Talk:Three warfares

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "three warfares" is a Chinese Communist Party doctrine which involves using public opinion (or media) warfare, psychological warfare and legal warfare?

Created/expanded by ArvindPalaskar (talk), DiplomatTesterMan (talk), Georgethedragonslayer (talk). Nominated by ArvindPalaskar (talk) at 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

• I formatted this nomination template and also moved the page to Three warfares, as it is not some official policy that needs capitalization. I notice in the article that you are occasionally capitalizing other kinds of "warfare" and suggest that you lowercase it. Additionally, the hook repeats the word "warfare" four times. Surely DiplomatTesterMan can help you write a better hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Let me try... DTM (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - The presentation seems to only present the views of non-Chinese parties such as Western military analysts and so lacks balance. Characterising China's use of the law and media as "warfare" seems tendentious. Compare, for example, soft power.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: We could use more Chinese input to this. For example, what is the literal meaning of the phrase (three kinds (of) war law?). Google suggests "three tactics" as a translation which seems to be better English. What is the current Chinese view and how does it fit into their overall geopolitical strategy? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted. DTM (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew The article is a warfare doctrine and strategy. There will be strong opposing views. You can't defend warfare strategies all the time.

Google suggests "three tactics". I don't think we are going by google's view since academics and nearly all articles I have come across use "warfare". I stumbled across this myself too and clarified the usage of warfare. Better English just doesn't work here. DTM (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That said, I will work on the points raised. DTM (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, you wrote Characterising China's use of the law and media as "warfare" seems tendentious.. Did you even read the article, even a bit? DTM (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I read the article and I have just taken another look. Let's start with the lead:

1. The lead gives the phrase in Simplified Chinese characters and pinyin but does not provide a literal translation. As this is the English language Wikipedia, our readership cannot be expect to read Chinese.
2. The lead also styles this as the 3Ws but I'm not sure that this is a standard abbreviation
3. The lead does not say what the three different components are
4. The lead references the amended Regulations on the Political Work of the People’s Liberation Army (2003) but doesn't provide much context. The PLA has lots of rules and regulations which are regularly revised.([1]) Why are we cherry-picking this particular detail from them and emphasising it? Is it still current?
5. The lead then gives the opinions of a couple of think-tanks. Are these impartial or do they represent the strategic interests of their respective nations -- Australia and USA?
6. When the lead concludes by saying that "is a strategic option that is underway all the time", this suggests a state of cold war in which China's statements are not to be taken at face value and in good faith, but as aggressive and devious. This seems to be an expression of Anti-Chinese sentiment.
7. If we read about psychological warfare, we find that most great powers do this sort of thing, going back centuries. Is the Chinese doctrine anything special or is it just standard military thinking? Is this not just the latest form of words expressing the idea that it's smart to dominate without fighting -- an idea that goes back to Sun Tsu?

Now this is just my take on the topic but, as a reviewer, I am supposed to challenge nominations with respect to core policy such as WP:NPOV. As the Chinese tend to react hotly to suggestions that they are bad people, we should be careful before we go splashing this onto the front page. As Wikipedia is banned in China, I don't suppose that we're going to get much help from inside the country but perhaps some editor such as User:Deryck Chan can help?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks Andrew and I've delved into this and checked the sources. Here's what I understand about this topic:

1. Basically, this "three warfares" strategy first came into public discourse via international observers' testimonies. Almost all the Chinese-language articles I can find are responses to international publications about this strategy. (e.g. [2][3][4][5] - note, some of these are banned from being used in Wikipedia article citations)
2. These Chinese-language reports parroted the international media reports rather matter-of-factly, without challenging the content. Notably even Chinese state media Huanqiu parroted without much original commentary. This, and the strength of international sources, give credence to the verity of the "three warfares" strategy's details.
3. "Three warfares" is the English term used by the vast majority of sources cited by this article. There is no reason to change that.
4. I don't see any sources using the "3W's" abbreviation. @DiplomatTesterMan: Please provide a source.
5. I guess one could say "三种战法" is better translated "three strategies" than "three warfares", but I don't feel strongly about this.
6. With all these in mind, I guess we could caveat both the DYK hook and the lead section of the article with "According to international observers, Three Warfares is...". But again I don't feel strongly about this.
7. Concerning possible Chinese establishment backlash if this goes onto Main Page, I really wouldn't worry about it. It seems that this topic first emerged into public view through international media a decade ago. As Andrew said, Wikipedia is banned in China. And each hook only gets 8 hours on Main Page. I seriously doubt that Chinese censors will even care, but - disclaimer - I don't claim any responsibility if DiplomatTesterMan gets banned by China as a result of getting this article onto Main Page.

--Deryck C. 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew and Deryck, thank you both for the above points which I am seeing only now; I will make changes to the article accordingly.

Thank you for the light hearted humour of the disclaimer and the seriously improbable chance of all this leading to a ban. DTM (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article is about a policy/doctrine announced by the CCP's subsidiary organization. See [6][7] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the points raised by Andrew

1. Done. English translation provided.
2. Done. 3W's removed.
3. Done. 3 components added to the lead.
4. to do
5. Done. Moved to other section, location of source mentioned inline; or integrated
6. This line has been shifted to a section titled "commentary"
7. to do; but Sun Tsu is mentioned in the article

Addressing the points raised by Deryck

1. No changes in article needed
2. No changes in article needed
3. No changes in article needed
4. Done. 3W's no longer used in article.
5. Done. "three strategies" added to lead.
6. to do
7. No changes in article needed

DTM (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• @DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for responding to my comments! I'm not sure what sources 3 and 4 are for? It seems that you're trying to justify the "three tactics" translation but the sources are in Chinese. Also it's been a week since this comment, are you still working on the DYK nomination? Deryck C. 00:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Andrew, Deryck, thanks for pointing out 3 & 4. I won't be able to fix all the errors in this article within the stipulated DYK nom timeframe, though I will continue to make improvements slowly over a period of time irrespective of this DYK nom. I myself had shyed away from nominating this as a DYK nom so soon because I knew it would take some time to shape this article. I don't mind if this DYK nom is closed. If the others listed, and the nominator, ArvindPalaskar, want to carry on with it, please do so. Cheers. DTM (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• @DiplomatTesterMan: Thanks for the updates. A DYK nomination can remain open for months and so there's plenty of time available, if needed. I'll take another look through the article and see if it's nearly ready now. Perfection is not required – that's a different department! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: From my point of view the article and the hook are both good enough for DYK. The fact that Chinese state media also give same details about the Three Warfares rather matter-of-factly has convinced me that the current presentation of the article complies with NPOV. In my opinion the remaining suggestions are optional for DYK, but you're the reviewer so it's your call. Deryck C. 16:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've made some more changes, some as per suggestions above.
• The initial point made by Yoninah, Surely DiplomatTesterMan can help you write a better hook, still stands. Though if Andrew thinks the current hook is fine, and no one can come up with a better hook...Deryck... then I guess this is coming closer to being given that green tick. Thanks for being so considerate everyone with the timelines.DTM (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think an alternate hook is going to emmerge. alt0 is passable? DTM (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well, the hook is not going to pass with four repetitions of the word "warfare". Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems like a lost cause. SL93 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Nominator has responded on my talk page and is proposing this new alt:
• ALT1: ... that "three warfares" is a Chinese Communist Party doctrine which involves using public opinion (or media), psychology, and legal means for warfare? Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reviewer needed to check ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I'm not sure how accurate it would be to say it's a CCP doctrine, rather one that the CCP has approved of, per the article text. The sources don't seem any more certain. Is there a way to rework the hook again? Kingsif (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• The nominator proposed the ALT1 hook on my talk page. I have posted on his talk page to reply here with a new hook ASAP or we're closing this as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Nominator hasn't edited since the 25th and didn't respond to a talk page message. If they are able to return, the nomination may continue, but due to a lack of a response, the nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Query

ArvindPalaskar, you wrote in the dyk nom template >>> The article is about a policy/doctrine announced by the CCP's subsidiary organization. Which organization are you talking about? DTM (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)