Talk:Chinese irredentism

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 9 September 2020 by reviewer Primefac (talk · contribs).

China

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comment: My opinion is no. Just like we think Russian irredentism and Russian imperialism are ones, or same with Turkish imperialism and irredentism, even when they are not the same, for examples. Irredentism however does have intertwined relationship with imperialism, as it served as a sequence of any previously attempts to conquer, succeed or not. Like we have seen with various nations in the world from history, irredentist movement today must trace from something of the past. Same thing for China. I would love to move it as a separate page, but links to Chinese imperialism is not a wrong decision overall. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I entirely agree that context is neccessery for truly understanding Chinese irredentism today. The problem is that this article is not about that context; it is about Chinese irredentism itself. Almost half of the article is devoted to context. That material is very valuable, but should really be in the Chinese imperialism article. Would you mind if I limit the context for this article down, move the historical text into the Chinese imperialism article, and then accept this draft? Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why should we fix it. Chinese history is not like a kitten playground. It's huge and very difficult to characterize. I think the history segment has shortened to what it could. Problem is, in the West, not many people understand why China is so determined to continue its irredentist sentiment; nor even they understand why is China so desperate to expand. Give the fact that Wikipedia's Chinese language section is banned in China, we have a hard time to collect all the background of each Chinese historical ambitions. I don't think it is right to shorten it now, unless more people pay attention to Chinese history, just like how you guys managed with Russian irredentism, or Turkish irredentism, of course. I don't protest, but I think, we need time. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Irredentism is inherently connected with nationalism, so I presume the history section is intended as background; I'm inclined to accept this draft, but before I do you should shorten the history section to only what is necessary for that background as right now it's a content fork. In general, try to streamline the article so it is about specifically Chinese irredentism. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No. Chinese imperialism is a totally different topic, though I agree that irredentism and imperialism often intertwined with each other. But that doesn't make them the same. Irredentism is used to reinforce for imperialist activities, as we have seen in the past. It's not perfect to integrating them. Modern Chinese irredentist claims were the result of its historical sentiment of the past. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This draft is of very high quality, but the content here seems to be similar to what's in Chinese imperialism. Maybe it would be better if both articles are integrated together? OceanHok (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV Discussion

I welcome the creation of an article related to this topic but I do not believe this text should have ever left draft. In its current state, it feels more as if it were a politically charged passion project by an editor with a specific agenda than an objective, NPOV examination of the subject. Below I will list a few examples of the types of issues with this article:

In the external links section, there is an opinion piece by a certain 'noname' (publisher's categorization of the author) 'Michael Setter' (not a political scientist, politician, or reputable journalist) titled 'Chinese culture is shallow and chauvinistic' which goes on to talk about why he dismisses 'Han Chinese' culture is nothing more than 'A few pretty leftover clay pots, paintings and recipes' and not a 'true culture'. If it were not for the current political environment it may even be perceived as borderline racist.
The topic of 'Modern Chinese irredentism' opens with 'it is widely known that China has continued to adhere to irredentism to even today'. This is not only using a weasal word but also an opinion, not a fact.
The article presents facts that are not backed up by supposed sources. For example, the article says 'China is believed, by majority of Burmese population, that is trying to disrupt peace process in Myanmar, and that China is planning to takeover Kachin State and Shan State from Myanmar, given its unstable and porous border'. It cites an old article from 1957 cataloguing a currently inactive border dispute between Myanmar and China. The other article it cites in a piece by the 'eurasian times' providing commentary about how Myanmar announced that an unnamed 'foreign country' was arming rebel groups. Regardless, the newspaper does not back up the claim nor does it imply so.
The article has a habit of citing opinion pieces by questionable sources. For example, the 'eurasian times' article mentioned previously was an opinion piece simply credited to 'EurAsian Times Desk' and declares that 'Experts believe that while Pakistan acts as terror instigator to India, China does the same with Myanmar.' Most of the content the newspaper puts out usually has something to do with being pro-India, anti-Pakistan, or anti-China. (Indian Army Has Broken The US Myth About China Being An “Unbeatable Martial Monolith”, Why Is Pakistan Claiming Diplomatic Victory After India Walks-Out From SCO Meet?, etc.)
The article cites Reddit, a Deprecated source to gauge 'sentiment ' in a particular country. For example, a discussion on r/worldnews is used to source the sentence 'Despite China's plead to not allow such information from affecting the two countries' relations, there is a strong sentiment in Kazakhstan that it could not be published without approval from the Chinese government.' (The Reddit discussion links to a Reuters article, which does not back up the sentence either.
The article's lead section 'Chinese irredentism refers to irredentist claims to parts of the former Chinese Empire, to the Republic of China and to even recent People's Republic of China.' does not adequately provide a comprehensive summary of the topic.
The article uses dead links, such as the following: http://www.atimes.com/article/hopes-fears-peoples-silk-road-krygyzstan/.
The article seems to try to pad its content with fluff, for example: 'A Kyrgyz farmer in a 2017 interview claimed "We always run the risk of being colonized by the Chinese,", in fear of future being colonized by China.' The Kyrgyz farmer, nor his statement, nor the interview is part of any other greater idea.

I have left the NPOV tag up in the meantime. Leotext (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is certainly something that need to be worked on throughout. I've gone ahead and removed that external link and fixed many of the other examples you brought up. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will be taking a crack at it as well. Leotext (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]