Talk:People's Daily

Untitled

The part about providing direct information about the Communist Party might sound NPOV, but it is a paraphrase of the self description on its web site. The People's Daily states pretty clearly on its website that its opinions reflect those of the party, and doesn't claim to be objective or evenhanded in its coverage of the news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 07:03, 8 July 2003 (UTC)

Moved here since it is unverifiable speculation....

The credibility of the information in the People's Daily is relatively low among many Chinese.

My own personal opinion is that the People's Daily does have a distinct slant and you shouldn't expect to see well argued defenses of the free Tibet movement there. On the other hand, the lack of objectivity in the People's Daily isn't that much worse than Fox News.

But there is a link to both the Chinese and English versions and you can judge for yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 05:22, 24 October 2003 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the date of founding

The article states it was founded in 1946, the infobox states 1948. Which is correct? VenomousConcept (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

pinyin name, anyone?

I'm surprised that the Chinese name is only given by Chinese characters, and the pinyin transliteration (Renmin Ribao) is nowhere to be found. Was in a conscious omission, or just not considered important enough by anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.220.47 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind that, it was there - just "hidden" under a button for no obvious reason (since it doesnt take up much space). 89.134.220.47 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible original research

Enrico Chou, do you have any WP:SECONDARY reliable sources to back up your statement about op-ed by Lebron James? - Amigao (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Please elaborate what kind of original research did I do? The original People's Daily article is linked to show how the article was originally presented. Enrico Chou (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. We already have several WP:SECONDARY reliable sources here, which should suffice. - Amigao (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I still do not understand how citing the original article, when we are specifically talking about the article, constitutes original research. WP:PRIMARY expressly states that “a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere.” More importantly, the current wording is misleading by not mentioning the end note in the original article, which already stated before the rep that the piece had been compiled from interviews. Enrico Chou (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

For the type of statement that you were adding, you probably ought to stick with WP:IS sources. - Amigao (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If by that type of statement, you mean the existence of the editor’s note in the original article, it’s already mentioned by the Athletic. But still, it is not original research in the first place. The fact that the note exists is not a result of my analysis, interpretation or personal opinion. Enrico Chou (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I included the relevant quote from The Athletic to [hopefully] resolve it. Amigao (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you didn't add the part where the Athletic pointed out the editor's note in the original article. Instead, you initially characterized the issue as though James' rep claimed the article was fabricated, and then as though the People’s Daily claimed James had written the article, prompting his rep to refute. Enrico Chou (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is the quote from The Athletic article that refers to the editor's note? Amigao (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The quote you deleted from my version. If you check out the original article in the People's Daily, which you also removed from my version, you would see the end note, the same as what James' rep said. Enrico Chou (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that we have direct quotes from two WP:GREL sources (WP:NYT and WP:REUTERS), this should be resolved. Amigao (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to avoid the central issue. The problem is not which media source is cited, but the omission of a basic fact that materially affects how readers understand the story: the People’s Daily never claimed that the article was written by James. Instead, when the article was first published, the newspaper clearly stated that the article was compiled from interviews by its reporter. Enrico Chou (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That interpretation is not exactly backed up by the cited sources which all state that James was clearly depicted as the "author" of the op-ed in some way. Amigao (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, please elaborate which part is my "interpretation." If anything, interpreting the byline as meaning that James personally wrote every word of the article is the interpretation. “Author” simply refers to the name appearing under the byline; otherwise, the note itself makes no sense. The newspaper could not simultaneously have intended to say that James personally wrote the article and then, immediately afterward, state that it had actually been compiled from interviews conducted by its reporter, Wang Yang. Interpreting the note as conveying such a contradiction is itself the real interpretation, and one unsupported by either the text or common sense.

As noted, the story gained traction not least because it fit a lazy narrative about Chinese media, even though the People’s Daily was probably more transparent than many English-language media outlets in noting that the byline did not mean the named individual personally wrote the piece. It is not a secret that ghostwritten or heavily edited articles are commonplace in the industry, and that such arrangements are rarely disclosed by English media such as

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/24/oped-ghostwriter-deception

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/why-do-newspapers-keep-publishing-op-eds-by-john-mccain/379512/

https://voiceofsandiego.org/2017/08/06/what-we-learned-this-week-140/#:~:text=if%20we%E2%80%99d%20flunk%20a%20student%20for%20turning%20in%20someone%20else%E2%80%99s%20work%2C%20why%20would%20we%20accept%20it%20of%20powerful%20people%20who%20should%20know%20better%3F

The apparent readiness to treat this case as problematic, while dismissing similar practices in the English world as standard industry practice, is both lazy and inconsistent. If as Wikipedians we are not merely failing to provide basic facts and context but are actively excluding them in a way that leaves readers with a misleading impression, that is an even more serious concern. Enrico Chou (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources state and they stated their own plain-English interpretation quite clearly in what has been quoted already. Adding any interpretations beyond that go into WP:OR territory.

Also, broader ghostwriting practices in the media go beyond the scope of this article. - Amigao (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You are not addressing the real issue. Their interpretation, no matter how plain, has nothing to do with the problem with your version, because your version doesn't mention the note at all—let alone its translation or interpretation. There is simply no excuse for excluding the original note from the article other than to create a misleading impression. The primary source itself is entirely sufficient to establish the note's existence, not that it can't be easily corroborated by secondary coverage anyway. I don't think such a basic piece of information, which is essential to the event, needs to be debated. If we are really staying within the scope of the topic, the fact that the note exists is not original research should be settled.

Enrico Chou (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I fixed it because essential context belongs in the body of the article, not buried in the fine print of a reference footnote.

Enrico Chou (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you produce a WP:SECONDARY reliable source that backs up your interpretation? Also, WP:ONUS applies here and I would be open to a WP:3. Amigao (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, pointing out the note's existence is NOT an interpretation. But I added a CNN report as a WP:SECONDARY source. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The CNN source mentions the note, but it does not support your phrasing. - Amigao (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how it does not support. Enrico Chou (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:ONUS and note that it is core Wikipedia WP:POLICY. You should achieve consensus for the disputed phrasing that you wish add FIRST. - Amigao (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, please elaborate on how it does not support. I'm not adding anything interpretive or opinionated. And you are questioning the very existence of the note that's already linked to prove its existence. I don't see how it could be more proven. Enrico Chou (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've provided additional sources establishing the presence of the editor's note in the original article. Hope the support is enough now. Enrico Chou (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That was an improvement and the wording just need a few minor tweaks. - Amigao (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of the tweaks are unwarranted. The original note does not say it was compiled from “an interview.” It uses “interview” as a verb, and James’s representative already indicated that there were more than one interview. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's follow the wording from WP:GREL secondary sources like NYT and CNN, which is "an interview." - Amigao (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The NYT never said "an interview". It used the verb like the original note. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The CNN article that you provided did.

• Church, Ben (2025-09-09). "LeBron James did not pen an op-ed for Chinese state media, according to reports". CNN. Retrieved 2026-06-12. At the bottom of the article, The People's Daily also wrote: "The author is a member of the Los Angeles Lakers. This article was compiled from an interview by our reporter Wang Liang."

Amigao (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

We're quoting from the original Chinese, not an English interpretation. I also provided more than 5 sources other than CNN, including the original article. You're repeatedly going against WP:PRIMARY that “a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere.” Enrico Chou (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I replaced CNN with Newsweek for a more accurate English translation. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The Newsweek translation seems adequate. Why provide that and then remove it? You are still putting in your own interpretation that is not based upon WP:RS. Are you open to WP:3? Amigao (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed it because both the word choice and grammar are odd; a reporter can't "organize" LeBron James. So i replaced it with a more natural translation. My wording is exactly the same as the CNN source you just restored, except I fixed the singular article. As mentioned, the original editor's note uses "interview" as a verb, and we already knew there were more than one interview, so it does not support the insertion of the singular “an.” Which part is my interpretation? If any, CNN interpreted the number of interviews here.

And why do you keep truncating the note? The reporter also compiled the interviews. CNN and Newsweek and more are clear about it.

I'm open to WP:3. Enrico Chou (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:3O for content dispute

Enrico Chou and I are at an impasse regarding the use of a WP:PRIMARY source and the relevant phrasing of a widely-reported September 2025 controversy surrounding Lebron James. See above discussion in talk. No one other editor is involved and this content dispute entails only the relevant paragraph at the bottom of the section People's Daily#Reactions. It would be great to hear a third opinion of this matter. - Amigao (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Here from WP:3O, can you both share the suggested wording per sources here so that a clear opinion can be provided? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

My suggested version: "In 2025, the People's Daily published an op-ed under LeBron James's byline, with an appended note stating it had been compiled from interviews by a reporter for the newspaper."

This is from CNN's translation, only fixing one small factual error. CNN's translation of the note reads: “The author is a member of the Los Angeles Lakers. This article was compiled from an interview by our reporter Wang Liang.” But the original note does not say "an interview". It uses "interview" as a verb ("interviewed and compiled" or "compiled from interviewing"). Since James's side already stated there was more than one interview, I corrected "interview" to "interviews," which was then reverted (see above discussion).

Some words about the current version: "...an op-ed naming LeBron James as the 'author,' with an appended note stating..." suggests the newspaper named him "author" somewhere else other than the note. I originally kept "author" in my version ("compiled from interviews of the 'author'"), but the word "author" was also removed before it was added into the current version. Enrico Chou (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm okay with In 2025, the People's Daily published an op-ed under LeBron James's byline, with an appended note stating it had been compiled from interviews by a reporter for the newspaper. Note the wikilinked "byline". My reasoning:

1. The article is already about a news publication so people will definitely understand what a byline is, and even if not, the wikilink should help.
2. This phrasing is better that "author".

I'm happy to hear the objections by Amigao and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I just randomly checked one piece of info in the section People's Daily#Reactions out of curiosity: "In November 2020, the People's Daily published a claim that COVID-19 was 'imported' into China."

What a rabbit hole. To begin with, none of the four sources links to the original article, which is unlucky for my spontaneous factchecking. Of the four sources, three are news reports and one an opinion piece, but none contains a direct quote from People's Daily claiming the Covid origins as a matter of fact. The closest quote is a Facebook post by the paper that begins with "#COVID19 did not start in central China's Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts."

After some digging, I found People's Daily's original post. The relevant passage reads: "'Wuhan was where the coronavirus was first detected but it was not where it originated,' Zeng Guang, former chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told an online academic conference on Nov 19. Wu Zunyou, the CDC’s present chief epidemiologist, also gave a similar judgment recently, saying the pathogen could have come into China through imported frozen seafood or meat products and their packaging, reported the South China Morning Post."

Turns out People's Daily is not the real source; it was quoting SCMP, but none of the English media mentioned this. So I found the SCMP article, and it was also summarising, rather than interviewing the two experts, who had made their statements on unrelated occassions. The FT, one of the Wikipedia sources, attributed Wu's comments to an interview by The Beijing News, which is incorrect. I found out the actual source is an interview by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, titled "Interview with Wu Zunyou of China CDC: The Cold Chain Must Not Become a Weak Link in Pandemic Prevention and Control." Did Wu really say COVID-19 was imported into China? Yes, but in a very different context.

The interview concerns domestic COVID control measures during China's zero-COVID period. Here's the relevant part:

Reporter: During the course of pandemic prevention and control, how did the cold chain segment gradually draw the attention of relevant departments? Which discoveries played a positive role in controlling the pandemic?

Wu Zunyou: It was the outbreak at the Xinfadi Market in Beijing that first brought the cold chain to the attention of relevant authorities. Through the analysis of the Xinfadi COVID-19 outbreak, it was found that cases were primarily concentrated in the aquatic product business area, which was also the area where the environment was most severely contaminated by the coronavirus. These findings suggested that the Beijing Xinfadi outbreak might be linked to seafood. At the same time, it was also observed that the outbreak was not severe in areas handling live fish and other ambient-temperature aquatic products.

Looking back further at the early stage of the outbreak in Wuhan at the beginning of the year, patients at the Huanan Seafood Market were also mainly concentrated in the frozen seafood area. All these clues pointed to imported seafood transported via cold chain as the potential source of the outbreak. Following this line of investigation, it was indeed discovered that imported seafood from multiple countries had been contaminated by the coronavirus. [...]

The mystery solved: Wu was talking about how the apparent origins of the Xinfadi outbreak, the most notorious during China's zero-COVID period, could be the imported frozen seafood. The interview never mentions any conspiracy theory.

The chain of attribution, then, runs: Wu Zunyou (talking about Xinfadi outbreak) → SCMP (summarizing two experts, misleadingly put together)→ People's Daily (quoting SCMP) → Western media (misattribution) → Wikipedia (smh). I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions from this story, especially those who really care about misinformation.

One last note on media literacy: for a paper like the People's Daily — particularly its Chinese edition, as opposed to outsourced English social media accounts — editorial decisions are never spontaneous like my factchecking. I understand the temptation of a punchline-worthy story—the only thing to be believed is the date—but to assume the column inches of People's Daily, the ultimate source of tea-leaf reading, were not carefully planned, if not actively negotiated by the league itself and decided at pay grades above both interviewer and interviewee, is naive. Enrico Chou (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I picked another claim from People's Daily#Reactions to fact-check: "In January 2021, the People's Daily inaccurately attributed deaths in Norway to the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine."

The single citation is a Quartz article, which reads: "Over the past week, major propaganda outlets including Xinhua, People's Daily, and China Daily have all published articles about the deaths of elderly shot recipients in Norway, and accused English-language media of downplaying the deaths even though multiple outlets carried reports of them."

Some links in the Quartz piece have died, but the People's Daily link still works. It is actually a Xinhua report (the same one as the dead Xinhua link? Don't know). It begins: "A vaccine adviser to the Australian government said that the country will likely go ahead with the Pfizer vaccine despite recipients dying in Norway." There's nothing in the piece to verify if it accused English-language media of anything, but does the bold part warrant the characterisation by Wikipedia?

For comparison, I checked out how Australian media reported. Two days before the Xinhua report, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported: "Norway to continue using Pfizer's COVID vaccine despite elderly deaths." One day before, The Age reported: "A leading adviser to the federal government says it is likely Australia will push ahead with vaccinating elderly people with the Pfizer vaccine despite reports recipients had died in Norway."

I dug a little deeper to find who wrote this, and it was User:Amigao. Enrico Chou (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's stick to the topic at hand, which is LeBron James. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I rest my case, as I already demonstrated a pattern, even though I'm sure I can easily find more. I'm new to the page, but I'm afraid the issue here is more serious than a wording dispute now; it points to long-term, systematic bias and misinformation infiltrating the page. Enrico Chou (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, I'm okay with keeping the word "byline" but would suggest a minor change as follows: In 2025, the People's Daily published an op-ed under LeBron James's byline, with an appended note stating it had been compiled from an interview by a reporter for the newspaper. The cited WP:GREL sources do not indicate that it was more than one interview with Wang Liang of the People's Daily. - Amigao (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion: "In 2025, the People's Daily published an op-ed under LeBron James's [[byline], with an appended note stating it had been compiled after being interviewed by a reporter for the newspaper." SerChevalerie (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, your suggested version of the sentence is acceptable to me. Thanks! - Amigao (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

References