Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:48, 22 May 2012

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Confucius Institute was copied or moved into Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes with this edit on 01:01, 10 July 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

Improving lead

In the content transfer from the original CI article, the Schimdt (2010b) reference was lost and misquoted. Although Schmidt mentions "scant evidence of meddling" at 61 US universities (not "hundreds of Institutes already established"), he also details the Tel Aviv University legal controversy. I've added the reference, revised the citation, and reduced the wordy lead.

Thanks to JeremyMiller for adding the Ulara Nakagawa reference. However, I cannot find the source for this paraphrase: "Perhaps out of fear of provoking further criticism, the Institute has largely avoided controversial issues and has limited itself to language education programs." The closest seems to be the Don Starr quote, "The Chinese are going to avoid contentious areas such as human rights and democracies and those kinds of things." Please clarify. Keahapana (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a paraphrase of two separate sentences in the article. The first part of the sentence ("Perhaps out of fear of provoking further criticism, the Institute has largely avoided controversial issues") is a paraphrase of "The Chinese are going to avoid contentious areas such as human rights and democracies and those kinds of things", while the second part ("has limited itself to language education programs") was meant to be a paraphrase of "All this seems to make sense, and after speaking to a range of people I’ve seen little to support the notion of Confucius Institutes as ominous propaganda. On the contrary, those involved who I’ve spoken with seem genuinely interested in promoting cultural understanding and better communication". I've rephrased the second part to "has been perceived as limiting itself to language and cultural programs", to closer match Nakagara's original line . I apologize for not making that clear.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some general observations

Since I was so aggressive in my edits of this content at Confucius Institute I though it would be most appropriate to hold off from editing this page at least for some time. Nonetheless I have a few general observations which I believe are worth discussing.

1. The page content as it is is somewhat redundant. I believe that it would be more logical and easier to read were it organized thematically and not chronologically. similar events could be grouped together, and quotes which are pretty much the same could be merged. The events don't follow a logical chronological order, one event does not seem to lead to the next. That one event happened in 2005 appears to have very very little relevance, so organizing the contents by years is fairly arbitrary. I'm not going to decide what those themes are but the few that come to mind are: 1. professors fear for academic integrity. 2. organized opposition to the establishment of CIs. 3. Tel aviv University
2. . As it is the article is mostly a collection of quotes without much context. The article should help the reader understand how the topic breaks down not just tell them what a bunch of people have said about it taken out of context.
3. if changes make the article shorter, that should not be seen as a bad thing. A very informative and well-written short article is always better then a long article which doesn't provide some insight for the reader.
4. the idea that the CIs actually avoid politics instead of censoring them is worth expanding upon. There's a quote in there somewhere about it but I don't think its explained well enough. What I know of the CIs this makes alot of sense, they want to have influence but they don't want to play into fears that folks are bound to have of a PRC initiative, that it is meddling in political speech at the university. I don't think avoidance and censorship are unrelated. they're also not the same.

I'm not going to make these changes, at least for now. The above are, of course, just suggestions. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. We agree that the content is somewhat redundant and needs improvement. The current organization by years isn't ideal, but it seems more workable than any of the previous organizations, as discussed in the CI Talk Archive. It would be great if we can find a better thematic division of sections, but I don't know which would work. These two hypothetical "professors fear" and "organized opposition" themes overlap because teachers' opposition is at the core of most reported controversies. That would leave two sections, controversies in Israel and in all other countries. You're correct that Tel Aviv University was egregious an example of CI interference, but the Schmidt ref also mentions the University of Oregon and University of Washington. In my personal opinion, I think the unethical and unpunished actions of the CI director at the University of Waterloo were equally egregious. (Incidentally, that's why I wrote "few" instead of "one")
2. Yes, it would be useful to add better context, as long as it doesn't mean deleting relevant references or informative quotes. Perhaps we could move some of the lead into a new Background section. Another possibility would be to write a summary for each year, noting developments like institutions revoking contracts with existing CIs beginning in 2010.
3. Although less is sometimes more, now that we've split the content here, I don't think length is a problem. The current page is much smaller than the comparable Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games, and Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics pages.
4. Yes, that's an interesting idea, but (as mentioned above) not what the Nakagawa article says. Should we wait to hear from JermeyMiller or change it now?

Thanks again for your skillful editorial improvements to this and the CI articles. Perhaps we or some other contributors can think of better thematic sections. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I can reassure you about thematic divisions by saying they will evolve over time. The sections I have proposed are certainly not perfect, maybe not even very good, but if you can think of something better I suggest you just go for it, even if it ends up seeming a little choppy. The article is not very polished as it is and since we both agree that organizing it by year isn't the way to go then just go for anything that seems better. Other editors will be there to help make it work, or change the organization further. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that it would be better if the article was divided thematically. Perhaps "Protests and petitions" (Combining the professors fear and organized opposition themes into one), "Government responses" (For direct responses by government officials on CIs. There's an interesting quote on the Pentagon strangely providing funding for the CI that we could use), and "Evaluations of Conduct" (For how the CIs have been evaluated so far. Other than the embarrassing and blatant Israel incident, sources like the Chronicle of Higher Education contend that there hasn't been much evidence of direct inference so far. There have been many cases where individuals affiliated with a CI have made embarrassing or controversial comments, but nothing especially egregious.)--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We could also have a section on "Speculation of Intent", to group all the speculative claims made in the article, which could help reduce the redundancy affecting the current article.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, just make sure that we are stating claims with the right language, and that we aren't using those claims to make our own arguments, especially with that bit about the pentagon, sounds interesting but we shouldn't over generalize or add our own implied arguments. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting "Protests and petitions", "Government responses", "Evaluations of Conduct", and "Speculation of Intent" divisions. They're reminiscent of the original CI article Controversies section divided between government officials, educators, and journalists. They were impractical because many CI controversies involve two or three of these thematic divisions, creating an either/or Procrustean bed where a ref is understated or duplicated. For instance, the recent New South Wales controversy involves all four: petition, government response, evaluation, and speculation.

Metal.Lunchbox is right about avoiding POV paraphrases. For the Nakagawa article, instead of footnoting the quotes, we should move them into the page text. The current restatement uses some loaded words not found in the article: "Perhaps out of fear for provoking further criticism ..." What do you think? Keahapana (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Siow quote

Thanks to JeremyMiller for adding the excellent Siow reference. After finding the original Asia Pacific Bulletin link and reading the article, I'm curious about this: "Han Ban’s annual budget was only US$145 million in 2009 so it would be false to state that China has been spending massively on these institutes." Why does the Hanban's official 2009 Annual Report list a CI budget of 1,228,258,000 CNY? That's about $180 million at the 2009 rate of 1 CNY = 0.1464 USD. If no one mentioned massive spending, is this a straw-man argument? Keahapana (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Page organization

Apologies for what will be a fairly cursory comment, but I'd like to propose a revision of this article's organization. Currently it is organized more or less chronologically, but I think it would serve the reader much better if we could arrange it thematically. For instance, we might decide to organize the major subheadings as follows (this is entirely open to debate, of course):

• History / Background
• Relationship to Chinese party-state
• Financing
• Espionage
• Viability
• Function as a tool of soft power / overseas propaganda
• Concerns over academic freedom
• Discrimination
• Interference in free expression (vis-à-vis Tibet, Taiwanese independence, Falun Gong, etc.)
• Other controversies

Thoughts?Homunculus (duihua) 05:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, I really need to read previous talk discussions before starting a new topic. In any case, I'm glad to see that there's a general consensus in favor of a thematic reorganization, but since no outline was previously agreed upon, my above post may still have some merit. Homunculus (duihua) 05:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume silence means consent. I've started working on this, but because it's such a major restructuring, I can't really implement it incrementally on the page, so I'm putting it together offline. Stand by.Homunculus (duihua) 13:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please try. Let's hope this reorganized version doesn't lose existing quotes and references, which has happened before. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be mindful to preserve all that is good from the current page. I realize a lot of research has gone into this product, however disorganized it may be.Homunculus (duihua) 02:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it sounds good. I want to say however that we should not be over cautious about removing quotes. As it is the article is very quote heavy which is not good. We need to be summarizing information found in WP:SECONDARY sources as much as possible, not selecting quotes. There's nothing wrong with quotes per-se, but from WP:Quotations: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Misplaced Pages's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Regardless of the motives of the editor selecting the quote, it is preferable to summarize in neutral language where possible when dealing with controversy. There seems to be consensus that the current organization is subpar and your proposal seems logical, go for it. - Metal lunchbox 05:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that in some cases quotes can mess with our need for verifiability and can be generally confusing. In the event the quote is some statement of fact the reader will look at the quote marks and wonder, well did it really happen that way or is wikipedia just saying that this one person says its that way, why? We should stick with WP voice as much as possible, especially since some of these quotes are unnotable personalities saying essentially the same thing, something we could easily summarize in language appropriate for an encyclopedia like ours. Much of the article is in fact just a list of quotes with some context, the reader could use a little more in-depth summary than that. - Metal lunchbox 06:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should add more contexts from the references and delete quotes from non-notable sources (Who's "Falk Hartig"?). My concern derives from previous edits that misconstrued critical quotes. The history of the Confucius Institute's "Controversies" section shows repeated POV distortions through paraphrasing people who criticize CIs. Please understand that I'm not trying to be dickish. I only want to maintain the integrity of the references (full disclosure: many of which I've contributed), and avoid misusing summary to make the CI controversies seem uncontroversial. WP:QUOTE also says:

"In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example:

• When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Misplaced Pages"."

Keahapana (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us try to keep these two concerns in mind then. I think we can all agree that these are both valid concerns. Don't worry too much about being perceived as dickish. You make an argument that is reasonable and backed up in written policy, nothing dickish in that. It is easy to get overzealous when working on a page with so many quotes. The solution is simply everyone being mindful of this pitfall and all working to reorganize and reformat the page in a manner that is more balanced than one editor might be able to achieve on their own. The page isn't going to be fixed all at once and no deletion of content is permanent. One category of quote editing that I think fits neatly within both of these concerns is the consolidation of quotes which say more or less the same thing. It seems reasonable to pick the better one and incorporate the others into the summary-style prose around the kept quote. I'm not saying we should get rid of all these quotes but a quick look at the article it to be more like a chronological sources list than an article on the topic. In particular we should focus on cases where something actually happened and tell the reader what happened in neutral language instead of just giving them a couple relevant quotes about it. For one thing we make no effort to give the reader the information they need to evaluate the claims made in the quotes. They can do a google search to find out what some editorials have to say about CIs, our job is not to collect those quotes but to put together an encyclopedia article which provides general information on the topic.

The paragraph in 2010 based on Ren Zhe's (who?) paper is particularly troublesome. That paper does not cite any of its sources for the accusations and appears to be the unsourced opinions of one research fellow, "The views expressed in this commentary are solely the author’s own." Naturally we should not simply summarize the accusations and make them in wikipedia's voice. In this case I think we need to ask if this passes WP:VERIFIABILITY. The accusation of corruption cannot be verified. It is of little use to our readers to know simply that some un-notable scholar made such a claim. I find the claim dubious and while it would we interesting if it is in fact true, We can't uncritically repeat unsourced hearsay. It may be most effective to put the issue of specific quotes aside for the momment and simply focus on reorganization first. - Metal lunchbox 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Ren Zhe paper, there are a few things in there that are helpful, including information on budgets and operations. I would like to be able to draw from it, and plan to enquire with the George Washington University about this publication. If it is subject to a reasonably rigorous peer-review process, I think it should pass as a reliable source.Homunculus (duihua) 21:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I encourage contacting them. I had the same idea a while back, as it would be nice to use the source but I tried to contact the author to no avail. I cannot be sure but it does not look peer-reviewed, or even particularly academic. That no sources are mentioned is a bit problematic and then that disclaimer about it being the opinion of one author. I can't be sure what exactly the paper is though. I'd be curious to see was GWU folks say about it. - Metal lunchbox 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sigur Center at the Elliot School of International Affairs is certainly reputable. I also tried emailing Ren Zhe (任哲) at Hokkaido University's Slavic Research Center, but no reply. Let's see what we can learn before deleting. Keahapana (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The Ren Zhe publication was part of a series of policy commentaries published by the Sigur Center's Rising Power Initiative. The publications are reviewed by the initiative's three directors, all of whom are professors at the Elliott School in an Asian studies/political science field. It's not as formal a peer review process as one would find for publication in an academic journal, but is certainly far more demanding than any news article.Homunculus (duihua) 18:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of changes

I just implemented the planned page reorganization. There's still a lot of room for improvement in this article, but hopefully this is a step in the right direction. I preserved the vast majority of content from the previous page, though many of the critical, non-specific quotes are now consolidated into one section. Otherwise it is organized thematically, though I suspect there is a certain inevitable amount of overlap in some of these themes. I also added in some additional research, and hope to do more of this. Some of the sections lack a cohesive narrative, so that's another thing to address. Not sure there's too much else to say at this point; I'll let the page speak for itself.Homunculus (duihua) 21:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow in replying. Thanks to Homunculus for all the reorganizing work. The revisions are coming together nicely. I fixed the capitalization in section headings, and tagged the missing "BCIT" reference. Could this be the "Has BCIT sold out to Chinese propaganda?" article? There a few minor omissions and two more significant ones (about the University of Waterloo and Osaka Sangyo University). Was this just an oversight or was there a reason? Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, I'll be by to delete everything tomorrow, not really - Metal lunchbox 05:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Keahapana, the reference to the University of Waterloo incident, whereby a Confucius Institute instructor organized students to protest Canadian media coverage, is very interesting (and, if you ask me, a validation of concerns that CIs could be used improperly). But the source appears to be a blog, so I was reluctant to include it. If I'm wrong, or if you think that this is a good time to ignore RS guidelines, I won't protest. Regarding the Osaka apology, I don't have strong feelings either way. If you think it warrants inclusion then feel free to add back in. But again, while it was an interesting exchange, I'm not sure what it adds. That a professor at Osaka University called the CI a front for espionage is not necessarily illuminating, nor is the fact that the University apologized for it. Homunculus (duihua) 05:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Homunculus, thanks again. Yes, the Waterloo incident is interesting and I included the Chinese literary blog because it details Yan Li's career and interviews her. The Global Times story accurately quoted Li, but that ref was justifiably deleted. Perhaps we will find a better English-language reference. The Osaka incident is noteworthy as (the first?) university cancelling their CI contract. I've tentatively put the Yan Li story under the "Other controversies", but you might have a better placement. In addition, is this MA thesis is worth including as an external link? It has numerous useful references.

• The Confucius Institutes and China's Evolving Foreign Policy, Stephen J. Hoare-Vance, University of Canterbury

Keahapana (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about including an MA thesis as an external link; WP doesn't even regard MA thesis works as sound reliable sources in most instances (which is kind of funny, if you ask me; a journalist with no specialized knowledge can be a RS, but not an MA candidate with specialized knowledge). It raises my estimation of Mr. Hoare-Vance that his supervisor was Anne-Marie Brady, but he loses points with me for the use of excited punctuation(!). Anyways, my opinion doesn't matter. If there is useful information in his thesis that you can tease out—and especially if it is well referenced—then let's evaluate it on its own merit. I'll try to set aside my prejudice against people who use exclamation points.Homunculus (duihua) 04:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Next steps

During my last round of edits, I was asked to try to preserve as much sourced information as possible. I tried to do this, and seeing as my reorganization has more or less been accepted, I wanted to ask if we can revisit some of the content that was carried over from the previous version. Namely, the section on "Critical perceptions of objectives." Right now it's just an indiscriminate collection of criticism and concerns, and is not bound together by cohesive prose. Moreover, some of it is pretty redundant. Does anyone want to have a stab at writing at nice(r) narrative, and possibly summarizing a couple of the critiques more concisely? Homunculus (duihua) 04:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg just wrote a good article we should seek to draw from. Homunculus (duihua) 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor has recently made a series of fairly substantial edits to the page, but has neglected to provide any explanation of said edits. If possible I hope to recuse myself here and allow others to weigh the validity of these changes, but I thought I would do everyone a courtesy by providing a summary of the relevant diffs. This series of edits involved several rearrangements of the page, which can make the task of parsing through changes difficult. The edit summaries, moreover, were frequently misleading (or, at a minimum, very unhelpful). Here is my best attempt. Some of these changes are innocuous, others a little questionable, but some of them strike me as fairly obvious attempts to defend CIs and marginalize or delete critical views. I'll let others judge:

(Rightly) removes speculation on CI’s motivations for avoiding topics like human rights.

Paraphrases second part of quotation, removes and compresses details about the suppression of Chinese dissidents abroad as part of CI mandate.

Moves location of a paragraph on China Daily’s comparison of CIs to Alliance Francaises and Goethe-Institut, rearranges the rebuttal. In the course of doing so, adds his own qualification that CIs “frequently” attach themselves to other educational institutions.

Renames section headings, deletes heading ‘interference to free expression in universities,’ and moves corresponding content to another section. Renamed sections include changing “influence over academic freedom within universities” -> “Concerns over academic freedom,” which, while more concise, changes the meaning of the section title. “Relationship to Chinese Communist Party and government of China” is changed to “Relationship to Chinese Communist Party,” as though the government and party are the same thing (they are not; UFWD is Party, Ministry of Education is government). Other renamings seem like good moves, ie. Espionage -> Espionage concerns.

Homunculus deletes PCPP’s qualification that institutes “frequently” attach themselves to educational institutions. The qualification “frequently” is not necessary, nor is it used in the sources.

PCPP reverts Homunculus, asks for proof that the qualifier “frequently” is not necessary.

Deletes sourced content pertaining to the use of simplified characters in Confucius Institutes. (Personally I agree that a criticism of simplified characters is beside the point, but would recommend this sentence be rewritten drawing from the source, not deleted altogether.)

Adds, removes some categories.

Deletes two sourced paragraphs containing anecdotes involving individual CI directors. Writes in edit summary that individuals are not representative of the whole.

Deletes large amount of sourced information from a paragraph concerning discrimination in hiring policies against the Falun Gong. Removes reference to Falun Gong being “persecuted in China.” Deletes sentence that “human rights lawyers and media commentators in North America suggested that the hiring practices were in contravention of anti-discrimination laws.” Deletes paragraph with relevant commentary from media commentators and legal scholars. Deletes paragraph about CI director’s response to the policy. It is worth noting that these edits are probably a violation of a topic ban currently in place against the editor.

Reorders paragraph on parliamentary debate in Australia, provided additional defense for CI program from CI director.

Deletes paragraph from lede describing concerns and controversies. Adds paragraph defending CIs. Gives edit summary reading “Reworded title per NPOV.”

Adds NPOV tag to the top of page, without any talk page discussion.

Provides some alternate sources, paraphrases things and removes the quotations, removes mention of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, deletes citation to ABC news Australia, adds more defense of CI teaching methods.

Substantial rearrangement of content. Possible that things were deleted or added amidst this, but not sure.

Further rearrangements to the section on censorship, adds paragraphs to top of section that would appear to defend CI methods.

Moves contents of “other controversies” into other sections of the article (I’m not sure these moves are appropriate or helpful)

Removes duplicate sentence

Deletes paragraph about Der Speigel reporting, paragraphrases what was previously a quotation from the Indian government, deletes the Jonathan Zimmerman quote that describes Communist Party as “cruel, tyrannical, and repressive,” chooses different Zimmerman quote.

Deletes paragraph describing incident at Tel Aviv University, suggests it's enough that the event is alluded to in passing elsewhere on the page. Again, this is probably a violation os the editor’s ongoing topic ban.

Moves two paragraphs into section on academic freedom.

That is all. Homunculus (duihua) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not surprised to see that the editor was PCPP. For most of these, I think the best we can do is ask him to explain himself. If you numbered the points using the '#' thing, and deleted the lines between them, then we could easily refer to the different points. I'd remove the non-controversial ones from the list, but by numbering them and asking for an explanation of what prima facie appears to be clear pro-CI editing, it may allow PCPP a chance to respond. Whether he'll take it is his choice. Some of the edits are definitely reasonable or neutral, but the general trend is the same: a clear attempt to show the actions of the Chinese government in a positive light and suppress negative coverage. The other point to consider is that he has very probably violated his Falun Gong ban. On that I will take it to arbitration enforcement, because we've seen too much of this. On the others, please number the edits you seek an explanation for, and let us allow PCPP a chance to explain himself. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury for pointing this out. Since PCPP's egregious edits appear more destructive than constructive, would rolling back to a stable version be better than waiting for a response? Keahapana (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the topic ban allows PCPP to participate in this discussion. TheSoundAndTheFury successfully got him blocked for editing this article, so it applies here, and the ban covers "all namespaces" (including talk), "broadly construed". Rather than asking PCPP to "explain himself" (which he can't do, partly because of your diligence in applying AE sanctions), or worse yet rolling back the edits because they come from the "wrong POV", a more constructive approach would be to explain which edits you object to, and why.

In this batch of edits, I find myself agreeing with PCPP more often than not. This article seems to be maintained as a clearinghouse of negatively-spun news stories about anything remotely CI-related, so at its best, it can't ever be NPOV. His were efforts to apply minimum standards of inclusion to this article, not to "marginalize or delete critical views". I mean standards such as that lengthily recalled anecdotes must be directly related to CI ( Mostly about FLG and Chinese Embassy). Standards such as that an item should have generated some controversy outside of Misplaced Pages for Misplaced Pages to document, not foment ( Anecdote #2 cites a potentially controversial blog post, not a documented controversy). Standards that don't equate the ban on an organization widely regarded as a cult to the Nazi Holocaust ( reductio ad Hitlerum not the choicest quote, also note Misplaced Pages calling the policy "discriminatory" in its own voice).

So no; his edits are not egregious. The idea that his edits should be rejected wholesale, based on an alleged pattern of progovernment editing, that is egregious. Shrigley (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quigley. I think you’re missing the point here. This isn’t a question of which POV is “right.” It’s not even entirely a question of POV v. NPOV (though, in the case of his deletions of large swaths of relevant content because it reflects poorly on the CIs, it is). Many of PCPP’s edits—even those that are not obviously ideologically driven—are simply poorly thought out. Why did he delete the categories that he did? Why insist that CIs “frequently” attach themselves to educational institutions, when the sources don’t make that qualification? Why delete citations to ABC or Der Spiegel, or paraphrase quotations when the quotes themselves were perfectly fine (aside from where he paraphrases a quote to enable the removal of a reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, I don’t understand this)? Why engage in massive reorganizations without discussion, or place a POV tag on the page without discussion? Look, there may be a couple redeemable edits within this, but for the most part his contributions were not very good, ideology and topic ban violations aside.

Regarding the Falun Gong content specifically, the two items PCPP deleted or redacted seem to be among the more concrete examples of undue influence in another country’s internal affairs or overt, politically driven discrimination surrounding Confucius Institutes, and both received fairly extensive coverage. The anecdote about Tel Aviv is directly related to CIs—the judge in the case determined that the University was acting out of fear of jeopardizing Chinese supports for its CI, and the case was described (rightly or not) as “the only place” in the world where fears over this kind of censorship were realized. That’s certainly notable enough to merit a short descriptive paragraph.

As an aside, Reductio ad Hitlerum does not apply here; historical parallels are never perfect, but if ever the analogy were appropriate, genocides are it. In the case of Falun Gong, you have a party-state launching a campaign to eradicate an identifiable religious group, including through the use of systematic torture resulting in thousands of deaths (I would also note that the quote whose deletion you’re defending came from a prominent Jewish political commentator). Given the liability of the Falun Gong to be marginalized (with serious real world consequences), I would suggest that BLPGROUP applies. As such, you may want to consider refraining from making inflammatory remarks. It does not help our discussion. We should put this to rest, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The edits I make will simply be winding back the edits he is making that appear to be merely pro-CCP, and leaving the others. I will just open a page, then go through the diffs and muddle through. In a case like this it's PCPP that has a responsibility to explain why his contentious edits should be made. Best wishes. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've been picking through the changes now and touching the things that I think are simple pro-CCP bias and trying to leave whatever I can. My approach has been to interfere as little as possible, and I did not intervene when PCPP simply shuffled things around (perhaps to give more prominence to certain views, or for other reasons), but I intervened when he deleted things he does not appear to like. There are some misleading edit descriptions, like this one. He writes "reordered section" when he reordered it but more importantly deleted some criticism. That is a misleading edit summary. This could be construed as an indication of bad faith editing. I suppose that's all for now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being selective about your reverts. I have done some further refinement of them:

1. Removal of duplicate mention of Tel Aviv university incident in the same section (probably a mistake). Quoted name of the exhibit, which was "oppression", not "persecution", as using the latter without scare quotes presents a value judgment.
2. Conditional removal of Yan Li incident. This blog post is potentially controversial, but I would like to see a source that describes some controversy that has erupted over it, and that relates it to the CI, before its restoration.
3. Restored quote from China Daily editorial comparing CIs to Goethe-Institut and Alliance Francises for balance. Remove quote of Jocelyn Chey's simple denial of this comparison for redundancy; her substantive criticisms are kept. I am still concerned that much more space is devoted to attacking this comparison than to supporting it.
4. Remove Dajin Peng anecdote. He did engage in misconduct while holding a directorship at a CI, but the CI as a whole was not implicated, as his inclusion in this list may falsely imply. Also, there are some BLP concerns in his portrayal: quoting him out of context about Obama makes him seem like a conspiracy theorist.
5. Remove extended "heartless love" attack against simplified Chinese. That is more suitable for a linguistics article. Here, it is enough to note that an article criticized CI for teaching simplified Chinese and considers it "half-literacy".
6. Remove text sourced to press release on CIM's 2009 exhibit on Tibet. This is not a CI-related controversy, but like Yan Li's blog post, rather a potential controversy.
7. Shortened Ezra Klein quote. The substantive criticism compares Falun Gong to a mainstream recognized religious group. The extra stuff about the Germany in the 1930s, and the cold-war era terms, are just inflammatory flourish.
8. Removed off-handed Der Spiegel comment suggesting that Beijing uses CIs to promote "China's cultural superiority". There is enough written about how CI may be a "soft power" tool, but there is no elaboration or evidence on any idea of "cultural superiority".

Shrigley (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't object to these changes. My removal of the CD editorial comparing the institutes was a mistake. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to recent edits

I believe both Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury acted in bad faith towrds me in this discussion. SF, in particular, undid most of my edits before I had a chance to response, while making accusations that I am somehow a CCP stooge. And to Homunculus, I don't need self appointed minders you hounding me over every one of my edits in China related articles, how about you address your cencerns about my changes instead of making a big deal over the fact that I changed a few categories. The previous article frankly fails WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT, which states that such criticisms must be presented in a fair and balanced manner, and not draw excessive attention to negative criticms.

In reply to Homunculus:

3) Misleading claim, as nothing in that source article suggested that suppressing overseas dissidents are part of CI mandate. One website means little.

4) The previous section is phrased in such a way to invalidate CI's defence. I simply rephrased the section so the dispute is addressed in the section intro, and both criticm and defence follows.

5) The previous sections section headings no way adheres to WP:NPOV, and headings like "interference to free expression in universities" subtly supports an anti-CI position rather than letting the reader decide.

6), 7) There are no qualifactions that CIs "always" attach themselves to educational institutions either.

8) Simplified characters were created during the 1950's and has nothing to do with CIs, simple as that. This article is not a venue to air your dirty laundry about CI.

9) The previous categories are straight copy+paste from the original article. Criticism articles such as this does not belong in the same categories, but something relevant such as "political controversies"

10) Anecdotal evidences sourced from blogs fails WP:RS, and neither of these people acted through CI.

11), 12) The source fails RS as it's sourced from the Epoch Times, a newspaper whose aim is the overthrow of the current government. I failed to find anything about this "controversy" elsewhere, nor the claims made by the individuals.

15) I can't write anything while I was in the midst of a 24-hour ban, can I?

16) Sydney Morning Herald, a mainstream Australian newspaper, is certainly a reliable source. Furthermore, the ABC source I removed is not from the main website, but The Drum, a subsidary website that anyone can contribute, and ABC states that its not responsible for its content. . The author of the piece admits he writes for the Epoch Times.

21) The Speigel article is not about CI, but China's overseas influence as a whole. It made a total of one mention in regards CI, a quote that adds nothing new. The Zimmerman quote was useless and the heading is used for inflammatory purposes, and I instead added his conclusion to his piece.--PCPP (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• PCPP, most of your changes were kept, I believe. What I did was open the page on the last version that you touched, then reviewed each diff, and made changes. I didn't open the page to edit before you made changes, then select which ones to keep in. I objected to some of them and those I reverted; above, you'll notice that Shrigley (or Quigley) and I have discussed a few of the things and seem to have reached a consensus. For the record, on your editing I have only said what I have evidence for, and I have never said you were a "CCP stooge." In future, if you are going to make a long series of changes to a controversial article, it might be a good idea to do what you just did above, with diffs linked, just after you do the edits, to explain them to others. Because you have such a track record, it would be helpful to see reasoned explanations for your changes. Otherwise, you are forcing the work onto other editors, and conflicts and misunderstandings may arise more easily. Just a suggestion. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

This article is cited but some are too cryptic to be of any use. It lacks a biblio. I've been wanting to verify some of the citations, and wonder what "Golden (2011)" is... --Ohconfucius 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Golden refers to Bloomberg reporter Daniel Golden. You made a few edits here that I'm not sure I agree with. For instance, here you deleted a paragraph about the lack of demand for CI programs at BCIT (which, according to Anne-Marie Brady, is fairly representative). I don't see what was 'unobjective' about it—did it misrepresent the source? In any case, deleting it doesn't seem like the best remedy. Also, both yourself and PCPP have moved a number of things into the section on academic freedom (your contribution here). I don't think this section is the appropriate place for the paragraph about universities' own language programs doing just fine. Conerns over academic freedom refers to universities (typically professors) expressing concerns that CIs would come to exert influence over their teaching methods, research projects, or would use their financial leverage to deter research of particular topics, and so forth. PCPP's addition to that section does not fit the bill either; academic freedom is not the same thing as freedom of expression on campus. My suggestion is that your respective additions to this section go back to the sections where they previously lived.Homunculus (duihua) 15:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I also don't agree with this edit . If you read the paragraph, the judge in the case ruled that the University censored the exhibition over fears of losing support for the Confucius Institute. Another source, writing separately, noted that this event was significant as the only time when such fears over censorship were realized. I think that's pretty notable. In case you can't find it, here's the excerpt from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

David Prager Branner, an adjunct associate professor of East Asian languages and culture at Columbia University who has studied the Confucius Institutes, said he fears that colleges with the institutes can become dependent on Chinese funds and thus susceptible to pressure from the Chinese government to stifle speech it opposes The only place where such fears have been realized is Israel, one of nearly 90 nations around the world that are now home to Confucius Institutes. There, a court held last year that Tel Aviv University, which houses a Confucius Institute, had violated freedom of expression by succumbing to pressure from the Chinese Embassy to cut short an art exhibition depicting Chinese-government oppression of the Falun Gong movement. The judge in the case concluded that the university's dean of students, Yoav Ariel, had feared that the art exhibit would jeopardize Chinese support for its Confucius Institute and other educational activities on the campus, according to reports in the Israeli newspapers Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post.'

I am going to restore it if you can't produce a sound objection. Homunculus (duihua) 04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you've taken care of it. Thanks for fixing the citation. Homunculus (duihua) 04:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• The referencing was so atypical that it had me confused. I restored the paragraph after I found it mentioned in a second article by that author; I also straightened up the referencing. --Ohconfucius 06:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• In response to your comment about viability, I cannot agree that it is anything but a matter concerning operational efficiency. Fact of the matter, the program is supposed to be some sort of partnership between universities and Hanban. It is a matter of resource allocation that affects all organisations that try to optimise their space utilisation, so don't really understand where the concern comes from or where it is heading. It seems petty and contrived, and I certainly don't think it warrants a mention unless you want the article to stay looking like a laundry list that it is at present. --Ohconfucius 06:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This page should be deleted

I just read this article in full as well as the dispute resolution thread. I will not make personal remarks here whatsoever and deal only with content.

I have no doubt that this page is, in essence, an attack page and a POV fork based on the editors' synthesis, selective quoting, and general lack of fact-checking. But even if we ignore all of that, the most obvious problem is one of WP:UNDUE.

I have read about CIs extensively in the past, and there is no doubt that there are concerns about its nature, financing, objectives etc. But I am of the view that all of these concerns can be summed up succinctly in the main article's section on "Criticism and Controversies", in two paragraphs at max. Concerns about financing and objectives, much of which is simply speculation, can also be migrated to the main article but discussed in separate sections (rather than in "Controversies"). With that in mind, I propose that this page be deleted.

I build this case out of the sheer absurdity of some passages in this article, of which I offer a sample below:

1. Under "Critical perception of objectives". This section is a selective quotefarm. The CIs make no secret of the fact that they advocate for China and Chinese culture. Thus certain institutions and countries feeling uncomfortable with this idea have full right to reject CIs on that basis, and obviously some in India and Japan have. This can definitely be pieced together in the main article. I don't see how this is "controversial" as much as it is a normal part of international politics.
2. Under "relationship to the Party-State". The passage "Liu Yandong... United Work Front" is entirely synthesis: that by virtue of Liu's past involvement in Chinese politics that she has a conflict of interest as head of Hanban. This is totally unverifiable and unsubstantiated, and may even be a violation of WP:BLP.
3. The next paragraph is similarly synthesis. De Pierrebourg and Juneau-Katsuya report that some members of Hanban used to hold positions in Chinese intelligence. But this can be said for essentially any Chinese state institution. It is only significant if it can be shown that CIs have more of these intelligence professionals than other Chinese organs.
4. The passage "$3 billion to further soft power" etc. How is this controversial? This belongs in the main article. The CIs don't make it a secret that they show allegiance towards the Chinese state and accept funding from the Chinese state.
5. "Concerns over censorship and academic freedom" is a mere quotefarm - and a very selective quotefarm at that. This entire section can be summed up in one sentence that "some universities feel that CIs may want to exert political influence and fear losing their independence in exploring topics judged to be sensitive by the Chinese, such as Tibet, human rights, Tiananmen, Falun Gong etc." This is not to mention that, really, this isn't even a problem with CIs per se. It is a problem with all Chinese-state run organizations on any campus, including various "Students and Scholars Associations."
6. In the same section, we see the passage "there has been disquiet in academic circles in the West over the possible impact of accepting funds from a totalitarian regime on academic freedom." You can judge for yourself whether "totalitarian regime" is NPOV.
7. The entire "Espionage" section is actually just funny. It is three paragraphs of speculative synthesis with no verification and substantiation. From a Wiki policy perspective it should be rid of entirely.
8. Under "Political influences" we see the absurd assertion that teaching simplified Chinese is an attempt to "marginalize Taiwan". You may as well add that this also marginalizes Hong Kong and Macau, and overseas Chinese communities.
9. Peng Ming-min's quote fits with the rest of the concerns about political issues - it does not add any encyclopedic value. Like I said above, you can probably sum up this entire issue in a sentence or two in the main article.

So my proposal going forward for this article is to move and trim the bulk of the content back to the main article, where it belongs. I propose this to be done in three separate parts:

1. For Politics-related concerns, including censorship, relationship with the state etc., append it to the current "Criticism and Controversies" section in the main article.
2. Create an entirely new section on "Objectives" in the main article, where the objectives of the organization can be explores in a balanced, nuanced fashion, incorporating all perspectives.
3. For Financing-related concerns, create a section on "Financing" in the main article and migrate all the finance-related concerns there.

As far as I can see, this maintains all the encyclopedic content of this page, but presents it in accordance to WP:NPOV and lends due weight to the content itself. Colipon+(Talk) 15:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think there are some good ideas here. I had originally actually raised similar concerns on the main CI page (i.e. dumping this page and integrating the factual content throughout the other article and shoving all the political concerns into one section over there). It might be a good idea to consult editors who originally made the move — they've been absent from the discussion but have obviously put work into this, and must have had their reasons. At a minimum the relevant content could be incorporated throughout the main article, we'd just have to be prepared to face a situation where the main one comes to contain critical perspectives in its different areas, where they are notable, rather than having one page devoted to those criticisms (which I don't support). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of those recently absent editors, and have been contributing to the CI articles since 2009. Deleting this page makes no more sense than deleting Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics, or Concerns and controversies in Shanghai Expo 2010. I only have a few minutes today, and will be back to explain in more detail. First, I'd suggest that any editors unfamiliar with the CI pages' contentious background please review the article and discussion histories. The revision diffs show that a few individuals repeatedly censored content and deleted references, particularly under the original CI article Controversies section. What you call a "quotefarm" is largely owing to recurrent false summaries of well-referenced CI criticisms, which consensually resulted in relying upon direct quotations. WP:QUOTE recommends, "in some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject …" The histories also explain the July 2011 split, and why returning to the main CI page would likely be counterproductive. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I find myself being largely in agreement with Colipon. It was towards this conclusion I was reaching upon editing the article and reading its sources. What I found does not seem to correctly marry with the justification above of the existence of the article, which seems to embody all the potential issues pointed out in WP:CRITICISM. I have reshaped this article considerably, but cannot overcome the problems of undue weight without substantially building up the background of the article, so I feel that it is best to merge the content back so that it can be developed in a coherent manner with the parent subject. At present, the tenor of the content is seriously disconnected from the main subject. Let's face it, the topic of article is not and cannot ever be independent of Confucius Institute article, as the complaints and perceived problems are intimately linked to its structure and aims, and the existence of the single party state. What stands out most prominently is the very obvious anti-PRC sentiment whipped up by China-hater groups such as Falun Gong supporters and Tibetan separatists. Also academics, are a small but extremely vocal interest group that is generally disdainful of any signs of intervention or meddling even from their own governments.

  As to the existence of other 'controversy' articles, I would firstly say that other stuff exists. The 2008 olympics was such a huge topic that it genuinely needs a whole family of articles to give it coverage; I see no reason why the Shanghai Expo criticism cannot be folded back into the 'main' Expo 2010 article. --Ohconfucius 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I also find the other stuff exists argument to be frivolous. I would just like to add to OhC's comment above that Beijing Olympics indeed was controversial for such a diverse range of stakeholders, from the international media to the athletes, to the performers, referees, heads of state, governments, the Chinese public, spectators, Tibetan activists, Falun Gong, the people along the route of the torch relay, etc., that indeed the 'controversy' surrounding it entered the mainstream, even within China. Therefore it is a no-brainer that such an article should be spun off. At the CI article, however, much of the 'controversy' comes from declared enemies of the Chinese state (as Ohconfucius points out above) or from blogging journalists and select academics. It would appear that the vast majority of CIs around the world function just fine without arousing the slightest of controversy, even in places like India and the United States. Even the Economist, which usually has a mildly anti-China editorial line, cannot offer enough evidence to support the speculative charges laid out over "Financing", "espionage", or "hidden objectives" to the extent it is being presented in this article. Colipon+(Talk) 03:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, I hope you won't mind if I ask you to back up a few of the claims you have just made. Let me parse them. This seems to be the key sentence: "At the CI article, however, much of the 'controversy' comes from declared enemies of the Chinese state (as Ohconfucius points out above) or from blogging journalists and select academics." Your argument is that the controversy about these institutions is to some degree manufactured, and that the identified groups have some role in that, is it? Can you provide evidence or clarify what you mean when you say that the following groups are responsible for all the controversy about these institutes: 1) the "declared enemies" of the Chinese state , 2) "blogging" journalists 3) "select" academics . 4) "It would appear that the vast majority of CIs around the world function just fine without arousing the slightest of controversy, even in places like India and the United States." I do not understand this, either. The controversy relates to the institution as a whole and its state ties, not to specific institutes in specific places. Or perhaps I misunderstand something?

I just wanted to ask you to clarify these four claims. I don't understand all four of them, while some don't seem to make sense. Look forward to your clarification. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it would be faire enough to deal macroscopically with the topic. However, we have an instance, below, where something relating to a specific CI was used to "prove" the macro view that there was industrial espionage taking place. It seems like this sort of synthesis is taking place to ferret out the red menace, and it's exactly what I was trying to steer the article away from.

As to the argument about the Falun Gong, it's not necessarily something I like or agree with. The PRC passed a law banning FLG, much in the same way that the Communist Party was banned in the USA until not so many years ago (I still remember having to declare to not being a member when applying for a US visa). It's but fact to be accepted. It's certainly fallacious to say that the FLG are responsible for making the recruitment ban aspect of controversy about them. Everything they do publicly (and behind closed political doors in the US Canada and Australia) is already geared for maligning the CPC, and they would undoubtedly milk it for all its propagandistic value. --Ohconfucius 06:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to weigh in on this discussion by two of the involved editors. Several months ago I tried to clean up the Confucius Institute main article which contained little more than an incredibly long list of quotes accusing the Institutes of all matter of speculative evils. This made the article rather useless so I instead wrote brief summaries of the ideas referenced in the quote when it seemed that those ideas were at all relevant to the article. At the same time I worked to find appropriate encyclopedic information to add to the article so that it might be of use to someone. This series of edits was initially reverted. We discussed it and I thought a temporary compromise would be the creation of this article, primarily because it would allow both the inclusion of material and avoid undue weight given to controversies in the main article. The assumption then was that an attempt would be made not only to better organize the material but that further editing would be done to bring the material up to standards. I was never sure whether this would be possible but it seemed like a good thing to try.

Now the situation is very similar to where we were originally. We have an article consisting of speculation and quotes removed from context. This is simply not useful material. I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than a POVFORK and QUOTEFARM. Perhaps one day a fair encyclopedic article can be written on the topic of Controversies and Concerns over Confucius Institutes, this is not such an article.

I support deletion of this article. The Controversies section of the main article should be improved and material which is neither simply quotes or speculation should be included in the main article to the extent that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. From even a light and quick reading of this controversies article an argument emerges, that CIs are part of a sinister plot. Such is very inappropriate for wikipedia. I generally favor inclusion, but not uncritically. I hope this helps. - Metal lunchbox 20:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. There is now a merger proposal on the table. --Ohconfucius 01:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits (as of 1/10/12)

Ohconfucius, can you explain your thinking here? I thought the point of the criticism here is not that the CI wants influential people, but that an administrator at a CI is a Huawei vice-president; and the authors are leveraging off the (founded or not, I won't remark) accusations that Huawei may be used for spying. The edit summary doesn't explain why this complaint should be deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Apple Inc has Larry Ellison on its board, Al Gore has quote a few directorships, as does Dick Cheney. Former US President George HW Bush was a former director of the CIA before he sat in the big chair, but nobody seeks to make a big deal of these facts. So what's the big deal? Seeking to use the fact that a Huawei vice president happens to have been invited to the board of one CI seems really to be quite an attempt at innuendo and scaremongering. I don't have access to the full text, but from its title it would seem to be a tome about reds under the bed. ;-) --Ohconfucius 03:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So the argument is that everything from that source should be rejected because it is an unreliable source? The specific complaint they're making is that a CI person has a connection with Huawei, and this is something that people should for some reason be worried about. The security concerns over Huawei have been well-documented elsewhere. I assume that if there was a US educational institution abroad that had a former or current CIA or CIA-affiliated official on its board (or whatever), and that was noted in a book as a cause for concern about that US institution, that it would be suitable for inclusion. Just to clarify: if you think the book or authors are unreliable sources, we should take that to somewhere where it may be adjudicated. They obviously lay it on thick with the anti-communist rhetoric, but I don't know how that equals we should remove their concerns. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I never said the source was unreliable. It seems to be a published text open to peer or other review. I'm saying that I fail to see the significance or relevance (or indeed notable enough of an innuendo) because they are implying that because he is so high up in the organisation that he must be a spy, a sort of guilt by association. Just because someone writes a book doesn't mean we have to cite from it. --Ohconfucius 03:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the exact text, just so we're clear: "Fabrice De Pierrebourg and Michel Juneau-Katsuya have raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute in Dallas, Texas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company that the U.S. government regards as a national security threat, and which has been accused of industrial espionage." You mean that you believe these two sentences are irrelevant? I agree that the "concern" is vague. (What are they concerned about specifically? Spying? Network intrusions? They don't say.) They seem merely to be pointing merely to these dual roles and noting that they are "concerned" by that. I'm not sure whether that is worthy or unworthy of being noted, or what the criteria for worthiness is in a case like this (because we of course can't include everything). I'd be interested in others' thoughts. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The example was intended to illustrate the nature of concerns over the possibility of CIs being used as a form of intelligence collection in industrial or high tech fields. Lest someone suggest this was original synthesis, it wasn't—the authors were talking about Confucius Institutes being (possibly) involved in industrial espionage. This concern has been expressed by a number of sources (here's another one ), which is both notable and verifiable (not to mention a pretty plausible concern, given the Chinese approach to industrial espionage). Whether or not the sources —some of whom are intelligence experts—are guilty of McCarthyist fear mongering is not for us to decide, but I do think it's valuable to provide readers with an understanding of the nature of these concerns, such that they might decide for themselves whether they are valid. Homunculus (duihua) 04:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've actually just a few minutes ago moved a paragraph over to the UFWD article as the text seem to be more relevant there. In light of the above, I'd welcome reinsertion of some (but not all) of the text, but framed in a way that is of direct relevance to the article. --Ohconfucius 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two sentences in question, right? This is it, again: "Fabrice De Pierrebourg and Michel Juneau-Katsuya have raised concerns over ties between Confucius Institute administrators and large state-run Chinese companies. For instance, they point to the Confucius Institute in Dallas, Texas, where one of the top officials is also vice-president of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company that the U.S. government regards as a national security threat, and which has been accused of industrial espionage." — given that this "concern" is worthy of being aired in this article, would you identify which parts of that should be shortened? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're answering my question with a question. This is a concern I expressed in line with yours. The quote may be notable to you, but I'm still unsure how it can or ought to be employed in light of my concerns about the general direction of the article. --Ohconfucius 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to do that. You wrote "something relating to a specific CI was used to "prove" the macro view that there was industrial espionage taking place" but that is not what's happening here. The authors are expressing their general "concern" about the connection between the CIs and other state initiatives, in this case citing Huawei and this one person. I'm sure they would have had those concerns whether they found evidence of them or not, but the authors don't purport to prove that CIs are involved in industrial espionage, merely exhibiting their "concerns" about such potentialities, citing one case to bolster their view. I'm not saying I agree with them. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• here's one such advisory council (of a CI at an influential University); here's another. I think the authors would be laughed out of court if they suggested there were any spies there. I'll be honest and say I really don't know how we should deal with including the above text. I'm extremely uncomfortable to include it as is, without reference to other studies about the board composition at other Cis. Maybe someone has done some complete research capable of refuting or supporting the authors' view. --Ohconfucius 15:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think that half the time the problems being raised are of the vagueish, (use Southern accent) we-don't-like-the-look-of-this-thing type. There are of course some specific, clearly identifiable concerns, but most are only expressed as a kind of vague disquiet (with many varieties of flavor). This appears to be one flavor of that. So do we delete all that because they are couched as "concerns", rather than some hard fact? Even when attributed to a reliable source? In this case they are advancing the broad argument that the CI is an institution mobbed up with the Chinese Party-state, which is the general concern articulated throughout this page. I'm not in a position to decide whether it goes or stays, but this page is called "concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes," so it seems to fit in. So does a lot of other stuff that some of us may not like or agree with. It's a good thing Misplaced Pages is so big, and there are so many other pages on which one can spend one's time. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pending the results of the discussion to merge this article with the main page, we may look back on all this spilled ink and feel pretty silly. If the article is merged, it would suffice to have a single, short sentence noting that some observers have expressed concerns over the possibility of industrial espionage. Homunculus (duihua) 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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?

— 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."

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

— 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" . 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 04:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW what's going on with Keahapana's February 22 revert? ? It's exactly the same as his previous one comparison. I thought several of his changes are still under discussion.--PCPP (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Redundant headings

The current section "5 Concerns and controversies" repeats the first two words of the article title. According to MOS:HEAD,

• Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to delete 5 and make subheadings 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 first-level section headings. Keahapana (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Homunculus (duihua) 19:15, 17 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. --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 07:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nest was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Unassessed Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• Unassessed applied linguistics articles
• Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Unassessed China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles