Talk:Chinese censorship abroad

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

Up-to-date list?[edit]

Might be a few missing on this page. See: https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amigao (talk • contribs)

Thanks for this, it is a good idea to add the further relevant examples. To stop the list of examples getting unwieldy, perhaps we can combine examples by sector (eg airlines or clothing brands). We can give that a go and see what happens. Goldcactus (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea.

Image used to represent "Criticism of the CPC"[edit]

I believed the image used now is not suitable. Criticism of CPC does not equal to reject the CPC and communism. But the image suggests only rejecting CPC and communism are criticism of CPC, which are not accuracy. Mariogoods (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while I agree with you that criticism doesn't necessarily equal rejection of the CPC and communism, it can do in practice. It includes the CPC's official symbol and serves as a visual metaphor which is why it was included. Do you have any alternative free-licensed images that you consider effective in representing criticism of the CPC? Goldcactus (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldcactus:Sadly, I don't have one. But I believed that a image which CPC symbol with question mark is more suitable.Mariogoods (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article have a clearer title?[edit]

Hi there @Starzoner:@Goldcactus:@Benlisquare:@Amigao: first up thank you to each of you for contributing to this article. I think it's an important one. But I feel like the title: "Overseas censorship of Chinese issues" is confusing. The content is much more about how the CCP censors its critics overseas. So shouldn't the title be something like that? Perhaps:

Censorship of CCP critics overseas

Your thoughts and suggestions please!The Little Platoon (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I chose that title because it’s broader than just CCP criticism- it relates to censoring those who don’t criticise the CCP but don’t follow its position on major geopolitical issues such as the political status of Taiwan for example, or censoring those who treat Hong Kong and Taiwan separately to the mainland, eg airlines. The proposed title might fail to cover these matters. Goldcactus (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldcactus: Good point. It's about CCP control of all things said about China.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldcactus: Thought a LOT about your concerns on this. I recommend: CCP Censorship outside China.The Little Platoon (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Little Platoon:: that would capture everything, I’m happy with it. Only issue then is do you say CCP or spell it out in full, but that’s a minor thing that I’m not too worried about either way. Goldcactus (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the title "Overseas censorship by the Chinese state". The term "Chinese state" emphasises the fact that (1) this censorship campaign is primarily instigated by the Chinese state aka the PRC (i.e. not merely by a political party aka the CCP, or merely by individuals or organisations) and (2) there is no implication that ethnic-Chinese citizens of foreign countries are causing this censorship (i.e. no racist implications). The term "Chinese state" is more appropriate than some alternative terms such as "Chinese government", "People's Republic of China", "PRC", "Chinese Communist Party", "CCP", "China", "Chinese", etc. EDIT: The term "CCP" is jargon and hence not the best descriptor for general clarity. Pinging The Little Platoon, Amigao and Benlisquare. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment... Saying that the censorship is instigated by the Chinese state (i.e. the PRC), and not merely by a Chinese organisation (i.e. the CCP), implies that these actions are a form of international warfare, rather than merely a campaign of social influence by an advocacy group of some kind. In fact, China's censorship actions overseas constitute a form of soft warfare, imperialism, colonialism, invasion, espionage and conspiracy. China has no jurisdiction in these countries overseas. This censorship campaign that China is undertaking in foreign countries consists of various illegal activities such as bribery, extortion, blackmail, death threats and even the infiltration of governments and corporations. It should be emphasised that these activities are illegal and are considered by various strategic institutes (thought tanks) to be a form of warfare. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent solution, and I support what you have proposed for the title. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: what's the next step? Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait for the previous commenters to come back, at least for a few days. The previous discussion occurred a few months ago. In any case, I'm surprised that so many people are insistent on propagating the term "CCP" considering just how jargonistic it is (and I know about jargon... look at my username!). The only people who really understand this term are people who are familiar with Chinese issues, such as actual Chinese people, pro-China sycophants and anti-China hawks. "Chinese state" sounds more appropriate to me. It is vaguely synonymous with "PRC" and "China" but less euphemistic and less easily misconstrued as racism. "PRC" is just China's extra names that it has given itself, "People's" and "Republic", both of which are not truly descriptive of the actual politics of the country. The word "China" on its own can easily be misconstrued as racist, mainly due to the general public perception in the West that criticism of the Chinese country (state) is the same as racism against the Chinese people, which has come about due to cunning public relations by the Chinese state and pro-China sycophants in the West, the latter referring to organisations such as "The Grayzone", "No Cold War" and "Code Pink". These aforementioned organisations primarily feed on the anti-rightist fears among leftists in the West in order to push their agenda, but at this point, they even have far-right ties, such as with the QAnon group. These are organisations masquerading as pro-peace when they are really just advocating for the rise of China and the collapse of the United States. They have no academic code whatsoever and are completely comfortable with propagating wholesale unsourced and slanderous allegations. They have been known to deny the Uyghur genocide and other human rights atrocities committed by the Chinese state. Even the term "Chinese state" can be misconstrued by these sorts of people as being racist, but at that point, there's not much more that can be done to lessen any misconstrued racist implications that such a term can have. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the censorship isn't just by the Chinese state. There's self censorship by overseas entities and also social media campaigns that may or may not be driven by the states, but may be at its behest. Any other ideas? I acknowledge that no title may be perfect here, but there may be something better out there. Goldcactus (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "self-censorship" relating to Chinese issues is almost always done on the behalf of the Chinese state or in order to appease the Chinese state. At the end of the day, it is the Chinese state that is pulling the strings in most instances, manipulating and misleading people into either intentionally or unintentionally pushing the Chinese state's agenda. It would be strange to think that there are people who censor themselves when discussing Chinese issues and, yet, they aren't doing this in order to serve the wishes of the Chinese state..? To me, censorship of Chinese issues overseas is an obvious example of a foreign influence campaign. One would assume that the main force propelling the campaign would be the foreign power. During the Cold War, that power would have been the USSR operating within the West, mainly the United States (and vice versa, to a lesser degree, given how restrictive Soviet society was in terms of immigration). In modern times, China is analogous to the USSR, and the United States is still the United States. Censorship of issues in the United States and various other countries that are somehow at odds with China is generally spearheaded by the Chinese state. Individual actors are involved, but they are mostly either servants to the Chinese state or puppets of the Chinese state, whether employed or sycophantic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my simplistic title that I proposed was that I wanted the title to be short and easy to understand. The current title, "Overseas censorship of Chinese issues", sounds strange, and the other proposed title, "CCP censorship outside of China", is too jargonistic. My proposed title, "Overseas censorship by the Chinese state", gets straight to the point, not dancing around people's feelings or referencing any obscure terminologies. A longer title that references so-called "self-censorship" could be "Overseas censorship by and for the Chinese state", for example. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed new titles for this article[edit]

The current title is "Overseas censorship of Chinese issues".

Current proposed new titles include:

  • "Censorship of CCP critics overseas"
  • "CCP censorship outside China"
    • "CCP censorship outside of China"
  • "Overseas censorship by the Chinese state"
    • "Overseas censorship by and for the Chinese state"

The other articles "Chinese espionage in the United States", "American espionage in China", "Censorship in China", "Internet censorship in China", "Chinese intelligence activity abroad", "Chinese cyberwarfare" and "Corporate censorship" could be useful in trying to determine a suitable new title for this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More proposed new titles:

What about "Censorship of Chinese issues abroad" or "Chinese state censorship abroad"? Goldcactus (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldcactus, The first one, Censorship of Chinese issues abroad, seems fine, but I don't see how it is superior to the current one? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy with the current title to be honest, but if most feel another title would be clearer then I’m open to a change Goldcactus (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in that there are historical topics that could conceivably fit under the existing article title that are not at all a part of it. Such as censorship of Southeast Asian Chinese during the colonial era (subjects of imperial China) or during the early national period in Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc. I'm sure there are other aspects that could be included. When I think of "overseas Chinese" I do not only think of the PRC. So, although the above discussion seems to have stalled last year, just wanted to mention it. Dan Carkner (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Carkner @Goldcactus @Jargo Nautilus Note the RM below. Feel free to ping anyone else who may be interested. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In global releases of Chinese games[edit]

This will likely be a growing issue in the future. For now, from our article on "Genshin_Impact". "On October 6, 2020, journalist and Twitch streamer Kazuma Hashimoto published a video on social media site Twitter demonstrating how Chinese political terms such as "Hong Kong" and "Taiwan" are censored within the in-game chat" [1] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is NASA example relevant?[edit]

I am still not convinced. See edit summaries here. Ping User:Erasmus Sydney. I am not sure if unsuccessful attempts to control should be mixed in the same table as successful ones. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps it should be cleared up as "attempted censorship". Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 August 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved – robertsky (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Overseas censorship of Chinese issues → Chinese censorship abroad – As discussed above, the current name is unclear - censorship by whom? And where? What does overseas mean in this context, given that's it's for China? Most of Asia and Europe is not "overseas" from China, techically. And what are "Chinese issues" and is censorship limited to just them? Meh. Keeping it simple, I am proposing what I think is the shortest, clear title (I don't think the word "operations" is needed). Feel free to suggest alternatives in the vote. Chinese censorship outside China is a good contender too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - "Chinese censorship abroad" seems like the shortest possible title for this article. The parent article would be "Chinese censorship" (Censorship in China). The most important fact is that it's being done by the Chinese government. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the proposed alternative is clearer. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear title. Although as I said in my comment in another thread above there are complexities when dealing with the word "Chinese" that may refer to multiple different contexts. But I don't think there's any easy way to get around it. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Football Manager 2005[edit]

Football Manager 2005 could be mentioned? According to List of banned video games by country#Mainland China "Banned for recognizing Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet as independent countries. An edited version without them was later released globally." Eurohunter (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_censorship_abroad&oldid=1206663593"