Talk:Confucius Institute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Split

Split is now complete, so further discussion of POV and other issues related to controversy content should happen over at talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Metal.lunchbox for making the splits and to Homunculus for offering to contribute. Now we can focus on improving the Controversies article. Keahapana (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRIT and the CI split

We should reconsider the relevance of Wikipedia:Criticism because two pro-merger commentators have mentioned it – "Criticism articles are discouraged, except for topics like philosophy and religion, about which there is an entire literature dedicated to criticism" (15 January), and "The cantoning merely perpetuates empire building and turf wars …The essay WP:CRITICISM summarises the issues quite well." (17 January). In fact, the Confucius Institute program meets two primary criteria for a criticism article.

Subject matter. CIs are a politically controversial organization associated with the Chinese Communist Party. As an exception to general WP rules, criticism articles are sometimes allowed for six exceptional subjects: Living persons; Philosophy, religion, or politics; and Organizations and corporations.

For topics which inherently represent a point of view, the ideal approach of integrating negative criticism within the primary article may not be the best approach. For example, topics such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism) are topics that are inherently about a particular viewpoint. Integrating negative criticism into those articles can sometimes result in confusion: readers may not be able to discern the difference between what adherents believe versus what critics assert. For these reasons, such articles often include dedicated "Criticism" sections or "Criticism of .." subarticles. (2.2)

Independent criticism sources. Since the beginnings of the "CI Controversies" subsection and subarticle, the recurring UNDUE and POV arguments were based upon claims that too many sources were critical.

Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If the sources treat these topics independently, that may result in sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism. (2.3)

Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. Examples of articles devoted to a controversy include Whaling controversy, Global warming controversy, 2008 Olympics controversies and Scientology controversies. (3.5)

Thus, both the Confucius Institute's subject matter and critical sources make it suitable for an independent controversy article. Keahapana (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the procedure is here, but since the merge discussion was inconclusive, should we remove the merge tag at the top of the page? Homunculus (duihua) 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know either. Reading Proposing a merger III, it looks like we don't need admin in this case. Keahapana (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, I removed it. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

(watch) Following a brief discussion initiated at the talk page of the subsidiary article, Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, I would seek consensus to merge the two articles. There cannot be any objection as to the size of any potentially combined article. Stripped of duplication, it would be well below 100kb. There are a number of problems that have been highlighted, principally undue weight being given to speculative fears or general anti-PRC sentiment. I have put in substantial work into the other article, but it remains a POV fork; I also still feel that it can never be anything but an attack page. The issues are not really all that complex, in that they principally stem from the involvement of the Chinese party-state and fears over how its record of propaganda and denial of human rights would impact academic establishments hungry for Chinese hard cash. My personal view of the merger outcome would be a further substantial pruning of the content now residing at the latter so that the conclusions of both batches of text would be in political alignment. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I make a case for the deletion of the POV fork at great length here, so I will not repeat myself. Colipon+(Talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, though I hope to see the logistics and implementation of the merge handled with a good dose of circumspection. I certainly believe that the informative content of the daughter article can be integrated fairly concisely throughout the body of the main article and, when necessary, in a devoted section on controversies. I agree with the views expressed by TSTF in the above discussion that many of the controversies previously identified can simply be presented in a neutral, informative matter, without the journalistic exegesis (for instance, Hanban's position on hiring FG practitioners and requirements that CIs follow PRC laws can just be presented in a section on the organization and administration, without excessive additional commentary. Similarly, information regarding lack of student demand and financial losses—previously classified as a concern over viability—can be addressed the body of the article under a section on 'operations,' or something). I hope this is done in a manner that both maintains the substance of these concerns while not leading to an unreadable, ponderous document. Finally, I hope that we are not guided in our editing by our own judgements about whether criticisms are fair or not, or whether the result produces unfavorable / favorable views of Confucius Institutes or the PRC generally; that is not the measure of objectivity.Homunculus (duihua) 04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I do want to make clear that the vast majority of the content of the Controversies article should be either included as summary or deleted. Most of the quotes and other content are not notable controversies worth discussing in detail in this article. Instead we might simply improve the section on controversies already present in this article, expand a little bit on financing and the relationship with the PRC government insofar as that can be done in a neutral and verifiable manner, and include a few other details that seem important and verifiable. In particular I think the incident in Israel is significant as it is related to the concerns and actually happened instead of just being speculated upon by someone quoted in a local paper. Espionage, for instance, does not merit discussion but rather simply mentioning that some are also concerned that the CIs are used to spy on overseas Chinese and Asia scholars. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support with provisions previously mentioned and again raised by Homunculus & Metal.lunchbox. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I withdraw support for the merger; my main concern was that information on this page be also found on the main page; that is a separate question of whether this page exists or not. It's not that I oppose the merger, simply that I no longer have an opinion on the matter, because the main page should look the same whether or not this one exists. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This article should summarize those controversies that have been widely discussed in outside sources, i.e. not every anti-CI opinion piece that is published in local newspaper. There is enough material to fill a devoted section on controversies, but following Wikipedia best practices, I prefer a more integrative approach. Shrigley (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I strongly disagree with this counterproductive proposal, and am surprised that you would start merging content without even waiting 48 hours for additional comments. The present page was split off (WP:SPLITTING – not WP:POVFORK) the original CI page in July 2011 as a compromise to stop years of wasteful edit warring. If editors were unable to reach NPOV consensus then, it seems improbable that they will now. Criticisms and controversies over CIs – whether one sees them as legitimate free speech or anti-PRC propaganda – will not go away. In fact, they have increased exponentially, which became evident when we tried a chronological arrangement of the Controversies section. Admittedly, I could be wrong, so I suggest interested editors draw their own conclusions from the Article and Talk page histories, which document every constructive and destructive edit. In the meantime, I request that you stop making major C&CCI deletions without allowing discussion. We can disagree on whether the CI criticisms are fair, or whether the article coverage should be throttled to an arbitrary number of paragraphs, but I hope we can all agree that Wikipedia readers should have uncensored access to relevant information. Keahapana (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  Please stop referring to the edits of others as censorship. You have done so on several times in regards to this topic and it is not helpful. Also, no one has proposed an arbitrary limit to the number of paragraphs devoted to the topic. This is not a free-speech issue, it is only that a long list of quotes and repetitive speculation strung together to form some kind of ambiguous argument against the CIs is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Remember that not every type of content belongs on Wikipedia. When someone edits, summarizes, or consolidates that content, it is not censorship, but rather the necessary work of improving this encyclopedia. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  First, I was referring to dubiously justified WP deletions that I would call censorship —"the process of removing parts of books, movies, letters, etc. that are considered inappropriate for moral, religious, or political reasons" (Macmillan Dictionary). If not censorship, what would you call yesterday's removal of the widely-discussed Hacienda La Puente Unified School District controversy because "rem per WP:UNDUE - storm in a teacup)"? Second, I meant this proposal on 10 January: "all of these concerns can be summed up succinctly in the main article's section on "Criticism and Controversies", in two paragraphs at max." Of course, I could be wrong about the semantics of "censorship" or interpretation of WP:UNDUE, and look forward to any further comments. Keahapana (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  The removal and its comment are appropriate. If you think that the removal is for moral, religious or political reasons as you are suggesting then you should explain what evidence you have for this. Otherwise WP:AGF would suggest that removing a paragraph about an editorial in a local paper saying some sensational things about a local CI and a few reactions should be assumed to be done in a good faith effort to avoid giving undue weight to not-notable controversies as described at length in WP:UNDUE. Much of the controversies article suffers from the same problem. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  You are talking about the Hacienda episode. It's as much about WP:SUMMARY and WP:GNG as anything else. Censorship doesn't come into it, because not everything belongs in an encyclopaedia. Just because it's a criticism doesn't necessarily mean it should be listed. Half the content that was in that deletion was placed there by me in the first place because it was totally unbalanced and contributed strongly to its reading like an attack page, but I decided to take it all out because I felt on balance it is a rather local issue, which clearly ought not to carry as much weight as anything that took place at a university. And even some of the university stuff can and ought to be judiciously summarised. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Keahapana, from what I can gather you have been working on this page longer than any of us (the possible exception being Metal.lunchbox). I can believe that the page has been subject to attempted censorship before (I've encountered enough of this elsewhere on the encyclopedia[1] to recognize the potential for it), and although I never fully supported the split page, I can also appreciate that the controversies page was an attempt to cool things down. That said, there are more editors involved now, and there may be potential for positive collaboration if we all agree to some basic guidelines (ie. stick to discussions of content, refrain from being especially bold...?). Your warnings may turn out to be prescient, but merging the pages again could be worth a try.Homunculus (duihua) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess one person's tempest in a teapot is another person's exemplar in the Confucius Institute narrative. Of course, not everything meets WP standards, but this Hacienda case merits inclusion. First, it involved (and may be the earliest example of) a secondary Confucius Classroom controversy rather than university Confucius Institute. Second, it was clearly not a "local issue" limited to an "editorial in a local paper"; besides the Asian American Policy Review article (thanks to OhConfucius for citing this before deleting it), the Hacienda school board debates were reported in sources like the Washington Times, BBC, and National Review. Keahapana (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep content disputes separate from the merge discussion. Shrigley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this isn't a content dispute, it's the above example of dubiously deleted content, which two pro-merger editors claim is appropriate. After we've resolved this merge proposal, we can discuss reverting Hacienda La Puente (with added refs) and the other problematic deletions. Notably, last week the C&CCI article lost about 8Kb of content in a flurry of pre-merger edits (22 by PCPP and 71 by OhConfucius) shown in this diff (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes). Some of these were justifiable removals and stylistic improvements, but other edits like Hacienda deserve reexamination and discussion on that Talk page. I'm curious. Who thinks this kind of removal is appropriate under WP rules? Can we expect similar omissions in the merge reduction? Keahapana (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, though the editors should find a way to collaborate first. Until then the merge will only fuel the dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I confess I haven't read either of the articles in their entirely, the criticism article looks detailed and well-developed enough that it works as a stand-alone article. If it works as a stand-alone, there's no need to merge it. I'm not concerned about information being 'hidden' because the important points of the argument can be summarized in the main article, with a link to the more detailed article, just like there is now. If all this content were merged into the main article, it seems like it would be giving undue weight to the criticism (even if for example 80% of the sources about Confucius Institutes are regarding the criticism, I still think it would be disproportionate to devote 80% of the article to that, since it can be summarized more succinctly and there is more to say than just that). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If merging all the information makes the CI article a coatrack, then the way to fix it is by increasing the proportion of information about CIs in general, or by trimming the undue subject. Criticism articles are discouraged, except for topics like philosophy and religion, about which there is an entire literature dedicated to criticism. The CI criticism page is a motley collection of individual news articles, blog posts, and press releases without clear guidelines about what merits inclusion. When a response to the challenging of material is that it is "sourced", or that the challenger is attempting "censorship", then that should raise a red flag about the content and purpose of the article. Shrigley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My point is that it is preferable to have one article that is maybe a little short of being in overall neutrality than two articles, one of which is neutral and the other weighted 90+% criticism. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Over 90% is an interesting claim. The current article has 57 references, with approximately 40 unique sources, including the official PRC Xinhua, China Daily, People's Daily, and Hanban (3 times). Unofficial sources quote CI directors from Portland State, University of Oregon, Columbia, Sydney, and Chicago. Keahapana (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you bear in mind the long history of this article edit and the good outcome of the July 2011 split compromise, it ones more confirms that this is an established and proven policy to help to end edit wars. I think we should keep the two articles separately and try to keep them as NPOV as possible. I also think that in recent years the criticism over CIs has become more noticeable than the CIs themselves, so it is a good solution to have two separated articles. --AdminiMax 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Adminimax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The point is that with some types of articles, established with a scope of one viewpoint only, NPOV is impossible. Your opinion about the "noticeability" of CI controversies is completely subjective, and in any case, wrong. Any notice given to a CI controversy is notice to the CI itself, of which hundreds are operating daily without controversy. The split article has become a dumping ground for the reduplication of every negative or potentially negative webpage about anyone remotely associated with an individual CI, becoming something which Wikipedia is not. Although these articles have not been very confrontational so far, the object of Wikipedia is not to avoid confrontation by giving each viewpoint its own article. Shrigley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • While you may feel there is a "good outcome of the July 2011 split compromise, it ones more confirms that this is an established and proven policy to help to end edit wars", this sort of forking is not always a satisfactory outcome for the encyclopaedia overall. The cantoning merely perpetuates empire building and turf wars, with the critics inhabiting the equivalent 'criticism' article and the others staying at the 'main' article. The essay WP:CRITICISM summarises the issues quite well. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If the "Concerns" article was shorter and less-sourced, I might support a merge (although it would be undoing a well-reasoned split). My concern is that with a merge, we would lose most of that article. Miniapolis (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The whole idea behind the proposal is not what is currently in the article, but what ought to be in it. If you are convinced that all the content complies will all our policies, or that it is all encyclopaedic, then so be it. But it doesn't seem to be what you are saying... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The main difficulties with asserting what "ought to be", the classic Is–ought problem, are subjectivity and arbitrariness, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedia. Keahapana (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't seen this page before, so am unfamiliar with the history. However, as an outsider, it appears to me that there is too much verifiable material to comfortably merge. Since the "Concerns" article is long and well sourced, merging the material would make this article overlong. LK (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was drawn here by the recent NYT's article, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/us/critics-worry-about-influence-of-chinese-institutes-on-us-campuses.html It would seem hard to have an article about the institutes without also considering the issues they present and vice versa. This sort of sweet and sour aspect of things is just part of anything connected with the PRC. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The "criticism" POV forks should generally be avoided, and I do not see any reason to keep it in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • FYI Thanks to "Fred Bauder and "My very best wishes" for commenting on this failed consensus. While I agree that POV forks should generally be avoided, in this particular case, it was the best compromise to unending editorial disagreements. If you check the present article's history and archive, you can see a pattern of time-wasting edit wars. Some editors believe that WP already includes too many CI controversies and have repeatedly deleted pertinent sources (including another NYT article); other editors, including me (full disclosure: contributer to this article since Oct 2009), have reverted them. If you're interested, this disagreement has flared up again on Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes and is currently being discussed. Your opinions and contributions would be most welcome. Keahapana (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, edit wars simply moved to another ("Controversy") article. As about consensus here, this should be determined by uninvolved administrator(s). My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about proposed merger

I am making this request for comment because the numerous accusations of serious political interference and censorship on both sides of this debate seem to demand further comment by neutral parties if this article is ever to meet Wikipedia standards. John Hill (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, John, the only accusations of "serious political interference and censorship" have come from user Keahapana. You will notice in my lengthy proposal for deletion, I do not make a single comment against any user personally or makes a judgment on the motives of anyone. I focus on content only, and it would seem to me like almost every other editor here sticks to that as well (regardless of which 'side' they are on). So that said, I do not think such loaded words are appropriate to describe the situation, but I do welcome third party opinions on this issue. Colipon+(Talk) 05:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As an addition, I would caution any third party observers to this debate against characterizing anything here as an edit war with two distinct 'sides'. It seems to me like all the editors can agree that criticism of CIs is notable and warrants inclusion on WP. What we cannot agree on is simply how much of it is notable, how much of it should be included, and on what article it should be written; and even on these issues, there is a continuum of opinions, not a distinct 'for' and 'against' pattern of discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you are telling outside parties how to characterize this page merger discussion. Aren't there apt binary pairs such as support/oppose and deletionism/inclusionism? Keahapana (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an important question: how easy will it be to unwind the merger after it is done? The conversation above raises some important issues and concerns. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, there will be no immediate demand for unwinding after it is done, but it would just involve some more discussion than the previous split, since more people are involved. Shrigley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Shrigley above. We ought to be able to achieve a broad consensus on the parameters of a merger although we have to accept that it might still be opposed by some. I am optimistic that consensus will be reached, and seen to have been reached. That being the case, any unwinding is likely to be seen to be in violation of consensus which admins are likely to restore to the consensus version. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The first five people who opined on the merge discussion had a diverse range of opinions on the content of the controversies article. Nonetheless, after discussion on that talk page and other means of dispute resolution, we have civilly come to agree on a course of action. You join the discussion, give your experience of editing on this article one year ago with different people, and throw out bombastic language like "counterproductive", "wasteful", "edit warring", "unable to reach consensus", "propaganda", "destructive", "uncensored". As a result of your comments, John Hill has invited more people to this discussion, by portraying it as one of "propaganda" and "censorship", rather than splits and mergers. Hence, we now have users who admit that they "haven't read either of the articles in their entirely" opining on what to do with this article based on their political opinions. This has been a truly disruptive derailment of the merge discussion. Shrigley (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, the fast-moving First Five editors to opine on this merger discussion (which they began here on 11 January and proposed above on 12 January) have already reached consensus to merge, and resent having to wait for additional opinions. Also, can we please discuss this without ad hominem attack the RfC messenger comments? Keahapana (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that Keahapana is upset at the proposal to merge the article, but there's nothing new in WP:MERGE discussions. It's a blatantly faux argumention to suggest that it will happen immediately based on the opinions of "the fast-moving First Five editors". There is a process that generally takes between two weeks and a month, depending on the interest. Let this discussion continue, but none of that means that the merger can be filibustered forever. A neutral admin will come and close this in due course. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm neither upset nor did I say "immediately" – I'm surprised at what looks like a concerted attempt to railroad the merger without allowing for discussion. You're correct, WP:MERGE recommends waiting "normally 1 week or more" for discussion, and a disputed consensus can take several weeks. Why start importing C&CCI content without waiting? My primary concern is maintaining the articles' pertinent sources (full disclosure: many of which I've contributed). Based on the page edit history of erasing CI controversies, frequently without discussion or valid justification, I believe the merger will eventually replace NPOV with pro-Hanban POV. Keahapana (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Keahapana, I think we probably all agree that, even if the daughter page remains, there is some content from that page that can be integrated concisely in the main article. I think that's why some content is already being merged. It's not a guarantee that the daughter page will be deleted. Such is my understanding, in any case. Homunculus (duihua) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, but there are no guarantees against future deletions of worthwhile information. Keahapana (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think you know full well there can never be any guarantees as far as wikis are concerned. It is consensus that determines what is "worthwhile"; consensus is always subject to change. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami. I believe that you are upset, and I suggest that you bin your rhetoric and borderline bad faith accusations, and adjust your thermostat down a few notches. There is no "concerted attempt to railroad the merger without allowing for discussion". What do you call all the comments in this section?? This proposal came about because those were the lines on which the discussion seem to have been progressing, and I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. As to your concerns, a merger typical includes merging the article history so that nothing is actually lost, even though the stuff may actually no longer be visible. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can believe what you want, but you're still wrong about my emotional state. I'm not angry, period. We all understand the difficulties of affectively interpreting computer-mediated communication (until Emotion Markup Language is developed). In my unangry, rational, and honest opinion, the present merge process does appear like railroading. You have much more experience editing Wikipedia than I do, so please tell me. Is it common practice to propose a merge and then start merging content less than 48 hours later? I enjoyed the brilliant Newspeak of stuff that is not actually lost just invisible, reminiscent of the Recdep. While WP editors are aware that page histories record every deletion, we cannot expect WP readers to search the archives for invisible information. Keahapana (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• An alternative suggestion might be to preserve the daughter page for now, and begin integrating the informational aspects found in the controversies article. For example, information about what CIs do not teach, or the fact that they teach exclusively simplified Chinese, or the topics they avoid for political reasons, could be put into the "Curriculum" section. A sub-section could be created in the "Organization" section which documents the exclusion of Falun Gong believers from being volunteer teachers. As we shift over the information from the other page, we may find we can represent everything fairly and have no need for an independent page. If we find that we cannot read consensus on the POV issues, then we may determine that the daughter article still serves a valuable purpose. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

On that note, I just put some information from the other piece into this one, rewriting it a little bit. What does everyone think? I am attempting to provide a kind of "proof of concept" for what we are talking about. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that your changes are more or less along the right lines. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As mentioned above, to start merging content without waiting for consensus seems like a mistake. There's no rush. Please be patient. Keahapana (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not trying for a merge here and now? It's a good faith attempt to allay your concerns. Are you merely afraid that we eventually turn 'criticism' into a redirect? I think that it's a great idea to see how can see how the CI article evolves through incremental edits that progressively include content from the current criticism page. The other option is to do a 'big bang' merge and then reorganise. But I feel from the discussion above that this progressive merger is preferred. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's be patient and work together in good faith. Platitudes, yes, but also important sentiments to guide our behavior and speech. Perhaps we should not have the merge discussion wrap up for another week or two. The existence of the other page in some sense is a separate question of what happens to this page. By the end of the week I hope to have ported much more relevant information across. Readers are not served well by a long series of opinionated, repetitive statements ghettoized to another page. When the main CI article is a complete and well-written explanation of CIs, it will become irrelevant as to whether there is another page that takes one sharp view and hammers it home with permutations of negative quotes. The reader needs information, not aspersions. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of changes

I have reinstated some of the responses to the hiring policy. It can be more than three sentences, given the issues. Quotes and names are relevant. They are more credible than very short summaries, because they show research and authority. In fact, I just read that Epoch Times article in full and it is the most complete of the articles available on the topic (not surprising given the paper's pedigree). I think more information from it should be included, because it analyses whether it really is legal or illegal (it is perhaps not legal in the US, the article suggests). This view should appear, so it does not appear that CIs are breaking the law when they are possibly not. Ohconfucius added an RS tag. Is that to suggest the information in the article might be made up? Everyone knows the paper was started by FLG people. Is that why we wonder whether it's RS or not? I think it's sufficient that the page is linked; people can click through and find out its affiliations. People's Daily and Xinhua have their place on the page, too, and if they quote a relevant expert and that expert's views are suitable, we'd include that just the same. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Epoch Times is not considered an objective and reliable source, with the possible exception of citing what Falun Dafa Information Centre, The Epoch Times, or Li Hongzhi have to say. That is reason why I placed the tag. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

By who? Based on what? (Note: No source needs to be "objective" for it to be cited. NYT is not even objective. The point is whether the source is reliable in this case, to quote interviews with relevant experts.) RS is complex and depends on context; let us deal with this single context for now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed depend on context, but Epoch Times comes up a lot in RS discussions and the general concensus is that they are not reliable sources for information on the Chinese government or its affiliates. They do however general qualify as a reliable source when used to back up a claim about "The Epoch Times" itself and a few similar circumstances. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for this claim to be substantiated, evidence supplied for what these opinions are based on, and cogent argument as to how the information under discussion in this article from this source is of questionable reliability. I have not yet received a clear response addressing this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I challenged its reliability and the basis that it's a mouthpiece of the Falun Gong. Its open aim is the downfall of the CPC, so anything that could possibly be published about itself or its affiliates are likely to be eulogising, and by the same token anything that it's likely to say about the CPC is more than likely to be propagandistic. That's not to say it publishes details without a grain of truth, but it must be read with an accompanying dose of sodium chloride. It should therefore only be quoted in its role of FLG mouthpiece where the PRC government is concerned. Please note that I only tagged it {{RS}}; I didn't remove the offending content, but I am uncomfortable with it as it stands. If a news item is notable enough, some other journal is bound to pick it up, and we should exclude material solely sourced to ET. If ET has anything to say editorialwise about the CI and its actions, I would consider it acceptable to include some snippets. If you're still unhappy with the above justification, why don't we take this to RS/N, again? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

While previous discussions on WP:RS are not binding precedence I see no reason to see this situation as substanially different from those previously discussed regarding Epoch Times. There is no litmus test for RS and reliability is not the product of any one or a series of concrete facts, but is the product of the totality of the the structure, agenda, and behavior of the sources constituents. That is simply to say that claims that a source is unreliable are often answered with a called to back the claim up with facts. This is not a reasonable requirement. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Is "The_Epoch_Times" a reliable source and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 34#The Epoch Times and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#The Epoch Times - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I regularly read the Epoch Times to see their latest bullshit reporting on China-related issues, and I will admit that their journalistic standards have improved by a hair since when they first began operations. They are now better-researched, better-organized, and better-funded, and to my understanding even have some non-Falun Gong staff on hand. Their coverage of events like the Wukan standoff and Chinese political intrigue is sometimes worthy of a read. That said, their patrons are still Falun Gong activists who are bent on overthrowing the Chinese government, and as such, they still do not qualify as an RS on topics of particular notability involving the Chinese government, because there is an implicit political agenda. It would be like citing Adbusters for news involving Occupy Wall Street.

Please note that I am not dismissing the idea of including the content that is currently sourced to Epoch Times, provided a better, more objective source can be found corroborating the ET assertions. Otherwise, all the references to ET and associated content should be deleted from this page. Colipon+(Talk) 12:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is referring to the Epoch Times coverage of the hiring policies? Several sources reported on that, including USA Today, Bloomberg and Macleans (Canada's leading current affairs magazine). It also looks like the offending regulations are still on the Hanban website. But while those sources raised the issue in passing as one example of controversies with CIs, the Epoch Times devoted a full article, which included interviews with legal scholars and CI directors. It's those quotes—not any opinion or analysis from the Epoch Times itself—that are currently in use. Whether we like it or not, the Epoch Times is the best reporting available on this topic, the potential legal implications of the policy, and the response from North American CIs. (It's also the only secondary source I could find that quoted the Hanban regulation in full; all other RS redacted it). I don't see any honest reason to doubt that this particular article or the quotes in question are unreliable. With a quick search I could find two other mainstream sources that cite the Epoch Times on this topic — Freedom House[2] and Macleans magazine[3]. With this being said, I'm not convinced that we need those quotes on the page. I think it would suffice to just note the rules, and add that they aroused civil rights concerns in North America as possibly being in violation of anti-discrimination laws.Homunculus (duihua) 15:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that there was never a question of seeing whether the publication is an RS as an abstract, general idea. The question is what was wrong with its inclusion here, specifically on the question of the quotes from CI directors and relevant analysts. Nearly every publication has a political agenda, so to provide that as a reason for Epoch Times being excluded does not seem to make complete sense. It certainly means that a link be provided and affiliations stated, but as far as I am aware there are no clear cases of the newspaper fabricating news. That is, while it clearly has an agenda, it is not in the same league as CCP publications that simply fabricate facts as required by the Party. And those publications are cited far more widely than simply on the Party's position on certain things. This to me seems a double standard, one which has not been properly explained, and one which seems to align with the general anti-FLG feelings present in all of these discussions. To put it another way, The Guardian is a liberal newspaper, that is its political bias, so should its reporting on such issues as gay marriage etc. be disallowed? The Epoch Times has an anti-CCP emphasis, so should everything it reports related to China be disqualified? It would seem more prudent to 1) simply exercise caution in using the source, 2) evaluate reliability on a case-by-case basis, 3) make sure affiliations are stated. Most of the time it should not be necessary to quote them, because they ought to be referring to information that can otherwise be found out or verified. In cases where their journalists have conducted an interview which adds helpfully to consideration of the matter in question, it's unclear why their political affiliations should preclude those experts' opinions from appearing on Wikipedia. No one has addressed that, despite repeated denigration of the newspaper and its religious affiliates. And now we see that the paper is cited, without much qualification or any warning bells, by bona fide reliable sources. Am I missing something? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "it is not in the same league as CCP publications that simply fabricate facts as required by the Party". Agreed that they do not have the same access to funding, but truth of the matter is that they are cut from the same cloth. Both are out to destroy the other; they can be and are utter propagandamongers where it concerns the other. It's fine to cite their respective positions as regards the other but it should never go further than that. Just because one editor feels the ET has the most comprehensive coverage means squat if there are no other sources picking it up, because this lack of coverage tends to strongly suggest it is not notable. I have no problems with citing other journals despite their editorial biases because it will never be as polarised as CPC vs FLG. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? Not only have other reliable sources reported on this issue (Bloomberg and USA Today, among others), some have cited Epoch Times coverage specifically (Macleans, Freedom House). That's a pretty good gauge both of notability and of mainstream sources' regard for the quality and reliability Epoch Times coverage.Homunculus (duihua) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did. It seems there is no problem. Forget ET as a source and cite from the others. I don't think I or any other editor will have a problem with that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Word, this is my approach to ET in general. If other reliable sources report on the topic, cite them instead. If no other reliable sources report on the topic, then the statement in question should likely be removed, depending on the specifics of the circumstance. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

General questions/suggestions

• The article seems to be quite biased. There are many facts that are quickly followed up with a retort quoting an "editorial". This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain108 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done to those who've been working on this page; it's coherent and reads quite well. On reviewing it, I remain a little concerned that a POV fork has been created, and also have some specific questions:

• The lede describes Hanban uncritically as a non-government organization. Hanban is closely affiliated not only with the Chinese Ministry of Education, but features prominently in the agendas of the State Council and, to some extent, the Party's propaganda department. I understand that Hanban's website describes it as an NGO, but some incredulity is in order here. It is a GONGO at best.
• The lede also described CIs as being similar in nature to Alliance Française and Goethe-Institut. Again, this description is one that is advanced by CIs themselves, frequently in the context of trying to deflect crticisism. But as numerous western journalists have pointed out, there is a very important difference: Alliance Française and Goethe-Institus do not attach themselves to universities, so they do not engender the same concerns over academic freedom. Again, I suggest that we not adopt the official line so uncritically on the main page; if a statement is made, and that statement is controversial, then the relevant perspectives should be presented in a manner commensurate with their weight and significance.
• Regarding the organization, it may be worth noting that CIs require that their curriculums do not conflict with the laws of either the host country or of China. The laws in question would presumably encompass, say, article 105 of China's criminal code. Furthermore, Hanban imposes some rather strange requirements on the teachers it recruits—requirements that may or may not break host nations' anti-discrimination laws.[4]. This is a controversy, but it is also germane to the organization and administration of the CIs.
• I wonder if there is a place where we can discuss other administrative issues. In the few investigating news reports I've found on CIs, they frequently allude to strange financial transactions, empty offices and classrooms with no staff, and other seemingly mundane operational challenges and anomalies that would seem to stem from overstretched ambitions.
• I don't suppose we should also breifly describe the Confucius classrooms (in high schools) here?

Those are just some initial ideas. I was hoping to make some edits along these lines, but wanted to first discuss them here. My main concern, really, is that we should accurately reflect the available information and discourse around these institutes, and not relegate anything that could be classified as a "controversy" to a separate page. As I understood it, the purpose of the split was to avoid an unwieldy controversies section on the main page, which is absolutely fair, but we should still strive to ensure that a reader gets a more or less complete picture from the main page.Homunculus (duihua) 04:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is good stuff. I'll see if I can help:

• if they are described as being similar to Alliance Francaise et al but there are important differences frequently cited by journalists then we should state it that way in a manner which respects due weight. you are correct.
• the administrative issues, would require some sourcing and some details. I'm not aware of these issues. see what you can find. That kind of nuance, though, probably should go in the body of the article, purpose section.
• as for the "NGO" problem. I believe that I have just addressed this problem by simply removing the word "non-government" since its inclusion would require some confusing explanations and the rest of the sentence adequately explains the organizational position of the Hanban for the lead, further expansion can go in the body if necessary.
• The confucius classrooms are often lumped into the same topic. If you can expand the information about Confucius classrooms please do.
• the main page already includes a section on controversies. I made it into a brief summary because of the existence of this page and in order to no have the controversies section take up 1/2 of the article. I think its good the way it is but if you can improve it then go for it. We don't have to ghetto-ize anything the could be considered controversial, but we don't want it taking over the page either. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay here. I'm just getting back to a normal routine following vacation, but will work on drafting some edits in the next little while. Regarding the NGO issue, I think yours is the simplest solution for now. It is not easy to define the nature of the relationship between Hanban, the government, and the party, but we might want to briefly expand on the subtleties of it somewhere. For instance, describing the role of Liu Yandong, a senior CCP official, former United Front Work Department head, and now chair of Hanban (it would seem[5]). Homunculus (duihua) 03:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No action. Are the above suggestions all uncontested, then? A more significant matter: is it necessary to split off a page about "controversies"? This seems an odd move. Here's what I think. I think we should factually describe the subject of the article according to what has been published in reliable sources. I don't think we should make a judgement about which descriptions are "controversial" and which aren't, and shunt them to another page. Everything is information about the topic. I suggest a complete integration of all facts and relevant perspectives, without any lingering on what people simply think about a matter, but with emphasis on the information that has been documented on a matter. If there are prominent "thoughts", then they could be restated simply and briskly. In scanning the "controversies" page now, I see mostly information rather than "controversies." The percentage of this page about "controversies" should be in proportion to what has been published in reliable sources. Nearly all accounts I've seen of the institutes mention something about the CPC connection. What do others think of my suggestions? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted an amusing tail-end of a sentence, which pointed out to the reader that the author of an article concluding that there is little evidence of CIs conducting propaganda happened to interview CI directors in the course of her research. Fancy that, a journalist interviewing the subjects of their articles. I suppose that it is these unprofessional addenda that fueled the effort to shove everything "controversial" to another page. I have now scanned through the archive and I am confident that we can do a better job of providing a full picture of the institute and the available information about it without resorting to weasel words and editorializing on the quality of sources. In any case, some information can easily be ported, and even temporarily duplicated, and we can later decide what to do with the other page. That's my thought for now. (Just as an example, in the "purpose" section, one would not first provide the official explanation trailed by some dissenting voices, but provide a lead sentence that introduces the different views on what the purpose of CIs are, before moving into a section which elaborates these different views. This would integrate information from the "controversies" while also providing a fuller set of information to the reader. Of course, the official explanation would also be included, but it would not be the default explanation.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're back. Probably should have spoken up months ago, no? There are editorial guidelines governing this issue somewhere. If a controversies section becomes too long, it is appropriate to give it its own page. However, I do think that the controversies page is now more informative as a whole than this one, and would suggest that more of that information be added in where appropriate in throughout the body of this article.Homunculus (duihua) 23:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it decided what is a controversy and what is a piece of information about the subject? In every case emphasis should be given to information rather than opinion (with the caveat that yes, it is information that X holds Y opinion); and the "controversies" page, from a cursory look, appears to be mostly information rather than opinion. Perhaps the simplest approach here is to follow Deng Xiaoping's dictum: "Cross the river by feeling the stones." I'll just roll my sleeves up and start doing what I suggest is a good idea, and in the process of its execution I'm confident we will come to some accord. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a very modest change to the opening sentence of one section. That's the idea I'm suggesting: integrate all the information here. Don't make this article the "official version" then shunt the other opinions to a separate page. Academics are actually more of a reliable source on CIs than is the CPC. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just summarized the non-repetitive parts from the "objectives" section on the controversies page. Seriously, the rest of the information wasn't that helpful. What's the point of presenting a quotefarm of different sources and references each with their own pithy sentence saying basically the same thing? Our job is to sum this stuff up and present it in accordance with the reliability of the sources and in rough accordance with the views' representation in those sources. The rest of the useful information from that section on that page would better belong summarized in the controversies section of this page (about Hacienda La Puente, etc.; very short). The fact is that most reports on these institutes highlight its "controversies." We should just sum that up without going on about it in this section. But to business: Any problems with my changes to the "purpose" section? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Leadership

I believe our information about the leaders of CI HQ/Hanban which is now being repeated in detail in the lede, is no longer accurate. Check out the CI website and try to find info on HQ leadership, you'll quickly come across this page. This arcticle claims that Liu Yandong (politburo member) is the one in charge of the operation, but judging by the article on hanban website and other sources I've found such as this [6] Xu Lin is the director-general and the person most in charge of the Confucius institutes. I also couldn't find much evidence that other folks in leadership are high-ranking government officials, but enough reliable sources say something vaguely similar that I'm not doing anything about that claim now. Basically, the info we've got on here appears to be out of date, but there's a source problem. I don't want to use hanban sources, because this is Wikipedia and we likely independent sources. The other sources are all either CIs or college newspapers with a sensational slant suggesting that the CIs are used for spying or worse. Any help? If not at least the above should help others understand some of my related edits. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

After further research, I can't say I understand this any better, but it appears that Confucius institute headquarters is subject to two levels of governance. The directors of the Hanban/CI HQ and the governing Council. The governing council itself appears to be chaired by Liu Yandong. The rest of the leadership of the council is big time party officials, Then there are the "member" of the council who may or may not be there just for show, but they are all drawn from the host institutions. The council governs the CI HQ, the directing leadership is headed by Xu Lin and is described in the link above. I'll try to rewrite the organization section to be more clear in describing this situation, but I'm still having trouble finding proper sources, - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

quotes

This article is very quote-heavy. some of it just reads like a list of things people have said about CIs. This being wikipedia we should paraphrase and summarize in neutral language any uncontroversial statements or remove them entirely if they don't add useful info to the article. Controversial statements are trickier since we don't want to be making controversial statements in WP voice. I'll do what I can to clean this mess, you can help if you like. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be glad to help. Paraphrases are desirable in many cases. This article and its daughter have contentious histories, and if I remember correctly, some of the current quotes are owing to past attempts at expurgation through creative "paraphrasing". As discussed in 2011, WP:QUOTE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV say that direct quotations can be preferable for a controversial subject like CIs. Keahapana (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's logical that to explain a controversy you might state that he said this and she said that, but much of what this article is about is not actually controversial. The problem with quotes isn't as grave now since I've integrated a few of them into the surrounding prose. Of course, I'm not against quotes entirely, but replacing some of those still in the article with clear prose explaining the situation would be an improvement. Some of the quotes we had that I already removed just didn't say anything useful for the reader. One thing that can happen if you don't invest in a paragraph analysing the quote is the reader comes away thinking, "okay this person who may or may not have authority on the matter said this thing about this topic once, but is it actually true and if so what does that mean?" Instead we can look at verifiable sources and state the situation as plainly as we can from a neutral point of view. For interesting quotes they should do a search on Google news. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue is fixed for now. Notice the quote from Politburo guy about propaganda remains, since he's a big figure and there was a lot of commentary on the actual words of his statement, especially the word "propaganda". I think the quote should stay for this reason. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Political section

At some point someone added a "political" sub-section to the "purposes" section. Then some quotes got dumped in there and now it says the same thing over and over and over again in a disorganized manner- namely that The CIs are part of a broader soft-power initiative in addition to their educational goals. I'm going to rewrite this section and it will be much, much shorter. I anticipate the posibility of people suspecting my motives, so I'm explaining them here first. Similar editing has been called censorship a number of times before. This is just an effort to make the subsection read more clearly. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Metal.lunchbox:, thanks for your May 23-24 edits, which look like a good start. I've only skimmed through the numerous changes, and will need some more time in order to study them carefully. Many of your edits are clear improvements, such as paraphrasing of "Purpose" and correcting spelling, like "Taiwanese-flavored" for (my mistake) "Taiwanese-favored". A few edits appear questionable, such as deleting reliable sources. I should be able to make suggestions and corrections soon. Keahapana (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't own this article, so if you have some objections to the edits I've made, don't hesitate. The article is starting to take some form and that's only because people are willing to edit it and, to a lesser extent, discuss it. I can answer questions you have if you are a little bit more specific, but I'll say that yes there was at least one ref that I deleted when I deleted some of the content citing it. This seemed pretty natural, but if you have another idea, no problem. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Simplified Characters = war

While I don't expect to have a consensus now about more abstract issues relating to this article, I do think there's one particular edit that can be dealt with here, hoping that the outcome is in fact consensus. Somebody in the Globe and Mail once said that the CIs use simplified characters and that such is part of some political war with Taiwan. I'm paraphrasing, loosely at that, so let's not argue about the particulars. I don't think that this nonsense opinion is relevant to the discussion of the curriculum of the Confucius Institutes and I have removed it. They use the simplified characters for the same reason they teach Chinese instead of Japanese. It's not hard to find people on TV or newspapers politicizing everything that relates to China, but we need to draw a line somewhere and decide that some of those opinions serve their interests and not ours. The use of simplified characters is still discussed in the section, but now without this quote about it marginalizing Taiwan politically. This no more marginalizes Taiwan than anything that China does may be said to marginalize Taiwan. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that we should delete the Globe and Mail reference if it were the only criticism of CIs for exclusively teaching simplified Chinese characters—but it's not. A quick Google search finds numerous reliable sources, one of which (Sahlins 2013) I've added for WP readers who are unfamiliar with the significance of fantizi and jiantizi. Perhaps we should reconsider using Churchman's article, described by Sahlins as "a richly detailed exposé of the politics of the mandatory language rule." Keahapana (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

More revisions

Sorry to be slow in coming back, thanks for waiting. I've gone through the diffs and agree that many changes were constructive improvements to the article, but some were not. The biggest problem is "paraphrasing" that eliminates instead of clarifying CI criticisms. Here are three before/after examples:

• "officials do say that an important goal is to give the world a "correct" understanding of China." (Political goals)
• "officials say that one important goal of the Institutes is to influence other countries' view of China."

To give a "correct" understanding of X ≠ to influence views of X.

• "assuaging concerns of a "China threat" in the context of the country's increasingly powerful economy and military" (Political goals)
• "assuaging concerns about the country's increasingly powerful economy and military"

Assuaging concerns of X in the context of Y ≠ assuaging concerns about Y.

• ... although the same article did go on to say the Institutes were "distinct in the degree to which they were financed and managed by a foreign government." (Controversies)
• ... although the Institutes' financial and administrative links to a foreign government have caused much suspicion

Distinct in the degree to which X ≠ much suspicion about X.

Four of the five deleted sources are restored: Brady 2011, Globe and Mail 2013, Guo 2008, and Peng 2011. Even though Churchman's 2011 article is in a peer-reviewed ANU journal, we can agree that he might not be notable.

What about these ideas for revising current sections? We could change 3 Purpose and 3.1 Political goals to something like 3 Purpose split into 3.1 Academic and 3.2 Political. Changing 6 Controversies to 6 Criticisms or 6 Criticisms and controversies would me more accurate. Of course, all these changes are tentative and I hope we can find compromises that satisfy all sides. Keahapana (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility to accurately represent the views of one individual, especially when that individual is of questionable importance in relation to the topic. So that the paraphrase is not equivalent to the quote is an irrelevant criticism of the edit. The last one in particular is worth discussing. Before my edits there were several sentences discussing a particular article in the economist, after there was a brief summary of the most relevant ideas discussed in the article. By your logic none of the article should be written in wikipedia summary style, for fear that it will not exactly represent the full context and meaning of what some individuals ( of questionable importance) have said about the topic. I will not argue with you about whether X ≠ Y, but rather encourage you to reconsider whether or not such equivalence is relevant to the task at hand. It's looking like we are not on the same page either about quotes, or the relative importance of repetitive criticisms. In either case, I appreciate that you didn't simply wholescale revert every edit I made. That would have been annoying. I realize that most of my edits have been effectively reverted, but that of course, is just part of the process.

I'm not sure how to move forward towards consensus from this point. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after several readings, I still don't understand what you mean by "wikipedia summary style" and "paraphrase". Would you please explain? WP:SUMMARY, which concerns summarizing subarticles, doesn't mention quotes, other than, "The verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation." While you say that if "the paraphrase is not equivalent to the quote is an irrelevant criticism of the edit", the Paraphrase article says, "the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as "original research," and not as paraphrase." Even if we continue to disagree about appropriate article content, can we both at least agree to follow relevant guidelines such as WP:ORIGINAL, WP:PARAPHRASE, and WP:MOSQUOTE? Keahapana (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of intentionally distorting the meaning of the quotes I am paraphrasing? A paraphrase doesn't have to be equivalent to the quote because the quote is made in a particular context which we are removing when we quote. to make up for that we summarize the meaning of the article or some significant part of it instead of copying and pasting an excerpt without providing context. You see to be implying that I am not interested in following wikipedia guidelines because I don't want the article to be a coat-rack of irrelevant quotes taken out of context. I am well aware of the guidelines. If you don't konw what I mean by summary style, I am referring to WP:SUMMARY which explains a core concept of wikipedia, describing ideas without getting overly detailed, allowing the reader to go to the main article on that topic if they want more details. It's easy to see how getting overly concerned about what exactly one or more individuals said about one aspect of the topic is a kind of unnecessary detail. If you think I've incorrectly interpreted the quote, I'd like to suggest that you consider refining the paraphrase the I've made. I'm also referring more generally to the voice of WP as described in the WP:MOS which is clear and simple English in paragraph form as well as to the inherent need to summarize information from multiple sources.

There is nothing to require us to include quotes, unless we are specifically concerned about what words a significant individual used, such as when a politician gets involved in a scandal for poorly worded statements. of course that's not the only time quotes are allowed, but I'm confused by your insistence that we must include masses of quotes so as not to run afoul of verifiability. Accusing me of flouting the guidelines isn't helpful. You can cite guidelines in your arguments if you like, and I suggest you do so, but telling me that I need to agree to follow the guidelines in general is cause for a reminder about WP:AGF. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your inventive "paraphrase" <grin> of my comments as an accusation telling you what to do – which perfectly illustrates the potential POV pitfalls of restatement. Since the current WP article contradicts the claim that paraphrase doesn't have to be equivalent to the original, perhaps we should correct it. I unsuccessfully tried to find some RS's about nonequivalent paraphrasing, and would gladly revise the article if you could find some. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Paraphrases should not have an altogether different meaning than the quotations they are based on. I'm not arguing that, Instead, I'd like to encourage you to look at equivalence as a relative matter. How exactly does the paraphrase need to match the quote. That is what we are talking about, not the need for a paraphrase to match the idea represented by the quote at all. Let's not pretend that I am inventing a whole new concept by suggesting that paraphrases can differ in their wording from the quotes they are replacing by integrating ideas from the context or other sources. Mind you I'm not even really talking about paraphrasing, strictly speaking since, that usually refers to stating what someone said. ("He said, 'I'm hungry.'" becomes "He said that he is hungry.") I'm not interested in what those people said, instead I'm interested in what the facts are. Summarizing information from multiple sources or different statements in the same source is a fundamental part of writing WP. Let's not waste time quibbling about the meaning of the word paraphrase. We are clearly on two very different pages here and this doesn't not appear to be advancing productively. We have had similar conversations in the past, multiple times. It's easy to get lost when we are talking about general principle and abstract ideas. Instead let's try to only debate the merits of individual specific quotes or statements. As much as I think we need to settle the issue of how the article integrates quotes, we've never gotten close to agreement on the topic. I've brought up one such issue below. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I now understand more clearly. It appears that we can agree about maintaining the voice of Wikipedia. As previously discussed, quotes are necessary in discussing CI criticisms, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CRIT, which says, "When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice." Keahapana (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese controversial

I removed a quote about the use of simplified Chinese by Confucius Institutes which frames their usage not only as controversial, but also as part of a grand geopolitical conspiracy against Taiwan. The adjacent quote stated that teaching simplified characters would prohibit the students from understanding thousands of years of Chinese writing. The first is absurd and clearly not relevant to the discussion of the curriculum. They teach simplified characters for much same reason they teach Mandarin Chinese instead of Cantonese. That is the standard in Mainland China and other places. It should be obvious that this does no more to marginalize Taiwan than anything the Mainland does abroad. Just because this was uttered in a newspaper once doesn't make it relevant. After removing the quotes the section still explained that the CIs use the standard simplified characters. The Sahlins quote is equally trivial. Students can easily learn the traditional characters, read texts which have been converted to simplified or use automated conversion, such as used on the Chinese language wikipedia. No one is being "denied access" to anything just by teaching them Chinese using simplified characters. This was reverted and I'd like to better understand why we need the quotes, and how they help the reader better understand the curriculum of Confucius Institutes. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I might also note that there is no rule at CIs against teaching traditional characters which seems to be what these quotes are implying. In fact, many CIs teach traditional characters in a variety of settings, especially Chinese calligraphy classes. The quotes give an unhelpful and distorted interpretation of a very mundane policy. This is not-noteworthy conspiracy-theorizing and should be removed completely. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

While I respect your opinions, they don't negate the fact that several RS authorities criticize this jiantizi policy. Keahapana (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position. My position is different. I'm going to look at this matter as WP:BRD, meaning that nothing changes until someone else comes along or until either of us have something substantially different to say about the topic. For the moment, discussing the matter further I'd just be repeating myself, so I'll spare you. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Another unhelpful quote

"'Confucius Institute' is a trademarked brand name. A CI chairperson explained, 'Those who enjoy more brand names will enjoy higher popularity, reputation, more social influence, and will therefore be able to generate more support from local communities.'"

I deleted the above quote for a variety of reasons I thought would be pretty uncontroversial, but that was reverted, so lets discuss and see if there's a consensus somewhere. Basically, this unnamed person is saying that brand names are good, totally meaningless. Beyond that, what is this anonymous quote adding to the article. The English is awkward, lacks context, and doesn't seem to be saying anything useful. The article calls it an explanation, but what about the preceding statement does it explain exactly? The quote's not totally evil, but why include it at all when we could say something clear and meaningful in WP voice instead?

Previous quote deletions have been objected to because they are attached to a ref, that's not a valid argument for inclusion. This is part of my conspiracy to increase the proportion of the article that is factual and reduce the proportion of the article consisting of uncritical repetition of something someone said one time. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this quote to provide NPOV balance for other CI official statements (that tend to be CYA cruft), but it's fine with me if you want to delete it. Just to give you a heads-up, I've started working on the backlog of refs, including stories about CAUT, Toronto school board, AAUP, etc. Also, are you going to revert those WP:CWW sections or should I? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? You mean you wanted a quote that wasn't defensive to keep the tone neutral? The tone is fine, but I think its really not clear what we are trying to say by including the quote. What do you mean about backlog of refs? You mean you've found a bunch of good sources you want to integrate into the article? That sounds like a good thing. It sounds like you will be dealing with the WP:CWW passages. I've notices some paragraphs seem awfully familiar, and I think I've dealt with most of the ones I've noticed. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 10:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing

While there appears to be consensus on the Hanban talk page that the section regarding the "braga incident" is undue and too long, I can understand if someone doesn't not personally want to do the work of shortening and summarizing that section. To then take that problematic content and copy it into this article serves only to duplicate the problem. I should note that the editor Keapanna is aware of this issue as the editor has participated in the discusssions. I will revert and I hope that we can avoid making half of this article about one thing that the director of the CI headquarters did one time. It is certainly and without doubt not the most interesting or important thing about the Confucius institutes. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources which does not relate to this "braga incident". There is a summary of the event in the article and it should stay, but we don't need a long and detailed account of the event with multiple repetition and a list of quotes taken out of context dominating the article. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy regarding Due and Undue weight concerns NPOV balance for the published views of reliable sources—not the appropriateness opinions of individual editors. WP:UNDUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." In this case of the current version of the CI director's scandals, which constitutes a new section since it does not concern criticisms of CIs, the empirical majority (25 or 27 refs) view of RS is that the Braga Incident was attempted academic censorship and the UChicago closure was Xu's fault, while the minority (2 of 27 refs) view is that she didn't censor the EACS program (Christian Science Monitor, which primarily presents majority view) or cause the Chicago closure (Peoples' Daily). I could be wrong, but I think Evangeline and I contributed all these references. However, if as you say there is "plenty of coverage in reliable sources" for the minority view that Xu Lin's actions were uninteresting and unimportant, please add them all for the sake of NPOV. (Here's an EACS link I didn't add The "Braga Incident" Timeline with Links to Articles and Comments that may help you.) Also FYI, the Hanban Revision history diffs clearly show who personally spent hours doing "the work of shortening and summarizing" the Xu Lin scandals, and then further deleted content before copying it here. I look forward to cooperating with you in avoiding undue weight by incorporating all those new refs. Keahapana (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We have already had this conversation. Read the section below undue weight about giving a lot of attention to a single aspect of a topic. That is what I am refering to with the above comment about undue weight, see the conversations that we have had at talk:Hanban. Also you are completely misrepresenting my statement about reliable sources, I suggest you read it again. I don't know what your hours of work have to do with this debate. The issue that you are ignoring is that there is a clear consensus from that discussion that this issue should not be given this much detail in the article. Simply continuing to expand it doesn't improve the situation. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll remind you as well of the discussions that eventually led to the POV-fork page about criticisms of the Confucius institutes, discussions which you were an active participant in. There was a clear concensus that far too much of the article was being devoted to a detailed list of published criticisms of the organization and I believe that that concensus is again relevant in this discussion. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV section WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." It is common for editors to mention "undue weight" when talking about this policy, just as I do above. Let there be no confusion. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, even though WP:CCC, there isn't consensus that the Braga content on Hanban is UNDUE. Among the four editors who've expressed opinions (Metal lunchbox, Zanhe, Evangeline, and Keahapana), there is consensus (all 4) that we should trim/shorten/summarize content, but a split (2 and 2) over whether it's undue, and no consensus on limiting length to one paragraph (1) or one sentence (1). Artificially trying to restrict content size is ludicrous (other than WP:SIZE restrictions). "Wikipedia's goal is to compile the sum of all human knowledge" and not to abridge it into something like the one-volume Oxford Family Encyclopedia. Summarizing a complex incident like the Braga censorship scandal into one sentence is fine for a news headline, but inadequate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. I suggest we move forward with the copyediting, but if that's not possible, perhaps we could ask for help from WP:GUILD. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk)

Again you are misrepresenting my statements. An arbitrary size limit on the topic is indeed ludicrous and I have not advocated any such thing. If you read my post above it is quite clear what I claim is consensus. Stop arguing against things I have never said if you wish to advance the discussion. I suggest we move forward with outside assistance. It is clear that this discussion is not moving towards resolution in this form even after so many years. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with your statement above that there may have been disagreement about the word "undue" in the discussion on the hanban article. But more to the point, how do you think the article as it is compares to the policy quoted above from WP:NPOV? Is coverage disproportionate? It is, and that was established in the hanban discussion as well, even if there was some disagreement about the word undue. Call it undue or not, semantics aside, the coverage doesn't align with established core WP policy. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

By outside help I do not mean The Guild. This isn't a copy editing issue. This is a WP:DISPUTE not a spelling mistake. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The referent is:

• If the Confucius Institute article can make do with a single sentence devoted to the event then perhaps this page can too, since Hanban's relationship with the events is the same. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please explain. Keahapana (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The above statement is not the establishment of a one sentence limit, as your question implies. Instead, I am explaining that I have copied a one sentence summary from this page to the Hanban article. I believed it to be an adequate summary. Nowhere do I attempt to prohibit anyone from expanding on that one sentence or replacing it with a longer passage if they believe such would be an improvement. I am however expressing my preference for the one sentence summary over the several paragraphs it replaces. Please stop asking me to explain myself, as if my statements and edits are either unclear, contraditory, or suspicious. Given the context of the quoted edit summary of which you should be fully aware by now, the statement is quite self-explanatory. Instead of litigating in circles what I have said, let's instead focus on the matter at hand, the event is given disproportionate coverage both on this article and the Hanban article, as such it is directly contravening the policies described at WP:NPOV and should be summarized with greater brevity and less repetition and detail. If you are unwilling to accept that then it is clear that other forms of dispute resolution are appropriate. 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I only asked you to explain because this statement is not quite self-explanatory. It is ambiguous because to make do commonly means "to manage with a (esp. inferior or expedient) substitute" or "take a means to an end (not necessarily a principled or ethical one)", which is not what we want for Wikipedia. Consider for example, this "make do with a single sentence" context. I apologize if my trying to understand appears to be litigating. Yes, I don't want to waste time arguing either, and agree with you that we should focus on the matter at hand, condensing the Braga and UChicago content, making it more readable and interesting. Thanks for doing a good job copyediting the Hanfeng content on Hanban. Would you like to try doing more of the same for this content? If you'll start, I'll cooperate with any reasonable reductions, and try to further condense the coverage. We could begin here or on Hanban, whichever page you like, and copy the content afterwards. Keahapana (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Forthcoming

This may be of interest.

• Marshall Sahalins (2015), Confucius Institutes, Academic Malware, Prickly Paradigm Press

Keahapana (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda Issues

I'm adding a section here, although I'm not sure if the structure is appropriate, but I don't know how to ask my questions the other way. I've noticed the removal of many mention of the instances of propaganda within Confucius Institutes. There seems to be enough backing from academics and universities, that we should not cleanse the Wikipedia page from these mentions. Specifically, why is Propaganda not included within the "Focus" section of the header? Who gets to decide whether that should have been removed? lessconfusedthanbefore (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2017 (EST)

I can't answer your question without any specific instances of editing or reverting. But I seem to remember removing edits along these lines so I may be part of the audience you're addressing. My best recollection is that the material that I've removed from this article has been either very poorly supported or completely unsupported by reliable sources or blatantly POV - and often both. I agree that this article should include the (very valid and well-founded, IMHO) criticism of this organization but it must be done in ways that meet our standards and are worthy of an encyclopedia article. We can't simply add politically biased screeds to this article even if many of us happen to agree with them.

It's also worth acknowledging that this is a politically charged topic that is more subtle than many other issues that we normally address in articles. I don't think that's a big problem since I think that there are many high quality sources that discuss this topic but it's something to be aware of as we work on this article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Confucius Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021071750/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/02/content_5521722.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/02/content_5521722.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822144124/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=179b4e77-f0cf-4608-a8b7-a9943116f489 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=179b4e77-f0cf-4608-a8b7-a9943116f489
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822144124/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=179b4e77-f0cf-4608-a8b7-a9943116f489 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=179b4e77-f0cf-4608-a8b7-a9943116f489
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820210709/http://www.caut.ca/news/2013/12/17/universities-and-colleges-urged-to-end-ties-with-confucius-institutes to http://www.caut.ca/news/2013/12/17/universities-and-colleges-urged-to-end-ties-with-confucius-institutes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent deletions

I have reverted a series of recent deletions. Diff can be found here.

I am far from an expert on this topic, but significant content deletion accompanied by edit summaries such as "Removing unrelated and biased nonsense","biased rubbish", "entire section is a political rant completely unrelated to the topic", and "biased and pointless portion" raise some concerns. I cannot judge if the original text is appropriate or not, but I think these deletions should be raised on the talk page first. - Eron^Talk 08:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The user in question has made wholesale deletions of referenced content on a number of pages today. Appears to be yet another account focused on blanking content that doesn't quite align with the Chinese government's world view, contrary to our WP:UNCENSORED policy. Citobun (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Similarly today, an IP removed the entire controversy section. I reverted the edit. Ifnord (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. WP has been lucky so far as not to have had any significant Wumao activity. This could be a wake-up call... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Confucius Institute Wiki page is completely biased

The editors of this Wikipedia page on the topic “Confucius Institute” willfully act to allow mischaracterizing and disparaging the Confucius Institute. Several recent edits intended to correct the situation to make it reflect the definition of what the Confucius Institutes actually are have been made (see page history), but the editors systematically replace these edits with prior contents that is overtly biased against the Confucius Institutes and discuss a side topic that should go under “Opposition to Confucius Institutes” on a different page. Multiple suggestions to migrate critical contents onto a different page have been ignored; a clique of dishonest editors maliciously refuse to collaborate.

The editors maliciously rely on technical definitions such as “quoted contents is not opinions” but, in fact, anyone can quote anybody to support any view, obviously including a biased one. Or they retort that "consensus must be gained". But what kind of consensus is possible with biased China haters ? The issues is that the page is biased and disparages the Confucius Institutes, it does not describe what they are, it describes what a few people with warped world vision think they are, or worse, would like anyone to become convinced of. Only a very tiny fraction of Confucius Institutes run into problems because they are set among predominantly non-mainland Chinese communities that, basically, more or less hate China. The editors disguise their opposition to CI under the rubric “neutral discussion” but the page is hardly neutral, it is completely biased.

The page, as it is, is mischaracterizing the Confucius Institutes and the editors are willfully engaged in perpetuating this mischaracterization. To them, Confucius Institute is synonymous to controversy. But this notion is false . Confucius Institute is one thing, the tiny fraction of militants who oppose CI is quite another. Editors of the Confucius Institute page should be dismissed for willful collusion to maintain bias and they should be replaced with new impartial ones. Critical contents should be segregated as suggested and migrated to a different page such as ”Opposition to Confucius Institutes”. Please see the page history and click on one of the edited version around 8 February 2018 to see what the page should really look like.

Understand this: No one wants to quell free speech. That is not the issue. People opposed to CI have the right to their opinion, even though it is blatantly wrong. But it is quite dishonest for them, and the editors who support them (they are perhaps one and the same?), to use the CI page on Wikipedia to promote their opposition, blow a side issue way out of proportion, and mischaracterize what CI are. They can discuss their childish conspiracy theory against CI on another page all they want; no problem. But they should not attempt to redefine CI to mean Opposition to CI.

Thank you.

An American, speaking for many many others who are not Chinese but are very familiar with CI.

PS Come on guys, face it, CI is out to convert our youth to Communism? Are you kidding me? Do you have any notion of how silly this is? The Red Scare went out of style decades and decades ago already. Please grow up and get informed!

71.86.118.179 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: I moved this post from my user talk page to here to facilitate a broader discussion. This is the edit in question. Pinging contributors Keahapana, Metal.lunchbox, Homunculus, TheSoundAndTheFury, because frankly, I don't know enough about this topic to really weigh in.

For what it's worth, the removed information seems to be well sourced. The question is really one of whether there is undue weight on criticisms of The Confucius Institute. Also see WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. – by AdA&D at 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Since you are new, I will refer you to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia here: WP:PILLARS to explain that you cannot dismiss editors you disagree with and have them "be replaced with new impartial ones". Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but it is not censored either. It is not China-hating to say that a certain professor at the University of Chicago published a critique of the Confucius Institute, which lead to the university suspending its agreement renewal. If anything, it would dishonest to pretend that this never happened, because it is relevant to the institution, and explains that there is no longer a CI branch at UChicago or UPenn.

You made a reference to the page history, where several people have recently attempted to delete the exact same content that describe criticisms of the Confucius Institute. Describing the criticisms that third parties have made of something still falls on the right side of WP:NPOV. This section in question also does a good job following WP:VERIFY, so there ought to be a consensus before making major changes to this page. I will be sure to come back to this page next month to see what you are talking about when you referred to "the edited version around 8 February 2018"!

If you think Wikipedia needs to improve its image of the Confucius Institute, feel free to find some relevant, neutral, third-party citations to improve this page!Borderlandor (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with his wholesale deletion, but this article is being inundated with "controversies" and other weasel words, when the source simply described views of certain academics which should be given relative due weight. There is already a dedicated article towards criticisms and controversies, and this article should really be cleaned up to be readable ie tell the basics of CI without the baggage.LucasGeorge (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite

Frankly I believe this is one of the poorer articles I've seen on WP, a jumbled mess that confuses facts with opinions and speculation. Meanwhile, the syllabus section noted that CI "teaches in simplified characters", and that's it. Not every section has to be about controversies, there is already a dedicated article for it, and I believe the ones that should be highlighted are those which resulted in actual consequences eg termination of CI contracts, not speculation from every angle.

I think this article should be rewritten in the style of similar articles eg British Council, including:

• Timeline - year of founding, and other notable events
• Locations of specific Confucious institutes and their attached institutions
• Organization of CI - funding, leadership etc
• Notable events they hosted, if any
• A simplified controversies section which leads to the dedicated article
• List of publications, if any.--LucasGeorge (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

short description

"Organization promoting Chinese language and culture around the world” doesn't work for a number of reasons, first it doesn't mention that its a Chinese Government organ, second it doesnt include the influence/soft power/propaganda aspect of Confucius Institutes which are arguably a higher priority than their promotional and educational work, third I believe the only language they promote is Mandarin so the claim that they promote Chinese language is overly broad as they only appear to promote a single Chinese language. Some have objected to "Chinese government education, advocacy, and propaganda organization with a global focus” and I would be interested to have those editors expand on their presumably policy based arguments. I hope we can come to a consensus that makes this article stronger. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See here's the thing - it's an egregiously POV statement to suggest that a state-operated cultural institution is de-facto propaganda based on... what? American propaganda? Confucius Institute is certainly an international outreach effort. But that's what the short description version I reverted to says. Let's keep this neutral and not engage in yellow peril silliness. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Its not POV its supported by the WP:RS in the article... I would note that one of the places the executives of CIs get drawn from is known as the "Office of Overseas Propaganda.” Please refrain from personal attacks such as suggesting that I’m somehow engaging in blatant racist. I would also note that the page Propaganda in China exists to if you actually object on policy grounds please go and try to change the title of that page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's supported by a pay-walled 11-year old article in the Economist. That's hardly sufficient to state something in Wikipedia voice in the short description. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Its also supported by at least three other sources... But I will digress. Would you support "Chinese government education and advocacy organization with a global focus” as a compromise if the word “propaganda” doesn't work for you (it doesn't appear to however violate any WP policies). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having managed to circumvent the pay-wall, I'm even more suspicious of this article. It is an opinion piece, it has no by-line. The "propaganda" quote in it doesn't appear to be a quote but is rather a paraphrase with no visible link back to the original statement. It's survived as long as it has only because Wikipedians have a blind spot for things like the Economist. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Don’t forget to review Criticism of Confucius Institutes if you’re attempting to purge the information! 38 uses of the word Propaganda. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's my counter-proposal: Chinese government education and advocacy program promoting Chinese language and culture with a global focus. - frankly I think it's inappropriate to leave out the fact that CI mostly exists to promote Chinese language and culture. Even the most paranoid American sources admit that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless they promote languages other than Mandarin then we should say Mandarin instead of Chinese language. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ugh. I'm not trying to "purge" anything. However Americans and Brits paranoid about China have been running roughshod over WP:NPOV for years and it is somewhat irksome, so attempting to find an actual neutral position on complicated issues surrounding China is definitely on my long-term to-do list. (And frankly both Mandarin and Cantonese is are dialects of Chinese, and while Mongolian, Tibetan and Uyghur would probably be considered Chinese languages by China I suspect that that assertion would be challenged by anti-Chinese editors.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe my original suggest was balanced and neutral... I don't consider propaganda to be a dirty word. I would note that the page Propaganda in the United States exists and I support its existence, I would note that while there is no unified page for it on Wikipedia plenty of British actions are characterized as propaganda such as British propaganda during World War II and British propaganda during World War I. Aren't we supposed to take the contents of Criticism of Confucius Institutes into consideration or have I misunderstood Wikipedia policies? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We should use the page Chinese language as our arbiter, not what we think some fringe editor will think. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And I'll ask you to mind WP:CIV in your responses please. I have been working in good faith with you here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In no way am I claiming wikipedia as a reliable source, what I’m pointing out is that is the current wikipedia consensus that Chinese language is not interchangeable with mandarin. I would caution against editing against consensus. Could you please clarify what you believe breaches WP:CIV? I do believe you are engaging in good faith, however the only breach of WP:CIV I can find here is your implication that I’m a racist, but I forgive you for that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Also you might want to take that Civility Barnstar off your wall... user:E.M.Gregory is a sock. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I applaud Simonm223 for suggesting the alternate short description, and I would remind Horse Eye Jack to stop unproductive grasping at irrelevant straws such as who awarded barnstars to whom. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Look buddy, we both know that you believe me to be among "the most militant, Sinophobic, pan-Green partisans and their neocon sympathisers in the West” and that you believe my view that Taiwan is an independent nation to be "both criminal and extreme.” Don’t pretend for a second to be a reasonable or uninvolved editor. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Look buddy, read WP:ROPE lest you earn yourself a topic ban, or worse, long-term block for all-around despicable behavior. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever read Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope? It only applies to blocked users. I’ve never been blocked (I note that your recent attempt to have me blocked by reporting me to a noticeboard was summarily declined), can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There are dozens of books and articles that describe CIs in terms of "propaganda". For instance, Google Books. Keahapana (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In South Korea or not?

The History section's first paragraph reads as follows (with bold face added by myself to point to the problem):

The CI in South Korea is no longer active. The second Confucius Institute was opened on the campus of the University of Maryland, College Park, also in November 2004. Hundreds more have opened since in dozens of countries around the world, with the highest concentration of Institutes in the United States, Japan, and South Korea.

The first sentence of that paragraph would appear to conflict with the last 14 words of the paragraph. I can guess (but only guess) what is meant here. Unschool 23:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

GAO Report

A GAO report from last year that summarizes a year long investigation into Confucius Institutes in the U.S. largely discredits many of the accusations levied against institutes in America. Much of this page seems to regurgitating debunked talking points, some of which are over a decade old and unsubstantiated. I see that the report has recently started to be cited, but the page is still wildly inaccurate. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-401T

--Repugnantduck (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply to User:JBW regarding his reasonable request for citations

The citations you requested are now present. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Many programs renegotiated"

There's a statement "however many programs have renegotiated their contracts to protect the academic freedom of host universities" with a source https://as.tufts.edu/confuciusinstitute/about however the source does not state that many programs have renegotiated their contracts to protect the academic freedom of host universities. The closest thing it has is that Tufts university and Hanban have signed a new agreement in 2019 without providing any more details. It does have agreement text in Chinese which is of course a primary source requiring interpretation not to mention understanding Chinese. So whats the proper procedure on English Wikipedia when the given source does not have a statement supposedly taken from it? Shall I add {{fact}} or just delete the statement in question? --Nomad (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You can do either of those things, or the third, ask the question above, which is the most collegial. I'd suggest waiting a few days to see if there's any objection to removing the text, then if there is none, go ahead and delete saying "as per the talk page" or something like that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think adding a second citation to the GAO Report, which talks about contracts, could be another way of keeping the statement, assuming the statement can be supported. Have other universities posted their contracts publically? On the highlight page of the GAO report - https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-401T - it states, "While 42 of 90 agreements contained language about the document being confidential, some were available online or upon request, and one-third of the 90 agreements explicitly addressed how U.S. school policies apply to the institutes." And then farther down the page, "Universities' agreements with Chinese partners or other policies GAO reviewed generally included language protecting academic freedom or indicating their institution in China would adhere to U.S. standards." Would citing this page more strongly support this claim? Multidimensionalpeople (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Are accusations of political influence substantiated? The way it's written, it almost seems like it deceptively intends the reader to associate the accusations of threatening "Political influence and academic freedom" with the one accusation which the author claims is unsubstantiated (Constraint of Academic Freedom). The whole statement seems dodgy, unsupported, and not in keeping with high standards of objectivity. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring to add synthesis about "intimidation"

GrandmasterLiuHu has begun an edit war to insert synthesis about "intimidation" into this article. The sources that he or she has cited to support this insertion make no mention of the subject of this article. This claim needs to be removed until reliable sources that link it to this subject can be provided. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Reply to User:ElKevbo regarding his unwarranted deletion of peer reviewed information and inaccurate claims of user synthesis

The sources are reliable, peer reviewed, are clearly related to the subject of ethics and surveillance, and each of them individually explicitly discusses how exactly this kind of mass surveillance directly leads to unavoidable intimidation. (Therefore, it is not a synthesis, as each citation stands on it's own. The source doesn't need to make mention "Of the article" because the source applies generally to all mass surveillance. You should try actually reading the sources presented, rather than skimming them. I will not allow you to cover up racist authoritarianism and the suffering of my people.

GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please show us where those sources refer to the Confucius Institute. If they do not, please provide sources that make the link between the material you want to insert and the Confucius Institute. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to make new, original links.

I also (again) strongly recommend you review WP:RGW. ElKevbo (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevin, again, reading helps. As I explicitly stated, the sources do not need to actually mention the Confucius Institute. They are on the topic of surveillance ethics and specifically address mass surveillance. The concept applies not only to the Confucius Institute, but any entity engaging in the kind of mass surveillance which the CA is accused of participating in. Government surveillance is mentioned explicitly in the IEPE article, and this very Wikipedia article notes that the Confucius Institutes are under the authority of the Chinese government.

It's also noteworthy that my post does not violate the "Righting great wrongs" section of the rules because the information I provide is peer reviewed, objective, and well sourced. It is not against the rules to attempt to record a great wrong, but only to do so falsely and without adequate documentation. My sources are peer reviewed and clearly on the topic of surveillance ethics. The section "Chilling effects" from the work by the IEPE is but one example of the many relevant sections in the source documents. You should not only read my replies more carefully, but also the rules you're citing, and the citations I have provided.

Furthermore, there is no synthesis occurring. Each citation independently proves the link between mass surveillance and intimidation of the surveilled population by itself. They are multiple unrelated sources. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You've cited material written in the late 18th century in an article about an institute founded in the 21st century. You've also cited a general philosophical encyclopedia article that makes no mention of this institute. You're clearly engaged in synthesis and original research.

Furthermore, this is the only article that you've edited and your User page explicitly says that you're here to edit information that is "grossly inaccurate and planted by state propaganda." Combined with your insistence on edit warring to insert blatant synthesis into this article, I'm very skeptical that you're here to improve this encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm not engaging in synthesis, because for the severalth time (New word there) the sources each individually and explicitly discuss mass surveillance and state that which I am trying to prove with them. Synthesis is when you combine information from multiple articles to generate new information that was not stated in the articles you used to generate it. My "Source from the 18th century" is a republished version from 1995 addressing concepts introduced to civilization in the 17th century (Specifically 1758), which is also not the 18th century either. The book is still cited in ethics and philosophy papers today, including the IEPE citation on this very article. I recommend taking my advice and more carefully reading things before speaking about them. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

:Hello ElKevbo! In regards to your first question on the noticeboard, as I've repeatedly pointed out here, the citation is on the topic of mass surveillance and not specifically Confucius Institutes. The source material discusses the use of mass surveillance and it's psychological effects regardless of their context, but especially in the context where the observed is aware of the observation. It is not currently in dispute that the Confucius Institutes are accused of mass surveillance, and in the fields of ethics and psychology it is also not in dispute that well known mass surveillance automatically generates intimidation. It is also only one of several sources provided, all of which are independent sources not related to each other. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• @GrandmasterLiuHu: This is very simple, and the position with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is totally unambiguous. You have repeatedly posted a statement that the Confucius Institutes cause "intimidation". None of the sources you have given states that the Confucius Institutes cause intimidation. It is not enough to give sources which by your own account are "on the topic of mass surveillance and not specifically Confucius Institutes" and "[discuss] the use of mass surveillance and it's psychological effects regardless of their context"; in order to justify stating that Confucius Institutes cause intimidation we need a source that states that Confucius Institute cause intimidation. It is not good enough to give sources that make general comments about surveillance causing intimidation, combine those sources with information that Confucius Institutes use surveillance, and produce your own conclusion that Confucius Institutes cause intimidation. That kind of combining information from different sources together to produce a conclusion of your own which is not explicitly included in any of the sources themselves is exactly the kind of thing which is expected and accepted in original research publications, but it is not acceptable on Wikipedia, which by well established policy does not publish original research. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia you must accept Wikipedia's policies, whether you personally agree with them or not; if you are not willing to do so then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. JBW (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fail to verify

I deleted the sentence "however, many programs have renegotiated their contracts to protect the academic freedom of host universities" because the citation provided only links to Tufts University's 2019 re-negotiated agreement and nothing else. If other editors can find reliable sources that support this view, please feel free to add it back. Normchou ^💬 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:V, I also deleted "However, this claim is in dispute. Michael Nylan, professor of Chinese history at the University of California at Berkeley, stated that CIs have become less heavy-handed in their demands, and have learnt from "early missteps", such as insisting that universities adopt a policy that Taiwan is part of China. Nylan's survey of faculty and administrators at fifteen universities with Confucius Institutes revealed two reports that institutes had exerted pressure to block guest speakers, but both events went ahead anyway." The citation provided was "Golden (2011)" without any title or link to the source. Normchou ^💬 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

University of California

This would seem to indicate there is a CI within the UC system. Charles Juvon (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Pompeo doesn't have much credibility. He openly admitted he lies.

Pompeo admitted he tells lies. How is he credible for wikipedia??? Video. (Clip) or full length... The Longer clip from Texas A&M. Secretary Pompeo Participates in Q&A Discussion at Texas A&M University At around 28:00 minutes in. CaribDigita (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)