Talk:Women in China

Problems for this page

There are serious problems for this page.

1. poorly written. Note the title of "in the PRC", but the article has elements talking about 1920s and suddenly talk about party leader. Hello! PRC starts from the year 1949.
2. lack of citations. Yes, I noticed that the text is copied from a place, but that article is NOT an original research and contains NO references.
3. full of opinions. When could "hints" ever be facts? Particularly when they were hints without references.

There are a lot of opinions here, and some of these sources, in the footnotes, actually do not conclude what they were claimed to conclude. There seem to be a good deal of ideology at play here, not referenced research. There are footnote sources talking about "Theoretical perspectives on gender stratification in China" that are being used to contradict actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Coconut99 99 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Original text prior removal

The text is totally unacceptable since it has 0 references. Prior blanking, I move the content here so you can see for yourself. Words such as "fewer" need referencing statistics. This is Wikipedia, not a political forum (and hence copy / paste of U.S. view of Chinese society), particularly when U.S. records are worse than China in areas of abortion rights, and political involvements etc. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese society has been traditionally male-centered. Sons were preferred to daughters, and women were expected to be subordinate to fathers, husbands, and sons. A young woman had little voice in the decision on her marriage partner (neither did a young man). When married, it was she who left her natal family and community and went to live in a family and community of strangers where she was subordinate to her mother-in-law. Far fewer women were educated than men, and sketchy but consistent demographic evidence would seem to show that female infants and children had higher death rates and less chance of surviving to adulthood than males. In extreme cases, female infants were the victims of infanticide, and daughters were sold, as chattels, to brothels or to wealthy families. Bound feet, which were customary even for peasant women, symbolized the painful constraints of the female role.

Protests and concerted efforts to alter women's place in society began in China's coastal cities in the early years of the twentieth century. By the 1920s formal acceptance of female equality was common among urban intellectuals. Increasing numbers of girls attended schools, and young secondary school and college students approved of marriages based on free choice. Footbinding declined rapidly in the second decade of the century, the object of a nationwide campaign led by intellectuals who associated it with national backwardness.

Nevertheless, while party leaders condemned the oppression and subordination of women as one more aspect of the traditional society they were intent on changing, they did not accord feminist issues very high priority. In the villages, party members were interested in winning the loyalty and cooperation of poor and lower-middle-class male peasants, who could be expected to resist public criticism of their treatment of their wives and daughters. Many party members were poor and lower-middle-class peasants from the interior, and their attitudes toward women reflected their background. The party saw the liberation of women as depending, in a standard Marxist way, on their participation in the labor force outside the household.

The position of women in contemporary society has changed from the past, and public verbal assent to propositions about the equality of the sexes and of sons and daughters seems universal. Women attend schools and universities, serve in the People's Liberation Army, and join the party. Almost all urban women and the majority of rural women work outside the home. But women have been disadvantaged in many ways, economic and social, and there had been no prospect for substantive change.

The greatest change in women's status has been their movement into the paid labor force. The jobs they held in the 1980s, though, were generally lower paying and less desirable than those of men. Industries staffed largely by women, such as the textiles industry, paid lower wages than those staffed by men, such as the steel or mining industries. Women were disproportionately represented in collective enterprises, which paid lower wages and offered fewer benefits than state-owned industries. In the countryside, the work of males was consistently better rewarded than that of women, and most skilled and desirable jobs, such as driving trucks or repairing machines, were held by men. In addition, Chinese women suffered the familiar double burden of full-time wage work and most of the household chores as well.

As there come to be both more opportunities and more explicit competition for them in both city and countryside, there are some hints of women's being excluded from the competition. In the countryside, a disproportionate number of girls drop out of primary school because parents do not see the point of educating a daughter who will marry and leave the family and because they need her labor in the home. There are fewer female students in key rural and urban secondary schools and universities. As economic growth in rural areas generates new and potentially lucrative jobs, there is a tendency in at least some areas for women to be relegated to agricultural labor, which is poorly rewarded. There have been reports in the Chinese press of outright discrimination against women in hiring for urban jobs and of enterprises requiring female applicants to score higher than males on examinations for hiring.

On the whole, in the 1980s women were better off than their counterparts 50 or a 100 years before, and they had full legal equality with men. In practice, their opportunities and rewards were not entirely equal, and they tended to get less desirable jobs and to retain the burden of domestic chores in addition to full-time jobs.

You should have just added some fact tags. To remove the whole lot without warning is not proper - it doesn't give anyone a chance to sort it out. Really you should put fact tags on and then leave it for about a month. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a complete whitewash, but I agree that the last version was probably OR. I'm going to change it. Alexwoods (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other sections to add

From Coconut: gender imbalance, women in engineering (women in workplace a better general topic). From me: female infanticide, women in government? Alexwoods (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

"On July 21, 2008, the All China women's Federation reported that in Nanjing, China, it was reported that several wives cut off their husband's penis because they could not stand that their husbands were gambling or cheating on them. These are classified as a "crime of impulsion" by prosecutors in Nanjing, because the women go through an "emotional crisis". Most of these female criminals were younger than 35, and receive only a suspended sentence or one below three years, and are sent back home"

[http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/report/94105-1.htm Procurators working in rural areas of Nanjing admitted that there had been several cases, in which the wife intentionally harmed her husband by cutting off his penis. A procurator on the case said: "Their reasons are simple. The wife could not bear the fact that her husband is gambling or cheating on her. It is a crime of impulsion in an emotional crisis." Li Aijun, director of the public prosecution branch in the Nanjing municipal procuratorate, said: "Women are always vulnerable to harm in a relationship and marriage. It is hard for them to change their situation. So they tend to use an extreme means."

In cases concerning female suspects, 80 percent of the women are charged with a suspended sentence or a sentence less than three years. Sun Xiaozhong, deputy director of the Nanjing Bureau of Justice, said that it is a better choice to sentence women who have committed minor crimes with a non-imprisonment penalty and send them back home. It is for their own good, and society as well.]Bunser (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how this is copyright violation. Tengu800 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Proposal

Hello Everybody! I propose to edit this entry to improve the level of comprehension, increase the number of scholarly sources, and expand on areas not discussed in the original entry. I believe that these edits are critical because Women in the People's Republic of China is a significant topic that deserves proper attention on Wikipedia. The current Wikipedia category of Women’s Rights in Asia has one subcategory for China. Unfortunately this subcategory only discusses the violence agaisnt women in China, which leads to the Wiki entry on Bride-buying. Although bride buying is a significant aspect of gender inequality in China, it does not begin to effectively present the entire issue. Currently, Wikipedia has an entry that broadly covers Gender Inequality with a subsection titled “Gender Inequality Across the Globe.” Under this subsection there exists a very brief summary of international gender inequality issues followed by a discussion of gender inequality in the United States. There is no reference to the gender disparities that plague China. The topic of gender inequality in the People's Republic of China is a very significant issue that has been researched and published in a number of scholarly journals and has received attention from influential international organization, such as the United Nations. In order to allocate the proper attention to this topic, my new entry will include subsections on legislation, cultural/societal norms, and implications in regards to family structure, education, healthcare, and employment. In order to provide detailed discussion of each subsection, I have found a significant number of scholarly resources, such as works by the World Bank and Amartya Sen. I hope that other contributors will continue my contributions by adding subsections including but not limited to, the history of gender inequality and the impacts of gender inequality on sexuality. I also hope that later contributors will expand the section on crimes against women.

I will be completing this entry under the guidance of a Poverty, Justice, and Development course at Rice University. I have added the banner to the top of this page if you would like further information. If you have any suggestions for the execution of my proposed entry, please let me know. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. Nqogu (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You've made good changes! I have some suggestions. The lead section could use expansion. Ideally it should be at least two paragraphs. You can visit WP: LEAD for more information. Also, “advancing progress” seems redundant. In "Progress in promoting equality," it seems a bit strange to have an entire section just be a quote. It's good information, but maybe you should break it up or bring in another source. The "Gender inequality" section technically applies to most of the article, doesn’t it? For instance, the gender gap in education could fit there, too. Maybe move foot binding to "Crimes against women" and just change the "Gender inequality" section to "Domestic Life," since the only subsection you have under "Gender inequality" is "Domestic Life." Alissahart (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your constructive criticism Alissahart! As I denoted in my email and as we discussed during the workshop, the forward and the "Progess in promoting equality" section were previously created by another wikiuser and appeared as such in the original wikientry. However, I will be sure to use the information provided in the WP:LEAD to guide my expansion of the forward. I am a little confused by your suggestion to change "Gender inequality" to "Domestic life". You mention that the discussion on the education gap could fit under the "Gender inequality" section, but my current entry has the education gap (addressed in the "Education" section) listed as a subsection under "Gender inequality". Thus, I am confused by your proposed change. Also, I considered moving the section on foot binding to the "Crimes against women" section, but feared that some wikiusers would object for the practice was not seen as a crime against women but a continuation of an ancient Chinese tradition. I recently added the under construction banner to this entry and hopefully more people will visit and provide feedback, particularly in regards to moving the section on foot binding. Again, thank you for your feedback and I will be sure to consider your suggestions as I continue to edit this wikipage. Nqogu (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! You're right about how "Education" is under "Gender Inequality." I must have not seen that correctly the first time. Also, just because you didn't write "Progress in promoting equality" doesn't mean that you don't have to change it. For instance, you can use those facts in the lead and get rid of the section since it is so short. The point is to improve the article as a whole. Also, foot-binding was prohibited by more than one emperor, so would that not mean it was a crime? Anyway, you did a great job with the article! Alissahart (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Alissahart, I completely agree! I mistakenly thought you were suggesting that I go in and find sources to support the information currently presented in "Progress in promoting equality." I really like your suggestion to break down the section and move important points to the lead of the entry. Yes, foot binding was outlawed on many occasions but as we discussed in lecture today, it was not until social, economic, and political factors all came together for change to finally occur and for the practice to come to an end. I will be sure to better convey this as I continue to edit this entry. Thank you for your response. Nqogu (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Review

So I thought it was a great article. I feel like there are a lot of points that you bring up but you dont have a lot of time to focus on them. For example, in the section of second wives, you say that having them produces many issues without elaborating on what they actually are. Also, I feel like a lot of this is historical which is fine but it would be more interesting to know about some of the current practices in China. I also agree that the foot-binding section might be better placed under the section of Crimes against Women. You should also talk about even though the fact that this has been banned, does it still take place in China? But still, it is a very good article. Mpyles91 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mpyles91 for your feedback! As I denoted in my email, the section on second wives was previously constructed by another wikiuser and appeared as such in the original wikientry. A lot of the sections do reflect on the current status of the People's Republic of China, but I will search for more scholarly sources that report the current state of the People's Republic of China and integrate information from those sources into the entry. I will also suggest that other wikiusers will add a section on current events related to women. Also, as I mentioned in my response to the feedback from Alissahart, I considered moving the section on foot binding to the "Crimes against women" section, but feared that some wikiusers would object for the practice was not seen as a crime against women but a continuation of an ancient Chinese tradition. Do you foresee any negative outcomes, such as backlash from wikiusers, from the implementation of the suggested move? Furthermore, the practice of foot binding lasted approximately 1,000 years and is no longer practiced in the People's Republic of China. Again, thank you for your review. Your comments were very beneficial and I will be sure to keep them in mind as I continue to revise this wikientry.Nqogu (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I would think that since it is currently outlawed that it could be considered a crime against women. Although, perhaps at the time it was not a crime. Maybe you could change the title of that section to say something to the effect of how women were harmed? And sorry I did not have time to check the email but thank you for that! Mpyles91 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

Nqogu I think you did a great job improving this article. I have a few minor suggestions.

-The sentence “The Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) recognized that a marriage filled with incompatibility… should probably read something like the Tang dynasty allowed for incompatible marriages to be dissolved…

-In the spousal abuse section, is there a link or reference you could use that connects the lack of recognition for the divorce law to domestic violence? That would really add credibility.

-Similarly to what other reviewers suggested, in the foot binding section more could be added on how the practice was really ended and whether or not it persisted after the ban.

-The health care section may need a few more references because there seems to be a few factual statements that need support right at the end of the sentence.

-Also, maybe a bit more of an explanation if the “missing women” section so that it is clear that you are not simply referring to kidnappings or deaths.

But again you did an awesome job adding content to this article. Hope my comments help. Bellechic (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

-This article was interesting and had great detailed information. However, the "Second Wives" section could use more information and data. For example, do all Chinese men engage in this practice? If not, how many actually do? Is this practice accepted by all generations or just the older/younger generations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLA253 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Crimes Against Women - Footbinding

I see that the practice of foot-binding is listed among "Crimes against women," alongside trafficking and prostitution. This seems to be a normative value judgement, imposed based a on contemporary, Western conceptualization of human rights. I make no defense of the practice, but it may be worth considering a more neutral framing of this issue. Also, a more pointed question: did footbinding only become popular in the 13th century? If memory serves, the practice became popular in elite circles in the late Tang dynasty, and began to be adopted widely in the Song. The 13th century coincides with the end of the Song. I might double check on this.Homunculus (duihua) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

" According to Yuhui Li, a graduate of Columbia University and post-doctorate from the University of Chicago, the practice of footbinding did not end until reformist movement of the late ninetieth century.[4] During this period a number of Chinese intellectuals introduced Western ideologies that “advocated equality between women and men, free love and marriage, educational opportunities for women, labor force participation of women, in a word, women's emancipation.”[4] Following the fall of the Qing dynasty and the end of imperial rule, the Republican government outlawed foot-binding in 1912[52] and popular attitudes toward the practice began to shift decisively by the 1920s. In 1949 the practice of footbinding was successfully banned and has remained banned this day.[49]"

Someone explain to me how 1912 and the 1920's are "the late ninetieth century"? Also, in Yuhui Li's article, she notes, incorrectly, that "Foot-binding was outlawed in 1902 by the imperial edicts of the Qing Dynasty, the last dynasty in China which ended in 1911." That's completely incorrect. The Qing dynasty's edict was put out in 1644, not 1902. Yuhui Li might have done her graduate work at Chicago, but she didn't read the journals. http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/faculty/Blake/pdfs/1994%20%20Foot-binding%20in%20Neo-Confucian%20China.pdf That's actually from the Chicago Journals and details accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women

http://books.google.com/books?id=u7mLql4TAxoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jerezembel (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

中國婦女傳記詞典: The Qing Period, 1644-1911  By Lily Xiao Hong Lee, A. D. Stefanowska

http://books.google.com/books?id=uwPWtJ5WSQMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

One-child policy

I think we see a serious case of ideology over facts here. The wiki page on the issue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policy correctly identifies the date the policy was introduced, 1978, and when it was first applied, 1978. Why does this page highly suggest the policy started more than 20 years earlier, in 1956? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Employment

Really? Many positive things stated in the very same references used through-out this page are completely missing in this section, as well as some others actually. I'm putting in some of the actual data from these sources, even if they don't fit into some of the political narrative we have going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMaxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited women in politics section. Of the two new sentences added, the first is actually a quote from the source and is actually the opening sentence of the report. The previous version stated the exact opposite of the report cited. Whereas the previous version stated the trend was declining, the reality is that not only is the trend going in the other direction, it's the fastest increase in international rankings ever recorded on the planet.

Do people actually check these sources, or do they just make something up and pick a random source to cite? I keep finding sources stating, literally, the exact opposite of what's claimed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Be bold and make changes as you see fit. See WP:BOLD. If you find references that are incorrect or statements that contradict you can remove them or replace them with the correct text. Don't be scared to step on people's toes. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Property Rights

I'm a current student at Rice University looking to add a section to this page regarding the property rights of women in China. I would describe the developments in property rights since reforms at the turn of the 1900s to current day. I would also rearrange the page. It doesn't make sense to me that almost every section on the page is under the heading "Gender inequality." I plan on deleting this header and moving all the subsections left. I have to reasons for this: One, it is simply not organizationally pleasing. Two, women in China should not be completely defined by their gender inequality. If you have any sources or input I can use on this, let me know! 128.42.99.35 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

@Lemongirl942: What is the reason for this cleanup tag that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Women in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219220539/http://www.china.usc.edu/ShowAverageDay.aspx?articleID=592 to http://www.china.usc.edu/ShowAverageDay.aspx?articleID=592
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Seminars/FDA/papers/18_ChenWei.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/vol1/li.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ymz5231.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jhy0815.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beanta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I'm going through it bit by bit for WP:Women in Red. Where I can't work out the intended meaning I've either guessed it or inserted an edit note. There's a lack of precision in some places. Tony (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes: Mao, Female Billionaires, Women's safety, Religious minorities...

I invite page editors to review some of the significant changes I've made to this important page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_China&type=revision&diff=971945471&oldid=966477663

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_China&type=revision&diff=971947556&oldid=966477663

Major changes:

1. When you think of women in China, the FIRST thing that comes to mind is Mao's saying. But that surprisingly wasn't included. I've added it in the intro section.

2. Added an important section on self-made women billionaires. This was also surprisingly not included. I feel this is extremely important. Countless sources are available.

3. Added a section on women's safety in China.

4. Removed a para and source that erroneously said that China is now "one of the most regressive" after the new marriage law, which the cited source did not mention. The source actually said "rapidly regressing conservative government". The actual text on the page was a piece of fiction by an editor. https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/with-new-divorce-rule-china-further-pushes-family-values/. This can be included if one wants, but with proper citations.

5. Included verbatim text from the Wiki page for female imams, and cleaned up repetitive content. Renamed the section to 'Ethnic and religious minorities'. I also think we need to rethink the whole lot of Uyghur sayings. I don't see this in any other page for any other country's women. Is it really necessary?

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Diplomat piece wasn’t “fiction” and it wasn’t an editorial, can you explain more about what you meant by that? I agree that the Uighur part is weird and seems a little WP:POINTY. I’m fine with your additions in spirit, but I would refrain from removing the stuff you removed for the most part. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also Mao’s saying was included, you should have noticed when you removed it [1]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That the changes "look like a "whitewash" at "first glance" is hardly a reason to engage in such destructive editing, especially when a) a talk page has been created for them, and b) most of the changes except one are additions, not deletions, with countless sources.

I never said that the Diplomat article is fiction. I said that the Wiki text that was attributed to it is fiction. The article never says that China is "one of the most regressive".

What about the other additions? What's your reason for reverting them? Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, Mao's saying was included, but only in passing, somewhere down below, in another context. With no reference. And that too not as a central point, which it should be. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't "destructive editing," its the preferred method of editing on english wikipedia. The article says something almost the same and if you’ve noticed I changed the wording on that one to your preferred version. Do you understand how BRD works after reading the link? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just on a point of order the Mao saying was referenced, to that Diplomat article you don’t like. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you should've just made that one change re The Diplomat article and left all the other additions intact (Mao, billionaires, safety etc.). Why revert ALL the changes? In any case, if you're OK with the other additions, I'll add them again now (which I'll have to do manually of course :P).

And no - I disagree that it's "almost" the same. It's a world of difference between what the source said and what the page said. Seems more like someone had an axe to grind. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Because I followed BRD as you should in the future. I see you’re new here and just made your account yesterday, why are you so sure you know how to do things here? Have you edited before under a different name? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

BRD says that changes should be reverted only when necessary. You said that you agree with my additions in spirit, except for The Diplomat removal. Then why not undo just that change manually, instead of sweepingly reverting the WHOLE thing at "first glance"? Now i'll have to make those changes again manually! Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all its out of the ordinary for an account as young as yours to be making such bold edits. You do seem to play fast and loose with the facts (e.g. "With no reference.") so I think further questioning on the talk page was in fact necessary. In the future perhaps don't say things like "The actual text on the page was a piece of fiction by an editor.” as this will get you mistaken for a troll, especially when it turns out not to be true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

When the text says something entirely different from what the source said, how is that not fiction?

And my question still remains unanswered: BRD says that changes should be reverted only when necessary. You said that you agree with my additions in spirit, except for The Diplomat removal. Then why not undo just that change manually, instead of sweepingly reverting the WHOLE thing at "first glance"?

And btw, my statement about "With no reference" (which we can agree to disagree with, since the source was not a direct source for the quote) was made AFTER you reverted all my edits, not before.

And finally, I don't think an editor's account being new has anything to do with anything. Is there a rule that says that old editors have more importance than new ones, except in matters of administration?

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree to disagree? It was always sourced, there are no alternative facts here. I felt a full revert was necessary, your continued conduct on this talk page is proving me right BTW. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And STILL my question remains unanswered: BRD says that changes should be reverted only when necessary. You said that you agree with my additions in spirit, except for The Diplomat removal. Then why not undo just that change manually, instead of sweepingly reverting the WHOLE thing at "first glance"? Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"I felt a full revert was necessary, your continued conduct on this talk page is proving me right BTW." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you think that, BEFORE you had had a discussion with the editor who made them and had a chance to observe his "conduct"? Was there anything in the actual changes (except the Diplomat part) that made you feel that they had to be reverted? If yes, why say that you agree with them in spirit? If no, why revert them? Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Diplomat part was enough. I also notice that you’ve removed The Diplomat on multiple pages, why target this specific publication? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you're contradicting yourself. First you said that you agree with the additions in spirit. Now you say that the one change (out of 5) was enough to also revert the remaining 4 changes (that you agree with in spirit) as well? That's just poor editing. Basically, you reverted additions that you agreed with in spirit?

Also - you've twice referred to my account's age on Wikipedia. It might be "out of the ordinary", but why does that matter? An edit should be reverted or accepted based on its content, now the editor who makes it. That is just ad-hominem territory.

And no - I have no problem with The Diplomat (whose links I've only removed twice btw). Don't try to insinuate something that isn't there. What are you implying? I've removed other links too.

Now I'm going to go ahead and make those other additions. If you have any problems, please discuss them here and arrive at a consensus first, instead of just a sweepingly removing them. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Uyghur sayings

Carrying forward from the previous talk section, can we arrive at a consensus for removing the Uyghur sayings? They don't add anything substantial to the reader's understanding of women in China - they're just sayings. And they don't particularly add anything that hasn't already been said in the text. Moreover, I don't think any other such page for any other country has it. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes we can, as you say its extremely atypical for this sort of page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes let's ditch them. Here's the list of what was removed for quick reference, for those who're seeing this in the future:

• Firewood serves for winter, a wife serves for her husband's pleasure. (Qişniŋ rahiti oton, ärniŋ rahiti xoton.) (قىشنىڭ ﺭﺍﻫﯩﺘﻰ ئوتون, ئەرنىڭ ﺭﺍﻫﯩﺘﻰ خوتون)
• Woman is the slave of the house. (Xotun kişi tüt tamniñ quli.) (خوتۇن كىشى تۈت تامنىڭ قۇلى)
• Allah is God for a woman, the husband is half God. (Ayalniñ pütün xudasi XUDA, yärim Xudasi är.) (ئايالنىڭ پۈتۈن خۇداسى خۇدا, يەرىم خۇداسى ئەر)
• the first wife is a good woman, the second a witch, and the third a prostitute. (birgä täkkän yaxši, ikkigä täkkän baxši, üčkä täkkän paxši.) (بىرگە تەككەن ياخشى, ئىككىگە تەككەن باخشى, ئۈچكە تەككەن پاخشى)
• A family with many women will be miserable. (Qizi barniñ därdi bar.) (قىزى بارنىڭ دەردى بار)
• Let your daughter marry or you will die of regret instead of illness. (Qiziñ Öyde ärsiz uzaq turmiğay, ölärsän puşaymanda sän ağirmay.) (قىزىڭ ئۆيدە ەرسىز ئۇزاق تۇرمىغاي, ئۆلەرسەن پۇشايماندا سەن اغىرماي)
• Woman: long hair, short wit. (Xotun xäqniñ çaçi uzun, ä qli qisqa.) (خوتۇن خاقنىڭ چەچى ۇزۇن ئە قلى قىسقا)
• A woman without a husband is like a horse without a halter. (Ärsiz xotun, yugänsiz baytal.) (ەرسىز خوتۇن, يۇگەنسىز بايتال)
• Men rely on life, a wife relies on her husband. (Är jeni bilän, xişri äri bilän.) (ەر جېنى بىلەن, خىشرى ەرى بىلەن)

I wonder what logic one had for introducing these on this page. Moreover, here's something funny: a single source was cited for these sayings, four different times under four different numbers. https://books.google.com/books?id=reuGAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT72

Maybe someone may create a separate Wikipedia page for Uyghur sayings on women, but 'Women in China' is not the right place to list them.

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

@Honoredebalzac345: This is the place to explain your changes to the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The original version of the lead ended with this sentence: "However, the government's efforts toward gender equality have met some resistance in the historically male-dominated Chinese society and obstacles continue to stand in the way of women achieving greater equality in China."

This was good, but unsourced. I have now added two lines in the lead (one replacing this one, and one at the beginning of the 2nd para of the lead) that do the job equally well - if not better. They not only summarize the article but also provide an overview of the current status of women in China. The source is an article from the Journal of International Women's Studies. You can't get any more reliable than that.

https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol1/iss1/3/

Changes in bold:

OLD LEAD 2nd para:

Mao Zedong famously said, "Women hold up half the sky."[3][4][5] In 1995, President Jiang Zemin made gender equality an official state policy.[6][7] However, the government's efforts toward gender equality have met some resistance in the historically male-dominated Chinese society and obstacles continue to stand in the way of women achieving greater equality in China'.

NEW LEAD 2nd para:

Achievement of women’s liberation has been on the agenda of the Communist Party of China since the beginning of the PRC.[3] Mao Zedong famously said, "Women hold up half the sky."[4][5][6] In 1995, President Jiang Zemin made gender equality official state policy.[7][8] Although China has been tremendously successful in achieving gender equality, women still suffer a lower status compared with men.[3]

Two new sentences added at the beginning and end of the 2nd para.

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leslie.the.frog (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Leslie.the.frog (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinions on inclusion of view of author of The Diplomat article?

I want to flag the following for discussion among interested editors. We cite an article from The Diplomat for some statements of direct fact, and also the following view by the article's author:

"Writing for The Diplomat, Chauncey Jung writes that these revisions to the civil code complete a transition from the women hold up half of the sky era in which, at least rhetorically, China was one of the most progressive nations in the world in terms of women's rights to more regressive era of “strong family values for a harmonious society."

The article is not labeled as an op-ed, but it strikes me as one. The writer does not seem to be a recognized expert, and is not an academic. The author is largely significant for writing articles for The Diplomat. The author works at a Chinese internet company. In addition to my op-ed concerns, it also strikes me that we may be giving undue weight to this author's view especially given the broad scope of "Women in China" and the plethora of sources we can rely on for this topic.

I say all this because I just added in-text attribution for this author's view which is necessary at a minimum, but I'm inclined to delete the above quoted sentence per WP:Undue.

Any other views on this source? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The Diplomat is reliable, Jung doesn't seem to be making the provocative statements I would generally expect of an op-ed. Nothing they're saying is at odds with what other sources are saying as far as I can tell. China was once progressive on women's rights, it is now regressive... Everyone seems to agree on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine enough for me. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note I do think its an improvement to attribute the statement and I should have started off by thanking you for that. Sorry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, not to worry. Thanks very much and thank you for weighing in on my further question. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

About the Education of Chinese Women

The facts about the education of Chinese women were out of date. According to the statistics from Chinese ministry of education, there are more females in universities, and regular senior secondary schools which are high schools for universities and not for employment.The text is talking about the situation of Chinese women 30 years ago.

[2]http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/statistics/2021/national/202301/t20230104_1038061.html The Puki desu (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I templated the section as Needs Update and revised existing material to show that it is as-of 1992. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed

@Augend: if the source doesn't say that[3] what does it say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back The citation reads "Women, Property, and Confucian Reaction in Sung and Yuan China (960–1368)". No part of this title bears any relevance to "current-day China." Hence the lack of a source. Consider further that the paper in question was published in 2002, a whole 21 years ago. Regardless of whether this historical essay makes any reference to modern-day Chinese society, the span of two intervening decades suggests that a better source is necessary. Augend (drop a line) 01:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't tag with a better source needed tag, you tagged it with a citation needed tag. Are you judging the source based on the title alone or do you have access to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two claims made in the paragraph. The first has no support from the source, nor does the source purport to support it. A better source needed tag is inappropriate as the source appears to properly justify the second claim made in the paragraph. You seem to be erroneously conflating the two claims being made. I assure you they are not the same. Augend (drop a line) 02:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that the statement has no support from the source if you haven't checked the source? Both claims are sourced to the same paper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back As a separate note, instead of tendentiously contesting the propriety of a tag (as compared to another, fairly similar one), I suggest that your time is better spent finding a source better suited to the claim being made, should you find the tag objectionable. Augend (drop a line) 02:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? I didn't revert you, your edit is live. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that this does not appear to fall under WP:TENDENTIOUS so I will ask you to strike that personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)