Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of Confucius Institutes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

What is going on here?

I see a series of reverts over the last couple days, and am confused. Editors seem to be referring to a talk page discussion in their edit summaries, but I see no recent discussion. Am I missing something?

[1] — Shrigley reverts (to what version?), saying "Revert unilateral undoing of the changes discussed on the talk page. Since an editor was just sanctioned for similar behavior, it would be wise to engage other editors and provide full explanations before doing this."

[2] — Keahapana reverts back, says "restored fully explained corrections and repairs, if there are specific problems with content, please discuss before deleting again."

[3] — OhConfucius reverts again, stating "please do not edit war you need to discuss as you seem to be the only one objecting."

I desire to be enlightened. I'm sleepy now, and don't want to parse through changes to figure out who is objecting or not objecting to what. Homunculus (duihua) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on either. My 10 February edits were a response to the numerous changes made in January, but I waited until the merger discussion had ended. Now that it has failed to reach consensus, we can return to deliberating appropriate content. This list of 18 edit diffs and summaries will help us to focus upon the "before" and "after" versions. Many seem to be uncontroversial corrections of mistakes, but if anyone has problems, please explain.
  1. 474157209 Relationship to Chinese party-state: restored "relocated" UFW criticism
  2. 475839572 Relationship to Chinese party-state: corrected grammar and India "using culture to spread propaganda and influence" misquote
  3. 475839821 Relationship to Chinese party-state: restored Ren Zhe quote, some private Japanese univs are top-tier
  4. 475839941 Relationship to Chinese party-state: restored "off-handed" Der Spiegel quote, respected German source
  5. 475840121 Espionage: restored CI board connection with Huawei and industrial espionage, deleted because "All organisations want influential people on their boards"
  6. 475840542 Censorship and academic freedom: reverted "summarized" CSM article
  7. 475840924 Censorship and academic freedom: X restored Oregon controversy mistakenly deleted with Israel duplication, revised
  8. 475841254 Censorship and academic freedom: reverted "regrouped" Russell quote, restored "not worth a mention" U Penn controversy mentioned by many cited sources
  9. 475844574 Financing: restored Linblad quote, necessary referent for Zimmerman "also cited"
  10. 475844924 USA: restored widely-reported "storm in a teacup" Hacienda controversy, replaced creative "fuelled by anti-PRC sentiment … denial of constitutional rights … slurs, aspersions" paraphrase with quote
  11. 475845142 USA: corrected "simplify quotefarm" Barnett misrepresentation
  12. 475845492 USA: corrected misquote, relinked petition
  13. 475845661 USA: restored Saller quote
  14. 475846103 USA: restored full Arden quotation
  15. 475846291 Australia: corrected distorted summary of Kaye quote
  16. 475846412 Financing: corrected budget mistake, per Talk page
  17. 476044505 USA: added 2 refs from CI Talk page, cleanup
  18. 476044849 Comparisons with similar organizations: quote, added British Council ref

We have already agreed on many appropriate removals (like the Yan Li and Dajin Peng controversies), but if we disagree on some of the above edits, I hope we can collaborate to achieve reasonable compromises. My main concern is improving the content and reliability of the C&CCI article. Keahapana (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is going to take time to read through. I'll wait to see if the editors who deleted the material can explain why, or at least point to where it was previously agreed that it should be deleted, before wading through all of it. An initial impression is that much of the material you restored is valid, notable, and verifiable. That said, I think it would be wise to be open to the possibility that not all of it necessarily needs to be described in such detail. I'm generally an advocate of keeping redundant statements of opinions to a minimum. I much prefer that an article described broad trends, with notable events and quality commentaries provided to illustrate them. So, the La Hacienda incident may have been overblown, in my opinion, but it can still be mentioned. To give another example, the comparison to Goeth Institute or Alliance Française should be something that can be explained very simply, with one of two short, choice quotations (I vote for Anne Marie Brady): Chinese government says CIs are similar. Unlike the aforementioned organizations, however, CIs are attached to existing educational institutions. Therein lies the concern about interference with academic freedom. In dealing with the CSIS report on Huawei and the CI in Texas, I think it's notable as an example of a broader concern, but it doesn't need to be described in full detail.Homunculus (duihua) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Many seem to be uncontroversial corrections of mistakes" [sic]. For the record, I do not dispute all the above edits. While this article appears to have been started as a POV fork of the 'Institute' article, certain very characteristic traits remain. Keahapana has been too kind to attribute the removals as "mistakes" or "misquotes". But the truth is that most of the changes he objects to were to address concerns raised in sections above, particularly with respect to WP:SUMMARY, WP:NPOV and WP:ATTACK. He has sought to downplay his reinstatement as "uncontroversial" when the concerns have long been expressed hereabove by other editors. K has failed to address these concerns, whilst continuing to pile on text without adequately stating any 'opposing' arguments, and readding quotes and giving them undue weight. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we can keep assuming good faith. I realize that it consumes much time, but it would be helpful if you could address the individual points. If there are some whose inclusion you find reasonable, please say so. Where you object, please explain. I think a middle ground should be achievable.Homunculus (duihua) 03:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't dispute all the revisions, but that was my interpretation of twice deleting all 7 Kb of content (including new refs). To clarify my excessive kindness, "mistakes" would include incorrectly deleting the University of Oregon resisting diplomatic pressure to cancel Peng's lecture (475840924) along with correctly removing duplication of the Israel controversy (469904429); "misquotes" would include "using culture to spread propaganda and influence" which is not found in either ref (475839572). A related problem concerns inaccurate "summaries". For instance (475840542), changing "a Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?" to "there has been disquiet in academic circles in the West over the possible impact of accepting funds from a totalitarian regime on academic freedom." In respect to claims about WP:SUMMARY, etc., as we've discussed, controversy sections and articles are exceptions to the general rules. WP:QUOTE recommends, "in some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject …" I optimistically agree with Homunculus that we can find middle ground, and I look forward to understanding and resolving the perceived problems. Keahapana (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's any disagreement by anyone, least of all the PRC government, that the Confucius Institutes are an exercise in soft power by the PRC, but I still dispute the need to have n quotes where a consolidating summary of 1 to 3 sentences. WP:QUOTE indeed recommends that direct quotes are sometimes better than paraphrasing. Sure we could also mention the ethical dilemma placed on schools of accepting money from "the devil", but having a multitude of quotes all commenting full of rhetoric, all variations on a theme, from anybody who has ever had a comment published, is verging on the repetitious and overegging the pudding. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I already mentioned that my edits were partly in response to the concerns expressed by others. I don't want to monopolise this discussion, so I would welcome comments from others. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. (474157209) Unless CI members' backgrounds in UFWD can be connected to a "concern" or "controversy", it should not be included. This article should document controversy; not create it.
  2. (475839572) Unnecessary expansion of quote to include more biased rhetoric ("Chinese design"), and I don't see how the previous wording was a "misquote".
  3. (475839821) OK
  4. (475839941) I already explained that this (CIs promoting the idea of "China's cultural superiority") is a strange and exceptional claim that Der Spiegel does not elaborate on or provide any evidence for. Without any corroborating sources, it should be removed.
  5. (475840121) You didn't address the concern at all: "All organisations want influential people on their boards"
  6. (475840542) The CSM article doesn't mention Confucius Institutes or even Confucius Classrooms directly; it just attacks the AP Chinese Language and Culture (which apparently is partially funded by Hanban). The concern is basically the same as in many other opinion pieces: "What, if anything, will the texts say about the Tiananmen Square massacre? About the jailing of Chinese journalists?" To say that's about "academic freedom" is not a misquote. I don't see how repeating the emotive rhetorical question (cruel / tyrannical / repressive / foreign/ think-of-the-children) instead of summarizing the substantive concern helps.
  7. (475840924) OK
  8. (475841254) This is quotefarming at its worst. Not every staff member at every university who wrote some public letter attacking CI based on fear and innuendo should be quoted on this article. Summarize the gist of the concerns.
  9. (475844574) OK (Can't access source, but taking it on good faith)
  10. (475844924) The news-like coverage of incidents like this is really excessive.
  11. (475845142) Totally unnecessary and repetitive quote expansion which only adds back Barnett's rhetoric, adding no more substantive criticism.
  12. (475845492) OK
  13. (475845661) "Many parties in China would love the recipe for creating Stanford and Silicon Valley" doesn't have to do with CI directly; it could be placed in another article.
  14. (475846103) Gratuitous quoting is used here to make statements of opinion sound more authoritative than they really are. If you want to keep the quotes, replace "notes" with "says", because the former implies that Wikipedia endorses the quoted person's judgment.
  15. (475846291) There was no "quote distortion" to correct. You're giving undue weight to a small disclaimer that was only printed in one source, and which surely was not the main point. The MP wanted to close the Chinese language program; we don't need to reprint his one-time weaselly-worded preemptive defense against charges of xenophobia.
  16. (475846412) This seems to be synthesis and an original judgment on what constitutes "massive spending" on CIs.
  17. (476044505) see 475844924
  18. (476044849) OK

Shrigley (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


Well, I don't know how to reconcile this. I've done my own analysis of the diffs you provided, Keahapana. For the most part I found your changes uncontroversial, though there are some things I found unnecessary, irrelevant, or excessively long. I hope this is helpful. Sorry this is so time-consuming for everyone involved (that's what you get when you get into a revert war, right?).

  1. I agree here with Keahapana’s restoring this information to the section on the relationship with the Chinese party-state. Fabrice De Pierrebourg and Michel Juneau-Katsuya were clearly concerned about the UFWD connection. Seeing as much of the controversy around CIs does stem from their relationship to the Chinese government or party, describing the nature of that relationship is a worthwhile endeavor.
  2. Don’t know what the diff was here
  3. This is a question of whether the source (Ren Zhe) is being accurately represented on the point about CIs not being present at top-tier Japanese institutions. I deem that she was, so agree with Keahapana’s change. By the way, the Ren Zhe citation is incomplete.
  4. Der Speigel is a well respected source, but I’m not so sure about the inclusion of this quote. I don’t know that promoting Chinese cultural superiority is the objective of CIs, and don’t feel comfortable quoting speculation like that. I would favor its removal.
  5. Concerns about industrial espionage are very real and notable. If this were the main article, I would say it can be given one line. But in this article, it’s fine to give a specific example to demonstrate the nature of the concern.
  6. I have a middle ground proposal: keep the “disquiet in academic circles...” sentence, and then use the CMS quote as an example of the kind of discourse that has arisen.
  7. I don’t understand what’s happening here, but it looks innocuous.
  8. Regarding the U Penn issue, I see no reason it shouldn’t be in the article, but it could be shortened considerably. The point here is simply that Penn didn’t want CIs meddling in their curriculum, and were satisfied with the instructors they already had. I don’t think it’s necessary to note that they reconsidered in 2011 and came to the same conclusion.
  9. Is the comparison to Mussolini really necessary? I think the point of this paragrpah is to discuss the concern about misallocation of funds. Also, parliamentarian should be capitalized in this case, as it precedes the name.
  10. I’ve noted my thoughts on the La Hacidena issue before. It is a very long anecdote. I recommend trying to discern what about this incident relates to broader concerns, and then just use it as a quick example to illuminate some thematic issue.
  11. Keahapana’s version was fine. This quote is not excessive.
  12. Keahapana’s version is good. This is a minor change to improve accuracy of the quoted source.
  13. Cut this in half. It’s not relevant that China wants its own Silicon Valley.
  14. Keahapana’s version is fine. Again, this was a very minor change to improve the accuracy of quoted material.
  15. Ditto above. Keahapana’s is fine.
  16. I guess it’s ok to have this in the reference, but I wouldn’t put it in the text.
  17. More on the Hacienda issue. Again, I favor making all this shorter, not longer.
  18. It’s fine to list the British Council as another example, but the mid-sentence interjection about how CIs differ from Alliance Francaise is not necessary. It should be stated as a separate sentence that CIs differ from these organizations by virtue of their relationship to the PRC government and the fact that they are attached to host institutions.

I have now exhausted my peace-making wisdom. Where do we go from here? Homunculus (duihua) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We all owe thanks to Homunculus for mediating this Gordian Knot with peace-making wisdom. I'm always open to reasonable compromise, and support these suggested modifications, with the following possible qualifications and explanations.
  • 2 This "using culture to spread propaganda and influence" quote is not found in either ref, but the former has "Chinese design to spread its soft power - widening influence by using culture as a propagational tool." I just want to correct the mistake.
  • 4. Neither do I think it's an overt objective of CIs, but quickly checking Google Books for "Confucius Institute" and "cultural superiority" finds sources such as Blum & Jensen, Li, and Pang. If there are enough good references, perhaps we could start a new paragraph about "cultural superiority" criticisms.
  • 7. This ref (chronicle20100601schmidt) about resisting Chinese pressure was deleted (6 January 2012) from an earlier edit and I was trying to add it with the subsequent controversies.
  • 8. If I remember correctly, Penn was the first university to reject a CI and is currently reconsidering. I'll look into it.
  • 9. As a potential compromise, we could combine the two Italian Institute refs and move them to "3.1 Comparisons with similar organizations". "Mussolini" could be replaced with Italian Fascism, etc.
  • 10. Yes, of course it can be cut (I kept finding more new refs), perhaps with a brief explanation of the local racial aspects.
If everyone agrees, we can move forward and stop wasting time. Also, as a heads-up <grin>, I've found several useful 2012 references that we can discuss after settling this. Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The above analyses by Shrigley and Homunculus seem to converge upon my own to a large extent. I have the following specific points to add, with particular reference to suggestions by Homunculus :
  • 1/ There will always be conspiracy theorists seeking to make connections. I just wish there were other sources which point out what a "normal" thing it is to officials with "revolving doors" to top posts.
  • 5/ Disagree. Already discussed at length in a thread above: I just wish there were other sources which point out what a "normal" thing for organisations to appoint influential people to supervisory or advisory posts.
  • 6/ "“disquiet in academic circles...”" was my phrase. I am still opposed to using the whole CSM quote unless a greater number of other sources employing the same language can be found.
  • 9/ per Homunculus, I also favour cutting out all the rhetoric, whether it is 'Mussolini' or 'Italian fascism'. It's gratuitous.
  • 10/My reading and re-reading of the La Hacienda issue is basically a local conflict at a California school between Latino parents being involved in a power play with Chinese parents inside the board governors but being played out in public. It used to be a lot shorter, but completely one-sided; I built it up with opposing narrative. Again, I felt the entire passage/episode ought to be removed on balance because it is impossible to report on impartially without recourse to primary sources and opinion pieces; maybe somebody could do a better job than me at providing a precis, but I fould reporting on it impartially takes up an inordinate amount of space.
  • 11/I accept that I may have misrepresented the concerns as being 'self-censorship', and that the quote should be reinstated.
  • 14/Question of style. No misrepresentation; I prefer a shorter quote. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that we seem to be approaching a compromise. Two of your points seem unclear. Would you please explain?
Is "unless a greater number of other sources employing the same language can be found" a Wikipedia policy or a personal desideratum? In many contexts, this kind of writing could be considered derivative at best or plagiarism at worst.
What do you mean by "cutting out all the rhetoric"? Rhetoric (in its basic meanings) is common across most critical discourse. Some attempted summaries of CI controversies have been misleading, and as long as we properly attribute contexts, rhetorical statements are more informative for readers. WP:CRIT advises, "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." Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks to everybody. Since we roughly agree on most of these changes, I'll revert them, fix the subheadings, and start making the revisions suggested above. After we work out the remaining details, we can move forward. Keahapana (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for keeping this moving. I'll take a look once you're done to see that consensus (where it exists) has been implemented (not that I don't trust you...). Homunculus (duihua) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please change anything I've overlooked so far. No need to trust me – trust the content improvements. I consolidated the two Italian Institute quotes trying to tone down the Mussolini references, as requested. Ohconfucius, who prefers directly attributed quotes (also OK with me), undid the revision but apparently forgot to restore the quotes. Who should fix it? Keahapana (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That part is fine as it is. I think the quotes are unnecessary. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW what's going on with Keahapana's February 22 revert? [4]? It's exactly the same as his previous one [5] comparison. I thought several of his changes are still under discussion.--PCPP (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced comments

Two statements are currently tagged for lacking citations:

  • While some universities have declined to host Confucius Institutes because the university’s own Chinese language instruction programs were already fulfilling the needs of their students and communities, (Censorship and academic freedom)
  • Teachers provided by Hanban have in some cases been described as inadequate and inexperienced in providing second-language instruction. (Hiring policies)

After searching and failing to find any reliable sources, I've tentatively removed both comments. Keahapana (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again

Without any prior discussion, the most recent (14 May) decimation of this article erased 8 Kb of content, including 7 references, from the previous stable version. Some of these 17 edits were constructive improvements (such as #2 "corrected quote" and #7 "summarized quote"), which I'll naturally leave. Others were counterproductive WP:JDLI-ish removals of criticisms and controversies surrounding Confucius Institutes, which I'll revert, pending discussion.

Contributors to this article may recognize some previous inexcusable deletions that were eventually restored by consensus. For instance, #3 "Spiegel opinion article only made one mention of CI" (imaginary WP rule?) deleted a Der Spiegel quote that dates back to the July 2009 split from Confucius Institute. Please correct anything that I've overlooked. Keahapana (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to your additions from numerous other users were already pointed out in the previous case, and disregarding them all you have readded everything. The Spiegel article is simply an opinion piece whose main focus is upon China's foreign relations, only made one mention of CI in total, and its opinion has already been echoed in more through publications. Furthermore, this is not an article where you find the latest dirt on CI off Google News and dump it here, including irrelevant material from an US politician's pet project about China, as well as testimony from a man expelled in 1981, which has nothing to do with CI and everything to do with a "guilt by association" type attack upon Stanford. --PCPP (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
PCPP, if you take a look through the talk page here, you will see that many of these issues were discussed in February. Keahapana made a series of edits that were explained point-by-point, and was unopposed in doing so. It appears that much of what you have removed centers on the same content, and you deleted quite a lot more sourced material than is alluded to here. Would you care to provide a more thorough accounting for all that you deleted, perhaps as a numbered list? Also, please refer to the discussion in February, where agreement was previously reached on several aspects of the page. I would also try to encourage cool heads here. Homunculus (duihua) 06:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello? Both Ohconfucius and Shrigley, as well as yourself, both accepted as well as rejected several of his changes in the last discussion, and yet Keahapana still pushed everything through regardless of discussion, and my previous inqury goes unanswered. [6]--PCPP (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't accept them. The only thing that seems to have changed is that we are now in a different time. It appears that Keahapana still feels that this is his article. The arguments were not addressed, and the reinstatements appear unwarranted. Maybe we can all play this game of "slow edit warring" ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good joke Ohconfucius <grin>. Seriously, I don't feel that anyone owns this article, but I do feel that everyone should try to strengthen rather than weaken it. Thanks for citing WP:OWN, in terms of which I'm a "primary contributor" who has "a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy."

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. (WP:OAS)

I suggest that we rationally discuss the reasons for/against changes based upon WP policies rather than personal opinions – such as deleting a United States congressional hearing about CIs as "irrelevant material from an US politician's pet project about China." If an editor wants to make wholesale erasures from the article, I agree that he/she should first list them here for discussion. Keahapana (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The material has been restored so I suppose we are waiting for cogent objections or reasons it might be shortened, etc. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've had to revert it again pending a list of deletions for discussion. Sorry, I thought everyone would get a laugh from the Yogiism Deja Vu All Over Again. Also, I'll add some better links for the Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing and a more relevant Mosher quote.
The joke may have been lost on us secular types unfortunately (right, Ohc?) I just saw your talk page and the edit history, however. Why is there edit warring? I thought there was a consensus that the 6k of content should not have been deleted? Can we get some specific discussion on why certain parts should be deleted or remain? I only took a cursory examination, and it seems that some might be best shortened or expunged and some left to remain, but it's hard to assess the matter properly without breaking it down. Please engage in a detailed discussion with PCPP rather than edit war. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, I think the chronology has been mixed up here. Are we on the same page? Keahapana has been trying to engage PCPP in a discussion. I've also asked PCPP to provide an account of what was deleted and why (particularly since some of this material seemed once to gain consensus). PCPP has not (yet) provided an explanation. If PCPP deletes the material again without attempting to discuss, it's best not to revert back—there may be some kind of dispute resolution process or other remedies available. Homunculus (duihua) 09:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
So let us mark time at this point, then: PCPP, it seems that the content that you recently removed and edit warred on has been on the page for some time. The general convention is that when something has sat around for a while, it enjoys tacit consensus and if you want to delete it, and other people disagree, you should engage in a discussion on it. Can I suggest now that if you still think the content is inappropriate, that you start a discussion pointing out specifically which parts and the reasons? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's please discuss it here first. I welcome any productive edits, and my 19 May restorations left about one-fourth of PCPP's 14 May deletions. Getting some dispute resolution assistance sounds like a good idea. Keahapana (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

There are developing CI controversies coming from the London School of Economics and US State Department.

I'm busy now but will add these into the article later. If anyone wants to include them now, please go ahead. Thanks. Keahapana (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Chronicle report, this has received a fair bit of coverage, but I'm not sure where it might belong in the article. According to the state department, this is really just a procedural matter where the terms of the visas were violated, so I don't think this involves the political dimensions that much of the article is concerned with. It may be valuable to create a section on 'legal issues' or something. There may be some other items that could fit under that heading, actually. Homunculus (duihua) 00:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The incident was a controversy inasmuch as there were different views, sometimes strenuously expressed. Chinese media appeared to see it as an affront. That adds to the controversy. But it could just as well, and may better be, a short paragraph in the main article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long, but I started these two. In addition, does anyone know why the archive tag didn't work? Keahapana (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The archive robot comes by when he feels like it, so it's not immediate. I saw you added the line "In response, both Chinese officials and concerned American universities reportedly applied pressure on Washington." This is sourced to Xinhua. It's not clear to me which American universities expressed concern, and this is mentioned only very briefly in the source. Do you know if there's additional corroboration on that point? Also, the outcome is sort of ambiguous....will the institutes need to obtain US academic accreditation, or not? My understanding of the resolution is that they do still have to get this stuff sorted out, but that the state department walked back the threat of sending all the teachers home this month. Clarification would be appreciated, if you can offer it. Homunculus (duihua) 04:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Great work Keahapana. I revised the US State department stuff a bit to make it slimmer without losing any of the informational content. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, thanks for explaining the slow bot (to China?). There's also this Template:Archiveme. I'm not sure about the subtext of the State Department flap, and we may be able to find clarification. In the Nuland press briefing, a reporter asks, "I heard that some of the Confucius Institutions have come and had meetings with the assistant secretary already talking about this." Here are some miscellaneous links I've found.

The Sound and the Fury, thanks for the skillful reduction. Keahapana (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new here. Are you telling that Confucius Institutes is actually a front organization that plants Agents of influence? My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That's an apt reading of some of the discourse surrounding them. They appear to have fairly strong organizational ties to the United Front Work Department. But I think the main concern is that, by embedding themselves within educational institutions around the world and bringing a fair bit of money with them, they have the potential to interfere with academic freedom and unduly influence the manner in which China-related topics are taught in universities, how research grants are allocated, what kind of events universities may or may not host related to China, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 05:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. So, CI gives money to US Universities. Where these money originally came from? Chinese government? If so, what department of Chinese government? My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Chinese government, though I honestly don't know exactly how or from which ministry. We should have a section in the main article addressing these basic operational questions. Most of the sources simply refer to "Beijing" or "the Chinese government" providing the funds (example[7]). There are some reports that speak of Hanban providing the funding, and my understanding is that Hanban is funded by the Ministry of Education. This paper provides a decent overview of general operations, writing " Though the Chinese government allocates funds for the expenditures of all CIs, the exact amount remains unclear. Xu Jialu, former Vice Chairman of the National People’s Congress, estimates that each CI needs approximately $100,000 per year. However, my research in Japan found that several CIs had annual budgets of over $200,000." I wish I had a better answer to your question. This is something that requires more research. Anyone else have a better answer?Homunculus (duihua) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
So, this is presumably their Ministry of Education, which surprisingly funds education not in China, but in other countries. Also, they do not have a transparent public budget (unlike the United States Department of Education, for example). Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. I am a volunteer at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes regarding a content dispute involving this page.

My question is this: do we have the right list of participants, or have we left anyone out who wishes to participate in the dispute resolution? Participation is entirely optional, but I don't want to leave anyone out if they want to join the discussion. If you want to be listed, please let me know and I will modify the DRN case to make a place for your initial comments. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The June 2012 DRN included users Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and TheSoundAndTheFury. Perhaps they could also be notified. Keahapana (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I will do that tomorrow if they haven't noticed this. Thanks!
BTW, I know that DRN can be stressful, so if anyone has any problems with me or with other participants, please feel free to talk to me about it on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New controversies

The following is a rough list of recent CI criticisms that occurred after we stopped editing this page – owing to the unfinished dispute resolution.

Please add any additional links, and we can appropriately include them later. Keahapana (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more.

Spoiler alert: The McMaster case involves Falun Gong discrimination. Keahapana (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Finishing the dispute resolution

After three weeks of discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, our disagreement over suitable content is nearly resolved. Thanks to Guy Macon, a DRN volunteer, for helping us reach consensus. The following is a condensed version of section "1.1.8 C and C over CI discussion 3", see the archive for the full conversation.

  • 1) I will compromise on the Huawei allegations, but I think there's a recent US senate enquiry on the issue, perhaps it can be updated. Here [8] Reuters reported that the White House found no evidence of Huawei. Here is also a defence of Huawei from China Daily, don't know if it would prove useful [9]. Still, I think the paragraph should be summarized to a minimal so it doesn't get sidetracked to Huawei instead of Confucius Institute
  • 2) To be added
  • 11) I have no problems with rewriting, but I think the section is overlong, particular according to the State Department the visa issue has been solved [10].
  • 12) I agree that the current naming is awkward. I'm wondering if anything can be extracted from its official websites eg [11] and include cases in which CIs were established with without much controversy?

… PCPP (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

#1 Agreed. The article currently reads:

  • Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute at the University of Texas at Dallas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company the U.S. government regards as a national security threat, and which has been accused of industrial espionage.{ref name=Nest}

The Reuters ref is informative; perhaps we could add it in an explanatory sentence like this:

  • Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya also raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and major state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the CI at the University of Texas at Dallas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei.{ref name=Nest} The U.S. government has accused this Chinese telecom company of industrial espionage, but an extensive security review found no clear evidence of spying.[12]

Keahapana (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

… The rest:

  • 2) On futher examination, I have no problem with retaining Spigel, and the Mingjiang Li is good too. I'm not sure if the Atlantic Wire opinion article fits though, as it simply an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media.
  • 3) Should the Zimmerman source be merged with 5)? Also the Swedish source returns a broken link.
  • 4) I have no problem with paraphrasing of Brenner's quote. Perhaps it can be paraphrased to the line of "Brenner questions the Chinese government's large financial incentives to CI, and whether it fits within America's national interests.
  • 5) No problem with readding Zimmerman. But do you think it should say something along the lines of 'In writing for the Christian Science Monitor, Zimmerman argued for greater American scrutiny in the teaching of Chinese languages, and the importance of open discussions. "...more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it. But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."'
  • 7) How about a combination of both, like: 'Representative Dana Rohrabacher accused China of spreading its propaganda by exploiting the American media and education system, as well as criticizing US universities of valuing money over intergrity. In referencing expert witness Steven W. Mosher, Rohrabacher argued, "Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda."'
  • 8) I really think that the section on Confucius Classrooms be trimmed down to quality sources from AP [13] and Washington Times [14]. As I mentioned earlier, I felt that the paragraph only need a short reference to the both the views Tribune editorial and school board member Jay Chen, concluding with Prof. Cull's views on people's suspicion of outside ideas.
  • 9) Sorry, the link to the Mosher PDF is down, is there an alternate link? Furthermore, I think Mosher should be cited with caution, since he is an anti-One Child Policy and anti-abortion activist who works for the partisan Population Research Institute, which argues that overpopulation is a myth.
  • 10) I really have to get back on the London School issue. As for your links on the talk page, most of them from major newspapers looked fine if you can extract materials from them, but I'm not sure the hard conservative Human Events and the Robertson source qualify under WP:RS.--PCPP (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The following are some suggestions and questions for discussion by PCPP and any other interested editors.

#1 Is the above revision with Reuters acceptable? Since the China Daily article doesn't mention CIs, it might be better for the Huawei page.

#2 Here's the deleted quote.

  • A Der Spiegel article about threats from China's soft power criticized Beijing for using Confucius Institutes "in hopes of promoting what it views as China's cultural superiority".[1]

As mentioned above, I did a quick "Confucius Institute, cultural superiority" search and found Li's book and Hudson's article to illustrate that this quote wasn't necessarily WP:UNDUE. Page 197 of Li mentions CIs in one context and cultural superiority in another, it seems like adding this ref would be synthesis. However, thanks for pointing out that the Atlantic Wire was responding to the Global Times editorial cited under #11. Since "an editorial on another editorial from Chinese state media" is a rough paraphrase of NPOV, perhaps we should move it there.

#3 Yes, I still think it would be better to consolidate the Italian Instititute refs, which I already tried (21 February 2012) but you removed (14 May 2012). Is this OK now?

  • Some critics have compared Confucius Institutes to Benito Mussolini’s Italian Institutes in American schools[2]{CSM20060906zimmer}

I think there was a third ref and will look later. Should we pipe Italian Cultural Institute, London as "Italian Institute"? Sorry I don't read Swedish, but we could tag the deadlink or delete it.

#4 Here's the original version

  • David Prager Branner, a Chinese professor at Columbia University, said it is a fallacy to believe that taking money from the Chinese government will have no long-term consequences. "In order to try to anticipate those consequences we need to ask: why would China be willing to spend so much money to set these organizations up? Specifically, why does China consider this to be in its national interest and why would it be in America’s national interest?"[3]

Instead of paraphrasing

  • "Brenner questions the Chinese government's large financial incentives to CI, and whether it fits within America's national interests.

It might be clearer to say something like

  • David Prager Branner, a Chinese professor at Columbia University, warns that taking money from China to set up Confucius Institutes could have long-term consequences, and questions whether it would be in America’s national interest.

#5 Yes, prefacing with "In writing for the Christian Science Monitor…" sounds fine, but I still think quoting the pithy lede question is more informative than paraphrasing the rambling conclusion.

  • A Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question of academic freedom, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?"{CSM20060906zimmer}
  • Zimmerman argued for greater American scrutiny in the teaching of Chinese languages, and the importance of open discussions. "...more Americans should take Chinese. Our economy, our cultural life, and our national security all demand it. But we should study the subject on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."'

Perhaps we could compromise and use both the question and summary. Any other opinions?

#6 We already have consensus for deleting Dickinson State.

#7 Yes, combining could be advantageous, but this "either type of freedom" phrase loses the "freedom of the press and academic freedom" referents. That's the advantage of WP giving direct quotes for controversial subjects. Compare

  • Representative Dana Rohrabacher said, "Two of the pillars of America’s status as an open society are freedom of the press and academic freedom. Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda." Steven W. Mosher testified that Stanford University denied his PhD degree about China's controversial one-child policy after the Chinese Communist Party "threatened to retaliate against other Stanford scholars and programs." Rohrabacher responded, "It appears as though Beijing is able to expand its campaign against academic freedom from China to America when U.S. universities value Chinese favors and money more than truth and integrity."[4]
  • Representative Dana Rohrabacher accused China of spreading its propaganda by exploiting the American media and education system, as well as criticizing US universities of valuing money over integrity. In referencing expert witness Steven W. Mosher, Rohrabacher argued, "Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda.

Please clarify how Rohrabacher was "referencing" Mosher.

#8 This paragraph has changed so many times that I'm confused about what you want to trim. From the current version [footnotes 71-75], do you want to keep the SGV Tribune [72], AP [73 twice], Asian American Policy Review [74], and Washington Times [75]; but exclude the National Review [71] as not a "quality source"? This [74] link now requires ID login. There's a copy on Jay Chen's blog, but is that a RS? We should wikilink Norman N. Hsu too.

#9 Fixing this dead link is easier than disqualifying Mosher, here's an archive link. Are you saying we should dismiss Mosher's concerns about CIs because he has criticized abortion, the One Child Policy, or both? The original was:

  • Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, testified that the United Front Work Department's purpose "is subversion, cooption and control," and claimed that one of the CI's chief purposes is "to subvert, coopt, and ultimately control Western academic discourse on matters pertaining to China.

I just found a China Daily story that describes Mosher as "a China specialist in the US."

#10 I was just parking all these references on the Talk page pending our postponed resolution, and we will only use whatever ones are suitable. Are you saying we should delete Human Events merely because it's conservative? I agree that the religiously-biased Epoch Times likely fails WP:RS, but added it for the deleted video link. Any link will do. Is this current version acceptable?

  • The Confucius Institute at the London School of Economics came under criticism following the LSE Gaddafi links controversy over accepting a £1.5 million donation from Libya. Christopher Hughes, professor of international relations, said the school’s acceptance of about £400,000 from China showed it had failed to learn from the scandal. Hughes accused the CI of being a "divisive" and "illegitimate" propaganda organization, and said its existence would damage the school’s reputation.[5]

#11 Yes, we agree this paragraph needs to be cut. Would you, or someone else, be willing to rewrite it? The current version already has the State Department link as footnote [65]. Should we add the above Atlantic response here after the Global Times [66]?

#12 The C&CoCI mouthful was a compromise title from discussion about spliting off the article. I still think Criticisms of Confucius Institutes is simplest and clearest, but some editors want to avoid the c-word (so to speak). It seems unnecessary to cite the official website that CIs often don't have "much controversy". In comparison, Criticism of Apple Inc. doesn't say that many Apple users are uncritical. But if you think it's important, adding this sort of qualification would be OK. Keahapana (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the issues are being slowly resolved and the discussion can be sent back to the article talk page. If needed, a new DRN case can be opened later, but it should have far fewer disputed items and a commitment by all involved to spend the time needed to reach agreement. ----Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again to all involved, Keahapana (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I'll start making the changes soon. Also, here's the updated DRN archive link, and the previous DRN discussions from January 2012 and June 2012. Keahapana (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey sorry for the delay again, I'll be out of the hospital this weekend and I should have time to work on it. Cheers.--PCPP (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

#1 No problems with Reuters article

#2 Again, no problems with Spiegel and Li, but I don't think the Atlantic Wire article really contribute anything new

#3 That sentence looks fine, but I think Zimmerman should be named as an example eg "In writing for the CSM, Jonathan Zimmerman described CI as..."

#4 No problems

#5 Yeah, have no problems with the compromise, but I think Zimmerman should be introduced as the author, and that it comes from a CSM editorial

#6 No problems

#7 It seems like I misread the original sentence, so is it a good idea to replace "referencing" with "responding"?

#8 I'm in favor of keeping WT, AAPR, and AP, although I think SGV is redundant since once of the other articles already referenced the "Hugo Chavez" accusation. The NR source is now a deadlink, I might have to get back to that later.

#9 How about this, introduce Mosher also as a 1CP critic, but also include the China Daily link as a rebuttal, which states that Mosher as "misunderstanding China", and the "not Trojan Horses" comment by Xu?

#10 No problems with the current version, but I oppose Human Events due to the fact that it's a politically partisan source

#11 TBA, give me some time to work out a new version

#12 On second thought, I'll agree with the move to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes--PCPP (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. It sounds like we're in general agreement. Tomorrow I'll reply in detail and we can start adding these changes. I hope your health is improving. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, PCPP. We've already deleted #6 and I'll add our consensus versions of #1 and #4.

#2 Yes, we don't need the Atlantic Wire here. Don't you think adding these two different contexts from Li would be synthesis?

  • A Der Spiegel article about threats from China's soft power criticized Beijing for using Confucius Institutes "in hopes of promoting what it views as China's cultural superiority".[6]

#3 Quoting Zimmerman alone is good. I reread his article and think we should mention his "Mussolini model" (like two other sources in Google Books). How about this version, which avoids the Benito Mussolini wikilink?

  • In writing for the Christian Science Monitor, Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian at New York University, warned that Confucius Institutes resemble the 1930s "Mussolini model" of financing Italian language schools in America for Fascist propaganda purposes.[7]

#5 Since #3 already mentions the CSM article (Was it an "editorial"?) we could say:

  • Jonathan Zimmerman critically framed the question of Confucius Institutes and academic freedom, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?" Zimmerman concluded that more Americans should study Chinese, but "on our own terms, making sure that it also reflects our best civic language of freedom, open discussion, and democracy."[7]

#7 Yes, "responding" will work.

  • Representative Dana Rohrabacher said, "The two pillars of America’s status as an open society are freedom of the press and academic freedom. Communist China, which does not believe in or allows the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda."[8] Responding to Steven W. Mosher's testimony, Rohrabacher argued, "It appears as though Beijing is able to expand its campaign against academic freedom from China to America when U.S. universities value Chinese favors and money more than truth and integrity."[9]

Also, the URL for fn 60 could use The Price of Public Diplomacy with China.

#8 I'll change to the current NR link. Since the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is currently the only citation of local media, I think we should try to keep it. Which other article already mentions Chavez? I can't find it.

#9 Yes, we can leave Mosher and add CD, as you suggest. How does this look?

  • Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, testified that the United Front Work Department's purpose "is subversion, cooption and control," and claimed that one of the CI's chief purposes is "to subvert, coopt, and ultimately control Western academic discourse on matters pertaining to China. A China Daily article said, "Confucius Institutes' work is misunderstood from time to time," citing the example of Mosher calling CIs "Trojan Horses with Chinese characteristics." In response, Xu Lin, director-general of the Hanban, said, "The Confucius Institutes are definitely not Trojan Horses, since we are holding no weapons in our hands."[10]

#10 Is this current version OK?

  • The Confucius Institute at the London School of Economics came under criticism following the LSE Gaddafi links controversy over accepting a £1.5 million donation from Libya. Christopher Hughes, professor of international relations, said the school’s acceptance of about £400,000 from China showed it had failed to learn from the scandal. Hughes accused the CI of being a "divisive" and "illegitimate" propaganda organization, and said its existence would damage the school’s reputation.[11]

Sorry, but I don't understand your criterion. If we exclude some "politically partisan" sources like Human Events from Wikipedia, then will we delete others like People's Daily, Global Times, etc.? Anyway, we can wait on this. Let's first finish dealing with these references from last May, and then deal with the subsequent sources.

#11 Yes, of course, take your time to work out a new version. Should we add the above Atlantic Wire response here after the Global Times?

#12 Agreed. I've always favored simplifying the title to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. Should we just move it now or start a new section below?

Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus pending

I've added the above consensus versions for #2, #3, #5, #7, and #9. If I've overlooked something, please let me know and I'll fix it too. Since the #12 title change is already up for discussion that leaves three unresolved problems.

#2 After the Der Spiegel quote; Would adding the two different contexts from Li's book be synthesis?

#8 The Confucius Classroom dispute still needs rewriting. As asked above: Since the San Gabriel Valley Tribune is currently the only citation of local media, should we try to keep it? Which other article already mentions Chavez? I can't find it.

#11 After the Global Times quote, should we add this #2 reference for NPOV?

Thanks again to PCPP and all others who helped to finally settle this 2012 dispute. Keahapana (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal

As discussed above, there is consensus that Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes should be moved to Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. Does anyone object? Keahapana (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added the backlog of references, moved the page, and started cleaning it up. Any help would be appreciated. Keahapana (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Truthiness

In the interest of accuracy, I've reverted the deletions based upon the claim that "CIs are not managed directly by the goverment they are managed by Hanban which is described already in the article as an NGO with ties to the goverment [sic]". The article does not mention NGO (except in "jingoistic"), and the Michael Hsiao "non-profit and non-governmental organization" propaganda quote is taken out of context. Here is the full quote:

Specifically, the overseas Confucius Institutes have at least two purposes. For educational ones, the Institute has a function similar to that of Alliance Française, Goethe-Institute, British Council, and Insituto Cervante, which mainly deal with language and culture learning affairs. Although Beijing carefully heralds that the Institute operates as a non-profit and non-governmental organization, its principle and budget are guided and sponsored by “the Office of Chinese Language Council International” (Hanban) affiliated with the PRC’s Ministry of Education. Such an orientation would naturally draw the association with the underlying strategic implication of Confucius Institutes, that is, an attempt to promote Chinese culture and thereby increase China’s soft power influence. Some thinkers have referred to such a policy as “cultural imperialism” [14 (A recent discussion on China’s advocacy of Chinese langue, see Sheng Ding and Robert A. Saunders, “Talking Up China: An Analysis of China’s Rising Cultural Power and the Global Promotion of the Chinese Language,” East Asia: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, (2006), pp. 3-33.)].

Keahapana (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversies update

Here's a list of new references:

I'm temporarily parking these here until I have more time. If anyone is interested in adding them into the article, please do. Keahapana (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure you aren't making the article into a list of every mention of the CIs in the world news. If it isn't something substantively new and adding to the encyclopedic content of the article then it isn't useful. Saying this professor also doesn't approve, or this college also had a minor protest against CI, isn't actually a useful addition to the page. I only mention this because that has been a problem on this article in the past. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The most important recent controversy is the University of Chicago hornet's nest stirred up by Marshall Sahlins' article. Thanks for your constructive editing on this controversial topic. Keahapana (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
More articles

New criticisms

Don't have time now, but here are some recent references

If anyone wants to add these, please do. Keahapana (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes

Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/p/trustee-s-of-the-toronto-district-school-board-say-no-to-china-s-confucius-institute-in-tdsb
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes

Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/p/trustee-s-of-the-toronto-district-school-board-say-no-to-china-s-confucius-institute-in-tdsb
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticisms of Confucius Institutes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Confucius Institutes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Confucius Institutes. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

New links

Here's a list of recent articles about CI controversies that I'll park here. I don't have time now, but am asking for help putting the best ones into the article.

Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Never-ending story, Keahapana (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Poor grammar

Regarding this sentence in the article:

Mary E. Gallagher, director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan, said the institutes has been free in covering "that are controversial and sensitive in China".

The grammar doesn't even resemble standard English grammar. Writing so sloppily undermines this article and our project as a whole. Please proofread before clicking "Publish changes"! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Erich Follath (2010), The Dragon's Embrace: China's Soft Power Is a Threat to the West, Der Spiegel 07/28/2010.
  2. ^ Göran Lindblad in Starr (2009) , p. 6.
  3. ^ Redden (2012).
  4. ^ ***Press Release*** Rep. Rohrabacher Holds Hearing on Increased Chinese Propaganda Efforts in the U.S.; Would Attitudes be as Welcoming if Nazi Germany Set Up Nietzsche Institutes in America?, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, March 29, 2012.
  5. ^ Richard Kerbaj (2012), Beijing cash threatens to plunge LSE into new donations scandal, The Sunday Times, 20 May 2012.
  6. ^ Erich Follath (2010), The Dragon's Embrace: China's Soft Power Is a Threat to the West, Der Spiegel 07/28/2010.
  7. ^ a b Zimmerman, Jonathan (6 September 2006). Beware China's role in US Chinese classes. Christian Science Monitor.
  8. ^ Oversight Hearing: The Price of Public Diplomacy with China.
  9. ^ ***Press Release*** Rep. Rohrabacher Holds Hearing on Increased Chinese Propaganda Efforts in the U.S.; Would Attitudes be as Welcoming if Nazi Germany Set Up Nietzsche Institutes in America?, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, March 29, 2012.
  10. ^ Qu Yingpu, Zhao Huanxin and Cheng Ying (2012), Confucius Institutes go beyond borders, China Daily 2012-12-02.
  11. ^ Richard Kerbaj (2012), Beijing cash threatens to plunge LSE into new donations scandal, The Sunday Times, 20 May 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Confucius_Institutes/Archive_2&oldid=1027548094"