Talk:China News Service

Info about Shanghai News
--222.64.218.33 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.sh.chinanews.com/

Info about Guangdong News....
--222.64.216.207 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Verification is required, as the site does not have a physical address --222.64.216.207 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.newsgd.com/
 * As I told you before, that doesn't make any sense at all. It's a website. They're in a virtual reality, dude. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Info about Anhui Today....
--222.64.216.207 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Verification is required --222.64.216.207 (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://english.anhuinews.com/

Claims by ASPI
"It appears likely that these information operations were intended to influence the opinions of overseas Chinese diasporas, perhaps in an attempt to undermine critical coverage in Western media of issues of interest to the Chinese government. This is supported by a notice released by China News Service, a Chinese-language media company owned by the United Front Work Department that targets the Chinese diaspora, requesting tenders to expand its Twitter reach."

- Tweeting through the Great Firewall, by ASPI, underline added.


 * The main reason why it should be removed is that no citation is given when giving such a exceptional claim concerning China News Service in the article by ASPI, and it shows that the author(s) were guessing. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (WP:V), "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Such article is obviously not a high-quality source on this problem.
 * Also, ASPI is founded by the Australian government, thus systematic bias involved due to government's position on Australia–China relations. Systemic bias is treated as a fatal flaw in the domain of social science researches.--5LZ 07:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesnt need to cite a source, thats a layer beyond what we demand on wikipedia. Its a sufficient source itself and its authors (or at least two of them) are subject matter experts. You misunderstand WP:EXCEPTIONAL, also per the other sources on the page that *isnt an exceptional claim* but a widely accepted set of facts. I believe you mean systemic bias, systematic bias is something else entirely and as a social scientist myself I can tell you that systemic bias is found to some extent in every single work ever produced and is in no way a “fatal flaw." As ASPI is a high quality think tank operating with nominal independence in a free country there isn't really a case for removing it entirely, what we can do however is attribute the statement to ASPI as I have already done. Does this compromise make you happy? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "per the other sources on the page"
 * I think you might have misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If in a so-called think tank article such "strong" conclusions are actually made without giving any source, I would argue that the quality of the article created by the think tank is questionable. In this case, resorting to the authority of the think tank is not a good argument. --5LZ 08:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not a “so-called think tank” its a think tank, the conclusions aren't strong either... They are very moderate. You have not presented a policy based challenge, while I sppreciate that it is your opinion that the quality of the article is questionable opinion is not policy. If you do in fact want to challenge the WP:RS the place to do it is not on this talk page but at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Guoxin News Agency
@Zhuo1221 Please clarify what is the relation of this entity to the China News Service and International News Agency. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Further feedback: please disambiguatse links to Lan Yu and Zhang Fan. Please use Template:Interlanguage link to link to a Chinese article if English one does not exist yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon，China News Service has stated in about us that China News Service (CNS) is China's national news agency providing news coverage to the world. The details can be seen here, https://www.chinanews.com.cn/common/footer/aboutus.shtml . Please check,Thank you! Zhuo1221 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zhuo1221 That page does not use the term 'Guoxin' which you used in our translation? I am confused here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Mass removal of contents
@Amigao Please explain your rationale for removing most of the recently added contents. The sources used to not seem tagged as unreliable by User:Headbomb/unreliable. If you think they are unreliable, please get them labelled as such at WP:RSN. It's fine to use information from the company itself to reference its history or mission, per WP:ABOUTSELF - we just have to control for puffery and weasel terms, and some propaganda claims. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * PS. Some of the contents translated from Chinese Wikipedia certainly merit rewriting/shortening per above reasons (puffery, etc.) but a lot of it seems relevant, ex. the lenghty content of the section on 'Main business' (which probably should be reworded to something else). History of CNS involvement with 'Film and television production' or their associated 'Publications' seems very relevant to the article, and reasonably neutral. Mention of World Chinese Language Media Forum seems reasonable as well, it is an event mentioned by foreign media (ex. ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PPS. In either case, I think the way to deal with such content is to use templates such as weasel words or puffery or primary source inline and relatd, not wholesale reverts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Parts of this continue to fail point #1 of WP:ABOUTSELF wholesale, but other parts (such as past officials) seem okay. WP:NOMISSION is probably relevant here as well. Also, it's always best to stick to WP:INDEPENDENT sources whereas these edits seem to be almost entirely copy-and-pasted from a machine-translation the China News Service site itself. Amigao (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amigao I don't have strong feelings about the mission (as in, I am fine with that section being removed). And of course it is good to try to verify stuff with independent sources, but I think most of the content in the current version (I restored some stuff) is relevant. I'd also consider restoring a bit more about history, but that also needs clarification per the comment I left in the section above. As for #1 of ABOUTSELF, i.e. "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim", I think that most of the material does not fail it - I might have missed parts, feel free to remove/reword them, but I think this is the case of multiple paragraphs added (removed) where only several sentence were problematic. IMHO this is the case of Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - much of the content added can be salvaged. No prejudice to tagging stuff for improvement (needs independent sources, verificaiton, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Past Leaders
@Amigao Good afternoon Amigao. These leaders are real, I just neglected to mention that in the leaders use Chinese names. So I reworked that part. And added the corresponding links to the official statements released when the previous leaders assumed their positions. Please check it out. If there are any adjustments to the content or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Have a nice day. Thank you.Zhuo1221 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . This first link used in that section doesn't have anything related to those leaders and needs to be looked at. It has a "failed verification" tag next to it. Amigao (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amigao I don't think this information is suspicious, or wrong. Inline fact should be enough.
 * @Zhuo1221 Please use Template:Interlanguage link to link to the Chinese biographies (and other relevant articles). Jin Zhonghua should link to zh:金仲华 like this: Jin Zhonghua Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good evening. Thank you very much for your suggestion, I have added the cross-language links to the article content. Have a nice day.Zhuo1221 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)