Talk:China Initiative

Reference says the opposite of what is paraphrased in the article

Reference 2 does not say "with every individual investigated under the China Initiative never found to be affiliated with China."

In fact, it says "Some of the initiative’s most high-profile and troubled cases have involved criminal charges against professors and researchers working in the U.S. over accusations that they illegally hid their involvement in Chinese government scientific development programs known as “Thousand Talents” or by similar names. The cases have typically involved allegations that the targets lied or omitted information on disclosure forms accompanying grant applications. Some such cases have led to convictions and guilty pleas. Last December, a jury found the former chair of Harvard’s Chemistry Department, Charles Lieber, guilty of making false statements to federal officials as well as filing false tax returns." Prosaicpat (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent deleted quote is best left deleted

The following was recently deleted, here is the diff: Nov 28, 2022, 03:50. Since the quote was inflammatory and there is some contention over this article, I checked the source. I think it is best to leave the quote out. Here is the deleted text:

Even though Hu was not charged with espionage, one of the prosecutors said during the trial that part of the reason for prosecuting scientists and professors was "to teach these Chinese spies a lesson."

The reference, an article in the South China Morning Post, says:

The fact that the DOJ has decided to retry the case "shows their continuing intent in their unrelenting campaign to punish innocent scientists and professors essentially 'to teach these Chinese spies a lesson', as one of the prosecutors screamed out during the trial", [Patton] said.

where Patton is a representative of the Committee of Concerned Scientists.

The sourcing for the inflammatory quote is quite weak. It seems to have been a reporter talking to Patton, who may or may not have attended the trial. Patton claims that one of the prosecutors "screamed out" the offending quote "during trial." In other words, somebody overhead something unoffically during the trial and Patton heard about that and is now telling the reporter. Furthermore the description "prosecutors said during the trial" is deceptive, it sounds like a quote from the trial record. Best to leave this quote out -- M.boli (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think other material from the source can be used however. That the Committee of Concerned Scientists and other groups took an interest in the trial and is among the organizations accusing the government of bias and/or misconduct is possibly noteworthy for this article. My problem is only with the one quote. -- M.boli (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cyngao (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Amacalus, Christby1005.

— Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Request to add: a section listing notable cases/events of China Initiative?

I am new to editing but as a student I often use Wikipedia. To me, one thing that is missing from this page is a list of examples of the prosecutions that were done toward Asians in America. For instance, notable authors will have a list of books they wrote, voice actors a list of media that they were featured in, musical artists a list of discography.... So I am asking if it's okay to add a table/list section like this. Cyngao (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Some sentences in 'Origin' section contradicting what is mentioned in 'Ineffectiveness' subsection

This sentence in particular "Despite the initiative's goal of combating espionage, no one was convicted or even charged with spying in any China Initiative case." is misleading since later on in the article it states that eight people were convicted of X action. Maybe just change from "no one was" to "very few were." Cyngao (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The article does not state that the eight were charged with spying or convicted for it and the article for no one being charged with spying or convicted post-dates it. To my knowledge, not a single case of the China Initiative has been confirmed to be for spying, so to assume that the eight cases were for spying would be original research. Qiushufang (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Primary sources

@Cyngao:, please avoid using primary sources, especially by the Department of Justice, on this article. The DOJ is one of the primary participants, which poses a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia uses primarily secondary sources. Qiushufang (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In spite of the sourcing concerns, I think it's okay to add a list of cases that the COJ considered to be a part of the China Initiative and briefly describe them. This will inevitably involve sourcing the DOJ, but as long as we avoid pretentious statements (e.g. that the China Initiative successfully combatted spying) in their report, we are not introducing bias. PetraMagna (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that one of the criticisms of the China Initiative is that the DOJ has been inconsistent in their messaging for what a China Initiative is. According to the DOJ, there is no strict definition for what a China Initiative case is. Publications have also accused the DOJ of selectively choosing which cases are China Initiative cases with previously described cases that were problematic or defeated no longer being featured on their site. Is it worthwhile to have a list of officially sanctioned cases considering the allegations that the DOJ selectively pruned them on the official China Initiative webpage? Qiushufang (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think anything that has been branded as a China Initiative case at one point can go into a list of cases, with notes on how the DOJ treated them on their website. It's true that figuring out which cases should be included will get tricky since we may need to dig through wayback machine's archives, but having a list of cases in one section will definitely help the article. Currently, most of the detailed descriptions are buried inside the "criticisms" section, while the gap between "Origin" and "End" is unfilled. I'm not 100% sure how the article can be reorganized so that we can have a clear distinction between the list of cases and criticisms, but I think it's a welcome addition to the article. Maybe I'll think about it during the weekend. PetraMagna (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I am against the inclusion of a list as it would depend overwhelmingly on information from the DOJ considering the number of items and subject to weight problems and criticisms of selectivity. In the archived DOJ China Initiative webpage, there is a lot of ambiguous wording that I see as part of the criticisms levied against it. For example it does not claim that the cases listed are "China Initiative" cases. The title is "Information About the Department of Justice's China Initiative and a Compilation of China-Related Prosecutions Since 2018". The cases listed are "China-Related Prosectuions Since 2018" and do not claim to be China Initiative cases but rather "China-Related Cases Examples". This seems like a pedantic difference but it reinforces the vagueness of what fulfills the requirements of a China Initiative case for the DOJ. All the items are portrayed in favor of the DOJ without exception. Some cases, like Franklin Tao's, are listed there without any followup or admittance that they were overwhelmingly defeated. Each case would have to be followed up on to check for their outcome. Even with the inclusion of secondary sources, it would only account for those cases that were caught by the media before their removal by the DOJ, resulting in unavoidable bias in favor of the DOJ should a list be included. Some of the listed items have no followup in the media at all, leaving only the statement of a charge but no outcome, and can therefore only depend on the DOJ narrative. The result is unavoidable weight problems that I can't see resolved. Qiushufang (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree with "each case would have to be followed up on to check for their outcome", but the DOJ is far from being the only available source. Court documents, university announcements, and local/college news paper can be used in the article to form a comprehensive description.

Even if we cannot obtain enough sources to be neutral in some sections of a list, it still fails to justify not creating a list at all. Compiling such a list of cases is of great encyclopedic value for readers who want to know what cases are associated with the China Initiative, but currently they can only be found scattered under "criticisms". In my opinion, an incomplete list (due to lack of sources and/or lack of time on the editor's part) is better than no list at all. PetraMagna (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not just a matter of incomplete listing, but a matter of WEIGHT and bias intrinsic to the subject. When there are no secondary sources in many instances and the primary source has been criticized specifically for bias and manipulation, I do not believe there is enough justification or value for inclusion. Qiushufang (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate that the source used does not claim that the list of cases are China Initiative cases at all but "China-Related Cases Examples", which goes back to the criticism that the DOJ deliberately manipulates the data and definition to suit its narrative. Many of the inks provided in the list do not claim that they are China Initiative related either and a Google search does not provide anything in many instances. Qiushufang (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we may have a more productive discussion if the major point of disagreement is which cases go into the list of China Initiative cases. There are well-known ones that clearly belong and ones that are merely China related. But it seems that you don't think any list should be added. We have adequately stated our points and have reached a standstill. I still believe a list (whether it includes everything on the DOJ website or only include ones satisfying some criteria) improves the encyclopedic value of the article, but you would not risk introducing bias because any list would favor the DOJ's position in some way.

I think going to WP:3O is a good choice here. PetraMagna (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe the DOJ is a reliable source in the context of this subject and article. If a list is included, it should only include secondary sources imo. Qiushufang (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Another opinion here. I completely understand: having a list of cases would be (in a word) encyclopedic. But I agree that there is a definitional problem, viz: any-old China-related case that was acted on during the time period could end up on the list. To be accurate the list would contain cases that were pursued due to the China Initiative, not likely to have been pursued otherwise. Otherwise what is the initiative part? And @Qiushufang is also right that a DOJ public relations web site won't be a reliable disinterested source. If and when a well-researched book is written, by historians or reporters, that's where a list might come from. -- M.boli (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Qiushufang and M.boli: I think we are more or less on the same boat here and are just disagreeing over selections of the list. I definitely won't have the energy or interest to list 70 cases in the article, so as long as we are good with having well-known examples backed by secondary sources appear on a list of notable cases, I'm happy to concede to your positions.PetraMagna (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding some photos

Hi all, is it alright if I add some photos to the Wikipedia page? I am thinking no more than 5 since the length of the article is not too long currently. They would be photos relevant to the content, such as a picture of one of the scientists that was "under investigation" or of legal figures. If any photos of the cases/trials/press conferences themselves are available I can find those too. Cyngao (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have pictures of scientists who are/were under trail. However, adding images to Wikipedia is a bit tricky. WP:UPIMAGE has a comprehensive explanation. The short version is to be careful with copyright status. If the image is under a free license (public domain, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA), you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons and use it on Wikipedia. If the image is not under a free license, you will need a compelling reason to establish the necessity of using that image in a Wikipedia article (see WP:NFCI and fair use). I personally think these rules are too complicated and so I don't upload images unless necessary and I'm not familiar with the rules. If you have more questions, you can probably get help from the teahouse. PetraMagna (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)