Talk:Braga incident

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Braga Incident. 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/20140808055834/http://www.chinesestudies.eu/index.php/432-report-the-deletion-of-pages-from-eacs-conference-materials-in-braga-july-2014 to http://www.chinesestudies.eu/index.php/432-report-the-deletion-of-pages-from-eacs-conference-materials-in-braga-july-2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809004832/http://www.chinesestudies.eu/index.php/433-letter-of-protest-at-interference-in-eacs-conference-in-portugal-july-2014 to http://www.chinesestudies.eu/index.php/433-letter-of-protest-at-interference-in-eacs-conference-in-portugal-july-2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810034320/http://www.eacs2014.pt/ to http://www.eacs2014.pt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article's incident is unnoticeable outside of the context of wider criticisms of Confucius Institutes, which has its dedicated article. Therefore I propose this article be merged into Criticism of Confucius Institutes.--LucasGeorge (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose merge on the grounds that having parent/child articles (WP:SUMMARY) would seem to work better. Criticism of Confucius Institutes at 128k is already too long (WP:TOOBIG), and the Braga incident page is well-referenced from multiple sources (suggesting independent notability). The incident page should certainly be better linked from the main page, and I've attempted to do so by adding links and adding a 'further information' template. I think that that suffices. Klbrain (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, the section in the Criticism of Confucius Institutes article is longer and better than this article. I would suggest, roughly, replacing this article with the material in the Criticism of Confucius Institutes article and replacing the material in the above article with a brief summary and link to t his article.Bill (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Description of incident

The description of the incident is incomprehensible. In one paragraph it says that Xu Lin demanded the removal of references to Taiwanese institutions. In the next paragraph it says that she demanded the removal of references to the Confucius China Studies Program, which is a PRC program. It is also not made clear how Xu Lin obtained control of the materials distributed at the conference. Did she simply steal the printed materials? Or did she exert pressure on the organizers? Or was she herself one of the organizers and in charge of the conference?Bill (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)