Talk:Made in China

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soymilkp20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The comaprison between China Export and the European Community logo has no place in the aticle. First, because it explains nothing with the comparison. Second, because it is an haox (https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-economie/20090418.RUE9758/le-faux-logo-ce-chinois-des-abus-mais-pas-de-complot.html) This is confusing and bring bad information on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionbeam (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of Information[edit]

This article seems to be lacking some neutral background information in favor of coverage of controversies. I expected to find more information about the history of Made in China exports (when they became so ubiquitous) though I acknowledge that perhaps this can be found in another article (perhaps they should be merged?). Regardless, jumping into scandals right off the bat seems unfair; it would make more sense to start with more neutral information, as other articles typically do, before coming to "controversy" or "criticism". "Marketing significance" should come first I think, for this reason. Also, when was the first product with the made in China brand exported? Some more neutral history would be a good beginning point I think, though the controversies undoubtedly deserve attention. Samoht 77 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2007[edit]

Ksyrie, I have noticed--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) that you have been deleting my contributions. I don't see any "discrimination", as you have put it, since everything I wrote is backed by valid sources. It may be that inferior products are made in every country, but that is not a reason to delete that statement; furthermore, the recent controversy surrounding products made in China is clearly notable and worth putting in Wikipedia. Cgkm 22:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,I have already known the counterfeiting issue,but it's not true about all you had read in the news paper,check the page toxic syrup,you will find more.For the toxic toothphase,it's the matter of different hygienic standard,In China small amount of chemicals are alowed to be added.Furthermore,the tainted food issue,as far as I know,there are many tainted food from US and Europe sold to China,and some of them were backlashed by the Customs.It's a global phenomenan not limited to Made in China.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ksyrie, thanks for your reply. Here are my comments:

  • The dog food and toxic cough syrup issues are still being investigated, but at least it is certainly worth mentioning that these issues exist. These are valid current events that are making headlines in international news.
  • The fact that officials in China admitted that nearly a fifth of all products made in China did not meet minimum standards is a fact, and is certainly worth putting in Wikipedia.
  • If certain small amounts of chemicals are indeed allowed to be added in China but not in other countries , that in itself is worth mentioning in Wikipedia.
  • I do not believe that there are nearly as many tainted products from US and Europe as from China, but if you have valid sources saying so, you are certainly free (and encouraged) to contribute those to the relevant pages (Made in the US, etc.). Products made in China are, to a certain extent, infamous for not meeting minimum standards (and considered by many to be at the top of this distinction), and this notability makes it worth including in Wikipedia.

So, I hope to reintroduce these points into the article, with proper references, and I encourage you to add your own points, with proper references. Thanks. Cgkm 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All of your claims counts，but it is not appropriate to add to the Made in China,The products of Made in China is as large numbered,may count 20% of total international trade amount.And for Made in X countries there are also the same problem,such as Made in US and Made in EU.Check the article of Diethylene glycol,you will find how many miusage of this chemicals.For the toothphase issue,small amount of Diethylene glycol is allowed in China to be used as additive,and it seems that this kind of chemical was also used in other country,while maybe it is banned in US.The tainted food,I have no idea where do you find the infos to refer it as many？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the diethylene glycol article, most of the incidents in recent years is from products made in China. Due to international pressure, China is banning the toxic chemical diethylene glycol.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/11/ap3904526.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/business/worldbusiness/12paste.html

I don't see why adding these facts, as well as the other recent incidents I previously added, is inappropriate.

As for "many": we can change that to 20%, per the links provided below. Cgkm 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthemore,can you provide the fifth product of low-standard links,so I can verify them.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aIHn2JWgR2fQ&refer=asia
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8Q5LISG0.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6269318.stm
Cgkm 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

"The phrase is viewed as an indication of inferior product quality made under questionable labor conditions by consumers in some countries" hardly seems like an encyclopedic passage, unless perhaps sourced in some way (i.e. polls supporting this claim). --Soultaco (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerading of Made in China[edit]

Made in China for example in Polish shops is masqueraded by following tricks:

"Made in PRC" masquerades China by abbreviation

"Country of production: People Republic Of China" masquerades China by radically different language such as Hungarian "Gyártó ország: Kínai Népköztársaság" 87.96.16.252 (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made in CN was printed on a power-drill my nephew bought today. Underneath that phrase, the german distributor was duly described and praised, as if they would be the producers of said tool. It's hilarious to see Made in EU as well, but that's another topic...46.223.163.161 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taint[edit]

It's shame that we in China are tainting whole world with all our tainted products. We should abandon this shameful practice now! ㍐ (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section[edit]

This section seems too long. Opinions ? Polylepsis (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think it is too long. It is just a compilation of few facts in line with the subject matter. Interestingly since China has not given any claims or justifications, I don't think there is any issue of being unbalanced. rams81 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"stigma"[edit]

I would say the word Stigma should be changed to controversies (as it is on all other articles) as to stigmatise is definetely POV in favour of the object which is receiving a stigma. Additionally, the first paragraph of "Marketing significance" (bad title too) is non-encyclopaedic (e.g. "huge range"). No other country has a made in xxx article, but in the West made in China is used synonymously of something made badly, there is no denying that (many articles, books and documentaries exist on the topic), but it can be stated that this is public perception but in reality nearly all products imported comply with EU standards, US or whatever country is importing the good. I just stumbled upon this article, but it should be fixed and locked (if there is an edit war on) or simply deleted. --Squidonius (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

The "Controversies" section is too long and irrelevant. This article deals with the "made in China" mark on products. It is not a history of all the scandals about food or medicine safety in China. All news that does not relate specifically to the mark, or to the brand possibly, although that as a stretch should be kept on a leash, should be removed. Quigley (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies is not irrelevant. Without explaining the various incidents relating to poor quality products with "Made in China" mark, the perceived bias against the brand cannot be explained. rams81 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that discuss perceptions of the brand would go into the causes with a much better sense of proportion, relevance, and history than this sloppy collection of salacious news stories from 2007, 2008, and 2009. Your controversies section does not address the brand issue at all; it's simply a list of recent Chinese product scandals. Even if you did add something at the end relating to a brand stigma, it's synthesis to say "Here are some examples of bad Chinese products, and here is evidence of a brand stigma" to imply that the examples caused the stigma, because that's your own interpretation and not that of a reliable source. My revised version made no assumptions like this and simply noted whenever a major scandal has affected the brand. Quigley (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point. How would you want this section to be summarised? Please go ahead :) rams81 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

media section[edit]

it should be deleted or resourced. i dont remeber seeing anyof thost adds for one, and the "source" was only this line .

"People's Republic of China | Made in China. Made with the World | Global By on Nov 26, 2009 filed under Creativity, China The Chinese Government this week launched a global ad campaign designed to boost the reputation of Chinese-made goods."


not even a mention of CNN. Joesolo13 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here as I agree it's worthless and dubious to boot:

Expressive Media[edit]

In December 2009, the Chinese government launched an advertisement campaign on CNN to promote Made in China goods. [1]

Overmage (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Branding Section[edit]

If no one can find sources and make this section less biased, i think it should be removed. It has only two sources, and is full of loaded words and cherry picked numbers. WikiWisePowder (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section to add?[edit]

I would find it very useful to have a new section explainig which are the conditions to get the Made in China label and who controls that they are respected. It would also be useful to say if it's a compulsory label or if it's just optionnal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caïus Gracchus (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Made in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sticker[edit]

nothing in the article about the ubiquity of the oval gold/yellowish sticker? Impasse (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Made in China diplomacy” needs rewritten.[edit]

Very badly worded; makes it sound like Amazon’s highest selling (books?) are “all in Chinese”, when I think the intent is to say that the highest selling items are made in China. 23.84.128.179 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzywu21 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Izzywu21 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Made_in_China&oldid=1197419927"