Template:Did you know nominations/10th anniversary of the People's Republic of China

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

10th anniversary of the People's Republic of China

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the city of Daqing (meaning 'Great Celebration') gained its name as oil was discovered there just before the 10th anniversary of the People's Republic of China?

Reviewed: [1]

Created/expanded by Soman (talk). Self nom at 17:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The lists of countries and organizations that had representatives there are unreferenced.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"a1" is the reference for the entire section, I added it at the top the listing. --Soman (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Peking Review was reliable source in 50's? It looks like a propaganda instrument for the Chinese government.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For the list of international participants, yes. For the numbers of participants in parades, etc., no. Thus I have used the wording "According to Chinese media..." rather than just reproducing the figures given in Peking Review. --Soman (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That said, I think that the list of international delegates in Peking Review is probably not complete. Notably, there is no mention of the communist parties of Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Philippines, etc.. Probably they attended but were left out from the public documents, due to China's complicated relationship with their governments at the time. --Soman (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the Peking Review, which you yourself say is probably unreliable, currently appears to be the article's primary source.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the source is unreliable overall. Only that numbers of participants might be inflated. --Soman (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)