Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand External Propaganda Strategy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep, discuss and possibly merge. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Grand External Propaganda Strategy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is the result of a content dispute currently occuring in the Confucius Institute article (Talk:Confucius Institute), with this article being a POV content fork designed to disruptively make a point. While I respect Arilang's opinions, creating this article is an inappropriate move. The term "Grand External Propaganda Strategy" is one cointed by the article's creator. A a general Google search brings up zero results, a Google News search brings up zero results, and so does Google Scholar and Google Books.

Despite the name, the Grand External Propganda Strategy is not an official strategy, but one extrapolated by the article creator from various online sources, which while present in the article, never refer to the concept as an official strategy. This makes the article original research, a synthesis of sources made to support an idea that was never presented in the original sources. If the article creator wants to resolve the content dispute, the discussion should occur on the original page, POV forking is not an appropriate response. JeremyMiller (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to the source, "In early 2009 Beijing announced that it would invest a further phenomenal 45 billion yuan into its main media outlets to strengthen their international news coverage and global presence.". Does it show the existence of any specific modern-day project that deserves a separate article? Perhaps I am missing something because I can not read Chinese sources. But so far this looks like merge the content elsewhere.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the funding doesn't exist. It does, and it should be mentioned in the Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China article . However, it is not an independent project or a concerted strategic campaign as the article portrays it as, and the term "Grand External Propaganda Strategy" has never been used in English to describe it. That is largely the invention of the article's creator. The United States funds hundreds of organizations and campaigns, but we don't have a separate article for each financial contribution. The same logic applies here.--JeremyMiller (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. This is not a "POV content fork designed to disruptively make a point". Looks like a good faith effort to me. Biophys (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a good faith effort. He created this article hours after having the initial dispute on the Confucius Institute article on the exact same topic that was under dispute. This is a text book case of POV forking to make a point. If he has problems with Confucius Institute article, he should keep it to the talk page. Creating a separate article with the disputed content is inappropriate.--JeremyMiller (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment Editors just need to have a look at this article:Testimony of Associate-Professor Anne-Marie Brady School of Political and Social Sciences University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Professor Brady has made it very clear that when it comes to propaganda, PRC means business: "In early 2009 Beijing announced that it would invest a further phenomenal 45 billion yuan into its main media outlets to strengthen their international news coverage and global presence. As part of this, Xinhua News Service will increase their overseas bureaus from 100 to 186, almost enough to  have one in every country in the world. The Global  Times, an extremely popular People's  Daily-owned tabloid with a strong international focus, will soon set up an  English language edition. And CCTV-9 will set up  Arabic and Russian language services."  Arilang   talk  06:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, China funds propaganda, and we have an article on that subject at Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. This article is about a non-existant "strategy" that was written as original research, a synthesis of sources made to support an idea that was never presented in the original sources. The United States funds hundreds of organizations and campaigns, but we don't have a separate article for each financial contribution. The same logic applies here.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment If editors care to read He Qinglian's post at VOA Chinese:http://voachineseblog.com/heqinglian/2011/01/china-is-thought-as-the-most-powerful-in-economy/, then they might find out that this title of "Grand Strategy" was not invented by me, instead, He Qinglian's post explained it's origin very well.  Arilang   talk  06:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an actual "strategy", as you've implied. Your inference that it is, counts as "original research". Using non-English sources as a "confirmation" of your original research is a dirty trick, relying on the knowledge that most Wikipedia editors can't read Chinese and are unable to verify the source, which never makes the implication that the funding is a concerted strategy separate from their normal funding.--JeremyMiller (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * dirty trick it is not, as we all know communist propaganda is both "dirty" and secretive, and "Testimony of Associate-Professor Anne-Marie Brady" is not what you call a "non-English source". Maybe user Jeremy has not read Professor Anne-Marie Brady's report yet?  Arilang   talk  08:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "we all know communist propaganda is both "dirty" and secretive" This is what we call "making a point." We already have an article on the subject at Propaganda in the People's Republic of China.

Does anyone care to comment to Delete or Keep this article? Nakon 08:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, discuss and possibly merge content elsewhere. I do not see any English language source that tells precisely this: "Grand External Propaganda Strategy". This should be discussed at article talk page and decided by consensus. Biophys (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. I would not oppose a merge into Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. This should not be a separate article. I agree with Biophys, there is no English source that talks about precisely a "Grand External Propaganda Strategy", which is my problem with this article.--JeremyMiller (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, discuss and possibly merge This "propaganda war" is real, take Chinese oversea media for example, including Taiwan, and South East Asia, nearly all the Chinese media is pro-Beijing. Epochtimes.com would be the one and only media that is "opposition" to the Beijing government. This is a sad and unique situation. Even during Qing Dynasty era, independent newspapers were allowed. Arilang   talk  22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with notability. What you're doing is called activism.--JeremyMiller (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (merge as needed and then redirect) - as disruptive POV content fork. The discussion about this needs to be kept in one place - the article talk page - until a consensus is reached. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.