Talk:Bamboo network

Lost in Translation?

Regardless of the content, the translation for Chinese Commonwealth is incorrect. The translation given was 中文英聯邦, which literally translated to "Chinese language English Commonwealth", as I am not familiar with the content at hand, I will not provide a counter translation. 12:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaRyyy963 (talk • contribs)

Source of the Term? Article a Candidate for Deletion?

"The Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra, writing in The New York Review of Books, dubbed the bamboo network as "the greatest Asian economic power outside of Japan."[3]"

The footnote tells us that the NYRB article was in 2013. Where does the term come from? What does it have to do with "the Jews of Asia"? And why don't the overseas Chinese get called "the Lebanese of Asia"? (And does Beirut have little old Chinese ladies with Syrian accents running corner stores?)

I have never seen the term before I ran across it today, browsing through Wikipedia. Is the term in general use anywhere, or is it some triviality being blown up here by accident?

Large bore ethnic-Chinese capitalism across Asia has existed long before the Deng reforms of te 1980s, but has never, afaik, been called any cute "bamboo network." Commentary on the perhaps linked themes of Confucian values, Chinese business cooperation (some of this with paranoid anti-Chinese overtones), obviously goes back centuries, but serious journalism and academic study long pre-date Mishra.

Overall I think the article is either odd or inadequate, and I hope some Wiki editor will look into it.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't trust this article.

Someone is clearly editing this article like a Chinese fascist. Changeanew (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

From your previous edits, that would be you. Tell me, how is this article related to fascism or edited by a Chinese fascist in any way, shape, or form? All the information provided in this article is backed and verified by academic scholarly books and research papers. Name-calling the other contributions of editors isn't going to work with regards towards content you disagree with without providing substantiated evidence. Judging from your previous edits, all your contributions constitute WP:DIS. SimeonManier (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

All your contributions to this page has been violating four Wikipedia policies as mentioned below. 14.200.217.115 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree this seems like Chinese atroturfing

Reviewing the sources used, including the primary sources for the term "bamboo network" I'm not really seeing much context on these outside of a ton of references to mostly older academic works that I cannot find online to confirm the validity of the sources. Also the article seems to be entirely pro-Chinese as they are consistently portrayed as a powerful faction helping guide SEA to towards prosperity. Which may well be, but there is not a controversy section or sources giving a negative point of view of this. However you can easily find such articles online for this from reputable sources: https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/01/30/south-east-asia-is-sprouting-chinese-enclaves

Not sure how wikipedia blocks astroturfing so really just putting this here so people take this really rather strange article with a big grain of salt.

Neutrality of article is highly disputed

This article sounds like aggressive Chinese expansionism. It reads as if some Chinese people are taking a leaf from European colonialism and are dreaming of "ransacking" South East Asia. I'm not sure if they are trying to "guide" South East Asia towards prosperity. From my point of view, with someone of non-Chinese SEA background, this article makes it look like mainland China wants to take over SEA. Or, it sounds like they either want to take all the credit of SEA's prosperity as their own (claiming something that isn't theirs to begin with), or want South East Asia to become an extension of Chinese territory informally in their minds. I vehemently oppose this notion.

Or, it sounds like someone with a anti-Chinese agenda is trying to make China look like bad guys. Which is even scarier to me because it's like they want to poke us into full-blown war.

I wholeheartedly agree that this whole article should be taken with a grain of salt. There are some intense tensions between some South East Asian nations and mainland China over disputed territory as of 2020 already. 193.82.240.26 (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

couldn't agree more Payatbundu (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is undiplomatic

I'm not Chinese. I don't agree with this article at all. It's not that I don't like to hear the truth. The article is just inaccurate. Chinese people do not consist of elites in South East Asia. They only make up 10 out of 100 richest people in Vietnam. I edited the Greater China article myself. That article is mostly factual information, and is not intended to be pro-Beijing at all. This article on the other hand does not conform to NPOV, and overinflates Chinese influence in South East Asia. Vietnamese people are already sinicized from thousand years of Chinese rule, so Chinese influence is practically nothing new to Vietnam (it's encouraged actually).124.168.91.91 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How is this article "Pro-Beijing" when all the sources cited in this article come from the West and are from Singapore? Why don't you admit that you can't accept the fact of Overseas Chinese economic prominence in Southeast Asia and take your anti-Chinese animus elsewhere. SimeonManier (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not about being anti-Chinese, it's the fact that Vietnam already used to write in Classical Chinese, and were under several Chinese dynasties in its history: List of Vietnamese dynasties. This makes Vietnam an exception in Southeast Asia. 14.200.217.115 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Article is very odd

Again, echoing concerns of neutrality from other Wikipedians, I fail to see any controversies addressed in this article. The primary sources are again, consistently pro-Chinese, and ridiculously simplifies the intra-ethnic dynamics between overseas Han Chinese and Han Chinese mainlanders. The language used also sounds like something anti-Jewish but with references to Jews replaced with 'Chinese'. Payatbundu (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I may add a deletion request or not

I agree that this article is trying to over-exemplify the impact of Han Chinese people - like as if indigenous Southeast Asians don't own most of their own country actually. Article should not be taken seriously. This has nothing to do with being anti-Chinese, but more to do with the fact that the article sounds like a hype-machine and not actually a factually correct and neutral article, violating policies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Advert and finally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 14.200.217.115 (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Note that the article is prone to edits by anonymous nationalists that delete text, images and sources they disagree with without giving a reason Ly.n0m (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this article is biased. No Chinese person wants to say that they "dominate Southeast Asia" for example. It's sort of racist and also, a lot of what is expressed here is not present in the Chinese version of the wiki either. 14.201.98.19 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As another reply, this is written in an overzealous tone due to Chinese being actually disadvantaged as an ethnic minority in Southeast Asia over the majority indigenous, not the other way around. In other words, whoever wrote or contributed to this article is compensating. 14.201.98.19 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)