Talk:Xinhua News Agency/Archive 1

Please see
See the Three Years of Natural Disasters and Great Leap Forward for news reports, academic papers and discussions.--Skyfiler 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cankao Ziliao (参考资料) should not link to Reference News (参考消息)
They are different publications. See Xinhua report.--Skyfiler 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xnalogo.gif
Image:Xnalogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Old talk
I think the "principles" section is useless and POV and should therefore be removed. --Jiang

It seems to me that the statement at the very top about being a premier news one is POV also... --Jabencarsey

Eliminated critical link at the end, POV and inappropriate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Reinstated Link, sees no use for some CCP apologist in Wikipedia. --Justaguy69 —The preceding  signed but undated.

Eliminated Disputed Link, I agree that it was POV and not needed. --Ennui2778--Ennui2778 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide press freedom index
An improvement from second-to-last to seventh-to-last is HARDLY qualifiable as "improved in the past years." In addition, its actual ranking has slipped from 138 to 163 due to the addition of more countries. It has been replaced with a more accurate (albeit less flattering) statistic. ryright (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph was unsourced. There was no evidence if any of the claim was correct or not. Unsourced information like this needs removal per WP:V.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if RSF is a reliable source, considering its support from the NED.--PCPP (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can someone add an IPA-based pronunciation guide for "Xinhua"? We have the Pinyin, but that doesn't help people who just want to know how to read the name of the agency, and don't know Pinyin. Avram (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pronounced "Shin-Hwa" in english --Giuliaiswrong (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
This article, is mainly written in Chinglish (Chinese-influenced English), and it contains many English grammar mistakes. An example would be; "It has made contracts to exchange news and news pictures with more than eighty foreign news agencies or political news departments" "Now it distributes its news in Asia, Middle East, Latin America, Africa where run the superior offices; in Hong Kong, Macau and many foreign countries and districts" --Giuliaiswrong (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama speech censored
See this article from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7841580.stm ( Hypnosadist )  13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Source of propaganda accusations?
Sourcing Falun Gong and Tibetan exiles in this article is definitely affecting the integrity of the text. This is similar to accusing CNN for instance of propaganda because Al Qaeda calls them so. Of course affected groups will be negative about the agency. It doesn't mean Xinhua or CNN aren't propaganda agents but referring to affected parties definitely makes this article less academically sound. Reputable third party sources are of course ok.

Removed Xsterx (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral, I realise your previous edits generally favour Falun Gong and hold sympathetic views but let's keep Wikipedia public and maintain a certain academic standard. Please join the talk for disagreements Xsterx (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear why the "criticism" should be put into one section halfway down the page, when some of it is not even actually criticism, but simply an explanation of this agency's role within China. Anyway, something to deal with later. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, but now it has a whole lot of info that is not much a summary at all. --Asdfg12345 15:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders
Reporters Without Borders, a pro-Western Paris-based organization, has criticized the agency, but without providing any valid reason why they are criticizing it. They does not give any evidence to back their claim. Reporters Without Borders itself is a controversial organization accused of having ties with the CIA. It has also drawn criticism from Le Monde diplomatique. Hence presenting the view of Reporters Without Borders (the POV of RWB) as criticism is WP:UNDUE. Giving the view of RWB is similar to give the view of Henry M. Morris in Evolution related articles.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a fine source for commenting on this article. It's a notable organisation, and I don't think it's undue because everyone knows that xinhua publishes whatever the Party says. Chinese even having a saying, something like "the only thing in Xinhua you can trust is the date" -- I don't have a source for that. I think it's relevant commentary and it's not taking over the article. --Asdfg12345 09:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. I'll make an rfc.--Asdfg12345 09:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

rfc doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. I think it's obvious that it's a notable agency and perfectly within its rights to comment on Xinhua. I will restore the deleted text if there are no more problems.--Asdfg12345 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is reporters without borders a reliable source to cite for criticism of Xinhua being a propaganda agency?

Sorry, but you need to achieve consensus before adding it back.--PCPP (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think sources like these provide a more objective criticism without resorting to jingoist slogans.--PCPP (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think both are relevant. I'm not so much sure that I need to establish consensus to include criticism from RSF, but that it should be established why it's an unreliable source, or why its criticism is not valid to add here. If you want to add something to the article about how Xinhua is this or that, another editor can't just come along and delete it and say that they need to agree to it before it goes in the article. I'd say RSF is a notable organisation and its comments are quite valid. It constitutes a reliable source, and the criticism is not breaching WP:UNDUE... so I don't see why it should be excluded? This is what I'm seeking clarification of. Also, I wasn't going to reinstate the quote if there was further discussion. My last comment was saying that if there is no more discussion then I will assume that it is fine to put it back. Apart from your opinion that RSF is resorting to jingoist slogans, can you see any other reasons why its criticisms should not appear in this article? Otolemur above cites UNDUE, but I don't see how it is violating that. It's not exactly a fringe view that Xinhua is the CCP propaganda mouthpiece, so I'm not sure how that relates...?--Asdfg12345 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: I putted this question here as well: --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it's not a question of reliability - RWB is certainly reliable about its own opinion - but about weight. From my point of view, RWB is a notable and respected organization dedicated to press freedom. I don't think including this, with proper attribution, is undue weight. The Morris/Evolution comparison is entirely fallacious - as far as I can tell, there is no overwhelming consensus about media watchdog groups or reporters that indicate that Xinhua is not a propaganda instrument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I do not know what is the reference for your statement "there is no overwhelming consensus about media watchdog groups or reporters that indicate that Xinhua is not a propaganda instrument". Please see wikipedia policy WP:NOT. My point here is that RWB is a highly controversial organization which has been accused of having ties with the CIA. I do not know which country you are talking about other than Europe/US respect this organization or how there is a global consensus about the reliability of this organization. I have plenty of sources to prove this organization is simply a propaganda machinery of the western liberal democracies. The organization also receives fund by the National Endowment for Democracy which itself is a controversial organization.


 * Reporters Without Borders Financed by CIA
 * Reporters without Borders Keeps silence about journalist tortured in Guantánamo
 * RSF claims to be neutral, objective and solely interested in press freedoms. But this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. ... the association directed by Robert Ménard since 1985 defends a very specific interest and political agenda

RWB is hardly an unbiased organization. We cannot reference this article from biased, politically motivated and controversial organization.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First let me point out that none of your sources is a WP:RS. I would be rather surprised if an organization which is substantially influenced by the CIA ranks the US below Nicaragua in press freedom, or heavily criticizes Israel and the IDF. "Being accused of" is a far cry from "being". But that is neither here nor there. Nobody has tried to include RFB as a reliable source for a factual statement, but rather as a notable voice critical of Xinhua. We don't claim "X", we claim "RFB says X". As far as I'm concerned, RFB is one of the most visible voices on press freedom in the world, and as such certainly relevant to an article concerned with this topic. This is entirely independent of the WP:TRUTH of their position. I don't understand your comment on WP:OR. To make my point clearer: Morris is an extreme minority opinion, and not taken serious by biologists or scientists in general. RFB, on the other hand, is taken quite serious and widely quoted in the press. Even if it would only represent the position " of the western liberal democracies", that would still be sufficient weight. We would include Morris on evolution if he were representative of "only the cell biologists". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Honestly, it seems simply that you don't like it, and since you don't like it, you call it "biased, politically motivated and controversial" (before you awnser, I don't mean your in bad faith; but it does seem to me you are a bit biased on the issue). At least, this is the judgement I must make on the ground of the source you presented: using such sources, and then saying they prove your point, is a bit, if I can use a hyperbole, is like criticizing Israel and then using a nazi website to source your argument. Well, these are my two cents.--Aldux (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To Aldux, please do not comment on editors. If you accuse me that I do not like the source, the same can be applied to some other user that he/she like the source. I did not understand your argument regarding Nazi etc. What I like or not is not the matter. My point is that RWB is a controversial organization accused of having ties with the CIA. I have a reliable and reputed source which claim RWB has ties with the CIA. [http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20080411250713100.htm&date=fl2507/&prd=fline& Kouchner was speaking after a group called the “Reporters without Borders” demanded a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in response to the actions taken by the Chinese authorities in Tibet. The group is reputed to have strong links with Western intelligence agencies and has focussed its energies on countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba has accused Robert Meynard, the head of the group, of having CIA links]. We can clearly see there are controversy regarding this organization that RBW is reputed for having ties with the Western intelligence agencies. We cannot state a controversial information like the one inserted by using a controversial source.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what? Can you explain what you think is a reliable and reputed source here? hinduonnet.com? John Cherian? Cuba? And again, we do not make a statement about Xinhua, we make a statement about RWB making a statement about Xinhua. "1+2=2" is false. "I just wrote 1+2=2" is true. I'm a bad source for the first. I'm a good source for the second. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very clear that RWB is hardly an unbiased organization. I do not know why you are not considering Spinwatch a RS. Here is source describing RWB as pressure group. Even if you do not consider some of the above sources as RS, as per the article you see on The Hindu, it is a clear controversial organization accused of having ties with the western intelligence agencies. They are well-known for there so-called " Press Freedom Index". My point is very clear that we cannot add controversial information using controversial organization as source. Anyway I do not have much time to continue this discussion. The question I raised is that RWB is a controversial source and should be avoided especially for this kind of controversial comment.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we have both made our points. I have nothing to add that is not repetitive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it being controversial matters. So what if it's controversial? Xinhua is itself controversial. If we excluded sources just because other sources say bad things about them then what would we be left with? There's nothing in the policies about excluding controversial sources, either. Based on this discussion I think it's safe to reinstate the source, unless there is anything further?--Asdfg12345 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As along as the content is relevant and NPOV, I think it's OK to add it. But what is RWB's notability in the context of this article? A said something bad about B does not mean A is influential among B's criticizers. see Relevance of content.--Skyfiler (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling Xinhua a propaganda agency is like calling Reuters a propaganda agency. It is probably true in both cases, but if you do it for one, you must do it for all. If the RWB quote is used, there should be some discussion, in the article, of the allegations against RWB. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's from a reliable source and its relevant, it's not taking over the article--so what reason to exclude it? It isn't necessary to mention the allegations against RWB in this article because RWB's criticism is mentioned. Criticism of RWB should go in its own article. I think if there is specific counter-criticism to RWB's criticism of Xinhua, then it's relevant. But the CIA links and whatever else seem more general and may be better placed, if they can be verified, to the RWB article. 2 cents.--Asdfg12345 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support its inclusion if RWB's link with the CIA is mentioned. It is important to mention that RWB is a controversial organization and clarification will be needed what this organization is which is making such claim. It will be necessary to mention RWB's own bias.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the RWB article all these controversies, in particular the link to the CIA are pourly sourced and look more like counter-accusations by countries that have been critized by RWB. So I am in support of inclusion of RWBs criticsm, without mentioning the poorly sourced rumours and allegations - after all all we can say that the head of RWB has been accused of having links to the CIA. Novidmarana (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

for now I'm just going to reinstate RWB's criticism of Xinhua. This CIA business is a separate issue. If there is some good sources on that then it should go on the Reporters Without Borders article. If there is some specific and relevant counter criticism from a reliable source which says why RWB would criticise Xinhua, it may be relevant on this page. if it's general criticism of RWB, then to the RWB page, I think. --Asdfg12345 10:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Asdfg12345. The Reporters Without Borders is a reliable source. Moreover, the "Reporters" are very well qualified to make the judgments on the governmental propaganda and censorship issues. That is their job and duty. If not they, who else? Certainly, not the Xinhua agency itself. Remember, we need third-party sources.Biophys (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Asdfg12345, Novidmarana and Biophys. good evidence that RWB is not a reliable source had not been provided, and in anycase the statement is qualified to be about RWB making a statement about Xinhua rather than simply about Xinhua, all the more reason to not delete it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The last word on this seems to be to exclude the cheap counter-criticism and opinion from Xinhua, which is not quite relevant to the matter at hand anyway. But if Xinhua made a direct response to that particular report, it might be more relevant to have a quick line on it. I think the current format is somewhat restrictive, however. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese RSS Channels
There are a lots of chinese news sources, but those doesn't put their rss channels icon to the main page. Xinhua - yes, Business China - Business - yes, Economic Observer: Economic - yes, People's Daily Online: Business - yes, CNTV: World - yes.

The Shanghai RSS channel is not xml format. The other chinese sources should put an RSS icon, to thier Main page. Strange that the Sina english (and Global Times) don't have RSS channel, one of the best chinese news web page they write.

Missing RSS

 * http://www.prnasia.com
 * Xinjiang http://www.truexinjiang.com
 * http://en.kunming.cn
 * China.org http://www.china.org.cn
 * PLA - http://english.pladaily.com.cn
 * http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/
 * Global Times globaltimes.cn
 * http://english.enorth.com.cn
 * Sina english - http://english.sina.com/
 * http://en.ce.cn
 * http://www.livemint.com
 * http://www.asianage.com
 * http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english
 * News center - http://news.china.com.cn

Hello somebody ?! --Chinese RSS Channels (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Xinhua the Biggest Propaganda Agency
Here is a quote that perhaps you could use: "State owned Xinhua, called the worlds biggest propaganda agency by Reporters Without Borders " --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That quotes violates WP:NPOV--PCPP (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't at all; that is a very relevant piece of information. The CCP even calls it the Ministry of Propaganda or something--they're not ashamed to refer to themselves that way. It's not necessarily even a bad thing, it's just what the source says.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is dangerous. People looking for the political background of Xinhua may leave not having a single clue about Xinhua real activity (propaganda).

Adding such a line to the article lead threatens the article's apparent integrity. It would be completely appropriate to dedicate a section of the article to criticism, and certainly to include a statement about the Reporters Without Borders designation. The word propaganda, even if the party uses it itself, is a loaded word that makes the lead sound bad. Not every cited characterization belongs in the article lead. If someone is concerned about this article's one-sidedness, a better option would be to emphasize that Xinhua is a state-run organization, and to mention that it has been criticized for failing to [concrete, verifiable, non-loaded, brief explanation]. Avram (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't read chinese characters, ( and know little chinese ) but doesn't xinhua translate literally as newspeak? That's funny in a George Orwell sort of way.

Why would a country know for censoring the internet of their people need propoganda. Please give me one example of China cracking down unfairly on their people and political freedoms don't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.178.197 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Xinhua doesnt mean newspeak mr. 'no read chinese'. ;) Xinhua means 'new chinese', it was founded before WWII by the communist to help rally the people to war first against the japanese, then against the nationalist. China had free media for a short period in between until Mao zedong cease power from the communist party, many communist party leader including deng xiaoping was imprison by mao's 'red guard' which is actually anti-establishment. in a way this organisation is a product of history. I see it as abit of a joke that Xinhua had always whined about the nationalist government censorship during it's early years, how history has a way of biting you in the arse, no? Akinkhoo (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)