Talk:Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China

POV tag

I've added a POV tag as this article is a POV fork which has been spun off from Environment of China to highlight negative aspects, which is unacceptable. As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view explains:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. Johnfos (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a POV fork - Environment of China and Env issues of China are different subjects and are therefore entitled to separate pages. It also allows the templates and categories relating to Environmental issues of XXX to be used effectively. Do you consider all article in Category:Environmental issues to be POV? -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be part of Environment of China. This article is simply too negative in my opinion. It's absolutely true, but there is more than bad stuff to tell. Xilliah (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You say it it too negative but it is "absolutely true". Wikipedia should tell it like it is regardless of how negative, how shocking or whether it upsets religious or moral sentiments. Articles should however be neutral. Can you give a few pointers as to what is not "bad stuff" that can be incorporated in the article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A daughter article is not necessarily a content fork. Something spun off from a section of a main article, such as this is, is not likely to cover identical material to what remains in the main article. That being said, I do not see if the original article was so long that a sub-article was necessary.

However, either way, a POV tag is not inherently required. Relata refero (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed... Johnfos (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

POV check requested

Due to my past dealings with this issue and specifically Alan Liefting, I'm not certain I can be totally unbiased in checking this article for neutrality, so I'm requesting that someone else do that. Also, Johnfos raised concerns that this may be a content fork, but I do not see that this has been split from the China article. Possibly China's damage to the environment is notable, but I'm not sure. Please keep these things in mind as you check for neutral point of view. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 11:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(similar discussion at Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam).

I do not see the split of this article from the original as a cause of concern about POV issues. It is notable, referenced and has sufficient info to be a standalone article. There are many other such articles at Category:Environmental issues by country. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• "...the World Bank has reported that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are Chinese"; see Time magazine's The World's Most Polluted Places

1. Linfen, China
2. Tianying, China
3. Sukinda, India
4. Vapi, India
5. La Oroya, Peru
6. Dzerzhinsk, Russia
7. Norilsk, Russia
8. Chernobyl, Ukraine
9. Sumgayit, Azerbaijan
10. Kabwe, Zambia

• Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Added to the intro. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)