Talk:Beijing Consensus

Does not explain

Nice starting page. However, the article needs to actually explain what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinophile21992 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

"Third-world" was a term used in the cold-war. It is not correctly used in context in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.24.40.3 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Change the Title "Chinese Model"

The title should change to "Chinese Model" since it doesn't only represent Beijing.Marxistfounder (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Research Updates

I am going to add in here a few citations and areas of research that are part of the academic literature on this subject, but which have not been included here yet. This includes (1) an understanding of Beijing Consensus that focuses not only on economic growth, but also equitable social growth, (2) two paragraphs detailing policy innovation and experimentation within the Beijing Consensus, which are fundamental characteristics of its makeup, and (3) a short paragraph detailing some research that has been done regarding Chinese public opinion of the Beijing Consensus. PoliSci1618 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You added only citations to Reza Hasmath, which has been a long term issue across Wikipedia, where a series of short term accounts have shown up to do only this. Can you explain what your connection to Hasmath and/or those other editors is? MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2026

Beijing Consensus → China modelChina model – Both the existing page name and China model (currently a re-direct) are common enough and describe the same concept, but over time "China model" has become the more WP:COMMONNAME. The more recent, high quality texts currently in the article use "China model" - Li, H. (2025), Li, D. (2024), Meng (2024), Tsang and Cheung (2024), and possibly Zhang (2025) but I could be misremembering Zhang. China model is also probably a bit more explanatory for the general reader, who may not know "Beijing consensus" is a riff on "Washington consensus", so that could be a small benefit too. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Trade has been notified of this discussion. —RMCD bot 15:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason that model is lowercase in this proposal whereas the term it would replace Consensus is uppercase or was that simply a typo?--~2026-41832-36 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of the capitalisation question when I proposed the move. Either should be fine. I probably see "China model" more often than "China Model" but to my thinking there is no meaningful difference and I support either. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The Account 2 (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)