Talk:High-speed rail in China: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Reassess article to C-class. The B-class criteria (#1): The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

Multiple unsourced statement tags are indicative of challenges which is more than just “likely”.

The article is in the following categories:

• Articles with unsourced statements from February 2013
• Articles with unsourced statements from December 2015
• Articles with dead external links from June 2016
• Articles with dead external links from April 2017
• Articles with dead external links from September 2017
• Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2023
• Articles with unsourced statements from September 2023 — Otr500 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect High-speed railway technology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17 § High-speed railway technology until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowKings Substack is not a reliable source because it’s self-published, and cannot be used to state things in Wikivoice. If we’re gonna use Substack, we might as well also use this lengthy rebuttal to Lu Dadao’s article. Lu’s article is outright wrong in some parts, such as claiming Maglev trains cause “strong electromagnetic radiation” that “adversely affects the surrounding environment and the health of nearby residents”. The Account 2 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nowhere in The Wall Street Journal article says only six lines make profit. The Account 2 (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also note think tanks are not reliable sources are not considered reliable sources, particularly ones that are clearly ideological (Reason Foundation, being a libertarian think tank, would have obvious reasons to oppose public spending, and we cannot put their claims in Wikivoice). The Account 2 (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Substack provided a translation [1] of the original Lu Dadao article[2]. Plus this is also corroborated by WSJ and MSN. KnowKings (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the Substack rebuttal is by an expert then you can consider using it. KnowKings (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Dadao’s article is still a self-published source; it cannot be used to make claims in Wikivoice. MSN article is a republish of the WSJ article, which itself does not mention Lu Dadao or many of his claims. The Account 2 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lu’s claims can be attributed, but they shouldn’t be written in Wikivoice directly. The Account 2 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of one final note, the second substack article I’ve given has also been republished by Pekinology. Maybe they can be used to give contrasting views on the HSR? The Account 2 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am all for presenting both views of HSR. KnowKings (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same as well, my concern was about giving too much of a one sided viewpoint and breaking WP:NPOV. The Account 2 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The MSN citation doesn’t seem to exist. It is used twice in this article. Aleain (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

prolly link has expired as page was removed, see if original was archived. KnowKings (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/12/10/0634232/chinas-trillion-dollar-bet-on-high-speed-rail-transformation KnowKings (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another link that proves that the MSN article was available for some time. Even if MSN has relocated article, no justification in removing the material in question. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2024/11/132914-chinas-high-speed-rail-boom-unsustainable KnowKings (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KnowKings has reverted changes to the introduction four times. One of those reversions used a misleading edit summary, stating that it was to improve flow when it was in fact a reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-speed_rail_in_China&diff=1330039307&oldid=1329929953

My edit was intended to keep the introduction short and neutral, and to avoid presenting one side of a debatable issue. Public transportation systems worldwide often operate at a loss, and there are well-established arguments both for and against such projects. Those perspectives belong in substantive sections such as financial sustainability, not in the lead. The first sentence of the added paragraph to the lead language reflects the viewpoint of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank opposed to large government projects. I do not think that perspective is appropriate for the introduction, which is why I reverted it and restored a simple factual reference to debt levels.

Underminer1000 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid expansion of China HSR has led to low ridership and heavy losses which are facts. The California High-Speed Rail page notes the debate over cost and justification in the lede, so its totally appropriate to mention this in the lede of China HSR too. KnowKings (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The shorter version is better. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a favored argument. Aside from length, there was too much guff. Sometimes adjectives like “massive” can be helpful, but it’s not helpful where we already can use a precise figure (as the short version does). JArthur1984 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Novel information and references should be added to the body, not the lead. CMD (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter version is lacking context so add explanation. Besides California High-Speed Rail, see Channel Tunnel for example. KnowKings (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what is info on longest and fastest and largest doing in the lede? KnowKings (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If not in the body, then also not being a great addition. However, both seem to be in the body. (Not that the body couldn’t use word, the Technology export subsection is a lot of fluff.) CMD (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could call it boring to have the longest high speed railway and the fastest high speed railway mentioned in the intro but superlatives are classic encyclopedia or reference details. Underminer1000 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These are boring and unnecessary fluff. KnowKings (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s opinion not fact. ~2026-56951-8 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no source behind superlatives KnowKings (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a lie. ~2026-56951-8 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the eighth revert of the same change, carried out by three editors, with an additional editor expressing support for the revert in this discussion. Characterizing the edit as a simple “rework” does not appear to be made in good faith. Underminer1000 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did make substantial changes to the order of content so it flows better. KnowKings (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other editors, I believe your passage about concerns regarding the finances and ridership of the system is outsized for the lede. I think your efforts might be better spent expanding or refining the relevant sections in the article.

Perhaps, if you can find a good source, the sentence could be expanded slightly, e.g. to “Due to rapid expansion, China’s HSR system had accumulated debts of $839 billion as of 2023, leading some to criticise it’s economic feasibility.”. In my view, the Reason Foundation is not a sufficient source to make such a claim in the lede. ~2026-57272-2 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are sufficient sources with the same viewpoint such that I removed the Reason Foundation from the lede. KnowKings (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has descended into edit warring. Please try to reach a consensus on this page if you want to make further changes to the article.

Regarding the reason foundation: Sorry I was a bit out of date with the edits, I hadn’t noticed the newer sourcing.

I think the current sources are good, except maybe for the Pekingology article. I don’t really have the capability to evaluate it, but it seems to be a translation of a self-published source in Chinese. Also, the MSN link doesn’t work for me, this seems to be the original source as far as I can tell.

I still think your passage might need some work. I’ve had my own go at writing something similar:

As of September 2024, China Railways group had accumulated a debt of $860 billion, largely from the rapid expansion of high-speed rail.^[1] Debt concerns, and issues around profitability and poor ridereship on certain lines have lead some to criticise the system as overbuilt^[2]. Proponents of the system argue it’s wider economic, social and environmental benefits should be considered over it’s commercial value.^[3][4]

Not amazing, but probably an improvement in terms of neutrality? What do you think?

Regardless, I think a consensus from multiple editors is needed before any more lede edits are made. Also, since the lede is a summary of the article, someone would need to ensure that all lede material is is the body. ~2026-57272-2 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent discussions, I thought I would compile a list of sources on the debt/overbuilding concerns regarding the system:

News sources:

Self published?:

~2026-57272-2 (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]