Jump to content

Talk:Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "anti-China" of Israel and South Korea is basically not a cultural "anti-Chinese" but a political "anti-PRC"

[edit]

If you search for 反中 / 反中國 ("anti-China") in the Chinese Wikipedia; it is redirected to an 反中華人民共和國 ("Anti-People's Republic of China") article, not an 反華 / 反中華 ("anti-Chinese sentiment") article. 反華. Also in Japan, there is a strict distinction between 中國 (political China Under CCP Dictatorship) and 中華 (cultural Chinese unrelated to CCP dictatorship). In Japan, for example, 親華派 means Pro-ROC, not Pro-PRC ("親中派").

@The Account 2: [1] The case of Israel or South Korea you remove means political "anti-China" 反中, not cultural "anti-Chinese sentiment" 反華. In Sinosphere, "anti-China" 反中 usually means "anti-PRC" 反中華人民共和國 and not "anti-Chinese sentiment" 反華. ProKMT (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH; none of the sources you linked about Israel or South Korea mentioned a distinction between "cultural anti-Chinese" and "political anti-PRC". Also regarding South Korea, see this; a lot of the anti-Chinese sentiment there is beyond simply being "anti-PRC". The Account 2 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Chinese racism by far-right political movements exists in South Korea. However, if you look at the news sources related to the THAAD conflict a decade ago, they all had something to do with anti-Beijing sentiment, not racially anti-Chinese sentiment. ProKMT (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For any other "anti-country" page in Wikipedia, the articles mention both opposition to the government/political system and fear/dislike of that country's culture/people. I don't know why China should be different. Also, very rarely do the articles you mention opposition mention the PRC, they just mention China (because to the overwhelming percentage of the world population, China and PRC are one and the same, meaning to most people anti-China = anti-PRC). The Account 2 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Japan and Israel use the terms differently, but 華 can also be synonymous with China in the political sense. Vacosea (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guotaian's overhaul

[edit]

This is a massive overhaul and it's going to take a good long while to go through but, I have to say, so far it looks like good work. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of WP:COAT and conflation of ideas was introduced that needs to be scrutinized and probably trimmed. A good example is the Thailand section, which is about local antipathy toward mainland Chinese people...not exactly the same concept as anti-PRC. - Amigao (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Thailand section does seem to be only tangentially related and might be better for Sinophobia however I don't think it's pervasively WP:COAT - it may be slightly closer to neutral than most articles on China. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pavilou

[edit]

@Zanahary could you please explain the BLP grounds for excluding Drew Pavilou from the see-also here? Being aggressively against the PRC is basically the only thing he's notable for. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 He’s not remotely a notable enough figure in opposition to the PRC, in the context of the thousands of notable activists, politicians, writers and journalists who are primarily known for opposing the PRC. He was put there by a user who has made few edits that aren’t about him—among those edits are attempts to include random tweets he made about his pst lives to his biography. That’s not reason to remove his name, but what I’m saying is that there’s not any good reason to leave it there, and it’s just silly that it’s there at all—some just-notable guy on Twitter does not need to be one of a handful of names linked in the See Also. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page Drew Pavlou and you saying "well he's not really important" isn't a WP:BLP based concern - which is the basis you argued against inclusion. I think it should probably be reinserted. I don't like the man but he certainly has had extensive media coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like him doesn’t matter. Not every notable person who opposes the PRC should be listed in the See Also. It’s way undue weight for a relatively insignificant figure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlou is primarily notable for his anti-PRC activism. He has rather extensive coverage in the West for his activism, and easily one of the main figures in Western media primarily associated with this activism. Contrast this with Jimmy Lai even, who is perfectly appropriate to have in the See Also despite the fact that he has not enjoyed extensive coverage or association with anti-PRC activism since 2019. I would struggle to call Pavlou "insignificant" in this context. Catjerine (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely concur with Zanahary that my liking or disliking a person doesn't affect their notability. That was kind of my point. I'm not saying Pavilou is notable because I like him, want to spread his ideas, or anything like that. Because I don't. I think he's notable because he's addressed as such by a very large number of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will also touch on this:
" He was put there by a user who has made few edits that aren’t about him"
Congratulations - you identified a subject which I am relatively interested about and have made a disproportionate amount of edits about as a result. I don't know what bearing this possibly has on why you think Drew Pavlou is not significant enough for inclusion on the See Also. Catjerine (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly for the reasons I shared in my edit comments and my response to @Zanahary above. Pavlou is a highly notable and covered individual in this area and it's not inappropriate to direct readers seeking to learn about the topic of Anti-PRC activism towards information about one of the principal public figures in anti-PRC discourse in Western media. Catjerine (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous politicians, activists, academicians and other kind of figures from around the world well-known for their opposition to the PRC. What makes Drew Pavlou so notable that he specifically is mentioned in the See Also section and not, say, Lai Ching-te, Mike Pompeo, Marco Rubio, Nathan Law, Liu Xiaobo, Joshua Wong, Falun Gong, Guo Wengui, Luke de Pulford or Teacher Li Is Not Your Teacher? Even Gordon G. Chang might be a more notable pick... The Account 2 (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly right that some of these would be appropriate for the see-also if not already linked in the article. I went ahead and added Falun Gong to the see-also. On the other hand I'd suggest that Marco Rubio would be less appropriate as his opposition to the PRC isn't a key thing about him - just kind of something else about him. For the various Hong Kong anti-communist activists I'd want to see which are linked in the article body but they'd mostly be appropriate for conclusion. I haven't the first clue who the last three people on your list are so I can't speak to them off the cuff. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm wouldn't it better to incorporate these people into the article in some way though? I generally prefer See Also sections to be kept short and concise, though others might prefer more exhaustive lists. (I'm surprised you haven't heard of Gordon Chang though, he's achieved a certain level of fame with a book making predictions of China's imminent collapse... 20 years ago). The Account 2 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked him up and have some vague recollection of reading about him sometime in the future. I don't give too much attention to American anti-communists. There's too many of them to really weed out the ones who might have something relevant to say from the partisans. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the other dedicated activists you mentioned are more credentialized, Drew Pavlou receives vastly more actual coverage and notoriety between them. Additionally, a large number of them last received large media attention during the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests, and aren't quite as relevant now. I'd argue for keeping Jimmy Lai nonetheless given that he was at the nexus of such coverage at that time. As for the politicians, anti-PRC stances are just one aspect of the otherwise large set of activities they're known for - Marco Rubio for example doesn't seem sufficiently related to the subject of anti-PRC. Like @Simonm223 said though, I could see a case for adding Falun Gong. Catjerine (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel it's massively undue. From what I can see about him, his primary notability right now seems to be posting a lot of Tweets (and a quick check on his Twitter account shows he's more concerned about defending Israel than China these days). A quick Google check seems to show most news articles about him are written between 2021 and 2023, and he doesn't seem to be a widely mentioned person today (indeed, I virtually never see him in news about China, or even about the China-Australia relationship). I also gave the example of Gordon Chang because he actually got cited by the President of the United States himself multiple times. The Account 2 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I'm not saying he is. I meant that he was notable enough to get Trump's attention, which is way more than any attention Drew Pavlou seems to have gotten. The Account 2 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: This article is about anti-PRC sentiment. There have been thousands of notable people who have exhibited ant-PRC sentiment. Drew Pavilou is a minor figure. If we list every person here who has an article about them on Wikipedia and has prominently expressed anti-PRC sentiment (within or outside of the PRC, within or outside of the ROC, within or outside of the political structure of any government), the article will include hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of such 'see also' links. That would be obviously completely silly. Including him is clearly WP:UNDUE. Including Jimmy Lai is also undue. Knowing about these particular people is not important to understanding anti-PRC sentiment as a topic, and they are not the most important people to know about in relation to this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about both Pavlou and Lai. Their placement in the See Also section isn't trivia and isn't treated as such - they're both large figures in the topic of anti-PRC sentiment, and readers with access to the links will have a more complete understanding of the subject as a whole. Catjerine (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight D. Eisenhower sent troops into armed conflict with PRC-backed forces (more than once) and threatened the PRC with nuclear war. He was a bigger threat than Pavlou and Lai. His article on Wikipedia discusses his anti-PRC sentiment in its lead section and in greater detail in another section in the article. Should he be listed too? How about John F. Kennedy, who followed Eisenhower in office, continued and expanded armed conflict with PRC-backed forces, and lamented the "tragic story of China"? How about Donald Trump and his punitive anti-PRC tariffs? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're being quite deliberately poor-faith about the point I'm making - it's not difficult to imagine why general US policy 60-70 years ago may not be a functional comparison to major figures in anti-PRC movements today. Catjerine (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and does not emphasize current events over historical ones. See WP:RECENTISM, for example. In the grand scheme of things, Pavlou and Lai are extremely minor figures, and Eisenhower, Kennedy and Trump are not, although I do not suggest listing them or any other individual people under "See also". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is Pavlou a major figure though? There are numerous, much more notable anti-PRC figures today, with some holding significant political power. Has Pavlou had any notable impact in world politics? The most he seems to do is post a lot of Tweets. Even in his own country, I'd argue his importance is superseded by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which had significant influence over Australia–China relations. Furthermore, does he himself care that much about China anymore? Looking at his Twitter account, he seems more fixated on Zohran Mamdani than China these days. The Account 2 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SEEALSO offers some good guidance here, which says it should be kept to a reasonable number. It still seems WP:UNDUE to include an individual like Pavlou. If Pavlou, why not Gordon G. Chang, Miles Yu, or Matthew Tye? A 'See also' section can quickly turn into a laundry list, which it is not supposed to be. - Amigao (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

There are clear NPOV issues with the article, such as this section in the lede: "In the western world, fear over the increasing economic and military power of China, its technological prowess and cultural reach, as well as international influence, has driven persistent and selectively negative media coverage of China. This is often aided and abetted by policymakers and politicians, whose actions are driven both by prejudice and expedience.". Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All reliably sourced, and true.Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think "aided and abetted" is neutral language? Do you think there are no alternative terms that lack such negative connotations?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you. Wikipedia shouldn't be PRC propaganda. The PRC is an imperialist dictatorship with a very low level of human rights. It is true that the U.S. has anti-PRC bias because it is competing with China for supremacy, but "Western world" is a very vague phrase; anti-PRC sentiment stands out in Japan and South Korea (although sometimes referred to as the "Western world" in the broad sense of sharing liberal culture and politics), while Japan and South Korea are not the "Western world" in the narrow sense. ProKMT (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete reliable sources from an article in your haste to make the article about anti-Chinese groups less sympathetic to China. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Aiding and abetting" is a legal phrase that is only used to describe criminal behavior. It is nowhere near neutral. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to share topical information about a subject and let people form their own opinions based on that information. We're not here to make the subjective, political argument that China is bad. Whether people read the article and think either good or bad things about China is not our concern as long as we're not catering the information towards either end. Catjerine (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is weird and unencyclopedic language ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a fair number of days since this discussion was active. I don't think it would be inappropriate to remove the Disputed Neutrality tag from the main article, though I'd like some input on this before I make any such edit. Catjerine (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate to remove the tag because a consensus has not been reached. You can't just remove it because the discussion is inactive; one side has stated their points and the other side has not responded. In fact, the NPOV problems with the article have gotten worse.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is clear for a move, and whilst a few alternatives were offered the most popular is the initial suggestion, albeit with an en dash to make it grammatically correct. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-People's Republic of China → Anti-People's Republic of China sentiment – current title doesnt make grammatical sense grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus to move but not on the title to move to. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Anti-China sentiment" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Anti-China sentiment has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9 § Anti-China sentiment until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)`[reply]

反華

[edit]

Chinese Wikipedia translates "反中" into Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment (反中華人民共和國) and "反華" into Anti-Chinese sentiment. The Deutsche Welle source "反華" suggested by Vacosea addresses not only hostility towards the PRC in South Korea, but also hostility towards the Chinese people. "反華" and "反中" are different.[2] ProgramT (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being removed from this article, the relevant content was newly written in Anti-Chinese sentiment in Korea article.[3] ProgramT (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsche Welle literally states 其支持者開始示威，其中部分抗議者矛頭直指中國，高呼「CCP OUT」（中國共產黨滾出）口號; his supporters began to demonstrate, some of whom pointed their spearheads directly at China, chanting "CCP OUT" (Chinese Communist Party get out) in the first sentence. A more clear example occurs later in 南韓的反華情緒究竟有多嚴重？韓媒《每日經濟》的數據顯示，2015 年對中國持負面態度的南韓人僅佔 16%; How serious is anti-China sentiment in South Korea? According to data from the South Korean media Daily Economy, only 16% of South Koreans had a negative attitude towards China in 2015. Notice the use of 反華 for anti-China. Please be careful with original research, which The Account 2 has pointed out, and improper synthesis, which was pointed out by other editors regarding your past contributions to Chinese conservatism and neoauthoritarianism. Vacosea (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed this source that contradicts your assertion, which translates 反华法案并非解决之道 as "Anti-China Legislation Is Not the Solution". As it has been pointed out before, 华 or 華 also means China. They are used by RS to describe anti-PRC sentiments in South Korea and the United States. Vacosea (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, translating "anti-China" (which includes both ethnic anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-PRC) into "反華" is not wrong, but "反中" and "反華" are not synonymous.[1] Your editing to interpret 反華 as Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment is wrong; per WP:SYNTH. ProgramT (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly use 反華 for anti-PRC.[2][3] On the other hand, is your source reliable? Vacosea (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources you suggested can be interpreted as "anti-China [sentiment]" in context. You did not provide the source directly mentioned that 反華 means "anti-PRC [sentiment]" in English. The Deutsche Welle source you presented refers to both the apparent [anti-Chinese] racism against HongKongers or Taiwanese and the antipathy against the PRC as 反華. ProgramT (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deutche Welle literally asks 南韓的反華情緒究竟有多嚴重？韓媒《每日經濟》的數據顯示，2015 年對中國持負面態度的南韓人僅佔 16%；2020 年上升至 40%。How severe is South Korea's anti-China sentiments? Data from Maeil Business Newspaper shows that in 2015 only 16% of South Koreans held a negative attitude toward China; this climbed to 40% in 2020. In the U.S. News & World Report reprint, 反华法案并非解决之道 is directly translated as Anti-China Legislation Is Not the Solution.[4] 反华 is equated with anti-China in a speech by Kevin Rudd.[5] I'm just using the sources' translations. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Vacosea here - it is not WP:SYNTH to make use of translations provided by secondary sources. It is, however, a violation of WP:RS to use UGC such as another Wikipedia project as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may still be WP:SYNTH. Source did not directly report that 反华 means "anti-PRC" in English; 反华 can include both "anti-PRC" and "anti-Chinese racism." In addition, I offered a source that 反中 and 反華 are not synonymous:[1] both 反中 and 反華 should not be mentioned equally.[4] ProgramT (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the distinction between the "anti-PRC" and the "anti-Chinese racism" of the far-right camp of South Korea, including pro-Yoon conservatives, is blurred. For example, they attack restaurants and schools run by Chinese-speaking people (including mainladers as well as Taiwanese), claiming conspiracy theories that the PRC meddled in South Korean elections and liberals came to power. This is similar for Japan's far-right camp. ProgramT (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may be conflating the issues here. I am not saying 反華 cannot mean anti-Chinese but that it can mean anti-China as well. This is how some secondary sources have translated the term for a long time to indicate sentiments against the PRC in Australia, South Korea, and the United States. Vacosea (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources use the word 反华 to mean "anti-China" in the sense of being against the PRC. For instance, this source speaks of "Taiwanese independence forces engaging in anti-China separatist activities" (“台独”势力从事反华分裂活动). I think it's reasonable to list it as a translation in this article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References

  1. ^ a b 紀紅兵; 內幕出版社 (August 25, 2016). 《十九大不准奪權》: 反貪─清除野心家 (in Chinese). 內幕出版社. ISBN 978-1-68182-072-9. Archived from the original on August 26, 2024. Retrieved August 26, 2024. ... 第三點,作為獨立學者,與您分享下本人"反中不反華"的觀點。
  2. ^ "韓國反華情緒為何日益高漲？". Deutsche Welle. July 20, 2025. 南韓的反華情緒究竟有多嚴重？韓媒《每日經濟》的數據顯示，2015 年對中國持負面態度的南韓人僅佔 16%；2020 年上升至 40%。
  3. ^ "反华法案并非解决之道". U.S. News & World Report. October 13, 2011. 在这种情况下，将真正的罪魁祸首归咎于中国凶猛的出口极为容易。
  4. ^ "Anti-China Legislation Is Not the Solution". U.S. News & World Report. October 13, 2011.
  5. ^ "A New Sinology for A New Period". Asia Society. 10 December 2017. I often despair when I hear terms such as "亲华" (pro-China) or "反华" (anti-China), "亲美" (pro-U.S.) or "反美" (anti-U.S.)

Requested move 2 August 2025

[edit]

Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment → Criticism of the People's Republic of China – The current title is confusing word salad and this article seems to synthesize prejudice towards Chinese people in general with criticism of the government of the PRC. If the title is changed, the former content can be removed (we already have articles for that) and this page can focus on the latter. — Anonymous 01:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Just makes more sense. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. From a quick scan of the article, it seems to be mainly about the sentiment indicated by the current title, not a collection of criticism. It is hard for me to understand what criticism of a country would mean. Criticism of the government? The culture? The people taken as a monolith? I searched for a few other countries and found that Criticism of Japan, Criticism of Indonesia, and Criticism of India are redlinks while Criticism of the United States is a redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mx. Granger, Criticism of Israel? I think the fact that there are two conflicting Chinese governments makes this type of article somewhat more viable. — Anonymous 19:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That article may be an example of why "criticism of" articles are often a bad idea. It combines criticism of the Israeli government and commentary about criticism of the Israeli government with miscellaneous other information about Israel, some of which doesn't seem to be related to sourced criticism but which I'm guessing some Wikipedia editor considered criticism-worthy. In the case of Israel there may be a notable subject, as some sections show RS coverage of the general subject of criticism of Israel (or at least the Israeli government), but if so the article needs some work to focus on that subject. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack this discussion, so I'll just say that I think Criticism of Israel is not a very good example of how to structure an article, and it doesn't seem to be entirely comparable to the subject at hand. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mx. Granger, as stated below, I ironically tend to have similar feelings towards creating content about "criticisms" or "controversies". However, this article seems to more or less be focused on that type of content anyway, just framed in a very, very sympathetic light at the moment (a more neutral rendition of this article would probably wholly overlap with the content in a neutrally written "Criticism of the PRC" article anyway, as both would address both criticisms and responses to said criticisms). I don't necessarily want another "criticism of X" article, but the current title is, as already expressed, quite cumbersome and again, the content under either title would be similar. For what it's worth, I think "Criticism of the People's Republic of China" is somewhat more viable than "Criticism of Japan" as an article title, as the People's Republic of China is understood as a political entity while Japan can be understood as either a political entity or the nation-state of the Japanese people. Conversely, a "Criticism of the United States" or "Criticism of the Soviet Union" article would probably also work, as both are clearly political entities first and foremost; it just so happens that "Anti-American sentiment" and "Anti-Soviet sentiment" work just as well without being overly cumbersome (while the same cannot really be said here). In conclusion... I don't know. — Anonymous 04:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit to add that I would support a move to a title that doesn't abuse the emdash so long as the article remains focused on a neutral assessment of prejudicial sentiment rather than general "criticism". Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223,
    truth be told, I don't really know the best way to resolve the issue of this awkwardly titled article. For what it's worth, I must admit that I myself don't like the concept of "criticism of X" articles (or even sections within articles), but "anti-X sentiment" just seems like a more cumbersome and sympathetic way of saying the same thing. — Anonymous 19:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti–People%27s_Republic_of_China_sentiment&oldid=1304429462"