Talk:One-child policy/Archive 2

Proposal to page protection
There are too many vandalisms for this article. Besides the obvious ones, some people just remove some sentence and make the whole thing out of logic. Some people add redundant and unrelated staff again and again. This article is now way too much long and not even explain the basic facts of one child policy: why it's there, what's it's benefits, what's the population size of Chiina, what it will be if there is no one child policy, the other aspects of the policy except the limitation of birth numbers, as for the negative views, they are added just in random order... some are very obviously POV and unrelated. Plus vandalism...

I wonder if anyone are interested and help to apply protection for this page... --Augest 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert
There has been unnecessary removal of statements made by the critics. Removal of the critics statements is POV because it is attempting to "balance the article out" so the numerical quantity of proponents and critics are equal. We should revert. I see Augest removing major criticisms and adding minor proponents like:

A woman named Zhao Hui with a 4 year old girl was reported to say that "It wouldn't matter what my financial situation was or what the government regulations were, I'd still only want one child."

That statement is completely from only one non-critic, not a significant view on this. It thus violates WP:NPOV. Plus that statement is uselessly quoted, which is WP:Soapbox. This is propaganda, the person is not even supporting or criticising, just apathetic.

71.175.31.225 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I did not remove any critics. Restructure, combine, and move related content together is not removal. Second, whether Zhao Hui said is POV? Yes, it is POV of her. But it is published by BBC, not me. Plus, it's NOT my words. According to your logic, all critisms should be removed, because they are of course POV of someone. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it records what others said. I even put reference there. What do you mean by significant view. BBC is a big news agency. The quote is published in BBC, not some personal/private website. Not a PRC agency. Revert is easy, downgrade the quality of Wikipedia is also easy. If Wiki only provided one side views, the article will be completely useless. --Augest 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Argument of overpopulation
Section 5.4 is talking about the arguement of overpopulation. All statements say overpopulation is not an issue. This does not mean one child policy is not effective. The target of one child policy is to reduce the population size. It is successful at this point. Whether we should reduce the population size, which is what Section 5.4 discusses, is something totally different. It may related to one child policy, but it could not be used to show whether one child policy is effective or not (No matter good effect or bad effect). The only way to say one child policy is uneffective is to show there is no reduction on population size (growth trend). --Augest (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:One-child.jpg
Image:One-child.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal section
The rebuttal section cited a one-paragraph opinion piece from 1994, but misrepresents the unsupported statements in that piece as "fact." In addition, the history of population control in the United States is not within the scope of this article. Since sub-section doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia, I thought the best thing to do would be to remove it. Njm0 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * i agree; the rebuttal section appeared to say 'some of the above arguments are misrepresenting'. instead of having a section, the arguments should simply be fixed so they are NPOV. i tried to remove the section, but a bot reverted me. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Valid Material
I admit, the grammar was awful, this is why we can edit this site. But what I do disagree with is the removal of the entire paragraph. The one child policy page is biased. There are no good points. The "Unexpected Results" paragraph was the only POSITIVE paragraph and it has been removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.105.121 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --- Yes,but that part of the article does not cite any sources,which means that,if we feel that it is a problematic,unsubstantiated or POV section,we may "challenge and remove it".79.125.131.150 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Horrible Grammar
the grammar in the section "Unexpected Results" has the really bad grammar, which is bad that I caught it seeing as I am fifteen. I mean, seriously, look at this: "Although it is very easy to focus on the negative sides of China's one child policy (of the above infantcide etc.)"  This sentence contains an introductory clause but nothing else! This section is also very biased and should just be removed. That said, I loved the idea of the article and I think more research should be done on this. The guy obviously feels passionately about this, and whilst he may not be the brightest bulb in the box, at least he tried - unlike I, who just go around criticising other people! But hey, what're you going to do?!

Tayler 3/18/08, 8:35 PM mountain time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.218.178 (talk)  02:35, 19 March 2008

Male/Female Ratio
The male to female ratio is 129:100, as a New York Times article claims. Just thought I should throw that put there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.12.56 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing information

 * How high is the typical penalty for additional children? The article only talks about "a multiple" of the average income. What kind of multiple are we talking about?
 * Is the penalty higher for the third child than for the second?
 * Is it a one-time-only penalty, or is it recurring? In the latter case, do the penalties stop when the child is 18?
 * If a woman has children with several men, does the penalty still apply?
 * How does the registration and enforcement system work? How do the authorities keep track of the number of children per woman?

Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re#5: Hukou. Re#4, I believe this is extremely rare in China, at least for now. -RatSkrew (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

i just went back to china for vacation and i found out quite a few information about the penalty, from talking to 2 couples that are planing to have kids, and 4 of my reletives that already had/going to have kids. it's more like this now: If both parents are single kids, they can have more then one child Twins and multiple child in one single birth counts as one. many rural areas don't report child birth. Penalty system is like this, If you are han, and with-in the laws of the one child law, a second child will cost you 3 years of your income, and might result in you been fired if you work for the government/government owned jobs. A 3rd child results in 5 years of your income. However, the government seems to have a very difficult time enforcing those penalties, especially if don't work for the government. Small business owners seems to be able to escape the penalty. These are all one time penalties.

However, you have to realize that the cost of living, housing and education is very high compared to most other countries income wise. So most parents Choose to have 1 child anyways (even if they can have more and not be fined), they focus more on making a strong financial foundation for their kids to go to a good university.

o yea to answer your #4, in china it's almost unthinkable to have kids before you marry, goes very strongly against tradition and i have only heard of 1 case but the parents married after the child was born. (probably more cases like that, but it's not well accepted by society)--Freezingbeast (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG!
what do these letters stand for??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.124.130 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes by 124.181.158.116
It is nonsense to say that most people live with their extended families now. I don't think that's true at all, and if people wish to assert that is correct then we do need some sources on that point. As far as I see people are moving out from their families more and more, which is why in the countryside you see those houses with the stairs going to nowhere (where the next generation were supposed to build their flat).

I also have reinstated the point on brainwashing because if the guy said that then it should be included. I don't think that terms should be removed without explanation. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not supporting or denying brainwashing's effectiveness as the American Psychological Association says there lacks scientific data. But what is the notability of Stephen Moore in this matter? Is he a recognized authority in psychological research? If not, why is his words about brainwashing any trustworthy than anyone else's?--Skyfiler (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Henan not allowing exception is not supported by fact
In the overview section there's a reference about Henan province not allowing exception to one-child policy. It has no factual citation to back it up (11, 12 is stricly reference for earth quake.)

I really feel this article wiffs of the typical western bias against China. Take the above example, it's very likely that's outdated information, but nobody checks it, and if I remove it there's gonna be trouble. So this half truth/twist of fact stays in WP as a fact.

Also there wasn't a specific exemption for parents who lost children in the Sichuan quake, the officials were merely mentioning the law already have provision that deals with disabled children (birth or cause) as well as death of child:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/asia/27child.php

Do people really believe this "brutal red China" static view? This article is POV. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article you pointed out actually contradicts what you just said. It doesn't say that the law "already has a provision," it says in the first paragraph that the government of Sichuan was making an exception.  If you think that's incorrect, show us a different article that backs up your views.  But don't cite this article to defend what you're saying when it actually says the opposite. You need to actually read articles before you cite them in an argument. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, if you think the assertion about Henan is untrue, take it out. As the burden is on the inclusionist to provide evidence, you don't need to provide evidence that Henan doesn't have the exception (rather, someone wanting to keep it in has to provide evidence that it does).  Things tagged  can be removed without notice.  If Henan really does have such exceptions and you remove the sentence, then someone watching the article will take the effort to dig up a source proving that it has the exceptions, and we'll be able to put it back in with a citation and improve Wikipedia.  If Henan doesn't have such exceptions and you remove the sentence, then you will be improving Wikipedia by removing misinformation.  But please, if you think the sentence is incorrect, take constructive action about it, don't just come here and vaguely accuse other editors of having written a bad article. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence contradicting article's claim of no exception in Henan
According to UNESCAP archive of a 2000 Henan provincial policy announcement, Henan province allows 2nd child:

http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/poplaws/law_china/ch_record060.htm

(Exceptions listed in Article 13, 14)

This is not even that most recent law. I propose to remove this edit due to its questionable reliability.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been removed. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose adding Guangzhou province to list of locales with "only child parents" exception
According to this 2006 report, Guangzhou provice also follows the national family planning policy which allows exception when both parents are only child:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/10/content_729312.htm

Matter of fact, I believe the description of "some" really should be "many", or "most", as exceptions/exemptions per national policy seems to be widely adopted. I will attempt to find evicence to support this claim before making such edit proposal. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional cite, please review:
 * Most people free to have more child, China Daily
 * Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Limited wording not supported by fact
Couple reasons I find this wording POV and OR: 1) the two citations 14, 15, folowing the statment does not contain the description of "limited" 2) subsquent statement contradits this claim, as exceptions to the policy have long existed

In fact, I'm suprised that this article does not record the important information of what are the exceptions to their family planning policy. Doesn't facts like this deserve it's own section, instead of spread through out the article? Having a list would certainly help anyone who might be trying to find out about the exceptions.

Here are a few I can think of:

- Rural residents can have more than one child

- Both parents are only child can have more than one child

- Disabled/desceased children exception

- Minorities are exempt

- Spacing (4-5 years?) in birth

- Adoption is exempt

- overses Chinese/returning expat exemption

- diabled parent; father who is veteran with diability

I would like propose a fact box.


 * Another thing I think is missing from this article is while punative measures are mentioned, there's nothing about benefits of volunteer participation, such as monetary rewards and qualification for addiditional social benefits from the government.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While those rules are in place in some provinces, you haven't yet shown any evidence that they were already in place in Sichuan, and it is widely known that the specifics of the regulations vary by province..  If you can find evidence of that, things might be different.  In the meantime, though, your own source (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/asia/27child.php, which you gave a few sections above) specifically says that the Chengdu Population and Family Planning Committee in Sichuan Province has "issued" an "exception" for those parents, after the quake.  So until you bring up sources saying otherwise, I think it wisest to go with the source that we actually have.
 * A fact box would not be bad, if someone has access to recent (within the last year, preferably) data on the specifics of the rule in every province, region, and municipal area; that would make it easy to compare between provinces and to find the specific rules for each area. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 12:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation of Sichuan Province family planning policy

 * Politizer: "If you can find evidence of that". Thank you, that's fair enough. According to UNESCAP archive of a 1997 Sichuan policy announcement, Sichuan provice had also adopted the national policy:
 * http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/poplaws/law_china/ch_record075.htm
 * (exceptions listed in Article 11, 12, 13)
 * So it appears the policy announcement in the wake of the earthquake is following existing policy adoption and mandate.
 * Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the exceptions given in article 11 apply to mostly to the parents' situation, rather than the child's. (For example, 11.6 is an exemption for when a parent is disabled, not when a child is.)  11.1 grants an exception for if the first child is not able to grow up to be a laborer, which might be interpreted as allowing an exemption for parents whose children died in the earthquake, but it's still different than the specific exemption that the Sichuan government apparently issued after the earthquake.  Articles 12 and 13, like article 11, are about the parents' situation rather than the children's.
 * So I think the Sichuan exception can still be listed as an exception; before that, we can mention the exemptions that were already in place, to make it clear the the Sichuan exception issued after the earthquake was an extra exemption (ie, so that readers don't interpret it to mean there were no exemptions before the earthquake). I will make the appropriate change now.
 * As for the word "limited," I don't think it has any value there and will remove it. True, the source does say "qualified parents may apply for permission for a second child," which means there is some limit in some way or another, but the fact that it's "limited" is not really significant and looks like it was just inserted there by someone who wanted the wording to be more critical of the policy. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox: Provincial adoption of national family planning policy
I just copied it to my userspace: User:Politizer/One-child policy by province. That way it can be constructed without getting mixed up with stuff at this talk page. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)