Talk:Environment of China/Archive 2

Possible copyright violation
While attempting to add some references, I noticed that the section on "Protection of 23.5 forests and control of desertification" appears to be copied verbatim from this Chinese government website:

http://www.gov.cn/english/2006-02/08/content_182514.htm

(122.116.88.31 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)) UPDATE:

It appears that the much of the contents of this page can be found on a few Chinese websites:

Green strategy: http://english.gov.cn/2006-02/08/content_182528.htm Protection of forests and control of desertification: http://www.gov.cn/english/2006-02/08/content_182514.htm Nature reserves: http://www.gov.cn/english/2006-02/08/content_182512.htm

Wetland protection: http://english.people.com.cn/data/China_in_brief/Environmental_Protection/Wetland%20Protection.html

Biodiversity:http://www.showchina.org/en/enviroment/200701/t105737.htm

Marine protection: http://english.people.com.cn/data/China_in_brief/Environmental_Protection/Marine%20Protection.html

International cooperation: http://english.people.com.cn/data/China_in_brief/Environmental_Protection/International%20Cooperation.html

It seems natural that much of this material can be found on Chinese government websites, as it is appears to be Chinese government written. It is extremely one-sided favoring the Chinese government position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.105.137 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Investigating this report on Copyright problems, I see that extensive material added here seems to be in violation of copyright. For example, the section entitled "International Cooperation" is copied verbatim from this source, which is regulated by the following license: "All rights reserved." I will be removing this material, which must not be restored as it was. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pollution over the great wall.jpg
Regarding Image:Pollution over the great wall.jpg, how can it be certain that this is pollution? It looks like heavy fog to me, which is common in the middle of summer around Beijing. Is there a way of telling the difference? Regards --Joowwww (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I'm removing it until it can be confirmed that it's pollution. --Joowwww (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge from Concerns_over_the_2008_Summer_Olympics
The problems of pollution, although had a serious impact on the 2008 Summer Olympics, is one which transcends the games, as it affects a population of billions of individuals. Therefore, the section needs to be moved. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Impartiality?
This article seem more like a "discussion" article than an encyclopedic one... I noticed... this article say the government did this and that... But it doesn't really matter in this kind of article... When you are talking about environment in an area... You talk about the state of the environment not what the government, leadership is doing to it... That's my point of view... It's more like an article about Environmental-Political issues in China... than an article on the environment of China. On this article we should talk about scientific matters here... not political ones... Well anyways. It's interesting. --Kronoxt (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As part of US$498 billion economic stimulus package of November 2008 (the largest in China's history), the government plans to enhance sewage and rubbish treatment facilities and prevent water pollution, accelerate green belt and natural forest planting programs, and increase energy conservation initiatives and pollution control projects.

Is that really necessary? ''Efforts to control China's pollution problem have become a top priority of the Chinese leadership. '' What is that... ?? Can we really prove this? This article need improvement and more reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronoxt (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

May be of interest...
Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuller, Thomas, April 1, 2010, Countries Blame China, Not Nature, for Water Shortage, New York Times

addition to external links
I had added an external link for chinadialogue which was deleted and I am wondering why. This website should have been added to wikipedia ages ago because not only is this an organization that deals with environmental issues focused on China, but it is an Non-government organization, just like the other organizations listed in the external links section. By looking at the website, it is obviously not spam or trying to promote anything except that of environmental protection, which makes it appropriate to be added to this Wikipedia page. Inadr3am (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inadr3am (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://books.google.com/books?id=dA_QbQiZkB4C&lpg=PA1216&ots=xNqC5JhWnn&dq=relies%20on%20timber%20for%2095%25%20of%20its%20government%20revenue&pg=PA1216#v=onepage&q=relies%20on%20timber%20for%2095%25%20of%20its%20government%20revenue&f=false. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Complete rewrite needed
This article sounds like Chinese government propaganda, and should be rewritten. Points missing: None of the above important issues is even mentioned in this article. Arilang   talk  00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The problem of yearly Asian Dust Sandstorm choke Beijing(沙麈暴)ReutersChina DailySina
 * 2) The planting of Transgenic crops such as corn and rice
 * 3) The untreated and lack of control of toxic waste(water and gas) produced by all the major Chinese industries
 * 4) The planned building of many(thousands, or tens of thousands) of solid waste incinerators all over the country
 * 5) Chinese netizens discussion on the negative effects of Three Gorges Dam on the river
 * 6) The building(or planning to built) of many more large scale hydro projects on many rivers for the purpose of producing electricity


 * You are right. Not only is a complete rewrite needed but there needs to be an Environmental issues in China article written as well which is where the issues you raise should be documented. I tried creating such an article a while back but my work was reverted so I gave up. I don't like wasting time creating stuff that is destroyed. My earlier attempts may have been far from perfect and complete but it was a start. I have created WikiProject Environment/Environment by country as an attempt to facilitate creating environment articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like I had created a draft at WikiProject Environment/Environment by country/Environment of China. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -


 * I have a look at your draft, I think that is the way to go. Well I can help in gathering info, because I regularly read Chinese blogs in famous forums, where a lot of important opinions are being voiced, when main stream Chinese media is the propaganda mouthpiece of the government. Regarding your comment on content being destroyed, please be aware that there are Chinese government paid editors working on major international discussion forums, and one of their main jods is deleting content which is not China-friendly. Arilang   talk  01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do also agree to the necessity for a complete rewrite. First thing that went through my mind when I read it: "Hnnn? Wait a minute .. is this a wikipedia article or some propaganda document of the PRC government?" I could list more environmental problems for central Europe than this article has about China .. and this is definitely an entirely different level. --MarsmanRom (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there evidence that this article has undergone some sort of vandalism that toned it down to put China on par with pollution in countries like France? Perhaps these articles on the PRC need to be rewritten and locked to prevent a bunch of China propaganda from filling them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folks3000 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge in both Pollution in China and Environmental issues in China
Its easy to see that there is much overlap in the topics covered in the articles Pollution in China and Environmental issues in China and this article. In fact, except for the extremely long lead this article seems to conspicuously lack information about pollution and environmental problems. It is not logical to split off environmental problems into a separate article, especially when so much of this article's content is devoted to the governments efforts to deal with environmental problems. a detailed description of those environmental problems is necessary context. As it is the body of this article seems bizarrely rosy, a sentiment I see echoed in the discussion above. Please discuss this change at length below and express your support or opposition in the conventional manner:

Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support/Oppose, reason(s), signature
 * Oppose. They are two notable topics deserving of their own articles. They should both be expanded rather than merged. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could help me understand why you think "Environment in the People's Republic of China" and "Environmental issues in China" are in fact separate issues. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not the best argument, but the US has articles formatted the same way. Essentially, "Environment of" is simply an overview of the environment; "Environmental issues of" explains the issues that the nation faces. I can understand separating the articles, and with a nation with as significant environmental issues as China, it's probably best to do that. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  06:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Beijing Bows to U.S. on Air Quality Report; Officials Vow Shift on Pollution Data After Twitter Campaign by Jeremy Page New York Times 7.January.2012; excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Content duplication
There is much overlap with this article and Environmental issues in China and Pollution in China. Based on the model of Environmental issues in the United States and Environment of the United States this article should concentrate more on topics such Biota, Climate, and Geology while environmental issues is more discussed in other articles. As such much of the very detailed environmental issues material should be moved to better articles while the non-environmental issue material in this article should be expanded. Academica Orientalis (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton
For such an important topic, this article is currently not much more than a skeleton; not even that, just a few bones and pieces. I think it needs and deserves to be built back up again: not to duplicate but to provide a reasonable overview. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The wider range of environment topics relating to China needs a lot of work given the issues and the fact that it is the most populous country. As a side note, earlier today I deleted a section about China in the recycling article. It was a very poor treatment of the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad Writing
This is a very poorly written piece and needs to be relfected and actully thought about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Link02 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)