The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whats to be believed? Mistyfinchet ( talk) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
This section is to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to include the reporting of multiple WP:RS that China Global Television Network publishes Chinese state propaganda. As these reliable sources are extremely clear about what is going on and the current language is the epitome of WP:NPOV I don’t see an issue. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
CGTN produces mostly innocuous content but has at times pushed propaganda on behalf of the Communist Party of China.
In addition to normal news content, CGTN has broadcasted misinformation and made false allegations against opponents of the Chinese government. [1] The network has been investigated by Ofcom for biased coverage and the airing of forced confessions, [4] and is considered a propaganda outlet by several sources. [1] [2] [3]
Jancarcu ( talk) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
This article was very one-sided. It did not represent anything on the broadcaster's own terms and instead focused extensively on criticism, passing off some unverified or disputed allegation as proven fact. I have accordingly, re-wrote the tone without deleting content:
This involves:
-- 180.233.219.133 ( talk) 08:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Who are you? and why are you here when you only have a few edits all of those being regarding China Tisthefirstletter ( talk) 09:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Several editors are attempting to dictate the content of this page in bad faith by repeatedly removing cited content for no good reason, simply because it does not coincide with their anti-china activist views.
[1]
[2]
[3]- --
Sunderland Renaissance (
talk)
17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)o
CaribDigita ( talk) 05:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This article needs a section on why CGTN was started and how it describes itself. Some of it is described here: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/behind-news-inside-china-global-television-network
Mainly to counter what they say as western media bias against China etc. No need to remove any other criticisms of it, just a small section on the motivations behind starting and rebranding CGTN. Even CGTN anchors have spoken out about this. After all, if we can include the views of a British anchor about why he left CGTN, why not include the views of a Chinese anchor about why he joined?
Then, the Xi Jinping and Liu Yunshan quotes I've included in the lead can be moved to this new section.
I think this will help readers get some context behind CGTN and its motivations.
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 08:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Such as Africa and Australia: https://qz.com/africa/1736534/china-daily-cgtn-fight-for-influence-in-africa-vs-bbc-cnn/ https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/chinese-television-and-soft-power-communication-in-australia and many others.
While they can always be included in the respective channels (CGTN Africa), they can always be replicated. The page of CGTN Africa (which is anyway a semi-stub) can be included as a 'see also' link.
CGTN is receiving a lot of attention abroad, for better or worse, and I think its wise to include at least some of that here.
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 08:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Sunderland Renaissance: You should stop edit warring and provide what you consider to be "false information" here for discussion. For example, why did you remove information such as the following paragraphs?
Observers have noted that the "aim [of CGTN] is to influence public opinion overseas in order to nudge foreign governments into making policies favourable towards China’s Communist party" through subtle means. [1] Some scholars have noted that CGTN has a "dichotomous role as a credible media competing for audience attention on the world stage, and a vital government propaganda organ domestically." [2] According to James Palmer, the contrasting aims of RT (formerly Russia Today) and CGTN, "mirrors wider strategies: Moscow wants chaos it can exploit, while Beijing wants a stable world order—on its terms". [3]
In March 2021, an investigation by Le Monde reported that a supposed French journalist for CGTN named "Laurène Beaumond" had been fabricated. [4] Le Figaro disputed this, saying Beaumond was a real French journalist from Sarthe, but had been publishing for CGTN under an assumed name. [5]
Normchou 💬 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not remove this section, I removed a part of it which was an unsourced opinion wrote in a passive voice- --
Sunderland Renaissance (
talk)
01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
References
guard
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
@ Sunderland Renaissance: per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS please get consensus for the inclusion of "Critics have accused” in the lead now that it has been challenged, I’m not seeing it being supported by the sources... Especially if its meant to cover both part of the sentence, nobody disputes that the televised confessions are forced. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Le Monde is not a very reputable site and has engaged fake news. CaribDigita ( talk) 07:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You showed no evidence of forced confessions you are a terrorist organization inciting violence and this edit needs to be taken down 69.160.186.193 ( talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like London has forgiven CGTN, the British PM was on CGTN this morning wishing Happy New Year. Video -- CaribDigita ( talk) 17:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
All
official discourse and the Wikipedia article
itself refer to it as the "Publicity Department" of the Chinese Communist Party; and yet for some reason, this article uses the term "Propaganda Department" rather incongruently with the rest of the articles on wikipedia, which use the former term.
Why is it that this article uses the term "Propaganda Department" if that is not the official name of the Chinese state agency that is charged with controlling CGTN? I believe it should be changed back to the proper terminology, as per the state agency's official name, not an unofficial translation.
PeaceThruPramana26 (
talk)
07:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
But that's literally not the name despite the English translation: RFA (aside from literally being a US propaganda outlet and not a reliable source) is using common nomenclature, as are the other sources; We don't refer to it as the 'Propaganda Department' because a few sources in English on the internet refer to it as such, defying all more credible sources from scholarly and official organisations that supersede it in importance.
PeaceThruPramana26 (
talk)
09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It was changed due to vandalism. A simple Google search tells you the correct name. -- "Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee" for example CaribDigita ( talk) 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
In Mandarin its "Propaganda," it should be noted that in the Chinese context propaganda is not a dirty world like it is in America. I would also note that in much of its American use publicity is a euphemism and means propaganda. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whats to be believed? Mistyfinchet ( talk) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
This section is to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to include the reporting of multiple WP:RS that China Global Television Network publishes Chinese state propaganda. As these reliable sources are extremely clear about what is going on and the current language is the epitome of WP:NPOV I don’t see an issue. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
CGTN produces mostly innocuous content but has at times pushed propaganda on behalf of the Communist Party of China.
In addition to normal news content, CGTN has broadcasted misinformation and made false allegations against opponents of the Chinese government. [1] The network has been investigated by Ofcom for biased coverage and the airing of forced confessions, [4] and is considered a propaganda outlet by several sources. [1] [2] [3]
Jancarcu ( talk) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
This article was very one-sided. It did not represent anything on the broadcaster's own terms and instead focused extensively on criticism, passing off some unverified or disputed allegation as proven fact. I have accordingly, re-wrote the tone without deleting content:
This involves:
-- 180.233.219.133 ( talk) 08:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Who are you? and why are you here when you only have a few edits all of those being regarding China Tisthefirstletter ( talk) 09:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Several editors are attempting to dictate the content of this page in bad faith by repeatedly removing cited content for no good reason, simply because it does not coincide with their anti-china activist views.
[1]
[2]
[3]- --
Sunderland Renaissance (
talk)
17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)o
CaribDigita ( talk) 05:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This article needs a section on why CGTN was started and how it describes itself. Some of it is described here: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/behind-news-inside-china-global-television-network
Mainly to counter what they say as western media bias against China etc. No need to remove any other criticisms of it, just a small section on the motivations behind starting and rebranding CGTN. Even CGTN anchors have spoken out about this. After all, if we can include the views of a British anchor about why he left CGTN, why not include the views of a Chinese anchor about why he joined?
Then, the Xi Jinping and Liu Yunshan quotes I've included in the lead can be moved to this new section.
I think this will help readers get some context behind CGTN and its motivations.
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 08:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Such as Africa and Australia: https://qz.com/africa/1736534/china-daily-cgtn-fight-for-influence-in-africa-vs-bbc-cnn/ https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/chinese-television-and-soft-power-communication-in-australia and many others.
While they can always be included in the respective channels (CGTN Africa), they can always be replicated. The page of CGTN Africa (which is anyway a semi-stub) can be included as a 'see also' link.
CGTN is receiving a lot of attention abroad, for better or worse, and I think its wise to include at least some of that here.
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 08:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Sunderland Renaissance: You should stop edit warring and provide what you consider to be "false information" here for discussion. For example, why did you remove information such as the following paragraphs?
Observers have noted that the "aim [of CGTN] is to influence public opinion overseas in order to nudge foreign governments into making policies favourable towards China’s Communist party" through subtle means. [1] Some scholars have noted that CGTN has a "dichotomous role as a credible media competing for audience attention on the world stage, and a vital government propaganda organ domestically." [2] According to James Palmer, the contrasting aims of RT (formerly Russia Today) and CGTN, "mirrors wider strategies: Moscow wants chaos it can exploit, while Beijing wants a stable world order—on its terms". [3]
In March 2021, an investigation by Le Monde reported that a supposed French journalist for CGTN named "Laurène Beaumond" had been fabricated. [4] Le Figaro disputed this, saying Beaumond was a real French journalist from Sarthe, but had been publishing for CGTN under an assumed name. [5]
Normchou 💬 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not remove this section, I removed a part of it which was an unsourced opinion wrote in a passive voice- --
Sunderland Renaissance (
talk)
01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
References
guard
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
@ Sunderland Renaissance: per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS please get consensus for the inclusion of "Critics have accused” in the lead now that it has been challenged, I’m not seeing it being supported by the sources... Especially if its meant to cover both part of the sentence, nobody disputes that the televised confessions are forced. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Le Monde is not a very reputable site and has engaged fake news. CaribDigita ( talk) 07:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You showed no evidence of forced confessions you are a terrorist organization inciting violence and this edit needs to be taken down 69.160.186.193 ( talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like London has forgiven CGTN, the British PM was on CGTN this morning wishing Happy New Year. Video -- CaribDigita ( talk) 17:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
All
official discourse and the Wikipedia article
itself refer to it as the "Publicity Department" of the Chinese Communist Party; and yet for some reason, this article uses the term "Propaganda Department" rather incongruently with the rest of the articles on wikipedia, which use the former term.
Why is it that this article uses the term "Propaganda Department" if that is not the official name of the Chinese state agency that is charged with controlling CGTN? I believe it should be changed back to the proper terminology, as per the state agency's official name, not an unofficial translation.
PeaceThruPramana26 (
talk)
07:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
But that's literally not the name despite the English translation: RFA (aside from literally being a US propaganda outlet and not a reliable source) is using common nomenclature, as are the other sources; We don't refer to it as the 'Propaganda Department' because a few sources in English on the internet refer to it as such, defying all more credible sources from scholarly and official organisations that supersede it in importance.
PeaceThruPramana26 (
talk)
09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It was changed due to vandalism. A simple Google search tells you the correct name. -- "Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee" for example CaribDigita ( talk) 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
In Mandarin its "Propaganda," it should be noted that in the Chinese context propaganda is not a dirty world like it is in America. I would also note that in much of its American use publicity is a euphemism and means propaganda. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)