Talk:Chen Weihua

Opening Sentence

I noticed that CPCEnjoyer, Sunderland Renaissance, and Amigao appear to be in a dispute regarding the description of who owns the China Daily. I'd like to bring this up on the talk page (in the spirit of WP:BRD) and to add my thoughts. When I originally wrote the page, I used the official name of the "Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party". I believe that it was a mistake to do so; the WP:COMMONNAME of the agency (as Normchou has noted elsewhere) is the "Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party" and it is the name that is commonly used both in reliable sources and elsewhere on Wikipedia (including on the page of China Daily itself). I'm bringing this up here to open discussion regarding whether we should bring this to be in line with other places on Wikipedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that "Propaganda Department" is the more appropriate name. It would also be a good idea to look for any article where a revision is overdue. Normchou ^💬 04:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Mikehawk10: Since the consensus on all the other pages and among reliable sources seems to be to use "propaganda" rather than "publicity", that's what this article should use as well.--DaysonZhang (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Birth Year

I'm not able to find a source regarding Chen's birth year and month, even though we have it in the article. Is anybody able to find a source to verify it? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Added from ' "陈卫华事迹材料". 中国记协网.' Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Contested content

@Vanished user 417087: why did you remove that paragraph? If there's a minor quibble with the wording wouldn't that be better solved by a small edit to the text itself? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement "Chen Weihua once retweeted a tweet denying the Bucha masscare, but he later deleted it. And, oh, yeah, he retweets stuff that aren't necessarily indicative of his own views" is not noteworthy at all. In fact, the choice to mention this one specific retweet is rather dishonest. Vanished user 417087 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If he retweets stuff that aren't necessarily indicative of his own views we should say that in the article, what is the source for this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look at his account, he often just retweets stuff that could be interesting. A few days ago, he retweeted something about Donald Trump having a huge lead in polling for the Republican primaries. Should we then conclude that Chen is a Trump supporter or, like, a polling analyst who is confirming the veracity of those numbers? Of course not. He just thinks that news could mean something.

I obviously don't have a source that says "Chen often retweets things that aren't necessarily indicative of his views" because that would be a silly thing to publish. However, the fact that so many people write "RT ≠ endorsement" demonstrates that not wanting people to divine so much from an RT is not uncommon. We should then not assume that every single retweet (especially from someone who retweets as often as Chen does) perfectly represents their own personal views (especially since the RT is not even on his page anymore).

And I suppose it is worth mentioning that the person who wanted to include this in the article has been temporarily banned multiple times for being too anti-China here, a website known to have an anti-China slant. Surely, there is some selection bias going on. Vanished user 417087 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You were just talking about dishonesty and yet here you are making statements about living people without sources to back them up. You can't do that, WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Wikipedia is known to have an anti-China slant? Is that a racist joke or do you have a source to back up that statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to troll, why even have this conversation?

A NYT article saying that he once retweeted a viral tweet (note that the NYT doesn't even provide an archived link or anything to this tweet) is not enough to write "Chen Weihua repeated claims that...". Furthermore, relevance? Wikipedia already has a problem with irrelevant information on wiki pages. What's worse is when this irrelevant information is handpicked by users who have been banned for their anti-China bias. Surely, you see the problem there.

I could link you articles about Wikipedia's bias against China, but I don't see the point there. That was just to emphasize that it isn't easy to be temp banned for being too anti-China here.Vanished user 417087 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes it irrelevant? Generally when someone is mentioned by a top tier paper of record like the NYT the mention is due on their page. Please link the articles, I read a half dozen academic articles on wikipedia a week and I'm always looking for more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it may be an issue with Wikipedia itself that so many of the sources come from the US and UK. Of course, I don't expect to fix that problem now (or ever).

Chen Weihua is less than a footnote on this NYT article. The NYT, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and other prestigious Western journals have a number of articles where they actually mention a claim made by Chen himself (rather than a deleted retweet) (just google search: site:[name.domain] "Chen Weihua") . Really only of those is mentioned here, so I sort of doubt your justification for this specific one about Bucha being so relevant. To make it appear as though that was a significant moment in his career is intentionally misleading.

As for the articles, I have only been able to link one here. The second article which I wanted to link actually is about the very user who added the Bucha section to this page, but the Chollima Report is black-listed here. I suggest you read it though

Global Times Vanished user 417087 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to use footnotes. We can list other claims made by Chen himself, what do you have in mind? Chollima Report and Global Times are low quality non-academic sources, do you have anything from reliable sources or even non-reliable academic ones? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The question of possible bias in Wikipedia as a whole is not relevant to this question.

As for Chen Weihua's Wikipedia page, I think it is sufficient as is, so there aren't any claims that I would like to add. Given how little this retweet has been reported on, it wouldn't be appropriate to put it in the "career" section.

Perhaps it could be put in some sort of "Views" section, but it is just my personal feeling that it would be strange to have that for this article. Vanished user 417087 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have gotten massively reported on, 99.99% of tweets get no coverage at all... This one got into a global paper of record. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, except that Chen Weihua has tweeted or retweeted over 65 thousand times. That does not mean Wikipedia needs to mention 65 of his tweets.

If you truly believe that Chen is so notable as to merit a sort of "Political views" section, I guess you can go ahead. However, as I have already said, there are many other quotes/tweets/etc of his that have gotten larger coverage by Wikipedia-loved Western journals. To include this one and not those is a symptom of what we both know exists on this site (especially when considering who it was added by). Vanished user 417087 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

He appears notable enough for a stand alone page. If his political views are reported on by reliable sources then coverage of them here is likely due. I'm not asking for Western journals, I'm asking for any journal at all (even unreliable ones). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vanished user 417087:, as I noted on your talk page, if you want to edit Wikipedia you need to have your account unvanished to do so.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Adakiko This has been discussed before. When I made the edit, there were now two editors in favour, one against. Can you justify how this inclusion meets WP:BALASP, beyond a vague reference to "everything that is appears in the NYT gives appropriate weight for any BLP, WP:PRIMARYNEWS be damned"? Have any reliable sources commented on Chen's comments any time outside of the week that this transpired? Do you think this passing reference in a news article merits constituting 10% of our coverage of his career? 49.185.124.85 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Amigao Please engage here with why you think this content, and the content below should be included. 183.177.122.38 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Amigao, what do you need from me to engage this matter? I don't want to just take it back out and then be re-reverted. Are you open to any dispute resolution mechanisms? 103.87.254.62 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Bitch tweet

I removed the tweet template as it is entirely reproducing content already in the body. "Chen initially responded with a single-word tweet stating "Bitch"" Nothing more is illustrated by adding a fake tweet box with the same content. It is clearly included because someone thought it was funny. 49.185.124.85 (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"Something someone thought is funny" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this tweet is notable enough (im not taking a stance either way here), a screenshot would suffice. guninvalid (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

""Something someone thought is funny" is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia." Yes, I agree.

A screenshot would be less ridiculous, but would still be redundant, and I don't think it would meet the non-free content criteria, particularly point 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It is a screenshot of text. There is no significant benefit if the entire contents of the tweet are being reproduced in prose. 183.177.122.38 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that a screenshot would probably make more sense here. - Amigao (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Non-RFC RFC on retweet paragraph

This conversation as it is currently is going nowhere fast and has very much devolved into ad hominem. So I am going to start a brief discussion to seek consensus on this. Should Chen's retweet denying a Bucha massacre be included in this article? guninvalid (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Better source needed. On a pure WP:RS basis, this is a non-WP:SIGCOV mention of his retweet. It's not the focus of the article and it's only mentioned once by NYT when discussing a broader topic. Does not meet standard for inclusion without a better source. guninvalid (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What exactly would qualify in your opinion as a "better source" given that consensus has long deemed WP:NYT as a WP:GREL source? - Amigao (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't the publisher; the problem is the article. The article barely mentions Chen and only in passing, which does not qualify for WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG. For a BLP like this, I would rather avoid putting something like this when it's only attributed to one paragraph of a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL story that isn't about Chen anyway. guninvalid (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood WP:NOTABILITY, which is a guideline about notable topics and not about a particular cited source within an article. Typically, WP:BLPs require WP:RS to be cited, of which WP:NYT clearly is. A WP:BLP does not require a cited WP:RS to be exclusively about the person in question. - Amigao (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:N applies to topics within articles just as much as it does to articles about the subject. And WP:RS requires coverage to be in-depth, which the NYT article isn't. guninvalid (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You also might want to re-read WP:RS as there is nowhere in that guideline that "requires coverage to be in-depth." - Amigao (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Amigao is correct that there is no requirement that a source must go in depth before any information from it can go into an article. Relevant to "WP:N applies to topics within articles just as much as it does to articles about the subject." is Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. 103.87.254.62 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Better source needed. Thanks guninvalid for this. Articles, and particularly BLPs, should be written from sources giving an overview of a subject. This allows events and views to be viewed in retrospect and for their significance to a subject overall to be established. This source does not do this. It is not discussing Chen, his tweet is merely used as an example of that week's geopolitical movements. As I said above, that makes it inappropriate for this info to make up 10% of Wikipedia's coverage of his career. 103.87.254.62 (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)