Talk:Cyberwarfare and China

It would be great to have a list of the different organisations carrying out the cyberwarfare, eg 3PLA, 4PLA, the GSD, the MSS, the Strategic Support Force (总参谋部, 中央军事委员会联合参谋部, 战略支援部队, ——总参二部). --Bacon Man (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The People's Liberation Army Strategic Support Force (SSF) was the primary cyberwarfare organization until April 2024. The 2022 annual report to U.S. Congress by USCC identifies on page 442 and Appendix III some PLA units or APTs (advanced persistent threat) under the SSF. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Rename to "Cyberwarfare by the People's Republic of China"? Biophys (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Or "by the Chinese Communist Party"? Thanks. Path2space (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because cyberwarfare is conducted by (or on behalf of) intelligence agencies it seems absurd to me to keep the article "Chinese intelligence activity abroad" and the article "Chinese cyberwarfare" separate.

This article should be merged with Chinese intelligence activity abroad.

2A0B:89C1:3:0:0:0:0:A36D (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Having considered the arguments in the above move, I suggest we split the contents of the seciton on "Allegations of espionage and cyber-attacks" into a subarticle on Cyberwarfare by China. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There is certainly enough well-sourced content to justify it. - Amigao (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. I can't tell what about the prior move discussion would cause this to be considered -- it seems like it would suggest the opposite. For example, that discussion of why it should not be "by" raised concerns of WP:POVTITLE, WP:POVFORK, WP:NDESC, and WP:POVNAMING.

Navigationally, this split suggestion would create a headache by having separate pages for Cyberwarfare "by" and Cyberwarfare "and". It is an unnecessary topic fragmentation. Worse, it would be the only Cyberwarfare by (Country) article to have such a split. While WP:OTHERSTUFF of course applies, we can't discount the counterintuitive navigational result that would create, in light of similar articles.

Thematically, a split does not make sense as issues of offensive and defensive cyberwarfare capabilities, and countering or retaliating against perceived threats, are necessarily intertwined.

Furthermore, if a split happened, it would require a higher standard for sourcing cyberwarfare "by China." Allegations might not be so good for inclusion anymore. It also raises the question of what is "by China" -- that naming convention would suggest we should limit ourselves to confirmed state actors. We avoid these problems by our current framing of "and China" which can include cyberwarfare that 'connects to' China, even if not confirmed, and even if not by a state actor.

If the concern is space (and I don't think it should be, because the page is readily navigable), we have other ways to address. We could trim some of the cyberattacks that are sourced only to contemporaneous news coverage, but not longer term RS coverage. We could trim some of those that are already represented on some of the "see also" hat note pages. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The sourcing standard would not change for a separate article. WP:RS applies to all. - Amigao (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I am to an extent guessing at what the editor's mindset for a split is, but if the perceived issue is length of this page, I am saying a wiser way to trim is to focus down some of the WP:NOTNEWS issues, rather than speak of a page split. I do not think we need to worry about length at all, myself. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment, I now see you are likely responding to the ambiguity in the sentence with "higher standard of sourcing." Confusing of me. What I was aiming for was -- in an "Cyberwarfare by China" page, some material that might be topical here, might no longer be within the scope of the page. For example, non-state actors wouldn't be a good fit on the "by China" page, but in our current "and China" page, we can be more comfortable with ambiguity. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Having arrived here from the 'Articles to be split' section of the Cybersecurity Wikiproject, can we assume this discussion is closed as no consensus? (I personally would be against splitting it) Joe (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems pretty clearly no consensus. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 (with CC pings to @Amigao @Joereddington in case you haven't subscribed to this thread) What are Chinese non-state actors? Outside criminal operations (money making scams and theft and like) that are either not cyberwarfare or are just another branch of state ops, they are just fig-leaf removed from China. For example, would you claim that stuff described in i-Soon leak is a "non-state actor" activity and cannot be described as "cyberwarfare by China"? Seriously, "Cyberwarfare and country" is an umbrella term for several topics that generally merit subarticles: "Cyberwarfare against a country", "Cyberwarfare defense by country", "Cyberwarfare attacks by country", and that's it. The lack of Cyberwarfare by China article, and its submerging here, is just POV-ed weaseling that masking what is the most prominent aspect of the situation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The article has numerous examples of this like “China-affiliated” or “China-Based”

That three pronged fragmentation of an interrelated topic doesn’t make sense. I don’t think any of our Cyberwarfare and country pages use that fragmented approach. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You make a good case for simply renaming the article here back to Cyberwarfare by China. I'll note that the main category here is Category:Cyberwarfare by China. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that "Cyberwarfare by China" would describe "the most prominent aspect of the situation" as it covers the overwhelming majority of the article's content. Anything outside of that title is likely a form of "POV-ed weasling" as Piotrus aptly put it. - Amigao (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)