I don’t really see how that example is supposed to be that egregious?

“A colony of the UK” vs “under the ruling of a colonial government” are pretty similar.

Given that the basis of the UK’s colonization of Hong Kong was based on a treaty granting it control over the territory for 150 years, after which it was returned to China. The Chinese portrayal seems apt, given that it was a temporary, though long, occupation.

> The CCP recently declared that Hong Kong was never a colony of the UK, but "under ruling of a colonial government"

Is this supposed to be a difference of fact or a difference of perspective? Colonies are ruled by colonial governments.

edit: e.g. if I kidnap a woman and force her to marry me, her family may not want to refer to her as my ex-wife after they get her back.

> E.g. The CCP recently declared that Hong Kong was never a colony of the UK, but "under ruling of a colonial government" [1]

I don’t really understand the strenuous objection to this. This seems less like “1984-style rewriting of history” and more like completely routine nationalism that you see all around the world.

"You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" applies.

The thing is, in cz.WP they could do that if they want.

> Are we aware that in China, people mostly support Russia's invasion to Ukraine because of state level propaganda?

I cannot say that because of state propaganda I became aware of that. But I sense that you are low key shilling, no offence, so yeah

Yeah this problem affects all countries to varying degrees. Usually not as bad as the CCP. Most of the west have no opinion or don’t support Yemen against the oppressive Saudis who are backed by the US and more of the west. Same issues: propaganda/how News and media is handled.

To be clear: The Russian Govt invasion of Ukraine is awful. They are completely in the wrong. Putin needs to go and another strong man duplicate must not replace him. Don’t get me started on how bad the CCP is!

What always does my head in here is Wikipedia's claim or requirement to present a "Neutral Point of View".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

Theoretically, this would mean "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The way that Wikipedia justifies not presenting, say, Russian or Chinese views on global politics as prominently as Western views is that Russian and Chinese sources are simply not "reliable".

But of course, that merely begs the question.

In a way, it would be interesting to read a publication that really does present all the competing narratives, if only to learn what people elsewhere are told by their media.

The downside is that it would contain not just different viewpoints but also an even greater number of outright lies, as one would actively have to abandon any attempt to present the truth to the best of one's ability. :/

It would contain a greater number of everything if you resolve to put everyone's perspective in. Would it contain a greater proportion of lies? Maybe - there are a lot more lies about a thing than truths about a thing. And if there's a consensus truth against a 0.005% lie, that sums as 1 truth and 1 lie. But:

1) what it would completely eliminate, though, is lies that are presented with no opposing perspective. And, along with that...

2) it would have more truths. If you're the victim of a lying culture/government, there would likely be truth in one or more of the opposing perspectives, where normally there would be silence.

That is nicely put and actually a good way of looking at it. Thanks.