Talk:Propaganda in China

Deleted?

I don't think this should be deleted. It seems like a reasonable stub of a useful article. Frjwoolley 19:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

While it may be seen this way, and more than likely may be true, I don't think that this is the way to approach the subject, singling out a specific goverment/people. A differnt article on the topic should be created and this might be a subheading, but it should be deleted so as not to offend politically.

CobaltBlueTony 19:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

But this is what I'm most knowledgeable about. Can you really fault me for not knowing about propaganda in all countries in general? Not all countries put out the same amount of propaganda either, although I don't think the Western countries are beyond propaganda at all. By the way, that deletion thing was inserted before I even finished with my series of starter edits!

Now that I think of it, I think I may have been rash in the title. It could be propaganda of the PRC to be more specific. In any case, we're talking about facts, even if it's a "bad" thing. If there's an article on one kind of bird because there's some guy really interested in that bird before that class of birds is written about, is that bias? I'm hoping and welcome the contribution of yourself and others on all topics about propaganda, in China or otherwise.

Perhaps this information sould be part of a general article for propaganda. Check to see if there is one, and watch the neutrality issue. This is an encyclopedia; I'm sure China has encyclopedias defaming other countries. Let's not folow suit, but only cite proven evidences of propaganda. As always, cite sources that corroborate the information you are presenting.

CobaltBlueTony 20:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To CobaltBlueTony: Yes, it is a proper way: to single out things that are naturally separate. we have Propagandaministerium for [[]Nazi], Agitprop for Soviet (articles of poor quality, though). If someone can write about China, good luck. mikka (t) 20:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

But the general article Propaganda is really good. I agree that an article on PRC Propaganda, if we're careful to be NPOV, would be pretty natural. Frjwoolley 19:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A Lead Worth Following

I just read this http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/international/asia/02epstein.html :

"Israel Epstein, a journalist, author and propagandist for China whose passion for Communism was fueled in long interviews with Mao in the 1940's and was not dimmed by imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution, died last Thursday at a hospital in Beijing. He was 90.

His death was announced by the official New China News Agency.

Mr. Epstein edited China Today, an English-language Chinese newsmagazine, translated the sayings and writings of Mao and Deng Xiaoping and advised the Chinese government on how to polish its overseas image. He became a Chinese citizen, joined the Communist Party and served on official government and party committees."

Sounded really interesting and lo and behold, here's a potentially great article needing some work. Would like to work on the article, but since it seems like a large task needing a lot of work (borrowing some books from the library) and there is this potential deletion hanging over the article, I will hold off for now. Anyone else thinking about helping out? Looks like there hasn't been much work on it for a few days. Should it be advertised somehow?--DownUnder555 19:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chinese propaganda.

Songs

I remember a song of end of 1950s or beginning of 1960s with lines, kind of (I may be well off with transcription; I hope it is something recognizable)

"Ghe ming zhen shee hao han"

"Gong chan dang hao"

"She hui zhu yi hao"

It was full of plain propaganda how is everything good during socialism, and communist party leads well. Is it something well known? mikka (t) 29 June 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Modern propaganda

This article covers too little about the present day applications and dissemination of propaganda - such as the dazibao stands found in every university etc. Could someone work on this? Take a few pictures if possible, I can't since I'm not in China. -Hmib 05:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Slogans

There were loads of slogans, but the part about "Continuous News" is not substantiated. Please provide some kind of evidence. I lived in China for 10 years and intermittently after that, and saw something rougly resembling that line maybe 2 times.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

pre 1949 propaganda

The current title of the article is problematic in that CCP propaganda started way before 1949 and in fact was one of the reasons for its dramatic growth. What do people think? How do we handle this?--Moveapage 11:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careful drawing the line

Before 1978 All the chinese arts are funded by governments,so someone regarded all the pre-1978 cinemas,books are all the communist propaganda ones.It's not the case.--Ksyrie 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiananmen square self-immolation incident

I tagged the assertion as dubious because the statement is uncited, and needs a reliable citation to stay long-term.Ngchen 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I'm soliciting comment on the presence of links to commercial sites. Generally, per WP:EL, such links should be removed. However, I can see the other side of the argument in this case, namely that the links provide the reader with additional propaganda examples and good information despite being commercial.Ngchen 13:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PRC propaganda films

There is a short list of PRC propaganda films in the article, one of them I never heard of. Does anybody have by chance information on "Grenade War" (year, director, cast, ...) ? Thanks. Croquant (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it?

Where has this article gone, it was here not long ago and now seems to have disapered. I hope it has not been deleted as it was definately a neutral article and was a usefull source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.116.137 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mao book.jpg

The image Image:Mao book.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Pi lin pi kong.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

such a neglected article...

this article seems so relevant but so neglected? amazing. I will try to find some time to add information to it based on some of the things I've been reading recently.--Asdfg12345 21:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with research, please..

Am just starting to research this topic a bit during spare time. Any help would be most welcome.

Sources

Sources available on this topic are so diverse, am at a loss where to start. Anyway, if you come across a good source please add below, with a short summary of what the article touches upon:

• The BBC, China's internet 'spin doctors'[1]. A BBC article on China employing "tens of thousands" of paid agents to scour the internet, post comments supporting CCP propaganda, remove/attack information critical of the CCP, etc. A rather interesting article, and could provide info for a "Propaganda on the Internet" sub-section.

• The BBC, China TV faces propaganda charge[2]. BBC article on Chinese intellectuals signing an open letter against CCP's use of state controlled media to "brainwash its audience". The open letter speaks against whitewashing of "serious events like the recent milk contamination scandal", "systematic bias in its news coverage", ...

• Reporters Without Borders, A “Journey to the Heart of Internet censorship” on eve of party congress. A detailed study of how China's internet Censorship system functions.

• Xinhua: the world’s biggest propaganda agency. An in-depth study of the "role of the news agency Xinhua News Agency in the system of propaganda and censorship[in the CCP]" Sources from inside reveal to RSF "how the control imposed by the CCP’s Propaganda Department operates on a daily basis." The article goes on to analyze and expose "the distortion of facts, hatred for its enemies (particularly the United States and Japan) and its support, through the treatment of international news, for the world’s worst regimes." "Hand-picked journalists, who are regularly indoctrinated, produce reports for the Chinese media that give the official point of view and others - classified “internal reference” for the country’s leaders."

• "Living dangerously on the Net" RSF report on Chinese censorship of info on the net, paid agents involved in removal/attack of critical info, etc. Discusses agents paid to engage in "manhunt" for individual users; a bunch of laws which allow "dissemination of information jeopardizing the state" to be punished with a "death penalty".

• Regimenting the Public Mind: The Modernisation of the Propaganda System in the PRC. Dr Annie-Marie Brady, University of Canterbury. "Propaganda work...always been an essential element of the CCP hold on power. The Central Propaganda Department (Zhongyang xuanchuanbu) of the CCP sets guidelines over the Chinese media, film, drama, art, news, literature and education, and disciplines those who break the rules on what can and cannot be presented in these mediums.5 The propaganda system (xuanjiao xitong) remains one of the key groupings of bureaucracies within the Chinese political system."

• Guiding Hand: The Role of the CCP Central Propaganda Department in the Current Era. Anne-Marie Brady, Department of Political Science, University of Canterbury. "The Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a central, guiding, role over the whole of Chinese society in the current era. The Central Propaganda Department oversees the Propaganda and Education System (xuanjiao xitong) which monitors, instructs and censors all of China’s newspapers and magazines, film, television and radio broadcasting, the Internet, the publishing industry, and all aspects of cultural and information production from the highest to the lowest levels of society. In this paper I outline the structure and role of the Central Propaganda Department and the system of thought control it oversees."

• CHINA’S PROPAGANDA SYSTEM: INSTITUTIONS, PROCESSES AND EFFICACY by David Shambaugh, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs writing in The China Journal. Paper focuses "on the scope, structure and mechanisms of the Chinese propaganda system today."

• China’s Propaganda and Perception Management Efforts, Its Intelligence Activities that Target the United States, and the Resulting Impacts on U.S. National Security. I believe there is enough material/ research available to meet WP:N and it merits a topic of its own ( on CCP propaganda outside China ). But as afirst tsep we could cover this tersely in a subsection of this article.

• MASS MEDIA CONTROL IN CONTEMPORARY CHINA by Ashley Esarey.
• China's New Propaganda Machine By NICHOLAS BEQUELIN From today's Wall Street Journal Asia

Dilip rajeev (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when is RSF a reliable source? A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS--PCPP (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing the namespace, adding in content

The article seems to be in a very neglected state. Not a single line is sourced. The material presented is just preiphereally relevant while the real, solid scholarly analysis available is never even touched upon. There are highly irrelevant, unencyclopaedic subsections like "Famous propaganda songs" with a long list of songs, etc. A major restructuring of the article is in order, in my opinion. Any help would be most welcome.

We could have sections which allow for academic analysis to be presented including: "Historical Background", A section titled "Mechanics of Propaganda System" with subsections such as "State Control of Media", "Censorship of Journalists" , "Censorship and control of the internet", "Use of the Legal System". Other topics the article could discuss... "Evolution of the propaganda system", etc. Just a few possible subtopics that came to mind.

Will research deeper and and make contributions as soon as I can find time. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• This article is now on my watchlist. I am sure you present your research in an objective manner. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole lot of reorganization to do, a lot of material to be fixed, irrelevant stuff to be moved out, etc. There are going to be intermediary states while I edit and I'll be pointing them out in my edit summaries and on talk as I proceed. Research is easy, the sources available, and I point out a few I came across above, make the job really straightforward.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi... the page is on my watchlist as well, and since there was no explanation for removing the Shambaugh paragraph, I have restored it.--Asdfg12345 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• It was explained perfectly well, but succinctly, in my edit summary. As it stood, the page was a neutral catalogue of Chinese propaganda. Dilip's prior actions have revealed a strong anti-Chinese Communist Party agenda, and I have given up assuming his actions are anything else because of his record of being totally unable to edit objectively. Please don't rattle your sabre, and stop trying to turn this article into another Falun Gong battleground in your campaign against the CCP. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to rattle anything, let alone my blunt, old sabre (it fell into disrepair when I didn't rattle it for a few years). The edit summary you left was: " rv Dilip rajeev - there is nothing wrong with it being a catalogue; just don't bring your Falun Gong agenda here" -- that doesn't tell me much. The material removed was:

Propaganda and indoctrination are considered to have been a hallmark of the maoist state and Mao a “master propagandist” in his own right. His regime employed a variety of “thought control” techniques including incarceration for brainwashing, construction of models to be emulated, mass mobilization campaigns and creation of study groups to be emulated, promulgation of articles to be memorized, control of the educational system, a nationwide system of loudspeakers that reached into every village, control of and propaganda through media, and creation of propaganda teams to indoctrinate segments of the population, among other methods.

There are three sources referred to in there: [www.arts.usyd.edu.au/government.../staff/frederick_teiwes.htm Frederick Teiwes], Franz_Schurmann, and David Shambaugh. They are quite impeccable sources. That's not necessarily anti-CCP; it's just material from the best sources. So they are talking about the CCP's propaganda and kinda criticising it. Wikipedia is based on sources, not what editors think is neutral... this argument sounds so familiar. You should know, anyway, having added such viciously anti-Falun Gong material to wikipedia even recently. At least this stuff is true. I'd say that if these renowned China scholars write it in their books, it's fit for wikipedia. I doubt many would disagree. I read that part again, I don't see what's wrong with it anyway. It's fairly straightforward and factual.--Asdfg12345 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

moving irrelevant info

I don't see the use of this, removed. No particular relation to propaganda in the PRC. With source, could be relevant to a wider discussion of the use of language between PRC/Taiwan. Also going to move the other section on "language" (or, as it was called "Chinese connotations of the term") which was all original research. This is useful background, but it needs a source and no opinion.

Regarding the first one, if some connection to propaganda in the PRC can be explicitly established, and it has a source, then I guess it would belong.

Regarding the second, it needs a source.

A separate issue: does the article need so many songs?--Asdfg12345 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan terminology

Both the PRC and the ROC government, now located on Taiwan, formally claim to be the sole legitimate government of all China, but neither, in formal contexts, accept the other as a legitimate government or that either Taiwan is a sovereign country separate from the other. As such, both have adopted a set of political terminology to refer to the other side, its government, and civil and military offices and officials.

Within the PRC, this policy is strongly adhered to by the government and government-controlled media. For example, as a result of the fact that both the ROC and the PRC adhered to the One-China policy, the PRC is commonly referred to in both Taiwan and the PRC as dalu (simplified Chinese: 大陆; traditional Chinese: 大陸; pinyin: dàlù) meaning "mainland"; sometimes, as in Hong Kong, it is also referred to as "內地", meaning "interior territory". In both cases, the terms are used to avoid describing the PRC as "China" and the ROC as "Taiwan", as is commonly done in English. When Taiwan joins international organizations, China forces Taiwan to participate under names other than "Republic of China" or "Taiwan", such as Chinese Taipei or " Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu", in order to avoid describing Taiwan as a country.

Language issues

While in the Western world the word 'propaganda' bears negative connotations, the Chinese word 宣传, which is liberally translated as "propaganda", actually means "to broadcast" or "to propagate (information)", with no negative connotations that would imply bias or untruthfulness. This explains why many English speakers would consider the use of such a term as an outright acknowledgement of the biased nature of Chinese propaganda, although the term can in fact be used in politically neutral contexts. This is congruent with the pre-WW1 usage of the term in Western Europe, which also does not connotate deception. For example, Chinese "propaganda" has also served to raise public awareness about the law, the need for common courtesy, the importance of embracing science and technology, the need to take preventive measures against SARS and AIDS.

For example: 宣传安全知识 would, in accordance with the literal dictionary definition of "宣传", be translated as propagating public safety awareness. There are absolutely no political connotations surrounding the use of this word, as might be present in 宣传毛泽东思想 translated as propagating Mao Zedong Thought. This can be likened to the use of 'Agitprop' specifically as political propaganda, and the Spanish word 'propaganda', which simply means advertising.

Recent edits by COI users

I cannot bring myself to believe that this set of edits was in good faith. If I had more time I would not hesitate to bring this to AE as part of the Falun Gong decision. Colipon+(Talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Furthermore the statement I deleted, which was reverted by Asdfg, was making an absolute and controversial statement - as if it was fact - on the strength of a single source. For such an opinion-laiden issue we can not make such statements on a single source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate knowing what was wrong with that set of edits. How is it in bad faith? Simon, I have more clearly attributed the Brady source; please don't remove it again. By the way, that source is probably the most reliable out there on the CCP's propaganda system.--Asdfg12345 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the post-1989 period, propaganda and thought work have become the "life blood" of the Party-State, and one of the key means for guaranteeing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) continued legitimacy and hold on power, according to Anne-Marie Brady, an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury’s School of Political Science and Communication.[2]

This quote is the one that bothers me. Now I will note that it has been attributed - it wasn't previously and that was just bad but even still it is too authoritative by far and is a serious violation of WP:DUE. Now, as far as I am concerned the same edit restrictions that apply to the FLG articles should also apply here. Pursuant to that I will not be reverting your edits as I choose to retain my one FLG related revert however, by the same token, you should not be editing this article at all and I suggest you would be best advised to revert yourself.Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe my restriction on Falun Gong pages extends to here. The information was referenced, and anyone could check the reference, so it wasn't bad to have not explicitly said who said it. As I say, that source is the most recent, and most authoritative on Chinese propaganda. If that's disputed I could provide some excerpts of book reviews from well-known China scholars who can attest to that. I'm not going to revert such legitimate information.--Asdfg12345 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg12345's edit is a classic case of WP:UNDUE. He/she is presenting an opinion as a fact. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the opinion is now attributed; I do think attributing it is a good idea, in hindsight. The thing I would emphasise here is that when the foremost expert on Chinese propaganda puts something like this on the first page of her book on the subject, that's worth something.--Asdfg12345 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation requested

I don't understand and probably disagree with this edit. Dilip, would you mind explaining what the big idea is? A bunch of good information was deleted from the lead, the section on thought reform was deleted, two unreferenced sections were added back in, and sundry other minor changes were all wiped. Can you please explain all that or fix it up? A lot of edits have happened in the meantime, and it would take some time to put it all back in. It may have been a mistake, in which case, please fix it. If it wasn't a mistake, please explain. If it's not fixed next time I come online, it's not a big deal, I'll fix it myself.--Asdfg12345 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That was by mistake. I think I edited on an earlier version of the page. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, sorry. I put it back.--Asdfg12345 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Highly biased and opinionated sentence in lead

The well-known SPA pro-Falun Gong POV-pusher Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), after being topic banned from FG related articles, in a campaign to vilify China, added the following sentence in the lead:

Propaganda in the People's Republic of China refers to the PRC's use of distributing information to the general public, and is central to the operation of the Chinese system of government.

The reference for the information "is central to the operation of the Chinese system of government" is China section in Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present by Rana Mitter published by ABC-ClIO. I find the sentence "is central to the operation of the Chinese system of government" problematic as it is polemical opinion masquerading as a fact. It can be mentioned with attribution as an opinion, but not in lead, and off course not as a fact. --Defender of torch (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues:

• propaganda has been most effective in the twentieth century thanks to the mass media and a powerful authoritarian government - again this is an opinion piece and does not belong to the lead
• Since the post-1989 period, propaganda and thought work have become the "life blood" of the Party-State, and one of the key means for guaranteeing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) continued legitimacy and hold on power, according to Anne-Marie Brady, an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury’s School of Political Science and Communication - using common sense I find this assertion problematic if propaganda was already a life-blood of the party during the Maoist regime rather during the reformist post-Maoist regime. Anyway this is also the personal opinion of Anne-Marie Brady and does not belong to the lead. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, what would not count as a personal opinion on the subject of Chinese propaganda? I think that the best thing we can do here is defer to reliable sources. Anything any of them say is based on research and informed opinion; they aren't saying things like "propaganda is evil and the CCP is horrible" -- they're explaining, in fairly neutral terms, the role of propaganda in China today, and how it relates to the CCP's rule. If you have some ideas for what a lead would be on this subject that was not drawn from the opinions and research of scholars, I would be interested in hearing it. I think WP:V and WP:NPOV apply here:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources

and

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether we think it is true.

I'm not trying to "vilify China." I'm adding the work of scholars to this encyclopedia, and my intentions are the same as that of any other wikipedian--to give readers a better understanding of the subjects of articles, based on the reliable sources available. If you can share some ideas on what a lead not based on "opinion" would look like, please let me know. If you disagree with my argument, please also let me know. We can take it to the NPOV board. I think the policies are very clear on this, but I might misunderstand something.--Asdfg12345 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Defender of the Torch is right about this. As far as I am concerned this pattern of editing is a continuation of the same behaviour that got Asdfg banned from FLG articles and should be included under that ban. I am willing to include this article in the group of ones I was restricted to 1 revert per week by the same token. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Defender of the Torch. Wikipedia is very problematic when it provides a venue for attacks on nations, institutions or individuals by disgruntled partisans. --Reef Bonanza (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insist that the information remain in the lead; I defended the integrity of the source. It's not necessarily most fitting to put that in the lead; we're not sure yet because the article is still in its starting stages and lacks body and structure. They were just a stopgap, as I said. I think it would be better to try to improve the article rather than criticise my attempts to do so; I'm not running an agenda. I'm adding reliable sources. --Asdfg12345 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request quote

The reference used for the claim "The later reign of President Jiang Zemin saw the creation of propaganda demonizing Falun Gong as an "evil religion" is the History section is this report by US State Department. I don't have the time to read the entire report, so I am requesting quote from the report which supports this claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, apologies, this is actually caused by some sloppy research on my part. The USDOS report does not make that exact point, it says the CCP "classified" Falun Gong as an "evil religion"

The Government also continued to restrict severely the activities of groups it designated as "evil religions," including several Christian groups and Falun Gong.

In some areas government officials abused the rights of members of unregistered Protestant and Catholic groups, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and members of groups the Government designated "evil religions," especially Falun Gong.

Though "demonize" is widely used by other sources to describe the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda, for example:

"Endgame for the Falun Gong?" CNN.com, August 21, 2001: Washington and other capitals have put Falun Gong on its talking-point agenda with Beijing as a religious-freedom issue. By trying to demonize its founder Li Hongzhi, Beijing has merely turned him into a political icon.

Yu, Haiqing. The New Living-Room War: Media Campaigns and Falun Gong, 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Canberra 29 June-2 July 2004.: The Chinese government has mobilized all sorts of media to demonize Falun Gong and reiterate its anti-cult themes, while arresting thousands of Falun Gong followers who refuse to renounce their beliefs.

I have to go. I think the current wording is accurate, but runs the danger of being called an original synthesis. If you want to call it out on that, then it can be changed to something else that doesn't require two sources to justify. Pls advise, or I'll change it. The point is that anti-Falun Gong propaganda has been part of propaganda in the PRC; I think when the article is meatier than it is now, this aspect of CCP propaganda should be put in a sub-section, either its own, or as part of one which discusses how propaganda has been used in various political campaigns.--Asdfg12345 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The CNN article says China tried to demonize Li Hongzhi. "Demonizing" Li Hongzhi and "demonizing" Falun Gong are not the same. The last reference is the personal view of Haiqing Yu and should be used accordingly. Secondly, the statement "The later reign of President Jiang Zemin saw the creation of propaganda demonizing Falun Gong as an "evil religion" is original research. Where in the State department report the word "propaganda" is used? You need to provide a source which claims China has orchestrated propaganda against Falun Gong. Right now, I will remove the sentence as no source is provided which supports the claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I mentioned that that formulation ran the danger of being called out as an original synthesis; often in wikipedia, things stand until someone complains, which is okay. I'll put something else there, more strictly sourced, a bit later.--Asdfg12345 09:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought reform

The section Thought reform uses a source which dates back to 1968. Please tell how a 1968 reference (a time when China was ruled by a lunatic hardline communist) can be used as a reliable source to support the claim Propaganda in the PRC is often associated with "thought reform" for 21st century China (a time when China is no more a communist country and is constantly strengthening its capitalist economy). --Defender of torch (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I believe that should be changed to a was. Indeed, chapter three of Brady's text is called "From Thought Reform to Economic Reform: Comparing Propaganda and Thought Work in Different Eras". That it's old shouldn't mean it be excluded; it means it should be put into context. I have been quite busy recently, but want to get back working on this article soon. I agree that the chronology of sources is quite important, and that an is in there now would be inaccurate, failing to account for the changing dynamics in Chinese state propaganda. I have some more tweaks and remarks about your other edits soon, too. Give me some time. I'm liking this rigorous approach of yours, seriously.--Asdfg12345 09:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey BTW, found this while searching some keywords, from "Social control in China: a study of Chinese work units" by Victor N. Shaw (1996):

In terms of intensity and scope, spiritual control has been reinforced under the CCP reign, becoming a basic feature of common citizens' daily life. To a degree, "freedom of silence" cherished by some old-fashioned Chinese scholars is not even possible for an illiterate peasant in a remote area under the CCP mass propaganda.

China studies in the West have analysed the role of ideology and spiritual control in Chinese political dynamics. Mass media researchers point out that the CCP utilizes propaganda to spread its policies, build social consensus, and mobilize the population for social programs (Hawkins 1982; Womack 1986). Political analysts find that ideological tension results in mass movements and that spiritual control legitimizes political establishments (Barnett 1967; David and Vogel 1990). Legal scholars notice that political studies, legal education, heroic models, and thought reform provide the CCP with effective weapons to propagandize rules and legal codes, normalize individual behaviour, and rehabilitate deviants in labor camps...

Kinda related. Anyway, interesting.--Asdfg12345 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes to what were slightly unusual (not necessarily bad) aspects, like the section title that included the source in it, and so on. I think maybe we all need to refresh ourselves on what wikipedia is and what it isn't. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. It's like a mirror to what reliable sources say on the subject, reflecting the views in accordance with their prominence, the expertise of the holder of those views, and so on. When it comes to this subject, the China scholars that are being cited are the most reliable sources you can get. They are the last word on Chinese state propaganda as far as wikipedia is concerned. It's good to make citations clear, but I get the sense some editors are a bit jumpy about this subject for some reason. It's just like writing about a banana; not very controversial. You're just describing its characteristics, what it does, what it looks like, its history, and so forth. We're just telling the story of CCP propaganda according to reliable sources. Hope to do some more research soon. /homily. --Asdfg12345 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in my reading of sources about CCP propaganda, I have not found views much at odds with those currently on the page. If views exist which extol the benefits of CCP propaganda, and they're published by reliable sources, then they should be cited. I can't find any though. Not that the current fare is necessarily critical as such. --Asdfg12345 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

finally created this one.fyi. --Asdfg12345 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the 1968 source with the Shaw source--PCPP (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

I've undone this edit because 1) it makes the paragraph very heavy to read 2) there's more than one person making these statements, and listing them all would make the paragraph even heavier. WP:CLAIM discourages using this word all over the place because it casts doubt on the assertions in a non-neutral way. In my opinion, if someone believes these statements are erroneous, the proper way to reach a neutral POV would be to add the alternative POVs (if any). For instance, if the PRC made any statement regarding this issue, we could add it to the section. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if the views being expressed are disputed (by other reliable sources), then it may help to use some other kind of language to buttress the statements, like making clear who said them, and so forth. But if the information comes from highly reliable sources, and there are no reliable sources offering different opinions, then it's as good as factual, and I don't see the need for attributing the information in the text itself (it should still be cited). In many other cases, I think it makes sense to do so--and in this article, if individuals were offering value judgements on the subject, then they should be attributed, but if someone is describing aspects of the CCP propaganda apparatus, I don't see the need to constantly say who is saying it (as long as that information is not controversial or disputed by other RS). I'm not sure I'm right in that assertion, though. If someone could point me to a relevant policy item, or to a public forum where the question could be cleared up, that would be good too. --Asdfg12345 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I read this article. Vivid use of the Kurlantzick and Link source. I have a few comments. Firstly, the referencing is a bit messy; I will attempt to make some corrections to that now. Secondly, I notice that an important work from Anne-Marie Brady is not used: "Making the Foreign Serve China: Managing Foreigners in the People's Republic." This monograph provides a wealth of insight that could be added to the "External propaganda" section of this article. I may be able to include some information from it at a later time. Thirdly, a text by Daniel Lynch called "After the propaganda state: media, politics, and "thought work" in reformed China" is not cited here at all. I think the views articulated in that text, which are at odds with Brady, should find their way into this article on Wikipedia. Lynch's is an important contribution to the field. Lastly, this article's counterpart seems to have been neglected. My expertise does not extend to Taiwan, but I wonder if someone reading this would consider putting in some research over there. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When I say "the referencing is a bit messy," I'm just referring to the way the citations were placed; sometimes there were spaces, sometimes before periods, sometimes after. I do not mean to diminish anyone's efforts or research. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to have an entirely unsourced paragraph? Also, this sentence ending "yet her story provides a good example of how propaganda is delivered" appears to be unattributed opinion. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Does some of the Control of media section "step" into the realm of the CCP's stifling of civil society, rather than being directly about propaganda? It would be useful to readers to provide a more explicit link in how these issues are related. Currently, a connection is made that self-censorship is one mechanism in a range, increasing in severity, used to control the populace. And self-censorship relates to the propaganda state. But I think it could still be clarified further.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence "The "true history" of Tibet, Taiwan, World War II, and the CCP itself, is routinely "airbrushed" from textbooks and media, often replaced by names, dates and manipulative slogans." is unclear. They are replaced by "names, dates..."; is that supposed to read "false names, dates..."? It does not seem to make sense otherwise.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I scanned some of the remarks above. I agree with the sentiments that seek to situate the CCP's widespread use of ideological remoulding with a bygone era. At the least, the connection of these techniques with the present does not seem to have been communicated clearly in the article. These techniques are now applied to a much smaller portion of the populace (imprisoned dissidents, the Falun Gong, etc.). I agree that it is important to highlight the relationship of this with the present article, but I would have thought it would be most appropriately framed historically rather than contemporaneously. Of course, if there is a continuity, it should be noted. But nowadays a key point in any discussion of the CCP and its propaganda is how it has evolved and changed, adapting to a modern world. Anne-Marie Brady does an excellent, even tedious, job of depicting this. The historical place of Maoist propaganda techniques, and the adoption of more cut-and-polished Western-derived techniques that we see today do not seem to be explicit in the current article format. I think the lead of the article should introduce these concepts.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing by Asdfg and dilip_rajeev

This article has a large amount of unreviewed POV material inserted by Asdfg12345 and Dilip rajeev, two single purpose accounts and Falun Gong practitioners that were used to push anti-PRC, pro-FLG material in accordance with their ideological leanings. Their edits consists large amounts of material from singles sources - 38 from Kurlantzick of Freedom House, 5 from Brady, and 14 from Shambaugh. The editing patterns follows the same ideals from the Falun Gong editings, which is using large amounts of POV material from single sources, and present them in the lede and throughout the bodies as such that they appear to be commonly accepted facts while overwhelming their critics.--PCPP (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the material from [3] which a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts.--PCPP (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the source, I will make a post on the RS noticeboard. We'll let people who don't have an axe to grind assess whether it's reliable or not. I've reverted all your edits to all these pages, and left a warning on your talk page. I also intend to start a RfC on your conduct over the last several years. --Asdfg12345 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there are two issues. One is about reliability of the source, the other is about how it's used. See here for the RS noticeboard post. As for possible misuse of the source, are you able to point out which parts are over the top or need reduction? Or just go ahead and reduce those as you consider appropriate. But I object in the strongest terms to simply blanking out content that doesn't fit a POV. We'll see whether the wiki community thinks it's RS or not. The other things can just be dealt with through discussion (if you stick around for that). An editor above notes possible coatracking in how the source has been used; that may be worth dealing with in more detail. --Asdfg12345 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of a quarter of the article

I haven't had a chance at a close look, but the article went from 44k to 34k after a series of edits by PCPP.

I will paste below the paragraphs that were outright removed. pls explain --Asdfg12345 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm pasting it below. Just maybe place your reason below with an asterisk and write in italics. I'm not sure, whatever you find comfortable. Also, from now on would you mind actually just cutting the paragraph from the article and putting it on the talk page, rather than outright deleting it? it takes time to go through and figure out what you have deleted. Thanks a lot. I will wait for your explanation on each of these points before restoring the information. I would also request that you please explain your rationale before deleting swathes of content. --Asdfg12345 07:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Parts deleted

...[Mao]] a “master propagandist” in his own right. His regime employed a variety of “thought control” techniques, including incarceration for "brainwashing," construction of models to be emulated, mass mobilization campaigns, the creation of study groups and ideological monitors throughout society, promulgation of articles to be memorized, control of the educational system, a nationwide system of loudspeakers that reached into every village, control of and propaganda through media, and creation of propaganda teams to indoctrinate segments of the population, among other methods.

Editors and reporters in China have long risked demotion, dismissal, or more serious punishment by the state when they push the limits of permissible coverage.

Kurlantzick and Link state that the CCP has historically relied more on fear induced self-censorship than administrative censorship. In the Mao-era and the years following, broad and vague directives such as “Criticize Confucius” or “Annihilate Bourgeois Liberalism” would be issued; violations would carry a hefty price and citizens had to monitor themselves and others, guessing at what the government might not like. A “safety in numbers” mentality kept people from asserting themselves, and anyone who dared venture outside the safe area was said to be “break[ing] into forbidden zones.” The same fear-induced self-censorship continues today, with exploration into topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident, Tibet, Falun Gong, the China Democratic Party, Taiwan Independence, Uyghur autonomy, the Great Leap famine, and corruption among top leaders being forbidden.

The public remains aware that violation of the "forbidden zones," or actions that infringe on the interests of the ruling Party-state, is extremely dangerous. The forbidden areas are smaller in comparison with the Maoist era, the surface of society seems less affected, fear is less constant, and most people sidestep the constraints easily. Behind a surface appearance of ordinariness, however, remains a "ubiquitous police state" in which the central authorities announce policy goals and leave Party officials and hired thugs to accomplish them as seen fit. This results in considerable differences from place to place in the degree of coercion and the techniques employed. Individuals who "step" into a forbidden zone may initially receive a verbal correction. Escalating measures for repeat offenders include being surveilled and followed by plainclothes police, telephone and e-mail surveillance, then job-loss and blacklisting, and, if necessary, labor camp, prison, torture, and execution. Citizens' awareness of these consequences explain why the system of self-censorship works and the existence of a civil society under CCP rule is impossible. NGOs are almost without exception subject to CCP control, and any group whose membership grows to 10 or 20 people may be repressed.

A major tool of the CCP for inducing and ensuring public obedience to the Party is "thought work" (sixiang gongzuo). Propaganda and thought work were pursued "openly, explicitly, and without apology" in the Maoist era. Characteristic of it were practices of "ideological remolding" (sixiang gaizao), ideological purges, ritual humiliation of perceived enemies, political study to ensure allegiance to the Party line, and the targeting of high-profile individuals as symbols of negative tendencies to be eradicated.

Biderman and Meyers wrote in 1968 that while some kind of thought reform is characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, the CCP "set about it more purposefully, more massively, and more intensively than have other ruling groups," including through employing known techniques in new ways. They note, as an example, the presence of daily meetings for criticism and self-criticism during the 1960s; surveillance and sanctions were connected with education to "expose, censure, and correct shortcomings of attitude and conduct." Communist leaders attacked all personal connections between soldiers that were not based on political convictions. "By these and other techniques they exploit[ed] social pressures and personal anxieties brilliantly to ensure conformity." While carried out more subtly than in the Mao era, thought work remains crucial to the CCP's maintenance of power. Whereas Mao-era mass mobilization campaigns attempted to transform all of society, including human nature, thought work today focuses more on a narrower range of issues critical to CCP rule.

The Communist Party's thought work includes both intervention to prevent the expression of proscribed views, and an active cultivation of views that favor the government. The latter aspect, which has been part of the system from the outset, has been given particular attention in recent years. This has included through textbooks, television documentaries, museums, and other media that spread "seriously distorted versions of Chinese history," according to Kurlantzick and Link. The functioning of the two components--the suppression of unfavorable views and promotion of favorable ones--has a powerful impact on public opinion.

Textbooks stress China’s history of humiliation (bainian guochi) at the hands of the West, while the news media simultaneously tells the public that the West wants to “keep China down” and that talk of human rights is only a tool for this purpose. The public is told that Japan refuses to acknowledge its war crimes in China, and that the "wolf-hearted" Dalai Lama wants to "split the motherland." What Kurlantzick and Link term this manipulation through education and media has been especially effective among young urban elites, a portion of whom are called "angry youth" (fenqing). History is selectively erased from textbooks and other media, and in contemporary China it remains difficult or impossible to discuss the Mao-era in any public context. The "true history" of Tibet, Taiwan, World War II, and the CCP itself, is routinely "airbrushed" from textbooks and media, often replaced by names, dates and manipulative slogans. Guidance of opinion through stimulating patriotism and identifying it with support for the CCP has gained footing.

Thought work is also performed through the use of language. Link and Kurlantzick state that the language the CCP employs "would be recognizable to George Orwell." Putative examples include the political pressure put on an individual being called "help"; the violation of rights being described as the "protection of rights"; thought control of workers through what are labelled "labor unions"; suppressing the Uyghur population called "counterterrorism"; authoritarianism being dubbed democracy while real democracy movements are denounced as "counterrevolutionary rebellions"; and a system of servile courts hailed as the "rule of law." This language draws from the concept of the "Big Lie," according to Kurlantzick and Link: the repetition of a gross falsehood, without challenge, until is accepted as truth, or something that for political purposes is just as solid as truth.

Part of the CCP's modern propaganda apparatus is "market-based censorship," in which media outlets and companies are threatened with economic repercussions, in addition to the traditional political and legal penalties, if they stray from the Party line. While traditional tools of police action and prison sentences continue to be regularly used to silence internet activists, and the state’s technical capacity to censor and control online content remains unrivaled, CCP has been at the forefront of a growing trend toward “outsourcing” censorship and monitoring to private companies. Enterprises, including Internet portals and blog-hosting services, are required to employ in-house staff to handle censorship tasks and risk losing their business licences if they fail to comply with censorship directives.

The CCP has an established bureaucracy of internet police that has been estimated in size at 30,000 or more. Using sophisticated technology purchased from developed countries, filters have been set up to block commentary on sensitive topics and to expunge material with sensitive terms. Use of pseudonyms is banned in cyberspace and collective-responsibility mechanisms instituted allow for entire website to be shut-down, and its operators held responsible, if errant commentary appear on its pages. Techniques of control and monitoring include electronic mailboxes to which any citizen can secretly report violations,.and the use of agents-provocateurs, and hackers.

Note I did not remove the following Brady source:

The experiences of propaganda and thought work in the Cultural Revolution provided the CCP with a "profound lesson," according to Brady. Virtually all post-Mao era Party leaders had been under attack during that time, and drew two seemingly contradictory lessons: the rejection of mass movements and thought reform as means of transforming China, and the recognition of the "vital role of propaganda and thought work in China's political control." The administration of propaganda and thought work was plagued by these issues through the 1980s, and up to the events of June 4, 1989.

The events of April and June 1989 were an indication to many elders in the CCP that liberaliation in the propaganda sector had gone too far, and that the Party must re-establish its control over ideology and the propaganda system.

The 1969 source was updated with a more recent source by Shaw

The rest of the material cannot conform to NPOV as it is, they are poorly attributed rhetorics from a partisan organization, described in a way as they're factual evidence, contains several factual errors, and worst of all adds nothing to the article which is not already covered by Brady and other sources. The previous version reads like a blalant attack piece on the Chinese government.--PCPP (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Were you aware that in the RS post I made that was found to be a reliable source? It's unclear how they are "poorly attributed rhetorics from a partisan organization." Maybe you could help to attribute them if you think they could be improved. Or find points of view to balance. Your explanation does not help understand why the article should not include that information. --Asdfg12345 09:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was aware. There was no majority concensus, only one editor responded, and even he asked for the sources to be properly attributed. You've yet to address how these additions confirm to NPOV or add anything to the article not already covered by the countless sources we have.--PCPP (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)