Talk:Civilization state

2 October 2019 Comment
When looking through the artical it seems that most of the information is very POV heavy, and as stated by Rosquill Jacques's website is used as citation many times, even though it is not clear whether it meets the standards for verifiability. Muffin of the English (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

NPP comment: Undue weight tag
This article appears to be largely based on sources by one or two authors of unclear reliability, and most of its content presents the theory's understanding of China, rather than a historiographic account of the prevalence and usage of the theory. By contrast, consider Nation state. Given these concerns and the fact that the article was created by an editor banned for sockpuppetting following a slew of POV edits, I think that this article needs a thorough looking-over for POV, UNDUE, and FRINGE concerns. signed,Rosguill talk 21:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Rosguill. But what remedy is appropriate? Should the article exist at all? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , at this point I think I've actually cleaned up the worst of it, in that we now at least have an article about how this term is used in academic and political discourse. It could be further improved by expanding the section about countries other than China, and by including criticism of the concept. signed,Rosguill talk 15:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

On Criticism
That section is rightfully a Criticism, but it appears that (from the text, I did not read the citation inside) Journalist Gideon Rachman does not criticize the concept. It seems that he provided more texture on top the concept of civilization-state so that we understand more on their dark side. That is a criticism, but I am not sure whether there is a better word to describe this **enhancement**. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , "Analysis" or "Reception", perhaps? signed,Rosguill talk 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)