Talk:China Daily

Viewpoint of Chinadaily

"For the most part, the paper portrays the official policy of the PRC"

there is a problem with this sentence. Chinadaily's articles range from servile towards Western culture to demonstrative and reprimanding of the United States; there is no consensus except for economic policy. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

here is an example of how pathetic it is:

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-10/01/content_18691404.htm

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China Daily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310183929/http://www.chinadetail.com/Who/MediaPublicationChinaDaily.php to http://www.chinadetail.com/Who/MediaPublicationChinaDaily.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311003012/http://www.mtklw.com.cn/ViewInfo.asp?InfoID=883 to http://www.mtklw.com.cn/ViewInfo.asp?InfoID=883

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Chen Weihua on Russia atrocities

I've reverted the inclusion on the basis that it has been contested as WP:UNDUE. I am also concerned that, considering Chen is a BLP, we need to ensure both that WP:DUE is fulfilled and that sources are unimpeachable and provide significant coverage. I'm going to ping the involved editors from the discussion I'm seeing as the basis for the dispute as it is on a different article page. I would also caution all involved editors to be civil and WP:FOC.

@Amigao @Guninvalid @49.183.93.101 @103.87.254.62 My apologies if I missed anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The cite and associated content come from WP:NYT, which the community has long deemed a WP:GREL source. If there is a dispute about the reliability of WP:NYT, it is best taken to WP:RSN. Also, keep in mind the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Weihua was to merge content, not blank it all outright. - Amigao (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, the disputed sentence is clearly false; as the NYT source explains, it's not something Weihua "stated" but rather retweeted. Secondly, Weihua's Twitter feed is not the China Daily. Some crap Weihua retweeted is not an example of disinformation that China Daily has published, so it doesn't make sense in this article. Endwise (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

A merge consensus at AfD does not mean every single thing in an article must be transferred to the new article. Article scope is still a thing. Chen is an employee of China Daily and his only notability is in the context of his position as a China Daily reporter but that doesn't make every single thing he says on Twitter relevant or due inclusion, even if the New York Times deigned to mention it in an article. WP:V is not a guarantee of WP:DUE. If you want to include this specific information on this specific page you need to establish that it is due for inclusion rather than pointing to a vague merge consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, you read comments in the AfD discussion that established that consensus such as "merge essential info about the subject and his relevance" and thought that only included that the NYT once mentioned in passing that Chen retweeted something about Russian atrocities? 49.183.93.101 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

To avoid the appearance of canvassing I will also ping participants in the AfD I didn't previously ping. If some of the IP addresses are used by the same editor on a rotating IP my apologies for the multi-ping. @Wcquidditch @103.87.254.62 @49.185.124.85 @Lorraine Crane and the closer @Explicit Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE for the scope of the page and should be left off. Particularly as it is a Twitter retweet by an editor not an original statement and not on the "China Daily" account. It is too far downstream from the main topic. I sympathize because it would have been clearly due for the Chen Weihua page, which appears to have been improvidently deleted. Perhaps incorporate into the page on the massacre iself, in the context of international reactions or analysis. But it doesn't belong here. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

JArthur1984 raises a great point about the deletion of Chen Weihua and perhaps a WP:DRV could be considered, especially in light of multiple IP addresses pushing the same issue which may be the same editor. Perhaps some admin attention could be put on this to ensure there is not a potential WP:LOUTSOCK situation at play. - Amigao (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m in favor of reviewing the deletion decision. It was improvident. If you seek review, I am interested in being tagged in the discussion. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

JArthur1984 Which of the acceptable rationales for using DRV listed at WP:DRV do your concerns of improvidence fall under? 49.183.93.101 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Upon review of the criteria, I see that I have none. I believe it is a poor decision and a wrong result reached, I wish I had noticed the discussion of deletion at the time and participated, but have none of the generally specified DRV grounds. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

All the IPs active are the same editor (me), I didn't make an effort to conceal that. See "I know my comments are..." referencing the previous IP comment. If you think there is an issue with LOUTSOCKING, identify which editor handle you think I also voted or commented under. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Framing analysis paper

I'm reading this very interesting and definitely due paper that @Amigao inserted and finding that their summary of it was incorrect. Specifically the paper only notes that China Daily was more likely to criticize the United States regarding its involvement in the Russia / Ukraine war than a single other newspaper, the Guardian. Furthermore the conclusion is nowhere near as black and white as Amigao's summary. I entirely support use of this source but the language we use needs to accurately represent its findings. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying that its inclusion is "definitely due" yet you blanked it entirely instead of revising it. Why is that? - Amigao (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

For instance Amigao's summary completely glosses over these statements from the conclusion he study also found that vivid and visual stories are more likely to generate emotions in readers, such as anger and sympathy. The refugee issue was mentioned more frequently as it directly affects the UK. The Guardian is more concerned with refugees than the China daily. Sreberny-Mohammadi et al. (1985) thinks that proximity is often considered to be the determining factor for foreign coverage. European countries, being geographically closer to Russia and Ukraine, are directly affected by a range of Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, including the refugee issue. However, China is geographically far away from the conflict, and its influence on China is more reflected in the economic frame, which is also the frame that China Daily uses most except the responsibility frame.

and

In addition to obvious differences, China Daily and The Guardian have similarities in the use of morality frame. This study does not find that they frequently use morality frame, this is consistent with Semetko and Valkenburg (2000)study. China Daily and The Guardian do not significantly differ in their news sourcing patterns, both relying more on official government quotes.

Meanwhile, on the topic Amigao directly summarized, the conclusion states the study also found that vivid and visual stories are more likely to generate emotions in readers, such as anger and sympathy. The refugee issue was mentioned more frequently as it directly affects the UK. The Guardian is more concerned with refugees than the China daily. Sreberny-Mohammadi et al. (1985) thinks that proximity is often considered to be the determining factor for foreign coverage. European countries, being geographically closer to Russia and Ukraine, are directly affected by a range of Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, including the refugee issue. However, China is geographically far away from the conflict, and its influence on China is more reflected in the economic frame, which is also the frame that China Daily uses most except the responsibility frame.

This is rather more nuanced than the summary we got. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Because I thought we should discuss how the language should appear. The source is good. Your text was not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What would you propose as a revised summary then? - Amigao (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

My proposal: A 2025 paper utilized frame analysis to compare coverage of the Russia / Ukraine conflict in China Daily and The Guardian. This paper concluded that differences in framing between the two publications, where the Guardian was more concerned about humanitarian issues and where China Daily was more concerned about responsibility for the conflict and its economic impact, was largely derived from the geographical and political differences, highlighting the closer geographical proximity of Europe to the conflict and the degrading relationship between China and the United States as likely reasons for differences in frame. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Not bad and it could probably be made a bit more succinct, but it is still missing the important content from the very first paragraph of the article's conclusion that deals with exactly how/where China Daily places responsibility. Also, these quotes from the authors are quite instructive and should be factored into any summary: China Daily focused a disproportionate amount of its attention on pointing the finger of blame at the United States for its part in the conflict. as well as Except for the United States, the China Daily does not point the finger of blame at any government or social group for the commencement of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The United States is the one exception to this rule. - Amigao (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not seeing the word "disproportionate" in the source. This seems like editorializing to me. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It could be I'm missing it but I've gone through the whole article once and the conclusion three times so if you could point me to where it turns up. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, please take a look at page 10 of the article in the first paragraph of the section titled Responsibility and you will see the following sentence: The China Daily focused a disproportionate amount of its attention on pointing the finger of blame at the United States for its part in the conflict. - Amigao (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

OK I found it but I think this is cherrypicking for a single word a bit in context. Consider what follows it: According to the research conducted by Fang et al.(2022), the status of bilateral ties between the United States and China has been trending downward since the beginning of the Trump administration, indicating a significant decline in the quality of relations between the two nations. Therefore, the fact that the primary content of China Daily is a criticism of the United States may be related to this. They're situating that focus as being derived from the political animus between the United States and China. Considering the animus makes it into the conclusion while the idea of disproportionate coverage does not I'd suggest the important thing to take from this is that the framing of CD articles is impacted by the political animus between China and the United States, not just that it blames the US more than other sources do. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no interest in cherry-picking for a single word. We should accurately summarize the responsibility frame as analyzed by the article. The other quote also captures it rather well: "Except for the United States, the China Daily does not point the finger of blame at any government or social group for the commencement of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The United States is the one exception to this rule." - Amigao (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what some other people have to say.Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Simon's summary is more fair. While the content of responsibility receives some attention in the body, it is a minor part of the piece overall, regardless of whether editors subjectively think it is "important content". If the paper is covered in more depth it may be included (in proportion to the emphasis the paper gives), but I don't think that too much focus should be given to one paper, particularly considering the subject is the media treatment of the Russia-Ukraine War rather than China Daily. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The sentence that Amigao added to this WP article citing this source is accurate, short, to the point, on topic (on the topic of this WP article, that is), encyclopedic, and likely of interest to readers of an encyclopedia article on this topic.

I would re-add it to the article, and if other editors want to expand on it (losing the virtue of brevity), improve it (or make it worse), write things that are on-topic (or not so on-topic), or of interest to readers of an encyclopedia article on this topic (or not so much), just go ahead. But don't delete what Amigao wrote (which I personally would re-add without changing anything). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, here is the relevant journal article by the Universiti Sains Malaysia academics:

• Chai, Ming Hock; Liu, Ying Hong (2025-08-31). "Framing Analysis of the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine in China Daily and The Guardian". Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 6 (4): 548–570. doi:10.55197/qjssh.v6i4.807. ISSN 2716-6481.

Amigao (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added a more concise version of Simon's summary, which appears to have consensus for inclusion. I don't yet see consensus to include the responsibility content as put forward by Amigao, more input is needed. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Let me clarify my edit summary. Half of the words you added say little of value to the readers of an encyclopedia: we could say something more informative and specific using fewer words.

And the the second half of the words you added focus on speculations or opinions by the authors of the paper instead of focusing on their findings as they relate to the topic of this WP article. It's not Wikipedia's job to reproduce the talking points that others use to sell what they sell (in this case their academic work), but extract from what they publish the information that has encyclopedic value in relation to the topic of a WP article (like for example what Amigao wrote initially, which I'll reproduce here: "A 2025 frame analysis of China Daily articles found that the outlet blamed the United States as the driving force for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[58]").

I don't agree that the text in the Conclusion section of an academic paper somehow has more value than the text in the Results section. It might have; it might be a better paper if it were so, but it's not always so and especially not for all the text included in the respective sections. It doesn't help that this paper conflates results and discussion in a section titled "Results and Discussion" (this is not a criticicism of the paper; there are good reasons for doing that in many cases). In any case, we should take into consideration that, in this paper, the section titled "Conclusion" contains more "discussion" than "conclusions".

The fragments of the paper that Simon highlighted above are interesting, but half of them would belong to another Wikipedia article, not this one.

And now what really bothers me: How do I use the outdent template in a talk page in a manner that works? I hereby give permission for others to outdent this comment for me. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I won't dig in my heels over it, this is a matter for editorial discretion rather than a black/white policy application.

My belief is that the reception section falls into example-cruft, and that this will add to it. Generally, I believe the article should be built from sources which give a direct overview of the subject (e.g. Hartig 2017), and that journal articles like this, which have media treatment of the Russo-Ukraine conflict as their subject, should be used in an article on media treatment of the Russo-Ukraine conflict.

I also think that when evaluating what material in this paper has appropriate weight for this article, it is worth considering whether you believe the same for the paper's content on The Guardian. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the outdent.

What the paper says about The Guardian is somehow (not entirely, but somewhat) the equivalent to "dog bites man". If you want to add something to The Guardian WP article based on this paper, go ahead.

On the other hand, what the paper says about China Daily (that this newspaper blamed the US for the Russian invasion of Ukraine) will be understood by some readers likewise as the equivalent to "dog bites man" (of course the US is to blame, or different gradations of that statement) and by other readers it will be understood as the contrary ("man bites dog"). Amigao's addition to this WP article didn't editorialize about it. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that no "man bites dog" is implied (or should be implied) in a straightforward factual statement that is consistent with how PRC state media has treated this issue. - Amigao (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)