Talk:One-child policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One-child policy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs of billboard advertising be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Unexpected Results 2 Horrible Grammar 3 Missing facts 4 Found a few photos that should be considered! 5 Girls not adopted 6 Wrong statistic 7 NPOV tag 8 Chinese communism 9 Infanticide 10 One-Child Policy details 10.1 Multiple births 10.2 Minorities 11 Sources needed 12 Population control alternatives 13 Social impacts 13.1 Retirement security 13.2 Circumventions 14 Kidnappings 15 Abortion is murder... 16 NPOV 17 Contradictions 18 One Chiledreno 19 sex morals 20 Children with pressure 21 Deployment of one-child policy 22 Women follow their husbands' name 23 Why is this here? 24 "Some children who are in one-child families pay less than the children in other families." 25 The policy as an eugenics movement? 26 About abstract 27 POV claim 28 "Achievements" 29 citation please 30 Women's right to choose in marriage 31 the policy is for ethnic han chinese only 32 China in the Future 33 Poorly Written 34 This article should be added 35 Future Economic Consequences 36 Neutrality 37 Still non-NPOV 38 Fertility Rate 39 OCPF 40 Little Emperors 41 Removing the NPOV tag 42 Augest contributions 43 Proposal to page protection 44 Revert 45 Argument of overpopulation 46 Fair use rationale for Image:One-child.jpg 47 Rebuttal section 48 Removal of Valid Material 49 Male/Female Ratio 50 Missing information 51 OMG! 52 Changes by 124.181.158.116

[edit] Unexpected Results

Someone delete this crap. It was obviously written by some Chinese guy with a poor command of English, using his own inductive logic to draw a very backwards and offensive conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.157.130 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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?!

P.S I'm a racist

~~Tayler 3/18/08, 8:35 PM mountain time

[edit] Missing facts

Just noticed (apologies if I am incorrect, or missed it) that there seems to be no mention of the expiry date for this policy - I believe there is one? In addition, isn't it the case that where both parents are only children themselves, they are allowed two children? If these facts are correct, I think someone should add them for balance.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the policy itself indicate some circustamance that people can have two-child, one of them is if parents both is single-born child, they can have two childs, but as you all know, people get more education will born less, so I think though people can born two, but they will still born one, since the high living and education price in big cities. Tnds (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Found a few photos that should be considered!

Hello, here are some links to find billboards:

[[1]] (pick 8) [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]

--Chomeara (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Girls not adopted

I'm just here to suggest that someone who knows about it write something about the girls who remain in orphanages for their whole childhood. This kids' novel "Chu Juue's House" touched upon the subject but I don't know whether that content was factual or not. In the book orphans are working in silk worm factories.. 75.68.77.207 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of such things in reality. Anyway, is this something related to one child policy? Augest 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Yeah it's related to the one child policy. Do you think so many baby girls would be in orphanages without it? I am very interested in what happens to these girls. I can't imagine that they grow up well adjusted.Yeoldemathshoppe 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Im doing this at A-level. and some of it is true but usually the girls who are abandoned at the orphanges die of disease as they are not looked after by those who work there. Some of them who are ill are just left in rooms to die. to find out more you should take a look at "the dying rooms" documentary on Channel 4 website.

I think adopt gril have no relation wiht one-child policy, Chinese have a traditional view, if baby is girl, whole family will sad, while baby is boy, whole family will happy, as you know, there's many female kings in western and it is accepted and have some rule, but only 1 female emperor in China.(Wu Zetian). Other woman, though they are the actual ruler, they still need a male emperor to represent the god(Such as Cixi).

If there's no one-child policy, you can image that girls are all over China, since people ,especially peasants, want a boy, if first baby is girl, they will born antoher, then second, third, forth,fifth,sixth..it won't be end until a boy borns or they are too old to born.Tnds (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong statistic

Could someone verify that "71111% of China's population resides in rural areas", is in fact meant to be 71.11...%? --220.237.56.163 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

that obviously cant be right.I shall go fix it.Raspberrysnapple 00:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This article is obviously not NPOV as only the criticism of "One-child policys" is presented.Augest 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

when 2nd child is born bnenifits are lost

I agree with you partially. This article is very strangely written, puzzling sentence structures and all. I also am looking at this strange sentence, "In addition, there is no scientific research showing direct link of infanticide and one-child policy." Is scientific research needed? It seems a statistical number or a policy issue, not a scientific one. Additionally, it seems to be poorly inserted between two statements linking infanticide and the one-child policy. Somebody is not using very good discretion when they are editing this article. Di4gram 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag should not be removed as there is still only the criticisam of "One-child policy" being presented.Augest 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)~good idea

[edit] Chinese communism

Who ever made this needs to remember that they can only type due to public education.

A total leftist obviously made the "One-child policy" entry. One merely read this:

"Additional children result in fines, or more frequently the families are required to pay fees for public services such as education for the children that is otherwise free."

Education for the children is "otherwise free"? Nothing is free. These people give virtually everything to the government, there is no private ownership. The Chinese government simply uses them as one giant sweatshop. A worker can put in 100 hours during a seven-day work week yet the most she or he can earn is 900 Yuan per month. 150 million Chinese fall below the international poverty line! The schools are not "free" any more than public schools here in the US (where each kid can carry a price tag of $11,000/year) are "free." The citizens pay for them one way or another. But it's more egregious with communism, where people own nothing, and the government owns everything. It's a typical fallacy among the left to regard social programs as "free" when it's evident to everyone else that they are funded via a citizenry raided by those at the top. I invite any fellow Americans who own homes to inspect their property tax bills then ask your local city council where most of it goes. ANSWER: 80% goes to your local schools, and you will pay more each passing year. Then inspect the last federal education funding bill that W let Ted Kennedy write. It's the largest increase in history. The very lunch that millions of kids eat at public schools every day is federally funded (READ: Paid for by you and me, regardless of what state we're in).

It's this kind of myopia that leads numbskulls to remark that Cuba's healthcare is "free."

First, China is never a communist society, and your claim is not true. Socialism with Chinese characteristics was considered to be essentially capitalism. There is even constitutional private ownership, and the Chinese personal deposits exceed 11.63 trillion Yuan (US$1.4 trillion) at 2003.

Second, there is a minimum income tax line of 1800 Yuan/mo, so a worker with a salary of 900 Yuan/mo does not pay income tax. BTW, sales tax are paid by the seller and property tax do not exist in China. Even the attempt of institute a fuel tax was ejected by the congress.

Since the seller passes along all costs to the buyer, sales taxes (just another cost) are paid by the buyer - even if the buyer isn't aware of the actual amount. Rklawton 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Third, the schools were not expensive. The tuition I paid in primary school was 40 Yuan per semester, which was roughly 10 USD. My university tuition (400 Yuan, or $50 per semester) was waived because my family was under the poverty line.--Skyfiler 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

wow dude. what city did you go to school in? all my relatives in nanjing... chengdu... chongqing... two working parents, fairly well-to-do, they have all been limited in their academic opportunities (albeit in varying degrees) by financial constraints. 67.120.232.11 09:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So this section is a critique on taxation, right? I don't see how that makes the one-child policy article slanted. It just means the author didn't want to get into a big discussion about the distinction between state-funded and free in a technical sense. Actually, I think bringing up the issue of taxation would make the article non-neutral since that isn't germane to the discussion. The logic of the article here at least is sound: people pay taxes for schools, but get their children admitted for free. Families that break the one-child policy also pay for the children's admittance. If that's true, it makes sense to me.

Also, most of the unsigned comment above is stupid. What's wrong with public schools? The education of children and the most basic of opportunities for limited economic mobility are a national interest, and are thus state-funded though taxation. That opinion certainly isn't leftist. I don't know of a single example of even major libertarian and conservative reactionaries actually attacking public schools. Many want vouchers, but nobody has said, "Hey, and let's not pay to educate poor kids whose parents can't afford it." You really hold that point-of-view alone. And sign your posts. Ihavenoheroes 18:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

China IS communist, they identify themselves as communist, and they comply with Marx's book The Communist Manifesto. He also said in that book that a communist would be known primarily by their desire to eliminate all private property, which is in fact the policy of the Chinese government. They do allow private property in the free trade zones, but not generally throughout the country. Most "companies" in China area are actually divisions of the military, and the CEOs are usually officers in the army of China. As far as vouchers, everyone understands that the effect of vouchers is to move people away from public schools and into private schools. I support public schools, but I also know that they can be misused in a way that results in them being propaganda camps. Public schools should not be used to indoctrinate politics, for example. Just the "three R's." Libertarianism is not reactionary or extremist; it is a moderate philosophy like liberalism. Extremist right wing philosophy would be neoconservativism or fascism. Extremist left wing philosophy would be communism as seen in China. --Brian, a True Liberal, as in Alexander Hamilton, not Che Guevera 71.116.106.31 07:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just how brainwashed can a person be? "Extremist left wing philosophy would be communism as seen in China"? Puh-leeez. Been living under a rock for the past 30 years, have you? -- Miborovsky, libertarian supporter of the Capitalist Party of China 20:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, your libertarian craziness aside, generally it is acceptable to refer to government entitlement programs as "free" being as you don't pay for them. Obviously there are social costs, and the money for them doesn't come out of thin air, but that is all tied to the philosophical question of there's no such thing as a free lunch. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

the article is basically true, but it's a little bit outdated. these days, men take mistresses, not concubines, and no way in hell are the schools in China that cheap. 40 yuan a semeste (and that goes to about 5 US dollars, not 10)？ that's not really true. in the rural places maybe it's that much, but where i went to school, it was about 300, 400 yuan a semester. in the bigger and better schools it goes to maybe about 10,000 yuan a semester. and even though china can't be totally commuist, it is trying very hard to be that way. market-wise, it is basically capitalist, borderline socialist; national policy-wise, it is about socialist. to some people, having a boy is really important, but most people are really open to girls too. a lot of people don't care if they have a boy or not because no matter what, it's your child. in the rural areas, most people ignore the one-child rule anyways. my friend, who is from fu zhou, china, has 6 sisters and 1 brother. and yes, the people of different ethnic groups than the main one can have more than one child.

I was talking about the situation and exchange rate at that time, that is, in the 80s.--Skyfiler 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't help to say this, mmm... China is definitely communism, at least for U.S. Otherwise, U.S. would not keep considering China (at least in U.S. state strategy) as its long term enemy/competetor (at least potential). Considering the long term standing of American's anti-communism tradition, it's also not a surprise to see so much misunderstanding about China in Wikipedia English version. But this may change with the help of the Internet. It's harder and harder to prevent people from communicating directly. --Augest 05:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that US considers China a threat because it is communist? Is it because the Chinese system is different from the American system and if China becomes a leading economic power then it would make the crazy rampant American capitalist economic system no longer the perfect economic standard that it shoves down the throats of developing countries worldwide? Then everyone in the world will start strutinizing the American system. Hey they might even notice that 40% of Americans don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Hey maybe rampant capitalism isn't the best system. Wow, maybe a government that provides national health care would be better. That's a thought. Hey maybe it is not such a good thing that 2% of the population owns so much land depriving other people from the security of a home. Hey maybe we don't need to listen to those Americans who don't believe in the use of condoms or other means of contraceptives and cry human rights abuse all day long. Maybe America's puny 200 years of history might not last longer than 300 years but China has survived 2500 years with their various forms of government. 66.171.76.139 05:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms of people calling China's healthcare system free seem to me to be obviously written by people living in a private healthcare state (USA?). I'm from the UK and we consider our healthcare to be free. We pay taxes of course, but that doesn't stop healthcare from being 'free' in itself. Balfron 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Get a clue. By free it is meant there is no additional cost beyond the norm. Primary education in public schools is free in US because there is no additional mandantary fees beyond taxes. It is the same in China. Having additional unsanctioned child means the family has to pay additional fees to attend school.

It'd be quite a challange to find a Chinese who believes in communism ideals. You can find Chinese who are member of the communist party but that person is still a capitalist. Communism is an idea, communist party is a political entity. China is a totalitarianism ruled by communist party. Before anyone blasts me, please teach yourself the difference communism, captalism, socialism, democracy, republic, totalitarian and dictorship etc. The reason US consider China a threat is because China is a totalitarian, had the communist leader been popularily elected by the people the situation would be different. BTW there is nothing that says there can't be a democratic communism, it's just human nature that prohibits it.

It seems people on both sides of the argument don't really understand the inner goings of China. --NYC 17:58 Feb 15, 2007 (UTC)

The reason US consider China a threat is because China is a totalitarian -- Oh, I remember that U.S. invaded Iraq because "it produces and uses of weapon of mass destruction" Augest 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read this interesting article. Another proof that U.S. consider that China is communism and communism is evil. "Bush had said Tuesday that that the Victims of Communism Memorial was dedicated to tens of millions of people killed in communist regimes including China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and Vietnam, and that their deaths should remind Americans that "evil is real and must be confronted." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_re_as/china_bush_memorial. Augest 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that obviously nothing is free in any absolute sense, in China or anywhere else. ("Hence the economist truism that "there's no such thing as a free lunch.") The phrase "Education that is otherwise free" has the assumption of civilian taxation built into it. Please limit your criticisms of economics and tax law under Chinese communism to forums for such, not discussions of the One-Child policy. -KCJ

[edit] Infanticide

This is false. Infanticide is illegal in China and there is no national requirement for pregnancy testing in China.

The practice, although required by the government, is not widespread as over-quota mothers usually are forced to have an abortion long before bringing the baby to term. China requires all women of child-bearing age to take pregnancy tests at government clinics every 3 months.

hahaha "infanticide is illegal in China"...ya think? the problem is that little, if anything, is done to prevent it, and punishment is scarcely enforced. 67.120.232.11 09:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem of law enforcement. However, infanticide is of course ILLEGAL in China. Augest 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure torture is technically illegal there as well. The communist government chooses to ignore treaties they have signed with regard to torture. They don't have an independent Supreme Court as we do in the nation of the United States of America to order the executive branch not to torture people. --Brian 71.116.106.31 07:36, 1 April

In response to the above, you torture people in the US anyway. Jbeckwith

There are well-documented accounts of infanticide performed by hospital personnel in China immediately upon the birth of an out-of-quota child, to enforce the government’s one child policy.

Uh huh. Sources? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a doctor's account of forced infanticide in a Chinese maternity ward: http://www.connectionmagazine.org/archives_old/duty.htm

As well as a lengthy report on female infanticide in China: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/9908/china.social.overview/content/infanticide.html

Here's an organization that researches and documents what they term 'gendercide' in China: http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Speaking of sources, does anyone have a source to back up these statements from the Infanticide section:

"The root cause of infanticide, especially for baby girls, is more likely to be the traditional preference of boys." In response to this statement this is a know fact it wouldn't need to be cited. China's history proves the prefrence for boys over girls. That would also be why there are millions of girls in orphanges and no boys.

"Direct infanticide is rare as it is not accepted in Chinese culture, and the parent would be charged with murder."

Barring references, I say that these should be deleted as someone's anonymous opinion. A.V.

--The preference of boys is the cause of female infanticide is addressed even in the cnn source you cited "In China the traditional preference for male offspring, along with ... ..., have combined to create rising levels of female infanticide." There is even a paragraph there to explain the traditional women status. Infanticide in China is definitely illegal. Here an English source for it " The Chinese Government have acknowledged the problem and introduced laws to deal with it:

Marriage law prohibits female infanticide. Women's Protection Law prohibits infanticide and bans discrimination against women who choose to keep female babies. Maternal Health Care Law forbids the use of technological advances, such as ultra-sound machines to establish the sex of foetuses, so as not to pre-determine the fate of female infants or encourage selective abortion. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/female_infanticide_2.shtml

It also said "Female infanticide has existed in China for a long time, and although the One Child per Family policy has added to the problem, it didn't cause it."

As far as the rate of infanticide, I did not find a direct data. Compared to the size of Chinese population, I guess the data cited in above articles is not big enough. An indirect way to deduce this is the Chinese infant death rate (can be found in the resources in the article), which is rather low and can indirectly show infanticide is rare in China, at least now. --Augest 03:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, infant mortality would not be an accurate measure of infanticide in China. In the Chinese obstetrician's account above, freshly born infants are often euthanized in China and charted as abortions. There is no way to get an accurate count of infanticide in China. Any comment on frequency would have to be someone's opinion which should at least have an organization or name name attached to it.

Doctor's report of forced infanticide, originally from Reader's Digest: http://www.connectionmagazine.org/archives_old/duty.htm

Time magazine report on trends in China, including mention of the growth of female infanticide: http://www.time.com/time/asia/mediakit/pr/article/0,17540,473731,00.html

Research into the frequency of Chinese female infanticide by two anthropologists that was originally published by the San Jose Mercury News. Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to find the complete article on Freerepublic: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3935c67833b3.htm

A CBS news report on US State Department’s official view: “Despite some changes, China's one-child family planning program remains a source of coercion, forced abortions, infanticide and perilously imbalanced boy-girl ratios, State Department officials said Tuesday.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/14/world/main661072.shtml

The United Nations Population Fund lists dozens of articles outlining female infanticide in China: http://149.120.32.11/search?q=infanticide+china&site=unfpa&client=unfpa&proxystylesheet=unfpa&output=xml_no_dtd&btnG.x=8&btnG.y=16

A.V. 17:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to remind infanticide means the kill of babies, not the unborn ones or fetus, not the abandonment. The latter two cases better fit in the categories of abortion and abandonment. None of above references exactly given the data of infanticide and they obviously mix all three situation together. The one in the Reader Digest talked about the forced abortion unless someone insist kill unborn/fetus is infanticide. This is wiki, an encyclopedia. Thus, I think we should follow the strict semantic of infanticide. --Augest 06:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the links more carefully. Every article I linked is from mainstream sources, CNN, the UN, and every one uses the word infanticide - meaning the killing of already born babies. All of them discuss the growing problem of infanticide in China, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that we're talking about abortion. The first article from the Chinese obstetrician is specifically detailing a case in which a live birth was euthanized with a shot of iodine through the soft part of the skull some eight or ten hours after birth. In the English language, that would constitute the definition of 'infanticide'. A.V. 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The "main-stream" here are all U.S. media or U.S. official media. Even that UN article is talk about U.S.'s altitude. Considering the long time political standing of U.S. government, it is reasonable to doubt the POV of these report. However, these are "sources", whether they are POV or not, so I did not revise your revision to the previous version.

I read that reader digest report. Although the title is used "infanticide", the content is talked about the abortion of a 8 months. This is not something new. Pre-lifers called abortion as infanticide. However, technically speaking, that is wrong. For the others, yes, they mentioned infanticide, but my point here is NO DATA provided --Augest 17:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked before, but please read the link before you comment on it and misrepresent it. It's a waste of space, but let me paste a section of the article in the hopes that you will read it:

"Arrested and forced into the hospital by the local Family Planning Office, the mother had been injected with rivanol, an abortifacient drug. "But the baby was born alive," said the midwife. The cries were coming from an unheated bathroom across the hall. "I asked the orderly to bury it", she continued. A small hill nearby served as an unmarked graveyard for such purposes. "But he said it was raining too hard."

"With the mother still protesting, I went across the hall to the bathroom. It was so cold I could see my breath. Next to a garbage pail with the words DEAD INFANTS scrawled on the lid was a black plastic garbage bag. It was moving, and cries were coming from inside. Kneeling, I told the midwife to open the bag."

"I had imagined a premature newborn, hovering between life and death. Instead,I found a perfect 4 1/2 pound baby boy, flailing his tiny fists and kickinghis feet. His lips were purple from lack of oxygen." http://www.connectionmagazine.org/archives_old/duty.htm

As you can see, the baby was delivered live and in the next room from the mother when the clinic first attempted to euthanize it. That is not an abortion.

As to data, the debate is whether the Chinese government promotes infanticide, openly or not, with their population policies. The official policy of the US State Department, the United Kingdom Parliament, and a UN committee investigating human rights abuses is that China's birth control policies encourage female infanticide. This article is suffering factually from your refusal to accept any source that states that infanticide is a problem in China. At this point, I think it best I edit the article myself.

US State Department position: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/27-12142004-416868.html

UK Parliament: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/vo961218/text/61218-08.htm

UN committee: http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5fid=2944&item%5fid=2943

A.V. 03:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not say infanticide is a problem in China or not. However, what I emphersized is that infanticide is ILLEGAL in China. China's birth control policies did not and never "encourage" FEMALE infanticide, although as a result it may accelarate female infantcide or gender selected abortion in some cases, for some time, as poverty will have the same results. It is not the cause of the female infanticide. The UK article from BBC I referred also pointed this out.

"Marriage law prohibits female infanticide.

Women's Protection Law prohibits infanticide and bans discrimination against women who choose to keep female babies.

Maternal Health Care Law forbids the use of technological advances, such as ultra-sound machines to establish the sex of foetuses, so as not to pre-determine the fate of female infants or encourage selective abortion."

As I said, infanticide is ILLEGAL in China. The problem of infanticide is a law enforcement issue. Not every crime can be prosecuted, same situation here. This is similar as the family violence. I would not say U.S. government encourage family violence simply because there are many such cases reported in U.S.

In addition, the Reader Digest article you referred to was published in 1995. And from the whole article, one can easily see, the mother was sent to have an abortion instead of have her baby killed. "the mother had been injected with rivanol, an ABORTIFACIENT drug", "BUT the baby was born alive,", all this referred to that this is a case originally targetted to abortion. That is to say, although some local officials forced a pregnant to do abortion and even cause infanticide in the case of a too-late abortion (assume what reported here was not fake), I did not read report that they dare to purely kill babies. In addition, what this article talked about is a baby BOY, not FEMALE infanticide. In addition, your UK article is something published around 1996 and it is a religious organization. But of course, these are still resources. However I am regret that all your resources are from only one side, not the both. --Augest 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my sources that show the official positions of the US State Department, the Parliament of the UK, and a UN Committee investigating human rights abuses. All three organizations cite the Chinese government's policies as being responsible for cases of infanticide, along with sex selective abortions. I only present one side of the argument because this article stated that China's family planning policies had nothing to do with infanticide. That is your unsourced, and apparently biased, opinion.

In other words, here's your opinion:

"China's birth control policies did not and never "encourage" FEMALE infanticide . . . "

Here's the official US State Department opinion:

“Despite some changes, China's one-child family planning program remains a source of coercion, forced abortions, infanticide and perilously imbalanced boy-girl ratios, State Department officials said Tuesday.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/14/world/main661072.shtml

Which one rightfully belongs in the Wikipedia article?

A.V. 12:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

once the baby was born alive, in a place where infanticide was *truly* illegal, the doctors would rush to try and save the baby's life. instead, here we see they killed it.

just because something is made law doesn't mean it is made practice, nor does it mean that the government in truth even supports the law. while infanticide is technically illegal, there is apparently a widespread lack of enforcement, rendering the "law" useless. it is illegal to drive over the speed limit, but everyone goes ten over anyhow and there is rarely any enforcement up to that point. so, the speed limit really is ten over what it the sign says. there is a town i used to work in where you could get pulled over for going 2 over. here, the speed limit really is the speed limit. i say this to illustrate the difference between a law that is just there and a law that is enforced. the other day i saw a person wearing a shirt that says "it's only illegal if you get caught." to expand on that, it's only illegal if law is enforced.

nor does it really matter what a said government's (or any person or organization) official position on a matter is, what matters is what they practice. that is how you see what their position really is. take it for what you will.Wewillprosper 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

whether official position really matters is another topic to discuss. For wikipedia as an encyclopedia, we need to provide accurate information as what it is instead of talking about our own opinion/research. By the way, although in general officers will not stop you with when go over under ten of the speedlimit sign in our state, some of my friends received tickets when they go over even 5 miles and I myself personally stopped by officer once and receive a warning in that situation. Augest 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One-Child Policy details

"This name is based on a popular misconception that Chinese birth control required all Chinese to have one child."

Unclear -- "to have one child" or "to have *no more than* one child" ? Thanks.  :-)

Fixed. Curiously the government never really tried to encourage people to have no children at all.

Also the Chinese healthcare system is as I understand it almost non-existant, and therefore children are needed to support their parents, and grandparents. See the 4-2-1 part of this article. Balfron 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that will cause massive uprisings. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 20:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

^ Why are you posting?

[edit] Multiple births

The sentence:

Also, when a Chinese woman has twins, it's usually fine, so many Chinese couples try to use conceptive drugs to do this.

Doesn't make sense. Does it mean that twins are lucky. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the intended meaning of this sentence is that Chinese couples try to have twins to increase the number of children they are allowed to have.

I've heard that if a couple has twins they face no fines from the government. Theshibboleth 06:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This is true. My cousins are twins in China, their parents were not fined. 67.120.232.11 09:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true, having twins is same as having more than one child. You may not be fined but you would lose the same economic benefit as if you had a 2nd child. Having twins is a huge burden on poor urban families. --NYC 16:08, 15 Feb 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that the only way you can try for another child is for the first one to be handicapped. i think this is very unfair because the way that it was phrased was as if it was swaying, sometimes couples have a handicapped child, so they are allowed to 'try again to see if hey can have a "better" one' Also, I don't see what the problem is with having an ultra sound scan at the start of a woman’s pregnancy. That way, the baby isn't even developed enough for it to be like a baby is being killed because of its gender, it is only a tiny 'something'. after all, is it not better for something that hasn't even been properly developed yet to be destroyed, that a newborn baby girl to be left on the streets to die? But, this method should only be used, in my opinion, after a few weeks of pregnancy so that nothing in the form of a human is destroyed, only an undeveloped fetus (if that’s how u spell it lol) so i think the government should allow a woman a month or less pregnant to see the gender of the child so she can destroy it if she wants whilst its only an egg/ fetus, than to secretly starve it if its female once it has been born. Do you agree? from Emma age 13

Emma, I think a lot of people would agree with you, but others consider the fetus to be a person. Fortunately we don't need to determine the right answer here! The goal of this encyclopedia article is only to accurately describe the details of the "one child policy", without having to ultimately decide if it is right or wrong. That’s a lot easier task I think you will agree! Thanks for your great writing style, I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. technopilgrim 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Emma, the only thing I would like to add to this is the fact that you can't determine the sex of the fetus when the woman is less than a month pregnant so your plan wouldn't work. China and India don't allow abortions if you've found out the sex of your baby and no longer want it. See below. 29 April 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.50.231 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Doctors are forbidden to disclose the sex of the fetus to the parents. In fact, doctors won't even allow the parents to see the ultrasound image by law anyway. If you had the proper connection or resources (bribe), that's different story. 16:10 15, Feb 2007 (UTC)

The fertility drugs sentence seems suspicious. I doubt that "many" is the right word to use here. Is there a source we can cite? Goaty 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Source added. Rklawton 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Emma,you really scare me.Fetuses are people,and it creates a lot of problems for a society when a kids are killed off at the convenience of people.Sincerely,A fourteen year old.

[edit] Minorities

I'm aware that in many areas (besides the SARs) this policy is not enforced because of ethnic minorities. Where is it not enforced? SchmuckyTheCat 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, this policy is different for ethnic minorities. Child control policies of ethnic minorities usually depends on their ethnicities and local policies. For example, In Inner Mongolia, couples can have 2 children, and Mongol couples can have 3 after permission, while couples of some small ethnicities are not restricted. In Xinjiang, urban couples can have 3 children, and 4 after permission, while city couples can have 2, and 3 after permission. In Tibet Autonomous Region, birth control is encourage but not enforced. In other areas, child limit of ethnic minorities is usually 2 with some exceptions for small ethnicities and some areas. As a result, The ratio of ethnic minorities population increased from 6.7% at 1982 ([5]) to 8.98% at 1995([6]).--Skyfiler 05:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Although your statistics may tell you otherwise, but as a resident of Inner Mongolia for over five years, I have never known the Han-2 kids, Mongol-3 kids policy. My son was born in Inner Mongolia, and because of policies at the time, we were not allowed to have a second child. Colipon+(T) 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The question has already been answered in very specific terms, but generally speaking - the policy is not enforced in rural areas, and the ethnic minorities dhjtdyd djtgkt tf fut f tfufuy fy fyt rftr fyurfy yrtrfyt ftyrtrfuyyrft trt rftr trtr rtrttt r rfutrutrtend to reside in rural areas. 67.120.232.11 09:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I know a Tujia dude (CPC bigshot) who has 2 kids. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also true that not all minority ethnic groups exercise the option of having more than one child. For example, based on what I learned on one visit to the country, although Koreans (a small but fairly influential nationality) could have more than 1 child, in fact their total fertility rate is lower than that of Han. The reason for this, I was told, is that the Koreans there want to get along and not be seen as asking for exceptions (which is not the same as saying they seek to assimilate).

In Xinjiang, the minorities there (principally Uighurs, Kazakhs, Hui, but also Tajiks and others) can and generally do have more than 1 child. But I was told by one Uighur that the financial penalty for exceeding the allowed number isn't very great. "How much would it be?" we asked him. He pondered for a while. "Well how would it compare to the price of a sheep?" we asked. "About the same as one sheep," he answered. Seems like a pretty modest price to me if you want another child.Mack2 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to you that would sound minor, but you have to realise that in suburban areas, people still starve when there's a bad years harvest. The fee you have to pay also varies, so it's not so that a billionaire would pay the same fee as a poor man. Furthermore, many people say 'I know someone with two children'. That may very well be true, since the 'one child policy' doesn't mean you can have one child only. As stated many times, the 'correct' way to say it, is the Birth Control Policy. That will make it clearer that in many areas, people are allowed to have two or three children.

One-child policy do not affect minoritys, they have own law about the born-control policy.Tnds (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed

This article seems to be in desperate need of more sources. Further, a lot of the information is disputed. I think it is entirely possible that this article is entirely factually accurate, but especially because of the disputed information more sources need to be cited. Theshibboleth 06:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I found some external links. The UN article has a lot of information, but I have no time to dig into it. Anybody wanna have a try?--Skyfiler 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

--sex ratio sources.

The entry relied on the CIA World Factbook in indicating a sex ratio at birth in the PRC of 112, without, however, indicating any date. Because this ratio changed a lot between 1980 and the present, it was important to indicate dates. I found a number of authoritative sources (and cited one) that show the trend from 108 (actually 107.6) in 1981 to 111 in 1990 to 117 in 2000 for all of China. The figures reported for other countries presumably come from the CIA Factbook, but the dates are not indicated (the CIA figure for China was at least 15 years out of date). In addition, the article had stated that the "natural baseline" for comparison was 106, but among human populations this baseline is best viewed as a range of 103 to 107. Thus in 1981 in the PRC the sex ratio was right at the borderline, and only later showed a marked rise. Though historically the ratios may even have been higher in some regions -- well before the advent of the communist regime; however, that's beyond the scope of my editing.Mack2 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added to the text the results of several key studies by demographers that address the patterns and explanations for sex ratios at birth. These studies correct some of the misconceptions (sorry for that word here) about these patterns that may come from relying too heavily on newspapers and advocacy groups. One substantive addition involves clear evidence of preference for girls in high parity births to families that have already borne 2 or more boys. Another involves the issue of adoption, which two Swedish demographers have contended accounts for half of the so-called "missing girls" in the 1980's. Although I name and date the studies in the text, I don't know how to incorporate these items into footnotes and proper references there. So I will include them here in the hope that somebody will be kind enough to do the editorial work to put the references into the main text. Thank you.

Barbara A. Anderson and Brian D. Silver. 1995. "Ethnic Differences in Fertility and Sex Ratios at Birth in China: Evidence from Xinjiang," Population Studies 49 (July): 211-226.

Susan Greenhalgh. 2003. "Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy," Population and Development Review, 29 (June): 163-196.

Sten Johansson and Ola Nygren. 1991. "The Missing Girls of China: A New Demographic Account," Population and Development Review 17 (March): 35-51.

Zeng Yi et al. 1993. "Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China, Population and Development Review 19 (June): 283-302.

Weiguo Zhang. 2006. "Child Adoption in Contemporary Rural China," Journal of Family Issues 27 (March): 301-340.

35.9.6.175 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have now registered and can be contacted by my userid, Mack2: Mack2 17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

-- forced sterilization sources.

I happenned to see that a source was desired for forced sterilization. I think thats because someone feels that its POV or accusitorial, however it should be noted that forced sterilization is not new or unique to china. In fact its argueable that if it took place in china it was for more legitimate reasons than the other places its been practice. I'm specifically referring to the United States own use of this practice, even being vetted by the supreme court. Apparently 20/20 did a spot on it, unfortunately the page is no longer on the main site but the wayback machine has a copy. The purpose in the United states was eugenics, weed out the stupid, criminal, or other mental aborrations. The purpose in China is disimilar in that it is an effort to control out of control population growth. I found this in a quick google search, it shouldn't be too hard. IT does happen. In the US the laws are still on the books...

"For the United States, the question is not so clear. When this was occurring, the country's mindset was positive toward this. Right now, the human rights component is such that we are not set to do this again in the near future. However, with the support of the public, anything is a possibility. Some of the state laws--those stated that anyone who was labeled feebleminded could be sterilized without consent--are still on the books. The Supreme Court case from 1927 still stands as well (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000322_eugenics_feature.html).

In fact, in 1980 there was a class action suit that was rejected because of the precedent that the 1927 Supreme Court case established"

above quoted from http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/forcedsterilization.html used under US fair use. You may wanna check out more of the links from the above site:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9901/26/sweden.sterilization/

http://mcsnet.ab.ca/cad/FamilyLife/ForcedSteril.htm

http://cwfa.org/library/life/1998-12-29_life-peru.shtml

Piotrowski, Christa (2000). Neue Suricher Zeitchug. "Dark Chapter of American History:

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000322_eugenics_feature.html

Yamaguchi, Mari (1997). The News-Times. "Victims begin to talk about Japan's sterilization program." http://www.newstimes.com/archive97/dec1997/ind.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20010918004733/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000322_eugenics_feature.html 65.24.200.137 19:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC) --

[edit] Population control alternatives

Since China also promotes intellectuality, why don't they do away with this policy and administer IQ tests to all children, and take away those found below a certain IQ level? So you know, even babies with an IQ of 150 are forcibly aborted, so why not?

The mentally challenged are a drain to society, more or less, so why doesn't China follow this course of action instead? Please reply to my User Talk page, as well as here. --Shultz 08:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Our purpose in writing this encyclopedia is to summarize existing and historical information, not to develop policies or improve society. Your question would be better placed on a webforum devoted to the topic. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What webforum can I visit that pertains to this topic? --Shultz 21:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Try here: [7] SchmuckyTheCat 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Nang hsing tsao siung sui tsien? An English version of the site would help.

• We aren't Internet 411. SchmuckyTheCat 13:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, since every Chinese baby has a minimum IQ of 130 there is really no need to impose IQ tests. What they're planning is kill everyone in America and Europe except for the smart ones (>130) and repopulate the planet with the superior Chinese master race. Yeah. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Source? Don't create rumors, which can only downgrade wiki. --Augest 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A well-written WP:BJADON candidate. Not bad. --Kakurady 03:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

People with a low IQ are also needed. If erveryone was a genius, how would cities stay clean? To be a very succesfull farmer, would you need to know Einsteins theories? Furthermore, having a low IQ does not mean that you cannot be smart. It only means you understand some things slower, and lastly, babies with a low IQ can develop into very smart and capable people.

[edit] Social impacts

[edit] Retirement security

Children in China are the retirement policy of the families. What has the government done to reflect that? Just taking away the right to have (more) kids won't do, if there is not an appropriate state-retirement plan in place. Does anyone have more info? 61.3.130.25 12:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

You're right, there is a problem because traditional Chinese culture is structured so that the retired depend heavily on the kids. The government hasn't done anything to help compensate. I imagine the responsibility is just going to fall very hard on the siblingless generation. 67.120.232.11 09:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are actually very wrong there. The government had already been working very hard on compensating and caring for elderly people. Take the very small example of that the large family farms are now converted into small rooms, where poorer people, as well as elderly, can live.

Furthermore, the first question makes it sound as if the government just thought 'Well, let's have fun and tell people they can have only one child'. Firstly, the policy does not mean people can only have one child. It is the birth control policy, and it means that people can have more children, even up to three, depending on the region. (without fines). Secondly, if that policy had not come into action, there would have been far too many people. That would have resulted in high unemployment rates, which means there is no, or very little income to support 6 or more children. This would result in more poverty, and, because children would still be the only means of retirement, more children. No more jobs, so also no more jobs for the children, which means there would be no retirement at all. This would also have great effects on huge medical problems.

[edit] Circumventions

I understand that in order for authorities to avoid letting mothers out of the country to give birth and circumvent the policy, there are medical exams when applying for passports. However, China's borders are extensive and porous, so why don't mothers surreptitiously leave the country and give birth on foreign soil that way?

The country's newfound prosperity allows many to start buying SUVs, so if they want to avoid border checkpoints on their way out, they can turn on the 4x4 feature and leave China many miles away from any road border crossing, you see? --Shultz 18:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Even w/o SUVs, there are many other ways to leave the country w/o passports in order to give birth outside of China. [anonymous IP user]

First of all, you're talking about a totalitarian regime. Read up on (1) internal passports/residency permits; (2) the ethnic tensions between Mongolians, Uyghurs, and Han; and (3) the lack of good hospitals, gas stations, or airports out in China's western frontier. Anyone who can buy a heavily armored SUV with 4 wheel drive and drive all the way from China to Uzbekistan (through remote desert areas with no food, water or gas stations), unmolested by any curious police officials or bandits along the way, is also powerful enough to fly straight out of Beijing to a first-class hospital in some First World country. --Coolcaesar 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about the western parts of China. There's also the southern parts, to Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, India, and the other countries in the vicinity. To the north and east, there's Russia. There's also Mongolia to the north.

If China is totalitarian, it's becoming less and less totalitarian each year. Consider North Korea; now THAT'S totalitarian.

And no matter how powerful a Chinese citizen is, they'll need a passport to fly out of a country no matter what. That's why it's mostly better to sneak out of China by land. --Shultz 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is that there is no need to leave the country to have the child. The only punishment the government mets out these days is an economic penalty, and if you can afford the tax bite (mainly that you're on the hook for the kid's education if you want them educated), then you can have the child & plenty of middle-class families do just that without any social stigma or government hassle. The idea that the hospital or the government will do something to harm the 2nd child or to the mother is a myth. technopilgrim 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

re: "...is a myth." I feel it's worth pointing out that it's not entirely baseless, because in the past, the government would indeed harm the mother and/or child. This may be worth exploring if the article includes a historical context to the one-child policy, specifically in the pre-open door policy times of China. 67.120.232.11 09:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One fact I know is, due to the mis-understanding or what so ever, some Chinese came to U.S. (in most cases were illegal immigrates) and gave birth to 2 or more kids, and then applied for the green card as a political refugee with the reference to one-child policy. This was once considered an effective way to get green card not long before. But now, it looks like U.S. government stopped to consider the applicants in this situation as a political refugee.Augest 17:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kidnappings

User:Skyfiler deleted edits noting the rise of kidnappings cited by a reliable source. His edit comments cite lack of numbers. I think we should discuss this matter here rather than continue unilateral edits (recognizing that my addition was, indeed, a unilateral edit).

Should the fact that the source didn't cite numbers be relevant to the facts at hand, specifically, an increase in kidnappings? The source didn't come from some blog or op-ed. It's from "Human Rights Watch," and they make it their business to identify and report human rights abuses. They've been following the impacts of the One-Child Policy for over a decade. Here's the paragraph pulled from the citation:

A cultural preference for boy children, combined with state population control policies, has resulted in a shortage of women and girls in rural areas, creating a lucrative market for traffickers. While the state has cracked down on some trafficking rings, many Chinese women and girls, especially those from rural and ethnic communities, are kidnapped and either sold as wives or trafficked into the sex industry.

We should also keep in mind the latest Chinese censorship row. The state is well known for suppressing unflattering information, jailing dissidents, etc. Waiting for solid numbers may well be what government officials want.

So, let's talk about citations necessary to overcome Skydfliler's objections. Rklawton 22:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The source addresses kidnappings of two different reasons, and IMHO only one of them (kidnappings for wives) is related to the article. Increase in kidnappings can be easily attributed to the rise of sex industry.--Skyfiler 23:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Note that one might additionally argue that the sex industry has boomed due to the one-child policy. More information will help, but don't we have enough to reinsert the statement? Rklawton 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Now another source is needed for that argument, but I won't say the policy is the only factor.--Skyfiler 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion is murder...

Family planning officers force abortions on mothers with a second child on their way, which is just as murderous as murder itself.

Therefore, a policy of giving IQ tests to all children in China and exterminating those below the IQ of 100 as the alternate way to control population growth would be at the SAME LEVEL as forcing abortions via the current policy. The mentally challenged are more or less a drain to society, so why wouldn't China follow that policy instead?

In case you were wondering, I, however, do not condone any population-limiting policy whatsoever. Maybe such that those with big enough families get relocated to less dense parts of the country (say Urumqi or Lhasa), but nothing more severe than that.

--Shultz 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article. Please find another forum for general ranting. The speak command on the game Urban Dead might be more interesting for you. SchmuckyTheCat 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

well since murder is defined as unlawful killing, and abortion is legal, then it can not be murder.

I generally am inclined to agree with the opinion of this individual,abortion IS murder,and should be prosecuted as such.Nevertheless,Shmucky is right,this has nothing to do with this talk page and should not have been posted here.Raspberrysnapple 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

So long as this article doesn't explain the problem(s) China is trying to address with this policy, this article will remain non-NPOV. While the one-child policy has clear problems both in theory and in implementation, I see no discussion of its benefits. I have this nagging feeling that China lost 20 million people a couple of generations ago due to a combination of population growth (their own post-war baby-boom) and Mao's failed agricultural policies. This policy is probably one of many aimed at preventing another such tragedy. For balance, someone familiar with the official position should add this information as well. Rklawton 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Even today, with its population roughly stabilized at about 1.3 billion, China is always teetering on the brink of massive civil disorder, with 500 million starving peasants getting increasingly envious of the middle class in the eastern coastal cities, and with the official figures for protests getting higher and higher each year. If they hadn't brought their population growth under control, there would probably have been a civil war already! --Coolcaesar 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

I tagged the page as contradictory. Under infanticide: "The national average of nearly 120 boys born for every 100 girls. The accepted norm is 106:108." Under Gender-based birthrate disparity: "118:100, which differs substantially from the natural baseline (105:100)". Also, under gender-based birthrate it says that other Asian states also have higher than average ratios, but it doesn't state why this is relevant. Is it because of cultural reasons or genetical reasons?

The second contradiction is that in the beginning of the article it says it is a current policy in China but in the overview it says it ISN'T a national policy and then goes on to say what kind of a policy it is. Obviously it is a policy even if the Western name "One-child policy" might be slightly misguided. Mackan 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Family planning is a national policy, and different areas have different interpretations. One-child policy is coined by English speakers, and there is no counterpart in Chinese.--Skyfiler 16:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that that needs to be made clear from the start of the article (where it says it IS a policy). Mackan 09:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Chiledreno

The one child policy was not helpful to china. China's population has still grown, and the crime rates have gone increasingly up, especialy Murder.

Just imagine what might have happened if the One Child Policy wasn't in place. ;) Lokiloki 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, you only have to look at the exponential rise of the Indian population to see how relatively effective the policy has been. By 2050, Indias population will have overtaken that of China, despite their best efforts to curb growth. And what exactly does crime have to do with the policy?? It has more to do with the abandonment of the 'iron rice bowl' and the rapid adoption of liberal market policies, resulting in unequal socioeconomic distribution.

As to whether or not the policy is helpful to China, it all depends on what specific aspect (of the many) one is focusing on. In your case, you seem to be looking at population growth. Of course the population has still grown. One can't expect the population growth rate to jump down into the negatives immediately. What is more important to look at is fertility and birth rates. Since the policy's implementation in 1979, the total fertility rate (children per woman aged 15-49) has dropped from 6.2 to 1.83. I'd say that is a significant change, and thus in the case of population growth - everything else aside - the One-Child Policy is effective and has helped China. Statistics from 2006 World Population Data Sheet from the Population Reference Bureau. - 08:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)gmandolyn

[edit] sex morals

We in China and the old person say it count for much it is the morals and ethics does not have the anus sex. Many surveys demonstrations young China husband and wife have many anus sex to appear together for the birth control method. the American pornography which and watches, hates by the cultural elites Inside China. This wikipedia only has the criticism from exterior China. Inside China criticizes importantly, should not throw out.

Thanks to woman rewrites the unit in the health danger

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any synthesis thereof that is designed to advance a new position.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.--Skyfiler 18:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I cite the origin edition. Young Chinese husband and wife the use butt take the birth control method. You like the butt and hate.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.

"Our woman" was not neutral point of view and the modification you made had no source links. See Citing sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability. BTW, please Wikipedia:sign your posts on talk pages --Skyfiler 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I do agree that anal sex has perhaps become more prevalent, I do not think it is relevant to the point where you have to mention it flamboyantly with terrible grammar. Like many Chinese students I've met, you believe your vocabulary is very advanced. As a genuine piece of advice, please learn how to construct correct sentences, and do not come on here and voice claims that have no citations, and use it as a means to show that you speak a second language. Colipon+(T) 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My fearful english to help use computer dictionary! HA! ADVANCED! HA!

As a Chinese, I never heard or read anything about this "sex moral" and don't think morality even in China is really concern the way HOW people make love (while, in many culture including Chinese, sex itself unless inside marriage may be consider immoral or sin.). In a place like China where other birth control tools such as birth control pills and candom are available and convenient, (it looks like it is even encouraged/promoted by government for the married couple), it is ridiculous for people use such a method to do birth control. In fact, I never heard except in gossip or rumors that people use this method to do birth control. If anal sex has anything to do with birth control after all, it looks more reasonable for the people who can only use "natural family plan" birth control such as some Cathlic Christan to use this method for birth control. --Augest 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave personal attacks out. I prefer useful information with proper citations even with terrible grammar and spelling over perfectly formed non-encyclopedic sentences. Poor spelling and grammar are simple to correct. Useful, well-cited information is much more difficult to find. Rklawton 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children with pressure

I can not see any connection of this problem with one-child policy in your post. Pressure on kids is more like a social problem due to the fast pace of today's socialty or highly competitive job market, instead of one-child policy. In addition, the tradition expectation of Chinese on the kids' study is also a problem. Even in U.S. the kids from Chinese immigrates family got more expectation from their parents. In addition, I almost never read such criticisms for one-child policy no matter in Chinese media or Foreign media. It is true people complain about the pressure on kids, but they seldom induce it to the one-child policy. As long as I know, Japanese kids or Taiwai kids have the similar pressure if not more serious. Please cite the source to show this is a criticism for one-child policy.--Augest 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if parents had more than one kid, there would not be nearly as much pressure. It is, like you said, a problem that has social factors, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that the One-Child policy worsened such problems. In China, parents sometimes rely solely on their single child for success, thus pushing them very far. Colipon+(T) 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to clarify this in your edit. In addition, still, the issue here is whether it is just your own opinion or it is the public/general criticisms on one-child policy. If it is the former case, then wiki, as an encyclopedia, is not a place for publish personal views. If it is the latter case, you need to cite the source. In fact, in most cases that I heard the complain of the pressure of kids, people would induce the reason of it to the over sized Chinese population and crowded job market instead of one-child policy - many Chinese in fact think that one-child policy in some sense help the situation by reducing the population size. --Augest 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if there were more children there would be even more competition. Your opinion has no backcup.

I concur. Chinese-Americans also push their kids because they want them to do better than them and have a good job. I had a busy schedule both in China and still have a busy schedule in America. Chinese-Americans also push their kids to remember the Chinese language because China is a growing country and the demand for Chinese will increase. I heard American kids are going through Chinese school to fill that demand.

[edit] Deployment of one-child policy

Most non-Chinese use 'one-child policy' to refer to Chinese birth control policy, no matter whether it is for urban, suburb or rural area. On the other hand, Chinese birth-control policy definitely cover rural area, if not emphersize on rural area. It is difficult to deploy birth-control policy in rural area, and policies in these area are kind of different from that in urban area. But compared to itself, birth rate in rural area is decreased since the deployment of the one-child policy.--Augest 03:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women follow their husbands' name

Traditionally, women in China would change their family names to their husbands's name or add their husband's surname before their surname. This was only changed about 1940-1950s. For instance, Ms. Anson Chan Fang On, the head of Hong Kong's civil serviceSang, her maiden name is Fang, and she got her surname Chan from her husband. More examples about the names of married women in China can be easily found in novels written before 20th century and history documents. --Augest 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please go back and check again. Women never officially assumed their husband's surnames. What you are referring to is the practice of giving a reference (usually literary) to a woman using the husband's name after marriage, which was never her real name in any case. For example, Liu Fangshi (刘方氏) means a member of the Fang family married to Mr. Liu, and is not actually the name of the woman. The woman is usually called by a colloquial name (like a flower or something to the likes of that), and this name is never really recorded in writing. Empresses, for example, never adopted imperial surnames. You are also referring to the practice in Hong Kong and Taiwan, which in reality was adopted from western tradition, to place husbands name before one's own.

If you so claim that the practice only began in 1940's, then explain why Soong May-ling never became "Chiang Soong Mei-ling" upon marriage. Colipon+(T) 06:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This so-called colloquial name is just the given name of woman, which should not be used in a public occasions and can only called by her family numbers. Liu Fang (刘方氏) is not just a reference, but an official surname of the woman. She need to use this official surname in all formal occasions. shi(氏) in Chinese means surname or family name. I did not say the practice of putting husband surname before a married woman or a married woman change her surname into her husband's name begans since 1940's. I say the practice that women not using their husband name start 1940's.

Soong May-ling is called "Chiang Soong Mei-ling" upon marriage. This can be found in some literature. However, as I said, since 1940's or earlier, with the trend of feminism, this is not that strict though.

This tradition can still be observed common in Taiwan and HK because they were never been under the control of Chinese communist party. People there are keep more traditional stuff than those in mainland China. Feminism in Taiwan and HK had never been promoted as wide and strong as that in mainland China. --Augest 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this here?

This article is a good example of why Wikipedia is an unreliable source. The article itself is obviously not neutral, not well researched, and poorly written. Yet it remains as the "definitive" entry for all and sundry to quote from. Why is it up there?

Marian.

This article will be an excellent example how wikipedians build a useable article from zero when it's done. It's there because this topic has enough value and/or importance to be kept and improved into a good encyclopedia article, not because it is already good enough. It may not be well written, so it needs volenteers like you to make it neutral, well researched, and well written. Go ahead, be bold, edit this page. By the way, when signing after a comment, you can use ~~~~ to sign your comment and link it to your user page.

Kakurady 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Some children who are in one-child families pay less than the children in other families."

pay less for what? (131.130.121.106 09:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Agree, that sentence was not very clear. When I was in elementary school in early 1980s though, a classmate who was the only child in the family received money reward from government weekly or monthly (don't remember clearly).Coconut99 99 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is absolutely no mentioning of the positive sides of one child policy. how many people would have been living in china now, and what problems would that have led to?

Mathias

[edit] The policy as an eugenics movement?

I heard somewhere stating that a reason behind the One-child policy has something to do with eugenics and that how the policy seems to favor boys lends support for this argument.--Ryz05 _t 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy does not inherently favour boys. Traditional Chinese society favours boys. Eugenics have nothing to with the policy, and is likely a poorly organized conspiracy theory. The policy is a basic measure aimed at sustaining an equilibrium between the population and resource consumption. Colipon+(T) 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Colipon. Bringing population to a level that matches long-term carrying capacity is still the paramount issue. The gender imbalance is simply an unfortunate side effect of the traditional Chinese emphasis on male heirs. --Coolcaesar 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When searching google for the one-child policy and eugenics[8], this website [9] on one-child policy posters states that Eugenics is mentioned in government posters. You can also read this article Is China's law eugenic?.--Ryz05 _t 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I did your recommended Google search. I saw quite a few websites from Tibetan sources, which are naturally anti-Beijing. Further, I saw several references on the first few pages alone about how China's one child policy has nothing to do with Eugenics. What you are referring to is actually another law passed in the early 1990's that have some characteristics that may reflect eugenics. If you want a separate article on this, please create it. Colipon+(T) 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In this link http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_09/uk/dossier/txt07.htm , I see no where did it suggest a policy that is different from that talked about in this article, so I don't see why a separate article has to be created.--Ryz05 _t 02:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the sterilization laws mentioned in the article part of the one child policy? Sounds like a related but seperate set of laws. TastyCakes 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been known for government officials to sterilize people to prevent penalties from failing to curb population growth. I think their argument is that because of the gender imbalance, many people will never get married, but those that do will have children who will be better off in society. This article [10] seems to suggest that eugenics is "linked to the one-child policy," but I don't suggest trusting that article since it's a bit biased against China.--Ryz05 _t 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Favouring male children hardly can be said to be eugenics. Eugenics aims to reduce the number of "inferior" genes and phenotypes, while increasing the number of "superior" ones. But if there are more men than women, it just means that a proportion of that generation of men will not be fathers, while nearly all of the women will be mothers. Parents obviously must be evenly divided 1/2 men and 1/2 women.

[edit] About abstract

Planned birth is hardly used in west. I never heard English-speaking people use this term when they talk about one-child policy. Only found one web page using this term when I search Planned birth in google. Put this term at the beginning may confuse readers. Human rights violation is seldom a critizism against one-child policy inside China. China is not a religious country and there are not many pro-lifers. The main critizism inside China about one-child policy are the potential social issues such as aging problem. It's better to left the detailed descriptions in the relative sub-part. Augest 05:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV claim

The intro says: "Though controversial both inside and outside of China, China's pandemic overpopulation problem required the government to take drastic measures." Surely this is POV? I personally don't agree that "drastic measures" were required and am highly skeptical in general about alarmist attitudes towards "overpopulation". Everyking 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and have tried an edit to moderate the statement to . . . "stimulated the government to take strong measures." Fact is, though, that while high population growth was a drag and likely to become an increasing one on the government, there was not a "crisis" that required "drastic" measures. There were more gradualist and less "drastic" measures that could have been taken, even given the goal of stemming population growth and eventually shrinking it. Mack2 23:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Achievements"

I corrected the "achievements" claims for the policy in two ways. First, it read as if the family planning policy had actually reduced China's population. That is not true. It only slowed down the rate of growth, so that by one estimate it has about 300 million fewer people than it would have had without the policy. But China's population continues to grow. Second, it read as if China's population is getting smaller now because of the low "births per woman" (correct terminology would be total fertility rate or TFR, but I left that alone). While technically China's fertility rate may now be "below replacement" (with a TFR of ca. 1.7 as against a "replacement" level of 2.1 or 2.2), because of population momentum resulting from the number of women who are still in child-bearing age the population continues to grow, though more slowly than it might have. If this TFR is sustained over an extended period, and assuming that mortality rates do not decline rapidly, then China's population size may actually begin decline in the fairly near future. But that is not happening yet, to my knowledge (and the TFR by itself is not sufficient to show a population decline as opposed to a fertility decline).

One thing that hasn't been added to this discussion, but that may be warranted, is a consideration of alternative policies. Some have written that if instead of the "one child policy" the government had promoted mainly having childen when women were older by several years (i.e., delaying childbearing), combined with longer spacing between children in the case of multiple children, over a long period this would have slowed down overall population growth as much as the more draconian "one child policy" did -- by increasing the mean time between generations. And such a policy (which is the de facto practice in many countries that have no such policy in place) might not have brought on as much international reaction (though arguably some of this would have occurred anyway by folks who oppose the use of abortion). So, yes, the "one child policy" "achieved" a substantial reduction in population growth, but other policy approaches (e.g., a 1.5 TFR goal, accompanied by encourging waiting and greater spacing before having children) might have achieved the same objective though over a more extended timeframe. In any case, there is a literature on this subject of alternatives for China, but I'm not the best one to summarize it.Mack2 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "alternative" policies you mentioned are already included in China's birth control policy or whatsoever. The legal marriage age is China has changed from 18(F) and 20(M) or even younger to 20(F) and 22(M) or something like this. I can not remember the exact number now. Longer spacing between kids and late marriage are always promoted. The only thing is this is ignored by most western literature. I guess the reason lies in: 1, China is relatively not so open to outside before; 2, to those westners who went to China, "one Child" is something really surprise them rather than other staff. 3, Many materials just try to criticize China. On one side, Chinese would not really care what westerners said and would not waste money and time to explain. While for many westerners, they don't really care the truth but just want to critize China because it is China. Another thing is, most westerners don't know Chinese, and thus they have no first-handed material. All they got is just what they heard from others. --Augest 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is useful. I have been to China numerous times, and am aware also of the purely political aspects of the criticism. I am not a "Sino-phobe." My concern in contributing to this article has been to bring some balance by drawing on scientific research (both by Chinese and other researchers) rather than accepting the mostly political positions taken by certain groups. For example, in my own investigations, I see no evidence that the one-child policy contributed to the sex ratio imbalance. Arguably perhaps, "western technology" (ultrasound) had a far greater effect, but not only in the PRC, also in Korea, Taiwan, India, and elsewhere. I think the purpose of this encyclopedia is to give the readers a clear and "neutral" summary, minimizing strictly political interpretation. This requires presenting the best scientific evidence, it seems to me, with some documentation and bibliographic references that will help the interested reader learn much more elsewhere. Mack2 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK without engaging the full literature, I have added a short paragraph referring to a very useful article that reviews the policy-making process and internal politics behind the choice of policies: Susan Greenhalgh, "Science, Modernity, and the Making of China's One-Child Policy," Population and Development Review, 29 (June 2003): 163-196. Mack2 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added now another interesting overview by Hasketh et al. from the New England Journal of Medicine. This appears to be a balanced assessment that points out that some of the claimed achievements for the policy initiated in 1979 may be exaggerated: China's fertility rates were already falling prior to the policy, and would likely have continued to fall somewhat had they not introduced the new policy. Thus, the claimed 250-300 million fewer births due to the policy are only partly attributable to the policy itself.Mack2 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The population control policy is promoted as early as 1953 (see People's Dialy, March 5, 1953), and other methods such as enouraging late marriage have beed tried before the one child policy (Selected works of Zhou Enlai Vol.2).--Skyfiler 18:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation please

From "The 'One-Two-Four' problem": "However, allowances have been implemented in China allowing for a couple who are both only children themselves to have two children to combat this problem."

Can someone cite this? - BlackWidower 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women's right to choose in marriage

"China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development, required to feed its oversized population. There were reports of shortages of power in summer 2005. This policy has also helped women become more equal to men in their society. Now women have more of a say in who they marry because there are so few women compared to men in the country.[3]."

It is more like someone's personal view. I just removed it. Augest 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the policy is for ethnic han chinese only

this should be mentioned shouldnt it?

No. The policy is not only for han ethnic groups. Other ethnic groups may or may not associated with the policy depends on their size, etc. Augest 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also some ethnic groups (e.g., Koreans) have lower fertility than Han even if they might not appear to be subject to the policy.--Mack2 17:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China in the Future

I fear that with the lack of females in china (as a result of the one child policy) will lead to china becoming very homosexual in the near future. That is one way to combat population problems.199.176.183.15 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This concern is lack of fact or statistic support. As long as I know, in many areas of China especially urban areas, women of marriage age also complain it is hard to find the right guys to get married. Marriage is not mating. Even mating does not mean it is exactly 1:1. Not long time ago, before 1949, China is in fact with a marriage system of one husband and several wives/cuconbines. And such marriage system (one husband and several wifies/cuconbines) lasted for thousands of years. I think it still exists in some other countries/areas in the world. E.g. Is that for Morman people one guy can married with several wives? Is that true that in muslim one guy can be married with 4 wives? Does that mean in those areas the ratio of man and woman are 100:400 or higher? Augest 01:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The gender imbalance could lead to higher rates of human trafficking, not only within national boundaries, but international. Also, prostitution could increase, with higher instances of HIV/AIDS transmission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Poorly Written

I feel that some of the criticisms here are valid, but also think that the article is not coherent or well written. I think it has to be majorly overhauled. I am not knowledgeable about the subject enough, but think that it should be done.

SudsyJ 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)SudsyJ

[edit] This article should be added

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21108585-2703,00.html

I would add it myself, but looking at this article it is so horrible I can't contemplate working on it. At the very least it would be thought that if allegations of forced abortion are going to be in the introduction, the known environmental and social costs of overpopulation would also be in there. Sad mouse 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I have previously done degree level work on this topic but the idea of editing an article in this much of a mess and with such an aggressive talk page is too much. The talk page in particular make me cringe; fair enough you can't be an expert on everything but why do people who clearly have no background on this topic insist on editing it and adding errors and NPOV... I know something similar was said a few screens up and the commentator got shot down for the opinion, but seriously... yuck! NickCwik 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Economic Consequences

There should be a section added to this page that talk about future economic consequences of the 1 child policy. Specifically that population growth is the main contributor to GDP growth, and a decreasing population is considered a great economic disaster. --DrewWiki 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can suggest White House to allow half Chinese population or even more (in case they want, and I guess many would like to) to immigrant to U.S. for booming the U.S. economy. Maybe they will adopt your opinion. I just wonder why there are illegal immigrants in U.S. Why don't they import these people and make a higher GDP growth, mmmmmm Augest 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent response, Augest. No doubt someone is going to suggest at some point that the long-term consequence of the one-child policy is the failure of the Chinese society to thrive, leading to a move eventually to the thermonuclear annihilation of life on earth. The ingenuity of those with a POV to raise irrelevant and undocumented and unprovable consequences in argument against the policy is impressive. It does take us way off topic sometimes, however.--Mack2 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

China will suffer a lot after 2020,when a huge aged chinese nation is presented in the world while there are little or no young labors to work for their pensions.It's a stupid and flash policy to stop people from reproducing before making substantial capital and techinical assets and enough infrastructure.I hope China ending this policy the sooner the better,otherwise another stagnant Europe or Japan will arise.--Ksyrie 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Augest, your defence is based on WP:OR. This page tells that the One child policy decreases economic growth: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050826a.html. FYI, illegal Mexican immigrants actually raise the GDP. The rationale for preventing illegal immigrants is to lower taxes by to preventing them getting the taxpayer paid welfare such as public education, etc. 71.185.237.221 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This page is highly biased towards the western point of view. I have added a view from China to point out what Chinese people think! PLease note that I did not write the original article, but simply added a new section to try and make in more neutral. --Hedgehog99 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst being a detailed article the page is almost entirely against the Chinese policy. Whilst there may be concerns over human rights, and personal ethical views, this should not be conveyed in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.114.88 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still non-NPOV

Please do not remove the NPOV tag. You only need to compare the length of the criticizing section and the length of the achievement section. Just take the leading paragraph as an example: you can find the introduction and the controversy, but obviously it misses a statement about the achievement. Looking through the whole article, you even can not find a number showing how big the poplulation of China would be if there were no one-child policy. There is a statement in the older version said that "so that by one estimate it has about 300 million fewer people than it would have had without the policy", I suggest that we should find the origin of this number and put it to the leading paragraph.

And I don't think the "one child policy" is a NPOV title, since one child policy is only applied in the urban area for Han Chinese, only ~30% of total Chinese population. The so called "one child policy" is only a misunderstanding of western media and some urban Chinese. I don't think we should stick to this misunderstanding. I prefer to use "Planned Birth policy" as the title.

Sinolonghai 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not only the urban area of Han chinese.The rural Han chinese also are forced to adopt such policy,while to a much loosener degree.2 childs are maximam.--Ksyrie 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. But in the rural Han area, it can not be called "one child policy", where if the first child is a boy, no more child is allowed and if a girl, then the second allowed. So maybe we should call it "1.5 child policy" instead of "one child policy"? (And if I do more rigorous computation by taking an average of rural and urban area, I may get "1.35 child policy".) If you don't think the "1.5 child policy" or "1.35 child policy" is a good title, please consider "Planned Birth policy" as a title. Sinolonghai 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is your socalled achievement,the chinese population is big,but its territory is also very big.The population density is not so high to be thought as overpopulation.Just comparing all the east asian countries and areas.The Japan 339,South Korea 480,Taiwan 636.None of them were crticised to be overpopulated and only China 137 seemed to be aware of its population and adopt this policy.Sometimes,I asked myself Was China an overpopulated country in reality or just someone thought it to be.--Ksyrie 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please learn more Chinese geography before discussing the overpopulation problem in China. The vast western of China are occupied by mountains and deserts. The population of China concentrated in the eastern part and several eastern provinces are more dense than Japan, South Korea, even Taiwan. And their areas are comparable. See this page: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_3.htm, or List of China administrative divisions by population density. Sinolonghai 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinolonghai, please do not use WP:OR to justify your opinion. If 50% or even 70% of China is covered by deserts, then the density is still lower than Japan. Ksyrie, your information is perfectly acceptable to this article if you cite a source.71.185.237.221 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the title stands, as it is the most common "translation" found in english for the policy. --82.247.184.126 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fertility Rate

The statement that the U.S. fertility/birth rate is 2.2 is just wrong, as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States The rate is 2.1, or possibly 2.09. The Editor 2 18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OCPF

Can someone explain OCPF in the article? Is it an acronym for "One-Child Policy Family"?

[edit] Little Emperors

From the one, two, four problem: - This can often lead into "Little Emperors" -. No explanation of what little emperors is, it just says it can lead to little emperors. It may as well say "This can often lead into "Bojorn Mockavonitch". So, does anyone actually know what Little Emperors is? JayKeaton 14:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Spoiled kids. It should be there originally. Augest 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the NPOV tag

Using original research to balance this article out is illegitimate. Balancing out this article so the number of positives and the number of criticisms--make no distinguish between the prominence and quality of the positives--are the same does not make sense at all. That is just mere quantity, not a quality argument.

It is obvious that a socialist system do not have the incentive nor ingeniuity to support such large population. Source: (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050826a.html, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5457)

71.185.237.221 21:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use POV of one party to judge the general rule of a article structure/grammar issue. The NPOV tag is marked because this article is short of the positive effects/advantage of one child policy. Actually, there are many people support the policy. These need to be addressed in the article to make it Neutral of view. Using original research to balance this article out is definitely legitimate. Wiki is a encyclopedia. Not a forum. Augest 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your contributions in the introduction. These contributions violate the Wikipedia Manuel of Style and are POV. I removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.31.225 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your contributions in the introduction. These contributions violate the Wikipedia Manuel of Style and are POV. I removed them.

"But then why not just keep the wan-xi-shao policy, which resulted in a fertility decline from 5.75 to 2.72 children per woman from 1970 to 1978 ?[1]]." This is a question. Questions are not allowed.

"Because the main reason behind the Policy was economic." It is written in a subjective point of view.

" The state's new legitimacy is no longer dogma but improving the standard of living." This sounds like propaganda like the use of "dogma".

" The one-child policy will enable the state to free resources for economic development." Some people criticize it, so write it in an objective point of view at the non-introduction"

" The Policy is therefore included in the economic planning framework." This is already mentioned.

"impossible in time of de-maoisation. " The word "Impossible" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.31.225 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

These contributions have nothing to do with me. You point at the wrong person --Augest 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Augest contributions

His contributions make this article sound like CPC propaganda. His contributions are ungrammatical and made this article more POV instead of less POV. He used propaganda linguistic methods in this article. 71.175.31.225 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

71.175.31.225 edit makes the article like a human right/pro-life group propaganda. Plus, his edit lists redundancy contents again and again with no organization and logic. Wikipedia already has a bad reputation of not accurate and out of control, please don't make it even worse.

Actually, I wonder why this article not be protected since there are way too much extremist: religious, pro-life, anti-abortion, communistphobic, etc... are eager to vandalize the article. See how many times this article being vandalized... --Augest 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked your most recent edit. What you removed has nothing to do with me. I don't know why you point at me. As for the NPOV, I still think this article is not NPOV as it's not address enough for the views of supporting parties. --Augest 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the supporting parties outnumber the unsupporting parties? There are far more unsupporting parties. Therefore, your edits to equalize the parties is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.31.225 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know "There are far more unsupporting parties."? Please give a reliable resource for this claim. --Augest 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is your original research to "equalize" the proponents and critics at the first place. I just cited an example of why your original research can be refuted. The people supporting it are mainly brainwashed homogeneous groups from the PRC. (example) So these advocates just have one supporting argument. However, the critics are diverse so they held a wide variety of repercussions of why this policy is bad, and you have to support all the criticisms.

Just look at other articles such like Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. There are no supporting arguments and is filled with critics. It does not even contain NPOV tag. This article should be handled the same as the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article.71.175.31.225 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I had read that article before. I was there and experienced the event by myself. Is that article perfect, surely not. Lies, propagadas, all bad things come out for that event. Not just CCP, but others, including those so called student leaders. It's a complicated and controversial topic. I could imagine Wikipedia could not handle such a complicated topic... and it's fine. However, one child policy and Tiananman Event are totally two different issues. There are lots of people who actucally support One Child Policy. UNFPA is a good example: U.S. even supported it before Bush withdraw the funding. UNFPA is definitely an International organization, not only for China nor U.S. Many Chinese actually supports One Child Policy. Many Chinese couples, especially those with good education, although they came to U.S., they still only have one child. (Of course there are also people against the policy.) Otherwise, the policy could not be there for about 20 years and still going on. Plus, the detail of policy also keeps changing. This is completely not addressed in the article. Actually, I even doubt if anyone who critize and supporting those critized statement really know the full content of the policy. Wiki can be a good place to help people understand what's really going on, or it can also be another forum controlled by/following one side political power. In the latter case, people can still get the info, what can be ruined is just the reputation of Wikipedia--Augest 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the NPOV, it's not only my view, if you read the discussion page carefully, there are many others have the same opinion as I. Please respect other's efforts before you do anything. And balancing the article out is definitly NPOV. Plus, put a NPOV tag also helps call attention of other editors to improve the quality of the article. -Augest 01:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am tired on this topic. And kind of busy... Just found something interesting in the UNFPA article. Bush administration blocking fundiing from 2002 to 2006 for the organization based on unproved critics that UNFPA supports oversea abortion. Remembering Bush administration also seeks for extra 4 million or more this year on the Iraq war, which is also based on the wrong Information that Iraq has massive killing weapoons. I don't know what I can say. Maybe one day U.S. will be crazy enough to prohibit all legal abortion and at the same time spend huge amount of tax payer's money to send their 18 year old kids to Mideast to be killed by suicide bombers. What's a crazy thing... --Augest 02:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Rebuttal section

The rebuttal section ^[1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] OMG!

Image:== OMG! ==

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

[edit] 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'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)