Talk:History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002)

Quality

I don't have time to invest in fixing this article, but has a lot of issues. Same with the previous history article. Parts are repetitive, others have a causal tone that is inappropriate for a wiki article. It rambles into areas that seem irrelevant to the top at hand and area that aren't in this time period. Again, more issues than I care to fix or list, but a dedicated editor needs to go through this thing line by line. KPalicz (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article's neutrality should be questioned. The first two portions are good breakdowns of the history of the People's Republic of China, but portions 3 and 4 read like a party official wrote them in order to create an "official" history of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao's time in office. While the PRC has made some admirable, astounding economic gains in the past 20 years, this article makes little to no mention of the huge problems the government now faces as it tries to reform the economy while maintaining ultimate control. Some of the things not mentioned - the rampant corruption of local officials, particularly in rural areas; developers grabbing farm land with no compensation to the farmers - this has led to numerous riots; the flood of migrant labor into the cities; the damage China's rapid development has done to its environment - the Yellow River runs dry part of the year and smog envelops the cities; the tension between the government and the people of Hong Kong; the supression of Falun Gong. These are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not saying this should be an anti-Communist article. I'm just saying that it should reflect both sides of the story.

Yes, I agree a lot more stuff has to be added, provided there is NPOV. Colipon+(T) 07:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No citation is used, the whole page can be consider original research, in my opinion. --Chinatravel 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that only the Falun Gong section uses citation. Why is it that the Falun Gong section being the longest? --Chinatravel 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing Falun Gong section

The Falun Gong issue does not qualify to be included on this article. These topics Deng's Legacy and Tiananmen Square protests etc have profound impacts on China’s development. China has been criticized for banning Falun Gong in the West, but this issue has no impact on the country’s development and therefore does not qualified to be here. What is even more absurd is that this section is longer than the Tiananmen Square protests section.

I was going to move this Falun Gong section to Human rights in the People's Republic of China page where it really belongs. But since this issue is already included on that page, I am removing it from this page. --Chinatravel 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just shorten it or something? This is not something I want to really get involved with, but I am just a bit confused as to why you would delete the whole section like that. If you thought it was too long, why not just take out some especially extraneous parts? It surely is a relevant issue, and the persecution is a pretty big deal. Such a huge amount of resources have been expended to persecute Falun Gong, and it has penetrated throughout the whole society, so it is not such a minor thing. Let me know what you think.--Asdfg12345 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may not have a whole lot to do with China's long term development, but it is a significant part of Chinese history during those years. Whichever theory you may believe in, Falun Gong's suppression was not only representative of the attitude of the Chinese government but reflects the transformation of Chinese culture. The deletion of the section is unjustifiable. I do agree, however, that the parts about human rights abuses is overblown and does not deserve a place in this article dealing with Chinese history. Thus my edits. Colipon+(T) 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, are you able to expand on what you mean when you say that it reflects the transformation of Chinese culture. I am asking because I am actually interested in what you have to say. Anyway, just if you have the inclination. The other thing is, I don't know why you want to remove the stuff about the actual persecution. If Falun Gong were not persecuted everything would be rather different, and this section would be rather different. The reason the entry is appearing in this way is because of the persecution, and much of the article already there is related and about the persecution - but when it comes to the paragraph that actually explains what the persecution is and the actions taken by the CCP against Falun Gong practitioners, you remove it. Maybe I should not say "I don't know why", but I'm not into accusations right now, so I would only request more elaboration, please. I am saying that the way Falun Gong is being dealt with seems a pretty crucial element in all this. --Asdfg12345 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

two more things: why do you keep adding in that word "controversial" about the "A Brief Statement of Mine" - did you read WP:Weasel? Check it out. This admin, BIlygen or whoever also deleted it from an article with the appendage "weasel words". It is a perfect weasel word. Anyway, I won't do anything about it right now. The other thing is, actuallly never mind it, because I don't have time, I just wanted to know why there are nearly no sources in this whole article. Maybe you don't know anyway. --Asdfg12345 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, I am not saying that the Falun Gong ban is not significant, but its significance does not match other subjects on this page. Falun gong is not the only religious group banned in china, should this page include all of them? The falun gong ban (or persecution) is deemed as a human rights violation in the west, therefore it should be included in the Human rights in the People's Republic of China page. --Chinatravel 07:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to be careful when you say it has no effects on China's development. Let me ask you, had something like Falun Gong not been banned, would China be different today? I would say so, and so would most sinologists. Colipon+(T) 07:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The logic of your argument is wrong, should there be a section for Mao’s son? One can argue that if he had not been killed in the Korean war, he would have had an important impact on the develop of China. The falun gong is somewhat important, but it’s importance is definitely much lower than other issues on this article. It belongs to the human right of china page. --Chinatravel 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. By that logic the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 was but another human rights violation. No other organized group in the PRC's history has so vehemently denounced the Communist Party of China as much as Falun Gong, and its pseudo-religious background and cultural underpinnings makes it ample material for PRC history in the coming years (actually, go check Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book, both have sections on Falun Gong in the history section). Perhaps the section requires remodeling, but deleting it as a whole is rather ignorant. Colipon+(T) 08:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please expand on that comment, Colipon? That paragraph is the only one which actually explains the persecution itself. The rest is leading up to what it actually is. In fact, it is necessary to explain it. I did not revert your edit because I would prefer to discuss it first in the wikipedia spirit. It is highly relevant and sourced material, so I am having a difficult time understanding its removal.--Asdfg12345 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The same way the article does not deal with the human rights abuses after the Tiananmen Protests of 1989, the persecution of Falun Gong itself has no relevance on the article itself. It is being described extensively in other relevant articles, such as Human rights in the People's Republic of China. Falun Gong's emergence exemplified many of China's historical and cultural dynamics, its suppression should be mentioned but not described in detail as the details themselves have no relevance in China's historical context (same design used for things such as Taiping Rebellion and Cultural Revolution, both included probably a lot of worse human rights abuses than what we see today with FLG, but are not mentioned in their respective Chinese history articles). Enough is mentioned on the article about the suppression, and any more details would be superfluous on this article. If you wish to show the alleged brutality behind the CPC's actions please go do it somewhere else. Therefore it is with prudence that I ask you to not revert these edits.

Let me also remind you that I am doing you a big favour by simply putting the FLG section here. Many others on Wikipedia would like to delete it outright. Colipon+(T) 06:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please expand on what Chinese cultural and historical dynamics the emergence of Falun Gong exemplified? I will get back to you about the other matters soon. I need to look at the section more closely.--Asdfg12345 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail about it a few weeks ago. Just read that again. My explanations there are very in-depth and it took about two hours to write. Please don't make me do it again. Colipon+(T) 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I read it two or three times. I will read it again before the next time I respond here. To have a whole section about Falun Gong, a longish one like this, and then not even mention the extreme abuses they are being subjected to seems a little out of place. The shameless and cruel methods of the persecution are what has brought it to the attention of the world, and how probably most people outside of China know about Falun Gong or have heard of Falun Gong. Maybe we can shorten it or something and cut some of the other things. There is so much unsourced stuff in that section, and most of this whole article has zero sources cited. According to wikipedia policies all unsourced content can be deleted. This last section we are talking about here is actually sourced, and it is really relevant. I will read your email again, and get back to you about these items. I do have difficulty understanding your stance on this. Anyway, talk more soon.--Asdfg12345 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, the Tiananmen Square incident was a human rights violation commited by the Chinese government. Because of its impact on China’s development and foreign relations with western countries it has the weight to be included in this article. The ban of Falun Gong is another human rights violation, however, its impact on China is far less than that of the Tiananmen Square incident. This issue should be mentioned, not here, but on the human rights of the Chinese government page.

I see serious disputes on Falun Gong pages. It looks like anything relates to the Falun Gong becomes problematic. Just curious, are you a falun gong practitioner? Are you trying to bring as much exposture to the group as possible? --Chinatravel 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Check my userpage to see if I am a FLG practitioner. Colipon+(T) 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong section is inappropriate

It seems like that EVERY article relating to FLG has links to Clearwisdom/Epoch Times about the alleged persecution. Since this is about HISTORY of the PRC, not human rights nor FLG itself, the excessive detail such as alleged torture methods really don't belong here. It certainly seems like agenda pushing to me.--PCPP 06:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some of this. I think some aspects of this section might be revised, and I certainly agree that different sources ought to be used. Removing it, I think may be going too far, since this is quite a notable thing; the biggest persecution in Chinese history, it has cost billions of dollars and involved the whole population, they are now involved in live organ harvesting, and basically this thing is the biggest unresolved issue, and it is the biggest threat to the regime. The Olympics are coming up, and if everyone finds out they are involved in live organ harvesting, really, that might become a bit of a problem. So it is a rather notable feature of contemporary China. Even Colipon, who for some reason really has it in for Falun Gong, agrees with this. Over the next 8 hours I will put my energy into some of these worthwhile changes you are suggesting, and hopefully we could work together to improve these problems you are pointing out.--Asdfg12345 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Two refs. --Ideogram 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

OR, POV, plus poor refs

Frankly this article SUCKS. Enormous unreferenced content is clearly criticizing China government. Plus, the Falun Gong section surely need to be reassessed to check if it matches Wikipedia's criteria. Personally I figure it doesn't. How could we have a whole section describing an anti-science organization, which is very likely to be the promotion of those Falun Gong member? All these my assumptions can be confirmed by the previous IP edits that apparently added these POV content. Whaterss (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs more citations to reliable sources. However, judging by your most recent edit (which I have just reverted), I am doubtful of your grasp on Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Citobun (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, does neutrality mean we should simply support those so-called neutral content that is clearly criticizing the Chinese government? Neutrality is mutual. Btw, please stop saying "judging by … I am doubtful", haven't you heard of "Don't judge"? One more thing: If you feel like promoting your political opinions, then Wikipedia is not an appropriate option, per WP:NOTOPINION. Whaterss (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not promoting my political opinions... I haven't even edited here. You're the one enforcing your political opinion by blanking things that you feel reflect poorly on China. Wikipedia is not censored. Citobun (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edit which you personally claimed I " feel reflect poorly on China". Still, you got to re-evaluate WP:AGF. Whaterss (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)