This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not the advanced wikipedian that needs to address this article, but it's written from the point of view of the film ONLY which is violating point of view guidelines. The article also uses euphemisms that sound literal. The first few sentences make it sound like China is literally manufacturing weapons. I'm going to make some small edits to change some stuff, but this needs a rewrite!!--69.181.89.98 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This should be deleted without delay. It is nothing more than a fluff piece. The part about currency manipulation -- which was published after five years of sharp appreciation -- is just one case in point. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Being a book written by someone who is (at least in 2018) an advisor to the President of the United States, the article has value in that it provides a window into the mind of this particular advisor. The article does need a lot of work, though. I've added mentions of the reviews from the Huffington Post and Rotten Tomatoes, and expanded the review by the LA Times - this should help balance the coverage, but doesn't do the entire job. --Rob Kelk16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
