 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Who writes these chinese articles? the engrish is TERRIBLE, I could revise and edit all day and someone would just revert it to the grammatically frightening version just because it has more CPC propaganda.
But you don't realize that your propaganda is in bad english, so it's REALLY EASY TO TELL THAT ITS PROPAGANDA.70.102.63.186 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is my English that bad? I am the only one in the history list, so you will have to blame me. Or you can help if you like. Have you considered this is actually not propaganda, but basic facts that people living outside of the mainland China censorship knows. Benjwong (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry my friend, I was in a bad mood when I wrote that, and my words were a bit too harsh. Your english is not so bad. You just missed a few particles between words and every once in awhile you get the wrong tense, as in "they choose to do this" instead of "they chose to do this" etc. But it's pretty standard errors for chinese-english translations. Sorry I was so rude to you. I've seen much worse articles.Dragonnas (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan edit
I didn't realize the term "united front" had been used in regard to Hong Kong. I have recently frequently heard the term recently heard regarding China's attempts to annex Taiwan and have started a United Front Doctrine article. Now that I see this article, I'm concerned that we use correct names in such a way as to disambiguate the two strategies. Does anyone have any suggestions? Readin (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)