Talk:China Scholarship Council

Spoof websites
I just removed a link to a website that a user (without a Wikipedia account-- hence the comments on this page) kindly added to the Wikipedia page. My reason for doing so is that the website, although rich with information, appears to have been selling a service to connect students with CSC funding; the CSC does not require a that students pay a fee of any sort to apply. If I have made a mistake in doing so, please do correct me and accept my apologies. China is wonderful (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreement between applicants and CSC
Every CSC students are required to sign an agreement among themselves, CSC, and two guarantors. The nine-page agreement (version 2021), with sixteen clauses included, specifying the rights and obligations for CSC students, CSC administrative office, and the guarantors.

It regulates that every CSC students should respect the general raw of China, the visiting country, as well as the local customs. It also specifies penalty actions for any violations of the agreement (in financial ways). None of these clauses mentions "the china communist party" nor "pledge loyalty".

I removed the biased news on this problem, since it's a prejudice and comes from an unauthentic source. If further discussion is required, please feel free to contact me. Itisqiang (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Detailed information on this topic, please refer to the source from the ministry of education (unfortunately in Chinese): and  Itisqiang (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A sample of agreement can be found from here in Chinese language: Itisqiang (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for these claims was weak. Two sources were given, both of which are part of the US government: the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and Radio Free Asia. Radio Free Asia, in particular, must be used with extreme caution when it comes to China, and has been known to propagate disinformation in the past (for example, about the CoVID-19 death toll in China, as discussed previously at RSN). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at the source added by Amigao, the newspaper DN, and it is somewhat contradictory. DN first says this:



However, DN then interviews an official from the Swedish university (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) that DN says has the most experience with the CSC, and the university disputes the claim that there's any sort of unusual loyalty oath involved. The university says that the students are only required to agree that they will obey the law of the host country:



There seems to be some disagreement over what the contracts actually state. There's no point in citing the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission or Radio Free Asia on this matter, because we can't expect them to report on this sort of issue objectively. Are there other reliable sources (other than DN, or even just follow-up articles by DN) that have looked into this issue further? -Thucydides411 (talk)
 * Please do not misrepresent consensus. Standing consensus on RFA is that: "Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use." and you are *required* to abide by that consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As the RfC notes, there is a caveat about Radio Free Asia's reliability and objectivity when it comes to "geopolitically-charged areas." RFA's use is not entirely precluded on Wikipedia (i.e., it's not blacklisted), but the RfC makes it clear that we should treat RFA as an opinion source in some areas, and note its connection to the US government. If you recall, the reasons why these caveats were included in the RfC were 1) RFA's history as a propaganda outlet and its legal mandate to advance US interests, and 2) RFA's pushing of conspiracy theories about the CoVID-19 death toll in China.


 * CSC is exactly the sort of subject that the RfC warned about, in which if RFA is used, its connection to the US government must be noted. The next question is why we would use RFA at all: what does its opinion add to this article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is explicitly not a caveat about Radio Free Asia's reliability and objectivity when it comes to "geopolitically-charged areas." The caveat is about attribution. There is no mention of treating RFA as opinion in the close, there would need to be. It also doesn't say must, it says may. Misrepresenting consensus is very serious, you need to stop doing it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)