Talk:Propaganda in China

Deleted?
I don't think this should be deleted. It seems like a reasonable stub of a useful article. Frjwoolley 19:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

While it may be seen this way, and more than likely may be true, I don't think that this is the way to approach the subject, singling out a specific goverment/people. A differnt article on the topic should be created and this might be a subheading, but it should be deleted so as not to offend politically.

CobaltBlueTony 19:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * But this is what I'm most knowledgeable about. Can you really fault me for not knowing about propaganda in all countries in general? Not all countries put out the same amount of propaganda either, although I don't think the Western countries are beyond propaganda at all.  By the way, that deletion thing was inserted before I even finished with my series of starter edits!
 * Now that I think of it, I think I may have been rash in the title. It could be propaganda of the PRC to be more specific.  In any case, we're talking about facts, even if it's a "bad" thing.  If there's an article on one kind of bird because there's some guy really interested in that bird before that class of birds is written about, is that bias?  I'm hoping and welcome the contribution of yourself and others on all topics about propaganda, in China or otherwise.


 * Perhaps this information sould be part of a general article for propaganda. Check to see if there is one, and watch the neutrality issue.  This is an encyclopedia; I'm sure China has encyclopedias defaming other countries.  Let's not folow suit, but only cite proven evidences of propaganda.  As always, cite sources that corroborate the information you are presenting.


 * CobaltBlueTony 20:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To CobaltBlueTony: Yes, it is a proper way: to single out things that are naturally separate. we have Propagandaministerium for ]Nazi], [[Agitprop for Soviet (articles of poor quality, though). If someone can write about China, good luck. mikka (t) 20:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

But the general article Propaganda is really good. I agree that an article on PRC Propaganda, if we're careful to be NPOV, would be pretty natural. Frjwoolley 19:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A Lead Worth Following
I just read this http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/international/asia/02epstein.html :

"Israel Epstein, a journalist, author and propagandist for China whose passion for Communism was fueled in long interviews with Mao in the 1940's and was not dimmed by imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution, died last Thursday at a hospital in Beijing. He was 90.

His death was announced by the official New China News Agency.

Mr. Epstein edited China Today, an English-language Chinese newsmagazine, translated the sayings and writings of Mao and Deng Xiaoping and advised the Chinese government on how to polish its overseas image. He became a Chinese citizen, joined the Communist Party and served on official government and party committees."

Sounded really interesting and lo and behold, here's a potentially great article needing some work. Would like to work on the article, but since it seems like a large task needing a lot of work (borrowing some books from the library) and there is this potential deletion hanging over the article, I will hold off for now. Anyone else thinking about helping out? Looks like there hasn't been much work on it for a few days. Should it be advertised somehow?--DownUnder555 19:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD
Survived Votes for deletion/Chinese propaganda.

Songs
I remember a song of end of 1950s or beginning of 1960s with lines, kind of (I may be well off with transcription; I hope it is something recognizable)
 * "Ghe ming zhen shee hao han"
 * "Gong chan dang hao"
 * "She hui zhu yi hao"

It was full of plain propaganda how is everything good during socialism, and communist party leads well. Is it something well known? mikka (t) 29 June 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Modern propaganda
This article covers too little about the present day applications and dissemination of propaganda - such as the dazibao stands found in every university etc. Could someone work on this? Take a few pictures if possible, I can't since I'm not in China. -Hmib 05:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Slogans
There were loads of slogans, but the part about "Continuous News" is not substantiated. Please provide some kind of evidence. I lived in China for 10 years and intermittently after that, and saw something rougly resembling that line maybe 2 times. -- Миборовский U 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

pre 1949 propaganda
The current title of the article is problematic in that CCP propaganda started way before 1949 and in fact was one of the reasons for its dramatic growth. What do people think? How do we handle this?--Moveapage 11:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careful drawing the line
Before 1978 All the chinese arts are funded by governments,so someone regarded all the pre-1978 cinemas,books are all the communist propaganda ones.It's not the case.--Ksyrie 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiananmen square self-immolation incident
I tagged the assertion as dubious because the statement is uncited, and needs a reliable citation to stay long-term.Ngchen 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PRC propaganda films
There is a short list of PRC propaganda films in the article, one of them I never heard of. Does anybody have by chance information on "Grenade War" (year, director, cast, ...) ? Thanks. Croquant (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it?
Where has this article gone, it was here not long ago and now seems to have disapered. I hope it has not been deleted as it was definately a neutral article and was a usefull source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.116.137 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mao book.jpg
The image Image:Mao book.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Pi lin pi kong.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

such a neglected article...
this article seems so relevant but so neglected? amazing. I will try to find some time to add information to it based on some of the things I've been reading recently.--Asdfg12345 21:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not So much Neglected, as edited to Censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.1.159.6 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with research, please..
Am just starting to research this topic a bit during spare time. Any help would be most welcome.

Reorganizing the namespace, adding in content
The article seems to be in a very neglected state. Not a single line is sourced. The material presented is just preiphereally relevant while the real, solid scholarly analysis available is never even touched upon. There are highly irrelevant, unencyclopaedic subsections like "Famous propaganda songs" with a long list of songs, etc. A major restructuring of the article is in order, in my opinion. Any help would be most welcome.

We could have sections which allow for academic analysis to be presented including: "Historical Background", A section titled "Mechanics of Propaganda System" with subsections such as "State Control of Media", "Censorship of Journalists", "Censorship and control of the internet", "Use of the Legal System". Other topics the article could discuss... "Evolution of the propaganda system", etc. Just a few possible subtopics that came to mind.

Will research deeper and and make contributions as soon as I can find time. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is now on my watchlist. I am sure you present your research in an objective manner. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a whole lot of reorganization to do, a lot of material to be fixed, irrelevant stuff to be moved out, etc. There are going to be intermediary states while I edit and I'll be pointing them out in my edit summaries and on talk as I proceed. Research is easy, the sources available, and I point out a few I came across above, make the job really straightforward.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi... the page is on my watchlist as well, and since there was no explanation for removing the Shambaugh paragraph, I have restored it.--Asdfg12345 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to rattle anything, let alone my blunt, old sabre (it fell into disrepair when I didn't rattle it for a few years). The edit summary you left was: " rv Dilip rajeev - there is nothing wrong with it being a catalogue; just don't bring your Falun Gong agenda here" -- that doesn't tell me much. The material removed was:
 * It was explained perfectly well, but succinctly, in my edit summary. As it stood, the page was a neutral catalogue of Chinese propaganda. Dilip's prior actions have revealed a strong anti-Chinese Communist Party agenda, and I have given up assuming his actions are anything else because of his record of being totally unable to edit objectively. Please don't rattle your sabre, and stop trying to turn this article into another Falun Gong battleground in your campaign against the CCP. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Propaganda and indoctrination are considered to have been a hallmark of the maoist state and Mao a “master propagandist” in his own right. His regime employed a variety of “thought control” techniques including incarceration for brainwashing, construction of models to be emulated, mass mobilization campaigns and creation of study groups to be emulated, promulgation of articles to be memorized, control of the educational system, a nationwide system of loudspeakers that reached into every village, control of and propaganda through media, and creation of propaganda teams to indoctrinate segments of the population, among other methods."

There are three sources referred to in there: [www.arts.usyd.edu.au/government.../staff/frederick_teiwes.htm Frederick Teiwes], Franz_Schurmann, and David Shambaugh. They are quite impeccable sources. That's not necessarily anti-CCP; it's just material from the best sources. So they are talking about the CCP's propaganda and kinda criticising it. Wikipedia is based on sources, not what editors think is neutral... this argument sounds so familiar. You should know, anyway, having added such viciously anti-Falun Gong material to wikipedia even recently. At least this stuff is true. I'd say that if these renowned China scholars write it in their books, it's fit for wikipedia. I doubt many would disagree. I read that part again, I don't see what's wrong with it anyway. It's fairly straightforward and factual.--Asdfg12345 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

moving irrelevant info
I don't see the use of this, removed. No particular relation to propaganda in the PRC. With source, could be relevant to a wider discussion of the use of language between PRC/Taiwan. Also going to move the other section on "language" (or, as it was called "Chinese connotations of the term") which was all original research. This is useful background, but it needs a source and no opinion.

Regarding the first one, if some connection to propaganda in the PRC can be explicitly established, and it has a source, then I guess it would belong.

Regarding the second, it needs a source.

A separate issue: does the article need so many songs?--Asdfg12345 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan terminology
Both the PRC and the ROC government, now located on Taiwan, formally claim to be the sole legitimate government of all China, but neither, in formal contexts, accept the other as a legitimate government or that either Taiwan is a sovereign country separate from the other. As such, both have adopted a set of political terminology to refer to the other side, its government, and civil and military offices and officials.

Within the PRC, this policy is strongly adhered to by the government and government-controlled media. For example, as a result of the fact that both the ROC and the PRC adhered to the One-China policy, the PRC is commonly referred to in both Taiwan and the PRC as dalu meaning "mainland"; sometimes, as in Hong Kong, it is also referred to as "內地", meaning "interior territory". In both cases, the terms are used to avoid describing the PRC as "China" and the ROC as "Taiwan", as is commonly done in English. When Taiwan joins international organizations, China forces Taiwan to participate under names other than "Republic of China" or "Taiwan", such as Chinese Taipei or " Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu", in order to avoid describing Taiwan as a country.

Language issues
While in the Western world the word 'propaganda' bears negative connotations, the Chinese word 宣传, which is liberally translated as "propaganda", actually means "to broadcast" or "to propagate (information)", with no negative connotations that would imply bias or untruthfulness. This explains why many English speakers would consider the use of such a term as an outright acknowledgement of the biased nature of Chinese propaganda, although the term can in fact be used in politically neutral contexts. This is congruent with the pre-WW1 usage of the term in Western Europe, which also does not connotate deception. For example, Chinese "propaganda" has also served to raise public awareness about the law, the need for common courtesy, the importance of embracing science and technology, the need to take preventive measures against SARS and AIDS.

For example: 宣传安全知识 would, in accordance with the literal dictionary definition of "宣传", be translated as propagating public safety awareness. There are absolutely no political connotations surrounding the use of this word, as might be present in 宣传毛泽东思想 translated as propagating Mao Zedong Thought. This can be likened to the use of 'Agitprop' specifically as political propaganda, and the Spanish word 'propaganda', which simply means advertising.


 * Original research...? This is such a common knowledge to anyone speaking Chinese that I don't see how anyone would bother to create a reference-able document to be cited here. -su88 (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this thing, is it enough? http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2010/04/21/253431/Propaganda-is.htm -su88 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by COI users
I cannot bring myself to believe that this set of edits was in good faith. If I had more time I would not hesitate to bring this to AE as part of the Falun Gong decision. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. Furthermore the statement I deleted, which was reverted by Asdfg, was making an absolute and controversial statement - as if it was fact - on the strength of a single source.  For such an opinion-laiden issue we can not make such statements on a single source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate knowing what was wrong with that set of edits. How is it in bad faith? Simon, I have more clearly attributed the Brady source; please don't remove it again. By the way, that source is probably the most reliable out there on the CCP's propaganda system.--Asdfg12345 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the post-1989 period, propaganda and thought work have become the "life blood" of the Party-State, and one of the key means for guaranteeing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) continued legitimacy and hold on power, according to Anne-Marie Brady, an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury’s School of Political Science and Communication.[2]


 * This quote is the one that bothers me. Now I will note that it has been attributed - it wasn't previously and that was just bad but even still it is too authoritative by far and is a serious violation of WP:DUE.  Now, as far as I am concerned the same edit restrictions that apply to the FLG articles should also apply here. Pursuant to that I will not be reverting your edits as I choose to retain my one FLG related revert however, by the same token, you should not be editing this article at all and I suggest you would be best advised to revert yourself.Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe my restriction on Falun Gong pages extends to here. The information was referenced, and anyone could check the reference, so it wasn't bad to have not explicitly said who said it. As I say, that source is the most recent, and most authoritative on Chinese propaganda. If that's disputed I could provide some excerpts of book reviews from well-known China scholars who can attest to that. I'm not going to revert such legitimate information.--Asdfg12345 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Asdfg12345's edit is a classic case of WP:UNDUE. He/she is presenting an opinion as a fact. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the opinion is now attributed; I do think attributing it is a good idea, in hindsight. The thing I would emphasise here is that when the foremost expert on Chinese propaganda puts something like this on the first page of her book on the subject, that's worth something.--Asdfg12345 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation requested
I don't understand and probably disagree with this edit. Dilip, would you mind explaining what the big idea is? A bunch of good information was deleted from the lead, the section on thought reform was deleted, two unreferenced sections were added back in, and sundry other minor changes were all wiped. Can you please explain all that or fix it up? A lot of edits have happened in the meantime, and it would take some time to put it all back in. It may have been a mistake, in which case, please fix it. If it wasn't a mistake, please explain. If it's not fixed next time I come online, it's not a big deal, I'll fix it myself.--Asdfg12345 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That was by mistake. I think I edited on an earlier version of the page. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, sorry. I put it back.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Highly biased and opinionated sentence in lead
The well-known SPA pro-Falun Gong POV-pusher, after being topic banned from FG related articles, in a campaign to vilify China, added the following sentence in the lead:

"Propaganda in the People's Republic of China refers to the PRC's use of distributing information to the general public, and is central to the operation of the Chinese system of government."

The reference for the information "is central to the operation of the Chinese system of government" is China section in Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present by Rana Mitter published by ABC-ClIO. I find the sentence "is central to the operation of the Chinese system of government" problematic as it is polemical opinion masquerading as a fact. It can be mentioned with attribution as an opinion, but not in lead, and off course not as a fact. --Defender of torch (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Issues:


 * propaganda has been most effective in the twentieth century thanks to the mass media and a powerful authoritarian government - again this is an opinion piece and does not belong to the lead
 * Since the post-1989 period, propaganda and thought work have become the "life blood" of the Party-State, and one of the key means for guaranteeing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) continued legitimacy and hold on power, according to Anne-Marie Brady, an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury’s School of Political Science and Communication - using common sense I find this assertion problematic if propaganda was already a life-blood of the party during the Maoist regime rather during the reformist post-Maoist regime. Anyway this is also the personal opinion of Anne-Marie Brady and does not belong to the lead. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, what would not count as a personal opinion on the subject of Chinese propaganda? I think that the best thing we can do here is defer to reliable sources. Anything any of them say is based on research and informed opinion; they aren't saying things like "propaganda is evil and the CCP is horrible" -- they're explaining, in fairly neutral terms, the role of propaganda in China today, and how it relates to the CCP's rule. If you have some ideas for what a lead would be on this subject that was not drawn from the opinions and research of scholars, I would be interested in hearing it. I think WP:V and WP:NPOV apply here:


 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources


 * and


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true.


 * I'm not trying to "vilify China." I'm adding the work of scholars to this encyclopedia, and my intentions are the same as that of any other wikipedian--to give readers a better understanding of the subjects of articles, based on the reliable sources available. If you can share some ideas on what a lead not based on "opinion" would look like, please let me know. If you disagree with my argument, please also let me know. We can take it to the NPOV board. I think the policies are very clear on this, but I might misunderstand something.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Defender of the Torch is right about this. As far as I am concerned this pattern of editing is a continuation of the same behaviour that got Asdfg banned from FLG articles and should be included under that ban.  I am willing to include this article in the group of ones I was restricted to 1 revert per week by the same token. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Defender of the Torch. Wikipedia is very problematic when it provides a venue for attacks on nations, institutions or individuals by disgruntled partisans. --Reef Bonanza (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't insist that the information remain in the lead; I defended the integrity of the source. It's not necessarily most fitting to put that in the lead; we're not sure yet because the article is still in its starting stages and lacks body and structure. They were just a stopgap, as I said. I think it would be better to try to improve the article rather than criticise my attempts to do so; I'm not running an agenda. I'm adding reliable sources. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request quote
The reference used for the claim "The later reign of President Jiang Zemin saw the creation of propaganda demonizing Falun Gong as an "evil religion" is the History section is this report by US State Department. I don't have the time to read the entire report, so I am requesting quote from the report which supports this claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, apologies, this is actually caused by some sloppy research on my part. The USDOS report does not make that exact point, it says the CCP "classified" Falun Gong as an "evil religion"

The Government also continued to restrict severely the activities of groups it designated as "evil religions," including several Christian groups and Falun Gong.

In some areas government officials abused the rights of members of unregistered Protestant and Catholic groups, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and members of groups the Government designated "evil religions," especially Falun Gong.

Though "demonize" is widely used by other sources to describe the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda, for example:

"Endgame for the Falun Gong?" CNN.com, August 21, 2001: ''Washington and other capitals have put Falun Gong on its talking-point agenda with Beijing as a religious-freedom issue. By trying to demonize its founder Li Hongzhi, Beijing has merely turned him into a political icon.''

Yu, Haiqing. The New Living-Room War: Media Campaigns and Falun Gong, 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Canberra 29 June-2 July 2004.: The Chinese government has mobilized all sorts of media to demonize Falun Gong and reiterate its anti-cult themes, while arresting thousands of Falun Gong followers who refuse to renounce their beliefs.

I have to go. I think the current wording is accurate, but runs the danger of being called an original synthesis. If you want to call it out on that, then it can be changed to something else that doesn't require two sources to justify. Pls advise, or I'll change it. The point is that anti-Falun Gong propaganda has been part of propaganda in the PRC; I think when the article is meatier than it is now, this aspect of CCP propaganda should be put in a sub-section, either its own, or as part of one which discusses how propaganda has been used in various political campaigns.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The CNN article says China tried to demonize Li Hongzhi. "Demonizing" Li Hongzhi and "demonizing" Falun Gong are not the same. The last reference is the personal view of Haiqing Yu and should be used accordingly. Secondly, the statement "The later reign of President Jiang Zemin saw the creation of propaganda demonizing Falun Gong as an "evil religion" is original research. Where in the State department report the word "propaganda" is used? You need to provide a source which claims China has orchestrated propaganda against Falun Gong. Right now, I will remove the sentence as no source is provided which supports the claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I mentioned that that formulation ran the danger of being called out as an original synthesis; often in wikipedia, things stand until someone complains, which is okay. I'll put something else there, more strictly sourced, a bit later.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought reform
The section Thought reform uses a source which dates back to 1968. Please tell how a 1968 reference (a time when China was ruled by a lunatic hardline communist) can be used as a reliable source to support the claim Propaganda in the PRC is often associated with "thought reform" for 21st century China (a time when China is no more a communist country and is constantly strengthening its capitalist economy). --Defender of torch (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. I believe that should be changed to a was. Indeed, chapter three of Brady's text is called "From Thought Reform to Economic Reform: Comparing Propaganda and Thought Work in Different Eras". That it's old shouldn't mean it be excluded; it means it should be put into context. I have been quite busy recently, but want to get back working on this article soon. I agree that the chronology of sources is quite important, and that an is in there now would be inaccurate, failing to account for the changing dynamics in Chinese state propaganda. I have some more tweaks and remarks about your other edits soon, too. Give me some time. I'm liking this rigorous approach of yours, seriously.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey BTW, found this while searching some keywords, from "Social control in China: a study of Chinese work units" by Victor N. Shaw (1996):

"In terms of intensity and scope, spiritual control has been reinforced under the CCP reign, becoming a basic feature of common citizens' daily life. To a degree, 'freedom of silence' cherished by some old-fashioned Chinese scholars is not even possible for an illiterate peasant in a remote area under the CCP mass propaganda."

"China studies in the West have analysed the role of ideology and spiritual control in Chinese political dynamics. Mass media researchers point out that the CCP utilizes propaganda to spread its policies, build social consensus, and mobilize the population for social programs (Hawkins 1982; Womack 1986). Political analysts find that ideological tension results in mass movements and that spiritual control legitimizes political establishments (Barnett 1967; David and Vogel 1990). Legal scholars notice that political studies, legal education, heroic models, and thought reform provide the CCP with effective weapons to propagandize rules and legal codes, normalize individual behaviour, and rehabilitate deviants in labor camps..."

Kinda related. Anyway, interesting.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes to what were slightly unusual (not necessarily bad) aspects, like the section title that included the source in it, and so on. I think maybe we all need to refresh ourselves on what wikipedia is and what it isn't. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. It's like a mirror to what reliable sources say on the subject, reflecting the views in accordance with their prominence, the expertise of the holder of those views, and so on. When it comes to this subject, the China scholars that are being cited are the most reliable sources you can get. They are the last word on Chinese state propaganda as far as wikipedia is concerned. It's good to make citations clear, but I get the sense some editors are a bit jumpy about this subject for some reason. It's just like writing about a banana; not very controversial. You're just describing its characteristics, what it does, what it looks like, its history, and so forth. We're just telling the story of CCP propaganda according to reliable sources. Hope to do some more research soon. /homily. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in my reading of sources about CCP propaganda, I have not found views much at odds with those currently on the page. If views exist which extol the benefits of CCP propaganda, and they're published by reliable sources, then they should be cited. I can't find any though. Not that the current fare is necessarily critical as such. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

finally created this one.fyi. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the 1968 source with the Shaw source--PCPP (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM
I've undone this edit because 1) it makes the paragraph very heavy to read 2) there's more than one person making these statements, and listing them all would make the paragraph even heavier. WP:CLAIM discourages using this word all over the place because it casts doubt on the assertions in a non-neutral way. In my opinion, if someone believes these statements are erroneous, the proper way to reach a neutral POV would be to add the alternative POVs (if any). For instance, if the PRC made any statement regarding this issue, we could add it to the section. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the views being expressed are disputed (by other reliable sources), then it may help to use some other kind of language to buttress the statements, like making clear who said them, and so forth. But if the information comes from highly reliable sources, and there are no reliable sources offering different opinions, then it's as good as factual, and I don't see the need for attributing the information in the text itself (it should still be cited). In many other cases, I think it makes sense to do so--and in this article, if individuals were offering value judgements on the subject, then they should be attributed, but if someone is describing aspects of the CCP propaganda apparatus, I don't see the need to constantly say who is saying it (as long as that information is not controversial or disputed by other RS). I'm not sure I'm right in that assertion, though. If someone could point me to a relevant policy item, or to a public forum where the question could be cleared up, that would be good too. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I read this article. Vivid use of the Kurlantzick and Link source. I have a few comments. Firstly, the referencing is a bit messy; I will attempt to make some corrections to that now. Secondly, I notice that an important work from Anne-Marie Brady is not used: "Making the Foreign Serve China: Managing Foreigners in the People's Republic." This monograph provides a wealth of insight that could be added to the "External propaganda" section of this article. I may be able to include some information from it at a later time. Thirdly, a text by Daniel Lynch called "After the propaganda state: media, politics, and "thought work" in reformed China" is not cited here at all. I think the views articulated in that text, which are at odds with Brady, should find their way into this article on Wikipedia. Lynch's is an important contribution to the field. Lastly, this article's counterpart seems to have been neglected. My expertise does not extend to Taiwan, but I wonder if someone reading this would consider putting in some research over there. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When I say "the referencing is a bit messy," I'm just referring to the way the citations were placed; sometimes there were spaces, sometimes before periods, sometimes after. I do not mean to diminish anyone's efforts or research. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to have an entirely unsourced paragraph? Also, this sentence ending "yet her story provides a good example of how propaganda is delivered" appears to be unattributed opinion. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Does some of the Control of media section "step" into the realm of the CCP's stifling of civil society, rather than being directly about propaganda? It would be useful to readers to provide a more explicit link in how these issues are related. Currently, a connection is made that self-censorship is one mechanism in a range, increasing in severity, used to control the populace. And self-censorship relates to the propaganda state. But I think it could still be clarified further.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence "The "true history" of Tibet, Taiwan, World War II, and the CCP itself, is routinely "airbrushed" from textbooks and media, often replaced by names, dates and manipulative slogans." is unclear. They are replaced by "names, dates..."; is that supposed to read "false names, dates..."? It does not seem to make sense otherwise. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I scanned some of the remarks above. I agree with the sentiments that seek to situate the CCP's widespread use of ideological remoulding with a bygone era. At the least, the connection of these techniques with the present does not seem to have been communicated clearly in the article. These techniques are now applied to a much smaller portion of the populace (imprisoned dissidents, the Falun Gong, etc.). I agree that it is important to highlight the relationship of this with the present article, but I would have thought it would be most appropriately framed historically rather than contemporaneously. Of course, if there is a continuity, it should be noted. But nowadays a key point in any discussion of the CCP and its propaganda is how it has evolved and changed, adapting to a modern world. Anne-Marie Brady does an excellent, even tedious, job of depicting this. The historical place of Maoist propaganda techniques, and the adoption of more cut-and-polished Western-derived techniques that we see today do not seem to be explicit in the current article format. I think the lead of the article should introduce these concepts.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing by Asdfg and dilip_rajeev
This article has a large amount of unreviewed POV material inserted by Asdfg12345 and Dilip rajeev, two single purpose accounts and Falun Gong practitioners that were used to push anti-PRC, pro-FLG material in accordance with their ideological leanings. Their edits consists large amounts of material from singles sources - 38 from Kurlantzick of Freedom House, 5 from Brady, and 14 from Shambaugh. The editing patterns follows the same ideals from the Falun Gong editings, which is using large amounts of POV material from single sources, and present them in the lede and throughout the bodies as such that they appear to be commonly accepted facts while overwhelming their critics.--PCPP (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the material from which a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts.--PCPP (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the source, I will make a post on the RS noticeboard. We'll let people who don't have an axe to grind assess whether it's reliable or not. I've reverted all your edits to all these pages, and left a warning on your talk page. I also intend to start a RfC on your conduct over the last several years. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, there are two issues. One is about reliability of the source, the other is about how it's used. See here for the RS noticeboard post. As for possible misuse of the source, are you able to point out which parts are over the top or need reduction? Or just go ahead and reduce those as you consider appropriate. But I object in the strongest terms to simply blanking out content that doesn't fit a POV. We'll see whether the wiki community thinks it's RS or not. The other things can just be dealt with through discussion (if you stick around for that). An editor above notes possible coatracking in how the source has been used; that may be worth dealing with in more detail. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of a quarter of the article
I haven't had a chance at a close look, but the article went from 44k to 34k after a series of edits by PCPP.

I will paste below the paragraphs that were outright removed. pls explain --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm pasting it below. Just maybe place your reason below with an asterisk and write in italics. I'm not sure, whatever you find comfortable. Also, from now on would you mind actually just cutting the paragraph from the article and putting it on the talk page, rather than outright deleting it? it takes time to go through and figure out what you have deleted. Thanks a lot. I will wait for your explanation on each of these points before restoring the information. I would also request that you please explain your rationale before deleting swathes of content. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Parts deleted
...[Mao]] a “master propagandist” in his own right. His regime employed a variety of “thought control” techniques, including incarceration for "brainwashing," construction of models to be emulated, mass mobilization campaigns, the creation of study groups and ideological monitors throughout society, promulgation of articles to be memorized, control of the educational system, a nationwide system of loudspeakers that reached into every village, control of and propaganda through media, and creation of propaganda teams to indoctrinate segments of the population, among other methods.

Editors and reporters in China have long risked demotion, dismissal, or more serious punishment by the state when they push the limits of permissible coverage.

Kurlantzick and Link state that the CCP has historically relied more on fear induced self-censorship than administrative censorship. In the Mao-era and the years following, broad and vague directives such as “Criticize Confucius” or “Annihilate Bourgeois Liberalism” would be issued; violations would carry a hefty price and citizens had to monitor themselves and others, guessing at what the government might not like. A “safety in numbers” mentality kept people from asserting themselves, and anyone who dared venture outside the safe area was said to be “break[ing] into forbidden zones.” The same fear-induced self-censorship continues today, with exploration into topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident, Tibet, Falun Gong, the China Democratic Party, Taiwan Independence, Uyghur autonomy, the Great Leap famine, and corruption among top leaders being forbidden.

The public remains aware that violation of the "forbidden zones," or actions that infringe on the interests of the ruling Party-state, is extremely dangerous. The forbidden areas are smaller in comparison with the Maoist era, the surface of society seems less affected, fear is less constant, and most people sidestep the constraints easily. Behind a surface appearance of ordinariness, however, remains a "ubiquitous police state" in which the central authorities announce policy goals and leave Party officials and hired thugs to accomplish them as seen fit. This results in considerable differences from place to place in the degree of coercion and the techniques employed. Individuals who "step" into a forbidden zone may initially receive a verbal correction. Escalating measures for repeat offenders include being surveilled and followed by plainclothes police, telephone and e-mail surveillance, then job-loss and blacklisting, and, if necessary, labor camp, prison, torture, and execution. Citizens' awareness of these consequences explain why the system of self-censorship works and the existence of a civil society under CCP rule is impossible. NGOs are almost without exception subject to CCP control, and any group whose membership grows to 10 or 20 people may be repressed.

A major tool of the CCP for inducing and ensuring public obedience to the Party is "thought work" (sixiang gongzuo). Propaganda and thought work were pursued "openly, explicitly, and without apology" in the Maoist era. Characteristic of it were practices of "ideological remolding" (sixiang gaizao), ideological purges, ritual humiliation of perceived enemies, political study to ensure allegiance to the Party line, and the targeting of high-profile individuals as symbols of negative tendencies to be eradicated.

Biderman and Meyers wrote in 1968 that while some kind of thought reform is characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, the CCP "set about it more purposefully, more massively, and more intensively than have other ruling groups," including through employing known techniques in new ways. They note, as an example, the presence of daily meetings for criticism and self-criticism during the 1960s; surveillance and sanctions were connected with education to "expose, censure, and correct shortcomings of attitude and conduct." Communist leaders attacked all personal connections between soldiers that were not based on political convictions. "By these and other techniques they exploit[ed] social pressures and personal anxieties brilliantly to ensure conformity." While carried out more subtly than in the Mao era, thought work remains crucial to the CCP's maintenance of power. Whereas Mao-era mass mobilization campaigns attempted to transform all of society, including human nature, thought work today focuses more on a narrower range of issues critical to CCP rule.

The Communist Party's thought work includes both intervention to prevent the expression of proscribed views, and an active cultivation of views that favor the government. The latter aspect, which has been part of the system from the outset, has been given particular attention in recent years. This has included through textbooks, television documentaries, museums, and other media that spread "seriously distorted versions of Chinese history," according to Kurlantzick and Link. The functioning of the two components--the suppression of unfavorable views and promotion of favorable ones--has a powerful impact on public opinion.

Textbooks stress China’s history of humiliation (bainian guochi) at the hands of the West, while the news media simultaneously tells the public that the West wants to “keep China down” and that talk of human rights is only a tool for this purpose. The public is told that Japan refuses to acknowledge its war crimes in China, and that the "wolf-hearted" Dalai Lama wants to "split the motherland." What Kurlantzick and Link term this manipulation through education and media has been especially effective among young urban elites, a portion of whom are called "angry youth" (fenqing). History is selectively erased from textbooks and other media, and in contemporary China it remains difficult or impossible to discuss the Mao-era in any public context. The "true history" of Tibet, Taiwan, World War II, and the CCP itself, is routinely "airbrushed" from textbooks and media, often replaced by names, dates and manipulative slogans. Guidance of opinion through stimulating patriotism and identifying it with support for the CCP has gained footing.

Thought work is also performed through the use of language. Link and Kurlantzick state that the language the CCP employs "would be recognizable to George Orwell." Putative examples include the political pressure put on an individual being called "help"; the violation of rights being described as the "protection of rights"; thought control of workers through what are labelled "labor unions"; suppressing the Uyghur population called "counterterrorism"; authoritarianism being dubbed democracy while real democracy movements are denounced as "counterrevolutionary rebellions"; and a system of servile courts hailed as the "rule of law." This language draws from the concept of the "Big Lie," according to Kurlantzick and Link: the repetition of a gross falsehood, without challenge, until is accepted as truth, or something that for political purposes is just as solid as truth.

Part of the CCP's modern propaganda apparatus is "market-based censorship," in which media outlets and companies are threatened with economic repercussions, in addition to the traditional political and legal penalties, if they stray from the Party line. While traditional tools of police action and prison sentences continue to be regularly used to silence internet activists, and the state’s technical capacity to censor and control online content remains unrivaled, CCP has been at the forefront of a growing trend toward “outsourcing” censorship and monitoring to private companies. Enterprises, including Internet portals and blog-hosting services, are required to employ in-house staff to handle censorship tasks and risk losing their business licences if they fail to comply with censorship directives.

The CCP has an established bureaucracy of internet police that has been estimated in size at 30,000 or more. Using sophisticated technology purchased from developed countries, filters have been set up to block commentary on sensitive topics and to expunge material with sensitive terms. Use of pseudonyms is banned in cyberspace and collective-responsibility mechanisms instituted allow for entire website to be shut-down, and its operators held responsible, if errant commentary appear on its pages. Techniques of control and monitoring include electronic mailboxes to which any citizen can secretly report violations,.and the use of agents-provocateurs, and hackers.


 * Note I did not remove the following Brady source:

The experiences of propaganda and thought work in the Cultural Revolution provided the CCP with a "profound lesson," according to Brady. Virtually all post-Mao era Party leaders had been under attack during that time, and drew two seemingly contradictory lessons: the rejection of mass movements and thought reform as means of transforming China, and the recognition of the "vital role of propaganda and thought work in China's political control." The administration of propaganda and thought work was plagued by these issues through the 1980s, and up to the events of June 4, 1989.

The events of April and June 1989 were an indication to many elders in the CCP that liberaliation in the propaganda sector had gone too far, and that the Party must re-establish its control over ideology and the propaganda system.


 * The 1969 source was updated with a more recent source by Shaw


 * The rest of the material cannot conform to NPOV as it is, they are poorly attributed rhetorics from a partisan organization, described in a way as they're factual evidence, contains several factual errors, and worst of all adds nothing to the article which is not already covered by Brady and other sources. The previous version reads like a blalant attack piece on the Chinese government.--PCPP (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Were you aware that in the RS post I made that was found to be a reliable source? It's unclear how they are "poorly attributed rhetorics from a partisan organization." Maybe you could help to attribute them if you think they could be improved. Or find points of view to balance. Your explanation does not help understand why the article should not include that information. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I was aware. There was no majority concensus, only one editor responded, and even he asked for the sources to be properly attributed. You've yet to address how these additions confirm to NPOV or add anything to the article not already covered by the countless sources we have.--PCPP (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a consensus to add material. The bare fact that the information is reliably sourced and relevant to the subject means the burden is on you to explain why it should be deleted. It's an axiom that material about the subject of a page is relevant to that page. C'mon. The question is why it should all be deleted like that? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrible article with false information
Too many things in this article border on speculation and some are outright falsehoods. Of course, I wouldn't expect anything less, now that this article is beginning to get owned by the Falun Gong cabal of editors. For example, why is it that Wikipedia must report what Anne-Marie Brady thinks about the propaganda system and that it is the "life blood of the party-state". Is this really neutral? WP:UNDUE should teach us some lessons.

Now let's look at this passage, containing numerous factual errors:

"According to Shambaugh, the Central Propaganda Department is a highly secretive office with its address and contact details classified, and it is only indirectly represented online. The propaganda system, including the Central Propaganda Department, does not appear in officially published diagrams of the Chinese Bureaucratic System, whether in Chinese or in other languages.[1][2] The Office of Foreign Propaganda, while similarly descreet, has a more public front under the name 'Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.'[1]"


 * 1) How is this for 'indirectly represented'
 * 2) A bunch of websites of Propaganda departments
 * 3) Structure of the CPC's departments
 * 4) That the "Information Office of the State Council" is the "Office of Foreign Propaganda" is just someone's opinion, but the article presents this as fact.
 * 5) CPD is not part of the Chinese Bureaucratic System. Whoever is the genius that is cited for that sentence might want to learn about the Chinese political system before criticizing it. The CPD is part of the internal Party system. And it is listed on every municipal and provincial website you can find online.
 * 6) The CPD and other PDs are not transparent, much like the Politburo and other functioning organs of the party. But it's no real secret to anyone on how the CPD functions. It's quasi-"10-commandments" list of media faux pas is known to almost every news journalist in China. There is no secrecy on what you can and can't do. It's actually quite black and white how the organ functions - you can report on economic progress and the premier's speeches, but do not report about Tibet or Falun Gong.
 * 7) There is no address or public phone line to any of the Communist party's central internal organs, i.e. United Front, Organization, Propaganda etc. But just in case you were wondering - this is the address and phone number for the Nanjing municipal propaganda department, should you wish to ever make a phone call to them to verify these wildly hyperbolic statements - 江苏省南京市玄武区北京东路41号‎ - 025-83606702‎.

Another problem I have with this article is that it does not talk about how Chinese people react to the propaganda. The Chinese people are not under the control of some propaganda overmind. They take official press releases with a grain of salt. The government controls news agencies such as Xinhua, yes, but in practice this resembles biased reporting (a la Fox News) rather than propaganda (i.e. posters with Mao shining as a bright sun). There is a big, big difference.

All of these sections aim to paint an utterly misleading picture of propaganda in China. I would try to fix it, but given that the Falun Gong cabal has not yet been banned, I think it will be a waste of my precious time. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: do you know who Anne-Marie Brady is and have you read her book? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, I think if you are adding information to balance a point of view or clarify or expand things, that would be great. I also want a good, and not misleading, article on this topic. If you have some good reliable sources available that I have not heard of, I would also be interested in reading them. I try to keep up to date on the scholarship on topics like this. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's some good questions there, and Colipon I hope you can contribute further. I've removed the first sentence about its address and contact details as it contain errors of fact.--PCPP (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What was in the article was about the central propaganda department, I believe. And removing some details based on anecdotal evidence seems rather odd. Usually that's now how wiki works. I'll put that part back and clarify the meaning. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * i think this entire article is written with the wrong state of mind. the article talks about all the bad things with Chinese propaganda. but in China propaganda is just advertisement. if you ever been to China, the most common "propaganda" you see on the street is like "Please do not litter", "Obey traffic signals" and "Be polite and respectful to others". These are the "propaganda" that Chinese ppl see everyday. Not that Mao manifesto crap. In fact, when I was in China in July 2011, the ONLY time I saw Mao was at the Beijing Airport souvenir shop!! This article needs to reflect some reality. 216.165.193.118 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Confucius Institute
Confucius Institute as a Chinese propaganda tools? Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  14:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some sources questioning its relations with the PRC government, but that doesn't make it a full blown propaganda source.--PCPP (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

CCTV
Well we shouldn't miss out CCTV. Over the years, CCTV produced:
 * 1) large numbers of pro-Manchu TV dramas, also kind of propaganda.
 * 2) Faked moonwalk?
 * 3) Famous and much hated Xinwen Lianbo 新闻联播?
 * 4) Heavily bias news reporting favoring Saddam Huissan during the second Gulf War?
 * 5) Massive overseas expansion aiming to create a CNN clone?
 * 6) Endless attacks towards NEW western imperilists Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You probably need reliable sources for your claims. There's already a mention of CCTV in the external propaganda section, although propaganda is not the sole function of the station.--PCPP (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not related to this, but I removed the section that attempted to 'define' propaganda for the purpose of the article. It was linked to a Sina blog and read a bit like a high-school essay. Homunculus (strange tales) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The author is actually a Chinese language professor and journalist.--PCPP (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. I still don't think it's appropriate to start an article like this off in that manner. This should be an intellectual resource drawing on the best research on the subject. By making the 'definition' of one Chinese journalist right near the start the article, it seems to give a lot of importance to that view. The linguistic issue, I agree, is important, but it's not that important. And a source better than a blog would be good. For now I will just summarise it and move it down. Homunculus (strange tales) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Two other points I would make are that I agree with Colipon's complaints above. The article is rather one sided. Secondly, I actually have a copy of the book TheSoundAndTheFury refers to, which explains how the CCP lost control of the 'propaganda state' for various reasons. I think more explanation along these lines is needed to add perspective. Finally on the terminology issue, there is more at stake than merely the definition. A section discussing the word 'propaganda' and other terms associated with it would certainly be appropriate. One book I have called "Linguistic Engineering" is useful in this connection. Homunculus (strange tales) 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Homunculus, what do you mean it's one sided? The page draws from the best scholarly sources. If it's "one sided" that's because that's how the best sources look at the issue, not that it's biased. By all means go ahead with adding the source you referred to. Brady's is the most recent scholarship on Chinese propaganda, however. Maybe familiarise yourself again with WP:NPOV, which makes it clear that neutrality is drawn from the correct use of secondary sources, not the viewpoints of editors. We are just collecting the good sources and assembling them. Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've since replaced the blog source with a Renmin University publication--PCPP (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics
2008 Summer Olympics, especially the opening ceremony, being used as an international propaganda exercise?  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is definitely good information on this. A scholar wrote something for China Beat once about the opening ceremony and how it resembled a Maoist training exercise. Hope someone can find that and add it in. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And the opening in Sydney and Athens are not? Wikipedia isn't a indiscriminate collection of what random people thinks what is and isn't propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Asdfg12345, I think you are referring to this article. That is a good source, in my opinion. I will paraphrase and add parts of it to the appropriate section. PCPP, if wp:reliable sources say that Sydney and Athens are propaganda, and write articles explaining and critiquing how, then they would be, too, wouldn't they. Homunculus (strange tales) 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This might be going a bit too far. The China Beat is a blog. While I do concur that there are many elements of the Olympics opening ceremonies that resemble Maoist China, the essence of the ceremonies is very, very far removed from it. I would say we must make a distinction between propaganda as a means of misleading the masses to simple public relations exercises such as the Olympic Games. Of course, there are those areas where PR-propaganda cross over, but it is a mistake to label everything "propaganda". The issue is very delicate and balanced and neutral presentation is key. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. It's a good idea to define what constitutes propaganda before adding items relating to the Olympics.--PCPP (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Colipon raises a thoughtful point. I agree that the distinction is relevant. I should expect that it be clear whether what is being described is an activity meant to mislead/deceive, or one meant merely to build a positive image. I thought the Lee article offered insight into some of the purported ideological machinations behind the opening ceremony. Without overdoing it, it may be relevant here. That very much depends on whether it's wp:reliable source or not. On that note, PCPP introduced an expert's Sina blog, I believe; so the credentials of the writer may be more important than the medium in cases of opinion. One of you will need to clarify that.
 * In terms of apologetics for the CCP as a means of balancing the current article, I seem to recall some Western China Daily columnists doing a remarkable job. We could look up a few of those to show the different views. I will attempt to find some of these views, because I think it's important they are represented. Homunculus (strange tales) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "whether what is being described is an activity meant to mislead/deceive, or one meant merely to build a positive image" may not always be so clear cut. Keep in mind regarding the introduction of "apologetics" that China Daily would count as a self-published source, and there are restrictions for how these are to be used. See WP:SPS. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lev Navrozov
User PCPP, Lev Navrozov is not your average Joe Blow, I don't think his article is unreliable. Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  06:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does Navrozov come into this? The first statement was entirely of a former Chinese athlete critical of the PRC government, and is completely out of place in the article. The section seemed to describe the Olympics as solely an exercise in propaganda in the vein of the Maoist movements and famous propaganda arts. The quotes better belong to the criticism of the 2008 Olympics article.--PCPP (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Chen Kai statement is quoted from "China’s Olympic Moment Same as Hitler’s By: Lev Navrozov"


 * Well, out of place it is not, since the view that "Olympic was being used as a  propaganda tool" can be back up by "reliable source", which is all we  need to know, and the source may well be used in other articles. This  new section may look bare now, but give it time, issues such as "fake  firework, "child lip singing", it is all part of the massive propaganda  exercise that do not come everyday.  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  07:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've since replaced your quotes with a more relevant section taken from the 2008 Olympics article, on reported government media censorship--PCPP (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I protest to your repeated removal of material without even trying to reach any consensus, especially the SFGate.com"s April Rabkin article, who had shown that the Chinese people was convinced and won over by the authority's propaganda, believing in the realization of the so call 3000 years dream. This is not a mean feat, when you are looking at the sea of red flags, waved by thousands of young hot-blood students "protecting" the so call "sacred flame", when Communists were not supposed to be believing in Gods. And the crazy idea "China's Olympic" had succeeded in putting the whole nation under it's spell, which is unprecedented in Chinese history.  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  08:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than do this, why not include both sets of information? Lev Navrozov, as Arilang1234 points out, is not 'your average Joe Blow'; his views are notable. However, I did notice in the addition that it was mostly the views of Chen Kai that were expressed. He is known for holding somewhat unorthodox views, and I think Wikipedia can avoid including such hot-air type statements. If key parts of Lev's views could be summarised, though, then I would support inclusion. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The two sources added are opinion pieces that are not directly relevant to the topic at hand. In fact the SFGate source talked about Chinese nationalism present in mainlander Chinese, not specifically government propaganda. National pride and propaganda are entirely different concepts, and a source in the internet section mention that the protests were "genuine and popular" amongst overseas Chinese. I agree that the government used a certain degree of propaganda in the Olympics, but the Olympics were not held for the sake of Chinese propaganda, and I added specifically mentioned the PRC government's news censorship policies regarding foreign protests and the milk scandal. And I've moved the SFGate source to the Olympics article where it has more relevance.--PCPP (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The SFGate article says: "In the view of so many officials here in Beijing, these Games are not about the world so much as about China - and that is the way that they are cast in the media here again and again," Russell Leigh Moses, an analyst of Chinese politics based in Beijing, said in an e-mail. In Beijing, propaganda and state-guided pop culture portray the Olympics as the affirmation of a single nationalistic dream."  That seems relevant to this page. That's an explicit link between propaganda and nationalism. They're not entirely different concepts, because they are tied together by propaganda work. This is well documented.  The other article ("Adolf Hitler in 1936 and China Beijing Olympics in 2008," Commentary From Former British Minister Michael Portillo, on The Times, UK, Sunday, March 23, 2008 said:  "In 1989 the Chinese government crushed the peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square as the world looked on in horror. China still secured the Olympics and a propaganda triumph and has looked forward to showing off to the world."  So based on this I think both of them appear to be relevant. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's too much undue weight here on the Olympics specifically. The first statement do have some merit, but the second one is just rhetorical hot air. There's an overabundance of opinions in the article already. I think there's more suitable sources in the 2008 Summer Olympics and Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics articles--PCPP (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like users PCPP is thinking that 2008 Beijing Olympic has nothing much to do with Chinese propaganda, claiming undue weight. Well, I sort of disagree with him. 2008 Beijing Olympic was the biggest extravagant with a multi-billions dollars budget. It was a giant mix of video, audio, fireworks, global TV audience in the millions. And it was a very successful piece of propaganda. Just because of it, 2008 Beijing Olympic deserves it's own section.  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. The Olympic Games are an inherently noteworthy event watched by billions of people, and governments would shell out billions to attract sponsors and the business opportunities it brings to the region. Would you say that the Sydney Olympics are Australian propaganda, or the Atlanta Olympics being American propaganda? It's a issue of commercialization, not propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User PCPP, no need to bury your head in the sand, or maybe you are working for the Communist propaganda department?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/olym-a08.shtml

 Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  12:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, and you must be an employee of the Kuomintang propaganda dept. The article talks about China's embrace of capitalist markets - what does that have to do with propaganda, especially by a supposed communist party? That source has more relevance in a PRC economy article.--PCPP (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What about this?
My advice to user PCPP, it is OK to work for the Communist Party, and it is OK to wipe clean your boss's bottom, but please do it in a more discreet, more subtle way. You are yet to learn the art of "channeling public opinion". You fail.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-04-24-voa21-66815582.htm  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is off-topic. Anti-Carrefour protests are reflection of overly dogmatic nationalism, not PRC propaganda. There were many prominent Chinese socialites that openly opposed the Carrefour boycott, and indeed the government never encouraged it. To include this in the article is seems quite far fetched. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Arilang, please assume good faith and no need for personal attacks, especially considering that I expanded your additions on Red Crag and the Rent sculpture. We should discuss and define what constitutes propanganda first--PCPP (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PCPP, my comment was not meant to be in any form of "personal attack", it was just a friendly suggestion for you to improve your work skill. That said, we now have users Colipon and PCPP trying to tell us that the multi-billions-dollars extravaganza Beijing Olympic, and the world wide pro-sacred flame students demo had nothing to do with "Propaganda". May be we should open a debate by inviting other editors to join in? If we look at this statement,

When Newsweek's Melinda Liu said:"state control of Chinese media", "a legacy of government censorship, Internet policing, selective reporting", PCPP and Colipon, if these kind of Chinese government actions are not called "Propaganda", then what is your definition of propaganda?  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, nothing like a fresh set of eyes on the matter. Like I said above, propaganda is different from public relations. I have no doubts that Olympics-obsessed China saw its share of subtle ideological drift which can be construed as propaganda, but I am reluctant to label it as such because it is so far removed from the Maoist shining-leader style propaganda that the word is often associated with. I would argue that the internal blockade of information of the negative international reaction to the torch relay can be seen as a form of propaganda, but the Carrefour protests cannot. We can write about the Olympics in this article, but it should be written with a clear distinction with Maoist-style propaganda. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should it, Colipon? If you read the China Beat piece, you would have read: "In fact, the ceremony openly paraded the specter of another China that should in theory jar the domestic revelers and besotted observers alike: Mao’s China.... Given how much of the “Chineseness” in the program belonged to the category of “invented” or at least airbrushed tradition, the surreally synchronized movements of thousands of people was perhaps the most “signature” of the Chinese touches. The antecedents are much closer in history and more vivid in memory: we need only recall the images of mass formations dressed in regulation garb, chanting in unison, marching in lockstep, waving the little red book, or doing what George Orwell calls “physical jerks.” To date, only the North Koreans can rival the Chinese in staging such spectacles of sheer numbers. It is the totalitarian aesthetic at its most beguiling and frightening. It is the power of ritual." -- All that appears quite interesting and relevant. Clear Mao-Olympic connection. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still just a blog. I'm done here. No admins seem to care that this article will be trashed so I am not going to devote any more of my time here to suffer through all of this drama. Best of luck. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, I can't help notice that you raised no issue with PCPP's inclusion of a Sina blog? (He has changed the source now.) Part of assessing reliable sources is who the person is. We can take the issue to the RS noticeboard if necessary. Since this is expressing and opinion rather than a fact, and the author is well-known, my view would be that it is okay. If that's disputed, let's check. It would be good to know this for future reference. But if you don't even want to play ball then what's the point. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hypocrisy cuts both ways. Colipon is right. There must be better sources for this than a blog. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a little different because I actually sought an outside opinion and vouched for the credentials of the person I was introducing. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with "Blog"?
http://cmp.hku.hk/~/david-bandurski/


 * David Bandurski is writing blogs, if PCPP and Colipon are correct, then Banurski cannot be quoted, is that right?

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html

 Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, does it mean we cannot quote "The Official Google Blog" too?

Recent additions
I recently added some of the information that had previously been deleted for no good reason. A brief note: Perry Link and Joshua Kurlantzick are serious researchers. You can look them up. The report is published by Freedom House, and contrary to what PCPP says, the site on which it is hosted is not focused on China, but many authoritarian regimes. There's no sense rejecting the report as reactionary or whatever, it certainly passes RS. That said, some of the information was extraneous, so I did not re-include it. But I reiterate my request to PCPP that he discuss things like removing well-sourced, pertinent material. I will take a closer look at the other edits, to see what else was removed. I would much prefer it if the focus was on adding to the article rather than pulling it down. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. It's a political website, not an academic source. It has not been cited and reviewed by other scholars, and assume it as factual evidence is providing undue weight--PCPP (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, is user PCPP a 50 Cent Party? We shall never know, but the way he go around deleting content whenever and wherever he feels like it, give us the impression he is trying to cover up something for someone. My advice to PCPP, still is, he has yet to master the art of "channeling public opinion" in a subtle kind of way. Good on you comrade PCPP, let's sing together the Ode to the Motherland.  Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My attempt to assume good faith is obviously a waste of time, as you're obviously not interested editing this article other than calling names--PCPP (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, about the deletions, please note. There are different kinds of reliable sources. Not every reliable source needs to be an academic journal article that has gone through peer review. Since the report is published by freedom house, there is certainly some editorial oversight involved. The two authors are also well-known names in the field of China and political scholarship. They have authored books themselves, and have positions in academic or thinktank institutions. You can't dismiss a source for that reason. And there's simply no need to discredit the website on which it is hosted. Let me revive the RS note to get some more input, since you are still disputing this. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bull. WP:RS state that sources with little to no citations and no peer review should be used with caution.--PCPP (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this might be good. Please answer honestly now: (1) How did you verify that the source has not been cited at all? (2) Will you actively apply this standard to all sources across all these pages in future, or only the ones you want to get rid of? Please be honest. Meanwhile, I've started another noticeboard thing. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to revise your assessment. Here's media coverage underminingdemocracy.org has received. Thee authors' of the report on China published an op-ed in WSJ. I feel that my time is being wasted chasing after this stuff all the time for you, PCPP. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on google scholar found absolutely no citation for the source. The WSJ source is a completely different opinion article.--PCPP (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[e.c.] Okay, but it's not an academic source like that. Amnesty International or CECC reports would probably be the same. How many times it has been referred to may not be recorded by google's mechanism. It's different for different sources. One way you can check is to see if the original article is registered in the first place. In this case, it's not. With others, it is. You need to find that out first, then you'll know whether Google is registering citations for it. The other factor is the recentness. It's a recent report. Obviously the WSJ thing is a different article, but it obviously also boosts the notability of the original report. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does WP:RS say that? Furthermore, there is a disproportionate undue weight in this article to a source that has not been reviewed by fellow scholars. The fact that it is sourced from a political organization should ring alarm bells. --PCPP (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what the noticeboard says, shall we? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I also started a noticeboard thing about the blog. You saw the other outcome, right? It said to use with attribution. I agree that it should not be overused. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinese newspaper defies propaganda 'instructions'
A Chongqing newspaper decided to publish an 'obituary' for Google despite directives from the propaganda department. Every day there are many of these 'leaks' that appear in Chinese media. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the loss of the CCP's ideological control in China is not properly dealt with in this article, which puts the issue in too simplistic terms. Those that built the article to what it is should feel responsible for presenting all these discourses - though I suppose it would not be technically wrong if they did not. Homunculus, you said you had that Lynch study about precisely this topic. Would you consider parsing the important parts and including them as appropriate? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"the loss of the CCP's ideological control in China"? When did this ever happen? According to what I read, the communist party's propaganda department (中宣部) is issuing directives to all the media(be it internet porters, or TV, newspapers) on a daily basic, telling them to avoide any news items seem potentially harmfull to the "stability of the society" Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't mean they will always conform. What is not well understood is that journals are not accountable directly to the Propaganda Department, but to local Communist Party branches. The FT article lays it out correctly that the papers now have to be financially independent. Most of them would need special departments to enforce these brainlessly precise directives which, in any case, often conflict with each other. Respectable journals like Caijing persistently skirt the central bans and avoid sanctions for years. And where would we be if the more powerful journals (like several in Guandong) don't print interesting tidbits so often. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag
Just for whoever's information, I removed the tag that had been there since March. I didn't read the article, so it is not because I think it's not biased; but if someone does, please state how precisely, and how it could be fixed. I could potentially help work on that, if there were some concrete points to work from. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated source? In this edit PCPP says he updated the source, but he also actually changed the text. Importantly, he removed the very common reference of Li Changchun saying that Confucius Institutes are "an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up." I think this simple and direct quote, which is widely publicized, simply remain. What are other editors' thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Li Changchun is the NO 1 boss of the propaganda department, his statement should not be deleted for whatever reason. Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  01:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I quoted directly from, which noted: "During an inspection of the Hanban late last month, Li Changchun, one of the nine members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo in charge of ideology and propaganda, stressed that the construction of Confucius Institutes 'is an important channel to glorify Chinese culture, to help Chinese culture spread to the world', which is 'part of China's foreign propaganda strategy'." There is a context here, which I added, and I did not removed anything.--PCPP (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Replacing a 2009 quote with a 2007 quote is the opposite of updating. Perhaps we could include both . Keahapana (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I've replaced a Chinese source that linked to a Chinese website with a English website. Another article which the quote appeared says nowhere that Li made a differnet quote in 2009. It is the same quote, only phrased differently.--PCPP (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the exact quote in Chinese, which was indeed made in April 24, 2007 :

"中共中央政治局常委李长春24日在孔子学院总部调研时强调，建设孔子学院，加强汉语国际推广工作，是弘扬中华民族优秀文化、推动中华文化走向世界的重要途径，是促进中外语言和文化交流的重要形式，是我国大外宣格局的重要组成部分"
 * Li stated that Confucius Institutes are part of a campaign to promote Chinese culture internationally, which is part of a wider external propaganda strategy. As such, my quote was correct, and it is important to note the wider context here.--PCPP (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to Propaganda in China
PRC moved to China,so should this.--王小朋友 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a simple proposal, as it would change the scope of this and dozens (hundreds?) of other articles. Currently the page focuses on propaganda in the PRC,  as in after 1949.  If the name were changed to China, it would need to encompass a great deal more.  Propaganda in the PRC is qualitatively distinct enough to merit its own page.Homunculus (duihua) 05:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think when PRC moved to China, people would consider it would change the scope of this and dozens (hundreds?) of other articles. And I think the reason why PRC moved to China can explain why this page should move. --王小朋友 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That was not my observation of the page move discussion. The page PRC is redirected to 'China' for two reasons, as far as I can tell:  1) it was a rejection of the notion that both the PRC and ROC should be referred to as China, in keeping with the policy on common names, and 2)As is the style with most articles about modern states, it was concluded that the history of the civilization be included in that article.  I never saw any consideration given to the idea that this would change the scope of all articles with PRC in the title.  Again,  propaganda in the modern communist state is qualitatively distinct from propaganda in imperial or republican China, and deserves its own article.Homunculus (duihua) 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My English is too poor to debate, so I give up.--王小朋友 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Homunculus. This page is about PRC propaganda and the current title seems apt. Keahapana (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not about Propaganda in either Taiwan or Pre-PRC China. No need to move.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Taiwan would not be referred to as "China" except for people who consider Taiwan as a part of PRC. "Republic of China", maybe, but never "China" alone, because "China" alone always refers to the PRC in the modern context. There's no controversy about it anymore on Wikipedia, and if we wanted to document propaganda in earlier periods, we could have separate marked articles such as Propaganda in the Tang Dynasty or something. But that's unlikely, since there is no such content about "propaganda" in earlier periods now, so the title is fine at "Propaganda in China". Shrigley (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly with the non-consensual moving of the article, after a consensus was reached by a number of users about the appropriateness of "Propaganda in the PRC." The question of what the China/PRC article should be called is a separate question to what this article should be called. I disagree with the move and invite Marcus Qwertyus to reverse it and seek consensus. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately I noted on the user's page that he is deliberately bold in making these moves and does not mind being reverted with a note left on his talk page. I am leaving said note now and hope that the argument for and against the possible move will be hashed out here, so we can form a consensus on the best way to approach the matter. The Sound and the Fury (talk)
 * We really don't have to establish consensus on every page we want to change. Local consensus is only required if something is unique about the topic (e.g. The Presidents of the United States of America (band) doesn't need fall in line with the "United States" naming convention). Smaller discussions will beat the dead horse. Does everybody here agree that this article does not fall under special circumstances to require a discussion? Marcus   Qwertyus   03:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that we don't have to establish consensus on every page we want to change? You referred to the WP:CONLIMITED policy on your talk page, but that is about "some generally accepted policy or guideline." Are you saying that the PRC/China thing is a "generally accepted policy or guideline"? Could you show where that was established? As far as I understand, those generally accepted policies and guidelines relate to the overarching principles and practice that guide the creation of the encyclopedia, not specific questions of how articles on China-related topics are to be named. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that we don't have to establish consensus. Per WP:BEANS, Wikipedia policy is not intended to be exhaustive. Common sense can be used in lieu of policy. But that is about "some generally accepted policy or guideline." If you re-read CONLIMITED, it says that was just an example. Marcus   Qwertyus   05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we evidently disagree over the criteria for what constitutes a consensus that is generally applicable. In this case there are strong reasons for keeping it as PRC--I'll leave it there for now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What "strong reasons" are there? Marcus   Qwertyus   06:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marcus, the objection I raised previously was that this is not a simple matter of naming conventions. Changing the title to China would necessitate a significant change the scope and content of the article as well. I argued that propaganda of the PRC is a distinct topic that merits a separate article, as propaganda in this era is qualitatively distinct from previous time periods. I can't imagine you would favor changing/merging History of the People's Republic of China to History of China, because these are very different topics. The same principle applies here, in my opinion. If you would like to create an article called 'propaganda in China', you are welcome to, and that page would hopefully include a historical perspective that is not present in the current article. If have you a counterargument, I would like to hear it, and will do my best to treat it with an open mind. "Consensus isn't necessary" is not really a satisfactory rebuttal when a legitimate objection has been presented. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 06:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a change in scope. China is PRC (and vice versa). The reason History of the People's Republic of China is the way it is simply because no one has updated it. Marcus   Qwertyus   15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion that the force of your logic will not be enough to sway consensus in your favor. The term China is interchangeable with PRC to only in a very narrow context of discussions on contemporary affairs (and even then, there's always the ROC minefield). China has been governed as the PRC for little over 60 years. For the several millennia that preceded 1949, China was not the PRC. Look at articles like Art of China, Religion of China, or History of China, and you will find that the scope of those pages rightly extends back far beyond PRC China. This article deals only with propaganda in PRC China, and should be named accordingly. As to your suggestion that History of China and History of the People's Republic of China should be the same thing...well, what can I say. If you read those articles, you would likely realized how untenable your position is.Homunculus (duihua) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was untenable we wouldn't have succeeded in moving PRC to China. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look this isn't an argument, just contradiction. The article about PRC had the country of China including its entire history as its scope, not only the part of China that is now the PRC. This article only has the part of China's history that is PRC as its scope. Since you are clearly in a minority here, what you need to do is get more input and start a discussion of whether this article falls under the PRC>China move or not.Yu could for example start an RfC, that would be the best way to get a wider consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in the United States has Native American material in it. It's just background material. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an agument for moving the article, but for extending its scope in order to justify a move. The argument that actually applies is that the article on Soviet art does not include material from either the pre or post soviet periods and therefore should not be moved to Russian art.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have information on propaganda in pre-PRC China on this or a similarly-named page, so the argument that this is a sort of content fork is spurious. "China" first and foremost refers to the PRC, and not some vague transtemporal entity; this much was determined in the China move. We can use "People's Republic" when the meaning of China in the context of a title is ambiguous, such as if we had an article dedicated to propaganda in premodern Chinese regimes. But since we don't have that ambiguity here, we should defer to the common, concise, and consensus title for the state. Shrigley (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that's a reasonable argue. I still disagree, however. Propaganda in pre-PRC era is a notable topic, and one can readily find scholarship on the subject. In other words, it would be worth having a page called Propaganda in China that traces the use of official propaganda from, I don't know, at least the warring states period onward. I would suggest someone just create the page and start building it out with a chronological and thematic account of the use of political propaganda throughout Chinese history. The PRC would be only one more component of that. I would not advise that someone do that to this page to legitimize a move, because propaganda in the PRC is a distinct topic, and is should have its own page.Homunculus (duihua) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not changing the scope of this article. Just as the scope stayed the same when PRC was moved to China, changing the title of this article does not change the scope. It is still going to be about the PRC. Marcus   Qwertyus   00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In most traditions of logics repeating a statement does not adduce argumentative power or truth value.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So I'm lying? Marcus   Qwertyus   00:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "lie" implies intent to deceive, you are just wrong.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you intend to deceive, but you are actually wrong. When PRC became China, the scope of the article did change significantly.Homunculus (duihua) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs please. Marcus   Qwertyus   00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's an example of what the page People's Republic of China looked like last year: (note that the title at the time was not actually "china," but it displays as such now because it was renamed). You will see that it did not include any of the pre-1949 history that is currently present on the page titled China.Homunculus (duihua) 00:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of ancient history..., why did you dig back to June 6 when the article was moved Sept. 20? The diff you want is Sept. 18 which talks about pre-PRC rule at length. Marcus   Qwertyus   01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you so like, go make articles called Propaganda in Imperial China and Propaganda in Republican China. This is a distinct topic. Nuff said. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the bold text. Marcus   Qwertyus   03:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article should not have been moved, since the consensus, if anything, was not to move: even the editor who suggested moving the article agreed that there was not a compelling case to move it. Thank you for moving it back.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Public evaluation of historical figures as propaganda
While doing research on Peng Dehuai recently, I came across an academic discussion of the public evaluation of historical and contemporary figures as a form of propaganda in the PRC. I think this is the right article to add this information, but I'm not sure exactly where to put it, so I'm just going to add it into the "domestic propaganda" section. Please move it to a more appropriate section after I'm done adding it; or, if there is a better article for this information, please let me know, and I will move it there.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might have a sub-section called "The use of historical figures" or some such. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Verification still needed
I tagged the lead sentence about xuanchuan with, but since it was reverted, I'll explain some of the obvious problems.

Lead: Terminology section: Problems: The current articles cites dozens of reliable English-language articles and books referring to xuanchuan, and there are many published Chinese-English dictionaries giving reliable definitions. We could do better this propagandistic folderol. Keahapana (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The term in general use in China, xuānchuán (宣傳), itself originally translated from "propaganda" in western languages, has retained the original neutrality of the word and could be seen as synonymous with the word 'publicity' today.
 * "Propaganda" as defined today is a "form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself." Moreover, the term frequently carries the pejorative connotations of promulgating bias or misinformation. In China, however, the term is used more broadly to refer to the organized dissemination of information, including more mundane messages intended to promote the public good. The Chinese term for propaganda, xuānchuán (宣傳) first appeared in the historical text Records of the Three Kingdoms, written in the 3rd century, but was reclaimed later to be used as a translation of the western term in both Japanese (宣伝) and later Chinese (宣传). The term translates literally as "to proclaim something so that it may be disseminated" and may be translated as "to propagate (information)." Chinese and Japanese[23 Jisho.org definition of Japanese senden] retain the original neutrality of "propaganda," and the term does not imply negative connotations per se.[24 Chinese-language book 新闻学十讲-宣传] Xuanchuan also means to advertise and is a common term used by commercial businesses with no relationship to the government or politics.
 * Was the term "originally translated" from some western language or used in the Records of the Three Kingdoms? What are the sources?
 * What "original neutrality of the word"?
 * Xuanchuan is sometimes translated as—not "synonymous" with—publicity.
 * What is the source for this "form of communication that is aimed ..." definition?
 * Same question for literal definition "to proclaim something so that it may be disseminated".
 * If xuanchuan has "no relationship to the government or politics", why does the zh interwiki 政治宣传 "Political propaganda" link to en Propaganda?
 * Neither of these references seem to meet WP:PR. The [23] Denshi Jisho ref translates Japanese senden as "publicity; advertisement; advertising; propaganda", with no mention of xuanchuan. The [24] Chinese-language book was apparently copied from the only ref [1] in the zh interwiki 宣传.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Propaganda in the Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)