Talk:Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clearumbrella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

function
I removed the following sentence They are known to repeat their nationality and country of origin numerous times during speeches. because I cannot understand what is being stated. Who is "they?" Which "speeches" are being written about?Ngchen 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

name
i think it's called "publicity department" now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.216.2 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to add "Central" before the department's name. Central (zhong) only means "Central Committee of the Communist Party of China", thus not a part of the department's name. --Baojie (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved
According to About the CPC--刻意(Kèyì) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this should have been moved. There's a rule about names in wikipedia: the most commonly known name in English should be used. In another view, renaming the Propaganda Department to the "publicity department" was itself a propaganda move; wikipedia shouldn't follow along.--Asdfg12345 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the insistence on using the word "propaganda" not a propaganda move, given the overwhelmingly negative connotation the word carries in the West? It's more like you're trying to take advantage of the fact that whoever did the translation on the other side of the world probably wasn't familiar with the many subtleties of modern-day English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.159.247 (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Publicity Department should be the right name. People's Daily, the official news paper of CPC, uses "Publicity Department" for most of the time, and the few uses of "Propaganda Department" are mostly for referring historical appointments (when the department was so called, before Zhou Enlai changed the translation at least three decades ago). Thus, I moved the page back to "Publicity Department". If somebody still insists to call it "Propaganda Department", it may be added to the page that "also known as Propaganda Department in some countries". --Baojie (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Example: Native Americans in the United States are commonly known as "Indians" in everyday English speaking. However, as it is inappropriate to use "Indians" or "American Indians", Wikipedia uses "Native Americans" for naming the group. "Propaganda" is a highly negative term in modern English, using this name will violate Political NPOV of Wikipedia. On the other hand, "publicity" is a far more common uage in English for naming a organization of this nature, either in private organizations or in political organizations. The publicity branch of CPC should not be an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baojie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Baojie, but your rhetoric is not fooling anybody. Wikipedia's NPOV is just that, a neutral point of view. Citing the fact that media organs of the CPC use the word "Publicity Department" is not a valid argument for moving this page. If we want to maintains Wikipedia's NPOV we would use the most common word from an English language newspaper, such as the New York Times or the BBC, that isn't owned by the Communist Part of China. I find it almost amusing that you could even fathom The People's Daily or any organ of the CPC to maintain a NPOV.


 * There are few English language speakers who wouldn't agree with me. Try a search for yourself propaganda vs. publicity, 1400 results vs 100. In the same way that Voice of America wouldn't be a valid source for a translation on Chinese Wikipedia, People's Daily is not a valid source on English Wikipedia.  Your 五毛党 50 Cent Party behavior is not going to be tolerated on Wikipedia, in fact, it is the type of behavior that ruins it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingertips (talk) 6:30 PM, 8 December 2009 (EST)


 * It's only about the name. If the department has an official name in English, this article should reflect it. If it does not, we must be judicious in finding the name which is in conformity with all our policies - WP:NPOV in particular. We do not adopt or insist that 'Propaganda Department' is the only acceptable name for it in en.WP merely because that is what the NYT refers to it as. This is just plain sloppy because there is ambiguity of use even in Chinese press, who appear to use it occasionally in blissful ignorance of the negative connotations of 'propaganda' in common everyday English. The attempt to dismiss the People's Daily as a reliable source is just a cheap shot out of some neocon playbook. There are circumstances when it can be reliably cited, and this is one of them. A source which I am close to is more likely to get my name right than one which is part of the 'alien conspiracy'. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia do not judge. It is rediculous to say that People's Daily is not a valid cource on this department 's name. People's Daily was the Party's Newspaper, so this department's official name in English is what People's Daily use. Several decades ago People's Daily use Prop.., its official name was prop.. in that time; nowadays People's Daily use Pub.., its official name is pub....--刻意(Kèyì) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the renaming went off without a hitch, but it's a surprise that it generated the discussion. Wikipedia is very clear on article names: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." In this case, all academic sources I've seen call it the Central Propaganda Department. It doesn't matter what the CCP calls it, because the CCP is not as much an authority on itself as scholars. It can be noted what it calls itself, but for the official name, we defer to reliable sources. The other anomaly in this regard is how the article on the CCP is itself called "Communist Party of China" rather than "Chinese Communist Party." It's the same fallacy. Really odd that this still goes on, in the face of the very clear policy on it.--Asdfg12345 16:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you've found a home away from home, still hoping to contribute to the downfall of the Communist Party! Have fun! Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So sincere. Anyway, I'm just a researcher. I add reliable sources. Other issues are beyond my purview.--Asdfg12345 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for deletions
If PCPP could explain this, that would be great. --Asdfg12345 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now shortened the Freedom House report, and attributed them--PCPP (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we can work together. For now, are you able to explain why "the most important of all the organizations in the propaganda system." was changed to "an important organ"? Since this is still attributed to Brady, I think it would be best to go with what she said. If you could make a convincing argument about how there are more important CCP organs that deal with propaganda, then we could WP:IAR. --Asdfg12345 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please reconsider the changes you often make which turn the language from what the source said into something else. For example, you took out the words "indoctrination," even though that's what they said. And there were a few others. Overall it's not making it more neutral, it's changing what the source said into something that seems a bit more palatable. I think it would be better to find some other reliable sources that paint a different picture (if such exist, which is doubtful), rather than changing what the RS we do have say. Know what I mean? This seems like a constant theme. I've been blasted over doing this and it has been held up as an example of how I'm a diehard Falun Gong fanatic, but when you do it no one bats an eyelid. Anyway, it takes time to fix up. I think it would be better to just balance with other POVs. Yo. --Asdfg12345 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved: "Propaganda" -> "Publicity"
What's our source for the move? Articles are normally named with the title that's most common in English. I just checked the official website, and according to Google's translation it still says "Propaganda". So what's the basis for the move?  Will Beback   talk    06:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The official website says 宣传部 in Chinese. As explained in the first section of the article, 宣传 is not an equivalent of "propaganda". Official sources such as Xinhua translate it as "Publicity Department". Google translate is not a stable source because it allows user contribution. Daltac (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the term above may refer to a separate entity. There are such organs attached to each local CPC office and are responsible for disseminating the official party line. Xinhua calls it "Central Propaganda Department". Here's an article in People's Daily also using that term. In any event, the CCP seem not to be too sensitive to the current pejorative use of "propaganda" that pervades in the West, but it seems improper to change its name from its official form based on a misguided assumption that our sensibilities and that of the PRC are identical. These two searches indicate that officials do not see anything wrong with "Propaganda" "Central Propaganda Department" vs "Central Publicity Department". -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears to have petered out. Is there a resolution? If we could find clear evidence that the english rendering of the CPC's propaganda department was officially changed, then we should change accordingly. But if they are different things—and given that 'propaganda department' is far more frequently used—it seems a return to 'propaganda' may be in order.Homunculus (duihua) 03:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the ambivalence over the title in English, I feel it should be left where it is. It's certainly more free of the modern western negative connotation of the word 'propaganda'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Per commonname this shouldn't have been moved. Ours are not political concerns (i.e. connotations of negativity), but implementing our content policies. I'm not sure how such things are usually settled, but check compared to . One could do any number of other searches, I imagine. Here's one for Google scholar:, . The difference is one of orders of magnitude. Unless there are some clear, evidenced based objections that demonstrate that "publicity department" is the more common name for this agency, I'll move the page. (NYT comparison: , ; Economist comparison - this is amusing; they don't use the new title at all , , ). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I guess the real question is whether it ought to be called "Central Propaganda Department" or "Propaganda Department" is okay. Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling it the Propaganda Department is Engrish, the sort of garbled English that non-Anglophones in China write with the aid of computer translation. In my opinion, changing it back to "Propaganda" was in itself an act of propaganda. I'm no friend of the PRC government, but I believe there are better ways of expressing that resistance than childishly making fun of them on Wikipedia. I vote to rename back to "Publicity Department". Or do we want to rename the UK Treasury "Ministry of Public Extortion" as well? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have shown that "Propaganda Department" is by far the more widely used term. These decisions are based on what the policy says and what the evidence shows, not our personal opinions. I would be interested in contrary evidence to that I presented, should such evidence exist. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In a previous post I asked for evidence of an official rebranding in English. Apparently this did happen...14 years ago.. The not-so-new English rendering does not appear to be applied universally, and "propaganda department" is still much more prevalent, even in official government documents and academic literature (or, as TheSound pointed out, in publications like the NYTimes and Economist). I think WP:COMMONNAME could be interpreted in different ways here.  On the one hand, it states:
 * Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.
 * However, the policy also notes that "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Then there is this:
 * "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue."
 * I don't have the answer, but these are the policy points we should consider.Homunculus (duihua) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the term propaganda department. Please see the work of Anne-Marie Brady, for example. It's the standard term in the literature. I suggest that further discussion focus on any countervailing evidence--though I searched both Google book and Google scholar with these terms and 'propaganda' was much more used by far. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated in the article, the name seems to have been changed. It's no wonder that reliable sources have been referring to it under its previous name. Now, in line with normal practice, the article should never have been moved because the namespace was correct; I would further state that the move rationale cited is inaccurate: there were objections – mine and that of User:Mrund – and there was never consensus to move it back to 'Propaganda Department. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which move do you think was improper? The article appears to have been moved several times.  A few months ago it was moved from propaganda -> publicity, with not attempt made to establish consensus or provide an explanation based on naming policies. Then it was moved back on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME.  I doubt that consensus has ever been reached either way. I could very easily be persuaded that "publicity department" is preferable, if only someone could offer a compelling reason. That reason should be based on Wikipedia policy, and not on personal feelings.Homunculus (duihua) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Which move do you think was improper?" The last one. Articles are invariably moved when an organisation changes its name, and this rule ought to have been adhered to instead of the article being subjected to the sort of partisan tug of war because some individuals favour it being referred to as a propagandistic [sic] organ and others want it to be neutralised. I just think it ought to reflect the factual or official name. After all, the article on Falun Gong isn't entitles "the Evil Cult" ;-) -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read Article titles, and discuss based on policies outlined there. If you don't wish to see a partisan tug-of-war, I recommend that you, 1) don't accuse others of partisanship; 2) don't speculate on the motives of other editors as anything other than to maintain neutrality; 3) don't draw erroneous analogies to try to prove a point.
 * As I've said, I could easily be persuaded that the article should be called "publicity department," but would hope to see evidence or a compelling interpretation of relevant policies, and neither has been produced thus far. You write that "articles are invariably moved when an organisation changes its name, and this rule ought to have been adhered to."  That is not a rule.  To the contrary, policy states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." TheSoundAndTheFury demonstrated compellingly that "propaganda department" is more prevalent in reliable sources, including in The Economist, the New York Times, and academic sources.  WP:COMMONNAME also addresses the question of name changes: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." The english-language translation was officially changed 14 years ago, in 1998,  yet "propaganda department" continues to be employed with greater frequency. If you would like to argue that we should consider what is most common in the last...I don't know, five years, rather than 14 years, I think that's fair.  Evidence would still need to be provided, of course.
 * There are elements of the WP:Article titles policy that could be interpreted to support "publicity department." Maybe someone would like to explain why they believe that those articles of the policy should override others.Homunculus (duihua) 17:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize if the move was seen as improper. I just thought it was sort of obvious given the policies on article names. If there's a substantial dispute per policy and evidence, I would also agree with the other name being re-instituted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the state news Xinwen Lianbo from May 20, 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfrGYLI41OU. At the 12:12 minute mark, you can see them holding a conference, and the banner clearly says "The Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the CPC". Thus, it should be "Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China". It baffles me that the heading displays an invented expression that doesn't exist neither in Western nor Chinese usage. The official name should at least appear once in the heading. China calls it the "Communist Party of China". So using "Chinese Communist Party" with "Publicity Department" makes no sense. --2001:16B8:3167:6200:F165:B3B3:92CB:23CF (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Uncommon title
The title of this article has changed several times, as recorded in discussions above, but the infrequent title "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China" goes against WP:COMMON NAME. Google Books and Google Scholar have 3,360 and 2,670 ghits for "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" but 103 and 436 for "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China". Which is preferable, "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" or "Chinese Communist Party Propaganda Department"? Keahapana (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Self-styled??
The intro currently reads: "The Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, or self-styled Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, is an internal division of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in charge of ideology-related work, as well as its information dissemination system."

Burrobert (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "self-styled' is an odd, and non-neutral, way of describing the name.
 * Our own article says "The Zhōnggòng Zhōngyāng Xuānchuán Bù changed its official English name from "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" to  "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China"  ".
 * We don't introduce FIFA as "FIFA, or self-styled Fédération Internationale de Football Association ... ".
 * Presumably we are using the title "Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party" because that is how Western regimes normally refer to the organisation. It is, therefore, what is known as a common name for the "Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party".
 * WP:COMMONNAME says nothing about Western regimes, which adds no weight to your argument. Nevertheless, "Propaganda Department" is the common name per se. It would be good if there are additional independent sources that support the "name changing" thingy you mentioned. Currently I only see one in the article, and I cannot verify it after skimming over that paper. Normchou   💬 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, I wrote: "Presumably we are using the title "Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party" because that is how Western regimes normally refer to the organisation". I linked to the entry for "common names" to show Wikipedia's policy on the use of common names. If there is another reason why we are using that title, let me know.
 * Official Chinese publications in English use the term "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China" so we can assume that is the body's official English name.
 * From Edney’s book, which is used as a reference in the article:
 * "'In recent years however the Party State has recognised the negative connotations of the word 'propaganda' in English and now official English translations refer to the “Publicity Department '."
 * Burrobert (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. !votes are pretty split and there is a disagreement on how to find the most common or recognizable name. While there's evidence that overall, "propaganda department" is more often used to refer to this organization in English-language sources (and therefore may be more recognizable), the most common English translation of the title does appear to be the current title, per Mx. Granger. (t · c)  buidhe  03:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party → Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party – This is the common name. See and   Normchou   💬 17:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In my experience "Publicity Department" is more commonly used. A quick Google search seems to bear that out: 298,000 estimated results for "Publicity Department" "Communist Party of China" and only 33,700 estimated results for "Propaganda Department" "Communist Party of China". It's worth noting that "Propaganda Department" is a mistranslation, as "宣传" does not have the same negative connotations as the English word "propaganda". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Communist Party of China" is not a common name in itself (see and ), so your quick Google search is likely wrong. A more careful search using Google scholar, where RSes are much more likely to appear, shows "Propaganda Department" to be the common name:  .  Normchou   💬 00:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As those links show, "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" are both commonly used. I've noticed, though, that the second term is preferred by opponents of the regime, and it's not surprising that they might characterize the party's publications as propaganda. Some of the hits for the phrase "propaganda department" are using it as a description rather than a name for the department (like this source, which describes a "powerful propaganda department" but identifies it by name as the "Communist Party of China Central Committee’s Publicity Department").
 * The Google Scholar searches you linked suggest that "Propaganda Department" and "Publicity Department" seem about equally common, but I notice many of the "propaganda" results are from more than 10 years ago, while the "publicity" results look more recent on average. This is probably because the official English translation changed several years ago – usage in reliable sources may have shifted over time as a result. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, a number of those hits for "propaganda department" are descriptions (e.g. "a propaganda department") rather than using it as the name of the department. In other cases the hit is in a bibliographic citation which may be older than the work citing it. When I search Google Scholar for each variation of the full name as a single string, I find that "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China" is the most common. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Below is a crosstab of different combinations based on Google Scholar search with results only since 2011. Looking at the joints and the margins, it is very clear that "Chinese Communist Party" + "Propaganda Department" is the most common combo. Normchou   💬 16:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you provide your own links to your Google Scholar search variations showing which is the more common name? Otherwise, it is not really a comparison. - Amigao (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Here are results since 2011:
 * "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China" – 209 estimated results
 * "Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party" – 39 estimated results
 * "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" – 142 estimated results
 * "Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party" – 105 estimated results
 * The most common seems to be "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China". This is clearer if we restrict ourselves to results since 2016 (a sign that usage may have shifted over time, as I suggested above):
 * "Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China" – 164 estimated results
 * "Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party" – 29 estimated results
 * "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" – 39 estimated results
 * "Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party" – 62 estimated results
 * —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party does seem to be the common name in English, just as Chinese Communist Party is the common name for the party. It's not what the department would like to be called I imagine but that is not the question here. I note a number of previous moves and a rather pointed R from incorrect name template at the target. Hopefully this will bring some stability. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Per google results, it is the common name. Vpab15 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Common name is still the Publicity Department in many English-language media, when referring to it. However, many outlets do seem to use "propaganda department" as a synonym for the department; they almost always use lowercase to emphasise that it is not the name of the department. JMonkey2006 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Increasing freedom of the press.
Under Function it says: "Operational and reporting freedom has significantly increased in the Chinese media in the recent decade." Is there any evidence this is true? Reporters Without Borders ranked China 174 out of 179 countries in 2011, and 177 out of 180 in 2021. https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-20112012 https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2021 Without a strong argument in favour of this sentence sometime soon, I'll delete it (and the however at the start of the next sentence). Netanyahuserious (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd remove it. The source simple mentions the increasingly commercialized and decentralized media. I didn't find any mention of increased reporting freedom. Vpab15 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some context has been added. You should also look at the nearby sentence "Chinese journalists disclosing Propaganda Department directives to foreign media may be charged with "divulging state secrets", which has no reference. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * True for when it was published but no longer accurate, the last decade has seen an immense crackdown on the freedom of reporters in China with the vast majority of foreign reporters fleeing the country or being expelled. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article popped up in my news feed today DW "Press freedom rapidly deteriorating in China — report" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, seems difficult to find articles on press freedom in general. Easy to find articles on the recent crackdown on foreign journalists. Netanyahuserious (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been making the rounds in the last few weeks. It is a robust response to Western criticism of China on press freedom. It is from the Yonden Lhatoo, Chief News Editor of the South China Morning Post. "Until and unless they free Assange, the US, the UK and Australia - and any other nation in bed with this menage a trois of morally bankrupt Western powers - have no right to preach human rights and press freedom to the rest of us. Flush your own faeces before you lecture us on sanitation". Is it relevant to this article as a response to Western criticism? Burrobert (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not unless it gets mentioned by a third party, you know how this works. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know how some things work. But just to be sure we are on the same wavelength, what are you referring to? Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Is it relevant to this article as a response to Western criticism" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be clearer: what policy you are referring to. Burrobert (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both policy and guideline WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, there might be a few others... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't very helpful. Which parts are relevant to this case and why? Burrobert (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are still confused I suggest the Teahouse Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the TeaHouse have mind-meld powers that give it access to your thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it would be helpful if you could clarify which parts of those long policy/guideline pages you're referring to. In my view, the video is reliable for Yonden Lhatoo's opinion per WP:RSOPINION, but probably not for statements of fact. I don't think it's relevant to this article unless it mentions the Communist Party's Publicity Department, though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see it being reliable for Yonden Lhatoo's opinion per WP:RSOPINION, but I can't see it being due anywhere other than Yonden Lhatoo which does not appear to exist yet. It could be relevant to the Communist Party's Publicity Department if a reliable third party links the two, but I haven't seen that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Haven't we already assumed above that western criticism of Chinese media restrictions is relevant to this page, even if the criticism does not mention the Publicity Department of the CCP? If so, aren't responses to that western criticism also relevant, even if they do not mention the Publicity Department of the CCP? Burrobert (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that criticism isn't relevant to this article either if it's not about the Publicity Department. We have a separate article about Freedom of the press in China. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree, without a specific link to the Publicity Department I don't think its relevant. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps, Yonden Lhatoo's piece would be more relevant to that article. The same would apply to comments about whether the "operational and reporting freedom" in China is going up or down, unless the comment specifically mentions the Publicity Department of the CCP. Burrobert (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)