![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Splitting the article Politics of the Republic of China is proposed at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China#RfC, where I invite you to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Change the word "its" to "the" before the words "... capital is Beijing". The word "its" is illogical and does not follow how the word "state" is being used earlier in the sentence "The state is governed by the Communist Party of China and its capital is Beijing." We're not talking about the "state" as a country or territory (e.g. the "state of China"). That sentence, previously in quotes as it is presently in the article, should instead read as "The state is governed by the Communist Party of China and the capital is Beijing." One-state solution ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ FourLights:: The lede doesn't go into detail about the economic history of China. Most articles about countries don't. If you want to add information about it in the economy section, it should be presented as 3 phases: pre-1820, 1820-1978, and post-1978.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can accept that, though I would have considered the country notable for it's economic history even more than for anything else in the lead. But does the geographical paragraph belong in the lead? Such a paragraph is not present in the leads of Russia or US. FourLights ( talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in working on the geography but I don't know that any of it belongs in the lead. FourLights ( talk) 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
China is not listed in a few categories that have most other countries in them, such as Category:Member states of the United Nations and Category:Countries in Asia. The only category it is in is Category:China.
Any reason why this is the case? Power~enwiki ( talk) 07:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The move request is made at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China#Requested move 24 May 2017, which is ongoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 32 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/7912682/New-China-leadership-tipped-to-be-all-male{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-00u.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
timeline and planning.
Amanbir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.170.147 ( talk) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is a protected page? Why not make a edits to a China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.115.205 ( talk) 16:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a link to twitch.tv/lrhlive on the whole article:
HTML affected: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" ><img alt="Arimaa-border.png" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Arimaa-border.png" width="7000" height="7000" data-file-width="18" data-file-height="18"></a>
Not sure on how this made it's way here, it's not a browser issue, tested it on Firefox and Chrome. Also not an OS issue, tested it with Linux (Ubuntu) and Windows (8).
-- Unrealzocker ( talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
expand some source more about the recent events between China and India?. AlfaRocket ( talk) 13:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! I am a student at Rice University, and I am thinking about editing this article as part of my class (Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities). I am currently interested in learning about political repression in China and adding what I learn into Wikipedia articles. I would like to contribute to this page by adding information to the subsection "Sociopolitical issues, human rights, and reform" under Politics. I would add a link to the "Censorship in China" article, flesh out information about how China has treated its political activists (such as Liu Xiaobo), and add how citizens have been going around China's different forms of censorship. I have already been doing some reading, and a list of relevant resources are on my user page if you are interested! Please let me know if you have any suggestions about the direction I should take this! RiceStudent ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The etymology section has recently been revised to stress the theory that the word China is derived from “Qin,” the name of the first imperial dynasty. Although this theory is certainly popular, it is refuted by the fact that Sanskrit usage predates the Qin dynasty by several centuries. The theory dates to the 17th century, before the development of modern philology. It apparently falls into the category of “too good to check.” Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative source on these matters, traces the derivation to Sanskrit Cīna, a word that has been used to refer to China since at least the second century AD. For earlier history, it directs us to a journal article by Lecoupiere. Lecoupiere rejects the Qin theory and argues that usage in the Indian epics refers to a state other than China. That is to say, the word was repurposed sometime after the Indians began to receive silk from China and wondered what land it came from. See Geoff Wade’s “ The name China and the Polity of Yelang” for a detailed and up to date discussion of this issue. Great scott ( talk) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
" Under Xi, the Chinese government began large-scale efforts to reform its economy,[128][129] which has suffered from structural instabilities and slowing growth.[130][131][132][133]"
to
" Under Xi, the Chinese government began large-scale efforts to reform its economy,[128][129] which has suffered from structural instabilities and relatively slowing growth.[130][131][132][133]".
Reason: China's economic growth rate still considerable compared with other others' which is why I propose to add the word "relatively". 106.185.25.41 ( talk) 09:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was odd. It's a common misconception that the PRC dates to 1 Oct. since that became the basis for the country's National Day but the new state was actually proclaimed a few days earlier on 21 Sept., which occasionally gets remembered (at embassy shindigs &c) as "Chinese Independence Day". What's strange is that the source for 1 Oct. in the current page already made it clear that the date was 21 Sept. I know this is a highly-trafficked page and no urge to get into an edit war, so added two further sources as well. — LlywelynII 04:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There's an image in section 4.4 simply captioned "Diplomatic relations with China" that is color coded. I would like to request that the caption is updated with a key to represent what each color means. Because this page is protected, I am unable to do so. The file itself has a key, it's just not listed in the caption. Here is a link to the image in question. 24.207.148.200 ( talk) 20:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I think "An estimated 200,000 Chinese were massacred in the city of Nanjing alone during the Japanese occupation.[103] " ,it should be 300,000, and "China hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, where its athletes received 51 gold medals " already change for 48. (I come from China) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.83.109 ( talk) 08:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
A case involving User:Wrestlingring and User:Supreme Dragon has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrestlingring. They were heavily involved in China/Taiwan articles, especially regarding the naming dispute. Your input may assist with the case. Cheers! -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 18:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The timeline in the Territorial disputes section has a number of problems. It is far too wide for the page; at a normal width it disappears off the right edge of the screen. Even at this width it barely fits; the text has been made smaller to take up less space but that just makes it less readable, especially against the strongly coloured backgrounds.
Mostly though it assigns too much weight to one particular territorial dispute, the one with Taiwan. In fact almost all of the timeline does not concern this; the bulk of it on the Ming, Qing, Dutch and Spanish has no bearing on the modern dispute, which started in 1949. The only bit really concerning it is the rightmost end of the second row, as it covers the period from 1949, when Taiwan has been in dispute. And even that does not illustrate the status of Taiwan, it simply says Taiwan exists.
Removing everything before 1949 would eliminate the irrelevant periods, and make it fit properly. But that would reduce it to just one time period, and rather pointless as a timeline. If that is the only way to fix it then it makes no sense in the article, and should be removed, which is what I propose, unless someone can find some way of fixing it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 13:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the timeline should be deleted, or using a more details one:
-- Lisan1233 ( talk) 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
There have been no good proposals how to fix it so I have removed it. The section is on current territorial disputes, not the last 200 years of China–Taiwan relations. It’s not that the timeline is wrong and can be fixed, a timeline is simply inappropriate for a section on current territorial disputes, of which the one with Taiwan is only one of them.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 04:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Shanghai's population is 24 256 800, but Chongqing's population is 30 165 500. Chongqing is larger than Shanghai. (source: List of largest cities)-- Make WP Great Again ( talk) 07:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The lede muddles one of the non-confusing facts about the countries of the world. Namely, China is the 3rd largest country in the world, by pretty much every authority there is out there. Yet right now we have this in the lede:
Covering approximately 9.6 million square kilometres (3.7 million square miles), it is also the world's second-largest country by land area and third- or fourth-largest by total area
Third or fourth largest by total area? Not according to the CIA factbook, or any other reputable source. The ostensible ambiguity is tied to issues of extraterritorial possessions that no one except some editor here decided were important. It's enough, for the lead, to note that it's generally regarded as the 3rd largest, and leave the details for the Geography section.
Then there is the question of "second largest country by land area". Now this is not in dispute, but it still does not belong, because it's sheer boosterism. Look at the other large countries in the world: Do their articles list their rank by "land area"? Russia doesn't, the US doesn't, Brazil doesn't. Of the twelve largest countries in the world, ONLY the articles on Canada and China mention this. This is simply not how countries in the world are ranked by area.
I could understand it if it was a question of coastal waters. Those of us of a certain age remember the disputes a few years ago when the question of offshore territoriality raged around the world, as countries extended their territories from 12 miles to (eventually) 200 miles offshore. And if Canada's #2 ranking was based upon this, given its enormous coastline, then I could understand the issue--it would not give an accurate picture. But that is not the issue here. The difference between Canada and China's rankings is not about offshore water, it is about freshwater well within the land mass of Canada. Canada does have some very large lakes. But every authority in the world includes them in the ranking of Canada as the 2nd largest country in the world because their ownership is simply not in dispute.
So what I am saying is that it appears that some Sinophile, many years ago, came upon this interesting piece of trivia (that is, China being #2 in land area), inserted it into the lead, which now gives an inaccurate impression to the unaware reader. I have no problem with this being included in the article, but I do have a problem with some booster including it because they get to make China look bigger than it already is. (I'm guessing that it is also included in Canada because someone also wanted to make it clear there that China was "bigger".
I'm going to work on a balanced revision, and would appreciate discussion before reversion. Un sch ool 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
174.117.67.21 ( talk) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Chinese Family Panel Studies" to "China Family Panel Studies" in "References 481", and change the Link along with it. Thanks! 222.29.98.88 ( talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Taiwan is part of China. But the map, köppen climate type of China, doesn't contain Taiwan. It's wrong. Remove the map, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.237.62.121 ( talk) 06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the infobox, can you add the status of China since 19 states do not recognize the PRC?
-- 135.23.145.14 ( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Ever since Deng Xiaoping, a person who was rather right on the political scale, introduced reforms in China's economy, they have been not socialist, not even close to that, but rather state capitalist. You could call it "market socialism", but that's not even close to it. It's capitalist now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souljia 1991 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
On the right column it says China drive on the: Right
This is wrong. China drives on the: Left, only Hong Kong and Macau drives on the: Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorhuang1 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the government section of the infobox read " Socialist people's republic"? ( 66.215.84.193 ( talk) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Infobox country", at "government type", change " Socialist people’s republic" to " Socialist people's republic" The Professor (Time Lord) ( talk) 03:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change GDP(nominal)Total $11.938 trillion to GDP(nominal)Total $13.12 trillion(82.7122 trillion Yuan) according to reference source [1] CVHuan999999 ( talk) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In the United states page Wikipedia have gdp of 2018, Why in China page Wikipedia have gdp of 2017? Imf date= GDP CHINA $14.092 trillion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.17.104 ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For some unknown reasons, the parameter government type in this article's infobox is currently socialist people's republic which is not wrong but not detailed enough to introduce the actual type of the Chinese government to readers. The original description which was still out there back in March, 2018(see this), I believe, did much better in this. Therefore, I propose that
we change
|government_type = [[Socialism with Chinese characteristics|Socialist]] [[People's Republic|people's republic]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm|publisher=The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>
to
|government_type = [[Unitary state|Unitary]] ''de facto'' [[One-party state|one-party]] [[Socialist state|socialist]] [[republic]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm|publisher=The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>.
171.10.187.196 ( talk) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
IMF date April 2018 GDP CHINA $14.092 trillion http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/CHN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.17.104 ( talk) 06:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I've put in the new data from the latest 2018 IMF projections. Wikipedia is very inconsistent on this point. Some major countries, like France and the US, still use the 2017 numbers. But others, like Germany, Russia, and Japan, are using the 2018 numbers. It's a mess. If there's any country that deserves the most recent data, however, it's definitely China. The combination of rapid yuan-denominated growth and the falling value of the dollar relative to the yuan (in last year) mean that nominal Chinese GDP per capita is growing way faster in dollar terms than the official 7%. So it would be a good idea to track these rapid changes. UBER (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please help undo the obviously disruptive edits made by
Krishna Pagadala through
the two edits in which this user added content not adhering to
WP:UNDUE. The original version reads
the government of China is very concerned about its population growth rate and has attempted since 1979, with mixed results
, while the current edition claims The government implemented a strict
family planning policy, known as the "
one-child policy" from 1979 to 2013, with little effect on the total population
. Apparently the former is more neutral and facts-based.
To make a story short, please revert to this edition. 223.104.109.245 ( talk) 03:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a one-party state in East Asia" to "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a unitary sovereign state in East Asia".
Reason: MOS:INTRO has suggested that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also, the first sentence had been the later version for quite a long time without being changed until this revision. 211.138.16.226 ( talk) 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The terms are effectively synonymous and the current version is simpler. Please establish a
WP:CONSENSUS that the prior version is to be preferred.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 15:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add the following lines with some amendments to the existing:
| established_event3 = Admitted to the United Nations | established_date3 = 24 October 1945
-- 108.162.179.236 ( talk) 03:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
The Communist Party of China exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces
to
Governed by the Communist Party of China, it exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces
The former version is logically incorrect since only a state can exercise jurisdiction. A party clearly cannot do so.
211.142.189.67 (
talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In other countries' wikipedia pages, like Japan and Germany, the first paragraph (generally sentence) of the article has the name and pronunciation of the country in its native language in parentheses. This information is present in the article, but for consistency and easy access I propose adding it to the first paragraph. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 03:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OK I added it, but not sure if the IPA thing is right... I think it is though. Please note your concerns below if you have any. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 03:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Here’s an idea: put the simplified name of China in the infobox as well, maybe in parentheses. As well as “People’s republic of China” you could add “China” and to the native names the shortened forms could be added as well. It’s not clear without searching down the page that the general native name of China is “Zhongguo” because in the infobox it says the full name, “Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo”. Basically I think the word “Zhongguo” should be present somewhere at the first section of the article. And for comparison, the first paragraph of Japan & South Korea’s pages have all that stuff and they take up a huge amount of space, so I don’t know what the standard is for that here. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Here’s an idea: put the simplified name of China in the infobox as wellWhich infobox are you referring to? If the state infobox, then all of the articles for East and Southeast Asian states, excepting Malaysia and Japan (which don't have an official name longer than the common name), use the full, official name in English and the native equivalent, not the common name. CaradhrasAiguo ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true, it would be weird to put the simplified name in the infobox. But to JohnBlackburne's point, why then is the native name and IPA for Vietnam in the first line of that article? I think it would help if just the pinyin & IPA were added here in some form. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Despite the high results, Chinese education has also faced
both native and international criticism for its emphasis on rote memorization and its gap in quality from rural to urban areas.
to
Despite the high results, Chinese education has also faced both native and international criticism for its emphasis on rote memorization and its gap in quality from rural to urban areas. citation needed
because this sentence is completely unsourced and clearly needs at least one citation per WP:V. 123.161.170.190 ( talk) 02:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please change
"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area"
to
"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the fifth-largest country by total area"
so it matches citation for the current claim [19], OR find a source that supports the existing claim, as the CIA factbook has it as #5 behind Russia, Canada, Antarctica and the US. There's argument that the text "fourth-largest country" would also be relevant because Antarctica is not really a sovereign nation.
Kuriosly ( talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Removed Change Request, because who knows how big China is? /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area They certainly don't in the talk page for it.
I think that to get away from said controversy change it to second biggest country by total land area. No one's disputing that. And it's a higher placement. So win-win. Kuriosly ( talk) 23:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.59 ( talk) 23:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at this edit, and am concerned. Although it's difficult to see just by looking at the dif, this edit removes from the reader's sight the fact that China is one of the four largest countries in the world by area. Frankly, I consider that to be a pretty major fact that belongs early in the lead.
This edit also includes some changes the significance I'm not sure of; I wouldn't say they're as bad as the one just mentioned, but I don't see how they improve the article. One changes the verbiage regarding the role of the CPC, and the other changes the wording about the number of countries China borders. Not seeing any justification for these edits either here on the talk page, or in the edit summary (which just reads, rejig a bit), I'm going to revert it in toto, and suggest that the changes be made individually, to make discussion easier. Un sch ool 05:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Per the discussion here and the ROC Talk page.
I seen the related discussions about the naming the articles related to the both Chinas.
Since the use of the colloquial names, despite them are simpler, this caused confussion on the people who haven't read the articles and understanded the delicate situation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party (and caused absurd discussions, specially in other projects like the Spanish Wikipedia, see Bellow), and worse, caused a mess in both articles.
The rationale applied by the Spanish Wikipedia community to use the official names instead of the colloquial ones is strong, and this was demonstrated in a large discussion in ROC talk page at Spanish Wikipedia and also here. By contrast, the rationale applied here to use the colloquial names seems to be weaker for me, and specially by the mess caused in the ROC article.
Therefore, I'm finding concensus (or at least listening opinions) to change the title or keep them. I know what issues could cause this, but inverting redirections should not cause major problems I guess. -- Amitie 10g ( talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I support
Amitie 10g's proposal. After the end of
Chinese Communist Revolution between 1946 and 1950, China is divided by two Chinese regimes: "People's Republic of China" which only de facto controls Chinese mainland, and "Republic of China" which only de facto controls Taiwan area of China, but the two Chinese regimes claim the sovereignty of whole China. Thus, it is ridiculous to regard the regime "People's Republic of China" as the country "China" and regard the regime "Republic of China" as the area "Taiwan".
MouseCatDog (
talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have a small problem of the unsourced image gallery in the religion section being implemented over and over despite WP:BURDEN problem raised and our MOS WP:GALLERY. There is a few problems with having a one off gallery causing undue weight to the section per WP:UNDUE and the fact WP:GALLERY discourages galleries of this nature that add content without sources that overwhelm a section. Have to ask is religion the most important part of this article that it needs 10 or more images - 5 times as many as other sections? Also would be good to review WP:SANDWICH as this has also been corrected a few times and reverted with no explanation. -- Moxy ( talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that the religion section has many images that should be diversify, Because the rest of the other sections do not contain the amount of these many images. Mr. James Dimsey ( talk) 05:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) pp. 200–201
Please remove the Manchu name ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ
ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠᡳᡵᡤᡝᠨ
ᡤᡠᠨᡥᡝ
ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ (Dulimbai niyalmairgen gungheg' gurun) from the multilingual infobox.
Reason: Manchu has never been an official language of People's Republic of China (PRC), and PRC is never known to have published its official Manchu name, so I believe this 'Manchu name' listed in the infobox is an original research. -- Pawmot ( talk) 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Support because this is actually hilarious. The Manchus had never heard of the People's Republic of China, so this was never the "name" used by them for anything, i.e. there is a flat misstatement in the infobox now in that it suggests there is or ever was such a name. Beyond that, we have the simple principle that a line has to be drawn at some reasonable level and an end put to the scripts presented to readers. If some level of judgement is not exercised, pages just bloat with useless, irrelevant clutter. sirlanz 06:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the lively discussion, friends. After reading the points brought up, I have no beef with the outcome (though the Edit Summary explaining the removal should have noted the correct numbers in support and opposition). However, this discussion does point to the need for further pruning to make the article about the PRC. I will start a new section to start a discussion. ch ( talk) 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The article retains too much material that is not relevant to the PRC, which is the subject of the article. The lede now spends a long but scattershot paragraph on pre-1949 history, leaving too little room for PRC material. The History section of the article occupies something like 1,500 of the article's roughly 14,000 words but its coverage is so haphazard so as to be nearly useless.
The Science and Teachnology, Religion, Culture, and Cuisine sections are only a little out of balance, but the literature section has only one sentence on PRC literature.
Any objections to cutting perhaps a total of 1,500 words, mainly the History section?
Cheers, ch ( talk) 06:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the last sentence of the lead to reflect the growing consensus in the West that China is now a superpower. I have cited that claim with numerous reputable sources (from New York Times, The Economist, etc).
Here are my problems with the old sentence: it was based on older sources (like a BBC article from 2012) and it did an awkward job of capturing China's significance to the current international system. While I don't dispute that the United States still remains the world's leading superpower, it's highly dubious to classify China in the same league as, for example, Britain or France. China is more important to the world order than both of those two countries put together. So it's not "just another" great power. It's the world's largest economy (by purchasing power) and the current obsession of everyone from Patagonia to Siberia.
The language of this article should reflect China's new standing in the world. UBER (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change '"Laogai" in Chinese means forced labour and reform.' to '"Laogai" in Chinese means labour reform.' because the sentence is providing a translation, which should be precise. Fl580 ( talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to put this country on the microwiki 64.125.67.45 ( talk) 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@
Vif12vf/Tiberius (
talk) . At first,
Qin dynasty is not the first Chinese dynasty.
Shang dynasty and
Zhou dynasty is earlier than more than 1000 years. Even Qin itself was established in 897 B.C which was 600 years earlier than 221 BC. There are lots of archaeological writing discovery about these two dynasty. Consider you claim previous (than qin) non-imperial dynasties are of lesser importance, I see page
Ancient Rome put 753 BC as the founding date when Rome was only a city state, not the 27 BC when Augustus became the first Emperor of Rome.
Then, the date 753 BC was based on myth, Capitoline Wolf myth, not the historical record. Page
Ancient Rome also used mythological kingdom as the first kingdom. Except page
Ancient Rome, page
South Korea did the same thing. Use the mythological
Gojoseon dynasty in 2333 BC as the first dynasty. It seems there is no rule to forbid the semi-legendary.
At last, Xia is in controversy. There is no consensus whether Xia is myth or not. The discovery of
Erlitou site was defined as Xia by some scholar. It remains unclear whether Xia is Bronze age Erlitou site. Hence, Xia is claimed as semi-legendary. The full mythological first kingdom of China was
Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors before Xia.
Miracle dream
The article says: The Chinese population almost doubled from around 550 million to over 900 million. This seems right, since the population is well above one million now. But it is rather meaningless, since it does not say what time period it is refering to. It should. -- Ettrig ( talk) 15:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A majority of the population believe that China is a pure dictatorship which is completely and utterly false and do not understand how China selects its leaders. Numerous scholars and news articles have stated that China selects its future leaders based upon skill not popularity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It is time that this is mentioned and emphasized, preferably with its own section in order to explain to the general population that China selects its leaders based upon skill. I would like to be given editing authority.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AvikemArruters ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
FineStructure137 ( talk) 03:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC) REPLY:
What about corruption in China? Perhaps we can classify the country as a kleptocracy. In the course of his career, Xi Jinping was promoted by 18 separate personnel boards. Previous leaders were the proteges and successors of earlier leaders. Xi worked his way up from the bottom. He should be the best the meritocratic system has to offer. Yet he is hugely corrupt. His secret overseas investments are documented in the Panama Papers. I can only conclude that he is the best they have and that other candidates for party leadership are even more corrupt. If Xi has a skill beyond giving extremely long speeches, the party has been keeping it quiet.
AvikemArruters ( talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC) REPLY:
We're here to discuss whether or not my proposal should be implemented. There is a separate page for corruption in China and I believe that if it is not already, corruption can be acknowledged on this page, however, I remind you that people utilize Wikipedia for academic purposes/ to lead to other sources and the inclusion that China is a kleptocracy WITHOUT proof (and in clear contradiction of academic consensus in political science circles AND REALITY) would degrade Wikipedia's authenticity and integrity. In regards to your other comment, Xi has other skills, however, defending him will not help my cause as 1 example cannot prove a point. Irishtigger416 ( talk) 04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
What about adding a section on recent economic declines? This article reviews China's rise but not its most recent decline and massive loss of wealth which may intersect with Corruption in China proposed section.04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)~~
References
I noticed that Guizhou is listed as one of the poorest provinces under the education section. For evidence of this, it appears to link to the provincial GDP per capita article for China. I just wonder if using GDP per capita is appropriate to draw conclusions as to how rich or poor a province is? As for countries, Iran, Bosnia, Belarus, Namibia, and Fiji have a similar GDP per capita to Guizhou, but I'm not sure if many would consider Bosnia and Belarus to be poor countries. But others might draw the conclusion that Namibia is a poor country. These countries also have different poverty rates, as well.
Thoughts? LittleCuteSuit ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding "Marxist-Leninist". China is in no way that. Yes, the constitution says it is, but constitutions are not a reliable source. Otherwise you could call North Korea democratic, and we all know that it isn't. China is socialist with capitalist policies. Private companies are commmon (although they are still monitored by the Communist Party to ensure they don't do any shenanigans), and they wouldn't exist if China was Marxist-Leninist. -- Kingerikthesecond ( talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was recently changed to use the {{ pie chart}} template to put a pie chart into the side bar. The key for the pie chart users several {{ efn}} templates to add notes, but the article didn't previously have a {{ reflist}} for notes and produced an erorr. I've remedied this problem coarsely by adding an inline {{ reflist}} for the notes, but it interrupts the flow of the article.
Is there a better way to present this information? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date for the article The Land That Failed to Fail is NOV. 18, 2018, not 2006. 71.31.30.66 ( talk) 23:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC) 71.31.30.66 ( talk) 23:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
HEY CHINA JANGAN IKUT CAMPUR DI NEGARA KAMI !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.9.34 ( talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
China has been widely characterized as a global superpower, rivalling the United States.
to
In recent times, scholars have argued that it will soon be a world superpower, rivaling the United States.
since the latter is arguably more precise and accurate while the former is somewhat assertive. 1.198.22.229 ( talk) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you add the superpower category for China if the page itself calls it a global superpower that rivals the United States? If there is a wide consensus on China's superpower status than it would be a bit odd for a page about a superpower lacking any categories that deems it as part of the very exclusive special group. 134.7.65.106 ( talk) 10:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm wondering why isn't "Marxist-Leninist" added in the "government" section in the infobox but it was added before. DerpyUser420 ( talk) 00:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Abote2 (
talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)just insert this page here Cattleiscows30 ( talk) 00:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
___a Panda said "give me Bamboo and I will let you in" (the page shall be protected by pandas) Cattleiscows30 ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html https://quillette.com/2019/08/05/china-and-the-difficulties-of-dissent/
Whit everything happening now, should it be mentioned that China has the qualities of a fascist country? The above articles would seem to agree. Aberration ( talk) 09:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I know there's different definitions of a superpower. But when you Google this, there's clearly no widespread agreement that China is currently one. At least not in the same sense as the US. For every article that argues this view, you can easily find a contrary one. And that's even if you only count sources within the last year or two. In 2019, even China's state-owned think tank, the Development Research Center of the State Council, says the US will be the sole superpower at least until 2035. [3] So at minimum, the claim is mixed or disputed. At most, it's outright wrong. In any case, it's incorrect or misleading for the lead to say it's "widely characterized" as a superpower - something that is later contradicted in the body of the article. It should either say that it's still a potential superpower or that it's sometimes considered as such. Spellcast ( talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
China has been widely characterized as an emerging superpower, rivaling the United States,would summarize the article's thrust more accurately. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
China has been characterized as an emerging superpower, and a potential challenge to American hegemony.? Simonm223 ( talk) 12:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
China is not commonly considered a superpower: the majority of sources use the term "potential superpower" at the most, or they just state that the United States is the sole superpower. Rarely do they cite China as a superpower, and it most certainly isn't "widely characterized" as such. Such wording is not accurate at all. You can find sources saying that China is a superpower, but most say it is not a superpower. Bill Williams ( talk) 15:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, if going by widely understood geopolitical definitions, China is probably not quite a "superpower", but one might look back to the origin of the term in the first place - most recently used to describe the relationship between the United States and the USSR, to appreciate that it means different things in different contexts, and different things to different people. To be honest, I am ok leaving it out of the lede altogether, as it is still contentious. That being said, the number of reliable media sources casually and formally referring to it as a superpower has been growing - for instance, you will notice an entire feature on The New York Times in 2018, dedicated to "how China became a Superpower". Ditto for ABC in Australia. There are of course voices to the contrary as well, such as the Economist, definitely stating that the US remains the only existing superpower, and the BBC which is somewhere in between. The current formulation, describing it as an "emerging superpower", is also not off base; but saying it is merely a "potential superpower" is perhaps not in line with what is described in mainstream media these days. Colipon+( Talk) 02:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC) I like tacos.
@ CaradhrasAiguo: in case you are not reading the edits made by The Account 1 who has history of censoring negative content on this page. [5] I think you should review your revert again and abide by WP:BRD. We cannot accept apologetic and unexplained edits like this or tag bomb the lead when the issue is already resolved by the sources provided. Since all very recent edits were poor and unwarranted I simply restored an earlier version. Take a look at the discussion above too titled under "Superpower?". Aman.kumar.goel ( talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
since the attached sources are clear about the matter— They are about the abuses themselves, but they are not regarding the "independent observers" claim in the text, which is the point of contention. The three sources presented make reference to: 1) International Campaign for Tibet and its claims on what a UN panel has done, 2) spurious claims by the dubious U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 3) A literal op-ed whose only objective source would be the researcher Heather Kavan. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 04:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This article should be split between the modern day country of the PRC and China as a region which has not always had the same boundaries much less cultural background as the modern day one. A solution is probably to move the current article to be only about PRC and move the contents about history and culture heritage to the [Greater China] article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.97.121.9 ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Human right is a main argument about China, i think it deserves its own section in the index. The article is accurate about this theme, but it’s difficult to find it because it’s included in the ‘politics’ paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.133.239 ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes . Republics have a lot of problems. Yes, there is another one. Russia has closed its state border. Dick Shane 2 ( talk) 12:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"No religion/Chinese folk religions" would seem a nonsensical pairing. Not sure why they're listed together, especially on the pie chart. Chinese folk religions are a very broad school and should be listed separately. BBX118 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 中華人民共和国. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a medical issue yes but more it's a major economic disaster for China, with production and employment plunging in 2020. and it's a major economic crisis for USA, France, Japan, Iran, Italy etc. (US stock market lost over $3 trillion last week attributed to virus issues). Also it's a political issue regarding the ability of the Chinese govt to handle the double crisis. In terms of Wiki reader interest, there are 21,300 hits/ day on this China page with all its dozens of topics, and 10,000+ pageviews a day on the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China page on this one topic. Official Chinese data for Feb 2020 (reported in Wall St Journal) shown manufacturing DOWN 28%, non-manufacturing output DOWN 46% and employment DOWN 32% --that's getting worlwide attention in every news outlet. read the Wall Street Journal Feb. 28, 2020 Now let's hear the evidence that that the issue is unimportant for wiki readers concerned with China. I notee the editor involved also erased virus info from the Wihan page, calling it vandalism --see this edit. @ Yeungkahchun: comments on Chinese 2020 economic crisis Rjensen ( talk) 08:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"and it's a major economic crisis for USA, France, Japan, Iran, Italy etc" -- The fact that you say it is an economic issue for the whole world goes against the argument of putting it on China's page specifically. And there are thousands of cases in Italy and Korea and hundreds of cases in many more countries. -- Coronavirus should have its own page. And Spanish Flu should not be included as a section on Spain's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 ( talk) 01:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect China republic should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#China republic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Utopes ( talk / cont) 17:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
181.179.34.64 ( talk) 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) It's true the state structure envisioned in the P.R.C. Fundamental Law is followed, however, the top posts are help by top-ranking party officials that act according to Politburo decisions and orders. China is not an autocracy, it's an oligarchy. No need to alter the current political regime, current one is fully oligarchic. Please edit the article.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
third or fourth largest ]] country by area. 'to' Stranger Things El ( talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been surfing some pages regarding political oppression carried out by China but have so far seen only people blocked or edits reversed due to violating neutrality (take 8964 as an example, the scene was clearly a massacre as many were killed, but such mentions were deleted), so how would describing atrocities commited by the CCP considered neutral? Genuine question not troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.120.108 ( talk) 17:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The infobox currently lists Serve the People (为人民服务) as the PRC's motto, but I wasn't able to find any sources to suggest that this motto (though it appears on Xinhuamen and in older Maoist literature) has official recognition as such. Indeed, my understanding is that its use has significantly decreased since the end of the Cultural Revolution. I was wondering if anyone had any sources to support its inclusion in this article. Rfwang4 ( talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Should the recent coronavirus outbreak and its consequences on the Chinese population, economy, and political standing be mentioned in this article. SamsonKriger ( talk) 19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It should NOT be mentioned. How is an illness descriptive of a country's political and economical evolution relevant? The line currently in the article is just to satisfy the US stance on COVID-19 as "The China virus". Also there are indications that this sickness goes back further than December both in France and the US. Please remove the line. It only "appears" factually correct, but is Sinophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Gathering opinions on the proposed section. The criticism of the US Gov't has several pages, but only one section for country with the highest population. Apart from this one critical portion, the entirety of the article gives a glowing review, almost like an advertisement. What think ye? IDeagle94 ( talk) 02:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes , we prefer a page on the criticism of Communist China as China have violated international law, human rights law also threaten other countries sovereignty. Kushal2024 ( talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
And which major country (and even lesser country) has not been accused of at least one item of your diatribe? For example india violates human rights all the time through its caste system, and its failure to feed its population. The USA beats and kills its Black citizens. The USA also threatens the sovereignty of many other countries, including China. india physically threatens the sovereignty of several countries. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 ( talk) 02:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You will also find that the USA consider itself outside of International Law, as well as The Geneva Convention. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 ( talk) 02:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name in chinese means "middle country" sometimes interpreted more historically as "middle kingdom" not "middle" per reference 15. I think this is just a basic typo type error. You can find the interpretation in any chinese->english dictionary, such as https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=guo. 108.51.103.157 ( talk) 23:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
China (People's Rep.). The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#China (People's Rep.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages 05:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
ChinA. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#ChinA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This should be "The name Zhongguo is also mistakenly/ wrongly translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English. The original translator probably did not know enough English or Chinese. The correct translation of Zhongguo is "Central State". Originally it was in the plural and referred to the "Central States". 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 ( talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Should its government be described as 'Unitary one-party socialist republic' or 'Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship' ? RllyD1D2M3 ( talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship Wandavianempire ( talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a socially responsible one-party republic. It is not very socialist, or communist for that matter, considering how the party encourages the creation of private enterprises and allows previously unknown people to become (very!) rich. It is also not a dictatorship despite the "president" being in there for life. The communist party has around 8 million members (from memory) and regions have a fair amount of autonomy. It is simplistic and misleading calling China socialist, communistic, or a dictatorship. It is a socially responsible one-party republic. Socially responsible in the same sense Democracies in Europe see it with universal healthcare, shelters and food for the poorest and an expectation for all to contribute to the society - or pay for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be described as 'Unitary one party socialist republic authoritarian communist dictatorship' Kushal2024 ( talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"Totalitarian state capitalist republic" would be most accurate. It cannot be called communist since it doesn't follow communism for 40 years now. Andro611 ( talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I would go with 'Unitary one-party semi-presidential socialist republic,' or something similar. -- Lord ding dong ( talk) 04:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There is extensive inaccurate content in this article. Most notably, well-documented and indisputable facts are stated as being opinions or accusations. This is not to be tolerated in an encyclopedia. Upon reviewing the edit comments and archives of talk pages, it appears that there has been a general concession that in the interest of WP:POV, description of human rights abuses and atrocities is to be couched in measured terms. This is not the policy of wikipedia. Facts are to be stated as facts when they are so well documented as to be indisputable. Sbelknap ( talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@ IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Why do you use an inaccurate summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=China&type=revision&diff=970963117&oldid=970931498 when you changed the music? Why do you think the audio should be changed? Manabimasu ( talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Um, that's not an inaccurate summary, I actually made punctuation edits (please tell me you didn't revert those)... Forgot to mention the change in audio. Given that this rendition was performed by the Chinese PLA (and subsequently used by the China Central Television for its sign-ons) - it's a much more pleasing rendition of the March. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@ IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Yes, I will. Manabimasu ( talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Considering the political bias from western media towards China, a large amount of sources could have questionable credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Windwillow ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The bias is not simply political bias against China. The bias is also racial, and is directed against all Chinese people as a race. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 ( talk) 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
What would you suggest replace it? And what racial bias? 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:A9AD:71FF:114:B0F ( talk) 19:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Recently there was a change made by @ Matthewberns expand the third paragraph in this article to include more explanation on Xinjiang which I think is unnecessary. The sentences read:
"In Xinjiang, the Chinese Government has detained Uyghurs in Vocational Education and Training Centers, which critics call internment camps.[12][13][14] According to the U.S. Department of State, actions including political indoctrination, torture, physical and psychological abuse, forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor are common in these facilities.[15] The Chinese government denies these statements and says its response helps combat terrorism in the province.[16][17]"
The topic of Xinjiang is currently a highly debated political topic, and many of the sources linked (Radio Free Asia, Human Rights Watch, NED) have been proven to be US-sponsored bias laundered through western media outlets. This is not to say that the current situation in Xinjiang isn't happening or that it should not be mentioned at all in this article, but the first couple paragraphs should be a very brief, general overview of China. This paragraph already addresses human rights abuses in China in the first couple sentences, but to devote the entire rest of the paragraph to all of the alleged details in Xinjiang seems excessive and seems like it's politically motivated. I think it makes more sense to move these sentences to a different article. Right now the topic of Xinjiang takes up nearly a fourth of the first section on China, which is ridiculous when you juxtapose it with China's entire history, culture and existence.
For comparison, we don't spend an entire paragraph talking about police brutality or children dying in ICE concentration camps in the beginning of the United States article. Nor do we talk about the forced sterilization of indigenous peoples in the first four paragraphs of the Canada article. I shouldn't be reading a brief overview on China and already feel like China's own overview on Wikipedia has a heavy anti-China slant. Mangomystery ( talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Albertaont: You said that the findings of the Tribunal were "not reported in BBC, CNN" and I asked you whether you really believe that, you called it sarcasm but it wasnt. I'm asking whether you really believe that the findings havent been "not reported in BBC, CNN" As far as I can find they've been reported by every mainstream WP:RS. The further reporting by those WP:RS also supports the findings of the Tribunal, see this story published the other day by The Diplomat about the conditions in the camps [7]. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 16:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chung-Kuo. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chung-Kuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chungkuo. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chungkuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chung-kuo. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chung-kuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think you guys should keep an eye out for @Matthewberns's edits. Once again, he is trying to insert his political points and expand on the Uighur situation in the beginning overview paragraphs of this article. The "suppression of religious and ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang" was how it was worded beforehand in the third paragraph, which was a fine summary, but yesterday he edited to also say "genocide of Uighurs," which is not only redundant, but also too specific to be included in a general overview. Furthermore, what is happening in Xinjiang has also not been officially labeled as a "genocide." His first edit (which was reverted a few days ago) was similar in that he intentionally inserted two detailed sentences smearing China over the Uighur situation in the general overview; this new edit should be reverted as well. Mangomystery ( talk) 06:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Now I understand that Wikipedia has a pro-US bias, but isn't it a bit ridiculous that criticisms of China, Russia, Iran, etc are included in their lead sections while this is not the case with say the US or the UK's wikipedia page?
Should criticisms be removed out of the China, Russia, Iran, etc headers or should they be allowed on the lead section of all other countries as well? Which would be more encyclopedic? Otherwise I think criticisms should only be added in sections below, and not in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadesTheEldest ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently the article uses anthem rendition File:China_-_CCTV_Sign-on_Rendition.ogg in the infobox.
Question: What is the best rendition for the anthem?
Manabimasu ( talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I'm advocating in favour of (a), which is a rendition by the People's Liberation Army's music band and used on Chinese state television sign-ons and sign-offs. The music flows much better than the US Navy Band's rendition, which is (b), which is an added bonus. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
User:CaradhrasAiguo To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first.
Check the articles about other countries, those articles are not full of unnecessary information in the introduction. Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China.
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. A lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Information too long for an introduction. Much of that information is available in other parts of the article. -- JShark ( talk) 19:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China.—Instead of using WP:SOAPBOX-violating inflammatory language, explain to me how the:
Propaganda. China for you is perfect and you only cite articles that speak well of China—Mind the ad hominem ( personal attack, if you will) mixed with the strawman, lest the big fat BLOCKED or Has blocks appears when I scroll your username in popups.
that speak well of the infrastructure projects of the communist party that put countries in debt—There is no mention of the Port of Gwadar or any of the African railways in the lede, and even within the body, the Belt and Road Initiative has barely two full sentences.
but you only talk about the rich people—Nope, I personally have never added content here on the number of billionaires or millionaires, do not personalize your talk page posts to give the impression that I have. If you wish to propose a similar Gini coefficient superlative, write a proposed one here instead of flooding this page with nauseating polemics.
I have lived in Chinais a complete non-argument. No one on this site is willing to indulge in anecdotal BS. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You clearly have something against me—Not my problem that A) you have chosen to personalize this B) You have addressed none of my counter-arguments. C) Or that part of your initial post was described by the protecting admin as "innuendo".
( edit conflict) JShark, your tone in many of the above comments has been inappropriate, still. You are acting too aggressively. Again, please refrain from innuendo. Please also refrain from accusations that are not supported by evidence. Please do not personalize. Please substantiate. This is not the right way for you to advance your argument in defense of your changes. All these assertions you are making that are meant to be taken as factual — well, you are failing to represent them as such, because you have yet to cite a single reliable 3rd party source to support any of your claims. It is essential that you self-correct, then, both on the conduct end (acting aggressively, personalizing) as well as the content front (original research by virtue of not citing any sources). El_C 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources:
Li, S., Lin, Y., Selover, D. D., Stein, M., Wu, H., & Yang, Z. (2010). Chinese State-Owned Enterprises: Why Aren’t They Efficient.
Hurley, J., Morris, S., & Portelance, G. (2019). Examining the debt implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a policy perspective. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 3(1), 139-175.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/04/01/income-inequality-is-growing-fast-in-china-and-making-it-look-more-like-the-us/ Income inequality is growing fast in China and making it look more like the US
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-should-not-expand-bullet-train-network-expert/articleshow/38206060.cms China should not expand bullet train network: Expert --
JShark (
talk) 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Bye. I will work on other beautiful articles where my contribution is appreciated. No hard feelings. If they see my contributions as something bad, then I can't do anything about it. -- JShark ( talk) 22:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
My child has mistakenly removed some contant pls add it again ChandlerBing29 ( talk) 10:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Firstly send my greetings to the fellow editor, I want to raise the issue about
POV issues regarding the general content based on various sources within the article. Apparently, some of the original words which are mostly carried directly over from the sources has breached the
WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia, or somewhat, I'm pretty sure, at least. I have been trying to fix that and it last over 7 hours today but a fellow editor just challenged the new version, my edit summaries are presented with reasons, I will discuss more detailedly on this to convince for a more persuasive posture.
FRIGB (
talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce, then if so, just for a quicker process, can you skim and list out the immediate edits that you find needed to be vetted. I mostly rephrase, rewrite or remove words, phrases or sentences that may not be neutral. The aggregated changes seems relatively large but they are generally in the same mannerism, if a section is vetted, it's rather similar for other sections. FRIGB ( talk) 15:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, I'm not intending to remove information about COVID, you can retain it as long as it does not breach NPOV. FRIGB ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce, firstly, check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch in the "Words that may introduce bias" - "Puffery" section, and then swiftly skim over my edits again, you will see what I mean and trying to do.
For example, in the lead of the article, I removed adjectives or words like widely, heavy, numerous, widespread,... many more and some other phrases that may introduce subjective evaluation or biasness. FRIGB ( talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in theHow does removing "fertile" improve the quality of the article? All early civilizations arose in some fertile river basin. That is a fact.fertilebasin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain.
Since then, China has expanded, fractured andLiterally adds nothing to improve the sentence.re-unifiednumerousmultiple times.
Intforce Finally, you said that it is my onus to list ALL of the edits and provide rationale for every single one of them but then you immediately said that you "don't have neither the time, nor the patience to painstakingly go through all" of my edits. What? Well, if I'm the one that have to list all of the edits, then you will still have to sit through all of it and discuss on it, isn't it?. How about instead, I recommend to you an alternative method in that you just have to list the edits that you find it likely to be controversial, then you move onto the less controversial ones, until we handled a majority of them. In either ways, you will still have to sit through and discuss, however, the later method that I recommend is much quicker, more efficient one. So what would you like to choose? FRIGB ( talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce, there, you ask me and after reading again, I have compiled a list of changes in the article here. These are all of the changes in the article:
First is the list of words or phrases throughout the article (have been altered or moved in the new version) in which their usage is likely to has infringed the neutral wording according to the Manuel of Style:
Other, longer phrases that has been removed or altered:
@ Intforce:, what's your opinion? FRIGB ( talk) 09:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4071:2015:153C:64F1:C628:9F43:7D30 ( talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There are many mistakes in grammar and to update the photos
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Splitting the article Politics of the Republic of China is proposed at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China#RfC, where I invite you to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Change the word "its" to "the" before the words "... capital is Beijing". The word "its" is illogical and does not follow how the word "state" is being used earlier in the sentence "The state is governed by the Communist Party of China and its capital is Beijing." We're not talking about the "state" as a country or territory (e.g. the "state of China"). That sentence, previously in quotes as it is presently in the article, should instead read as "The state is governed by the Communist Party of China and the capital is Beijing." One-state solution ( talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@ FourLights:: The lede doesn't go into detail about the economic history of China. Most articles about countries don't. If you want to add information about it in the economy section, it should be presented as 3 phases: pre-1820, 1820-1978, and post-1978.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can accept that, though I would have considered the country notable for it's economic history even more than for anything else in the lead. But does the geographical paragraph belong in the lead? Such a paragraph is not present in the leads of Russia or US. FourLights ( talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in working on the geography but I don't know that any of it belongs in the lead. FourLights ( talk) 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
China is not listed in a few categories that have most other countries in them, such as Category:Member states of the United Nations and Category:Countries in Asia. The only category it is in is Category:China.
Any reason why this is the case? Power~enwiki ( talk) 07:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The move request is made at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China#Requested move 24 May 2017, which is ongoing. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 32 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/7912682/New-China-leadership-tipped-to-be-all-male{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-00u.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
timeline and planning.
Amanbir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.170.147 ( talk) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is a protected page? Why not make a edits to a China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.115.205 ( talk) 16:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a link to twitch.tv/lrhlive on the whole article:
HTML affected: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" ><img alt="Arimaa-border.png" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Arimaa-border.png" width="7000" height="7000" data-file-width="18" data-file-height="18"></a>
Not sure on how this made it's way here, it's not a browser issue, tested it on Firefox and Chrome. Also not an OS issue, tested it with Linux (Ubuntu) and Windows (8).
-- Unrealzocker ( talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
expand some source more about the recent events between China and India?. AlfaRocket ( talk) 13:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! I am a student at Rice University, and I am thinking about editing this article as part of my class (Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities). I am currently interested in learning about political repression in China and adding what I learn into Wikipedia articles. I would like to contribute to this page by adding information to the subsection "Sociopolitical issues, human rights, and reform" under Politics. I would add a link to the "Censorship in China" article, flesh out information about how China has treated its political activists (such as Liu Xiaobo), and add how citizens have been going around China's different forms of censorship. I have already been doing some reading, and a list of relevant resources are on my user page if you are interested! Please let me know if you have any suggestions about the direction I should take this! RiceStudent ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The etymology section has recently been revised to stress the theory that the word China is derived from “Qin,” the name of the first imperial dynasty. Although this theory is certainly popular, it is refuted by the fact that Sanskrit usage predates the Qin dynasty by several centuries. The theory dates to the 17th century, before the development of modern philology. It apparently falls into the category of “too good to check.” Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative source on these matters, traces the derivation to Sanskrit Cīna, a word that has been used to refer to China since at least the second century AD. For earlier history, it directs us to a journal article by Lecoupiere. Lecoupiere rejects the Qin theory and argues that usage in the Indian epics refers to a state other than China. That is to say, the word was repurposed sometime after the Indians began to receive silk from China and wondered what land it came from. See Geoff Wade’s “ The name China and the Polity of Yelang” for a detailed and up to date discussion of this issue. Great scott ( talk) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
" Under Xi, the Chinese government began large-scale efforts to reform its economy,[128][129] which has suffered from structural instabilities and slowing growth.[130][131][132][133]"
to
" Under Xi, the Chinese government began large-scale efforts to reform its economy,[128][129] which has suffered from structural instabilities and relatively slowing growth.[130][131][132][133]".
Reason: China's economic growth rate still considerable compared with other others' which is why I propose to add the word "relatively". 106.185.25.41 ( talk) 09:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was odd. It's a common misconception that the PRC dates to 1 Oct. since that became the basis for the country's National Day but the new state was actually proclaimed a few days earlier on 21 Sept., which occasionally gets remembered (at embassy shindigs &c) as "Chinese Independence Day". What's strange is that the source for 1 Oct. in the current page already made it clear that the date was 21 Sept. I know this is a highly-trafficked page and no urge to get into an edit war, so added two further sources as well. — LlywelynII 04:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There's an image in section 4.4 simply captioned "Diplomatic relations with China" that is color coded. I would like to request that the caption is updated with a key to represent what each color means. Because this page is protected, I am unable to do so. The file itself has a key, it's just not listed in the caption. Here is a link to the image in question. 24.207.148.200 ( talk) 20:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I think "An estimated 200,000 Chinese were massacred in the city of Nanjing alone during the Japanese occupation.[103] " ,it should be 300,000, and "China hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, where its athletes received 51 gold medals " already change for 48. (I come from China) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.83.109 ( talk) 08:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
A case involving User:Wrestlingring and User:Supreme Dragon has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrestlingring. They were heavily involved in China/Taiwan articles, especially regarding the naming dispute. Your input may assist with the case. Cheers! -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 18:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The timeline in the Territorial disputes section has a number of problems. It is far too wide for the page; at a normal width it disappears off the right edge of the screen. Even at this width it barely fits; the text has been made smaller to take up less space but that just makes it less readable, especially against the strongly coloured backgrounds.
Mostly though it assigns too much weight to one particular territorial dispute, the one with Taiwan. In fact almost all of the timeline does not concern this; the bulk of it on the Ming, Qing, Dutch and Spanish has no bearing on the modern dispute, which started in 1949. The only bit really concerning it is the rightmost end of the second row, as it covers the period from 1949, when Taiwan has been in dispute. And even that does not illustrate the status of Taiwan, it simply says Taiwan exists.
Removing everything before 1949 would eliminate the irrelevant periods, and make it fit properly. But that would reduce it to just one time period, and rather pointless as a timeline. If that is the only way to fix it then it makes no sense in the article, and should be removed, which is what I propose, unless someone can find some way of fixing it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 13:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the timeline should be deleted, or using a more details one:
-- Lisan1233 ( talk) 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
There have been no good proposals how to fix it so I have removed it. The section is on current territorial disputes, not the last 200 years of China–Taiwan relations. It’s not that the timeline is wrong and can be fixed, a timeline is simply inappropriate for a section on current territorial disputes, of which the one with Taiwan is only one of them.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 04:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Shanghai's population is 24 256 800, but Chongqing's population is 30 165 500. Chongqing is larger than Shanghai. (source: List of largest cities)-- Make WP Great Again ( talk) 07:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The lede muddles one of the non-confusing facts about the countries of the world. Namely, China is the 3rd largest country in the world, by pretty much every authority there is out there. Yet right now we have this in the lede:
Covering approximately 9.6 million square kilometres (3.7 million square miles), it is also the world's second-largest country by land area and third- or fourth-largest by total area
Third or fourth largest by total area? Not according to the CIA factbook, or any other reputable source. The ostensible ambiguity is tied to issues of extraterritorial possessions that no one except some editor here decided were important. It's enough, for the lead, to note that it's generally regarded as the 3rd largest, and leave the details for the Geography section.
Then there is the question of "second largest country by land area". Now this is not in dispute, but it still does not belong, because it's sheer boosterism. Look at the other large countries in the world: Do their articles list their rank by "land area"? Russia doesn't, the US doesn't, Brazil doesn't. Of the twelve largest countries in the world, ONLY the articles on Canada and China mention this. This is simply not how countries in the world are ranked by area.
I could understand it if it was a question of coastal waters. Those of us of a certain age remember the disputes a few years ago when the question of offshore territoriality raged around the world, as countries extended their territories from 12 miles to (eventually) 200 miles offshore. And if Canada's #2 ranking was based upon this, given its enormous coastline, then I could understand the issue--it would not give an accurate picture. But that is not the issue here. The difference between Canada and China's rankings is not about offshore water, it is about freshwater well within the land mass of Canada. Canada does have some very large lakes. But every authority in the world includes them in the ranking of Canada as the 2nd largest country in the world because their ownership is simply not in dispute.
So what I am saying is that it appears that some Sinophile, many years ago, came upon this interesting piece of trivia (that is, China being #2 in land area), inserted it into the lead, which now gives an inaccurate impression to the unaware reader. I have no problem with this being included in the article, but I do have a problem with some booster including it because they get to make China look bigger than it already is. (I'm guessing that it is also included in Canada because someone also wanted to make it clear there that China was "bigger".
I'm going to work on a balanced revision, and would appreciate discussion before reversion. Un sch ool 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
174.117.67.21 ( talk) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Chinese Family Panel Studies" to "China Family Panel Studies" in "References 481", and change the Link along with it. Thanks! 222.29.98.88 ( talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Taiwan is part of China. But the map, köppen climate type of China, doesn't contain Taiwan. It's wrong. Remove the map, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.237.62.121 ( talk) 06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the infobox, can you add the status of China since 19 states do not recognize the PRC?
-- 135.23.145.14 ( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Ever since Deng Xiaoping, a person who was rather right on the political scale, introduced reforms in China's economy, they have been not socialist, not even close to that, but rather state capitalist. You could call it "market socialism", but that's not even close to it. It's capitalist now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souljia 1991 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
On the right column it says China drive on the: Right
This is wrong. China drives on the: Left, only Hong Kong and Macau drives on the: Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorhuang1 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the government section of the infobox read " Socialist people's republic"? ( 66.215.84.193 ( talk) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Infobox country", at "government type", change " Socialist people’s republic" to " Socialist people's republic" The Professor (Time Lord) ( talk) 03:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change GDP(nominal)Total $11.938 trillion to GDP(nominal)Total $13.12 trillion(82.7122 trillion Yuan) according to reference source [1] CVHuan999999 ( talk) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In the United states page Wikipedia have gdp of 2018, Why in China page Wikipedia have gdp of 2017? Imf date= GDP CHINA $14.092 trillion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.17.104 ( talk) 06:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For some unknown reasons, the parameter government type in this article's infobox is currently socialist people's republic which is not wrong but not detailed enough to introduce the actual type of the Chinese government to readers. The original description which was still out there back in March, 2018(see this), I believe, did much better in this. Therefore, I propose that
we change
|government_type = [[Socialism with Chinese characteristics|Socialist]] [[People's Republic|people's republic]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm|publisher=The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>
to
|government_type = [[Unitary state|Unitary]] ''de facto'' [[One-party state|one-party]] [[Socialist state|socialist]] [[republic]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm|publisher=The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>.
171.10.187.196 ( talk) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
IMF date April 2018 GDP CHINA $14.092 trillion http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/CHN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.17.104 ( talk) 06:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I've put in the new data from the latest 2018 IMF projections. Wikipedia is very inconsistent on this point. Some major countries, like France and the US, still use the 2017 numbers. But others, like Germany, Russia, and Japan, are using the 2018 numbers. It's a mess. If there's any country that deserves the most recent data, however, it's definitely China. The combination of rapid yuan-denominated growth and the falling value of the dollar relative to the yuan (in last year) mean that nominal Chinese GDP per capita is growing way faster in dollar terms than the official 7%. So it would be a good idea to track these rapid changes. UBER (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please help undo the obviously disruptive edits made by
Krishna Pagadala through
the two edits in which this user added content not adhering to
WP:UNDUE. The original version reads
the government of China is very concerned about its population growth rate and has attempted since 1979, with mixed results
, while the current edition claims The government implemented a strict
family planning policy, known as the "
one-child policy" from 1979 to 2013, with little effect on the total population
. Apparently the former is more neutral and facts-based.
To make a story short, please revert to this edition. 223.104.109.245 ( talk) 03:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a one-party state in East Asia" to "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a unitary sovereign state in East Asia".
Reason: MOS:INTRO has suggested that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also, the first sentence had been the later version for quite a long time without being changed until this revision. 211.138.16.226 ( talk) 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The terms are effectively synonymous and the current version is simpler. Please establish a
WP:CONSENSUS that the prior version is to be preferred.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 15:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add the following lines with some amendments to the existing:
| established_event3 = Admitted to the United Nations | established_date3 = 24 October 1945
-- 108.162.179.236 ( talk) 03:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
The Communist Party of China exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces
to
Governed by the Communist Party of China, it exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces
The former version is logically incorrect since only a state can exercise jurisdiction. A party clearly cannot do so.
211.142.189.67 (
talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In other countries' wikipedia pages, like Japan and Germany, the first paragraph (generally sentence) of the article has the name and pronunciation of the country in its native language in parentheses. This information is present in the article, but for consistency and easy access I propose adding it to the first paragraph. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 03:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
OK I added it, but not sure if the IPA thing is right... I think it is though. Please note your concerns below if you have any. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 03:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Here’s an idea: put the simplified name of China in the infobox as well, maybe in parentheses. As well as “People’s republic of China” you could add “China” and to the native names the shortened forms could be added as well. It’s not clear without searching down the page that the general native name of China is “Zhongguo” because in the infobox it says the full name, “Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo”. Basically I think the word “Zhongguo” should be present somewhere at the first section of the article. And for comparison, the first paragraph of Japan & South Korea’s pages have all that stuff and they take up a huge amount of space, so I don’t know what the standard is for that here. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Here’s an idea: put the simplified name of China in the infobox as wellWhich infobox are you referring to? If the state infobox, then all of the articles for East and Southeast Asian states, excepting Malaysia and Japan (which don't have an official name longer than the common name), use the full, official name in English and the native equivalent, not the common name. CaradhrasAiguo ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true, it would be weird to put the simplified name in the infobox. But to JohnBlackburne's point, why then is the native name and IPA for Vietnam in the first line of that article? I think it would help if just the pinyin & IPA were added here in some form. PerhapsXarb ( talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Despite the high results, Chinese education has also faced
both native and international criticism for its emphasis on rote memorization and its gap in quality from rural to urban areas.
to
Despite the high results, Chinese education has also faced both native and international criticism for its emphasis on rote memorization and its gap in quality from rural to urban areas. citation needed
because this sentence is completely unsourced and clearly needs at least one citation per WP:V. 123.161.170.190 ( talk) 02:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please change
"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area"
to
"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the fifth-largest country by total area"
so it matches citation for the current claim [19], OR find a source that supports the existing claim, as the CIA factbook has it as #5 behind Russia, Canada, Antarctica and the US. There's argument that the text "fourth-largest country" would also be relevant because Antarctica is not really a sovereign nation.
Kuriosly ( talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Removed Change Request, because who knows how big China is? /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area They certainly don't in the talk page for it.
I think that to get away from said controversy change it to second biggest country by total land area. No one's disputing that. And it's a higher placement. So win-win. Kuriosly ( talk) 23:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.59 ( talk) 23:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at this edit, and am concerned. Although it's difficult to see just by looking at the dif, this edit removes from the reader's sight the fact that China is one of the four largest countries in the world by area. Frankly, I consider that to be a pretty major fact that belongs early in the lead.
This edit also includes some changes the significance I'm not sure of; I wouldn't say they're as bad as the one just mentioned, but I don't see how they improve the article. One changes the verbiage regarding the role of the CPC, and the other changes the wording about the number of countries China borders. Not seeing any justification for these edits either here on the talk page, or in the edit summary (which just reads, rejig a bit), I'm going to revert it in toto, and suggest that the changes be made individually, to make discussion easier. Un sch ool 05:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Per the discussion here and the ROC Talk page.
I seen the related discussions about the naming the articles related to the both Chinas.
Since the use of the colloquial names, despite them are simpler, this caused confussion on the people who haven't read the articles and understanded the delicate situation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party (and caused absurd discussions, specially in other projects like the Spanish Wikipedia, see Bellow), and worse, caused a mess in both articles.
The rationale applied by the Spanish Wikipedia community to use the official names instead of the colloquial ones is strong, and this was demonstrated in a large discussion in ROC talk page at Spanish Wikipedia and also here. By contrast, the rationale applied here to use the colloquial names seems to be weaker for me, and specially by the mess caused in the ROC article.
Therefore, I'm finding concensus (or at least listening opinions) to change the title or keep them. I know what issues could cause this, but inverting redirections should not cause major problems I guess. -- Amitie 10g ( talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I support
Amitie 10g's proposal. After the end of
Chinese Communist Revolution between 1946 and 1950, China is divided by two Chinese regimes: "People's Republic of China" which only de facto controls Chinese mainland, and "Republic of China" which only de facto controls Taiwan area of China, but the two Chinese regimes claim the sovereignty of whole China. Thus, it is ridiculous to regard the regime "People's Republic of China" as the country "China" and regard the regime "Republic of China" as the area "Taiwan".
MouseCatDog (
talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have a small problem of the unsourced image gallery in the religion section being implemented over and over despite WP:BURDEN problem raised and our MOS WP:GALLERY. There is a few problems with having a one off gallery causing undue weight to the section per WP:UNDUE and the fact WP:GALLERY discourages galleries of this nature that add content without sources that overwhelm a section. Have to ask is religion the most important part of this article that it needs 10 or more images - 5 times as many as other sections? Also would be good to review WP:SANDWICH as this has also been corrected a few times and reverted with no explanation. -- Moxy ( talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that the religion section has many images that should be diversify, Because the rest of the other sections do not contain the amount of these many images. Mr. James Dimsey ( talk) 05:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) pp. 200–201
Please remove the Manchu name ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ
ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠᡳᡵᡤᡝᠨ
ᡤᡠᠨᡥᡝ
ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ (Dulimbai niyalmairgen gungheg' gurun) from the multilingual infobox.
Reason: Manchu has never been an official language of People's Republic of China (PRC), and PRC is never known to have published its official Manchu name, so I believe this 'Manchu name' listed in the infobox is an original research. -- Pawmot ( talk) 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Support because this is actually hilarious. The Manchus had never heard of the People's Republic of China, so this was never the "name" used by them for anything, i.e. there is a flat misstatement in the infobox now in that it suggests there is or ever was such a name. Beyond that, we have the simple principle that a line has to be drawn at some reasonable level and an end put to the scripts presented to readers. If some level of judgement is not exercised, pages just bloat with useless, irrelevant clutter. sirlanz 06:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the lively discussion, friends. After reading the points brought up, I have no beef with the outcome (though the Edit Summary explaining the removal should have noted the correct numbers in support and opposition). However, this discussion does point to the need for further pruning to make the article about the PRC. I will start a new section to start a discussion. ch ( talk) 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The article retains too much material that is not relevant to the PRC, which is the subject of the article. The lede now spends a long but scattershot paragraph on pre-1949 history, leaving too little room for PRC material. The History section of the article occupies something like 1,500 of the article's roughly 14,000 words but its coverage is so haphazard so as to be nearly useless.
The Science and Teachnology, Religion, Culture, and Cuisine sections are only a little out of balance, but the literature section has only one sentence on PRC literature.
Any objections to cutting perhaps a total of 1,500 words, mainly the History section?
Cheers, ch ( talk) 06:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the last sentence of the lead to reflect the growing consensus in the West that China is now a superpower. I have cited that claim with numerous reputable sources (from New York Times, The Economist, etc).
Here are my problems with the old sentence: it was based on older sources (like a BBC article from 2012) and it did an awkward job of capturing China's significance to the current international system. While I don't dispute that the United States still remains the world's leading superpower, it's highly dubious to classify China in the same league as, for example, Britain or France. China is more important to the world order than both of those two countries put together. So it's not "just another" great power. It's the world's largest economy (by purchasing power) and the current obsession of everyone from Patagonia to Siberia.
The language of this article should reflect China's new standing in the world. UBER (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change '"Laogai" in Chinese means forced labour and reform.' to '"Laogai" in Chinese means labour reform.' because the sentence is providing a translation, which should be precise. Fl580 ( talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to put this country on the microwiki 64.125.67.45 ( talk) 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@
Vif12vf/Tiberius (
talk) . At first,
Qin dynasty is not the first Chinese dynasty.
Shang dynasty and
Zhou dynasty is earlier than more than 1000 years. Even Qin itself was established in 897 B.C which was 600 years earlier than 221 BC. There are lots of archaeological writing discovery about these two dynasty. Consider you claim previous (than qin) non-imperial dynasties are of lesser importance, I see page
Ancient Rome put 753 BC as the founding date when Rome was only a city state, not the 27 BC when Augustus became the first Emperor of Rome.
Then, the date 753 BC was based on myth, Capitoline Wolf myth, not the historical record. Page
Ancient Rome also used mythological kingdom as the first kingdom. Except page
Ancient Rome, page
South Korea did the same thing. Use the mythological
Gojoseon dynasty in 2333 BC as the first dynasty. It seems there is no rule to forbid the semi-legendary.
At last, Xia is in controversy. There is no consensus whether Xia is myth or not. The discovery of
Erlitou site was defined as Xia by some scholar. It remains unclear whether Xia is Bronze age Erlitou site. Hence, Xia is claimed as semi-legendary. The full mythological first kingdom of China was
Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors before Xia.
Miracle dream
The article says: The Chinese population almost doubled from around 550 million to over 900 million. This seems right, since the population is well above one million now. But it is rather meaningless, since it does not say what time period it is refering to. It should. -- Ettrig ( talk) 15:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A majority of the population believe that China is a pure dictatorship which is completely and utterly false and do not understand how China selects its leaders. Numerous scholars and news articles have stated that China selects its future leaders based upon skill not popularity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It is time that this is mentioned and emphasized, preferably with its own section in order to explain to the general population that China selects its leaders based upon skill. I would like to be given editing authority.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AvikemArruters ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
FineStructure137 ( talk) 03:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC) REPLY:
What about corruption in China? Perhaps we can classify the country as a kleptocracy. In the course of his career, Xi Jinping was promoted by 18 separate personnel boards. Previous leaders were the proteges and successors of earlier leaders. Xi worked his way up from the bottom. He should be the best the meritocratic system has to offer. Yet he is hugely corrupt. His secret overseas investments are documented in the Panama Papers. I can only conclude that he is the best they have and that other candidates for party leadership are even more corrupt. If Xi has a skill beyond giving extremely long speeches, the party has been keeping it quiet.
AvikemArruters ( talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC) REPLY:
We're here to discuss whether or not my proposal should be implemented. There is a separate page for corruption in China and I believe that if it is not already, corruption can be acknowledged on this page, however, I remind you that people utilize Wikipedia for academic purposes/ to lead to other sources and the inclusion that China is a kleptocracy WITHOUT proof (and in clear contradiction of academic consensus in political science circles AND REALITY) would degrade Wikipedia's authenticity and integrity. In regards to your other comment, Xi has other skills, however, defending him will not help my cause as 1 example cannot prove a point. Irishtigger416 ( talk) 04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
What about adding a section on recent economic declines? This article reviews China's rise but not its most recent decline and massive loss of wealth which may intersect with Corruption in China proposed section.04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)~~
References
I noticed that Guizhou is listed as one of the poorest provinces under the education section. For evidence of this, it appears to link to the provincial GDP per capita article for China. I just wonder if using GDP per capita is appropriate to draw conclusions as to how rich or poor a province is? As for countries, Iran, Bosnia, Belarus, Namibia, and Fiji have a similar GDP per capita to Guizhou, but I'm not sure if many would consider Bosnia and Belarus to be poor countries. But others might draw the conclusion that Namibia is a poor country. These countries also have different poverty rates, as well.
Thoughts? LittleCuteSuit ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding "Marxist-Leninist". China is in no way that. Yes, the constitution says it is, but constitutions are not a reliable source. Otherwise you could call North Korea democratic, and we all know that it isn't. China is socialist with capitalist policies. Private companies are commmon (although they are still monitored by the Communist Party to ensure they don't do any shenanigans), and they wouldn't exist if China was Marxist-Leninist. -- Kingerikthesecond ( talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was recently changed to use the {{ pie chart}} template to put a pie chart into the side bar. The key for the pie chart users several {{ efn}} templates to add notes, but the article didn't previously have a {{ reflist}} for notes and produced an erorr. I've remedied this problem coarsely by adding an inline {{ reflist}} for the notes, but it interrupts the flow of the article.
Is there a better way to present this information? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date for the article The Land That Failed to Fail is NOV. 18, 2018, not 2006. 71.31.30.66 ( talk) 23:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC) 71.31.30.66 ( talk) 23:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
HEY CHINA JANGAN IKUT CAMPUR DI NEGARA KAMI !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.9.34 ( talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
China has been widely characterized as a global superpower, rivalling the United States.
to
In recent times, scholars have argued that it will soon be a world superpower, rivaling the United States.
since the latter is arguably more precise and accurate while the former is somewhat assertive. 1.198.22.229 ( talk) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you add the superpower category for China if the page itself calls it a global superpower that rivals the United States? If there is a wide consensus on China's superpower status than it would be a bit odd for a page about a superpower lacking any categories that deems it as part of the very exclusive special group. 134.7.65.106 ( talk) 10:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm wondering why isn't "Marxist-Leninist" added in the "government" section in the infobox but it was added before. DerpyUser420 ( talk) 00:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Abote2 (
talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)just insert this page here Cattleiscows30 ( talk) 00:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
___a Panda said "give me Bamboo and I will let you in" (the page shall be protected by pandas) Cattleiscows30 ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html https://quillette.com/2019/08/05/china-and-the-difficulties-of-dissent/
Whit everything happening now, should it be mentioned that China has the qualities of a fascist country? The above articles would seem to agree. Aberration ( talk) 09:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I know there's different definitions of a superpower. But when you Google this, there's clearly no widespread agreement that China is currently one. At least not in the same sense as the US. For every article that argues this view, you can easily find a contrary one. And that's even if you only count sources within the last year or two. In 2019, even China's state-owned think tank, the Development Research Center of the State Council, says the US will be the sole superpower at least until 2035. [3] So at minimum, the claim is mixed or disputed. At most, it's outright wrong. In any case, it's incorrect or misleading for the lead to say it's "widely characterized" as a superpower - something that is later contradicted in the body of the article. It should either say that it's still a potential superpower or that it's sometimes considered as such. Spellcast ( talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
China has been widely characterized as an emerging superpower, rivaling the United States,would summarize the article's thrust more accurately. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
China has been characterized as an emerging superpower, and a potential challenge to American hegemony.? Simonm223 ( talk) 12:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
China is not commonly considered a superpower: the majority of sources use the term "potential superpower" at the most, or they just state that the United States is the sole superpower. Rarely do they cite China as a superpower, and it most certainly isn't "widely characterized" as such. Such wording is not accurate at all. You can find sources saying that China is a superpower, but most say it is not a superpower. Bill Williams ( talk) 15:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, if going by widely understood geopolitical definitions, China is probably not quite a "superpower", but one might look back to the origin of the term in the first place - most recently used to describe the relationship between the United States and the USSR, to appreciate that it means different things in different contexts, and different things to different people. To be honest, I am ok leaving it out of the lede altogether, as it is still contentious. That being said, the number of reliable media sources casually and formally referring to it as a superpower has been growing - for instance, you will notice an entire feature on The New York Times in 2018, dedicated to "how China became a Superpower". Ditto for ABC in Australia. There are of course voices to the contrary as well, such as the Economist, definitely stating that the US remains the only existing superpower, and the BBC which is somewhere in between. The current formulation, describing it as an "emerging superpower", is also not off base; but saying it is merely a "potential superpower" is perhaps not in line with what is described in mainstream media these days. Colipon+( Talk) 02:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC) I like tacos.
@ CaradhrasAiguo: in case you are not reading the edits made by The Account 1 who has history of censoring negative content on this page. [5] I think you should review your revert again and abide by WP:BRD. We cannot accept apologetic and unexplained edits like this or tag bomb the lead when the issue is already resolved by the sources provided. Since all very recent edits were poor and unwarranted I simply restored an earlier version. Take a look at the discussion above too titled under "Superpower?". Aman.kumar.goel ( talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
since the attached sources are clear about the matter— They are about the abuses themselves, but they are not regarding the "independent observers" claim in the text, which is the point of contention. The three sources presented make reference to: 1) International Campaign for Tibet and its claims on what a UN panel has done, 2) spurious claims by the dubious U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 3) A literal op-ed whose only objective source would be the researcher Heather Kavan. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 04:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This article should be split between the modern day country of the PRC and China as a region which has not always had the same boundaries much less cultural background as the modern day one. A solution is probably to move the current article to be only about PRC and move the contents about history and culture heritage to the [Greater China] article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.97.121.9 ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Human right is a main argument about China, i think it deserves its own section in the index. The article is accurate about this theme, but it’s difficult to find it because it’s included in the ‘politics’ paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.133.239 ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes . Republics have a lot of problems. Yes, there is another one. Russia has closed its state border. Dick Shane 2 ( talk) 12:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
"No religion/Chinese folk religions" would seem a nonsensical pairing. Not sure why they're listed together, especially on the pie chart. Chinese folk religions are a very broad school and should be listed separately. BBX118 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 中華人民共和国. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a medical issue yes but more it's a major economic disaster for China, with production and employment plunging in 2020. and it's a major economic crisis for USA, France, Japan, Iran, Italy etc. (US stock market lost over $3 trillion last week attributed to virus issues). Also it's a political issue regarding the ability of the Chinese govt to handle the double crisis. In terms of Wiki reader interest, there are 21,300 hits/ day on this China page with all its dozens of topics, and 10,000+ pageviews a day on the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China page on this one topic. Official Chinese data for Feb 2020 (reported in Wall St Journal) shown manufacturing DOWN 28%, non-manufacturing output DOWN 46% and employment DOWN 32% --that's getting worlwide attention in every news outlet. read the Wall Street Journal Feb. 28, 2020 Now let's hear the evidence that that the issue is unimportant for wiki readers concerned with China. I notee the editor involved also erased virus info from the Wihan page, calling it vandalism --see this edit. @ Yeungkahchun: comments on Chinese 2020 economic crisis Rjensen ( talk) 08:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"and it's a major economic crisis for USA, France, Japan, Iran, Italy etc" -- The fact that you say it is an economic issue for the whole world goes against the argument of putting it on China's page specifically. And there are thousands of cases in Italy and Korea and hundreds of cases in many more countries. -- Coronavirus should have its own page. And Spanish Flu should not be included as a section on Spain's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 ( talk) 01:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect China republic should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#China republic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Utopes ( talk / cont) 17:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
181.179.34.64 ( talk) 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) It's true the state structure envisioned in the P.R.C. Fundamental Law is followed, however, the top posts are help by top-ranking party officials that act according to Politburo decisions and orders. China is not an autocracy, it's an oligarchy. No need to alter the current political regime, current one is fully oligarchic. Please edit the article.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
third or fourth largest ]] country by area. 'to' Stranger Things El ( talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been surfing some pages regarding political oppression carried out by China but have so far seen only people blocked or edits reversed due to violating neutrality (take 8964 as an example, the scene was clearly a massacre as many were killed, but such mentions were deleted), so how would describing atrocities commited by the CCP considered neutral? Genuine question not troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.120.108 ( talk) 17:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The infobox currently lists Serve the People (为人民服务) as the PRC's motto, but I wasn't able to find any sources to suggest that this motto (though it appears on Xinhuamen and in older Maoist literature) has official recognition as such. Indeed, my understanding is that its use has significantly decreased since the end of the Cultural Revolution. I was wondering if anyone had any sources to support its inclusion in this article. Rfwang4 ( talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Should the recent coronavirus outbreak and its consequences on the Chinese population, economy, and political standing be mentioned in this article. SamsonKriger ( talk) 19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It should NOT be mentioned. How is an illness descriptive of a country's political and economical evolution relevant? The line currently in the article is just to satisfy the US stance on COVID-19 as "The China virus". Also there are indications that this sickness goes back further than December both in France and the US. Please remove the line. It only "appears" factually correct, but is Sinophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Gathering opinions on the proposed section. The criticism of the US Gov't has several pages, but only one section for country with the highest population. Apart from this one critical portion, the entirety of the article gives a glowing review, almost like an advertisement. What think ye? IDeagle94 ( talk) 02:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes , we prefer a page on the criticism of Communist China as China have violated international law, human rights law also threaten other countries sovereignty. Kushal2024 ( talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
And which major country (and even lesser country) has not been accused of at least one item of your diatribe? For example india violates human rights all the time through its caste system, and its failure to feed its population. The USA beats and kills its Black citizens. The USA also threatens the sovereignty of many other countries, including China. india physically threatens the sovereignty of several countries. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 ( talk) 02:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You will also find that the USA consider itself outside of International Law, as well as The Geneva Convention. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 ( talk) 02:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name in chinese means "middle country" sometimes interpreted more historically as "middle kingdom" not "middle" per reference 15. I think this is just a basic typo type error. You can find the interpretation in any chinese->english dictionary, such as https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=guo. 108.51.103.157 ( talk) 23:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
China (People's Rep.). The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#China (People's Rep.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages 05:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
ChinA. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#ChinA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This should be "The name Zhongguo is also mistakenly/ wrongly translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English. The original translator probably did not know enough English or Chinese. The correct translation of Zhongguo is "Central State". Originally it was in the plural and referred to the "Central States". 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 ( talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Should its government be described as 'Unitary one-party socialist republic' or 'Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship' ? RllyD1D2M3 ( talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship Wandavianempire ( talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a socially responsible one-party republic. It is not very socialist, or communist for that matter, considering how the party encourages the creation of private enterprises and allows previously unknown people to become (very!) rich. It is also not a dictatorship despite the "president" being in there for life. The communist party has around 8 million members (from memory) and regions have a fair amount of autonomy. It is simplistic and misleading calling China socialist, communistic, or a dictatorship. It is a socially responsible one-party republic. Socially responsible in the same sense Democracies in Europe see it with universal healthcare, shelters and food for the poorest and an expectation for all to contribute to the society - or pay for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be described as 'Unitary one party socialist republic authoritarian communist dictatorship' Kushal2024 ( talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"Totalitarian state capitalist republic" would be most accurate. It cannot be called communist since it doesn't follow communism for 40 years now. Andro611 ( talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I would go with 'Unitary one-party semi-presidential socialist republic,' or something similar. -- Lord ding dong ( talk) 04:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There is extensive inaccurate content in this article. Most notably, well-documented and indisputable facts are stated as being opinions or accusations. This is not to be tolerated in an encyclopedia. Upon reviewing the edit comments and archives of talk pages, it appears that there has been a general concession that in the interest of WP:POV, description of human rights abuses and atrocities is to be couched in measured terms. This is not the policy of wikipedia. Facts are to be stated as facts when they are so well documented as to be indisputable. Sbelknap ( talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@ IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Why do you use an inaccurate summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=China&type=revision&diff=970963117&oldid=970931498 when you changed the music? Why do you think the audio should be changed? Manabimasu ( talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Um, that's not an inaccurate summary, I actually made punctuation edits (please tell me you didn't revert those)... Forgot to mention the change in audio. Given that this rendition was performed by the Chinese PLA (and subsequently used by the China Central Television for its sign-ons) - it's a much more pleasing rendition of the March. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@ IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Yes, I will. Manabimasu ( talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Considering the political bias from western media towards China, a large amount of sources could have questionable credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Windwillow ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The bias is not simply political bias against China. The bias is also racial, and is directed against all Chinese people as a race. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 ( talk) 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
What would you suggest replace it? And what racial bias? 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:A9AD:71FF:114:B0F ( talk) 19:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Recently there was a change made by @ Matthewberns expand the third paragraph in this article to include more explanation on Xinjiang which I think is unnecessary. The sentences read:
"In Xinjiang, the Chinese Government has detained Uyghurs in Vocational Education and Training Centers, which critics call internment camps.[12][13][14] According to the U.S. Department of State, actions including political indoctrination, torture, physical and psychological abuse, forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor are common in these facilities.[15] The Chinese government denies these statements and says its response helps combat terrorism in the province.[16][17]"
The topic of Xinjiang is currently a highly debated political topic, and many of the sources linked (Radio Free Asia, Human Rights Watch, NED) have been proven to be US-sponsored bias laundered through western media outlets. This is not to say that the current situation in Xinjiang isn't happening or that it should not be mentioned at all in this article, but the first couple paragraphs should be a very brief, general overview of China. This paragraph already addresses human rights abuses in China in the first couple sentences, but to devote the entire rest of the paragraph to all of the alleged details in Xinjiang seems excessive and seems like it's politically motivated. I think it makes more sense to move these sentences to a different article. Right now the topic of Xinjiang takes up nearly a fourth of the first section on China, which is ridiculous when you juxtapose it with China's entire history, culture and existence.
For comparison, we don't spend an entire paragraph talking about police brutality or children dying in ICE concentration camps in the beginning of the United States article. Nor do we talk about the forced sterilization of indigenous peoples in the first four paragraphs of the Canada article. I shouldn't be reading a brief overview on China and already feel like China's own overview on Wikipedia has a heavy anti-China slant. Mangomystery ( talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Albertaont: You said that the findings of the Tribunal were "not reported in BBC, CNN" and I asked you whether you really believe that, you called it sarcasm but it wasnt. I'm asking whether you really believe that the findings havent been "not reported in BBC, CNN" As far as I can find they've been reported by every mainstream WP:RS. The further reporting by those WP:RS also supports the findings of the Tribunal, see this story published the other day by The Diplomat about the conditions in the camps [7]. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 16:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chung-Kuo. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chung-Kuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chungkuo. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chungkuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Chung-kuo. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chung-kuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think you guys should keep an eye out for @Matthewberns's edits. Once again, he is trying to insert his political points and expand on the Uighur situation in the beginning overview paragraphs of this article. The "suppression of religious and ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang" was how it was worded beforehand in the third paragraph, which was a fine summary, but yesterday he edited to also say "genocide of Uighurs," which is not only redundant, but also too specific to be included in a general overview. Furthermore, what is happening in Xinjiang has also not been officially labeled as a "genocide." His first edit (which was reverted a few days ago) was similar in that he intentionally inserted two detailed sentences smearing China over the Uighur situation in the general overview; this new edit should be reverted as well. Mangomystery ( talk) 06:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Now I understand that Wikipedia has a pro-US bias, but isn't it a bit ridiculous that criticisms of China, Russia, Iran, etc are included in their lead sections while this is not the case with say the US or the UK's wikipedia page?
Should criticisms be removed out of the China, Russia, Iran, etc headers or should they be allowed on the lead section of all other countries as well? Which would be more encyclopedic? Otherwise I think criticisms should only be added in sections below, and not in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadesTheEldest ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently the article uses anthem rendition File:China_-_CCTV_Sign-on_Rendition.ogg in the infobox.
Question: What is the best rendition for the anthem?
Manabimasu ( talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I'm advocating in favour of (a), which is a rendition by the People's Liberation Army's music band and used on Chinese state television sign-ons and sign-offs. The music flows much better than the US Navy Band's rendition, which is (b), which is an added bonus. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
User:CaradhrasAiguo To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first.
Check the articles about other countries, those articles are not full of unnecessary information in the introduction. Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China.
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. A lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Information too long for an introduction. Much of that information is available in other parts of the article. -- JShark ( talk) 19:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China.—Instead of using WP:SOAPBOX-violating inflammatory language, explain to me how the:
Propaganda. China for you is perfect and you only cite articles that speak well of China—Mind the ad hominem ( personal attack, if you will) mixed with the strawman, lest the big fat BLOCKED or Has blocks appears when I scroll your username in popups.
that speak well of the infrastructure projects of the communist party that put countries in debt—There is no mention of the Port of Gwadar or any of the African railways in the lede, and even within the body, the Belt and Road Initiative has barely two full sentences.
but you only talk about the rich people—Nope, I personally have never added content here on the number of billionaires or millionaires, do not personalize your talk page posts to give the impression that I have. If you wish to propose a similar Gini coefficient superlative, write a proposed one here instead of flooding this page with nauseating polemics.
I have lived in Chinais a complete non-argument. No one on this site is willing to indulge in anecdotal BS. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You clearly have something against me—Not my problem that A) you have chosen to personalize this B) You have addressed none of my counter-arguments. C) Or that part of your initial post was described by the protecting admin as "innuendo".
( edit conflict) JShark, your tone in many of the above comments has been inappropriate, still. You are acting too aggressively. Again, please refrain from innuendo. Please also refrain from accusations that are not supported by evidence. Please do not personalize. Please substantiate. This is not the right way for you to advance your argument in defense of your changes. All these assertions you are making that are meant to be taken as factual — well, you are failing to represent them as such, because you have yet to cite a single reliable 3rd party source to support any of your claims. It is essential that you self-correct, then, both on the conduct end (acting aggressively, personalizing) as well as the content front (original research by virtue of not citing any sources). El_C 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources:
Li, S., Lin, Y., Selover, D. D., Stein, M., Wu, H., & Yang, Z. (2010). Chinese State-Owned Enterprises: Why Aren’t They Efficient.
Hurley, J., Morris, S., & Portelance, G. (2019). Examining the debt implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a policy perspective. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 3(1), 139-175.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/04/01/income-inequality-is-growing-fast-in-china-and-making-it-look-more-like-the-us/ Income inequality is growing fast in China and making it look more like the US
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-should-not-expand-bullet-train-network-expert/articleshow/38206060.cms China should not expand bullet train network: Expert --
JShark (
talk) 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Bye. I will work on other beautiful articles where my contribution is appreciated. No hard feelings. If they see my contributions as something bad, then I can't do anything about it. -- JShark ( talk) 22:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
My child has mistakenly removed some contant pls add it again ChandlerBing29 ( talk) 10:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Firstly send my greetings to the fellow editor, I want to raise the issue about
POV issues regarding the general content based on various sources within the article. Apparently, some of the original words which are mostly carried directly over from the sources has breached the
WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia, or somewhat, I'm pretty sure, at least. I have been trying to fix that and it last over 7 hours today but a fellow editor just challenged the new version, my edit summaries are presented with reasons, I will discuss more detailedly on this to convince for a more persuasive posture.
FRIGB (
talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce, then if so, just for a quicker process, can you skim and list out the immediate edits that you find needed to be vetted. I mostly rephrase, rewrite or remove words, phrases or sentences that may not be neutral. The aggregated changes seems relatively large but they are generally in the same mannerism, if a section is vetted, it's rather similar for other sections. FRIGB ( talk) 15:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, I'm not intending to remove information about COVID, you can retain it as long as it does not breach NPOV. FRIGB ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce, firstly, check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch in the "Words that may introduce bias" - "Puffery" section, and then swiftly skim over my edits again, you will see what I mean and trying to do.
For example, in the lead of the article, I removed adjectives or words like widely, heavy, numerous, widespread,... many more and some other phrases that may introduce subjective evaluation or biasness. FRIGB ( talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in theHow does removing "fertile" improve the quality of the article? All early civilizations arose in some fertile river basin. That is a fact.fertilebasin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain.
Since then, China has expanded, fractured andLiterally adds nothing to improve the sentence.re-unifiednumerousmultiple times.
Intforce Finally, you said that it is my onus to list ALL of the edits and provide rationale for every single one of them but then you immediately said that you "don't have neither the time, nor the patience to painstakingly go through all" of my edits. What? Well, if I'm the one that have to list all of the edits, then you will still have to sit through all of it and discuss on it, isn't it?. How about instead, I recommend to you an alternative method in that you just have to list the edits that you find it likely to be controversial, then you move onto the less controversial ones, until we handled a majority of them. In either ways, you will still have to sit through and discuss, however, the later method that I recommend is much quicker, more efficient one. So what would you like to choose? FRIGB ( talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce, there, you ask me and after reading again, I have compiled a list of changes in the article here. These are all of the changes in the article:
First is the list of words or phrases throughout the article (have been altered or moved in the new version) in which their usage is likely to has infringed the neutral wording according to the Manuel of Style:
Other, longer phrases that has been removed or altered:
@ Intforce:, what's your opinion? FRIGB ( talk) 09:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2409:4071:2015:153C:64F1:C628:9F43:7D30 ( talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There are many mistakes in grammar and to update the photos
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).