![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
See the Three Years of Natural Disasters and Great Leap Forward for news reports, academic papers and discussions.-- Skyfiler 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
They are different publications. See Xinhua report [1].-- Skyfiler 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Xnalogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the "principles" section is useless and POV and should therefore be removed. -- Jiang
It seems to me that the statement at the very top about being a premier news one is POV also... -- Jabencarsey
Eliminated critical link at the end, POV and inappropriate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.77.244.69 ( talk) 01:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Reinstated Link, sees no use for some CCP apologist in Wikipedia. -- Justaguy69 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
Eliminated Disputed Link, I agree that it was POV and not needed. -- Ennui2778-- Ennui2778 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
An improvement from second-to-last to seventh-to-last is HARDLY qualifiable as "improved in the past years." In addition, its actual ranking has slipped from 138 to 163 due to the addition of more countries. It has been replaced with a more accurate (albeit less flattering) statistic. ryright ( talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if RSF is a reliable source, considering its support from the NED.-- PCPP ( talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add an IPA-based pronunciation guide for "Xinhua"? We have the Pinyin, but that doesn't help people who just want to know how to read the name of the agency, and don't know Pinyin. Avram ( talk) 07:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is pronounced "Shin-Hwa" in english -- Giuliaiswrong ( talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This article, is mainly written in Chinglish (Chinese-influenced English), and it contains many English grammar mistakes. An example would be; "It has made contracts to exchange news and news pictures with more than eighty foreign news agencies or political news departments" "Now it distributes its news in Asia, Middle East, Latin America, Africa where run the superior offices; in Hong Kong, Macau and many foreign countries and districts" -- Giuliaiswrong ( talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
See this article from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7841580.stm (Hypnosadist) 13:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing Falun Gong and Tibetan exiles in this article is definitely affecting the integrity of the text. This is similar to accusing CNN for instance of propaganda because Al Qaeda calls them so. Of course affected groups will be negative about the agency. It doesn't mean Xinhua or CNN aren't propaganda agents but referring to affected parties definitely makes this article less academically sound. Reputable third party sources are of course ok.
Removed Xsterx ( talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
HappyInGeneral, I realise your previous edits generally favour Falun Gong and hold sympathetic views but let's keep Wikipedia public and maintain a certain academic standard. Please join the talk for disagreements Xsterx ( talk) 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's unclear why the "criticism" should be put into one section halfway down the page, when some of it is not even actually criticism, but simply an explanation of this agency's role within China. Anyway, something to deal with later. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, but now it has a whole lot of info that is not much a summary at all. -- Asdfg 12345 15:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Reporters Without Borders, a pro-Western Paris-based organization, has criticized the agency, but without providing any valid reason why they are criticizing it. They does not give any evidence to back their claim. Reporters Without Borders itself is a controversial organization accused of having ties with the CIA. It has also drawn criticism from Le Monde diplomatique. Hence presenting the view of Reporters Without Borders (the POV of RWB) as criticism is WP:UNDUE. Giving the view of RWB is similar to give the view of Henry M. Morris in Evolution related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a fine source for commenting on this article. It's a notable organisation, and I don't think it's undue because everyone knows that xinhua publishes whatever the Party says. Chinese even having a saying, something like "the only thing in Xinhua you can trust is the date" -- I don't have a source for that. I think it's relevant commentary and it's not taking over the article. -- Asdfg 12345 09:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what others think. I'll make an rfc.-- Asdfg 12345 09:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
rfc doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. I think it's obvious that it's a notable agency and perfectly within its rights to comment on Xinhua. I will restore the deleted text if there are no more problems.-- Asdfg 12345 00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Is reporters without borders a reliable source to cite for criticism of Xinhua being a propaganda agency?
Sorry, but you need to achieve consensus before adding it back.-- PCPP ( talk) 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think sources like these [2] provide a more objective criticism without resorting to jingoist slogans.-- PCPP ( talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I do not know what is the reference for your statement "there is no overwhelming consensus about media watchdog groups or reporters that indicate that Xinhua is not a propaganda instrument". Please see wikipedia policy WP:NOT#OR. My point here is that RWB is a highly controversial organization which has been accused of having ties with the CIA. I do not know which country you are talking about other than Europe/US respect this organization or how there is a global consensus about the reliability of this organization. I have plenty of sources to prove this organization is simply a propaganda machinery of the western liberal democracies. The organization also receives fund by the National Endowment for Democracy which itself is a controversial organization.
[http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7274 RSF claims to be neutral, objective and solely interested in press freedoms. But this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. ... the association directed by Robert Ménard since 1985 defends a very specific interest and political agenda]
RWB is hardly an unbiased organization. We cannot reference this article from biased, politically motivated and controversial organization. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To Aldux, please do not comment on editors. If you accuse me that I do not like the source, the same can be applied to some other user that he/she like the source. I did not understand your argument regarding Nazi etc. What I like or not is not the matter. My point is that RWB is a controversial organization accused of having ties with the CIA. I have a reliable and reputed source which claim RWB has ties with the CIA. Kouchner was speaking after a group called the “Reporters without Borders” demanded a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in response to the actions taken by the Chinese authorities in Tibet. The group is reputed to have strong links with Western intelligence agencies and has focussed its energies on countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba has accused Robert Meynard, the head of the group, of having CIA links. We can clearly see there are controversy regarding this organization that RBW is reputed for having ties with the Western intelligence agencies. We cannot state a controversial information like the one inserted by using a controversial source. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it being controversial matters. So what if it's controversial? Xinhua is itself controversial. If we excluded sources just because other sources say bad things about them then what would we be left with? There's nothing in the policies about excluding controversial sources, either. Based on this discussion I think it's safe to reinstate the source, unless there is anything further?-- Asdfg 12345 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As along as the content is relevant and NPOV, I think it's OK to add it. But what is RWB's notability in the context of this article? A said something bad about B does not mean A is influential among B's criticizers. see Wikipedia:Relevance of content#Interactions between subjects.-- Skyfiler ( talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, it's from a reliable source and its relevant, it's not taking over the article--so what reason to exclude it? It isn't necessary to mention the allegations against RWB in this article because RWB's criticism is mentioned. Criticism of RWB should go in its own article. I think if there is specific counter-criticism to RWB's criticism of Xinhua, then it's relevant. But the CIA links and whatever else seem more general and may be better placed, if they can be verified, to the RWB article. 2 cents.-- Asdfg 12345 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
for now I'm just going to reinstate RWB's criticism of Xinhua. This CIA business is a separate issue. If there is some good sources on that then it should go on the Reporters Without Borders article. If there is some specific and relevant counter criticism from a reliable source which says why RWB would criticise Xinhua, it may be relevant on this page. if it's general criticism of RWB, then to the RWB page, I think. -- Asdfg 12345 10:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a lots of chinese news sources, but those doesn't put their rss channels icon to the main page. Xinhua - yes, Business China - Business - yes, Economic Observer: Economic - yes, People's Daily Online: Business - yes, CNTV: World - yes.
The Shanghai RSS channel is not xml format. The other chinese sources should put an RSS icon, to thier Main page. Strange that the Sina english (and Global Times) don't have RSS channel, one of the best chinese news web page they write.
Hello somebody ?! -- Chinese RSS Channels ( talk) 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a quote that perhaps you could use: "State owned Xinhua, called the worlds biggest propaganda agency by Reporters Without Borders [talk1 1]" -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That quotes violates WP:NPOV-- PCPP ( talk) 01:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't at all; that is a very relevant piece of information. The CCP even calls it the Ministry of Propaganda or something--they're not ashamed to refer to themselves that way. It's not necessarily even a bad thing, it's just what the source says.-- Asdfg 12345 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is dangerous. People looking for the political background of Xinhua may leave not having a single clue about Xinhua real activity (propaganda).
Adding such a line to the article lead threatens the article's apparent integrity. It would be completely appropriate to dedicate a section of the article to criticism, and certainly to include a statement about the Reporters Without Borders designation. The word propaganda, even if the party uses it itself, is a loaded word that makes the lead sound bad. Not every cited characterization belongs in the article lead. If someone is concerned about this article's one-sidedness, a better option would be to emphasize that Xinhua is a state-run organization, and to mention that it has been criticized for failing to [concrete, verifiable, non-loaded, brief explanation]. Avram ( talk) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't read chinese characters, ( and know little chinese ) but doesn't xinhua translate literally as newspeak? That's funny in a George Orwell sort of way.
Why would a country know for censoring the internet of their people need propoganda. Please give me one example of China cracking down unfairly on their people and political freedoms don't count . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.178.197 ( talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)