Talk:Boycotts of Chinese products

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

HK/Xinjiang

It's odd that the article is silent on these when (my anecdotal original research suggests) they're a big motivating factor in a lot of the boycott movements. 92.17.144.186 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Note

"The strain of coronavirus originated from China and spread around the world, creating a crisis that led to widespread criticism of the Chinese government, due to its behavior of hiding real figures, including deliberately destroying evidence about the initial coronavirus outbreak, and not containing it on time, enabling the continuation of the 2020 Chunyun period." - This statement appears to be based off of a report, which China disputes and isn't supported by the WHO currently. The report was compiled by countries including the US and Australia, who are amid a diplomatic spat with China. Needs to be reworded for NPOV.
"Technology produced from China has also been a great cause for concern and has led to further support of the movement, particularly from companies such as Huawei, who have been identified as using illegal monitoring software/equipment in their phones and technology to track user inputs and personal information and storage of that information for use in Big Data analysis." Uncited, needs a citation from a neutral source.
"In May 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 China–India skirmishes which were primarily perpetrated by China’s People's Liberation Army, Indian engineer, educator and innovator, Sonam Wangchuk appealed to Indians to "use your wallet power" and boycott Chinese products." - It's Wangchuk’s opinion that the pandemic and the skirmishes are primarily perpetrated by the PLA, not a fact.

Leotext (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, the presence of citations in the lead of such as long article as this one, is itself a red flag regarding proper emphasis. I agree that it's not acceptable for the article to cite, as it does, as fact, a document that is alleged by an Australian newspaper to have been leaked by US intelligence services. William Avery (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leotext, regarding point 2, I’ve added citations for the claim that Chinese tech collects data but there isn’t much about this causing a boycott except for some sources calling Trump’s ban a boycott. Regarding point 3, I’ve rewritten it a bit. Now for point 1, I can’t exactly figure out how to fix it ... We may have to rewrite or remove it. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, Thanks for taking a look at it. In regards to point 2, I still think it can be modified. The Forbes article talks about Europeans debating whether or not to include Huawei in their 5G contracts. The ArsTechnica article talks about a ZTE ban for doing business with Iran and North Korea. The CNBC articles talks about how Huawei could theoretically provide a backdoor to China. They don't directly support the statement in point 2. Leotext (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South China Morning Post’s opinion piece calls this a boycott. But since it is an opinion piece and also by China, maybe rewording "boycott" as "sanction" would be more appropriate? This and this sources are calling it a sanction. But then again, would a sanction be relevant enough, Leotext? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 04:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding point 1, maybe we can rewrite it to note that the fact that the COVID pandemic began in China is being used to justify boycotts by organisations like the Vishva Hindu Parishad as per this. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 04:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the NPOV tag can be removed once those changes are made, RedBulbBlueBlood9911. For point 2 specifically, either go ahead and remove it or include the sanctions, but make sure to cite the reasons for it from the article (ex. b/c the Trump admin deem it a "national security risk") and not because it uses "illegal monitoring software/equipment in their phones and technology to track user inputs and personal information and storage of that information for use in Big Data analysis" as a fact, since its unsourced. Leotext (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Leotext. If the article is good enough now, do remove the tag. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to the proposed title. Kraose (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott Chinese products → Boycotts of Chinese products – This is not an article about the slogan but about advocacy efforts to engage in boycott politics. Hence policy on WP:Article titles requires a title that matches the content (see WP:PRECISION), and must do so without seeming to trumpet the clarion call to join the bandwagon, per WP:POVNAMING. The proposed neutral and precise name follows the pattern established at Boycotts of Japanese products. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this slogan is rarely used and this article is about boycotts in general. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - multiple slogans exist and there is no proof that one slogan is more prevalent than another. But all slogans that were on this article must be changed to redirects to the target page. 45.251.33.118 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above reasoning. --Drevolt (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request to delete extraneous / biased sections

The whole 1st three paragraphs under "Causes" can basically go. It's very broad background: China is the world's most populous country, it has many borders, the Communists took over in 1949, etc. that has no relevant to contemporary boycotts.

It's also pretty biased, saying that fake products are a "normal" part of development. I don't think our pages need to weigh in on whether actions are "normal" or not.

I just wanted to flag this before I delete basically a whole section. PumpkinKitten (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]