Talk:Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Evolution of Chinese IO & IW concepts[edit]

Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare use similar concepts and terms to those used by XXXX nations, but the Chinese have evolved them to be more suitable and relevant to Chinese culture and to communist doctrine.

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

First, I'd like to thank you for clarifying your rationale, and I'd like to make it clear to you that I am NOT here to annoy you. I am here to help you improve the article. You have done most of the improvements yourself, and I don't wish to take any of your well deserved credit away from you. However, as you yourself say, you are not highly experienced in writing wikipedia articles, so I am attempting to handle that side of the process for you. Also, I won't go into any detail, but I do have experience in the field, so when I spot something that I know is wrong, I have difficulty in leaving it there.
So.
It appears to me that you want to say:
Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare is based on concepts and terms similar to those used by the United States, but the Chinese have evolved them to be more suitable and relevant to Chinese culture and to communist doctrine.
If so, I have absolutely NO problem with that.
If you want to say something different, then please explain to me what it is that you want to say.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding our above disagreement, I will wait to read your reply before saying anything further.
(After all, if you agree that what I have written is indeed what you are trying to say, then there is no longer anything to disagree about.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In answer to your direct questions:
  • The UK does use some terminology that uses the same words that the US does, but the UK has its own definitions of the terms it uses, and the UK has quite significant differences in its concepts.
  • "Western nations" is a very broad term which includes many nations. The NATO countries are but a subset of "Western Nations" - not even all NATO nations use the same terms and concepts as the US.
  • I will not go into any detail, but yes, I have read all the unclassified UK IO & IW policy, doctrine and operational documents.
Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

the "five major elements"[edit]

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:

  • First, they are NOT the "five major elements". They are "The essential substance of information warfare in the narrow sense is made up of five major elements and two general areas."
    • They are "five major elements and two general areas."
    • They are in the narrow sense - you have done nothing to address the broader sense of the definition
    • You are quoting stuff written in 1995. Let me assure you that the Chinese have evolved considerably in the last 16 years. In fact, you allude to this yourself:
  • Second, both before and after these five, you mention at least two other Major Elements (e.g. CNO). So, quite clearly, they are no longer THE five major elements.
  • "I am trying to point out the differences between the main elements of US IO/IW and the PRC's IO/IW." - How are you doing this? I see NO comparison of any sort between anything, much less a comparison between US IO/IW and the PRC's IO/IW.
  • etc.

--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)

  • In response to the problems:
    • Again, if you read up on IO/IW theory, there are elements that fall under the umbrella of IO/IW.
    • Believe me, I KNOW the concept has evolved considerably, but unfortunately the PRC is incredibly private and publishes and translates few key documents. I have attempted and failed to find a modern day article that describes the key elements of IO/IW. Until, I or someone else finds that "golden ticket", this is the best document we can cite in regards to the topic.
    • In regards to your comment "Second, both before and after these five, you mention at least two other Major Elements (e.g. CNO). So, quite clearly, they are no longer THE five major elements. " What are the TWO other major elements I mention? I only mentioned CNO... That is ONE element. Again, I specified MAJOR elements, not "these are ALL the elements."
    • I had no intention of explicitly pointing out the differences and similarities between US and Sino IO/IW, but the learned reader would visually to read and understand the key differences and similarities, hence the very specific format. I do not have the time to individually pick out key differences and similarities so YOU personally are satisfied. Do your research. Read the various US joint documents and recent memorandum in regards to IO/IW.
  • --infops (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Again, if you read up on IO/IW theory, there are elements that fall under the umbrella of IO/IW.
a) I don't need to read up on IO/IW theory thank you. I am quite familiar with it.
b) I don't understand the sentence. Or conversely, I understand the sentence, but don't understand what point you are addressing, or what point you are trying to make. If you are saying "these are five elements of IO/IW", well yes, of course they are. So what? And why mention just those five? As I've pointed out, the article doesn't emphasise them, the article emphasises... You can read what I wrote. Do I need to reproduce it here? And you have avoided addressing what I wrote.
Believe me, I KNOW the concept has evolved considerably, but unfortunately the PRC is incredibly private and publishes and translates few key documents. I have attempted and failed to find a modern day article that describes the key elements of IO/IW. Until, I or someone else finds that "golden ticket", this is the best document we can cite in regards to the topic.
Yes, we can "cite" it, but you are not just citing it - you are selectively extracting small bits and pieces out of it and producing a distorted picture. Either just cite it, or quote the whole thing in context (like I have). But don't distort the picture by selecting little bits and using them out of context.
In regards to your comment "Second, both before and after these five, you mention at least two other Major Elements (e.g. CNO). So, quite clearly, they are no longer THE five major elements." What are the TWO other major elements I mention? I only mentioned CNO... That is ONE element. Again, I specified MAJOR elements, not "these are ALL the elements."
Wow! Many problems here!! I'm not sure where to start.
  • Are you saying that CNO is NOT a major element?
  • Why are you only selecting just those five?
  • Why do you continue to ignore the two general areas that, without them, those five elements can not operate?
Again, you don't seem to have read what I wrote particularly carefully.
  • I said "at least two". And for heavens sake, you wrote them! Why do I need to tell you what you wrote? However, notwithstanding that:
    • “IW in military sense means overall use of various types (of) information technologies, equipment and systems, particularly his command systems, to shake determination of enemy’s policy makers and at the same time, the use of all the means possible to ensure that that one’s own systems are not damaged or disturbed.”
    • 'We hold that information warfare has both narrow and broad meanings.'
    • 'the crux of which is "command and control warfare".'
    • 'the comprehensive use, with intelligence support'
    • 'Not included in these definitions is the emphasis that the PLA places on using information operations and information warfare to compensate for technological inferiority.'
    • And, of course: This list also omits an element that plays a large role in Chinese IW and IO: CNO
I had no intention of explicitly pointing out the differences and similarities between US and Sino IO/IW, but the learned reader would visually to read and understand the key differences and similarities, hence the very specific format. I do not have the time to individually pick out key differences and similarities so YOU personally are satisfied. Do your research. Read the various US joint documents and recent memorandum in regards to IO/IW.
I don't think I'm going to bother to reply to that, other than to say: If you do not have the time to do the job properly, then don't start. But please, do not create a shoddy piece of workmanship because you do not have the time.
I think that addresses your questions/comments. If not, please ask. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright breaches[edit]

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)

I did not alter the copied text b/c they were directly COPIED and PASTED. So unless my computer is changing words on me, it should be the exact sentence read in the sources. --infops (talk) 011:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what I said and think about it. Your reply is not relevant to what I said. Also, please read what I wrote above on this topic. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you went to school, but in both my undergrad and graduate institutions, exact wording required quotations, period. There was NEVER an excuse to omit quotation marks. Referring to a sources and not adding quotation marks means that part is paraphrased, not direct quotes. Sorry Mr./Ms. but you are definitely in the wrong here.
--infops (talk) 011:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what I said and think about it. Although not irrelevant, your reply goes off on a tangent and does not address the issues I raised. And just to keep you happy, I will add additional quotation marks. Actually, I've always wanted to use that "wiki-quote" thingy - this will be an excellent reason for me to learn how to do so. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You may find that WP:QUOTE is a better statement of what I've been trying to communicate. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Style problems[edit]

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)

You are right in this respect, I have not fully learned the protocol for wiki referencing. See, if you make a correct point, I am humble info to give it to you and not argue it to death. --infops (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope that we can both enjoyably work on this article together. I hope that you will soon realise that I am not an unreasonable person. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Information Operations Against the United States[edit]

User:Infops has added the section:

Chinese history has advocated and succeeded in superior strategy overcoming superior forces. Historical figures such as Sun Tzu, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping have advocated the concept, which the PRC is implementing currently in the United States.

This is bad grammar, incomprehensible, says nothing, and is uncited.

  • Chinese history has advocated - No. Chinese history is not physically capable of advocating.
  • Chinese history has advocated and succeeded in superior strategy overcoming superior forces. - This sentence makes no sense. And any meaning one might extract from it is both obvious and a truism, so even if it did make sense, it doesn't say anything.
  • Historical figures such as Sun Tzu, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping have advocated the concept - Which concept?
  • which the PRC is implementing currently in the United States. - I sincerely doubt it! They may be implementing it against the US, but I can't see how they could possibly implement it in the US.

Do you mean something like:

History shows that the Chinese have advocated, and succeeded in, superior strategy overcoming superior forces.[citation needed] Historical figures such as Sun Tzu, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping have advocated the concept[which?], which the PRC is currently implementing against the United States.[citation needed]

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)

I am looking forward to you telling me what is it that you are trying to say. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 24 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)

(sigh) As I said, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I would happily change it if I knew what you were trying to say.
So, yet again, I will repeat myself:
Tell me please, what is it that you are trying to say?
And this time, please read all of that which I wrote, and think about it, before you reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyber Operations[edit]

Again, the following is bad grammar, inaccurate, misleading and does not make much sense. --Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyber Operations, where both Chinese citizens and the Chinese government attack websites. Because the United States critical infrastructure is weak, it lends itself vulnerable to Chinese cyber operations.[1] As was described by the United States Congress,
“In 2007, the Department of Defense, other U.S. Government agencies and departments, and defense-related think tanks and contractors experienced multiple computer network intrusions, many of which appeared to originate in the PRC”.[2]
  1. ^ 2009 Report to Congress, U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2009 (Washington D.C.), 20. http://www.uscc.gov/annual_report/2009/annual_report_full_09.pdf.
  2. ^ U.S. Department of Defense, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2008 (Washington, D.C.), 14. <http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf > (25 February 2010).

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.

No, I'm afraid you are quite wrong. You put it there. It is your responsibility to have the supporting references. I will, once again, repeat what I have already written: Please read the guidelines. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

As you seem to want to have your hand held, OK, here we go:
Cyber Operations, where both Chinese citizens and the Chinese government attack websites.
That is not a sentence. The subject is cyber operations, but there is no verb in the sentence. ALL English sentences have a verb in them.
Because the United States critical infrastructure is weak, it lends itself vulnerable to Chinese cyber operations. - OK. That's a sentence. But why are you saying that? In other words:
Question: What's the point of what you are trying to say?
Possible answer: "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."
OK. THAT says something.
So why didn't you say that in the first place?

Here's my guess of what I think you might be trying to say:

History shows that the Chinese have advocated, and succeeded in, superior strategy overcoming superior forces.[citation needed] Historical figures such as Sun Tzu, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping have advocated the concept[which?], which the PRC is currently implementing against the United States.[citation needed]

However, it still doesn't say anything.

  • What military force (other than the United States) has NOT had a policy of "superior strategy overcoming superior forces"? There is nothing unique about it, and nothing unique about the Chinese having it. There are even plenty of examples of other countries using it against the Chinese. So what is the point in saying it.

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)

Sounds like Pdfpdf is a Taiwan indepedence nut. The two sections make sense if you don't carry anti-chinese undertones. Example, Cyber Operations, where both Chinese citizens and the Chinese government attack websites. attack is the verb. You see "both Chinese citizens and the Chinese government" is the subject and "websites" is the object so "attack" would then clearly be the verb in that sentence. Your problem is you think "attack websites" is a noun because "Chinese government attack websites" is deeply embedded into your brain as a good anti-prc phrase to use like "the Great Firewall" so you can't distinguish "Chinese government" and "websites" from "attack." It's a common foible among dissidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.212 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking[edit]

Please read WP:OVERLINKING, and particularly, WP:REPEATLINK. --Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)