Talk:Wolf Amendment

October 2013

I have not been able to find any reliable source of the "March 2013" law that "prohibits anyone from China setting foot in a NASA building", and every source I've found has led back to the Guardian article. I believe the Guardian article is erroneously referring to an incident in March 2013 when Frank Wolf contacted NASA administrator Charles Bolden about a possible violation of the April 2011 law. If I am correct, then the "new" 2013 law is actually the 2011 law. I will be removing the wikipedia article's mentions of the possibly-fictitious 2013 law; I would encourage anyone with a citation of the actual 2013 law, if it exists, to restore them. 18.95.7.68 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now found this, passed in March 2013, but the language in that law is substantially the same as in the 2011 law (main difference is that NASA must notify Congress 30 days in advance instead of 14), and in particular doesn't make any mention of Chinese nationals being forbidden from setting foot in NASA buildings. I won't make further changes to the article at this point. 18.95.5.40 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I also see no reference in the source cited claiming that Chinese nationals aren't allowed in NASA facilities. I do see a prohibition on bilateral negotiations with Chinese companies and government agencies. Geogene (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If that were really the law, considering there is a link to the law right there, someone should have no trouble finding it. With that in mind I fixed it. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Source for the Name

Are there reliable sources that actually call this the Chinese Exclusion Policy, or was that moniker created here? I also find the "See Also" link to the Chinese Exclusion Act to be hyperbolic and in poor taste. How exactly are these related? Geogene (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this moniker stems from a sort of victim mentality which happens to be prevalent among many Chinese people who believe in the propaganda from Chinese Communist government by saying that the westerners always humiliate and demonize us. In other words, it is a result of brain-wash.--HaanTang (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Citation needed.

Dustie (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am confused about why this entry is called the Wolf Amendment. Is that referring to 2011 or 2013? The article says that Rep. John Culberson raised the issue, and mentions Rep. Frank Wolf as clarifying the legislation years later. But who actually proposed or sponsored the legislation, and which legislation?Jmarks13 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Response

In the lede the article says that funding is not available to Chinese citizens due to an act passed in 2011, yet the response section talks about the cooperation between China and Russia from the mid 2000s. What is the correlation between these? Not seeing any sources that show one lead from the other. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The background could be the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), see their page. Quote: "the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Charter, formally establishing the organisation, was signed in June 2002 and entered into force on 19 September 2003." Some people have said that the SCO was the answer to not dissolving NATO, but nobody can really know where's the chicken and the egg here. The cooperation between America, China, and Russia was bound to end because America is about rivalry, China and Russia less so - my opinion from observation. Now China does their own space station, confirming the Brit who spoke of the Wolf Amendment as an own goal. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:68FA:3A20:C3D1:D66C (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese exclusion policy of NASA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713080223/http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/conduct-diplomacy.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/conduct-diplomacy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130915190451/http://culberson.house.gov:80/bolden-in-beijing/ to http://culberson.house.gov/bolden-in-beijing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

China, Russia and ‘Europe’.

Europe is now a nation ? Not a continent? What is the capital of Europe? What kind of government has it? What is its flag and national song ?

Russia is now a nation? Not a federation of states ?

Please explain.

Europe is meant to be EU, just as we talk about America when we mean the US. It is a common practice in journalism to avoid too much repetition. Russia is a Federation but it is also a nation. (She better be or China and the US could come in to fight over the spoils on their soil. Both have a habit of doing war, except on their own soil. /s) 2001:8003:A070:7F00:68FA:3A20:C3D1:D66C (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content

I can't work out from the edit summaries why this content is not suitable for the article:

"In 2013, a number of American scientists decided to boycott a NASA meeting, with senior academics either withdrawing individually, or pulling out their entire research groups. This was in response to actions by officials at NASA Ames to prohibit Chinese nationals from attending the Kepler Science Conference II. Rep. Frank Wolf was quick to respond in a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, saying that the restriction only applied to bilateral meetings and activities between NASA and the Chinese government or Chinese-owned companies. The NASA Ames officials had mischaracterized the law as Kepler Science Conference II is a multilateral event".

Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The edit summaries clearly noted it was an WP:LTA edit, in other words the edit was WP:BLOCKEVASION. The edit further was an unattributed copyright violation of earlier text. If you think it is relevant, I would suggest either rewriting it from the source, or adding with proper attribution. CMD (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• How did the editor who mentioned LTA know someone was trying to evade a block?
• ”unattributed copyright violation of earlier text”: do you mean an editor reinstated text that had previously been removed?
• I presume then that no editors found problems with the sources or content itself then, apart from the way in which it was written.

Burrobert (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Because the user who added the text is blocked for that reason.
• Reinstated without any attribution at all.
• Given it was removed at some point, someone must have had an issue with it. CMD (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The only reason given for removal of the text is that an editor was avoiding a block and using ip’s to re-add the text. No editor mentioned that the text itself was a problem. I can’t see that the reason given should stop other editors from re-adding the text. I am also confused about why an independent editor was warned about re-adding the text.

Here is the list of additions and reversions related to the text as well as the reasons given by the various editors. The only reason mentioned for removing the text is that editor Govercon was evading a block and was using ip’s to insert the text.

Added by Govercon on 20/3/21

Removed by User:Chipmunkdavis on 8/5/21 (Rv WP:LTA)

Re-added by User:Mitchen Mackvid on 8/5/21

Removed by User:Canterbury Tail on 8/5/21 with no explanation

Re-added by User:Albertaont on 20/5/21 (removed unsourced see also and revert)

Removed by Chipmunkdavis on 21/5/21 (Restore last clean + include IP addition)

Re-added by Albertaont on 21/5/21 (please see the note about see-also, maintain last IP edit)

Removed by Chipmunkdavis on 21/5/21 (Last clean version maintaining see also removal)

Re-added by ip 101.175.135.71 on 22/5/21 (Why was so much information inexplicably removed?)

Removed by Chipmunkdavis on 22/5/21 (Rv WP:LTA)

Re-added by ip 66.130.112.254 on 23/5/21

Removed by Chipmunkdavis on 23/5/21 no reason given

Re-added by ip 86.160.104.129 on 23/5/21 (Last I checked Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusionist and neutral mate. Erasure is not a good look.)

Removed by Run n Fly on 23/5/21 no explanation given

Re-added by Albertaont on 23/5/21 (unexplained reversion)

Removed by Run n Fly on 23/5/21 (See below reasons by User:Chipmunkdavis)

Re-added by ip 217.55.50.75 on 24/5/21 (The version by Albertaont seems to also check out as neutral and non-vandalism.You cannot just assume everyone is a sockpuppet.)

Removed by Run n Fly on 24/5/21 (IP is WP:LTA of User:Govercon)

Editor Albertaont was warned off from re-adding the text ([1]):

"Please do not add back the information back due to WP:LTA by Govercon who is possible editing in form of IP now. See the oldest diff here. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021"

Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Presumably the editor was warned because they were restoring without explanation text written by a blocked user, and one with a history of misrepresenting sources. As I said above, it was also an unattributed copyvio, meaning the text was in some versions of the article long before the LTA disruption. What appears to be happening is the LTA restoring text that was most recently changed in this edit from 2 August.

In general terms of content, no-one should add text back from a blocked editor without explicitly taking responsibility for the content, which presumably means verifying the information and sources themselves. In regards to this particular edit, the reason no other editors should re-add the relevant text is because the information is already in the article, located where it was put in the 2 August edit, in the fourth paragraph (excluding quotes) of the History section. CMD (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes the information is already in the article. Perhaps I should have noticed that. It would also have been helpful if one of the reverting editors had mentioned that as a reason. It is a more appropriate reason for reverting Mitchen Mackvid and Albertaont than mentioning the prior actions of an editor who had nothing to do with them.
• "no-one should add text back from a blocked editor without explicitly taking responsibility for the content, which presumably means verifying the information and sources themselves": We should assume that User:Mitchen Mackvid and User:Albertaont did that when they added the text back into the article.

Burrobert (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Why would a reverting editor need to mention that, given they were not acting on the content but instead handling block evasion? The whole point of reverting such edits is so that no time is wasted on bad-faith editors. Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, not revert block and spend time edit warring in and discussing on the talkpage a pointless unattributed copyright violation that duplicates existing text. As for responsibility, Mitchen Mackvid is the LTA, and if in your opinion another editor actually took responsibility for the edit in question, perhaps you could warn them about copyright violations and the need for attribution. CMD (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Albertaont was not part of the block evasion. A reversion of content added by Albertaont would require a different reason, such as that the content was already in the article.
• Regarding copyright violation, are you saying that reusing text that had been previously added by another user requires attribution to the original user, otherwise it is a breach of copyright? It isn't an area I am very familiar with, however, I have not seen that argument used before. Do you have a reference?
• Editors take responsibility for their edits by making the edit. What other way is there? Burrobert (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, the content was from a perennially unreliable editor, and was not checked. This reasoning has already been listed above. On claiming responsibility, editors can communicate, through edit summaries and/or talkpages, indicating that they have checked and therefore do take responsibility. Attribution is required (WP:CWW). This is a rare case of within-article copying, but note there was no attribution or indication in the relevant edit summary, so it gave off the appearance of being original content. I'm not sure what is trying to be achieved with this discussion, suffice to say again, that this was a case of WP:BLOCKEVASION and you should not let a blocked editor continue to waste your time here. CMD (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Tags

Hi all. I've added a few tags to the top of the article, and I wanted to expand upon my reasoning here. As I noted in the edit summary, [t]his article relies heavily upon primary sources, uses an appropriations bill as the sole citation in the lead, and appears to be engaged in the novel interpretation of various letters. This comes across as a novel synthesis of information regarding the topic, and I'm unsure that there is significant coverage of the topic itself that would pass WP:GNG. My rationale here is that, looking at the news articles, none seem to be fundamentally about the policy (they seem to be about a particular protest relating to a specific ban of Chinese individuals from a particular conference). The article's citation of the ban being general is a direct primary source reference to a particular appropriations bill. The reason that this appears to have a claim of significance relates to a protest at the decision to exclude PRC nationals from Kepler Science Conference II. There's also a primary source reference to a congressional letter written about the topic. I'm not sure where the title of this article came from (it reminds me of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the immigration of all Chinese laborers), but it doesn't appear to be a WP:COMMONNAME and I can't find the name reflected in reliable sources. There's certainly a bilateral ban, but the article seems really stretched given the relative dearth of coverage that appears on the bilateral policy itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Approval from Congress

The article says that NASA obtained "congressional approval" to assist China on the Chang'e 4 mission, but the quotation from NASA says only that "NASA has certified to Congress" that it will do so. Meanwhile the quoted legislation says that such bilateral cooperation would have to be "specifically authorized by a law." Are these three different ways of saying the same thing, or is there more than one mechanism for obtaining authorization? Jmarks13 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)