Talk:Chinese irredentism

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: I have left the NPOV tag up in the meantime. Leotext (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * Thank you, I will be taking a crack at it as well. Leotext (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)