Talk:China Hands

message: This is a very useful article, but is there some way to expand the coverage to include journalists or should there be a separate article for the group including THeodore White, Jack Belden etc etc. cwh 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with Theodore White, but I'm not sure if I've ever read about them being referenced as China Hands.  Though, there certainly were reporters who spent their lives or a considerable amount of time in China, and knew it quite well.  If you can find a source that explicitly refers to them as China Hands, we can quite easily just create a section devoted specifically to them in the article. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As an interim measure, I added Theodore White and Peter Rand's book, but I would be happy to see a separate section, as suggested. ch (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of the article?

message: "This view was motivated not by sympathy with communism as a political or economic system, but with the view that Chinese communists were far more popular and militarily effective than the Nationalists. The China Hands felt that the Nationalists were wracked with corruption and incompetence. By contrast, the communists seemed to be much more competent. Communist leaders like Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai were more impressive personalities than the average Nationalist official. Many China Hands felt that America should support the communists as a practical matter, so that the U.S. could work with them if, as many China experts correctly expected, they gained power."
These comments are tendentious and flagrantly counterfactual.  For the latest evidence regarding the disloyal associations and activities of the China Hands, especially FSO John S.Service, please consult "Blacklisted by History," by M. Stanton Evans.  The documents that have come out in recent years speak for themselves, and you will find them in that book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.121.161 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those comments represent the majority view among scholars. They should be referenced, and some mention of other views should be made, but by no means should the article be edited to reflect the fringe minority views expressed in Evans' book. See the Wikipedia policy described in WP:NPOV#Undue weight. RedSpruce (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tendentious and flagrantly counterfactual verbiage

message: The China Hands neither consciously nor unconsciously "lost" China.  They just reported what they saw.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.166.166 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On the "loss" of China

message: Apologies -- I took the liberty of removing the section, which does not seem obvious, and in any case did not have any references. I would be happy to find out something new, so if there is evidence for the theory, please supply it and restore the section. ch (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: Thanks to editor 112.65.211.103, and apologies, too. The reference did indeed use the term "China Hands." On the other (China) hand, it said nothing about what the term meant or that it was becoming more common, so it was not a reference for the statement. Besides, a newspaper is not a reliable source to begin with, and using it is Original Research.
Out of curiosity, I did a Google N-gram on "N-gram China Hand" (link)
This is just a quick and dirty search, but it shows that "China Hand" reached a height in the 1980s and has declined since then. Of course, this has no connection to Zhongguo tong" in Chinese.
I wonder if Zhongguo tong should be in the article at all, because the article was originally about the World War II China Hands.
But if it is to be in this article, it should be  in the lede. DeFrancis ABC Chinese-English Dictionary (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1996) translates Zhongguo tong as "old China hand; sinologue." (p. 800).
I also added Laowai to the "Also See."
Maybe we should split the article into "China Hands (WWII)" and "China Hand (Zhongguo tong)" or some such. (ch (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Zhongguo tong'' 

message: This view was motivated not by sympathy with communism as a political or economic system, but with the view that Chinese communists were more popular and militarily effective than the Nationalists, who were wracked with corruption and incompetence.  Communist leaders Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai welcomed the Americans, and Mao gave Service an extensive interview expressing his desire for good relations and his eagerness for American aid.
How is this POV?
It's what the China hands saw, experienced & wrote about.  DEddy (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China Hands. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051026160912/http://www.ls.wisc.edu/ALT/v6n1/Davies.htm to http://www.ls.wisc.edu/ALT/v6n1/Davies.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified