Jump to content

Talk:Reform and opening up

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeReform and opening up was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 20, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed


Chinese economic miracle?

[edit]

Compared to other "miracles" in Category:Economic booms, surely the Chinese economy boom could be elevated from "reform" to "miracle"? Bennylin (talk)

Requested move 16 February 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 to Reform and opening up. There is consensus that the Chinese economic reforms that took place after 1976 are commonly referred to as "reform and opening up" (sentence case), which is also a more specific name than "Chinese economic reform". (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 13:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese economic reformReform and Opening Up – Reform and Opening Up is far more precise and descriptive. "Chinese economic reform" could refer to any number of moments in Chinese economic history, or even all of them. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2 moved the page to Reform and Opening Up. Reform and Opening Up is an obviously better, more precise, title.

Another editor reverted it as an undiscussed move, giving no additional rationale.

I propose we move it back to Reform and Opening Up.

JArthur1984 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as the person who originally moved the page. @JArthur1984:, maybe you can start a WP:RSPM to move this page. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is like redirecting openness to glasnost. The proposed title is not descriptive for anyone who doesn't already know about the subject. Reform and opening up seems to be what it's called in China, but Wikipedia is international, and the title should reflect the fact that the article is about China. So we should either keep the current title or change it to "Economic reform in the PRC" or similar. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an apt analogy. The proposed move is like moving an article about glasnost (a specific historical moment) from "Soviet political reform" (which could refer to so much) to "Glasnost".
    If you are looking to draw comparisons to other pages (not something we are encouraged to do under the policies), Glasnost is doing it right – [[Glasnost]] is the main article title (like Reform and Opening Up should be the main article title here). JArthur1984 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like openness is a translation of Glasnost, reform and opening up is a translation of Gǎigé kāifàng, which would be a less ambiguous title that wouldn't work for other reasons. If the title is not in English it's understood to refer to the country the language is mainly spoken in. If it's in English and something as broad as "reform and opening up" it suggests the article is global in scope. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to recognize that the English term "Reform and Opening Up" is not only prevalent in China’s official English-language media for international communication, but is also extensively utilized by international scholars, policymakers, and academic institutions to specifically denote the economic reforms initiated in China in 1978. Couple of numerous examples includes; Science Advances published an article titled "Forty years of reform and opening up: China's progress toward a sustainable path," reflecting on China's economic transformation over four decades. [1] and International think tanks - Brookings Institution released a comprehensive study titled "China's Economic Reform and Opening at Forty," frequently refer to opening up in both the title and body. [2] And a comprehensive volume titled "China's 40 Years of Reform and Development: 1978–2018" persistently refers to the profound impact of these reforms as "reforms and opening up", demonstrating the term's widespread acceptance in academic circles.[3] And for good reason - While "Chinese economic reform" is a descriptive term, it lacks specificity and could refer to various periods of economic changes in China's history. In contrast, "Reform and Opening Up" precisely identifies the specific set of policies introduced in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping, distinguishing it from other reforms. Adopting "Reform and Opening Up" as the article title would enhance specificity, avoid confusion and align with evident common usage in both English and international academic contexts. Smalledi (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use AI on talk pages. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense to be more specific. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with renaming the article to "Reform and Opening Up". This term precisely refers to the economic policies initiated in 1978, whereas "Chinese economic reform" could ambiguously refer to various periods in China's history. Not only is it correct but it's also completely necessary. Of course, if you are an american who only knows western history and uninterested in the different Chinese history - you could refer to the reforms as if it's the only one that matters. But that is lazy and western-centric and worst of all - it just leads to future confusion given china has much more than one reform and others would not know for sure which one you are even talking about. That is why global professional scholars widely use "opening up" as it's the most accurate and accepted term that gives enough specificity to avoid confusion. Also above editor is mistaken to claim that opening up is only ever used within china. A simple chat gpt fact-check shows that is false as numerous global academic circles uses this term so their argument is misinfo.Smalledi (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not a universal name. Even if you notice the phrase's international use, you would see that "China" or "PRC" is added before/after to specify the "reform & opening up". "Chinese economic reform" is still used widely outside China. It also carries a type of significance for it's characteristics & the country. I definitely think it's more descriptive than "Reform & Opening Up". Also to be noted that the article covers reforms till now, so I don't see any necessity for specification here, it does cover all the economic reform in history of the PRC till now. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You think the article covers "all the economic reform in history of the PRC till now". That is false and proves the point on why a change is needed. The article is only specifically about economic policies initiated in 1978. It does not cover nor focus on all the other chinese economic reforms like during Mao's time nor during ROC rule nor Qing dynasty era, etc. Hence there is a need for specificity if you care about not misleading others and being factually responsible. But a good compromise is "China's Reform and Opening Up". It adds in "china' to make it easier for global audiences and still helps distinguish from the many other chinese economic reforms compared to simply saying "chinese economic reforms". Chinas Reform and Opening up is a term both recognizable and unmistakably refers to the economic policies initiated in 1978, and is in fact - a widely used term both within China and internationally - the evidence is also listed above and isn't mere unsourced speculations that both you and another keeps misinforming others on without providing sources. it is also objectively far more descriptive and less able to go misleading others, compared to saying "chinese economic reforms". Smalledi (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Reform and opening up - after initially being sceptical about this name, I've dug a little deeper and it seems it is a quite widely used name for the events of the Deng reforms, albeit that some sources don't use it as a title per se, merely using it as a quote attributed to Deng instead. And I guess the nom's contention that "Chinese economic reform" is ambiguous might hold water, although this is by far the most referred to among economic reform periods. My one issue, however, is that the term reform and opening up should not be capitalised. It is very clear form ngrams - [4] - that the term is overwhelmingly rendered in sentence case, not title case, and hence per the stipulations of MOS:CAPS, this is not treated as a proper name but as a descriptive common-name title. I would strongly oppose moving to Reform and Opening Up as specified in the nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the nom and although I think the better style in English would be a capital Opening it does not matter significantly to me and I would be happy with Reform and opening up, too. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also ok with both. The Account 2 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Reform and opening up (sentence case) per Amakuru. I am tempted to suggest that the title should include "China", but perhaps the phrase is generally used only for China. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:38, 27 February 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.

Misleading by Omission

[edit]

The article's lede falsely claims that “opening up” (开放) is only used domestically and never globally. That’s incorrect.

The phrase "Reform and Opening Up" is widely used internationally to differentiate it from other economic reforms. Scholars and analysts use it for specificity, and it’s normal/proper to use the same term as in domestic discourse instead of making up a vague term that can be easily mistaken for other reforms.

Plenty of sources prove this: