Talk:Chinese police overseas service stations

Legal Scholar Comment, and US-affiliated think tanks
User:Amigao, please don't remove attempt to sources like this one, 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, 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,here and 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&#39;s Back (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

categories for law enforcement in each country of operation?
Should this have categories for law enforcement in each country of operation? Darrelljon (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 49 Watford Way, Hendon, London, United Kingdom.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 49 Watford Way, Hendon, London, United Kingdom.png

Citation 2 cites an erroneous source
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)

Australia Investigation
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)