![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I see a series of reverts over the last couple days, and am confused. Editors seem to be referring to a talk page discussion in their edit summaries, but I see no recent discussion. Am I missing something?
[1] — Shrigley reverts (to what version?), saying "Revert unilateral undoing of the changes discussed on the talk page. Since an editor was just sanctioned for similar behavior, it would be wise to engage other editors and provide full explanations before doing this."
[2] — Keahapana reverts back, says "restored fully explained corrections and repairs, if there are specific problems with content, please discuss before deleting again."
[3] — OhConfucius reverts again, stating "please do not edit war you need to discuss as you seem to be the only one objecting."
I desire to be enlightened. I'm sleepy now, and don't want to parse through changes to figure out who is objecting or not objecting to what. Homunculus ( duihua) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We have already agreed on many appropriate removals (like the Yan Li and Dajin Peng controversies), but if we disagree on some of the above edits, I hope we can collaborate to achieve reasonable compromises. My main concern is improving the content and reliability of the C&CCI article. Keahapana ( talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't dispute all the revisions, but that was my interpretation of twice deleting all 7 Kb of content (including new refs). To clarify my excessive kindness, "mistakes" would include incorrectly deleting the University of Oregon resisting diplomatic pressure to cancel Peng's lecture (475840924) along with correctly removing duplication of the Israel controversy (469904429); "misquotes" would include "using culture to spread propaganda and influence" which is not found in either ref (475839572). A related problem concerns inaccurate "summaries". For instance (475840542), changing "a Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?" to "there has been disquiet in academic circles in the West over the possible impact of accepting funds from a totalitarian regime on academic freedom." In respect to claims about WP:SUMMARY, etc., as we've discussed, controversy sections and articles are exceptions to the general rules. WP:QUOTE recommends, "in some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject …" I optimistically agree with Homunculus that we can find middle ground, and I look forward to understanding and resolving the perceived problems. Keahapana ( talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Shrigley ( talk) 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how to reconcile this. I've done my own analysis of the diffs you provided, Keahapana. For the most part I found your changes uncontroversial, though there are some things I found unnecessary, irrelevant, or excessively long. I hope this is helpful. Sorry this is so time-consuming for everyone involved (that's what you get when you get into a revert war, right?).
I have now exhausted my peace-making wisdom. Where do we go from here? Homunculus ( duihua) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks to everybody. Since we roughly agree on most of these changes, I'll revert them, fix the subheadings, and start making the revisions suggested above. After we work out the remaining details, we can move forward. Keahapana ( talk) 21:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Two statements are currently tagged for lacking citations:
After searching and failing to find any reliable sources, I've tentatively removed both comments. Keahapana ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Without any prior discussion, the most recent (14 May) decimation of this article erased 8 Kb of content, including 7 references, from the previous stable version. Some of these 17 edits were constructive improvements (such as #2 "corrected quote" and #7 "summarized quote"), which I'll naturally leave. Others were counterproductive WP:JDLI-ish removals of criticisms and controversies surrounding Confucius Institutes, which I'll revert, pending discussion.
Contributors to this article may recognize some previous inexcusable deletions that were eventually restored by consensus. For instance, #3 "Spiegel opinion article only made one mention of CI" (imaginary WP rule?) deleted a Der Spiegel quote that dates back to the July 2009 split from Confucius Institute. Please correct anything that I've overlooked. Keahapana ( talk) 23:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a good joke Ohconfucius <grin>. Seriously, I don't feel that anyone owns this article, but I do feel that everyone should try to strengthen rather than weaken it. Thanks for citing WP:OWN, in terms of which I'm a "primary contributor" who has "a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy."
Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. ( WP:OAS)
I suggest that we rationally discuss the reasons for/against changes based upon WP policies rather than personal opinions – such as deleting a United States congressional hearing about CIs as "irrelevant material from an US politician's pet project about China." If an editor wants to make wholesale erasures from the article, I agree that he/she should first list them here for discussion. Keahapana ( talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There are developing CI controversies coming from the London School of Economics and US State Department.
I'm busy now but will add these into the article later. If anyone wants to include them now, please go ahead. Thanks. Keahapana ( talk) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Chronicle report, this has received a fair bit of coverage, but I'm not sure where it might belong in the article. According to the state department, this is really just a procedural matter where the terms of the visas were violated, so I don't think this involves the political dimensions that much of the article is concerned with. It may be valuable to create a section on 'legal issues' or something. There may be some other items that could fit under that heading, actually. Homunculus ( duihua) 00:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Homunculus, thanks for explaining the slow bot (to China?). There's also this Template:Archiveme. I'm not sure about the subtext of the State Department flap, and we may be able to find clarification. In the Nuland press briefing, a reporter asks, "I heard that some of the Confucius Institutions have come and had meetings with the assistant secretary already talking about this." Here are some miscellaneous links I've found.
The Sound and the Fury, thanks for the skillful reduction. Keahapana ( talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am a volunteer at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes regarding a content dispute involving this page.
My question is this: do we have the right list of participants, or have we left anyone out who wishes to participate in the dispute resolution? Participation is entirely optional, but I don't want to leave anyone out if they want to join the discussion. If you want to be listed, please let me know and I will modify the DRN case to make a place for your initial comments. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The following is a rough list of recent CI criticisms that occurred after we stopped editing this page – owing to the unfinished dispute resolution.
Please add any additional links, and we can appropriately include them later. Keahapana ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here are some more.
Spoiler alert: The McMaster case involves Falun Gong discrimination. Keahapana ( talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
After three weeks of discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, our disagreement over suitable content is nearly resolved. Thanks to Guy Macon, a DRN volunteer, for helping us reach consensus. The following is a condensed version of section "1.1.8 C and C over CI discussion 3", see the archive for the full conversation.
… PCPP ( talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
#1 Agreed. The article currently reads:
The Reuters ref is informative; perhaps we could add it in an explanatory sentence like this:
Keahapana ( talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
… The rest:
The following are some suggestions and questions for discussion by PCPP and any other interested editors.
#1 Is the above revision with Reuters acceptable? Since the China Daily article doesn't mention CIs, it might be better for the Huawei page.
#2 Here's the deleted quote.
As mentioned above, I did a quick "Confucius Institute, cultural superiority" search and found Li's book and Hudson's article to illustrate that this quote wasn't necessarily WP:UNDUE. Page 197 of Li mentions CIs in one context and cultural superiority in another, it seems like adding this ref would be synthesis. However, thanks for pointing out that the Atlantic Wire was responding to the Global Times editorial cited under #11. Since "an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media" is a rough paraphrase of NPOV, perhaps we should move it there.
#3 Yes, I still think it would be better to consolidate the Italian Instititute refs, which I already tried (21 February 2012) but you removed (14 May 2012). Is this OK now?
I think there was a third ref and will look later. Should we pipe Italian Cultural Institute, London as "Italian Institute"? Sorry I don't read Swedish, but we could tag the deadlink or delete it.
#4 Here's the original version
Instead of paraphrasing
It might be clearer to say something like
#5 Yes, prefacing with "In writing for the Christian Science Monitor…" sounds fine, but I still think quoting the pithy lede question is more informative than paraphrasing the rambling conclusion.
Perhaps we could compromise and use both the question and summary. Any other opinions?
#6 We already have consensus for deleting Dickinson State.
#7 Yes, combining could be advantageous, but this "either type of freedom" phrase loses the "freedom of the press and academic freedom" referents. That's the advantage of WP giving direct quotes for controversial subjects. Compare
Please clarify how Rohrabacher was "referencing" Mosher.
#8 This paragraph has changed so many times that I'm confused about what you want to trim. From the current version [footnotes 71-75], do you want to keep the SGV Tribune [72], AP [73 twice], Asian American Policy Review [74], and Washington Times [75]; but exclude the National Review [71] as not a "quality source"? This [74] link now requires ID login. There's a copy on Jay Chen's blog, but is that a RS? We should wikilink Norman N. Hsu too.
#9 Fixing this dead link is easier than disqualifying Mosher, here's an archive link. Are you saying we should dismiss Mosher's concerns about CIs because he has criticized abortion, the One Child Policy, or both? The original was:
I just found a China Daily story that describes Mosher as "a China specialist in the US."
#10 I was just parking all these references on the Talk page pending our postponed resolution, and we will only use whatever ones are suitable. Are you saying we should delete Human Events merely because it's conservative? I agree that the religiously-biased Epoch Times likely fails WP:RS, but added it for the deleted video link. Any link will do. Is this current version acceptable?
#11 Yes, we agree this paragraph needs to be cut. Would you, or someone else, be willing to rewrite it? The current version already has the State Department link as footnote [65]. Should we add the above Atlantic response here after the Global Times [66]?
#12 The C&CoCI mouthful was a compromise title from discussion about spliting off the article. I still think Criticisms of Confucius Institutes is simplest and clearest, but some editors want to avoid the c-word (so to speak). It seems unnecessary to cite the official website that CIs often don't have "much controversy". In comparison, Criticism of Apple Inc. doesn't say that many Apple users are uncritical. But if you think it's important, adding this sort of qualification would be OK. Keahapana ( talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the issues are being slowly resolved and the discussion can be sent back to the article talk page. If needed, a new DRN case can be opened later, but it should have far fewer disputed items and a commitment by all involved to spend the time needed to reach agreement. ---- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again to all involved, Keahapana ( talk) 23:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
#1 No problems with Reuters article
#2 Again, no problems with Spiegel and Li, but I don't think the Atlantic Wire article really contribute anything new
#3 That sentence looks fine, but I think Zimmerman should be named as an example eg "In writing for the CSM, Jonathan Zimmerman described CI as..."
#4 No problems
#5 Yeah, have no problems with the compromise, but I think Zimmerman should be introduced as the author, and that it comes from a CSM editorial
#6 No problems
#7 It seems like I misread the original sentence, so is it a good idea to replace "referencing" with "responding"?
#8 I'm in favor of keeping WT, AAPR, and AP, although I think SGV is redundant since once of the other articles already referenced the "Hugo Chavez" accusation. The NR source is now a deadlink, I might have to get back to that later.
#9 How about this, introduce Mosher also as a 1CP critic, but also include the China Daily link as a rebuttal, which states that Mosher as "misunderstanding China", and the "not Trojan Horses" comment by Xu?
#10 No problems with the current version, but I oppose Human Events due to the fact that it's a politically partisan source
#11 TBA, give me some time to work out a new version
#12 On second thought, I'll agree with the move to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes-- PCPP ( talk) 08:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, PCPP. We've already deleted #6 and I'll add our consensus versions of #1 and #4.
#2 Yes, we don't need the Atlantic Wire here. Don't you think adding these two different contexts from Li would be synthesis?
#3 Quoting Zimmerman alone is good. I reread his article and think we should mention his "Mussolini model" (like two other sources in Google Books). How about this version, which avoids the Benito Mussolini wikilink?
#5 Since #3 already mentions the CSM article (Was it an "editorial"?) we could say:
#7 Yes, "responding" will work.
Also, the URL for fn 60 could use The Price of Public Diplomacy with China.
#8 I'll change to the current NR link. Since the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is currently the only citation of local media, I think we should try to keep it. Which other article already mentions Chavez? I can't find it.
#9 Yes, we can leave Mosher and add CD, as you suggest. How does this look?
#10 Is this current version OK?
Sorry, but I don't understand your criterion. If we exclude some "politically partisan" sources like Human Events from Wikipedia, then will we delete others like People's Daily, Global Times, etc.? Anyway, we can wait on this. Let's first finish dealing with these references from last May, and then deal with the subsequent sources.
#11 Yes, of course, take your time to work out a new version. Should we add the above Atlantic Wire response here after the Global Times?
#12 Agreed. I've always favored simplifying the title to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. Should we just move it now or start a new section below?
Thanks again, Keahapana ( talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added the above consensus versions for #2, #3, #5, #7, and #9. If I've overlooked something, please let me know and I'll fix it too. Since the #12 title change is already up for discussion that leaves three unresolved problems.
#2 After the Der Spiegel quote; Would adding the two different contexts from Li's book be synthesis?
#8 The Confucius Classroom dispute still needs rewriting. As asked above: Since the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is currently the only citation of local media, should we try to keep it? Which other article already mentions Chavez? I can't find it.
#11 After the Global Times quote, should we add this #2 reference for NPOV?
Thanks again to PCPP and all others who helped to finally settle this 2012 dispute. Keahapana ( talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
As discussed above, there is consensus that Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes should be moved to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. Does anyone object? Keahapana ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've added the backlog of references, moved the page, and started cleaning it up. Any help would be appreciated. Keahapana ( talk) 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of accuracy, I've reverted the deletions based upon the claim that "CIs are not managed directly by the goverment they are managed by Hanban which is described already in the article as an NGO with ties to the goverment [ sic]". The article does not mention NGO (except in "jingoistic"), and the Michael Hsiao "non-profit and non-governmental organization" propaganda quote is taken out of context. Here is the full quote:
Specifically, the overseas Confucius Institutes have at least two purposes. For educational ones, the Institute has a function similar to that of Alliance Française, Goethe-Institute, British Council, and Insituto Cervante, which mainly deal with language and culture learning affairs. Although Beijing carefully heralds that the Institute operates as a non-profit and non-governmental organization, its principle and budget are guided and sponsored by “the Office of Chinese Language Council International” (Hanban) affiliated with the PRC’s Ministry of Education. Such an orientation would naturally draw the association with the underlying strategic implication of Confucius Institutes, that is, an attempt to promote Chinese culture and thereby increase China’s soft power influence. Some thinkers have referred to such a policy as “cultural imperialism” [14 (A recent discussion on China’s advocacy of Chinese langue, see Sheng Ding and Robert A. Saunders, “Talking Up China: An Analysis of China’s Rising Cultural Power and the Global Promotion of the Chinese Language,” East Asia: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, (2006), pp. 3-33.)].
Keahapana ( talk) 20:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of new references:
I'm temporarily parking these here until I have more time. If anyone is interested in adding them into the article, please do. Keahapana ( talk) 01:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Just make sure you aren't making the article into a list of every mention of the CIs in the world news. If it isn't something substantively new and adding to the encyclopedic content of the article then it isn't useful. Saying this professor also doesn't approve, or this college also had a minor protest against CI, isn't actually a useful addition to the page. I only mention this because that has been a problem on this article in the past. - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't have time now, but here are some recent references
If anyone wants to add these, please do. Keahapana ( talk) 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Confucius Institutes. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Confucius Institutes. 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:
When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a list of recent articles about CI controversies that I'll park here. I don't have time now, but am asking for help putting the best ones into the article.
Thanks, Keahapana ( talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Never-ending story, Keahapana ( talk) 01:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence in the article:
The grammar doesn't even resemble standard English grammar. Writing so sloppily undermines this article and our project as a whole. Please proofread before clicking "Publish changes"! 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I see a series of reverts over the last couple days, and am confused. Editors seem to be referring to a talk page discussion in their edit summaries, but I see no recent discussion. Am I missing something?
[1] — Shrigley reverts (to what version?), saying "Revert unilateral undoing of the changes discussed on the talk page. Since an editor was just sanctioned for similar behavior, it would be wise to engage other editors and provide full explanations before doing this."
[2] — Keahapana reverts back, says "restored fully explained corrections and repairs, if there are specific problems with content, please discuss before deleting again."
[3] — OhConfucius reverts again, stating "please do not edit war you need to discuss as you seem to be the only one objecting."
I desire to be enlightened. I'm sleepy now, and don't want to parse through changes to figure out who is objecting or not objecting to what. Homunculus ( duihua) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We have already agreed on many appropriate removals (like the Yan Li and Dajin Peng controversies), but if we disagree on some of the above edits, I hope we can collaborate to achieve reasonable compromises. My main concern is improving the content and reliability of the C&CCI article. Keahapana ( talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't dispute all the revisions, but that was my interpretation of twice deleting all 7 Kb of content (including new refs). To clarify my excessive kindness, "mistakes" would include incorrectly deleting the University of Oregon resisting diplomatic pressure to cancel Peng's lecture (475840924) along with correctly removing duplication of the Israel controversy (469904429); "misquotes" would include "using culture to spread propaganda and influence" which is not found in either ref (475839572). A related problem concerns inaccurate "summaries". For instance (475840542), changing "a Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?" to "there has been disquiet in academic circles in the West over the possible impact of accepting funds from a totalitarian regime on academic freedom." In respect to claims about WP:SUMMARY, etc., as we've discussed, controversy sections and articles are exceptions to the general rules. WP:QUOTE recommends, "in some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject …" I optimistically agree with Homunculus that we can find middle ground, and I look forward to understanding and resolving the perceived problems. Keahapana ( talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Shrigley ( talk) 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how to reconcile this. I've done my own analysis of the diffs you provided, Keahapana. For the most part I found your changes uncontroversial, though there are some things I found unnecessary, irrelevant, or excessively long. I hope this is helpful. Sorry this is so time-consuming for everyone involved (that's what you get when you get into a revert war, right?).
I have now exhausted my peace-making wisdom. Where do we go from here? Homunculus ( duihua) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks to everybody. Since we roughly agree on most of these changes, I'll revert them, fix the subheadings, and start making the revisions suggested above. After we work out the remaining details, we can move forward. Keahapana ( talk) 21:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Two statements are currently tagged for lacking citations:
After searching and failing to find any reliable sources, I've tentatively removed both comments. Keahapana ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Without any prior discussion, the most recent (14 May) decimation of this article erased 8 Kb of content, including 7 references, from the previous stable version. Some of these 17 edits were constructive improvements (such as #2 "corrected quote" and #7 "summarized quote"), which I'll naturally leave. Others were counterproductive WP:JDLI-ish removals of criticisms and controversies surrounding Confucius Institutes, which I'll revert, pending discussion.
Contributors to this article may recognize some previous inexcusable deletions that were eventually restored by consensus. For instance, #3 "Spiegel opinion article only made one mention of CI" (imaginary WP rule?) deleted a Der Spiegel quote that dates back to the July 2009 split from Confucius Institute. Please correct anything that I've overlooked. Keahapana ( talk) 23:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a good joke Ohconfucius <grin>. Seriously, I don't feel that anyone owns this article, but I do feel that everyone should try to strengthen rather than weaken it. Thanks for citing WP:OWN, in terms of which I'm a "primary contributor" who has "a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy."
Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. ( WP:OAS)
I suggest that we rationally discuss the reasons for/against changes based upon WP policies rather than personal opinions – such as deleting a United States congressional hearing about CIs as "irrelevant material from an US politician's pet project about China." If an editor wants to make wholesale erasures from the article, I agree that he/she should first list them here for discussion. Keahapana ( talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There are developing CI controversies coming from the London School of Economics and US State Department.
I'm busy now but will add these into the article later. If anyone wants to include them now, please go ahead. Thanks. Keahapana ( talk) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Chronicle report, this has received a fair bit of coverage, but I'm not sure where it might belong in the article. According to the state department, this is really just a procedural matter where the terms of the visas were violated, so I don't think this involves the political dimensions that much of the article is concerned with. It may be valuable to create a section on 'legal issues' or something. There may be some other items that could fit under that heading, actually. Homunculus ( duihua) 00:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Homunculus, thanks for explaining the slow bot (to China?). There's also this Template:Archiveme. I'm not sure about the subtext of the State Department flap, and we may be able to find clarification. In the Nuland press briefing, a reporter asks, "I heard that some of the Confucius Institutions have come and had meetings with the assistant secretary already talking about this." Here are some miscellaneous links I've found.
The Sound and the Fury, thanks for the skillful reduction. Keahapana ( talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am a volunteer at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes regarding a content dispute involving this page.
My question is this: do we have the right list of participants, or have we left anyone out who wishes to participate in the dispute resolution? Participation is entirely optional, but I don't want to leave anyone out if they want to join the discussion. If you want to be listed, please let me know and I will modify the DRN case to make a place for your initial comments. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The following is a rough list of recent CI criticisms that occurred after we stopped editing this page – owing to the unfinished dispute resolution.
Please add any additional links, and we can appropriately include them later. Keahapana ( talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here are some more.
Spoiler alert: The McMaster case involves Falun Gong discrimination. Keahapana ( talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
After three weeks of discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, our disagreement over suitable content is nearly resolved. Thanks to Guy Macon, a DRN volunteer, for helping us reach consensus. The following is a condensed version of section "1.1.8 C and C over CI discussion 3", see the archive for the full conversation.
… PCPP ( talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
#1 Agreed. The article currently reads:
The Reuters ref is informative; perhaps we could add it in an explanatory sentence like this:
Keahapana ( talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
… The rest:
The following are some suggestions and questions for discussion by PCPP and any other interested editors.
#1 Is the above revision with Reuters acceptable? Since the China Daily article doesn't mention CIs, it might be better for the Huawei page.
#2 Here's the deleted quote.
As mentioned above, I did a quick "Confucius Institute, cultural superiority" search and found Li's book and Hudson's article to illustrate that this quote wasn't necessarily WP:UNDUE. Page 197 of Li mentions CIs in one context and cultural superiority in another, it seems like adding this ref would be synthesis. However, thanks for pointing out that the Atlantic Wire was responding to the Global Times editorial cited under #11. Since "an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media" is a rough paraphrase of NPOV, perhaps we should move it there.
#3 Yes, I still think it would be better to consolidate the Italian Instititute refs, which I already tried (21 February 2012) but you removed (14 May 2012). Is this OK now?
I think there was a third ref and will look later. Should we pipe Italian Cultural Institute, London as "Italian Institute"? Sorry I don't read Swedish, but we could tag the deadlink or delete it.
#4 Here's the original version
Instead of paraphrasing
It might be clearer to say something like
#5 Yes, prefacing with "In writing for the Christian Science Monitor…" sounds fine, but I still think quoting the pithy lede question is more informative than paraphrasing the rambling conclusion.
Perhaps we could compromise and use both the question and summary. Any other opinions?
#6 We already have consensus for deleting Dickinson State.
#7 Yes, combining could be advantageous, but this "either type of freedom" phrase loses the "freedom of the press and academic freedom" referents. That's the advantage of WP giving direct quotes for controversial subjects. Compare
Please clarify how Rohrabacher was "referencing" Mosher.
#8 This paragraph has changed so many times that I'm confused about what you want to trim. From the current version [footnotes 71-75], do you want to keep the SGV Tribune [72], AP [73 twice], Asian American Policy Review [74], and Washington Times [75]; but exclude the National Review [71] as not a "quality source"? This [74] link now requires ID login. There's a copy on Jay Chen's blog, but is that a RS? We should wikilink Norman N. Hsu too.
#9 Fixing this dead link is easier than disqualifying Mosher, here's an archive link. Are you saying we should dismiss Mosher's concerns about CIs because he has criticized abortion, the One Child Policy, or both? The original was:
I just found a China Daily story that describes Mosher as "a China specialist in the US."
#10 I was just parking all these references on the Talk page pending our postponed resolution, and we will only use whatever ones are suitable. Are you saying we should delete Human Events merely because it's conservative? I agree that the religiously-biased Epoch Times likely fails WP:RS, but added it for the deleted video link. Any link will do. Is this current version acceptable?
#11 Yes, we agree this paragraph needs to be cut. Would you, or someone else, be willing to rewrite it? The current version already has the State Department link as footnote [65]. Should we add the above Atlantic response here after the Global Times [66]?
#12 The C&CoCI mouthful was a compromise title from discussion about spliting off the article. I still think Criticisms of Confucius Institutes is simplest and clearest, but some editors want to avoid the c-word (so to speak). It seems unnecessary to cite the official website that CIs often don't have "much controversy". In comparison, Criticism of Apple Inc. doesn't say that many Apple users are uncritical. But if you think it's important, adding this sort of qualification would be OK. Keahapana ( talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the issues are being slowly resolved and the discussion can be sent back to the article talk page. If needed, a new DRN case can be opened later, but it should have far fewer disputed items and a commitment by all involved to spend the time needed to reach agreement. ---- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again to all involved, Keahapana ( talk) 23:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
#1 No problems with Reuters article
#2 Again, no problems with Spiegel and Li, but I don't think the Atlantic Wire article really contribute anything new
#3 That sentence looks fine, but I think Zimmerman should be named as an example eg "In writing for the CSM, Jonathan Zimmerman described CI as..."
#4 No problems
#5 Yeah, have no problems with the compromise, but I think Zimmerman should be introduced as the author, and that it comes from a CSM editorial
#6 No problems
#7 It seems like I misread the original sentence, so is it a good idea to replace "referencing" with "responding"?
#8 I'm in favor of keeping WT, AAPR, and AP, although I think SGV is redundant since once of the other articles already referenced the "Hugo Chavez" accusation. The NR source is now a deadlink, I might have to get back to that later.
#9 How about this, introduce Mosher also as a 1CP critic, but also include the China Daily link as a rebuttal, which states that Mosher as "misunderstanding China", and the "not Trojan Horses" comment by Xu?
#10 No problems with the current version, but I oppose Human Events due to the fact that it's a politically partisan source
#11 TBA, give me some time to work out a new version
#12 On second thought, I'll agree with the move to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes-- PCPP ( talk) 08:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, PCPP. We've already deleted #6 and I'll add our consensus versions of #1 and #4.
#2 Yes, we don't need the Atlantic Wire here. Don't you think adding these two different contexts from Li would be synthesis?
#3 Quoting Zimmerman alone is good. I reread his article and think we should mention his "Mussolini model" (like two other sources in Google Books). How about this version, which avoids the Benito Mussolini wikilink?
#5 Since #3 already mentions the CSM article (Was it an "editorial"?) we could say:
#7 Yes, "responding" will work.
Also, the URL for fn 60 could use The Price of Public Diplomacy with China.
#8 I'll change to the current NR link. Since the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is currently the only citation of local media, I think we should try to keep it. Which other article already mentions Chavez? I can't find it.
#9 Yes, we can leave Mosher and add CD, as you suggest. How does this look?
#10 Is this current version OK?
Sorry, but I don't understand your criterion. If we exclude some "politically partisan" sources like Human Events from Wikipedia, then will we delete others like People's Daily, Global Times, etc.? Anyway, we can wait on this. Let's first finish dealing with these references from last May, and then deal with the subsequent sources.
#11 Yes, of course, take your time to work out a new version. Should we add the above Atlantic Wire response here after the Global Times?
#12 Agreed. I've always favored simplifying the title to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. Should we just move it now or start a new section below?
Thanks again, Keahapana ( talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added the above consensus versions for #2, #3, #5, #7, and #9. If I've overlooked something, please let me know and I'll fix it too. Since the #12 title change is already up for discussion that leaves three unresolved problems.
#2 After the Der Spiegel quote; Would adding the two different contexts from Li's book be synthesis?
#8 The Confucius Classroom dispute still needs rewriting. As asked above: Since the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is currently the only citation of local media, should we try to keep it? Which other article already mentions Chavez? I can't find it.
#11 After the Global Times quote, should we add this #2 reference for NPOV?
Thanks again to PCPP and all others who helped to finally settle this 2012 dispute. Keahapana ( talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
As discussed above, there is consensus that Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes should be moved to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. Does anyone object? Keahapana ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've added the backlog of references, moved the page, and started cleaning it up. Any help would be appreciated. Keahapana ( talk) 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of accuracy, I've reverted the deletions based upon the claim that "CIs are not managed directly by the goverment they are managed by Hanban which is described already in the article as an NGO with ties to the goverment [ sic]". The article does not mention NGO (except in "jingoistic"), and the Michael Hsiao "non-profit and non-governmental organization" propaganda quote is taken out of context. Here is the full quote:
Specifically, the overseas Confucius Institutes have at least two purposes. For educational ones, the Institute has a function similar to that of Alliance Française, Goethe-Institute, British Council, and Insituto Cervante, which mainly deal with language and culture learning affairs. Although Beijing carefully heralds that the Institute operates as a non-profit and non-governmental organization, its principle and budget are guided and sponsored by “the Office of Chinese Language Council International” (Hanban) affiliated with the PRC’s Ministry of Education. Such an orientation would naturally draw the association with the underlying strategic implication of Confucius Institutes, that is, an attempt to promote Chinese culture and thereby increase China’s soft power influence. Some thinkers have referred to such a policy as “cultural imperialism” [14 (A recent discussion on China’s advocacy of Chinese langue, see Sheng Ding and Robert A. Saunders, “Talking Up China: An Analysis of China’s Rising Cultural Power and the Global Promotion of the Chinese Language,” East Asia: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, (2006), pp. 3-33.)].
Keahapana ( talk) 20:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of new references:
I'm temporarily parking these here until I have more time. If anyone is interested in adding them into the article, please do. Keahapana ( talk) 01:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Just make sure you aren't making the article into a list of every mention of the CIs in the world news. If it isn't something substantively new and adding to the encyclopedic content of the article then it isn't useful. Saying this professor also doesn't approve, or this college also had a minor protest against CI, isn't actually a useful addition to the page. I only mention this because that has been a problem on this article in the past. - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't have time now, but here are some recent references
If anyone wants to add these, please do. Keahapana ( talk) 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Confucius Institutes. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Confucius Institutes. 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:
When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a list of recent articles about CI controversies that I'll park here. I don't have time now, but am asking for help putting the best ones into the article.
Thanks, Keahapana ( talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Never-ending story, Keahapana ( talk) 01:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence in the article:
The grammar doesn't even resemble standard English grammar. Writing so sloppily undermines this article and our project as a whole. Please proofread before clicking "Publish changes"! 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)