Jump to content

Talk:One-child policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eagles2023.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karinahernandez01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hui people

The Huis are exempted from this policy. This could be incorporated into the article by the main contributors.

Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can't immediately document this but I believe (was told this when I visited China) that an exemption or special allowance applied to all national minority ethnic groups, especially those living in rural areas. I don't think there's a particular reason to single out the Hui. Hopefully more general documentation can be found.~Mack2~ 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
All ethnic minorities were exempt.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda poster

The Chinese characters on the poster in the image with the caption "Chinese One-Child Policy propaganda from 1982" say "for the happiness of your family, please pay attention to traffic safety". It doesn't say anything about the One-Child Policy or family planning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.6.34 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forced sterilizations

Hello, it would be nice to have some more info on forced sterilizations. These old slogans (now getting phased out) corroborate roumors that in some cases tubes used to be (or perhaps still are?) forcibly tied immediately after women give birth, in the labour room? 220.246.134.47 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Growth rate plot / misleading caption

Hello, I feel that the graph of population growth vs. year does not support the notion of 'strong growth in spite of the one-child poliy'. the growth is clearly (albeit slightly) sub-linear whereas an exponential rate were to be expected without birth-control measures - however, the actual reason might be a decreasing birth rate due to increasing wealth outsizing any effect of population control measures. what do other people think ? does anybody have references addressing the separation of said factors ? comment added by Q-lio (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not really strong growth; I've removed the "strong" qualifier to make it more reasonable. Since the fertility rate has been below replacement since the 1990's, all the growth since then comes from the demographic momentum, which only a "zero-child policy" could have prevented. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed caption to "Population of China 1961-2008" since it does not convey much meaning. --Krishna Pagadala (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly accurate article

Having some amount of expertise on this subject, I would like to commend the Wikipedia community for posting a fairly accurate depiction of the one-child policy in China. Most Americans I talk to imagine a draconian policy rigidly enforced. This Wikipedia article gives some idea of the vagarities involved, while still explaining what the policy was supposed to be, as well as a useful graph showing the steady increase in population. Good job Wikipedia!

116.55.65.71 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC) ↔ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.206.198 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; more than 50% of the article is devoted to poorly evidenced, sensationalist and POV criticism of the policy, such as the promotion of infanticide or gender based-abortion (the sex ratio chart used as circumstantial evidence for this also lacks a decent reference).
While there is plenty of discussion of how oppressive the policy is, there is little information about the policy itself; the article is very vague when it comes to discussing enforcement of the policy, stating that 'fines' are the main enforcement mechanism, but then misleads the reader by using an example of the 'fine' or rather 'contribution' that would be paid by someone earning 200,000 yuan, which is an astronomical salary compared to the average annual salary in Beijing, the country's richest province, of 56,000 yuan; because the fine is based on disposable income, the fine/fee for someone earning 200,000 is exponentially larger than the average fine/fee, which may not be levied on poor families at all.
Also, the claim that families may have to pay for health-care and education themselves is unreferenced and a bit rich, considering the healthcare and education funding models used in the West and even other parts of the developing world.
The only other enforcement mechanism mentioned is forced abortions and sterilisations, for which, again, the article fails to provide any evidence, other than an article from the (right-wing) Daily Telegraph which asserts that Huaiji County instituted a 'quota' of 20,000 abortions and sterilisations, but provides no evidence for such an assertion. This plays into the narrative of communist bureaucrats rounding up women and sterilising them concentration camp-style; typical Communist Party-bashing. In fact, the overly critical tone of the article seems to be anti-CPC, or anti-communist in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.14 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Chinese government's People's Daily admits the past (?) local use of forced sterilizations and abortions, quoting explicit slogans: "If you don't receive the tubal ligation surgery by the deadline, your house will be demolished!" "We would rather scrape your womb than allow you to have a second child!" "Kill all your family members if you don't follow the rule!" --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you are just lazy and simply didn't bother to read that article you quoted. At no point does it say any forced sterilizations or abortions were carried out; the article is criticising, not past, but recent explicit slogans like the ones you mentioned. These slogans are nothing to do with the Chinese government and are attributed in the article to "Some local officials in rural areas" and, in the first paragraph of the article you cited, describes the threats contained therein as "criminal acts"; i.e. not government policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternationalistChap (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted slogans are an explicit declaration of forced sterilizations being carried out, unless you want to accuse these local officials of publicly lying.
I never claimed that forced abortions were an official government policy; they're not. But any local officials are employed by the (local or central) government, so the government is responsible for their "criminal" behaviour, in the end. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can see that the quoted slogans are NOT an explicit declaration of forced sterilizations being carried out, they are an explicit declaration of a THREAT to carry out forced sterilisations. We do not know that the local officials really intended on carrying out their threats, they were more likely to have been trying to scare people; there is certainly a culture of corrupt and bullying behaviour by local officials in China, especially in rural areas, but this is the case in any country (take a look at the recent events in Ferguson in the US). But even if they WERE intending on carrying out their threats, there is still no evidence that they DID carry out any of these threats, or that anyone else did in the past; there is no evidence of of forced sterilizations being carried out. As I said, even if such evidence did exist, it is not the fault of the government; they have defined it as a criminal act in the article you quoted; I don't see how they can be held responsible 'in the end' as you suggest, any more than the US federal government is responsible for the actions of the police officer in Ferguson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternationalistChap (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too am happy with the quality of the article. It stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing cartoon image that the Anglophone world has of China, where local governments strap a pregnant woman down and vacuum the fetus out of her uterus. Anyway, I have always been skeptical of "natural reproductive rights", specifically the idea that anyone regardless of physical/mental health or parental fitness has the right to create more humans in his image, born to suffer and to cause suffering... so I may be biased. But all I see is that China accomplished what it set out to do. It worked. It seems that the ends justified the means. And obviously they weren't *that* draconian, since they didn't apply the policy to possibly endangered minority ethnic groups, or to impoverished farming families who needed more children to help plow the fields for the family's survival. My personal opinion is that this article is NPOV. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yimou Case and Suggested Equitable Fining Paradigm

Equitable fines based on total nett asset. A flat 10,000 yuan fine would be painful to a lower class earner, but to Zhang Yimou, that would be nothing. Use a percentage total nett asset based fine instead, probably 30% of net asset, since overpopulation could destroy China? So if Zhang is worth 100 million, the fine should be 33.3 million. For that lower earner say for example, if worth 50,000 in totality, the fine should be 16,666 yuan instead - also 30%. The fine of 1.23 million yuan is nothing to the USD$70,000,000 US Dollars that Zhang Yimou has which equals 423.6 MILLION Yuan and is a mere 0.25% of Zhang's entire wealth. Just totally unfair as opposed to the poor. Using a percetiage based fine would be equitable.

Reference Link : http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/entertainment/2013-12/10/c_132956022.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:4000:15:1C39:8F3B:8AEE:CB75 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hui people Family Planning

Family planning among Hui Muslims in China. Many Hui Muslims voluntarily limit themselves to one child.

http://ilookchina.net/2010/11/05/exemptions-in-chinas-one-child-policy/

Do not use this blog directly as a soure, but it contains references to reliable sources itself.

http://ningxiaunveiled.wordpress.com/family-planning/

20:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Origins not clear

Can't quite trace the evolution of the policy. Did Mao come round to seeing the drawbacks to population maximizing? Or were some of his ministers planning to start the new policy as soon as he died? Valetude (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "The one child policy had been planned as early as 1977 [i.e. after Mao's death], although it was not mandated nationwide until 1979." But Mao himself seems to have supported the previous voluntary two-child policy (from 1970).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population pyramid

I'd like to suggest the inclusion of a population pyramid of China and perhaps one of India as well, for comparison.

No other single graph can show whether a one-child policy would be effective. For example, the current "population growth" graph is misleading in that the full effect of lower birth rates can only be seen after enough of the older generation have passed away. Very low growth rates can imply negative population growth in the long run regardless of continued population increases in the short run. - Comparing the size of the "added" (new born) age groups with the oldest (passing away) age groups determines population growth. - Comparing the size of the newest added (new born) age groups with the age group directly above (previous new born) to determine birth rates.

http://www.prb.org/images12/china-india-population.gif http://lewishistoricalsociety.com/pictures/albums/userpics/1148055065.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.151.165 (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. There used to be a pop. pyramid in the article (until at least 2012), someone seems to have removed it without discussion. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing section heading from "Alleged birth reduction"

I changed the section heading Alleged birth reduction to Overstatement of effect on birth reduction. This change was reverted with the explanation that "Alleged is more accurate and "overstatement" is opinionated". It also said 'good faith edits', I'm not sure if this means that it was reverted in good faith, or that I had changed it in bad faith. Anyway, the section is about how Zhai Zhenwu's estimation of 400 million births prevented is disputed by Wang Feng, who estimates the figure at 200 million; i.e. Wang is accusing Zhai of overestimating/overstating the one-child policy's effect on population growth. This means that my word choice, overstated is actually accurate, and nothing to do with my personal opinion. However, Alleged birth reduction implies that the assertion that there has been an effect on birth reduction at all is in dispute, when in fact both Wang and Zhai agree that the policy has had an affect on birth reduction, the effect is not 'alleged', it is only the scale of that effect that is in dispute vis. 200 million versus 400 million; either way it has had a pretty big impact according to the evidence presented in the section; nothing in this section suggests that there has been zero impact, therefore alleged is inaccurate word choice, although I wouldn't say it's opinionated... I'm not sure what opinion it would indicate, or about what... — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternationalistChap (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the 200 million is maximum bound assuming no further changes in fertility due to demographic transition. Wang has written others papers referenced in the article on this matter. My guess is that the actual extra fertility reduction is in the low 10's of millions if that. --Krishna Pagadala (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in the 'Sex-based birth rate disparity' Sub-section

The Sex-based birth rate disparity subsection in the effects section was extremely long and only two paragraphs of it touched on the one-child policy, and even those did so only tangentially. I have deleted all but those two paragraphs. All of the deleted info is covered in more detail in the 'Missing women of Asia' article, which is also linked at the top of the sub-section. I think it is pretty obvious that it was off-topic, but seeing as it was such a significant amount of text that was deleted (owing to the unwieldy, unnecessary length of the section itself), I thought I'd start a new section here for anyone who thinks it should be reinstated to give their reasons. InternationalistChap (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on One-child policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead graf needs editing

We probably need to reword the entire first graf, or rethink the approach to the article. The "one child policy" is no more, but the "family planning policy" still is, with a limit of two children. So we need to draw that distinction. Though this article is indeed titled the "one child policy," so we may need to think about a renaming as well? -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article title needs to say as is, maybe a new article could be created for Family planning in China. --Krishna Pagadala (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire introduction (the bit before the table of contents) is garbage. It says it started being phased out in 2015, then later says the two-child policy will only take effect after being ratified in 2016. There is also a lot of repetition, redundancy, and the like.211.23.25.61 (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to "Family Planning in China" (or something similar), with redirects from one-child policy and two-child policy. —Zujine|talk 05:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The slapping face of the subject

Congratulations, If it's a article about the family planning policy of PRC, the title is a joke now. One-child policy is included in the family planning policy, but it doesn't mean One-child policy is equal to the family planning policy. Because of the obstinate idea, I don't know how to fix the links of wikidata which title mean "One-child policy" but a subject of the family planning policy of PRC. I made a new item to save the subject about the family planning policy of PRC. And I hope someone will fix the title. --Cwek (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwek, Do you recommend changing the name of the article to something like Family planning in China, and making One-child policy a subsection? Is there a different name for the article that you recommend? I can agree with changing the name because China now has a two-child policy, making the current name outdated for a general topic on Chinese family planning. Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Waters.Justin: Yes,I agree to move the name of this article. And the problem isn't only the name. Now the introduction means that One-child policy is equal to the family planning policy of PRC, but the truth is the core of PRC's family planning policy was One-child policy. This article needs to rewrite to express that the family planning policy of PRC isn't only One-child policy or isn't equal to One-child policy. --Cwek (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank is useless.It sees that It have no any change to rewrite this subject. I hope that One-child policy is a subproject article of same level like Two-child_policy, And we write a new article for Family planning in People's Republic of China as subproject article of a government policy. --Cwek (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family planning in People's Republic of China

Here is the link if you want to start a new article. Some of the content on this article that is not about the One-child policy could be split and moved to the new article. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cwek, User:Waters.Justin While not completely understanding the discussion, I think I disagree with splitting into several pages. The main article should be One-child policy, as this is by far the most widely used term, and it covers both Two-child policy and family planning policy. I have suggested in a separate section below to merge family planning policy with One-child policy. I also suggest merging Two-child policy with One-child policy, as the "two-child policy" isn't a new policy, but an amendment to the old "one-child policy", allowing couples to have two children. As such, there are no "two-child policy". Johannesxie (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One-child policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verified as successful. Mamyles (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Original archive link leads to an archived version of a login page. An earlier archive was available, so I used that. --Kakurady (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on One-child policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of "one-child policy" vs. "family planning policy" - suggesting merging!

Hi there!

I have discovered a problem with the language reference of this site. It appears that the One-child policy site does not have any link to a mandarin Chinese site. I tried to add this, but was rejected because the one-child policy (Q221719) site in mandarin Chinese has been merged with the site which in English is called family planning policy (Q21857372). So in English we have two different sites, whereas in mandarin Chinese, they only have one.

I suggest merging the site family planning policy with one-child policy to harmonise with what they have done on the Chinese site. The site family planning policy does not (in my opinion) contain any information that is not included in the one child policy. I see above in the discussions that the existance of family planning policy is because there is a distinction between one-child policy and the newly adopted two-child-policy. However, the most broadly used term is still "one-child-policy" and the term "two-child policy" is in my experience seldom used.

I hope to gain someone's attention here, as I am very new to editing here on wikipedia, so I'll need more experienced people to do the actual merging.

-- // Johannesxie (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate illustration

There is a 1982 photo of a street scene with a big poster somewhere in the middle of the article (Section 'Enforcement'). It shows a family of three crossing the road. The caption is misappropriating the purpose of the campaign for which the poster was used. It doesn't promote the One-child policy, it merely says "For the sake of happiness of your family, pay attention to road traffic safety!" (为你家庭幸福注意交通安全). Please update the caption accordingly, or remove the illustration. In the present state it's misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.185.177 (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 child policy and gender disparity

At the end of the paragraph "Fertility reduction: Debates over the roles of policy vs. socio-economic change" in the section "Effects" the sentence "Most of this deficit was due to sex-selective abortion as well as the 1.5 child stopping rule, which required rural parents to stop childbearing if their first born was a son." is backed up by Goodkind, Daniel (2015). However, his article argues exactly the opposite in a paragraph entitled "3. Claims that China’s 1.5-child loophole encourages sex selection defy logic. That loophole provides no greater reason to sex select than a two-child policy, and no policy has ever given parents more reason to hope that their first child would be a daughter." Thus, the second half of the sentence should be removed. --Twilliver Ongenbone (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Is there any reason the article needs to make so many references to the CBC? Especially in the section on abolition, many of these seem unnecessary. A CBC article referencing a UN publication should surely be referenced back to the UN without the need to parrot the media report of such and this section in particular reads as though the CBC are academic experts on China's social policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.238.146 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The graph labeled, "Population Growth Since 1980" could be updated and improved. Eemstewart (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Collaboration

Hello! I am a student editor at Rice University. I find this topic really interesting and plan to edit this article to include more information about the gender biases leading to the policy's skewed sex ratio, as well as the lasting gender imbalances catalyzed by this policy. For more information, as well as a sense of the reference sources I plan to use, you can visit my user page. IJXB27 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC) IJXB27[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmschultz (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 4048 Women and Gender in Modern China

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsuiy (article contribs).

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cindyhong123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cindyhong123 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Riven3388 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Riven3388 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bro

Bro 77.103.249.243 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 4048 Women and Gender in Modern China

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 16 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyssalego (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Alyssalego (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XiaoyuChennyu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XiaoyuChennyu (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:One-child_policy&oldid=1220466425"