Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:46, 18 January 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article contains a translation of 中国崛起 from zh.wikipedia.

Link to WMD

I wonder how the Chinese weapon of mass destruction is linked to the concept of "Chinese Century". The term is mostly derived from the fast economics growth of China, and as the China WMD article states, "it possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal amongst the five major nuclear-weapon states." I am going to remove the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

China was the largest economy for the past 18/20 centuries

There has got to be something unique OUTSIDE of economics that will distinguish the 21st century "Chinese Century" from the past 18/20 centuries.

R emergence as a new largest economy doesn't count since China was already the biggest economy 18 times in a row before the British empire took that spot.

Or else, can we call the past 18/20 centuries "Chinese centuries" just based on world's largest GDP percentage share?

Yes, we can call the past 18/20 centuries "Chinese centuries". --Zhonghuo (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact we can use the term "Chinese Millennium" --Zhonghuo (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No one uses the word chinese millenium, cut the propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese millennium sounds fine. Two milleniums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Check your facts people. India was the largest country for most of the last two millenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.81.180 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article reads like a WP:SYNTHESIS made of various unrelated POVs and needs to be fixed. Sources that make the correlation between China's economic growth, army, etc. and the "Chinese Century" need to be provided. Laurent (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Fogel is crazy to think GDP per capital in EU will be half of Chinas in 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.209.167 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After 10 months, no source has been provided so I've removed the section. Laurent (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Several inaccuracies.

There are several inaccuracies in the article.

1. Technological innovations. Every year, China publishes 5,500 pattants while the US records 550,000. China is not "number three" or projected to be number one within 50 years, and certainly not by 2012. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/941_2010.pdf

2. "China's per capita income will hit $85,000, more than double the forecast for the European Union." completely ludacris, as it far exceeded even the theoretical sustainability of population of the Earth. which is 2 billion at 80,000 per capita- and 40 billion at 500 per capita.

http://dieoff.org/page112.htm

I also contest the validity of Robert Fogel's assessments on the future. He based his article off of assumptions of continued growth steady political atmosphere, population growth and unmeasurable factors such as education and the future health of the global econamy. While neglecting this such as inflation, currency value, overly stressed natural resources, an aging population, desertification, and other issues dealing with the health of the Chinese econamy. His views strike me personaly as incredibly vague, short sighted, and overly optimistic. Fellow economists such as Drezner have also criticized his assessments calling it unfitting, and amateurish.

While i do not deny there are several economists who predict a healthy Chinese econamy in 2040, a large majority do not belive it will exceed the US econamy, and potentially the Eurozone should it be included in the assessments. There for, i do not think it is wise to have such an isolated economist be quoted for this article.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

Delete

I request this article for deletion. This has been termed the asian century not the chinese century. Its also been predicted by many, includeding Goldman Sachs that India will overtake the USA and China by 2050 to become the world's largest economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.81.180 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I second this notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.33.116.78 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The second paragraph of this article is very biased, partial copy of the Chinese section in potential superpowers that only includes the negative views. Furthermore, the sources talks about superpower but does not seem to talk about "Chinese century". As such, I propose that this paragraph should be removed with comment to see the potential superpower article for a discussion regarding that topic. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Friedman

George Friedman wrote in his book, The Next 100 Years, that China's economic growth will result in China collapsing due to internal rebellions.

Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Would the IP please explain why he is removing well cited content? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the journal is published by MIT. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Beckley is not an established researcher in his field, just some grad student. It fails WP:RS. And how is it published by MIT? It says Harvard Kennedy. Furthermore, it also appears to be a WP:SPS as a file uploaded to a personal website.71.191.189.195 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Many researchers make papers available on their uni websites, it is not self published, the MIT press publish that journal, and the source is solid. Stop removing it because you do not like it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's very uncivil. What MIT press journal? It says HARVARD KENNEDY. Stop putting it back just because you like it. 71.191.189.195 (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This one. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems well notable and well recognized, would create an article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Century

I have reverted your recent edit because the source doesn't contain anything about the period, there isn't any source that would state China as the largest economy of the world other than the 14th, 15th and 19th century. India and China were the biggest economies prior to 19th century, that's why I added that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you already contradicted yourself, when you said it was only the 17th century. And then you claim it doesn't list the date at all, which is clearly false. Looks like you have an agenda to push in favor of India. Xharm (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Check and game somewhere else. You can also also stop edit warring, or you will be blocked if you continued making edits without consensus. Also why you are adding "China" on Indian Century when we can also say same thing for other countries like Russia, Brazil, who are also assumed to be future superpower by a number of writers? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're doing the same thing. The fact that you're adding India on Chinese Century, but not wanting to do the same thing on Indian Century suggests that you have an agenda to push. Two countries can't hold one spot at the same time. The cited source published by the World Bank also says "For a long part of history, China was the largest and most advanced economy in the world." It also specifies a "large part of the last two millennia". This is also about Chinese Century and Indian Century, nothing to do with potential superpowers, so your argument is mute and doesn't hold up. Xharm (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we care about your original research and unreliable source? Check List of regions by past GDP (PPP) India seems to be at top until 1400. At least from 1 - 1000, India was the biggest economy, What is more concerning is that you are gaming the system by misrepresenting the source I had added to the article. Would you find any other country that was biggest economy for last 2 millennium other than China and India? Yet you can find at least 4 nations that are considered to be superpower or biggest economies in the future. If you don't know about these subjects you can better care about your limitations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You can also remove that whole sentence from Chinese Century if you want to, because China didn't hold biggest position of largest economy for last 2 millennium, but only for 3 (14th, 15th and 19th) centuries. Adding it along with India may lead others to think that China "may" have held the position of biggest economy all the time in the past. Pinging NeilN and Arnoutf to see what they thinks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How is it original research if it's stated in the source, published by the World Bank? I'd rather state explicitly from the source, which says "for a large part of the last two millenia". The article is also about China, not India. You are nitpicking your unreliable sources and misrepresenting it. You also need to stop your personal attacks, because it's not helping you. The source says "for a large part", not "forever". Even the National Power Index supports this. You need to stop POV-pushing, this has nothing to do with potential superpowers. Xharm (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

World Bank is not a reliable source for the information where you can already find a lot better sources. You cannot state something incorrect about China, just because "article is also about China not India". I have provided you the leading research on this subject. Those that you have named are not as qualified. You are making fairytale objections. You may want to remove that whole sentence from Chinese Century, due to the reasons that I have highlighted above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a decision that the World Bank, a subsidiary of the United Nations was not considered a reliable source. The sources you nitpicked are also just as unreliable then, which you are misrepresenting. Again, it's not saying it was "always" the largest economy, just for a large part, which is backed up by multiple sources. You are also canvassing. Xharm (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That means everything that UN says is the final word? You must be kidding. You are the one misrepresenting sources, when you claim that this source doesn't support India and China as the biggest economy of the past. Inviting other editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, without making a one sided notification is not canvassing. You can stop making these fairytale objections when you have nothing more to offer that can be productive and so far you haven't either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one making fairytale objections. How about stop your personal attacks and try backing up your statement about how the United Nations is unreliable? Your source also says nothing about the Chinese or Indian Century. This is also about Centuries, not potential superpowers so you are indeed canvassing. Xharm (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then consider proving them with the diffs, rather than just trolling. They are not specialized in judging past economies, nor they have made any detailed description about it. is much about the superpower status and not just the biggest economy. That's how propagating the assumed future of China in Indian Century becomes WP:UNDUE. Because your sources says "nothing" about Indian Century or Chinese Century, it makes you look hypocritical at best, because your objection to every other source is that they "don't mention Indian or Chinese century", yet your sources doesn't mention either. These subjects falls under the same roof. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one trolling and POV-pushing. The United Nations, National Power Index, and other future projections by multiple sources are just as capable of judging economies than you. Even your sources back up the statement of China being the largest economy for most of its history. "Most", nobody is saying it was "always". And only propagating the Indian Century is WP:UNDUE. Most of the sources for India says nothing about the term "Indian Century" except for sources that are not independent, such as the "Rediff India Abroad" source being an Indian source, and therefore not independent of the subject and not notable. The Indian Century article is better off being a redirect to Asian Century since it's obviously not enough to be a standalone topic by itself. All the sources either fail to mention the term "Indian Century", are by Indian authors and not independent, or are dependent on the Chinese Century as well and not enough to be a standalone. You're the one being hypocritical here, and you seriously need to stop your personal attacks and tone it down. Xharm (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged but if we're discussing the leads of the two articles, WP:LEAD is useful: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." If the China-India comparison is detailed in the bodies (without synthesis), the leads could mention it. Otherwise, leave it out. --NeilN 05:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because of your contributions to Potential superpowers. I would have also pinged Antiochus the Great, however, he's not active for more than a week. You are right about the guideline, it can be removed unless it has been described in the article, so far it hasn't been. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• Stub-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Pages translated from Chinese Misplaced Pages