Talk:Chinese imperialism
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
I don't think territorial disputes are that important edit
@Rauisuchian: I noticed that you included many elements that were very controversial in the past, but I don't think that's appropriate. On the one hand, these cases - if indeed necessary - should follow the narrative of the American imperialism article and include in each paragraph an explanation of why these are considered imperialism, and on the other hand, the other focus of the American imperialism article - "the cultural hegemony" - is not included proportionally, and in fact many of the articles analyzing Chinese imperialism focus on its cultural, rather than territorial, issues. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- These elements (border disputes with China claiming land in India, Nepal, Bhutan, etc.) are still a matter of geopolitical conflict today rather than in the past, but you're not entirely wrong about what articles tend to call imperialism, even when it fits the dictionary or academic definition of imperialism, certain events and trends are only called imperialism by a specific set of sources. However, those some sources are RS's and enough for inclusion of these topics per WP:NOTOR. I would caution against using any other Wiki article definitively as a model, we just reflect what reliable sources say. So we report on what reliable sources say about "Chinese imperialism" rather than try to create an exactly parallel version of the "American imperialism" article. For that matter there's also informal empire and Soviet empire but it's an independent topic. If territorial expansionism, the original imperialism, needs a big burden of proof to be imperialism (I'm not sure it actually does, but going with your implied idea), the same would be needed for cultural hegemony and we'd have find sources that specifically use the word imperialism rather than just hegemony. On the other hand, if obvious leaps indeed can be made (without making it OR or offtopic) like hegemony = imperialism then so can another obvious leap like expansionism = imperialism. Whether that is the case or not can be discussed. That said, I appreciate you bringing something up on the talk page after a mass content removal, as usually it happens in complete silence, so I appreciate your courtesy. Thanks, Rauisuchian (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that geo-conflicts are important (but they shouldn't be the only things), I'm not denying the importance of RS, all I'm saying is that we should also go ahead and explain why these are considered imperialism, because I noticed that the previous version was renamed for merely listing geo-conflicts, maybe we shouldn't step into the same river twice? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 09:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- These elements (border disputes with China claiming land in India, Nepal, Bhutan, etc.) are still a matter of geopolitical conflict today rather than in the past, but you're not entirely wrong about what articles tend to call imperialism, even when it fits the dictionary or academic definition of imperialism, certain events and trends are only called imperialism by a specific set of sources. However, those some sources are RS's and enough for inclusion of these topics per WP:NOTOR. I would caution against using any other Wiki article definitively as a model, we just reflect what reliable sources say. So we report on what reliable sources say about "Chinese imperialism" rather than try to create an exactly parallel version of the "American imperialism" article. For that matter there's also informal empire and Soviet empire but it's an independent topic. If territorial expansionism, the original imperialism, needs a big burden of proof to be imperialism (I'm not sure it actually does, but going with your implied idea), the same would be needed for cultural hegemony and we'd have find sources that specifically use the word imperialism rather than just hegemony. On the other hand, if obvious leaps indeed can be made (without making it OR or offtopic) like hegemony = imperialism then so can another obvious leap like expansionism = imperialism. Whether that is the case or not can be discussed. That said, I appreciate you bringing something up on the talk page after a mass content removal, as usually it happens in complete silence, so I appreciate your courtesy. Thanks, Rauisuchian (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
NPOV issues edit
This article is rather problematic. The intro claims that Wolf Warrior diplomacy and Chinese overseas spying are examples of Chinese imperialism, with no sourcing. It also cites the Uighur genocide as an example of Chinese imperialism, yet according to the sources cited, they are opinion articles calling out the hypocrisy of critics of US imperialism who kneejerk defend Chinese human rights violations. The section about Chinese military bases contains original research about China having more bases and a false comparison between Chinese foreign aid and US military bases, whereas the article by the Economist stated that Chinese bases need not to be seen as a threat.
The only salvageable material are the views section which can be further expanded. GeneralBay (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi User:GeneralBay, the "wolf warrior" actually has a citation in the early revisions, The Trap of Empire and Authoritarianism, which had been removed later. It is true that the source from Al Jazeera is opinion article, but the one from The Nation seems not. Last, the Economist doesn't state that "Chinese bases need not to be seen as a threat", it states that "America and its allies will not be able to stop China everywhere—nor should they try. A limited Chinese military presence abroad does not have to be a threat", and I actually cite the original text (of comparison) almost word-for-word, it's "China calls America “imperialist” for keeping foreign bases, while insisting that its own military expansion is peaceful, nothing to worry about and only natural for a rising power." Therefore, I can't agree on the most of your words, except the part that Chinese overseas spying might need to be removed. Regards, ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 23:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Again you're using an editorial to synthesize a factual claim. You're not even doing this in a NPOV manner, but trying to synthesize a claim of Chinese imperialism using sources critical of the Chinese government, while ignoring ones with the countering view. For instance, plenty of analysts on the Belt and Road Initiative dispute the "debt trap" claim, yet none of them are included in the article until I added them. The map is horrible. "Countries China has probably approached". Really? Even your article noted the fact that the base is to support China's anti-piracy operations and peacefully coexists with those o other countries in the same country--GeneralBay (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @GeneralBay: First, I recognize and have known for a long time that using only news sources can be a bit weak, but are you suggesting that The Nation's article is an editorial? From what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be. Even if it is, this seems to be the first time I've been accused that news sources may be too weak (at here), so I'm not sure why you used "again".
- Second, as I've said many times I wrote it from "amnesia test" and did write it in a bit of a hurry, so I'll accept the criticism on the Belt and Road issue.
- Lastly, this chart is from wikicommons, these words are taken from the maker's (User:燃灯 or User:痛) original words at wikicommons (commons:File:Chinese Oversea Military Bases.svg), now I would like to ask you a question: have you read the other one from The Economist? If not yet, I think you should read it. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 04:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Again you're using an editorial to synthesize a factual claim. You're not even doing this in a NPOV manner, but trying to synthesize a claim of Chinese imperialism using sources critical of the Chinese government, while ignoring ones with the countering view. For instance, plenty of analysts on the Belt and Road Initiative dispute the "debt trap" claim, yet none of them are included in the article until I added them. The map is horrible. "Countries China has probably approached". Really? Even your article noted the fact that the base is to support China's anti-piracy operations and peacefully coexists with those o other countries in the same country--GeneralBay (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- The article is not a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article, all of these topics tend to be discussed in the same RS articles. Whatever the name of the article is to describe this phenomenon, if you want to call it "Chinese imperialism" or something else, it's all the same related subject. See the essay WP:NOTOR. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- And see the Wikipedia policy MOS:WTW. "Imperialism" is a contentious label. Period. You're using a community essay to override WP:NOR--GeneralBay (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I am planning to remove disputed media claims and some sources that might be too COI. edit
@Rauisuchian, GeneralBay, and Mureungdowon: Hi everyone. I am considering of removing some sources that are too disputed (which could be replaced by academic sources IMO) and some sources might be too COI. Comments? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 11:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)