Talk:Chinese espionage in California

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Copyvio detector returned 95% similarity, but that site had copied off of this article.

— 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 14:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern re: Synthesis

It is not clear to me after examining the Axios and Yahoo sources that there is sufficient evidence of this entity to warrant an article. Each of these sources mentions MSS intelligence operations in California, but does not attribute them to a California Bureau (Dorfman in Yahoo only writes of a "dedicated unit"). If the only other evidence from Joske's book is the quote provided in the reference, then it is likely far too much of a reach to conclude that a California Burea 加州局 is sufficiently documented in reliable sources to merit an article without a lot of WP:SYNTH. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have provided reliable secondary sources about this topic from journalists and academics who cover the Chinese national security apparatus in particular. Its a niche topic but these articles address this topic directly and in great detail, and there's plenty of examples of WP articles where a few great sources is sufficient basis to justify the existence of a relatively small article. All of the sources mentioned the existence of a unit. You have provided no example of my use of synthesis beyond the title nor shown why your brightline for what a "reach" is would be preferable, nor shown why Wikipedia requires we adopt your interpretation of what goes too far. Insofar as I discern, your objection is primarily with the article title.

To that end, from the context of the sources available and my experience slowly creating the articles for every known MSS unit, it was most sensical (and visually tidy) to presume to call it a bureau, as that's the basic term in MSS nomenclature for every operational unit (ex. Shanghai State Security Bureau, 11th Bureau, etc), however at the most extreme, the article could be renamed to something along the lines of "Chinese intelligence operations in California" or the more accurate but more unwieldly "Chinese MSS operations in California" and it would resolve most all of your concerns. You can understand I hope why "California Bureau" was my preferred title as it is likely correct and much shorter. I would prefer to avoid "Chinese intelligence" vocabulary in the title as it rescopes the article to include the intelligence operations of the Ministry of Public Security and United Front Work Department which are distinct and unwieldly topics in their own right. There is no cause or need to delete the article, and I think its unnecessary and unproductive to jump to the most extreme resolution. - Abovfold (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your experience in that topic area, but it is still original research and/or synthesis to create a novel name for this phenomenon that is unattested in any WP:RS. My objection is indeed with the title and name used. The problem is not merely stylistic, but substantive; presumably, Bureau/局 carries a specific organizational connotation, and by using it when our sources only indicates the existence of at best a "team", this article is imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source[s], per WP:SYNTH. We cannot unequivocally state that there is a 加州局 absent any actual secondary source saying so. To that end, if this article should be kept, "Chinese intelligence operations in California" or similar would be much more appropriate. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, however Joski's book does indicate the existence of a dedicated unit/office. Seems more a weight/notability concern than an OR one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd lean towards moving this page to "Chinese espionage in California", per Chinese espionage in the United States and just removing reference to a specific California Bureau. My thinking re: OR/SYNTH was because Abovfold justified the California Bureau name from the context of the sources available and my experience slowly creating the articles for every known MSS unit, but perhaps it's just a Verifiability issue. Regardless, there needs to be a lot more evidence that the California Bureau exists (as opposed to e.g. a section under the Second Bureau or what have you) to keep the article as is. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"California Bureau" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect California Bureau has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § California Bureau until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)