While it's on a talk page, and as such doesn't directly affect the content, use of such emotive language as'mutilators'seems inappropriate and disrespectful of other viewpoints to your own . ( It's not the best example, I'm afraid; I'll try to find a better one when I have more time .)
32.
As the comments of HappyInGeneral clearly show, FG editors frequently use very emotive language to justify what they seek to control the content of the main articles they like to edit-they argue that they have been slandered by the CCP, and we ought to give them a right of reply; they imply or argue that we need to draw to the world's attention the'widespread persecution', because they have been silenced in China.
33.
But it's inappropriate to target the Chinese government with the claims that have been made, as though these claims are fact, and to use the emotive language of the second paragraph-" Capitalizing on the incident " is not neutral, " created a plethora of printed materials " is not neutral " repeatedly broadcast " is not neutral, " vivid images " is POV and original research unless some reliable source can be found to support the word " vivid ", and even then it's a very questionable use of language in this context in an encyclopedia, etc . I feel a little bombarded, and that I have to accept the version of events as presented to me, rather than allowing to me to make my own decision by presenting to me the facts . "'
