Talk:Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China

function

I removed the following sentence They are known to repeat their nationality and country of origin numerous times during speeches. because I cannot understand what is being stated. Who is "they?" Which "speeches" are being written about?Ngchen 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

name

i think it's called "publicity department" now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.216.2 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to add "Central" before the department's name. Central (zhong) only means "Central Committee of the Communist Party of China", thus not a part of the department's name. --Baojie (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved

According to About the CPC--刻意(Kèyì) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this should have been moved. There's a rule about names in wikipedia: the most commonly known name in English should be used. In another view, renaming the Propaganda Department to the "publicity department" was itself a propaganda move; wikipedia shouldn't follow along.--Asdfg12345 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the insistence on using the word "propaganda" not a propaganda move, given the overwhelmingly negative connotation the word carries in the West? It's more like you're trying to take advantage of the fact that whoever did the translation on the other side of the world probably wasn't familiar with the many subtleties of modern-day English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.159.247 (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Publicity Department should be the right name. People's Daily, the official news paper of CPC, uses "Publicity Department" for most of the time [1], and the few uses of "Propaganda Department" are mostly for referring historical appointments (when the department was so called, before Zhou Enlai changed the translation at least three decades ago). Thus, I moved the page back to "Publicity Department". If somebody still insists to call it "Propaganda Department", it may be added to the page that "also known as Propaganda Department in some countries". --Baojie (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Example: Native Americans in the United States are commonly known as "Indians" in everyday English speaking. However, as it is inappropriate to use "Indians" or "American Indians", Wikipedia uses "Native Americans" for naming the group. "Propaganda" is a highly negative term in modern English, using this name will violate Political NPOV of Wikipedia. On the other hand, "publicity" is a far more common uage in English for naming a organization of this nature, either in private organizations or in political organizations. The publicity branch of CPC should not be an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baojie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Baojie, but your rhetoric is not fooling anybody. Wikipedia's NPOV is just that, a neutral point of view. Citing the fact that media organs of the CPC use the word "Publicity Department" is not a valid argument for moving this page. If we want to maintains Wikipedia's NPOV we would use the most common word from an English language newspaper, such as the New York Times or the BBC, that isn't owned by the Communist Part of China. I find it almost amusing that you could even fathom The People's Daily or any organ of the CPC to maintain a NPOV.

There are few English language speakers who wouldn't agree with me. Try a search for yourself propaganda [2] vs. publicity [3], 1400 results vs 100. In the same way that Voice of America wouldn't be a valid source for a translation on Chinese Wikipedia, People's Daily is not a valid source on English Wikipedia. Your 五毛党 50 Cent Party behavior is not going to be tolerated on Wikipedia, in fact, it is the type of behavior that ruins it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingertips (talk) 6:30 PM, 8 December 2009 (EST)

It's only about the name. If the department has an official name in English, this article should reflect it. If it does not, we must be judicious in finding the name which is in conformity with all our policies - WP:NPOV in particular. We do not adopt or insist that 'Propaganda Department' is the only acceptable name for it in en.WP merely because that is what the NYT refers to it as. This is just plain sloppy because there is ambiguity of use even in Chinese press, who appear to use it occasionally in blissful ignorance of the negative connotations of 'propaganda' in common everyday English. The attempt to dismiss the People's Daily as a reliable source is just a cheap shot out of some neocon playbook. There are circumstances when it can be reliably cited, and this is one of them. A source which I am close to is more likely to get my name right than one which is part of the 'alien conspiracy'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia do not judge. It is rediculous to say that People's Daily is not a valid cource on this department 's name. People's Daily was the Party's Newspaper, so this department's official name in English is what People's Daily use. Several decades ago People's Daily use Prop.., its official name was prop.. in that time; nowadays People's Daily use Pub.., its official name is pub....--刻意(Kèyì) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the renaming went off without a hitch, but it's a surprise that it generated the discussion. Wikipedia is very clear on article names: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." In this case, all academic sources I've seen call it the Central Propaganda Department. It doesn't matter what the CCP calls it, because the CCP is not as much an authority on itself as scholars. It can be noted what it calls itself, but for the official name, we defer to reliable sources. The other anomaly in this regard is how the article on the CCP is itself called "Communist Party of China" rather than "Chinese Communist Party." It's the same fallacy. Really odd that this still goes on, in the face of the very clear policy on it.--Asdfg12345 16:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I see you've found a home away from home, still hoping to contribute to the downfall of the Communist Party! Have fun! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So sincere. Anyway, I'm just a researcher. I add reliable sources. Other issues are beyond my purview.--Asdfg12345 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for deletions

If PCPP could explain this, that would be great. --Asdfg12345 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now shortened the Freedom House report, and attributed them--PCPP (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we can work together. For now, are you able to explain why "the most important of all the organizations in the propaganda system." was changed to "an important organ"? Since this is still attributed to Brady, I think it would be best to go with what she said. If you could make a convincing argument about how there are more important CCP organs that deal with propaganda, then we could WP:IAR. --Asdfg12345 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please reconsider the changes you often make which turn the language from what the source said into something else. For example, you took out the words "indoctrination," even though that's what they said. And there were a few others. Overall it's not making it more neutral, it's changing what the source said into something that seems a bit more palatable. I think it would be better to find some other reliable sources that paint a different picture (if such exist, which is doubtful), rather than changing what the RS we do have say. Know what I mean? This seems like a constant theme. I've been blasted over doing this and it has been held up as an example of how I'm a diehard Falun Gong fanatic, but when you do it no one bats an eyelid. Anyway, it takes time to fix up. I think it would be better to just balance with other POVs. Yo. --Asdfg12345 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved: "Propaganda" -> "Publicity"

What's our source for the move? Articles are normally named with the title that's most common in English. I just checked the official website,[4] and according to Google's translation it still says "Propaganda". So what's the basis for the move?   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The official website says 宣传部 in Chinese. As explained in the first section of the article, 宣传 is not an equivalent of "propaganda". Official sources such as Xinhua translate it as "Publicity Department". Google translate is not a stable source because it allows user contribution. Daltac (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect the term above may refer to a separate entity. There are such organs attached to each local CPC office and are responsible for disseminating the official party line. Xinhua calls it "Central Propaganda Department". Here's an article in People's Daily also using that term. In any event, the CCP seem not to be too sensitive to the current pejorative use of "propaganda" that pervades in the West, but it seems improper to change its name from its official form based on a misguided assumption that our sensibilities and that of the PRC are identical. These two searches indicate that officials do not see anything wrong with "Propaganda" "Central Propaganda Department" vs "Central Publicity Department". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have petered out. Is there a resolution? If we could find clear evidence that the english rendering of the CPC's propaganda department was officially changed, then we should change accordingly. But if they are different things—and given that 'propaganda department' is far more frequently used—it seems a return to 'propaganda' may be in order.Homunculus (duihua) 03:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the ambivalence over the title in English, I feel it should be left where it is. It's certainly more free of the modern western negative connotation of the word 'propaganda'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Per commonname this shouldn't have been moved. Ours are not political concerns (i.e. connotations of negativity), but implementing our content policies. I'm not sure how such things are usually settled, but check [5] compared to [6]. One could do any number of other searches, I imagine. Here's one for Google scholar: [7], [8]. The difference is one of orders of magnitude. Unless there are some clear, evidenced based objections that demonstrate that "publicity department" is the more common name for this agency, I'll move the page. (NYT comparison: [9], [10]; Economist comparison - this is amusing; they don't use the new title at all [11], [12], ). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I guess the real question is whether it ought to be called "Central Propaganda Department" or "Propaganda Department" is okay. Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it the Propaganda Department is Engrish, the sort of garbled English that non-Anglophones in China write with the aid of computer translation. In my opinion, changing it back to "Propaganda" was in itself an act of propaganda. I'm no friend of the PRC government, but I believe there are better ways of expressing that resistance than childishly making fun of them on Wikipedia. I vote to rename back to "Publicity Department". Or do we want to rename the UK Treasury "Ministry of Public Extortion" as well? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have shown that "Propaganda Department" is by far the more widely used term. These decisions are based on what the policy says and what the evidence shows, not our personal opinions. I would be interested in contrary evidence to that I presented, should such evidence exist. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In a previous post I asked for evidence of an official rebranding in English. Apparently this did happen...14 years ago.[13]. The not-so-new English rendering does not appear to be applied universally, and "propaganda department" is still much more prevalent, even in official government documents and academic literature (or, as TheSound pointed out, in publications like the NYTimes and Economist). I think WP:COMMONNAME could be interpreted in different ways here. On the one hand, it states:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.

However, the policy also notes that "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Then there is this:

"Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue."

I don't have the answer, but these are the policy points we should consider.Homunculus (duihua) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the term propaganda department. Please see the work of Anne-Marie Brady, for example. It's the standard term in the literature. I suggest that further discussion focus on any countervailing evidence--though I searched both Google book and Google scholar with these terms and 'propaganda' was much more used by far. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the name seems to have been changed. It's no wonder that reliable sources have been referring to it under its previous name. Now, in line with normal practice, the article should never have been moved because the namespace was correct; I would further state that the move rationale cited is inaccurate: there were objections – mine and that of User:Mrund – and there was never consensus to move it back to 'Propaganda Department. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Which move do you think was improper? The article appears to have been moved several times. A few months ago it was moved from propaganda -> publicity, with not attempt made to establish consensus or provide an explanation based on naming policies. Then it was moved back on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. I doubt that consensus has ever been reached either way. I could very easily be persuaded that "publicity department" is preferable, if only someone could offer a compelling reason. That reason should be based on Wikipedia policy, and not on personal feelings.Homunculus (duihua) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Which move do you think was improper?" The last one. Articles are invariably moved when an organisation changes its name, and this rule ought to have been adhered to instead of the article being subjected to the sort of partisan tug of war because some individuals favour it being referred to as a propagandistic [sic] organ and others want it to be neutralised. I just think it ought to reflect the factual or official name. After all, the article on Falun Gong isn't entitles "the Evil Cult" ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Article titles, and discuss based on policies outlined there. If you don't wish to see a partisan tug-of-war, I recommend that you, 1) don't accuse others of partisanship; 2) don't speculate on the motives of other editors as anything other than to maintain neutrality; 3) don't draw erroneous analogies to try to prove a point.

As I've said, I could easily be persuaded that the article should be called "publicity department," but would hope to see evidence or a compelling interpretation of relevant policies, and neither has been produced thus far. You write that "articles are invariably moved when an organisation changes its name, and this rule ought to have been adhered to." That is not a rule. To the contrary, policy states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." TheSoundAndTheFury demonstrated compellingly that "propaganda department" is more prevalent in reliable sources, including in The Economist, the New York Times, and academic sources. WP:COMMONNAME also addresses the question of name changes: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." The english-language translation was officially changed 14 years ago, in 1998, yet "propaganda department" continues to be employed with greater frequency. If you would like to argue that we should consider what is most common in the last...I don't know, five years, rather than 14 years, I think that's fair. Evidence would still need to be provided, of course.

There are elements of the WP:Article titles policy that could be interpreted to support "publicity department." Maybe someone would like to explain why they believe that those articles of the policy should override others.Homunculus (duihua) 17:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize if the move was seen as improper. I just thought it was sort of obvious given the policies on article names. If there's a substantial dispute per policy and evidence, I would also agree with the other name being re-instituted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)