A fact from 2018 China–African Union espionage allegations appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
2018 China–African Union espionage allegations is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk) 21:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)reply
... that in 2018 the Chinese government was accused of spying on the African Union for five years? Source: "But in January 2018, French newspaper Le Monde Afrique dropped a bombshell. [...] The newspaper, citing multiple sources, said that for five years, between the hours of midnight and 0200, data from the AU’s servers was transferred more than 8,000km away - to servers in Shanghai."
[1]
ALT1 ... that after erecting the
African Union's headquarters, the Chinese government was accused in 2018 of spying on the building for five years? Same source and quote as other hook plus: "In 2006, Beijing pledged $200m to build the headquarters. Completed in 2012, everything was custom-built by the Chinese - including a state-of-the-art computer system." and "It was also reported that microphones and listening devices had been discovered in the walls and desks of the building, following a sweep for bugs."
Reviewed: None – this is my second DYK nomination and I am therefore exempt from the QPQ requirement.
Moved to mainspace by
Giraffer (
talk). Self-nominated at 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC).reply
I've replied on the article talk page, but I strongly object to this being characterized as fake news. The incident is covered in multiple reliable and independent sources (BBC News, Le Monde, Financial Times, Reuters), and I've tried to word the article in a manner which does not state China's guilt as fact, but covers how China is alleged to have been responsible for the espionage.
The linked source here explains how there are reasons why China may be guilty, and also reasons why they may not be. That is the point of describing these as allegations.
Regardless, saving this for April Fools is frivolous. Giraffer(
talk·
contribs) 11:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Giraffer: new enough, long enough, neutral, and plagiarism-free; there's an "unreliable source" tag that I agree needs to be addressed, but other than that, the sourcing for the background of the incident looks solid. After that, however, the reliability of the sources seems to get shakier. Also, I'm not sure if the April Fools' thing is an attempt at humour or something, but there's definitely solid reporting on the allegations. And that's not really what we use April Fools' day for (we couldn't let fake news sully our important lineup of obscure figures with well-known name fragments, in rem jurisdiction cases, and giant millipedes). The article doesn't actually say that the Chinese government was accused of spying, nor who did the accusing, so that'll need some work re: the hooks. Nominator is QPQ exempt, almost there!
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her) 10:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Theleekycauldron, I've fixed the unreliable source (removed it, since the next inline source covers the relevant material). Re the allegations, they originally came from the Le Monde Afrique article, and later were supported by comments from AU officials which indicated that surveillance had occurred. I'm not really sure how to make that clear in the article beyond what's already been written in the lead and Reactions section. For the DYK, maybe specifying in the hook that it was Le Monde? e.g. something like "... that an article published by Le Monde Afrique in 2018 accused the Chinese government of spying on the African Union for five years? Giraffer(
talk·
contribs) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Giraffer, could you point me to the sentence in the article as to who accuses the Chinese government of spying?
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her) 03:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Theleekycauldron, In January 2018, French newspaper Le Monde Afrique published a story detailing how the headquarters of the African Union were being spied on by the Chinese government. Perhaps counterintuitively, it's actually Le Monde who first accuse the Chinese government, and then there's a mixed reaction from the AU (denial vs. reluctant acceptance). I initially thought to title the page as a scandal rather than allegations, and in hindsight that may have been a better option. Giraffer(
talk·
contribs) 10:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Giraffer: Hmmmmm. Could we make it clearer that it's just the reporting of Le Monde, then, and not a hard fact? I'd also like to see the accusation placed in the timeline in the body of the article.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her) 12:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
CaribDigita, what? I have intentionally avoided making outright claims anywhere that China definitively hacked the AU. The article is about the allegations that this occurred.
If I was stating that China hacked the AU, sure, the article could be false. But I wrote about the scandal itself, attempting to avoid making concrete statements China's guilt. If you feel like I've failed in that regard, please make any changes you feel necessary. Giraffer(
talk·
contribs) 10:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
In other reports it was supposedly found by Japan instead. And didn't occur at the HQ Reuters says it was the building across the street and by a hackers group instead.
The Reuters link is about a separate incident – the article was published in December 2020 and refers to events that happened that year. It does mention the 2018 incident (covered by this Wikipedia article), though. Giraffer(
talk·
contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
You know what. I am going to re-tract my objections. Because I think the media is doing a great job of showing why media is doubted so much, so I'm going to let them injure themselves. African leaders increasely call out the fake news themselves and this just gives them more ammo. Carry on.
CaribDigita (
talk) 23:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Basically single source
This entire story in based on the reporting of a single source. I have serious misgivings about this entire article. ---
C&
C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply