Talk:Belt and Road Initiative/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article elaborates on what is "one belt, one road", maybe it is better to talk more about historical inspiration. And all the cites are work well, and link to the right place.Lingjian Fan (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Will the One Belt, One Road major program create economic prosperity?

Debates about whether the Belt, One Road major program will create economic prosperity remain unresolved. A 2016 study from University of Oxford's Saïd Business School, however, found that track-record of China's domestic infrastructure investments is poor, presenting a cautionary tale for other countries borrowing large sums to implement One Belt, One Road projects. The Oxford China Study found that over half of the infrastructure investments in China have destroyed, not generated economic value. The study – authored by Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn – is based on an analysis of 95 large Chinese road and rail transport projects and 806 transport projects built in rich democracies, the largest dataset of its kind. ‘From our sample, the evidence suggests that for over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate, which means the projects destroy economic value instead of generating it,’ comments Dr Atif Ansar, co-author of the study.

− − The pattern of cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in China’s infrastructure investments is linked with China’s growing debt problem. The study estimated that cost overruns have equalled approximately one-third of China’s US$28.2 trillion debt pile. China’s debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds that of many advanced economies, such as the United States, and all developing economies for which data are available, e.g., Brazil, India, and Nigeria. Because many corporations and financial institutions in China are state owned, revised calculation of China’s implicit government debt as a proportion of GDP suggests that China’s is the second-most indebted government in the world after Japan’s. Extraordinary monetary expansion has accompanied China’s piling debts: China’s M2 broad money grew by US$12.9 trillion in 2007–13, greater than the rest of the world combined. The result is increased financial and economic fragility. The study thus concludes that poorly managed infrastructure investments are a main explanation of surfacing economic and financial problems in China. China’s infrastructure investment model--which the One Belt, One Road program advocates--may not be one to follow for other countries but one to avoid.

− Atifansar (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I propose adding data on costs and benefits from the Oxford China Study. Please note I am a co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that another editor takes a look at my proposed edit to check and verify that it’s okay and to execute it if it is. If it is not okay, kindly let me know how I can improve it, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifansar (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Atifansar, and thank you for your suggestions. While Wikipedia greatly appreciates your contribution to the scholarly literature on this topic, it is very unusual of a Wikipedia article to devote two paragraphs to discussing a single source. Wikipedia is not a literature review: the site doesn't present sources in the article for the sake of surveying what experts have to say about the topic. It works the other way around. Wikipedia editors identify pertinent facts or arguments they believe are missing from the article, and then find sources to verify those facts. You should condense these two paragraphs by suggesting word-for-word a sentence of analysis that is missing from the article, but is explained by your study. Altamel (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong's role

I have contributed a lot of Belt and Road articles and this article so my proposed deletion of Hong Kong's role is not a random move. It's not so much that I am looking to delete the section because it is currently written around one politician's speech that doesn't appear to have made important overall waves for the Belt and Road and so by getting an entire section is excessive, it's also the idea of a whole section for Hong Kong. While Hong Kong would be encompassed in Belt and Road like the approx. 100 countries (or jurisdictions ) of Belt and Road, it doesn't play a more vital role than the others. None of the financial institutions and investment funds of Belt and Road are based in Hong Kong and key financial products promoted under Belt and Road like panda bonds would not be issued from Hong Kong. Also I have not seen any infrastructure upgrades to Hong Kong that is considered Belt and Road. So in conclusion Hong Kong is merely one of many places that could be seen as encompassing Belt and Road but it doesn't stand out in any way especially in relation to a separate section in an overview article. Muzzleflash (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

CY Leung's emphasis on OBOR during the 2016 policy address got a lot of media coverage in Hong Kong. This coverage is reflected in the references provided, including the reliable sources South China Morning Post, Now TV, and the Hong Kong Economic Journal. If what you object to is the fact that Hong Kong has its own section, I suggest placing it as a subheading beneath the "criticism" heading until there is more information on the role of Hong Kong in OBOR. Citobun (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Kanji?

Are all the kanji in the introduction really necessary? It takes up quite a bit of visual space before you even get to the "is" part of the first sentence. If all the characters except for maybe one line were taken out would it lose anything? If you're reading the article in English you're not getting anything out of the simplified or traditional chinese versions.

Epididymus (talk)

I'd agree that the traditional Chinese isn't helpful here, especially since it is mostly used in Taiwan, which is not part of the initiative. By the way kanji is specific to written Japanese; I think you meant to say hanzi. - Bri (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just put them in comment brackets and see if the sky falls in- and revert if necessary.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Or format it as a footnote. Help:Footnotes has overly complex instructions (of course). - Bri (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Add explanation of "priority capacity cooperation"

Could someone explain in the article the phrase "priority capacity cooperation" that is used in the introduction? I did an Internet search for it and only found pages repeating the same sentence used in this article. It seems important to understanding what the initiative means. samtha25 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that it was translated straight from Chinese. Hopefully someone can provide a better translation because I really couldn't tell what it's supposed to mean. Maybe "capacity" is supposed to mean "more"? Anyway, keep it tagged. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rife with copyvios

[1]

I could use some help. I'm very busy off-wiki. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to post to COIN for general issues anyway, will do that now including your request for more eyes and hands. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm so sorry I can't handle this one. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As it turns out I filed a primary report at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#One Belt One Road Initiative and linked COIN to that.

The Wharton passage starting with "When Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Central Asia" is credited to Wikipedia (no authors, no article listed). So they may have lifted from this. All the same, there is other material not credited to Wikipedia, so this appears to be a genuine copyvio concern. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View concerns

Since I created the NPOVN thread I should say why I feel this needs cleanup. There are long quotes from Chinese governmental officials, state websites are used extensively for sourcing, and state-controlled media also extensively used (China Daily and Xinhua published by Communist Party of China and China State Council respectively stand out). This gives the article an overall tone as if it came from the government and has very little criticism or reflection on the initiative. Notably lacking is any in-depth comparison of the initiative to the United States' Trans-Pacific Partnership (it says "has been contrasted" but doesn't explain that) or concerns of other regional states such as described here or how it relates to security concerns described here. Balance and depth are needed, and less reliance on what the Chinese government say about their own plan. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, article has pro-China POV/bias: This needs clean up and remove the editing protection. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge

There's a box asking opinions on whether to merge "Maritime Silk road" and "One Belt One Road."

• Oppose:I'd not be in favour of a merge, as generally they stifle editing, a new topic needs a little latitude to grow .--ClemRutter (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Let's not fold the sub-projects entirely into this article. The sub-projects are large, notable, and possibly growing in importance. -- econterms (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What does "belt" mean?

And how is it different from "road". I never see an explanation in news coverage ... or here. Tony (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We need a neutral Chinese-adapt editor here. The translation of the initiative's name as "The Belt and Road" rather than "One Belt, One Road" itself is highly odd. - Bri (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The two components of the initiative are Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road. Those are the one Belt and one Road. They need to hire a better English translation and marketing team. --Voidvector (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. What would you suggest instead, as a crisp, short replacement for "belt"? And I do think it's extraordinary that no media coverage in English that I saw upon the announcement actually asked the question I'm asking. "Belt", then, I guess, means "band" or "strip" of some thickness, rather than a line (road). "Zone" doesn't quite do it. Belt is fine if the metaphor is explained. Mandarin doesn't particularly like metophors, actually. Tony (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Belt" is a fairly well-known term in the US which is used in the name of a number of geographic regions spanning multiple states: the Rust Belt, the Bible Belt, and the Black Belt are some prominent examples. So, I'd imagine it was coined in a similar fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.186.1 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to mess with people from the black belt : -) Jonpatterns (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Article has been tagged as NPOV. Can someone provide detail as why and where? After reading the article, I do not feel it is biased, as most of the sentences are statements of fact/intention that can be cited. --Voidvector (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I can see why. There's an odd mix of praise for the initiative and condemnation, neither of which is neutral. Example of each is below.

• Praise: "most countries in this area have joined the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank", unreferenced, and unclear how or whether requesting funds from this institution means endorsement of China's overall strategy.
• Condemnation: "Central belt is spoken down due to complex religion problems and separation movement...", unreferenced.

More examples could be shown but this is a start. Overall I'd say it is light on cited criticism per WP:WEIGHT. Examples can be found in some reputable journals like The Diplomat [2][3]. And it needs more simply factual citations concerning its economic merit; oddly is missing a major source like The Wall Street Journal [4]. - Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Section 7.1.5, "Reactions over the world" -> "Italy/eastern Europe", is worth a look, seems quite laudatory and POV to me. Klod (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria, Australia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/victoria-deepens-links-with-china-controversial-belt-and-road/11636704 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.112.241 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Persistent ongoing pro-China biases and weasel word phrasing

As highlighted by other editors above, since beginning this article has had pro-China WP:BIAS. Attempts to address it have been feeble and only to whitewash the issue using multi-proged approach, such as the use of wp:weasel word headings and phrasing, removal of list of major stalled and abandoned projects, by keeping out "numerous factors of opposition" including debt trap and predatory practices, etc. Even neocolonialism has not been sifficiently covered. Those reading it please list this article in the wikipedia editor forums/portals of western world as well as India to seek a counter opinion so as to remove the bias and add WP:BALANCE. If bias continues, flag the editors/admins with bias and get them banned (at least from this article) for having a peristent WP:DISRUPTIVE pattern. Xie Xie nǐ, péngyou men! (Thank you, friends).
58.182.176.169 (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Debt-trap diplomacy into Belt and Road Initiative. I think that the BRI article reads like a glossy brochure for China, as it seems to concentrate purely on the mechanics of the project, whilst the content in debt-trap diplomacy article is in fact centred on the consequences of China's quest for resources and soft power. Debt-trap diplomacy can more easily be explained in the context of the BRI, and that a merged article will provide better and more comprehensive coverage from a global perspective. To avoid a split discussion, I propose that we should discuss it at the other place  Ohc ^¡digame! 08:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioned text

"China has expended herculean efforts to gain the support BRI across the globe and to formally endorse it."

Was first sentence in support section. Uncited, probably not needed, only says China tried. Elinruby (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

George Soros statement in lead

I added the statement, and part of it in bold, because it is highly relevant to the scope of the article and most people are unaware of military aspect of Belt and Road Initiative. It must stay in the lead (and should stay bold text) out of public interest. It is relevant to the text in the article, particular the criticism section. Soros speaks at World Economic Forum and Munich Security Conference often, so he is a very credible source. Guodata (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Accusations of neocolonialism and debt trap"

There is clear bias and shoddy research in the "Accusations of neocolonialism and debt trap" section regarding Tajikistan. It states: "China's sovereignty slicing tactic dilutes the sovereignty of the target nations mainly using the debt trap, Beijing pressured a debt trapped Tajikistan to handover 1,158 sq km territory which still owes China US$1.2b out of total $2.9b debt." Aside from clearly needing proofreading, this statement has no source attached and presents a misleading narrative of aggressive, modern Chinese expansion. The Wikipedia page on the China-Tajikistan border itself notes that this is an agreement seemingly unrelated to debt, aiming to resolve an 130-year territorial dispute that originated between China and Tsarist Russia. The claim in this section, attempting to paint China as purely predatory, omits two relevant facts: 1) the agreement was reached in 1999, a full decade before the "debt trap" mentioned here, and 2) while Tajikistan ceded 1,158 sq km, China relinquished longstanding claims to 28,000 sq km of Tajikistani territory in the same agreement. In light of this, it also seems misleading to claim the agreement simply undermines Tajikistani sovereignty. Given that other sources similarly do not mention debt as a factor, the inclusion of this Tajikistan example is very questionable and should probably be removed, at the very least replaced with an example that actually, unambiguously demonstrates debt trap diplomacy. Also, this section desperately cries out for consistency, since it is at once stated firmly that scholars dismiss evidence for China engaging in debt trap diplomacy and then, a paragraph later, a firm and confident discussion of that debt trap diplomacy in Tajikistan as factual. The former provides a source, while the latter does not. A framing of Chinese foreign policy as either totally selfless or totally predatory is undesirable, and as it stands the article blatantly and regularly contradicts itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasmaguerico (talk • contribs) 19:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Debt sustainability update

Chinese debt sustainability is an important part of the Belt and Road Initiative. This section focuses on China’s tendency to collect their loan payments by using collateral such as mines, ports or money. There was nothing inherently wrong with this section, I just thought that it could be expanded to include more details and relevant recent affairs. I added to this stating that between 29 and 32 percent of China’s loans use these types of resources as collateral (Wingo). I also added that not only is this a predatory lending practice, but it is even worse for the indebted nations because the pandemic has caused the commodities and resources that are typically used as collateral to drop in price. Thus, borrowers are left in an even worse position than when they first started. I added that China is the largest bilateral lender in the world (Wingo). I added that in April 2020, in light of the pandemic, the Group of 20 decided to freeze debt payments for countries that would struggle to pay them. Interest on Chinese loans continued to accrue during the freeze (Wingo). I added that in June 2020, Chinese president Xi Jinping decided to cancel interest-free loans for certain African countries. Since 2000, these types of loans have accounted for 2 to 3 percent of total loans China has issued to African countries (Wingo). I added that two state-owned banks oversee China’s foreign loans and development. Their motivations are to earn profit or minimize losses, so there is no incentive for them to provide lenience on loans (Wingo). I added that foreign aid is a controversial topic in China due to it having its own areas with significant poverty. Thus, the Chinese government is under domestic pressure to profit from their loans. This disincentivizes China to be lenient with their debt collection (Wingo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequoiaforest (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a paper, any material should be supported by mainstream reliable sources. The edit interestingly included <ref>...</ref> tags that looked like citations but that didn't lead to any source. These resulted in a "Cite error: The named reference /// was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." —PaleoNeonate – 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Image used in infobox

The current image shows the states that are members (in orange) of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Membership of the AIIB does not equal condemnation or participation of the BRI.

As an alternative, I propose that the infobox uses a blank map of the eastern hemisphere (Eurasia, Africa, Oceania) with the exisiting lines drawn of the transportation routes from and towards China.

TorreAzzurro (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove edit protection and this to criticism/controversies and its summary to lead

Make this article inclusive by removing the unwarranted edit protection. let alone editing, I can not even submit the suggestions for editing, this is absurd. Wikipedia is not a one-party forceful-bully dictatorship like China. Add the following to criticism/risk and also add its summary to the article lead. Editors are welcome to further rephrase (without diluting) this text to eliminate any risk of copyvio.

Chinese self-interests and mistrust of China: OBOR is based on China's national self interests. There is mistrust of OBOR, such as by EU, because china avoids discussing multilateral issues and prefers bilateral deals with individual nations as it gives it more clout. It also has problems of lack of several things important to EU such as transparency, values based on good governance, the rule of law, human rights and democracy. USA considers OBOR as a threat to American interests in the Asia-Pacific. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke on this risk, ". These roads cannot be one-way of a new hegemony, which would transform those that they cross into vassals," while pushing for a system for screening Chinese investments in strategic sectors and for more stringent anti-dumping EU rules against cheap Chinese exports. OBOR is about building routes to move Chinese exports.

Escalation of geopolitical conflicts: It is an expansionist tactics. OBOR would cause serious domestic and geopolitical conflicts in the region. Implementation of OBOR has already entrenched China into existing inter- and intra-state conflicts, such as India-Pakistan conflict. OBOR is not Globalisation 2.0 but Dominance 3.0. Colonialism was about super exploitation and western dominance, OBOR is both Chinese dominance and resource extraction. OBOR is a slow poison killing the domestic production capabilities of the emerging economies in Asia. Center for Strategic and International Studies confirmed this risk that 89% of the OBOR contracts were given to Chinese companies. OBOR poses a significant risk of huge unpayable debt burden with disastrous consequences for the nations with weaker economies. OBOR will create huge financial burden for the future generations, accompanied by economic, political, and social problems such as an exclusion of the regions in decision-making processes; exploitation of regional resources without adequate remuneration; land grabbing; forced displacement of the local communities; internal migration, and massive distortions of fair and free economic competition.

Average reserves to external debt ratio of other nation in OROB will worsen, weaken other nation's ability to repay the Chinese debt, leading to China acquiring equity possession of these large tracts of infrastructure projects and thereby making inroads into the geographic space. Myanmar is grave with 61.2% external debt to reserves ratio, Mongolia has plunged into deep crisis with economy growing by just 1% in 2016 from 17.5% in 2011, Sri Lanka is in Chinese debt-trap with $44 billion national debt in 2015 and China has grabbed Hambantota port with an expensive debt at at an interest rate of 6.3%. ASEAN countries, especially Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam, run a Chinese-led trade deficit which is more than 30%.

Old wine in new bottle: Many of the OBOR projects are not related to OBOR, they are just old and new projects combined together just to promote OBOR.

202.156.182.84 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Add a new section "Australia, India, Japan and USA alternative to OBOR"

Add a new section "reaction" or "aftermath" or "counter-reaction etc" with sub-section "Australia, India, Japan and USA alternative to OBOR". Include the following text.

To counter OBOR, Australian Financial Review quoted a senior American official that the Australia, USA, India and Japan are talking about establishing a joint regional infrastructure scheme as an alternative to OBOR.

202.156.182.84 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

hwork21 talk Whether the Joint Regional Infrastructure officially challenges the project by providing an alternative to BRI is not fully established. Nothing is concrete and at best, it can only be said that negotiations for a proposal is only underway.

Edit warring commentary

To editor Omgemma898: Please discuss your proposed edits before doing anything. You have been reverted twice and the next time would violate WP:EW. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Belt and Road Initiative which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Environment concerns section

Environment :- There is a problem with the neutrality of this section. The use of the words 'immense project' is an arbitrarily given qualification to the subject in question and challenges the neutrality as well as quality. Similarly, the causality that the use of concrete leading to greenhouse emissions needs to be substantiated with specific reliable sources and commentaries by experts if need be, adding to the credibility of the conclusions. The entire paragraph looks like the work of a mediocre science project in school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwork21 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is any discussion of the environmental impact? The article is seriously lacking in this regard. There must be some environmental considerations, as with any physical project. 31.127.242.241 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have any ideas about what must be included, you can discuss them here or mock up a sections in the Belt and Road Initiative/sandbox. This article needs serious restructuring, any assistance is welcome. ClemRutter (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: I have moved the above page to talk space, Talk:Belt and Road Initiative/sandbox, since draft versions shouldn't sit in the main article space. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What does "belt" mean? AGAIN!

Up above, we have a section titled "What does "belt" mean?". It is only vaguely answered, and this is only the Talk page. There seems to be no attempt to explain the name in the article. I personally have no idea what it means.

Can somebody please, please, please explain the name in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the name given to the initiative. Translations from Chinese will often end up kind of odd. And honestly, why was it given that name? Largely because Xi liked it. [5] This is not something that needs to be clarified. If we really must get into the etymology of it that can happen farther down than the lede. The clarification needed tag, placed where it is, disrupts the reader-flow of the lede and reduces the usefulness of the page. I am removing it for this reason. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, a clarification tag in the midst of the bolded subject name in the lede is disruptive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"This is not something that needs to be clarified." it certainly does. That's precisely what an encyclopaedia is supposed to do. And it needs to be in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, for the last time, belt in this context means that Xi liked the word belt as part of the name for this initiative. It's the name of the thing it doesn't need explanations that don't exist inserted nor does it need visually disruptive and unnecessary tags. Simonm223 (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @HiLo48: that some explanation of the name, other than Xi Ping liked it, is warranted. He may like it, but why does he like it?

However, it turns out that the meaning is explained. 'Belt' is the interconnecting land routes AKA 'Silk Road Economic Belt', and counter intuitively 'Road' is the interconnecting sea routes AKA 'Maritime Silk Road'. Perhaps the lede could be rephrased to make this more explicit. For reference see this Guardian article. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would be fully open to a good-faith revision of the lede, though I think it's perfectly clear. But the nuisance tagging has to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for a tag. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say we have a local consensus emerging: three editors agree the lede should not be tagged. HiLo48 when protection on the article drops, please do not reinsert it. This is, I repeat, disruptive. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"....I think it's perfectly clear." Not in the lead, it not! That's a really stupid thing to say. As for your "consensus", many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. I came to this article, and truly wondered what the hell the name meant. I read the lead, and was none the wiser. It says absolutely nothing about a translation of something Xi allegedly liked. Why not? And do you have a source for that claim? Why is this article exempt from Wikipedia's rules and policies? Making threats against someone trying to get articles to do what they are supposed to is more disruptive than what I am doing. If disruptive means disrupting the status quo among a bunch of Yes Men, and making them actually think about what they were doing, then I'm proud to be disruptive. BTW, why did it take any of you so damn long to get to the Talk page? There has been a question here on precisely this matter since May last year, to no effect. Again, if my disruption finally got you here, I'm even more proud. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Had you gone to talk instead of repeatedly including tags which consensus clearly shows to be considered disruptive this might be a more collegial environment. Suggest you review WP:BATTLEGROUND. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I DID got to Talk, right from the start, repeating the Section heading used by another editor 16 months ago, to no effect, but adding the word "AGAIN". Sadly, none of the article owners ever seem to look at the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also if you have a legitimate alternate account @Roblowe48: @HiLo48: I would suggest you pick ONE to edit this article in order to avoid the appearance of sockpuppetry. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for confusion over my Username. Yesterday's posting was done, very unusually, on my phone, where I must be still logged on with a very old account. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. I will log off the account on my phone. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Now, do you actually have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just going to talk about me? HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

0) As a side note: no one owns the article, rather it is owned collectively under a Creative Commons license, see WP:CC BY-SA for more detail. Also, no one is compelled to use the talkpage, most editors give their time for free.

1) Summary of the current situation: some editors think the meaning of belt is clearly explained in lede, others think it could be more clearly explained, and yet others think it is not clearly explained at all.

2) A possible solution: editors who think the lede is not clear could suggest preferred text in this discussion. Then see if there is consensus for updated text. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You're not seeing the problem. I don't think the lead is clear. (What's this lede thing? My spellchecker doesn't like it.) But I don't know what it should say! That's why I have been asking for clarification. And it needs sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A 'Belt' in this case refers to interconnecting land routes. From the article section Silk Road Economic Belt:

Essentially, the "belt" includes countries situated on the original Silk Road through Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The initiative calls for the integration of the region into a cohesive economic area through building infrastructure, increasing cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. Apart from this zone, which is largely analogous to the historical Silk Road, another area that is said to be included in the extension of this 'belt' is South Asia and Southeast Asia.

For reference see this Guardian article. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What I've added to the discussion is that the lede (which is a word that means lead paragraph of an article) is, in my opinion, perfectly clear as is and while I welcome people to propose revisions if they have any, I don't believe it needs improvement in its current form. Please, again, avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. Concerns about an editor using multiple accounts on one page are legitimate, and I appreciate you addressing them, but it wasn't inappropriate of me to point it out. Finally, as Jonpatterns quite rightly pointed out it's up to the people who think the article needs revision to propose those revisions. Simonm223 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Please, again, avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND." All I and other editors have done, multiple times on this Talk page, and been ignored UNTIL I, in your words, made the article a battleground (Talk page ARE important! You should look at them occasionally.), is surely make it obvious that the lead (there is no such word as lede in my dictionary) is not clear to a number of readers. It is somewhat ridiculous to ask someone who points out they don't understand some content to rewrite the content so they can understand it. I hope you can actually see the problem in that suggestion. What you need to take from this Talk page, now that you are finally looking at it, is simply that the lead is NOT clear to everyone, that it matters, and someone who DOES understand the topic in greater depth needs to fix it! HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A 'Belt' in this case refers to interconnecting land routes, what do you not understand about this statement? Jonpatterns (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you won't put such an obscure meaning in the lead, with a reliable source, of course, stating that's the meaning in this context. I, like most of the rest of the world, use a belt to hold my pants up. If the meaning here is what you say it is, it's very non-mainstream, so must be explained as soon as possible in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(wiktionary):

10. (usually capitalized) A geographical region known for a particular product, feature or demographic (Corn Belt, Bible Belt, Black Belt, Green Belt).

Jonpatterns (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you won't put such an obscure meaning in the lead, with a reliable source, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No one has said they are opposed to a revision of the lede's text, just that tagging was not necessary. You are also free to make a revision to the lede's text, also see WP:BOLD. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"...tagging was not necessary." Nothing else was working to get the attention of other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Malaysian

please change ((Malaysian)) to ((Malaysia))n

 Not done 2601:541:4500:1760:dd3f:3870:e6a5:1739, this page is no longer protected - you may edit it directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Malaysian support of China initiative

@FairGamer and Teratix: it appears Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's lack of support for the project is being questioned by the recent section removal. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind in the article as long as it is reliably sourced. I reverted FairGamer's edits only because they removed well-referenced material. If they can find reliable sources saying the PM doesn't support the initiative, they are welcome to add them. TeraTIX 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Updates, Malaysia does resume the project. I consider any talk/decision before the resume decision as part of the negotiation that leads to the decision.Muhd7rosli (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that it's not the full story given what I read. He did reject BRI but had later changed his stance and pledged support in the end. I think it should be mentioned that Mahathir criticised BRI initially but later changed his stance to support BRI. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/04/483090/dr-mahathir-given-honour-present-speech-pledges-full-support-bri Nvtuil (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Daily Maverick

There's some statements that are pretty vague that are addressed to an outlet called the Daily Maverick. I am unable to adjudicate if this is a reliable source for South African and international political commentary and so I'm asking here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Neocolonial

The following text has been removed by User:Madrenergic [6]:

However, it's also underscored by some Chinese experts that such Western perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative are misconstrued due to Western conceptions of development as seen through their own lens of exploitation of others for resources—as exemplified by European colonialism—instead through Chinese conceptions of development.

The removal through the claim that the author is from some "marginal Armenian political lobby group" (quoting the user) is not applicable. The author is "Vice President for Research – Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense Research University in Armenia" and "Research Fellow at the US National Defense University" and held other positions (see http://www.psaa.am/images/Board_Rezyumes/Dr._Benyamin_Poghosyan_Biography.pdf).

Secondly, this is as given by the source. The exact quote is provided and thus meet verifiability.

Thirdly, the phrase "some Chinese experts" is the literal phrase as given by the source and therefore represent the source. It is certainly no more weasel than "Some Western governments and Africans have accused" as stated in the preceding paragraph.

Fourthly, not giving proper weight to all significant views is WP:NPOV, i.e., it is neocolonial versus it is not. As of now, only the former is represented in the wiki article.

Also ping @SamHolt6:, since you requested a discussion. --Cold Season (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@Cold Season: I note from your argument that there are several points of contention, which I shall help to illustrate for you:

1. Author being a "marginal Armenian political lobby group": You appear to misrepresent my argument. I called the author as a "marginal Armenian political lobby group" because you directed me in this diff to look for the credentials of the author in the article ("the credentials of the author is stated below the article"), where the only credential stated is that he is "Executive Director, Political Science Association of Armenia". This failed to satisfy me that he was authoritative, and hence I reverted it a second time in this diff with the above quote. It was only after the second reversion that you decided to detail more credentials for the author. However, these are still problematic, as I will explain further below.
2. Authority of the source: The author writes in his personal capacity as a newspaper columnist, not in an academically peer-reviewed publication nor as a newspaper reporter, hence the claims contained within the article must be quoted as his personal opinion. Even if he claims that there are some top Chinese experts that have this particular viewpoint, they are still his personal claims. Reproducing it as "... it's also underscored by some Chinese experts that..." essentially assumes these opinions as fact, and is in violation of WP:YESPOV, which specifically requires to avoid stating opinions as facts. Per WP:NEWSORG, "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Hence, instead of "it's also underscored by some Chinese experts that...", it would be necessary to word it as, for example, "Benyamin Poghosyan claims that some Chinese experts believe that...'" and so on. However, I also contend whether he should be quoted at all, which I will explain further below.
3. Significance of viewpoint: You have referred to this author's academic credentials as justification for the inclusion of his op-ed and using him as a source. However, academic credentials must be taken in context and in relation to what is being discussed. An expert in Mathematics, for example, is no longer considered an expert when discussed Marine Biology. In this instance, his position as "Vice President for Research – Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense Research University" in Armenia fails to convince me that this particular source can speak authoritatively for what is posited to be a view of Chinese experts. Per WP:WEIGHT, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." China is hardly an underdeveloped country and it has plenty of publications and scholars that feature prominently in the media. If this viewpoint is indeed significant, then there should be plenty of high-quality sources available perhaps by Chinese authors or Chinese publications that can be used as a superior references. However, quoting an Armenian researcher of questionable notability regarding China does not appear convincing. Instead, consider finding other sources such as from Chinese publications or institutions.
4. "Not giving proper weight to all significant views is WP:NPOV": I think you don't understand what NPOV is. WP:NPOV is "neutral point of view", and requires that content be written in a neutral tone, stating the facts of any opinion and not presuming any particular opinion to be true unless there is widespread consensus. In fact, your phrasing of Poghosyan's opinion as fact is in violation of this. Hence, giving proper weight to all significant views is NPOV, and NPOV is desirable. At the same time, WP:NPOV does not force the inclusion of opposing viewpoints for the sake of an opposing viewpoint, even if the source is bad. Hence it is inapplicable to plead that you are are "giving proper weight" when the significance and reliability of this particular viewpoint has yet to be established. I understand your desire for articles to give more weight to your views, and your efforts are commendable. However, I must remind you that it is important to observe Wikipedia's core content policies while doing so. —Madrenergic^talk 14:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(1,2) The author is well-suited to make such claims. His expertise falls well in line with the topic. Despite that, I will make such adjustments and explicitly name the author in the running text.

(3) From WP:YESPOV, "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." At the moment, you push forward the proponent viewpoint and deny the opposing viewpoint. If the wording is the issue, then your outright removal of the content has no merit.

(4) Don't lecture me about WP:NPOV. I quote: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If the subject of this topic is considered strictly as a neocolonialist enterprise, than it would have been characterized as such but it is not. Reflecting literature, this is a point of contention and not a fact. As such, all significant viewpoints need to be included.

I observe Wikipedia's core content policies. The difference here is... I do not have to humor this pulling of an overload of policies, as many as possible, in a far-fetched effort to look what will stick. In the end, this neocolonialist nature of the BRI is a debate. Btw, Do not make false comments of "[my] desire for articles to give more weight to [my] views." --Cold Season (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Some Chinese experts is vague enough to fall afoul of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL which makes the quote selected from the ref a bit problematic. Does he ever explicitly state which experts he's referring to?Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No, he does not. Despite that, it certainly does not warrant an outright removal. It only falls afoul to that if the info is presented better than is represented in the source; it does not as that reflects the source. --Cold Season (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice I included both the "better than npov" and "worse than npov" options because the problem is that it's an incredibly vague statement and as such could be seen as misleading. I am deeply unconvinced that this statement is WP:DUE at all; though I'd be open to discussion prior to outright removal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs)

That is an interpretation of yours. It has no basis.

• Vague how? Do you not understand the statement? That's not a valid argument.
• Your assertion that it "could be seen as misleading" has no merit. Quoting WP:WEASEL, which you pulled: "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies." If Poghosyan calls them "Chinese experts," then that's the assertion/view of the author (and not a weasel on me as Wiki editor) and therefore accurately reflects the source.
• For WP:UNDUE... see below.

--Cold Season (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223:. Are you going to respond to this? --Cold Season (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Second part

Discussion regarding the removal [7] of the content...

Set to differentiate from the coercive nature as was characterized by Western colonialism, as stated by Xing (2017), China's strategic paradigm for the Belt and Road Initiative involves the active participation and cooperation of partner countries.

--Cold Season (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

My view is that explicitly citing the work of any one scholar in such a way is terribly WP:UNDUE for such a large topic. Scholarly analysis that supports the initiative should be noted, but Wikipedia must also consider that, in addition to WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE also exists.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Your statement of WP:FALSEBALANCE and others is not credible (to support your your removal of content). "[Your] view" is irrelevant.

• The author is authoritative, Koninklijke Brill is an academic publisher, and the co-publisher Social Sciences Academic Press is an academic publisher.
• The debate is about the neocolonialist nature of the BRI with two separate significant views and therefore its arguments must be presented. Your claim of WP:NPOV is invalid.
• This is all despite the fact that Western colonialism is repeatedly evoked to provide a comparative contrast to neocolonialist claims (as the sources is exactly about why the characteristic of Western colonialism should or should not be associated with BRI, and thereby linking it to neocolonialist ambitions). Your claim of WP:UNDUE is invalid.
• It's literally a description of China's strategies, and not even a contentious or obscure. Your claim of WP:UNDUE is again invalid.
• How should I cite it then? I'm constantly bombarded with ridiculous demands that doesn't even apply to these Wiki policies...

The only thing you are doing here is invalidly barraging random policies at EVERY STEP to POV push to tire an editor out. I can't "wait" until the next one. If I do not "explicitly cit[e] the work of any one scholar," another policy will be pulled out as is the case with this loose usage of policies to hinder. --Cold Season (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with Cold Season on this particular issue - that it is not WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE to include that dissenting opinions exist, I'd caution them about what appear to be some WP:OWN tendencies here. Please be careful to accurately reflect sources rather than shifting the POV in little ways, and please seek consensus for contentious edits rather than just reverting them back in. I understand that current event articles about China can be frustrating, considering the long-standing and aggressive negative slant of the main American and British news publications; there's a reason I don't edit Falun Gong articles anymore. However we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion would prove difficult if there's an unilateral revert and then a no response (@SamHolt6) to the points as presented. The source talks a bit about "regional cooperation" and "participation of partner countries", and specifically "connect, coordinate and integrate all kinds of subregional cooperative plans and initiatives for Eurasia" as a way to achieve goals in regards to particularly connectivity and trade facilitation, and then states "China cannot realize the strategy alone. China based the One-Belt-Road Initiative on lessons it learned from the rise of Western powers. It wants to avoid the old way of Western colonialism and coercion. The One-Belt-One-Road Initiative differs, in its essence, from the strategic thinking of Western countries when they became global."

--Cold Season (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Mahathir Mohamad comments

User:Simonm223 opposed this part (bolded below) of the wiki article's text [8]:

In 2018, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad cancelled China-funded projects and warns "there is a new version of Colonialism happening", which he later clarified as not being about China and its Belt and Road Initiative in an interview with the BBC HARDtalk.

--Cold Season (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@Cold Season:You're misrepresenting the SCMP source with your recent edits. They make explicit reference to Forest City. This is what I meant when I cautioned you about WP:OWN Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The first ref states:

• Was Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s recent warning of a “new version of colonialism” rising in Asia a veiled attack at China?
• Far from it, the 93-year-old said in a wide-ranging BBC HardTalk interview that aired on Tuesday.

The second ref.... Note that that he even repeated his earlier remarks and explicitly said that he did not accuse the Chinese with it:

• Q: One very eye-catching policy you’ve made is to cancel US$23 billion (RM95.22 billion) worth of infrastructure projects backed by China and also Singapore, and this has caused some concern amongst international investors that you’ve done this. You’ve referred to what you call as debt colonialism on the part of the Chinese. Are you worried about the Chinese being a colonial?
• A: I did not accuse the Chinese. I merely said that there are other forms of colonialism and one of them is neo colonialism, which was coined by [former Indonesian] president Sukarno. That’s what I said. I didn’t accuse the Chinese.

Also, the first reference explicitly states that he objects Forest City and not that he accuses Forest City of being neocolonist (that is your WP:OR).

At first, I thought you were just a POV pusher, but now I realize that this is just a utter lack of common sense. And the fact that you actively removed the second ref is even more dubious. --Cold Season (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NPA in addition, I already responded to you. Furthermore, I have a job and can't spend my whole day on Wikipedia just to meet your arbitrary schedule. Stop edit warring. Come to talk. Build consensus. Be patient. And stop with the angry text walls. Simonm223 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

However to elaborate on my edit summary in article space, the SCMP article cited in that paragraph has, as its lede even, "Malaysian prime minister denies his comments on free trade during a visit to Beijing were a dig at its rising economic influence – but sticks to his objections against Forest City..." Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I quoted the explicit excerpts stating where PM Mohamad did NOT accuse China of neocolonialism with his earlier remarks. Whereas you did not provide any substantial evidence for your hypocritical misrepresentation of Forest City in connection to neocolonialism. Objections =/= accusation of neocolonialism. You are misrepresenting the source. --Cold Season (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I just read through the SCMP source and agree with Cold Season's characterization of it. It is rank WP:OR to claim, without reference, that PM Mahathir was objecting to Forest City because of concerns over neocolonialism. Next question? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I have also read source and agree with cold season and leave language. Alfa123ofu (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

main topic paragraph is gibberish

there are far too many references (and brackets etc) in the main paragraph that its impossible to read. please simplify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.178.115 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Commentary" section

The "Commentary" section needs serious re-work, beginning with its very title: an encyclopedia does not have "commentaries", this is for editorials or opinion pieces.

I simply have no idea what the "Community of shared future for mankind" subsection is supposed to say. It sounds like a Chinese propaganda pamphlet, badly translated from Chinese to English, and full of cultural allusions that are difficult to understand outside of the Communist Party of China — much less agree to.

The rest of the section looks like a point/counterpoint, which is also something that you do in the opinion pages of a newspaper, but not in an encyclopedia. Rama (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I also question the necessity of the existence of the "Commentary" section. But about the section of "Community of shared future for mankind" still have existence. Wikipedia advocates neutrality, has voices from all over the world, and naturally should have voices from China. In China, there is a voice that the Belt and Road is the practice of establishing "Community of shared future for mankind"。WUDIDAMEINV (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with OP that this section reads like confusing propaganda and so I have removed it. Citobun (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

--WUDIDAMEINV (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)If you think the content of the "Community of shared future for mankind" like propaganda, you can make changes. There is no need to remove it.

I have informed you on your talk page of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Two different users have raised concerns over this passage. Please stop re-adding it. Citobun (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

I have added a COI tag to the top of this article in light of all the recent editing by several single-purpose accounts with undeclared conflict of interest adding propaganda-esque content promoting the article's subject. Citobun (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Citobun: Can you name these editors and edits? Not to dismiss this, but I don't think SPA edits count as a "major contributor", especially if they have been reverted. I do see some accounts that are either trolls or advocates on both sides, recently more on the pro-China one. Still, I'm not sure if removing all such Chinese claims as you did here is the right solution. We have plenty of criticism from rival nations, so it wouldn't be too unfair to post the Chinese POV in the proper place. Any further NPOV issues can be dealt with on here. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what Prinsgezinde says above. It seems somewhat high-handed to add the COI tag without a discussion and more rationale given first on the talk page. Oska (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, since we haven't yet got a reply from Citobun, I went looking for the editors they are referencing. They appear to be these two editors - WUDIDAMEINV and Chdlwq. Both editors have only made edits to this article on wikipedia. Citobun has left both of them messages on their talk pages but they didn't respond. I would invite both to respond here now. Oska (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

--WUDIDAMEINV (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)What to reply? The content of my editor has been deleted. I just think that the content of the original commentary is mostly criticism of China. I feel unfair. Wikipedia has always been known for its neutrality. There are other countries' comments on the initiative. Why can't we add the comments from China?

Hi, WUDIDAMEINV, thanks for your comment here. Firstly, of course you can add to wikipedia articles from China. Everyone, from every nation on the globe is welcome to contribute and participate. If you think criticism in this article is unfair then you are welcome to make a case against it. Similarly, if people find some of your own contributions too 'propagandistic' they can make a case against them. But better would be for everyone to think a bit more about the quality of their edits before making them. And in your particular case I would suggest editing a bit more widely on Wikipedia (not just this one article) to better expose yourself to standards of practice. Anyway, I think this will continue to be a controversial article but we should be able to move it forward with healthy debate. And I don't think the COI label is warranted and so I am removing it now. Oska (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oska and Citobun. Thanks for the notifications and advice. The BRI article just happens to be my first wiki editing experience. Am still learning things slowly, including how to respond here. I think the BRI is something that affects and will continue to affect many countries greatly in the years to come. I'm willing to share more quality reports and research findings here hopefully to help better inform wiki users of how the initiative evolves. Will try to edit more widely, too, despite a rather maniac work schedule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdlwq (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Project achievement" Section Rename Proposal

This section should be one of the largest portions on the page in order to detail the completed and planned projects that fall under the BRI. However, the word "achievement" does not accurately capture the current information displayed. For example, the subsections for Italy and Luxembourg simply relate news of future cooperation. As noted in at least two sections, the BRI is controversial for a variety of reasons, and the word "achievement" carries positive connotation. Furthermore, many of the subsections detail only willingness by countries to work under the Initiative in the future, so the use of the word "achievement" is wholly inaccurate.

I propose changing the name of this section to simply "Projects by Continent" which is broad enough to encompass both completed and planned projects, and allows the much of the current organization to remain. Under this new organization, countries like Italy and Luxembourg would be omitted since they do not have specific projects planned or completed. Therefore, I am willing to also create a new section, "Affiliated Nations," which lists countries that have made agreements with China to participate in the Initiative. Though a map currently visualizes these countries, I believe that a list of countries that are participating along with brief summaries of the respective statuses of their cooperation will be helpful to a broad audience.

--NickM68 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I support this change Chidgk1 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Text in project achievements; Italy broken

As anyone can see the text under Project Achievements; Italy is showing the </ref>'s. I'm just a student who reads wikipedia and almost never writes anything so I'm not sure how to fix it. Can somebody fix it?

Speederzzz (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr Mahathir supporting or opposing?

BLocked sockpuppet post

In the article, it still says that Dr Mahathir had opposed BRI. Which is true but not the full story and hence outdated. He had later changed his stance and pledged support to BRI in a summit meeting in 2019. Speaking at a high-level meeting during the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, Dr Mahathir gave his seal of approval to the ambitious initiative. “I am fully in support of the Belt and Road Initiative. I am sure my country, Malaysia, will benefit from the project,” he said. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/mahathir-endorse-belt-and-road-china-11481782 Given those new facts, I think that he should be moved to (in support) section and not the (oppose) section. And add in his past history thaht he had initially criticised the BRI to give the full context. Feel free to reply here if you disagree. Nvtuil (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Bermuda

This entire addition is only linked to the BRI by one sentence in one reference, namely:

"The factor that sticks out like a sore thumb here is China's BRI, of which China Communications Construction Company is a major player, and largely involved in"

There is no evidence that the project itself was part of BRI whatsoever. @Aodhdubh:, feel free to add the content to Bermuda International Airport or another more appropriate article. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• I added that text after noting the blue line drawn through Bermuda's location on the map that is the subject of this article. The line may be arbitrary, but Bermuda still lies in the general trans-Atlantic path, and had China gained a foothold it would doubtless have factored into its global strategy which the BRI is one expression of: [9] (direct link to image: [10]). Aodhdubh (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• The United States doesn't build anything anymore, and even if it did the small islands wouldn't be able to afford the US cost of labour on it. Bermuda ordered electric buses from China.[11] And so what if China is the manufacturing floor of the planet? The rich people planned that after they closed all the factories in America in the 1990s and offshored them on purpose. That's what The Roseanne Show was all about from decades ago. CaribDigita (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyatnyu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Racheltlee. Peer reviewers: Jillychoi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mattwsong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeking consensus.

The Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the OAS and USA issued one of his usual open letters about loans offered to the region. It seems a user has a problem with it and I'm wondering if others think it worth of inclusion / mention.

Caribbean nations affirm that relations with China are based on responding to need rather than just imposed on the region like as with the United States or Europe. CaribDigita (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Reverted Edit Inquiry

@Bcwarner:

Re: your issue with my edits: Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Belt and Road Initiative. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied.

Could you clarify what, exactly, is the issue with how it was added?

TrueBlueSea (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, when I looked at it the writing style was distinctively different, and Googling the writing, I found it appeared to be a word-for-word copy of an excerpt from the book you cited. It's not wrong to include that information about that speech, but it has to be your own writing, since the book is copyrighted material.

I decided not to write new content about the quote mentioned in the now-removed excerpt, since I think it didn't have much notoriety, but that aspect is a separate debatable issue (and it may actually have notoriety). Bcwarner (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Source

User:Yaakovaryeh in this lengthy edit summary claims "after looking into the company that carried out the study ("global economic consultants, LLC", who's only claim to fame is this study), it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant any mention at all."
I downloaded the subject report, dated May 2019, which announces at page 2 "This report has been produced by Cebr, an independent economics and business research consultancy established in 1992." I'm questioning whether the editor is justified in dismissing the source and deleting the content referenced by it. This talk page would be a more helpful location for proposing arguable decisions. Bjenks (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for digging into this. (I was just going based on the attribution in the Wikipedia entry (and poorly worded source that was cited) and did not think it necessary to check the primary documentation, so thanks for catching this.) After reading a bit of the report, I'm still a bit troubled by the following paragraph written by the president of the CIOB (who sponsored the study):

Successfully building such a vast network of interconnected infrastructure requires the experience, skills and in-depth understanding of the management of construction that are held by members of the Chartered Institute of Building. I hope that among the many other outcomes from this enormous undertaking that the 45,000+ members of the CIOB, based in more than 100 countries around the world, can contribute their professionalism and knowledge towards the management of Belt and Road projects.

This seems to indicate a possible conflict of interest [I.E. Cebr would be inclined to come to a conclusion that CIOB wants]. However, if Cebr is a reputable independent organization, I suppose that would probably mitigate this. I'm not sure about this, so I would defer to those with more experience. Thank you again for catching this.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The COI suspicion is certainly worth further attention. I was alarmed to find that WP's article on CIOB is of a poor standard of language and presentation and has been chiefly authored by people connected with it, e.g., its originator Ken_1482, Stownsend@ciob.org.uk, SaulTownsend, 194.217.225.254, possibly Theproudwiki and 86.24.212.42, 86.22.33.245, DeclanMurphy0212 and LccKehoe. There is also a woeful lack of independent verification which has been long flagged throughout. I will be taking a closer look at it. Bjenks (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Constitution issue

New user ‎Phomex has raised the interesting proposal that "Belt and Road" (which seems to have been casually mentioned once in the Constitution of the Communist Party of China) does not figure in the Constitution of the PRC. However, the cited verification is far from convincing and we need to discuss this here rather than in long edit summaries, which is why I have reverted it pro tem. Bjenks (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Updated numbers - now 146 countries in BRI?

I think the article's lead section needs an update to indicate how many countries have signed on to the BRI. The article mentions that BRI was formed in 2013 "to invest in nearly 70 countries and international organizations". I think we should add a sentence there that says something like "As of [date], XXX countries and organizations have signed on to the BRI" so that people coming to this page can quickly get an an understanding of the number of countries involved.

The reason I'm not directly adding that right now is that I'm not 100% sure where to get the best number. The Brookings Institute mentions 138 countries, but that is as of January 2020. And I know that several others, including recently Argentina, have signed on since. Another site from Fudan University in China indicates that as of March 2022 there were 146 countries involved.

I unfortunately don't have the time at this moment to dive into deeper research. But I wanted to flag this here in case some other editor does have some time to investigate. - Dyork (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and actioned per your suggestion. Bjenks (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Argentina's President lauds Belt and Road on economy

Interesting interview. It is claimed BRI helps balance Argentina's trade? This 'source' I don't think can be used because Wikipedia has censored it under WP:RS. Thusly the President would need to give the exact same speech in another media outlet. But the U.S./Europe is not likely to carry it. Interesting about his claim though. CaribDigita (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Some interesting details

https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/17/cash-corruption-crumbling-dams-thats-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-10-years-in gives some interesting details - especially that about 50% of the loans are off the public records... --Bonnerlunder (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)