Talk:New Federal State of China

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because this page is backed up by unassailable facts. The people mentioned in this article can vouch the veracity of this page's information. The video files and website links can all attest that this page is not based on hoax. The person who marked this page as hoax should be investigated for malicious vandalism of historical facts. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (My page has reputable independent sources, namely, Taiwan New which is established in 1949, Asia Power Watch launched in 2019 by Nicolas Michelon who is a 20-year veteran of Asia-Pacific business, finance and economic research, NTD News which is based in New York with correspondents in over 70 cities worldwide, Mr. Stephen Kevin Bannon's own Youtube Channel, etc.) --Tigmo9098 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this a hoax article?

A flag, an anthem and a ceremony make a state? The article does not mention in the lead paragraph what "The New Federal State of China" consists of.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph provides information on what "The New Federal State of China" consists of. More information on this is found in other sections of the article. One just have to look at the sources to find that this article is not based on hoax. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No. The New Federal State of China has been covered by mainstream media. Related articles can be easily found by Google search. --Stella20200604 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Definetly not a hoax. It is present in many public news sites. --Godmodeon on11 (talk) 08:36, 09 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FederalStateOfChinaFlag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Guo Wengui

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There were four early merge votes and four opposes, and as it is now very stale and has been considerably expanded since the merge was proposed, I think it's time to close. The status of the organisation itself may be problematic, but it is well covered in the media. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

---

This article is three short paragraphs and is unlikely to grow beyond that. It's about a "government in exile" (not a micronation) founded a couple of months ago by two people whose legal status is very problematic. Those three paragraphs fit nicely into Guo's bio page -- the section already exists. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Merge – <Agreed, for the reasons stated above.> ChiaLynn (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As you say, there are two prominent people behind it, one of whom is not Guo Wengui but Steve Bannon (i.e., someone of roughly equal prominence). It's pretty obvious as a result of that the Guo Wengui is not an appropriate merger target here because it is not about Guo Wengui, but about an organisation that Guo is one of two prominent supporters of. The statement that it is "unlikely to grow beyond" its current length has no basis - it is under investigation by the FBI so you would expect more to come out, and its supporters are likely to try to create more publicity so you can reasonably expect more demonstrations - indeed whilst this discussion has been ongoing it has been discussed in relation to Bannon's arrest. The paragraphs do not fit into his bio page because they are not about Guo per se, nor really about Bannon, but about an organisation that they both are involved in. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - This seems to be an independently notable subject. It continues to get media coverage. [1][2] - MrX 🖋 15:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I dont agree with this, because this is a proposed government, and thus cannot be merged with a personal profile. If this government proves to be stable and replaces the CCP when it collapses, there will be no more need to recreate the page Godmodeon on11 (talk) 15:37, 09 September 2020 (UTC)— Godmodeon on11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge. I don't often disagree with MrX, and sadly he's left the project, but I can't see anything but publicity about a statement. Godmodeon I have no idea why you think that there is any government - perhaps you could point to reliable sources discussing how it is constituted, who the members of the government are and there official roles/titles, if it has or has plans for a replacement constitution, if it has diplomatic ties with any countries, all the things you'd expect from a Government in exile. I still only see a publicity stunt. @FOARP: I see no sources saying that the FBI is investigating some government in exile, only that the FBI is investigating Guo, see this.[3] Doug Weller talk 09:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC) @Godmodeon on11: Doug Weller talk 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Merge According to the sources here, there were some announcements and then.... What else? Is there any evidence that this is an organization that has done any of the things that are noted the actions that governments-in-exile are capable of in our own article on the subject? Have they taken any other actions that resemble those of actual governments-in-exile (appointing ministers, establishing lobbying offices, setting up a defined base of operations, etc.)? As best as the sources here present, the organization seems to consist of Steve Bannon and his friends and the base of operations is Guo Wengui's yacht. Is there any evidence that this is an actual organization at all? I see none. We should always follow the sources and even the most generous of sources here to not substantiate this as a separate thing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Merge Not notable except as an extension of Guo Wengui's activities, not a serious goverment in exile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note: This organisation has recently been in the news. Guo Wengui is only mentioned briefly in the coverage and is given equal prominence with Steve Bannon. I maintain that this is a bad merge. See:

1) "Anti-Beijing group with links to Steve Bannon spreading COVID-19 misinformation in Australia" (ABC news, 9 Oct 2020) - Steve Bannon is mentioned in the headline, not Guo Wengui, and the text of the article is almost all about the organisation, Guo is only mentioned briefly.

2) "The hardy few Trump fans outside Walter Reed get reward as first patient drives by" (4 Oct 2020) - Includes three paragraphs of coverage about the the organisation with Guo Wengui only mentioned in passing alongside Steve Bannon.

The above Merge !votes need to be reconsidered in the light of additional coverage that has happened since they were made. There is no reason to merge to Guo Wengui when Steve Bannon is equally prominent in the organisation, and when the organisation continues to be active in various notable activities (support for Trump, COVID denialism etc.) that are not directly connected to Guo and would look out of place in an article about him. Merging this article into the Guo Wengui article would also make that article WP:TOOBIG (i.e., more than 50kb). FOARP (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@FOARP: I'm afraid I'm not convinced. This does answer my question of: "...there were some announcements and then.... What else?" That said, the "what else?" appears to be spread health misinfomation and get 5 people to stand outside Trump's hospital. These are emphatically not "any of the things that are noted as the actions that governments-in-exile are capable of" I earlier mentioned. Also, the ABC article makes Guo's connection very explicit and even quotes an expert stating: "Mr Guo's movement is a 'vanity project' with little chance of changing politics in China." This is a bit contrary to "...Guo is only mentioned briefly." Instead of weakening the case for merger, that is a reliable, independent source strengthening the case for merger. The only change that this new coverage brings is that one of the points added to the merger may need to be something like: "By October, 2020, the group's activities included spreading false information about Covid-19 and its origin." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: - It genuinely shouldn't matter whether this organisation is or is not a government in exile - this is how it presents itself but the articles equally describe it as a political movement. I'm not sure why you're limiting the evidence of notability to that point - spreading of hoax information reported in national media clearly is evidence of notability regardless of whether it is something that a government-in-exile does or not. Again I also don't understand why you're focusing on Guo when the article gives Bannon equal billing (rather suggesting that this organisation is not simply an extension of Guo Wengui personally) - it is the links to Bannon that are included in the headline and the section you're referring to is headed "Ties to Guo Wengui and Steve Bannon". If it is equally linked to Bannon then why is the article about Guo an appropriate merge? Finally the article clearly describes hoax information being spread by the group and not by Guo personally and it is not clear that this is done under his instructions - so why is the article about Guo the appropriate merge? FOARP (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@FOARP:, if the question was: "Is this group notable?" then you are correct, the type of activities covered would not matter. The question, however, is "Is this group described by reliable sources as an independent entity?" The analysis of the second question inevitably leads to consider what the group claims to be and what the sources describe it to be. Both the sources previously under consideration state that this is not what it claims to be in any meaningful way and that it is a vanity project of Guo that Bannon has glommed onto for reasons of his own. This is neither really in dispute nor is it the description of anything that is recognizable as an independent entity. To answer your specific questions, however:

• The ABC article does not equally link this group to Bannon and Guo in its text. See the above quote that explicitly identifies this as Guo's group as well as: "With many Twitter accounts plus Mr Guo's own media platforms regularly sharing anti-CCP and pro-Trump posts and videos, the movement has global reach." The "Ties to Guo Wengui and Steve Bannon" section you mention also makes it very clear that Gou is the organizer and Bannon is the hanger-on: "In a recent video, Mr Guo discussed the group's vision for Australia with a member of the local movement...Mr Guo claimed...that China has taken 100 per cent control of Australia...Mr Guo was a businessman in China until he fled in 2014 accused of bribery and other charges...In the media and on his many online channels, he has cast himself as an outspoken freedom fighter...His activities have attracted retaliation from the Chinese Government...It's alleged Mr Guo has various links with Mr Bannon...According to the Washington Post, Mr Guo has given Mr Bannon a consulting contract and announced him as chairman of a new social media company. And when Mr Bannon was arrested ... the arrest happened on Mr Guo's yacht." I apologize for the huge ellipses but are necessary because literally the entire section you claim places Bannon on equal footing to Guo is about how Guo recruited Bannon to help Guo's project.
• The article about Guo is the appropriate merger target because all the reliable sources we have make it clear that Guo organized it and Guo is the leader and Guo is the only beneficiary of its activities. "The unusual banners flown around New York City ...appear to be tied to an exiled Chinese billionaire who reportedly funds a fake news operation. ...a livestream with Guo Wengui and former White House adviser Steve Bannon,... featured a confusing string of demands which seemed to be related to Guo’s grievances with China’s communist government." (Fox Business) "'From today the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will no longer be the lawful government of China,' the billionaire, Guo Wengui, shouted into a livestream from a boat in New York Harbor, with Bannon by his side and the Statue of Liberty in the background." (New York Post) The new sources, as discussed above, do not change anything about that relationship.

I hope that answers your questions and shows why the new sources do not bring the merger or its most appropriate into target, but actually support both. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:I don't know how you could read those articles and conclude that "Guo organized it and Guo is the leader and Guo is the only beneficiary of its activities". Guo and Bannon (and apparently others - e.g., the footballer Hao) organised it. It doesn't have an official leader, though we might say Guo is an unofficial leader but it is common to have e.g., companies and their owners, or political groups and their leaders, featured in separate articles. That Microsoft was founded by Bill Gates, or operates for his benefit, or controlled by him, is not a reason to merge the article on Microsoft into his personal article, because Microsoft is a separate entity distinct from him. In another example, that Osama Bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda, funded it and lead it, does not mean that we should just merge Al Qaeda into Osama Bin Laden. Finally the articles make very clear that Guo is not the only beneficiary of its activities, as they appear to benefit at least Trump and Bannon. It is also very obvious that the primary topic of the ABC article and much other coverage here is not Guo but the organisation - just a glance at the titles is sufficient to see that: e.g. "Anti-Beijing group with links to Steve Bannon spreading COVID-19 misinformation in Australia", "What is the new federal state of China?", "Mysterious Federal State of New China banners seen on planes over NYC", . "Chinese separatists backed by Steve Bannon push new coalition in Australia" etc. - they're primarily about the organisation, not Guo, and Bannon is highlighted as much as Guo. Cherry-picking references to Guo from articles about the activities of the group doesn't change the group being their primary topic.

Finally, if this is merged into the article on Guo it becomes WP:TOOBIG and probably the content would be deleted or forked back out in large part as it is not related to Guo per se and discussing it in his article is WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note An IP user added an "end date" and a short paragraph claiming the ersatz "Federal State" was dissolved via video conference Oct. 20, 2020. I removed it as an unsourced BLP statement that I was not able to verify. If true, however, it makes the merger even more appropriate. Especially if the video conference was created by Guo. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously unconfirmed rumours prove nothing. Merging is still a bad idea since this is no more simply “an extension of Guo Wengui” than his businesses necessarily are - or Microsoft is an extension of Bill Gates. Merging it images even less sense given the steady drum beat of stories about the group in news around the globe trying to explain what/who these whackos are and what they are doing, reports in which Bannon typically get higher billing than Guo. Finally, the point that this will make the Guo article too long hasn’t been addressed. FOARP (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet, and yet: Even the newest article you added states: The group promotes its messages through popular social media sites as well as an online ecosystem of proprietary websites and video streaming platforms like G News and GTV named after Guo.[emphasis added It goes on: Benson Gao [target of the Vancouver protests] had criticized the “nonsense spouted by Guo Wengui.” ...The Star viewed a series of videos of a man listing names of people including Benson Gao and telling his supporters that “they all deserve to die.” The man in the video looked and sounded like Guo Wengui, You keep using these headlines as sources for the idea that Bannon and Guo are somehow co-equal when the actual body text of the sources you yourself post make it clear that the exact opposite is true. The "New Federal State" is a creation of Guo to which Bannon has attached himself. That American and Canadian media use Bannon's name in headlines is entirely unremarkable because Bannon is a well-known figure in these countries and Guo is not. Headlines are not reliable sources. . Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet we have an article on GTV Media Group and it would make no sense to merge that into the Guo Wengui article because it is clearly a separate topic. It's not just North American media that highlights Bannon's involvement - UK and Australian media does the same. I really think you're just making the assumption that everything someone owns/is involved in should be in a single article with that person. And still, the issue of making the Guo Wengui article too long hasn't been addressed. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems to be growing coverage, and Bannon is also involved. There's plenty to write about that is better handled in a separate article. p.s. Belated note - sorry, forgot to sign my comment yesterday. This was me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Note - This is clearly a stale merger discussion as the article has developed significantly since it was started on 20 August 2020 (it is now more than three times as big as it was then - 4,263 bytes then versus 13,419 bytes now) or even since the last merge !vote was cast (more than twice as long). Merging the content of this article into Guo Wengui would result in an article of more than 60kb (i.e.., an article that is too big per the guideline). The subject clearly has stand-alone notability and is equally as related to Steve Bannon as to Guo Wengui. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with FOARP. Is anyone still against this article standing alone, or can we close the discussion? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My recent changes

I haven't dug really deeply into this topic, such as searching the murky depths of the G Media, but have been trying to put together what info I could find from secondary sources. I thought that it seems like a bit of a stretch to call them a government-in-exile, at least at this point, so I changed the infobox from Country to Organisation. I am hoping that someone with a bit more interest, determination and grit will dive deeper and correct any incorrect assumptions. Of course it could all fizzle, but with that amount of money behind it I suspect that it will be around for a while yet at least. My interest is superficial and waning fast! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FOARP, I changed the wording to "idea" after quite a close reading of a couple of sources. The Himalaya bit is the actual organisation behind the idea, or proposal, that there should be a federation of states. There does not appear to be an administrative body set up to act as a government in exile or anything like that, as far as I have seen so far. As I said above, I haven't tried to read their media (apart from one article the other day, which was obviously a poor translation from a Chinese source), which may help to elucidate the structure, but cannot be used as a source. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent change, Neutrality, and My $0.02

I recently edited this article to try to address what are obvious neutrality issues. This page was (and still is) full of talk about "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" talk. That terminology is presumptuous and inflammatory at best, and false ipso facto at worse. What is true or false must not be called such until no reasonable person could make a sensible argument in any wise against its veracity or falsity. What is a conspiracy theory must not be so termed until such proposition can be shown to be 1) theoretical/hypothetical and 2) obviously dependent on a nefarious conspiracy, be it overt or covert, for its existence.

We need to be -very- careful in calling things true/false, information or dis/misinformation, or conspiracies. This world is confrontational today, and such epithets tend to inflame emotions without getting at the truth. Some of these insinuations remain in the article. I'll leave it to the community to deal with them. However, since they are still there, I added a pov-neutrality flag as a warning to those unfamiliar with the technical aspects of internal and geopolitical Chinese affairs.

The page also spends a rather inordinate amount of time swiping at principals of the organization. Reputations of a group's founders, especially when colored with charges of improper conduct which are either not illegal in themselves, or for which someone has not been convicted, constitute improper innuendo, especially when lingered upon unnecessarily.

One of my changes included removing several (sic) notations as unnecessary and perplexing. CPC and CCP are both common abbreviations for the Communist Party of China, as KWP and WPK as references to the Korean Workers' (Communist) Party in North Korea are synonymous.

I understand and accept as self-evident that the atmosphere at Wikipedia is left-tilting. Leftist, really. However, let's all strive together to adhere to every element of neutrality & NPOV in our contributions, just as our MoS, Guidelines, and Policies require of us. Hey, that sounds like an exhortation from a KWP meeting ;) Anyhow, yes, neutrality is a must. Though I am right of most here, I adhere to neutrality. I, and all of us, who want to editorialize should go to a proper social media forum for that (and I do). My aim in editing is never to inject opinion... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Himalaya Mayflower" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Himalaya Mayflower and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28#Himalaya Mayflower until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)