Why would a mention of what may be Spratly islands (its interpretation is not even certain) in the works, be propaganda? Do you mean to say that it is 100% impossible they may have encountered it during their journeys, and that the mention is a completely fabricated lie?
I have a hard time accepting this definition of propaganda. Doesn't the word generally have a negative connotation, i.e. the implication that all things labeled propaganda should be dismissed? Truth should not be dismissed, although it must be evaluated in context and in combination with other truths.
Good propaganda uses lots of truth, and definitely avoids false things as much as possible.
(I make a distinction between true and not false, in the sense that eg '1 + 1 = 2' is true, 'the moon is made of cheese is false', but 'the US is a great nation' is not false.)
That's why I said 'it must be evaluated in context and in combination with other truths'.
I am confused about what the original poster and the first replyer are trying to say. Are they putting some sort of value judgement on the existance of the information? Are they saying, "it does not matter how much evidence exists indicating that the Chinese may have discovered Spratly Islands long time ago, because the conclusion is still that China has no rights to the Spratly islands, and therefore all true facts about this subject should be dismissed out of hand"?
