DOSEN PROFIL LENGKAP

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chinese RSS Channels

There are a lots of chinese news sources, but those doesn't put their rss channels icon to the main page. Xinhua - yes, Business China - Business - yes, Economic Observer: Economic - yes, People's Daily Online: Business - yes, CNTV: World - yes.

The Shanghai RSS channel is not xml format. The other chinese sources should put an RSS icon, to thier Main page. Strange that the Sina english (and Global Times) don't have RSS channel, one of the best chinese news web page they write.

Missing RSS

~~http://www.prnasia.com~~
~~Xinjiang http://www.truexinjiang.com~~
~~http://en.kunming.cn~~
~~China.org http://www.china.org.cn~~
~~PLA - http://english.pladaily.com.cn~~
~~http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/~~
~~Global Times globaltimes.cn~~
~~http://english.enorth.com.cn~~
~~Sina english - http://english.sina.com/~~
~~http://en.ce.cn~~
~~http://www.livemint.com~~
~~http://www.asianage.com~~
~~http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english~~
~~News center - http://news.china.com.cn~~

~~Hello somebody ?! Can you make RSS channels to these chinese pages? THX. --Chinese RSS Channels (talk)~~ 06:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dated article

Looks like the article hasn't been updated in awhile. Most sources come from right after the publication launched. Does anyone have some good sources to show its performance and reception in the last year or so? —Zujine|talk 17:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Global Times. 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:

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) 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not representative of the Chinese government's position

The article in its current state describes the Global Times as a publication that focuses "on international issues from the Chinese government's perspective". This is not quite true: while the Global Times also undergoes Chinese state censorship, most reliable sources consider the Global Times to be a sensational tabloid that publishes inflammatory editorials that tend to be more aggressive than the official party line. Frequently, content in the Global Times is misinterpreted as the "voice of China" in Western publications, when the Global Times is not representative of the Chinese government's position.

Here are some sources, taken from WP:RSN § Chinese news sources:

Quotes about the Global Times from reliable sources

As tensions rise on the Korean Peninsula, the world’s eyes are on China’s response. And "China" has given plenty of answers. "China Offers to Defend Kim Jong-un If He Gives Up His Nuclear Weapons," read one National Interest headline. "China Warns North Korea Not to ‘Cross Point of No Return’ With Nuclear Test," claimed Breitbart (RSP entry).
The problem is, it wasn't the Chinese government issuing these statements; it was a market-driven tabloid that strives for exactly this sort of attention.
[...]
By its own admission, the paper’s actual relationship with China’s levers of power is tangential at best. And while the Global Times and the Chinese government have interests that overlap, they aren’t nearly identical. Several current and former editors at the paper say business incentives drive it to be intentionally provocative whenever possible. Provocations that involve straying from the official line of the Chinese government are welcome, so long as they don’t entirely sever the illusion of a tight connection between it and the newspaper.

— "China's Angriest Newspaper Doesn’t Speak for China", Foreign Policy

Few countries have invested more man-hours in suppressing awkward facts than China. Internet censors employ more foot-soldiers than some armies. Propaganda officials are so strict that, lest instructions faxed to newsrooms leak, they issue some orders to squelch stories by telephone, to be recorded by hand.
Yet the rules do not bind all equally. The Global Times is a jingoistic tabloid that tackles topics shunned by rivals, even though it is a subsidiary of the Communist Party mouthpiece, the important-but-turgid People's Daily.
[...]
It is not fashionable in China to take the Global Times seriously. Mention it at dinner with Chinese intellectuals and fireworks follow. They deplore its sabre-rattling towards Taiwan and Japan, and its deep reservoirs of grievance (this week the paper peddled a largely confected tale accusing Swedish police of brutalising some rowdy Chinese tourists).

— "China's Global Times plays a peculiar role", The Economist (RSP entry)

China's most belligerent tabloid, the Global Times, is certainly a one-of-a-kind publication. The Chinese- and English-language news outlet is published by the ruling Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) paramount mouthpiece, the People's Daily, but it goes much further than China’s typically stodgy state news. The Global Times is best known for its hawkish, insulting editorials—aggressive attacks that get it noticed, and quoted, by foreign media around the world as the "voice" of Beijing, even as the party's official statements are more circumspect.

— "Inside the Global Times, China’s hawkish, belligerent state tabloid", Quartz

The tabloid that Hu edits is known for its nationalistic coverage and bellicose opinions, which are frequently quoted by Western media. Like all state media outlets in China, it operates within a heavily censored environment that is tightly controlled by Communist authorities. Published in both Chinese and English, the Global Times boasts a daily circulation of two million copies, and every month its website attracts around 30 million unique visitors.
Where other state media outlets adopt a more measured tone, Hu's paper takes a combative approach to covering international issues by calling out perceived threats and slights to China from across the world.

— "The man taking on Hong Kong from deep inside China's propaganda machine", CNN (RSP entry)

From the preceding discussion of Huanqiu Shibao and Global Times, we can see that the two newspapers operate within the broad boundaries of the Party-state's propaganda strategy. The domestic edition pursues commercial objectives and strives to differentiate itself from its official state-run parent publication, People's Daily. It also maintains propaganda discipline by upholding the Party-state's main melody on important issues that shape China's interaction with the rest of the world. The international edition seeks to bring a nonofficial, pluralist Chinese perspective to foreign audiences. When it comes to sensitive subjects such as human rights an democracy wheter there is conflict between the official Chinese discourse and Western discourses, however, Global Times seems more likely to reproduce the main melody than to provide a venue for the expression of a plurality of Chinese perspectives.

— The Globalization of Chinese Propaganda, p. 149, Springer

— Newslinger talk 05:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Pompeo betrays Christianity with lies” contribution

I would like some Wikipedia contributors to assist with the following two paragraphs. They have been removed from this article twice, but I feel that they are relevant. An argument could be made that both editors made bad faith reverts. Nonetheless, I understand how people act.

First, both paragraphs were removed because somebody said it was my opinion. Consequently, I added the first paragraph, “According to MSNBC's Morning Joe program on May 5, 2020”. Next, both paragraphs were removed because somebody said it was a “very poorly worded phrase”. You can see in the page’s history.

~~I am not here to fight anybody or win an argument. I want what is best for Wikipedia and for the people that read it. Here are the two paragraphs in question. Please give me your feedback.~~

1.

According to MSNBC's Morning Joe program on May 5, 2020, in response to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 2020 comments about the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) coming from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, the Global Times editorial board wrote an article highly critical of Pompeo’s Christian faith. The article called, “Pompeo betrays Christianity with lies” cites Christian doctrine and the Ten Commandments. [1]

2.

~~The United States is blocking Americans from accessing the Global Times website and other .cn websites like Xinhuanet.cn (Xinhua News Agency) with a traditional web browser.~~

~~Jasonagastrich (talk)~~ 07:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the reason why your edit was first reverted - it was not "because somebody said it was my opinion", but (to quote myself from [2]) because you had failed to cite independent sources indicating wider reception of this opinion [regarding 1.], and for the blocking [regarding 2.]. You still have not done so.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the blocking? The opinion was in the Global Times article. Did you read it? Furthermore, I cited the MSNBC program Morning Joe where they said the same thing. I think you are inserting your opinion. I would like to hear from somebody else that has not reverted my contribution.

~~Jasonagastrich (talk)~~ 12:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party title: CCP vs CPC

Is not the English title of a political party the English title it has registered itself? That would be Communist Party of China (CPC), Not CCP. CCP is inaccurate, isn't it 49.182.42.137 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tends to use common names in the English language. In July, the discussion at Talk:Chinese Communist Party § Requested move 9 July 2022 concluded that the common name of the subject is Chinese Communist Party. Should the consensus on this matter change in the future, and the article be moved to Communist Party of China, other Wikipedia articles will also be amended to reflect that change. — Newslinger talk 10:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]