Talk:Economy of China

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bettyhwt (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

The article states that "China's manufacturing sector benefits from the world's largest domestic market" but this is no longer true as India has a larger population, and according to Wikipedia itself the US and EU have much larger consumer markets. 129.32.45.245 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean to say India has a larger population, or a larger market? The two are not the same. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

china has the largest consumer market, India has the largest population 48JCL (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Data number correction on manufacturers share of export goods needed (!)

I've noticed that the percentage share of 'manufacturers' within the export goods line inside there 'external' section in the beginning introductory "Quick facts" tab/panel is incorrect. Inside the very source it is linking to, the percentage is 94.3% and NOT 74.3%. There seems to be an error in the first number. Tmbehar (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The Diplomat

A single news source is not WP:DUE claiming that we should disregard Chinese economic data. This would be to the detriment of WP:NPOV. And frankly it's a pretty minor pub to boot. I did some scrutiny of it and it's a web-only magazine which is principally known for shady advertising practices. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is still a worthwhile point to make somewhere in the article, as there has been plenty of academic discussion over the years about the reliability of Chinese government stats. In the past, even the government has made a point about the unreliability of its stats, for example here. - Amigao (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If better, more neutral, sources can be found this won't be an issue. My concern is to cite that statement to that source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Being clear: I would prefer the academic sources you alluded to rather than an American (or Amero-Australian) news publication. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are some examples from The Nikkei, Financial Times, and Reuters for starters. Amigao (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Japanese newspaper, British newspaper, Canadian news service. Where are the academic sources? Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also the FT article, from 2016, was about the federal level statistician discussing plans to stamp out inaccurate financial data. The Nikkei article is quick to point out that the concerns regarding the accuracy of Chinese data are not universal and many economists dissent from that view. The Reuters article, again, is about Chinese efforts to improve accuracy of statistics. This creates a typical catch 22 applied to socialist countries. If they're transparent then it's used to say "you can't trust them." If they're not transparent then it's used to say "you can't trust them." Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not really a catch-22... Because socialist countries do publish unreliable economic data. Same goes for single party states regardless of economic/political orientation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly the POV that en.wiki editors mostly try to insert regarding socialist countries. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That is the NPOV, you can argue that its a symptom of orthodox economic's dominance in modern academia but it is the academic consensus even if you disagree or think that academia is corrupt/broken. You also seem to be missing that its also true of non-socialist single party states, socialism has little to do with it... Fascist single party states are just as unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So, we agree that The Diplomat correctly reflected views endorsed by numerous academic sources? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"which is principally known for shady advertising practices" it is? What would those be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Using the logos of Time and The Economist in banner ads without permission. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And what is the source for that being a shady advertising practice? That is pretty much the opposite of what the source in the article says, so where are you getting that from? (the linked article says that Time was the one being shady, not The Diplomat) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@MingScribe1368: per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to provide justification for your edits. Given that your edit is large (10.000+ characters changed), it is not possible to perform a partial revert. Your edits are highly problematic in that either perform WP:OR, violate WP:NPOV, or flat out misrepresent the cited sources. intforce (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The edits are relevant, factual, written from a neutral point of view, and supported by sources.

You have no right to mass revert edits without addressing the substance of the edits.

Please specify which particular edit violates WP:NPOV or performs WP:OR or misrepresents the cited source. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The technology, education, and infrastructure sections of the page required substantial updating, and my edits addressed deficiencies in the article pertaining to these aspects. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@MingScribe1368: Please can you explain how the sources support your changes, and why your changes make the article better. For example, the previous version (which I have reverted to) said

• China is the world's second largest economy by nominal GDP, behind the United States, and since 2017 has been the world's largest economy when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP).

And you changed that to:

• China has the world's largest economy when measured in terms of purchasing power parity (USD 37 trillion in 2024), and the world's second-largest economy as measured by nominal GDP in USD terms (USD18.3 trillion in 2024)

I do not see that as an improvement. The change in emphasis looks more like political tub-thumping.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

PPP is a better measure of affluence than nominal GDP in USD terms. Is placing PPP first a big issue? If that was your only issue, you could have addressed that matter, without wholesale reverting my edit. As you concede, many of the edits I made were improvements (I would argue all of them were improvements). MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that some parts of MingScribe1368's edits may be an improvement - some of the citations in the present version are a mess - but MingScribe1368's proposed changes need to be explained here first, so we can understand how each change makes the article better (and decide which changes to incorporate into the article).-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The second version is also an improvement. (Usually not necessary to say what the subject of the article is “behind” or “ahead” of) JArthur1984 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that no objections have yet been raised over the factuality or verifiability of particular edits or concerning the sources used themselves thus far.

The edits on infrastructure, and on technology, were massive improvements to the article, and indeed the main point of the edits, but were thrown out wholesale.

Feel free to reinstate these. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to poison the well here, but this ain't the first time I've seen MingScribe immediately take a semi-BATTLEGROUND stance when concerns about their editorial POV have been raised. I just hope we've moved on from trying to deprecate The New York Times as a reliable source. Remsense ‥ 论 14:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Poisoning the well is precisely what you are doing - and I do think the New York Times should be deprecated as a wikipedia source - though I am not sure how this relates to the particular point of contention - the wholesale deletion of edits, well-supported by objective sources, relating to infrastructure and technology, which are the twin pillars of the Chinese economy. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair that others here have a sense of what you consider an unreliable source and why, so that they also don't have to spend hours arguing with you to ultimately discover the extremities of your position. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The NY Times should be deprecated ethical violations such as publishing falsehood to manufacture consent for a war that claimed millions of lives. Note that CGTN was deprecated for far less - for broadcasting "confessions". MingScribe1368 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@MingScribe1368 why don’t you make your proposed edits by topic area. It will give more structure to these discussions. I suggest you start with science and technology edits. This is only a suggestion. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that if no concrete objection can be made to particular edits other than the fact that PPP was described before GDP, that the article be reverted to the form it was before Intforce decided to cry about NPOV, which to him, means a POV in agreement with his sentiments. MingScribe1368 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, like the policy linked above clearly says, the onus is on you for why the change should be made. Remsense ‥ 论 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The changes describe the infrastructure and technology of China more adequately and provide current information on that subject matter. Is that not enough for you or are you a special kind of inane? MingScribe1368 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The question of the reliability of the New York Times seems irrelevant unless it is being removed with recent edits. However I would also caution @MingScribe1368 to avoid personal attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. I will say that the sources I was able to find with a quick google all support the position that PPP is a stronger measure of a country's affluence than Nominal GDP. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Unlike what you claim above, there are potentially pitfalls to consider when comparing international economies firstly via PPP, which is designed and suited for analyzing indicators like cost of living, but is a much less transparent calculation that can be vulnerable to systematic distortions, notably those endemic to a rapidly developing export-based economy, such that PPP could paint a lopsided picture in this context. If we were talking about inflation or well being, there'd be much less of an objection to a measure of PPP per capita, but the point of this sentence seems to be co-opting the wrong figure, or at least a controversial one not adequately being nuanced.Remsense ‥ 论 17:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

From the conclusion of the Cambridge paper you linked: t may well be asked, if we cannot use PPP measures to compare incomes across countries, then what can we use? To begin with, it is clearly worth always viewing these measures together with the estimates based on MER. This does seem broadly like precisely what MingScribe1368 was attempting to do by using multiple figures. The Cambridge source certainly doesn't say "don't use PPP," and so the case for exclusion here is somewhat confusing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we had both figures before, and what they did was swap the two around as if one was simply more appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 17:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

OK I really couldn't care less which goes first so I'll bow out at this point. Please consider my concern resolved. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Those who mass-revert edits have yet to identify a single edit that violates the requirements of neutrality or verifiability or attributability, or that constitutes original research. The only issue they have raised thus far is the placement of PPP before GDP - as if that were grounds for wholesale reverting a text to a previous chaotic version without any discernible sequence. It appears they did not like the "feel" of the edits, rather than being able to specifically identify anything wrong with the edits themselves. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Suggestions for leading paragraph

The leading paragraph as it stands is too long and bloated, and does not follow a discernible sequence whatsoever, and delves into historical specifics. I have the following suggestions:

Lead subject matter

Paragraph 1. Nature of China's economy - mixed. China's nominal GDP and PPP. Sequence of mention does not matter. Relative size of services, manufacturing and agriculture.

Paragraph 2. Obvious characteristics of Chinese economy that distinguish it from other economies: (a) contribution to global manufacturing value add; (b) technology; (c) infrastructure; (d) cashless economy & digital payment systems

Paragraph 3. Balance sheet discussion - including mention of foreign reserves.

Trims:

1. Detailed economic history be removed from the lead or situated under the appropriate heading.

2. Anything pertaining to temporary balance sheet adjustments (such as recent housing crisis) to be situated away from the lead. Things of a temporary nature should not appear in the lead. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the look of this outline. This will also distinguish from our economic history articles.

One question is how much labor force material to trim or retain and how much public expenditure material. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove labor force material completely. It isn't quite as relevant when the primary determinant of output is structural and technological rather than the amount of raw manpower (as it was in pre-industrial times). Education level of workforce is even more important than sheer numbers. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)