Talk:Ganqing

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think 'Goodwill' would be a good translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.71.50.11 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original research

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After reviewing the article, it appears that most of the claims lead up to the assertion that the typical English translation of one of the uses of 感情 is misinformed (in particular, "hurts the feelings of the Chinese people"). I'm flagging the article with the original research template due to the following reasons:

None of the claims are cited.
The only citation that exists in the current version of the article only demonstrates one example of the alleged "mistranslation", but nowhere in this source is it apparent that it should be considered a mistranslation.
There are no citations of any sources that describe or use the claimed "better" translation.
Google searches turn up wide use of the alleged mistranslation: [1]
In fact, even English-language sources direct from the Chinese government use the alleged mistranslation: [2]

—Umofomia (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic