Jump to content

Talk:Confucius Institute/Archive 1

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

List and location

Where can one get a list of these and where they are located? The Jade Knight 03:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find a list anywhere, but so far I've turned up locations at:
They're certainly not all set up yet: "China plans to create 100 Confucius Institutes worldwide by 2010" [11]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this work (in progress) including the plan be moved to the main page? --Ghormax 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, particularly where we have citations. The Jade Knight 05:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the news

See Why China wants you to learn Chinese By Carol Huang | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor. BlankVerse 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Source to confirm

When adding to the list, I'd like to ask editors to please provide a link to confirm the existence or at least future existence of an institute. And it should be more than some news about how a certain school wants to start a Confucius Institute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Africa

There are apparently three in Africa (South Africa, Kenya, and Rwanda), with plans to open 20 more in the next couple of years. Badagnani 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link. Badagnani 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That brings up an issue that's been on my mind of a while now, concerning this article. Should we abandon keeping a list of the institutes? I don't really mind either way. And if there was a reliable source that lists all the existing institutes, it would be really useful to this article. But it seems like so far, nobody publishes a list except, well, Wikipedia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just another example of the great and irreplaceable things that we do. Badagnani 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added all 3 African ones, and they're properly sourced. Badagnani 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Links in the article

I am about to make some changes to the links in the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Lists. In general with lists like this the links should go to a Wikipedia article page (even if it is a red link). In keeping with WP:V it is appropriate for the reference to be listed. If you have questions about my changes drop me a line on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done Jeepday (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted link to Chinese software from the external links section that was not relevant to the article. Caskinner 10:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A source and a note

I don't like the massive list thing. Is it necessary? What about making that a drop down box?

Secondly, here's an article on the topic: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=179b4e77-f0cf-4608-a8b7-a9943116f489 --Asdfg12345 06:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the WP norm would be to move the list of institutes to its own separate page. The article itself is on the way to being quite useful, but that list doesn't look right stuck on the end. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

contraversy

Seems pretty harmless. Most Chinese are apathetic to politics and I don't think teachers outside of being patriotic or nationalistic towards "their" China are on some mission to spread CCP propoganda! My God the CCP is not even communist by def., let alone this organization. People chill out, until China itself desides to embrace a truly open soceity we are stuck with this system. Again I think the article to biased against the political aspects which really have nothing to do with teaching Chinese language and culture. We should be embracing them not returning to this isolationist non sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.16.129 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How to reorganize Controversies

I've found more references for this section and suggest we reorganize along better lines than the current three paragraphs for politicians, educators, and journalists. Rearranging geographically by countries seems more workable than chronologically by 2004-2010, so I'll try that unless someone has a better idea. Keahapana (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The list you have made detailing every negative reaction to the CIs everywhere has become absurdly long, and you seem to still be doing it, and you need to stop. Don't feel like you are fighting "censorship", because you are only fighting good faith editors who have made overly cautious trims to the obviously disproportionate "controversies" section. This article is becoming a coatrack and an attack page, more so than it already was. Quigley (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Quigley. My intent is to maintain NPOV for this section; I'm expanding hoping to balance out the repeated deletions of relevant quotes. I agree that, for example, adding controversies into this article's History section would be coatracking but not adding controversies into Controversies. In researching this CI topic, I've found surprisingly many citations and am only adding the most informative – hardly "every negative reaction to the CIs everywhere". Discussion about CI controversies is intrinsically critical, but whenever possible, like the Washington Times and USA Today quotes, I've included both sides of the argument. Within the next few days, I'll try to finish adding refs and then cutting down Controversies. I look forward to constructively cooperating with you and other editors to improve the quality of this article. Keahapana (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. "Adding controversies into this article's History section would be coatracking". But you did do so, and blatantly. The history section should discuss the history of the organization, not whether critics consider the name to be appropriate, which is something that belongs in the controversy section.
  2. 80% of the article consists of controversies on the topic. This is a huge WP:DUE problem and not NPOV. It isn't surprising that other editors have been trying to trim the section down, and it isn't helpful to cry out "censorship" when there clearly are POV problems. The section should be condensed to 2 or 3 paragraphs at most, and not jammed with lengthy cherrypicked quotes, as it is now.
  3. The POV has shifted entirely to one side. You claim to include "both sides of the argument", but the majority of the content representing the other POV was there before you began editing. I don't support the organization, but your additions have overwhelmingly been negative; content on universities critical of the program should be balanced with content on universitives that are supportive.
  4. There are WP:WEASEL problems.
  5. You need to fix the formatting of the refs.
I agree with Quigley. This article has some serious problems and needs to fixed.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the Controversies section, and found some glaring errors. Here's several examples. In the paragraph about Israel, it ends with the statement "The decision noted administrators feared losing funding for the Confucius Institute." However in the cited reference [12], the Confucius Institute was never mentioned in the article, not once. Where did the part "the decision noted administrators" and "Confucius Institute" come from? Personal conclusion based on that statement "succumbed to pressure from the Chinese Embassy, which funds various activities at the university, and took down the exhibit, violating freedom of expression"? That could be original research.

And there is this part citing this "U. of Chicago's Plans for Milton Friedman Institute Stir Outrage on the Faculty" source:

At the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa in 2006 and the University of Chicago in 2010, the Faculty Senates formally complained that CIs had been established without proper approval, violating shared governance in higher education. Over 170 faculty members signed a letter to University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer that called CIs "an academically and politically ambiguous initiative sponsored by the government of the People's Republic of China." It said the university had proceeded "without due care to ensure the institute's academic integrity" and had risked having its own reputation used to "legitimate the spread of such Confucius Institutes in this country and beyond."[1]

First of all, quotes like "an academically and politically ambiguous initiative sponsored by the government of the People's Republic of China" and "without due care to ensure the institute's academic integrity" weren't even in the source! The source actually starts out stating "The University of Chicago's plan to move ahead with developing a controversial institute named for Milton Friedman has prompted more than 170 of the university's faculty members to sign a petition complaining that it is becoming increasingly "corporatized" and that its president, Robert J. Zimmer, is trampling upon their shared-governance rights." The parts about the Confucius Institute was briefly in "The establishment of a Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics without a vote of the full faculty is hardly the only action by the administration that the letter cites as objectionable. It also objects to the university's decision to allow the creation of a Confucius Institute on the campus without the Faculty Senate's approval." How did the contributor jump to these conclusions? And phrased as if the letter was mainly about the Confucius Institute when it was not the main point? And the University of Hawaii-Manoa was also never mentioned in the source. And those quotes?--Teamjenn (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The article's sources and their attributed statements should be checked and verified, as I just found several that are erroneously attributed and there's content that are not found in the references at all.--Teamjenn (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This article definitely needs more users' contributions instead of almost entirely consist of just one contributor, Keahapana's. This is suppose to be an "encyclopedia article" about an organization. However, more than 4/5 of the article's texts are about "controversies", along with a single paragraph of history.--Teamjenn (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to JeremyMiller and Teamjenn, thanks for your criticisms and suggestions. I apologize for being slow to reply – this is a busy time of year. I put that Confucius name paragraph under History since it involves modern history, but maybe you're right that it belongs under Controversies. I'm curious about how you estimate this section constitutes 4/5 of the article. The Printable version is currently 12 pages, of which Controversies comprises less than two pages of text and one of footnotes. I agree that it would be desirable to balance with more "content on universities that are supportive" and please add any good ones you can find. When I started researching the CI topic, I too assumed there would be roughly equal numbers of critics and supporters and was surprised to find the disparity within reliable refs. In the short history of CIs, international disputes have been one of the most widely noted aspects. The quotes you question were copy-and-paste from already cited sources, but I'll eventually add everything back as soon as I get time. However, adding multiple refs will increase the length, which you oppose. For instance, Googling the U Chicago quote (yes, it mentions the MFI, which I also omitted following suggestions to minimize) finds several additional sources, including the interesting original petition. You could correct this ref now if you want to help, or I can do it later. I also agree that contributions from more users will improve the CI article, and look forward to your additions. Thanks again, Keahapana (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The printable vision includes non-prose, and is not a reliable metric. Use User:Dr pda/prosesize. The entire prose is 14 KB, with controversies at 11.3 KB and other content at 2.3 KB. This means that's the controversy takes up 11.3 KB out of 14 KB, which is roughly 80%. You haven't addressed the problem that the sheer size of the section is WP:UNDUE.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks JeremyMiller, I wasn't aware of that script. For a WP editor who started two months ago, you're very knowledgeable. Keahapana (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You can google "Wikipedia Article Size", which links you to an article that directs you to the script. The wonders of the Internet!--JeremyMiller (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, User Keahapana has done a very good job on this article, he/she need to be congratulated. According to Li Changchun, CI is a Chinese governmental propaganda tool, simple as that. Ugly duckling can never turn into a beautiful swan, we have to accept it. Arilang talk 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't hide your POV... I like your style. But it's not helping Keehapana's case, and the neutrality problems brought up by Quigley and Teamjenn remain. Frankly, I'm not a fan of the CPC exercising soft power on insitutions here in America, but that does not affect my concerns with the NPOV problems in this article..--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


User JeremyMiller, let's call a banana a "banana", OK? Arilang talk 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not an excuse to avoid neutrality. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Having large "Controversies" section does not mean WP:DUE problem if this organization is mostly known for being involved in various controversies. If this is viewed as an NPOV problem, one should balance the article by including more materials that praise rather than criticize this organization. I do see a problem however. This article does not explain what exactly this organization actually does except teaching Chinese, and if it only teaches Chineese, what was the reason for the controversies? Biophys (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It does make it a WP:DUE problem when the the organization is not just known for its controversies; focusing 80% of the article on the subject is ridiculous. The criticism/controversy section should summarize common criticisms, not act as a list of every critical assessment lobbied against it. Ideally, the section would resemble the "Social and cultural responses" section of the FA-level Evolution article. The controversy section of this article is 3x as large as the "Social and cultural responses" section of the Evolution article, while the Evolution article is four times larger than this one, so it is WP:UNDUE.
From what I've gathered through the sources, CI is primarily a language program, the controversy comes from a fear of what could happen rather than what already has.--JeremyMiller (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is not just known for its controversies (as you tell), please include in the article something else it is known for. And if you can not include something else, it means it is indeed known for the controversies. Saying that, I agree that "controversies" section must be improved and shortened, since it includes a lot of repeated/redundant materials.Biophys (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is logically flawed. If you look back at the article's history, this article had a concise, 2-3 paragraph controversies section until Keahapana began adding to the section a few days ago. This does not mean the topic is primarily know for its controversy, it only indicates that an editor has rewritten the article to make it seem that way. If I triple the size of the controversy section on Evolution so that it dominates the entire article, the topic of the article does not become more controversial than it was before I began editing.
There's plenty of material to write about. From what I've read in the sources, the main focus of the institution is to encourage the speaking of Mandarin, as a means of boosting China's soft power, which should be the primary focus of the article. Like the Asia Times article describes, the Chinese have this delusional belief that if more people learn Mandarin, China's image in the world will magically improve.
And I'm glad you agree with the point that I've been trying to make all along. The controversies section should be shortened to reduce the undue redundancy and repetition, as I've been advocating. It needs to be reduced to a neutral summary of criticisms, not a list of every minor critical incident and opinion off the Web.--JeremyMiller (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I've corrected my referencing mistake. I confused two 2010 Chronicle articles by Peter Schmidt: "U. of Chicago" 6/1/2010 and "At U.S. Colleges" 10/17/2010. Second, the edit history is being misinterpreted. In October 2009, I first contributed to the original "Criticism" section (with 3 refs), In August 2010, I reverted some questionable deletions, cleaned up, and retitled as "Controversies" following Quigley's suggestion (10 refs, viz., the venerated 3-paragraph version). In December 2010, I researched CIs, added more information, fixed links, and reorganized geographically (31 refs). Third, Evolution, really? The relative brevity of Evolution#Social and cultural responses results from wikilinks to main articles on Social effect of evolutionary theory, Objections to evolution, and Creation-evolution controversy. Fourth, I agree with Biophys and JeremyMiller that the current article still lacks basic material. Yes, what does CI do? What about Confucius Classrooms and other programs? Financing? Government control? After we've fledged out the missing basic sections, we can decide whether the UNDUE question is moot. In sum, I suggest we cooperate writing new sections to complete the article instead of this WP:JDLI quibbling. I'll start a new topic below. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality issues are not a matter of "not liking" anything. Can't we solve the neutrality/undue issues and the expansion issues at the same time? Like Biophys said, the controversy section contains much redundancy and repetition, which needs to be fixed.--JeremyMiller (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Li Changchun statement

Li Changchun:"Confucius Institute is...an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up" http://www.economist.com/node/14678507


Why is this statement POV? Li Changchun is a very important and powerful man in China, why is it that his statement being ignored by wiki editors? Is www.economist.com not to be trusted, or Li Changchun not to be trusted? Arilang talk 12:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a tertiary retelling of a source, you'll need the original to verify that the quote is reliable. The source could be reliable, but the quote may not be and there needs to be a second source determining the veracity of the quote. But, the more important problem is that the lead should summarize the contents of the page, and not focus on a specific quote out of context. I've already added in content to the lead describing the controversy.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)



Also, I like to challenge your statement:"The source could be reliable, but the quote may not be and there needs to be a second source determining the veracity of the quote." Is this a new wiki rule set up by you? Arilang talk 13:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


http://www.oxfordleader.com/Articles-i-2010-04-14-235233.113121-sub_Confucius_Institutes_are_propaganda_centers.html

CJ Carnacchio is editor for The Oxford Leader.


User JeremyMiller, if editor for The Oxford Leader accept the quote, why is it that wiki editors have to reject it? You have to give me a better reason. Arilang talk 13:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please reread what you've quoted, it states that the the lead should mention notable criticisms and controversies, as in a summary. You're equating that to including an out of context quote that blatantly tilts the lead to one POV. The two are not the same thing. Imagine if you tried that tactic on another page that's being heavily watchlisted, like Scientology or Global Warming. And the need for quotes to be verified is not a "new wiki rule", as you've put it. See this segment off of the Reliable Sources policy:
--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
And "Oxford Leader", a blog which has nothing to do with the university that shares its name, is not a reliable source. It's an opinion piece off a blog, it's not a scholarly source that determines the veracity and the context of the quote, and it's from an obscure source that has little academic merit.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IE24Ad02.html


User JeremyMiller, are you happy now? Arilang talk 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So it was quoted out of context, as I suspected! That verifies my initial reaction. I'll find a way to include it, but with the context to balance the POV. The Asia Times source is a good one, since it includes the context that was intentionally excluded in the additions to the lead. And yes, I am happy now.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


CI is a Chinese government institution

The fact is, CI is owned by HanBan, which is owned by PRC, so, that means CI is an official Chinese government institution. Naturally Li Changchun as one of the top leader of PRC, his statement on CI should be included in the lede, the full quote being:"is an important channel to glorify Chinese culture, to help Chinese culture spread to the world...(which is) part of China's foreign propaganda strategy". Editors jobs is to have a clear and tidy writing of the article. Plus, the statement was made by Li Changchun, not "Chinese government". Arilang talk 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you not realize that quote by Li Changchun is already stated in the Controversies section. How much repetitions does this article need?--Teamjenn (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
HanBan is not legally owned by the PRC, and the CI is not an official Chinese government institution. The organization does recieve funding from the Chinese government, and a conflict of interest clearly does exist. But please don't confuse actual government institutions with state funded non-profits. Are you implying that the United States government owns Internews and NPR?--JeremyMiller (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
A more appropriate example would be United States Agency for International Development that operates oversees. The laws and practices in US and China are very much different. If Chinese government directly funds HanBan, it practically owns this organization, legally or not. This works more or less like a front organization. Biophys (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The United States Agency for International Development is officially administrated by the government. The best comparison would be with Internews, a non-profit that's "technically" independent, but recieves funding from the American government, and has been halted by the Russian government for its pro-American bias. I'm not debating that there isn't a conflict of interest. There clearly is. But that doesn't change the technical, legal status of an organization.
It's relationship with the government mirrors the British Council's, operative independence but not financial independence, although Hanban is nominatively separate from the government. The British Council, coincidentally, is also a frequent target for criticism.--JeremyMiller (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User JeremyMiller, HanBan is back up by 12 Chinese ministries, how "Non governmental" can it be?

  • On HanBan North America website, it is also "Non Governmental", but with a twist:

The Chinese Language Council International is composed of members from 12 state ministries and commissions, namely,

the General Office of the State Council,
the Ministry of Education,
the Ministry of Finance,
the Overseas Chinese Affaires Office of the State Council,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the State Development and Reform Commission,
the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Culture,
the State Administration of Radio Film and Television (China Radio International),
the State Press and Publications Administration,
the State Council Information Office
the State Language Work Committee.

President of the Council is State Councilor Chen Zhili.

Arilang talk 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and so? It's organized similar to the British Council, but maintains a nominatively separate legal status. It's financially dependent on the Chinese government, has a conflict of interest, but is operationally independent. I don't understand the point of debating this when the article doesn't even mention the legal status of HanBan! Are you interested in winning this argument or improving the article?--JeremyMiller (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it has no good analogies. It seems that "Confucius Institutes" are currently affiliated with every major US University, while remaining completely independent of university administration. What they actually do? I checked their local web sites. One of their activities is sponsoring travel to China of people who work for universities, including administration (they sponsor other things as well). But anyone familiar with the history of intelligence will tell: this is a standard approach to acquire the agents of influence. Hence the concerns. Biophys (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The British Council example is a good analogy, both are cultural institutions funded by foreign governments. And the concerns have been primarily on academic freedom, not espionage. Academics are afraid that financial incentives could create a pro-China bias. It has nothing to do with spying, and the Chinese would not go through all the trouble of establishing a cultural institute to reach scholars and students instead of taking their traditionally direct approach.--JeremyMiller (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
An agent of influence is not necessarily a spy. Well, I am not really interested in Chinese subjects and just wanted to provide 3rd opinion.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New section(s) on missing information

As discussed above, the CI article needs additional info in one or more new sections. We could start with something like sections 1 办学背景 and 2 办学形式 in the parallel zh interwiki. What does the current article lack? Keahapana (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Programs" and "Soft power" sections. Not sure what "办学背景" and "办学形式" means, you'll have to translate. Not that interested in China-related topics.--JeremyMiller (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Those could translate as Background and Types. We could try starting with sections on topics like Purpose (overseas study of Chinese, etc.), Organization (C Institutes, C Classrooms, text initiatives, etc.), and Financing (budgets, control, etc.).

Hi JeremyMiller, thanks for your question on my Talk page: "Are you going fix the CI article, or do you want me to? The consensus in the discussion has been to reduce the size of the article and the repetition."

I'm currently working on another article and will get back to help with CI afterwards. However, there is clearly no consensus. I appears that three editors (Quigley, Teamjenn, and you) support diminishing the Controversies and three (Arilang, Biophys, and me) oppose it. If you have time to fix this article, you could start the new sections and move some material from Controversies. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Biophys agreed that the size of the section needs to be reduced. To quote, he said, "I agree that "controversies" section must be improved and shortened, since it includes a lot of repeated/redundant materials". This is not a vote, but it's four users agreeing that the section needs to be reduced, and one user, excluding the author, dissenting. Seems like a consensus to me.--JeremyMiller (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I agree that repeated/redundant materials should be cleaned up. What I disagree with is this type of damaging diff. Biophys's preceding sentence was, "And if you can not include something else, it means it is indeed known for the controversies." Keahapana (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Being known for the controversies" is a point of view, and something you shouldn't make.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Revising the Controversies

On my talk page, JeremyMiller wrote:

Seeing that very little has been done to fix the CI page, I've went ahead and edited it. With the exception of one source from a Free Tibet affiliate (which admits upfront that it's not a WP:NPOV source), I've retained all the sources that you have used. My main focus was on reducing repetition, which the previous edition of the article was full of. So, instead of saying "Sweden sees CI as soft power", "India sees CI as soft power", and "Japan sees CI as soft power", I've condensed it into "Various organizations see CI as soft power". In consideration of your views, I've kept all the points and arguments made in the original article, while focusing on making the article neutral.
If you have any concerns with the new changes, let's discuss it first on the talk page. And if we need to, we can invite in a third party user to evaluate the improvements, someone who hasn't dealt with China-related articles but is familiar with NPOV.--JeremyMiller (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JeremyMiller for making a good start on this thorny article. You've made many useful edits, like moving that quote into the Purpose section. I apologize for not having had the time to edit here, but have found several new CI refs. Yes, you were correct to delete that Epoch Times citation. Thanks especially for reducing the repetition. I strongly agree with you that we should seek NPOV about the CIs.

We can easily fix the few minor problems. For instance, where does note 38 mention a "hands-off approach to management"? Do you have any English-language references that "propaganda does not have the same negative connotation in Chinese as it does in English"?

We may disagree over whether this current revision keeps "all the points and arguments made in the original article." Here are some examples of what appears like eviscerating pertinent information from sources.

  • Before: In Canada, a declassified intelligence report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says, "Beijing is out to win the world's hearts and minds, not just its economic markets, as a means of cementing power."[17]
  • After: but connections with the People's Republic of China and its soft power initiatives[14] have spurred controversy over the role of the institute.
  • Before: Tel Aviv University officials shut down a 2008 student art exhibition about the oppression of Falun Gong in China. A Tel Aviv District Court judge ruled the university "violated freedom of expression and succumbed to pressure from the Chinese Embassy, which funds various activities at the university, and took down the exhibit, violating freedom of expression."[26]
  • After: financial influence caused Tel Aviv University officials to shut down an exhibition highlighting human rights in the country.[39]

In addition, there are two other problems. It appears that many keywords cited in the refs are now missing – Dalai Lama, freedom of speech, Communist Party of China, Falun Gong, governance in higher education, etc. Several relevant quotes that criticized CIs have disappeared – Joyce Chey, Mao Zedong, Göran Lindblad, G. Cameron Hurst III, and Robert Zimmer.

Clearly, the Controversies section still needs better organization. The original three divisions (government officials, educators, and journalists) overlapped. The previous organization by countries was too wordy. The current organization into six paragraphs (soft power, universities, EJE division, PRC topics, Tel Aviv & Maryland, and California & newspapers) seems unsystematic. I think we can create subsections that readers will find thematically consistent and understandable.

Two possibilities might be geographical organization by continents or chronological by years. Your draft version has semi-geographic divisions between PRC and California, which could be expanded into Asia and North America subsections. Historically reorganizing the citations should be straightforward, and (since CI controversies are ongoing) would facilitate future editorial additions. What do you think?

I appreciate your labors improving this CI article, and hope that we can collaborate in balancing the controversies. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What if instead of adding more content the extremely long controversies section we instead edited it into something a little more manageable. Such a list of complains is not interesting nor relevant this article, not only that but it clearly violates NPOV and WP:UNDUE which was discussed at length above. What if instead we have a description of the controversies as summaries with several examples, no more than is necessary to illustrate the idea. Maybe even add a few quotes if necessary, then add a simple statement about there being controversies into the lead. What do you think? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

14kB out of the 17kB of prose are endless repeated examples of controversy. Almost nothing is written about what the CIs are primarily known for, which is teaching language. Thank you for trying to bring some sanity to what may be the most horrendous WP:COATRACK on this website. Quigley (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking though alot of this section and there is are a couple things that pop out. First, it seems clear that most of the sources cited are expressing "concern" about possible influence and not any evidence of actual influence. This is a common idea and it should be included in the article but I don't see why it would need to be any more that one sentence: "University professors, administrators and other concerned parties have repeatedly express a fear that the Confucius Institute's presence would unduly influence academic freedom, because of its unclear connections with the Chinese Communist Party." Then, maybe a mention that some universities have chosen not to partner with a CI for this reason.

We should, of course also provide some clarity on what those connections may be, instead of randomly picking a newspaper article to cite as proof that the confucius institutes are directly controlled by the leadership of the CCP without any details, as has been done on this page in the past. Also, while alot of this article seems to claim that the CIs have censored academics, when I look at the sources cited, I see again concern, also accusations, but no evidence. If this kind of influence has occured we should find some actual evidence. Just repeating what some activist said is not useful. Those actual events, are probably worthy of direct inclusion in the article, so long as we aren't just repeating ourselves. I'll see what I can do. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

to be more specific, the first paragraph is generally good, but could be improved with copy-editing, while almost all of the remainder is repetitive, POV, list of unimportant quotes, many of which are misrepresentations. Items which add something to the article are the following:

  • The incident in Tel-aviv is important, unique, and comes from a reputable source, unfortunately it is lost in the rest of the article. In fact, even though the article is cited numerous times as evidence of interference by the CCP through the CIs, the sub-headline of the article states quite clearly, "Professors worry...but there is scant evidence." the bulk of the article is about how there isn't evidence for these fears but its cited on our article as saying just the opposite. The Tel-aviv incident should be more prominent, with a statement to the effect that this seems to be only such evidence of significant interference to date.
  • Mao's quote about Confucius is important because what he said had a profound impact on policy, that should be integrated into the name section.
  • one or more specific examples of organized resistance to a CI being established at a university should be included. The stockholm University example seems like a fine candidate as well as the University of Sydney example that follows it.

The rest will go. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a new controversies section integrating existing content as much as possible and adding a few citations and extra content where I thought there was not sufficient clarity. I also rewrote the name section. The controversies section is still disproportionately large but I am satisfied with the idea that this can be dealt with by filling in the rest of the article more. That's not to say the controversies section can't be improved further, just that I would support removing the clean-up and neutrality templates from that section. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that I am not taking too much initiative by removing the neutrality and clean-up tag. The section has been entirely rewritten as described above. If there is still an NPOV dispute then by all means someone should replace the tags. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the entire list of Confucius institutes

Sadly Wikipedia cannot be the home of all things. In particular the very long list of Confucius institutes is not appropriate for this article. WP:NOTDIR has more information about this policy. Wikipedia certainly has plenty of lists, but those lists are informative or link internally (see WP:LIST, this kind of incomplete web directory does not belong in an encyclopedia and it is rather cumbersome. If you wish to save this directory for some reason I recommend an alternative site like wikiindex.org or Everything2.I would keep the list if there were some hope of changing it but it is simply a web-directory, it would never have links to an article about each one, or even a sentence of relevant info about each one. I feel confident in making this major change because of the wikipedia guidelines and the previous discussions on this talk page. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I saved two links to wikipedia articles related to a confucius institute, the rest fit the problems described above. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The website for the Confucius Instutitute maintains what looks to be a pretty comprehensive list with more information than you desire [14]. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This one has links and looks alot the one that used to be on this article [15] Metal.lunchbox (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claim about Hanban

The controversies section contains a dubious claim that: "Hanban, which is supposedly a non-profit organization but operates CI-related companies for profit. "For instance, in November 2009, Hanban launched a new company, which won the bid for over five million U.S. dollars from the Ministry of Finance to operate the CI’s website; the person in charge of this company is also the deputy director of Hanban." If you look at the source you'll see that while the guy does have a phd and the document is hosted on the George Washington University website, the university has nothing to do with it, its just his own opinion, and he provides no evidence, sources, or references for his claim. I was not able to find this claim repeated independently. If someone can find some info on this claim, I'd really like that but we can't just state any accusation to be found on the internet as though it is fact. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Non controvertial sections

Since the sections not dealing with controversy are kind of unwritten I thought it could use some planning and collaboration. One big question we need to answer is how are they run? we don't need to do this in great detail but one would logically wonder especially in light of so much suspicion whether they are staffed by communist party officials or totally and completely operationally independent. What I've read leads me to believe that neither is true but its wikipedia so stuff has to be verifiable, not just some impression, or a quote of someone's impression published in a newspaper.

This source might be of use: regulations for the adminstration of CIs HQ funds. Its a little dry, see what we can glean. If you find great sources post them below. any other ideas what topics are vital to the article. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Compromise for hatchet job

The ongoing evisceration of this CI article is shockingly destructive. Without any debate, it has gone from 56 to 15 Kb and from 70 to 26 references. Before wholesale reversion of all these relevant content deletions, I'd like to suggest a WP:SPLITTING compromise.

We could leave the current article as a WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF two new CI sub-articles. From the last stable version (arguably WP:TOOLONG), let's try moving the contents of the Controversies and List of institutes sections into spinoffs. This will not be a WP:POVFORK and we can continue the unresolved NPOV debates.

The former spinoff would move the disputed section into a new article titled perhaps Confucius Institute controversies (like BBC controversies) or Controversies about Confucius Institutes (Controversies about Opus Dei). Alternatively, for those who might confuse "concerns" and "controversies", we could call it Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes (Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics or Concerns and controversies in Shanghai Expo 2010). The latter spinoff would keep all the links, which many new WP contributors have added, and might simply be called List of Confucius Institute locations (like List of Goethe-Institut locations). I won't be online for the next few days, and I look forward to seeing your discussions. Keahapana (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - I might characterize it as something other than a hatchet job, I'd prefer to say the article shed some extra weight. There is certainly precedence for splitting. I would not be opposed to that, obviously that would take care of the common complaint that the controversy take up a disproportionate part of the page. I think the controversies have notability enough, considering that they seem to show up in every media mention of the institutes. The controversies page would still have to be NPOV, of course which, but you acknowledge that so, I think this is a good idea. I'm not crazy about the list of Confucius Institute Locations being a new page but I won't oppose it. I like Concerns and Controversies over Confucius Institutes most because I think that is the most accurate. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize if that idiom was excessively cutting. Yes, this splitoff will thankfully end arguments whether the controversies are disproportionately detailed. Those titles sound fine (with lowercase c on Concerns and controversies …). I think the best way to proceed would be to revert the Controversies and List sections from the 26 June version, split them off, and then start cleaning up. Would you like to do the spinoffs or should I? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this discussion, but quite familiar with CIs and the concerns around them from the institutional perspective. Regarding the splitting proposal, I understand that you have a concern here about length of the article, but could you elaborate on how you will ensure that it doesn't become a POV fork once controversies are relegated to another page? Homunculus (duihua) 01:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Your concern is valid, but I don't think it should prevent a split. The simplest answer is that it won't be a POV fork because attentive editors will work to refine the page to meet NPOV. The issue that the split deals with is the undue weight. There is alot of information about concerns and controversies about CIs but including all of that on this page, well it wouldn't fit, it would be 95% of the page content. Even the current summary leftover after the split is UNDUE. I'll cut it down a little bit now that I am confident that the reader can just click to the controversies article if they want more. If you are concerned about the controversies article being POV I recommend you participate in the editing of that article. So far the work has been to add new info, but now it needs to be refactored to meet standards, and that's pretty hard for one or a couple editors to do by themselves. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added this page to my watchlist, and will attempt to contribute when I can. For the record, I have no problem with splitting the page as a means of ensuring that all the notable concerns and controversies are addressed without creating problems of undue weight. Homunculus (duihua) 04:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the UNDUE tag at the top of the article. Since splitting, the controversies section now contains a single summary paragraph in pretty neutral language. Considering the prominence of the controversies topic in media about CIs, it seems unreasonable to complain that such a paragraph is undue weight. The rest of the article just needs expanding. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
  1. ^ Peter Schmidt (2010), U. of Chicago's Plans for Milton Friedman Institute Stir Outrage on the Faculty, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 06/01/2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confucius_Institute/Archive_1&oldid=1149132870"