Talk:Kanzhongguo

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --H wang 02 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC) it is still under construction

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --H wang 02 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC) additional content is being added

Hoover Institute Article
Found the Hoover Institute article via the Wayback machine here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaf2222 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"China Insights" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect China Insights and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Evidence linking "China Insights" YouTube channel with the Vision Times
I have unconvered new evidence in the form of a PayPal.Me link which is provided on the YouTube channel's about page and under every video that China Insights is connected to Vision Times. The stated recipient of PayPal.Me donations to @ChinaInsights is Vision Times. What do we do about this information? Surely it should be included? 2A0A:A542:59F6:0:A108:BA09:E75C:A339 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your discovery is not allowed per WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. That seems like an unfortunate limitation. On my talk page you accused me of promotion or propaganda to which I will vehemently say that I was not trying to do either. I did not want to promote the donation link for China Insights nor did I want to propagandize for the Communist Party of China by linking China Insights to Vision Times (and by extension Falun Gong). I was proud of myself for finding a link between China Insights and Vision Times, because I thought other people had overlooked it and I wanted to share. WP:NOR however seems like a good reason to revert my edit. Now, if I understand correctly, the link will only be able to be readded if it is researched and published by a reputable news organization? 2A0A:A542:59F6:0:A108:BA09:E75C:A339 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the accusation. I had it backwards. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)