Talk:2014 Thai surrogacy controversy

Japan
And what does Japan have to do with all this? In the end, in the categories is "2014 in Japan".--Gustavo Parker (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently there was another case, a mention of which was briefly added and removed but the category remained. See Special:Diff/648447447. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Article is false
could you please explain why the whole article is false? Which part of it is false? The document you cited is the court case, and I don't think the court case discussed about it "filmed to mould public perception to suit a narrative". The rest of the analysis is WP:OR, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have secondary sources that are supporting your material, please add them to the article. You have also reverted 3 times per WP:3RR, please do not do any more reverts until the issue is properly discussed. SunDawn talk  06:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the WHOLE article, I said most of it. The sources are all media related. You seem to have an issue with me citing the actual court case? In ANY article, document, peer-reviewed material, court cases are the PRIMARY source. Secondary sources are just that. Primary sources contain the facts firsthand. In both Engineering and Law studies at University, I was required to provide PRIMARY sources to support my arguments. Which I did here. You seem to have a problem with actual court documents being more factual than media stories? TheRealTruth22 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not engineering and law studies. In Wikipedia, we use WP:SECONDARY sources. Synthesizing primary sources, such as court documents, are not allowed per WP:NOR policy. If there is any news sources that analyze the court documents and come into some conclusion, you can use that in the article. SunDawn  talk  10:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added the POV tag to the article, though I'm not prepared to work on cleaning it up. The article as presently written is clearly problematic, as it presents media reports of one side's claims as fact without qualification. While TheRealTruth22's edit was not the proper way to address the issue, the concerns are perfectly valid. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)