Talk:CGTN (TV channel)

message: It currently says in the article's infobox that CCTV-9 was intended for external consumption only, but it says in the article that the channel was also intended for English speakers in China. Which is it? 86.56.48.12 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "only" from the infobox.  The article is pretty clear it is for international purposes, but is aired within China for English speakers.  As a side effect, it has gained a huge audience within China of those desiring to learn English. SchmuckyTheCat 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For China or not for China, that is the question 

message: Interesting to see several paragraphs tagged as needing examination for bias - particularly when the subject matter is bias itself! One I removed but not for this reason - rather it did not cite its source.
The Joan Maltese article I have discussed before so I won't go over old territory. If people are able to balance this article with some other articles that would be helpful.
As to the infamous blood streaming incident I quoted. Well its factual and it really happened. I do not know if this is typical of CCTV-9 today but it is worth mentioning as an example of propaganda and also for its lack of subtlety. If nothing else its an example of CCTV-9 programming.
Regards Peter
Pberrett 10:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: :Image:News hour cctv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:News hour cctv.jpg

message: Hey Pberrett: Mention something about the CCTV Cup... the English-speaking contest. I love watching that every year... At first, back in 2005, it was fun watching the Chinese students screw up their English... but, after watching awhile, I realized how difficult it must be to debate (come up with arguments and continue to support those arguments) in a foreign language. I think all the particpants are some of the most bravest people on the planet... DO they know how many people are watching them?
Thanks. Goodnight3455 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCTV Cup 

message: DirecTV is pulling the channel off the lineup on August 25.  Any reason as to why?  --Son (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought they already did; I have the service and 455 is no longer operative. -- M (speak/spoken) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DirecTV 

message: My family and I just switched over to Dishnetwork a few days ago and I saw the channel.  I think it is interesting to have a news channel based in another country, but I am going to keep an eye out for propaganda.  Are there any shows that don't have as much propaganda as other shows, or perhaps none at all? Fantasyleaguer (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New viewer 

message: Seems like a wikiwar might be starting over the links to the Joan maltese articles.
We need some kind of moderation here but I don't know how that can come about. Can a panel of experts adjudicate on relevance?
Until then I think they are very worthwhile links that do give a unique insight into the inner workings of CCTV-9 and raise genuine issues about editorial policy.
I am curious about the opinion of the user of who deleted the references. I also invite the user to declare any association her or she may have with the Channel or other relavant organisations. For the record I have none.
Pberrett (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan Maltese links 

message: Programming is highly interesting. I note that commercial are limited and they don't constanly beg for money from their viewers which makes it much more viewable than either commercial or public television in my country, the U.S. It is much more accessible than the 24 hour news services in the U.S.; I simply refuse to pay over fifty dollars a month to receive CNN, Fox News, etcetera.1archie99 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We did have this link. I moved the link to the programming section where it is easier to find.1archie99 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And I removed the link. The section is fine if we want to educate readers on the networks programming, but we shouldn't be advertising their schedule. Akerans (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So by your reasoning we should not eat because we might gain weight. This is information that should be where I put it. Akerans read "Reasons for deletion" at WP:DEL1archie99 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion policy you cited is in regard to deleting articles, not deleting content. I specifically cited linkspam in the edit summary as my reason for removing this link. In addition, I also removed the link per the external links guideline, which suggests that links "should not normally be used in the body of an article." You have not provided a valid reason to keep this in the body, other than to promote their programming because you seem to have some dispute about paying for some content. If you can not provide a valid reason, then I will continue to remove the link. Akerans (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting wiki policy:"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I moved a link that was in the External Links section that is not required to be there per the above quote and because I think it belonged in the existing programming section. If you are so set upon our readers not knowing what is on the station; why don't you remove the entire programming section? That would make the same amount of sense.1archie99 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I briefly mentioned in my first reply, there's a difference in telling our readers what they show, and advertising what they show. We can inform our readers without advertising. If you feel there's something within that link that offers something to our readers, then add it to the article instead of sticking the link there. Akerans (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The link to the schedule now exists as a citation with the bonus of establishing a link to a related Wikipedia article. This is better than the original edit. I thank Akerans for initiating a discussion without doing a second revert. I still think the original edit was not all that bad.1archie99 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is preferred to edit warring. Thank you for taking the effort to incorporate into the article. Akerans (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussion has ended amicably; I changed section title.1archie99 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a program guide: Discussion 

message: As an American who has lived and worked in multiple countries overseas, both as a student and later as an expat, I came to realize that every media outlet puts a nationalistic bias or spin on what or how they report the "news". If you are only using one source, from one country, for your knowledge/opinion base, I can guarantee that your view of the world is skewed towards the bias of that source. So I suggest that if you wish to have a well rounded view of the world and would like to form your own opinion as to both current and historical events, don't just watch CNN, CCTV, BBC, MSNBC, or FOX, watch them all! In addition, each of us should be mixing/blending our media input, watching and reading both news and op-ed pieces. You will find that the written word still has immense power and offers many advantages over the news interpreters, news readers, editorialists, and bloviators so prevalent on the networks today. One final thought, if you have the ability, there is great value in being able to listen/read the news from non-English sources - you gain a unique perspective when the media controllers aren't trying to direct the content to an English speaking community. Pedia3491 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the news 

message: I suggest either eliminate or update streaming links in info box. I cannot find any streaming on those pages. I am from the U.S.; perhaps that is the problem? If that was the problem I would get a message from the webpage informing me. It appears that CCTV News and also the Documentary channel no longer stream.1archie99 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streaming links in info box 

message: Currently there are two articles China Global Television Network (CGTN) and CGTN (Channel), which was renamed from CCTV News. Should these be merged?—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ①CGTN (TV Channel).②No.-- By LNDDYL. (Talk) 11:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CGTN 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on CGTN (TV channel). 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/20100512133051/http://english.cntv.cn/20100426/104481.shtml to http://english.cntv.cn/20100426/104481.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129114254/http://download.aibd.org.my/books/AMS_05_Promoting_Peace_and_Prosperity.pdf to http://download.aibd.org.my/books/AMS_05_Promoting_Peace_and_Prosperity.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a large template devoted to the satellites used by CGTN. Though, there seem to be no sources backing up the existence of these satellites. Please add the appropriate citations. Sociable Song (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced satellite entries 

message: As I have noticed, the page is being constantly revert-edited by two people insisting that the department in particular should be called either the "Propaganda" or "Publicity" Department. Both of them having doing this for days, perhaps weeks now are technically in violation of WP:3RR and it is not a good solution to said dispute in my opinion. I have now taken upon the decision to reach a general consensus in the talk page for a permanent decision. Thanks for taking your time. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name should be "Propaganda Department". Normchou 💬 14:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

text: The current page for the relevant organ refers to it as the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party, which appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME of the entity. This sort of editing back and forth mirrors a similar sort of thing that happened over at Chen Weihua recently, though that was ultimately resolved on the talk page. I'd recommend "Propaganda Department" as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Propaganda" or "Publicity"? 

message: I would like to add RTHK to the See also section. RTHK is the public broadcaster of Hong Kong, so it seems like an appropriate addition. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: However  the page is no longer protected and may be edited as appropriate. — xaosflux Talk 10:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 May 2021 

message: Hi  - I've reverted your removal of the CGTN cite, as in this case it is verifying a direct quote from the company, as a WP:Primary source, rather than using them for independent secondary analysis. Although CGTN is generally deprecated, this would appear to be covered by the part of WP:DEPREC which says that . They are describing their own stance on the Ofcom ruling. The alternative would be to remove the quote altogether, or see if it's obtainable from another secondary source, but it seems reasonable to include the company's response to the revocation of their licence.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that if Washington builds a page introducing Obama, he can use Obama’s Twitter or Youtube as references,right? I don't oppose or support this issue.I tend not to use it at all,unless no one can find another reference to replace. Rastinition (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was some direct quote that Obama had made on his Twitter or YouTube, and if (a) the use of that quote was clearly relevant to the article and proportionate, and (b) it was clearly attributed as being a quote to him, then I think it would be OK to make a direct citation to those sources, yes. Obviously they wouldn't be good for any other sort of citation though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At this stage, I assume that there is no other reference to replace, so I don’t insist on deleting that.Thanks for the topic you created, let me clarify some concepts. Rastinition (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Amakuru, this is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF so its not a RS question but WP:DUEWEIGHT question. That being said there is actually a legitimate challenge to the inclusion of the material on due weight grounds, we must be careful not to create a false balance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said you, Amakuru, need to get consensus for inclusion now that you’ve restored the challenged material. In the future please get consenus on the talk page first before restoring the disputed material, that goes for you too  and doubly so as your edit summary "Revert, no consensus for this unnecessary change” appears to indicate that you don’t even have a clue about how WP:CONSENSUS works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You continue to contend that a third-party citation would be preferable to CGTN's own statement. As has been pointed out previously, the claim that has been made isn't that Ofcom had been manipulated, but that CGTN claimed that Ofcom had been manipulated.  The cited source isn't so much a primary source as it is the evidence itself.  If some newspaper story made a claim that the New York Post published a story with particular content and provided a link to that story, you presumably would contend that we ought to look for a story in The Washington Post (as an example) confirming this fact.  This is highly dubious.  I suggest that your position is just plain wrong. Fabrickator (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  it *would* in fact be preferable, thats not really debatable. We do in fact *prefer* independent third parties over primary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

text: The WAPO story of course, not only would it be primary but the NYP is a questionable source (as is CGTN). We don’t do WP:OR here. This is a bit of a sidenote but in general we also give preference to more recently published pieces over older ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind what the claim is, i.e. that the NY Post published a story with particular content.   A Wayback copy of the relevant page from the NY Post would be very strong evidence of that.  In any case, your position seems to be in conflict with .  Do you have any other evidence to support your position? Fabrickator (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See the New York Post’s and CGTN's entries at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, they are in fact questionable sources. We don’t evaluate “very strong evidence” ourselves at all in our coverage of the topic, again that would be WP:OR and beyond our mandate. WP:DUEWEIGHT might also be of use to you, if theres no coverage outside of the NYP article its almost certainly not going to be included on their wikipedia page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  in fact, there wasn't a challenge to the material on due weight grounds. The prose itself had not been removed by the edits, it was purely the citation supporting the quote that had been removed. Also, due weight is a discussion matter, it's not that we default to not including something if there's a balance question: balance by definition means it might or might not be included, and the default should be the status quo ante, as indeed is the default in many instances on Wikipedia. I don't think there was anything wrong in my restoring that cite for a piece of material that had long been included in the article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I guess in that case I will challenge it on due weight grounds myself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fair enough, although I would have do disagree that it's a false balance. The prose in question is a single line, entirely attributed to the company with no suggestion that it's a view endorsed by Wikipedia and seems in keeping with a general right of reply which one would accord to any organisation accused in that way. Obviously we've established on WP that CGTN are generally unreliable, and as such most likely Ofcom were right to shut them down, but I don't think it's incorrect to include that one quote.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn’t aware that a right of reply was part of wikipedia policy or guidelines, WP:FALSEBALANCE suggests otherwise as does the essay WP:MANDY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of CGTN as a primary source