Talk:Chinese police overseas service stations#Regarding an edit war

User:Amigao, please don't remove attempt to sources like this one [https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/overseas-police-stations-a-clearer-look/], citing a Yale legal and China scholar, without first discussing on the talk page.

In general, Wikipedia is committed to a high level of scholarship. The last thing we should be doing is presenting extraordinary claims as fact, especially if those are geopolitically charged allegations made by US-government associated media (Radio Free Asia) and think tanks (Jamestown Foundation. At the very minimum, claims such as these need to be attributed, and the links to the US government noted. -Darouet (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

:We can note that without problems, but I don't understand the skepticism. Radio Free Asia and Jamestown Foundation are reliable sources, they don't spread conspiracy theories, fake news or race-based hate like Chinese (or Russian) state media do. It is not (supposed) United States propaganda which we should worry about but the Chinese one, which is real, existing and has extended, in some cases, [https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/wikipedia-mainland-china-admins-banned.html even into Wikipedia itself]. The last thing we should be doing, Darouet, is flattening the details that make the differences for a level playing field, in the name of a neutrality that is actually the exact opposite.

:Also I think that if "mistranslations and factual errors" are not important nor impacting in the substance of the matter, that should be noted, because now they seem to be there only to desperately delegitimize Safeguard Defenders allegations. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

::If Jeremy Daum, a Yale scholar, is not credible, then why was he cited by the NYT and why did Safeguard Defenders remove their mistranslations after Daum pointed it out? And kindly stop delegitimizing other editors first by suggesting that they're linked to the Chinese government. The users you mentioned on Chinese Wikipedia were sanctioned due to their abuse of WP guidelines, not necessarily because they have pro-PRC views. And nationalist fighting is not limited to the Chinese, since a decade ago several Eastern European editors were sanctioned for similar issues. Furthermore, stop trying to whatabout to Chinese and Russian state media, which nobody here is promoting, and Darouet is correct in noting that Jamestown Foundation and RFA are linked with the US government, which is currently in a cold war with China, should be attributed in contentious articles.--61.68.64.30 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

:::Fallacies and inaccuracies here. A single scholar or expert does not mean much. Take Seymour Hersh and his allegations about NS2 sabotage: it's not automatically true just because someone with a reputation claims it is. Just as something it's not automatically false because of some translation errors. Also, yes they were pro-PRC propagandist users,^{[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58559412 here] and [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wikipedia-infiltrators-banned-for-pushing-china-propaganda-w2brbw7tt here]} abuse of WP guidelines is the consequence of that. You're being inaccurate and trying to minimize the issue in the face of Eastern European editors of a decade ago ("whatabautism", uh?).

:::A source is not unreliable just because it is linked to the U.S. government, but because it makes inaccurate, conspiracy, fringe, false, misleading claims or reports which is not something Radio Free Asia and Jamestown Foundation do, especially systematically. Also not all countries, nor governments are the same. That's why we can trust the CIA World Factbook but not Sputnik News or the Global Times (except rare cases). This is not whatabtautism, this is legit comparing. Wikipedia command us to discriminate, we avoid false balance, 1 does not (necessarily) equals 1.

:::The whole "cold war" thing is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia nor it is a solid ground to question using reliable U.S.-linked/based sources. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

:It doesn't matter what the source is citing, it matters what the source is and chinalawtranslate.com is not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 49 Watford Way, Hendon, London, United Kingdom.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation attributes a claim to SD that the SD does not make, and the same citation is used to add a location to the list of sites that is incorrect.

The entry's sentence " A broader example was a notice issued by an overseas station operated by the government of Laiyang in Myanmar, which stated that Chinese nationals who were there illegally should return to China or "there would be consequences for their loved ones", such as cancellation of their state benefits. " relies on an article that incorrectly refers to the SD report. The SD report does not make any claim that the Myanmar announcement was made through an overseas police station or connected to one in any way.

The SD Report says only that:

"In February 2022, the government of Laiyang city, Yantai, Shandong province, issued a notice to ask those from Laiyang “illegally staying” in northern Myanmar to return by 31 March 2022." The report than links to a domestic Chinese document, that has nothing to do with any overseas police stations.

The claim should not be attributed to SD.

Moreover, the police notice from Laiyang, cited by the SD report does not seem in anyway linked to an overseas policing station.

130.132.173.124 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not delete the information on the findings of Australia's investigation (as announced by the head of the Australian Federal Police) finding that there were no Chinese police stations. The UK previously found that no laws had been broken following their investigation, and now Australia has said the same- I can't imagine what is more relevant to this topic. 209.74.125.47 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The paper by “Safeguard Defenders” is not a reliable source. They don’t give any sources for their allegations, and most of the “Chinese police overseas service stations” listed probably do not exist (e.g. those in Germany and Austria). -- Babel fish (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can you cite any evidence using WP:RS of unreliable reporting? If so, that's a discussion for WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_police_overseas_service_stations&oldid=1290639480 My previous revision] has been repeatedly been reverted by @Amigao and @Avatar317. May I ask why my revision was reverted?

All I did was rewrite the head section (Overseas 110 is the official name, so I mentioned it first and then the more commonly used name) and simplified it a bit. As for the official stated purpose, there is no good reason to remove it at all. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Firstly, we go by Wikipedia POLICY, NOT what you think {{tpq|there is no good reason to remove it at all.}}

:1) The WP:MOSLEAD says that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and as I said in my edit summary, "This entire article IS critical of these, because the SOURCES say that. In Wikipedia, we follow sources, and if you have problems with sources, take that up with the journalists" who wrote those newspaper articles.

:2) Re:Their official stated purpose - As an easy extreme example, if a white supremacist organization's mission/stated purpose was to "Maintain the clearly proven scientific superiority of the white race above all the other inferior races." that's not how we'd characterize them. The way they characterize themselves is their own WP:PROMOTION, and I follow this essay (not policy) WP:MISSION and remove mission statements because I see them as WP:PROMOTIONAL. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::For no 1, the Lead section I wrote better summarizes it without adding WP:UNDUE.

::For no 2, It's kinda different from your example. This is an official government agency. It's basically like if the ATF article had no mention of it's use against firearms. And even for a white supremacist organization, we would write that their ideology is "______". Same thing here. It is absolutely not WP:MISSION to state what a government agency does. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not really. The lede edits were not even close to being in line with MOS:LEADPROPORTION. Also, best to stick with WP:BESTSOURCES whenever possible. - Amigao (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There was literally no reason to remove the second part for the official use of "Overseas 110".

::::For the lead section, stating the official name of "Overseas 110" and then it's more common name adheres to MOS:LEADSENTENCE, and the current lead section has tonnes of MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Tonnes" of clutter? A lead of a hundred words? Seriously? Ravenswing 04:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Maybe clutter is a bit too far, but overall it just required some cleanup. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Now that I'm reading the content and not just the conduct, I agree with Avatar317 and Amigao. This is a ludicrous assertion of MOS:LEADCLUTTER and given the weight of the allegations against the subject within the article, it is more than appropriate for it to be mentioned in the lead, which is not at all long. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::How about the rest of the lead section? the allegations we could keep there; Additionally, for the official stated purpose, this is commonly added for law enforcement agencies and programs. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, that was my take as well, although I'm not expert enough in the subject to have a strong opinion. With that, Thehistorianisaac, how about you begin to argue your point more honestly, and leave the hyperbole behind? Ravenswing 14:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Ravenswing@CoffeeCrumbs regardless of MOS:LEADCLUTTER, the current lead section is pretty unclear(like "extralegal offices", what does that mean?); additionally, usually in articles the official name (Overseas 110) is mentioned first, then the more common name.

:::::::As for the "official purposes/duties" section, I'm surprised the article did not mention this at all, and I think stating so is not only important to the article itself, particularly the neutrality.

:::::::As for renaming the history section to the controversies section, the reason was it is not only structured like a controversies section, it was mostly controversies anyways, and I planned to add a proper history section with stuff like establishment date in the near future. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The fundamental problem wasn't having the official name first or renaming a section, but the wholesale axing of half the lead, which grossly altered the lead to not reflect the weight of the following content. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@CoffeeCrumbs

:::::::::So there is no problem with the other edited areas right? Since the lead section(the part that I deleted) is the only one I hear people complaining about Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You also might want to check out WP:CSECTION before creating 'Controversies' sections. - Amigao (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Amigao

:::::::::::Entire thing is a de facto "controversies section", both in content and format. I possibly may re-organize it in the future and turn it into a proper history section, and incorporate other parts of it's history, like when it was founded, statistics(which exist on the chinese version). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The only reason these (Chinese police overseas service stations) are NOTABLE WP:N is BECAUSE of their controversial/illegal/nefarious behavior, which is what sources cover here. Statistics sourced to the agency itself would not be acceptable sourcing, for the same reason as WP:CGTN. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Avatar317

:::::::::::::CNR is considered reliable under most circumstances, and in this case, can count as WP:ABOUTSELF (Since the official stated purpose is the official stated purpose). At most in text attribution would also be added. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::First, can you point to a discussion on WP:RSN where China National Radio was found to be "reliable under most circumstances"? Second, you might be misunderstanding WP:ABOUTSELF as it cannot involve a claim about a third party such as the very topic of this article. - Amigao (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Amigao It does count as About self since CNR is owned by the chinese government, and the CNR article discusses the purposes of the Overseas 110 program itself, which does not involve third parties. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::You probably should re-read WP:ABOUTSELF as it seems that you might not have fully grasped its points #2 and #3. You can always ask about it on WP:RSN for additional clarification. - Amigao (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::@Amigao The CNR source I used does not contain anything not related to the program itself nor any mention of any major events, nor have I used anything that goes against it's points 2 or 3.

:::::::::::::::::As for WP:RSN, this happened like a year ago so, but when I asked about whether I could use directly states sponsored media(I was originally asking about CCTV-7), the consensus was outside of CGTN(according to the user who told me this, only CGTN is deprecated, CCTV-7 is allowed) and Global times Chinese goverment media like Xinhua and People's Daily are allowed to be used. However, it's quite long ago, and I'm also quite busy so finding it in the archive will take some time.

:::::::::::::::::Additionally, if I remember correctly, the Chinese foreign ministry also published a statement regarding Overseas 110, if you want the CNR source can be replaced by the foreign ministry source Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)