This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chinese information operations and information warfare article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Infops wishes XXXX to be "Western". This is inaccurate. China also uses terms and concepts from eastern and middle-eastern nations. Also, there are many "Western" nations that do NOT use U.S. terminology or U.S. concepts (e.g. U.K. and Australia).
If you mean, U.S., then say "U.S." (or United States if you prefer). But do NOT use Western - it is both inaccurate and misleading.
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 07:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have studied this concept thoroughly, as well as various other Chinese affairs for a number of years. Using "western" is not inaccurate, in fact it is quite accurate. China basis many current military ops on US concepts b/c the US is the military leader. The US provides the example. The Chinese make it unique ("with Chinese characteristics") but they base the concept off of the US more often than not. For this particular concept(IO/IW), the UK DOES use US terminology. This is not a baseless statement, I have read some of the joint documents from the UK. I assume you have too? -- infops ( talk) 010:55, 23 April 2011
User:Infops has stated: the "five major elements" section is neccessary b/c I am trying to point out the differences between the main elements of US IO/IW and the PRC's IO/IW.
There are many problems with this:
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
By-the-way: Those five major elements and two general areas do not look greatly different from the basic principles of U.S., U.K. or Australian IO & IW, so I'm not altogether sure what differences you can point out ... -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Although User:Infops is acknowledging sources, s/he is taking sections of text and using them out of context, thus changing their meaning. S/he is also altering the copied text, again, thus changing their meaning. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Also: quotations neccessary b/c these are DIRECT quotes from the source. I have no intention of plagiarizing - Quotations are not only "not necessary", but are misleading, because the whole section is a quotation, not just the little bits of it you are putting quotation marks around. Also, there is NO risk of plagiarism accusations because the source is clearly mentioned (several times). -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Infops. Please read the style guides. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Also: Please stop messing up the references. Please stop adding duplicate reference entries. Please do not place "bare-URLs" in references. Please read the style guide. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Infops has added the section:
This is bad grammar, incomprehensible, says nothing, and is uncited.
Do you mean something like:
Even so, it still doesn't say anything which is not obvious and a truism.
Tell me, what is it that you are trying to say?
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Something may be obvious to you but not to the person next to you. Even if it is "obvious" it still deserves to be there. If the grammar isn't up to your liking, then change it, don't delete the whole thing. infops ( talk) 11:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, the following is bad grammar, inaccurate, misleading and does not make much sense. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If the above statement is inaccurate and misleading the burden of proof lies on you to tell me WHY it is misleading and inaccurate. Go to those sources and check it out for your self and plead your case.
The US critical infrastructure system is weak and the PLA has called to exploiting US weaknesses. So, the US critical infrastructure is vulnerable to PRC attack. Not only is the US vulnerable to attack, but its computers HAVE indeed been attacked. I'm not sure why the above section does not make much sense to you, but again, it's no reason to delete the whole section. infops ( talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's my guess of what I think you might be trying to say:
However, it still doesn't say anything.
Do you mean something like:
The Chinese are aware of the US doctrine of overwhelming force and technological superiority, and are unable to compete. Hence, they have chosen an asymetric strategy against the US. One example of this is cyber operations. The US govt has identified that its critical infrastructure is inadequately defended. The Chinese are using cyber operations to exploit this weakness - etc. etc. with appropriate supporting references.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:OVERLINKING, and particularly, WP:REPEATLINK. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sun3.lib/uci.edu/~slca/microform/resources/f-gWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chinese information operations and information warfare article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Infops wishes XXXX to be "Western". This is inaccurate. China also uses terms and concepts from eastern and middle-eastern nations. Also, there are many "Western" nations that do NOT use U.S. terminology or U.S. concepts (e.g. U.K. and Australia).
If you mean, U.S., then say "U.S." (or United States if you prefer). But do NOT use Western - it is both inaccurate and misleading.
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 07:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have studied this concept thoroughly, as well as various other Chinese affairs for a number of years. Using "western" is not inaccurate, in fact it is quite accurate. China basis many current military ops on US concepts b/c the US is the military leader. The US provides the example. The Chinese make it unique ("with Chinese characteristics") but they base the concept off of the US more often than not. For this particular concept(IO/IW), the UK DOES use US terminology. This is not a baseless statement, I have read some of the joint documents from the UK. I assume you have too? -- infops ( talk) 010:55, 23 April 2011
User:Infops has stated: the "five major elements" section is neccessary b/c I am trying to point out the differences between the main elements of US IO/IW and the PRC's IO/IW.
There are many problems with this:
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
By-the-way: Those five major elements and two general areas do not look greatly different from the basic principles of U.S., U.K. or Australian IO & IW, so I'm not altogether sure what differences you can point out ... -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Although User:Infops is acknowledging sources, s/he is taking sections of text and using them out of context, thus changing their meaning. S/he is also altering the copied text, again, thus changing their meaning. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Also: quotations neccessary b/c these are DIRECT quotes from the source. I have no intention of plagiarizing - Quotations are not only "not necessary", but are misleading, because the whole section is a quotation, not just the little bits of it you are putting quotation marks around. Also, there is NO risk of plagiarism accusations because the source is clearly mentioned (several times). -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Infops. Please read the style guides. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 08:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Also: Please stop messing up the references. Please stop adding duplicate reference entries. Please do not place "bare-URLs" in references. Please read the style guide. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Infops has added the section:
This is bad grammar, incomprehensible, says nothing, and is uncited.
Do you mean something like:
Even so, it still doesn't say anything which is not obvious and a truism.
Tell me, what is it that you are trying to say?
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Something may be obvious to you but not to the person next to you. Even if it is "obvious" it still deserves to be there. If the grammar isn't up to your liking, then change it, don't delete the whole thing. infops ( talk) 11:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, the following is bad grammar, inaccurate, misleading and does not make much sense. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If the above statement is inaccurate and misleading the burden of proof lies on you to tell me WHY it is misleading and inaccurate. Go to those sources and check it out for your self and plead your case.
The US critical infrastructure system is weak and the PLA has called to exploiting US weaknesses. So, the US critical infrastructure is vulnerable to PRC attack. Not only is the US vulnerable to attack, but its computers HAVE indeed been attacked. I'm not sure why the above section does not make much sense to you, but again, it's no reason to delete the whole section. infops ( talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's my guess of what I think you might be trying to say:
However, it still doesn't say anything.
Do you mean something like:
The Chinese are aware of the US doctrine of overwhelming force and technological superiority, and are unable to compete. Hence, they have chosen an asymetric strategy against the US. One example of this is cyber operations. The US govt has identified that its critical infrastructure is inadequately defended. The Chinese are using cyber operations to exploit this weakness - etc. etc. with appropriate supporting references.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:OVERLINKING, and particularly, WP:REPEATLINK. -- Pdfpdf ( talk) 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sun3.lib/uci.edu/~slca/microform/resources/f-gWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)