors’ claim to “have maintained distance and separation from ETAC in order to ensure their independence,” they rely heavily on information curated for them by ETAC." Bobby fletcher ( talk) 00:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears there's something worth exploring there. ETCA may be closely associated with DAFOC, a group organized by Falung Gong disciples: https://endtransplantabuse.org/tag/doctors-against-forced-organ-harvesting/
Personally, I think it's very intellectually dishonest for some editors to stress/distant ETCA from Falun Gong, and at the same time delete mentioning of ETCA's organizational association with Falun Gong by other editors. I mean it's not a secret who Suzie Hughes is.
Bobby fletcher ( talk) 05:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The following paragraph contradicts many claims of the Tribunal and is problematic:
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):
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'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 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 Wikipedia.
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)
@ 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)
writers for the Epoch Timesto
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 talk 20:55, 4 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 [Victoria Ledwidge] has practiced Falun Dafa for 14 years.
I think these failed verification tags can be removed. —
MarkH21
talk 21:03, 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)
@ Havsjö: You keep focusing on the BLP issue while ignoring the fact that *even if* its allowable under about self it fails WP:SYNTH, we cant group multiple sources together to say things that none says individually. As you’ve restored it you now need to find proper sources to support the WP:SPA AshleyC84 and 24.59.62.252’s OR. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
For expanding the article without using primary sources:
-- Pudeo ( talk) 08:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia'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.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/09/30/reports-china-organ-harvesting-cult-falun-gong/ "Research’ overseen by a cult that sidelines real doctors Turning to the China Tribunal’s report itself, it is apparent that, despite the authors’ claim to “have maintained distance and separation from ETAC in order to ensure their independence,” they rely heavily on information curated for them by ETAC." Bobby fletcher ( talk) 00:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears there's something worth exploring there. ETCA may be closely associated with DAFOC, a group organized by Falung Gong disciples: https://endtransplantabuse.org/tag/doctors-against-forced-organ-harvesting/
Personally, I think it's very intellectually dishonest for some editors to stress/distant ETCA from Falun Gong, and at the same time delete mentioning of ETCA's organizational association with Falun Gong by other editors. I mean it's not a secret who Suzie Hughes is.
Bobby fletcher ( talk) 05:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The following paragraph contradicts many claims of the Tribunal and is problematic:
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):
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'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 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 Wikipedia.
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)
@ 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)
writers for the Epoch Timesto
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 talk 20:55, 4 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 [Victoria Ledwidge] has practiced Falun Dafa for 14 years.
I think these failed verification tags can be removed. —
MarkH21
talk 21:03, 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)
@ Havsjö: You keep focusing on the BLP issue while ignoring the fact that *even if* its allowable under about self it fails WP:SYNTH, we cant group multiple sources together to say things that none says individually. As you’ve restored it you now need to find proper sources to support the WP:SPA AshleyC84 and 24.59.62.252’s OR. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
For expanding the article without using primary sources:
-- Pudeo ( talk) 08:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia'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.