This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. China 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

@TommyGundam: Although Xinmin Evening News, The Paper, and China Youth Daily have all voiced criticism, it might be premature to say that the government's official stance has consistently maintained a negative attitude toward it. I won't immediately remove the relevant statements, but I think it might be necessary to discuss. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I recommend against using the source from The Paper, as it is actually a repost of an article originally published on Guancha.cn. --ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokisaki Kurumi First of all, thanks for the feedback.

In hindsight, that article from The Paper is effectively a self-published source (it was written by a contributor of Guancha.cn); I can definitely remove it.

As of the consistency part, this June 2025 article from Lianhe Zaobao pointed out that the Chinese government had never formally endorsed the "Western Pseudohistory Theory", but also jointly hosted a classics conference with Greece, as well as hosted multiple exhibitions of artifacts from those "fake" civilizations. All of that can be seen as an indirect rebuke of the theory and its adherents.

Should I include that as well? Because I honestly don't know whether it violated WP:NOR or not... TommyGundam (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGundam: I think it would be better to write it as you mentioned here, that is the Chinese government has never formally endorsed this theory, plus media commentary. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 08:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done.

And while we're at it, apparently Huang Heqing came up a theory on the massive bans of his comrades-in-arms: it was a coordinated campaign by what he called "Western Pseudohistory apologists" to suppress their work, rather than an official act of the Chinese government.

Would it be appropriate to include this into the "history" section? TommyGundam (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to include a source on that; it was from that aforementioned Lianhe Zaobao article. TommyGundam (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGundam: Good edit. Regarding massive bans, my view is that it is more of Huang's personal opinion. Personally, I would prefer that "history" section include only indisputable facts. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokisaki Kurumi Apparently Jin Canrong's views on the Western Pseudohistory Theory are also changing; in September 2025 he advised its adherents to show more academic rigor in their work and avoid Sinocentrism, so that their actions won't become "low-level red" (低级红) or "high-level black" (高级黑).

Do you think it'll be appropriate to include that in here (or alternatively, in Jin's own article)? Because according to WP:ABOUTSELF, it's acceptable to use self-published sources about the subject-matter itself... TommyGundam (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TommyGundam: Of course not here. If this article is published on a .edu website, we would consider adding something. It's hardly a change. The trend of calling for Western Pseudohistory Theory to shift from emotional mobilization toward more rigorous academic discourse emerged after Huang Heqing's interview with Southern Weekly. However, so far, at least I personally have not observed that this has made this theory more academically accepted. Moreover, from my personal perspective, this seems more like Jin Canrong urging people to conduct research (assuming it could be regarded as) following the methods of Huang Heqing and others, rather than directly claiming that the Yongle Encyclopedia encompasses everything. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 21:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]