![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The USSR was seen as a country, but it was made up of Republics who had their own represenatitives, etc. A union of countries. Is China comprised of several regions who have representatives/presidents? Or has China always been unitary?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.53.98 ( talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The People's Republic of China is one country, but it has "provinces" or "states" like the United States. They have a parliament in which member "provinces" send members to the national government, just like the US Congress. Be careful when you say "China" though, it might get confused with Chinese Taipei, more commonly known as "Taiwan". 71.191.62.253 ( talk) 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Cui Jian's new concert photo replaced an old one for 2 reasons: 1. To show modern Chinese rock'n'roll concert, Cui Jian's band performance is undoubtedly the most appropriate. 2. The background of the replaced photo displayed concert sponsor's commercial products logo, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's philosophy of commercial products neutrality. -- New haven86 ( talk) 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know the term "Red China' has fallen out of usage, but Wikipedia is about information, and I think it appropriate to include names by which a country was formerly identified, even if they are no longer identified by such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
not Red china. Kontoenmin ( talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As a Chinese, I don't identifiy myself a "Red China" citizen. Use this kind of Cold War term is very childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say that using the term "Red China" is childish? In order for you to make such a statement, wouldn't you have to have some kind of knowledge about the motivations for why the person in question made such a statement in the first place? In other words, how do you know that the use of this word in this context, by this specific user, is childish? Also, the fact that you don't identify yourself as a citizen of "Red China" does not mean anything unless we are writing an entry about you and your emotional life. The real question here is if the term "Red China" (a term that was indeed used in the past) should be included in the article or not. As pointed out above, "Red China" is not, I repeat NOT a pejorative noun. (This does not mean that it can't be used in a pejorative context.) So let's remove the chips from our shoulders and discuss this in a logical manner, not making wild assumptions about other people's assumptions for saying this or that. Besides, anybody who is Chinese or know a bit of Chinese history will know that the term "red" was something very positive in China. Song2008yu ( talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
y not create a new topic and list it as a related topic.-- Classic91 ( talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia has no political or ideological stances, but wouldn't it be prudent to add something about china's history of Human Rights violations, exspecialy with the olypic torch protests in the news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.14.59 ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have re-worded the current section. It missed an important point that the Constitution does not afford protection to anyone accused of criminal activity. Also I changed the bit about when censorship occurs because we need to say that it's happening because the ruling authorities are challenged. To say that it is because the gov is concerned over "security" is to just repeat their position. Let's be honest and say why it happens.
Other changes are simplifications or other small points. Comments are welcomed. John Smith's ( talk) 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
各位,I will rename this page to the China page, similar to India and Republic of India, later on we can move stuff in "Chinese Civilization" back to China.-- Singaga ( talk) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
各位网友,I will make the changes tomorrow,如有问题,请提出。反華份子就滾屎好了。-- Singaga ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
请注意, article and discussion will be moved altogether. -- Singaga ( talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Singaga!!! Why are you making us Chinese loose face by making such a comment as above!!! Please show some respect. Wikipedia is a wonderful project where people off all races and all opinions can build something valuable and free for all. Why do you want to soil it?
Song2008yu (
talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
will be changed to
-- Singaga ( talk) 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This change is similar to India/Republic Of India. -- Singaga ( talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed this merger to try and eliminate disputes over the terms for China, and improve information given by Wikipedia to a 'typical' user who types in 'China'.
I think it is quite possible to create a full, balanced, NPOV article which contains a clear explanation of ROC and PRC, whilst providing all other essential details about the country.
The merged document may well be too large, and require subsections.
I have no interest or opinions regarding Chinese politics; I merely want to improve the experience for users of wikipedia by providing clear information on the topic of "China" - be it PRC, ROC, historic deliminations, etc.
It is my hope that, in creating a single main article, through discussion and consensus it will be possible to make a great page.
-- Chzz ► 04:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Name | Topics |
---|---|
China | Geography, Definition, Constituent nations (PRC, Taiwan), Culture and Customs |
China (Historical) | History of China, including its successive dynasties, with a cutoff point at the Qing Dynasty |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China (no change) |
Republic of China (1912) | ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan |
Republic of China | ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government) |
Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I think this isn't a problem about policy, but the articles are too long as it is, I think it's simply not practical as it is. Besides, China is more refering to the civilization, and the People's Republic of China is more like the current government. There's been lots of governments refered to as China, even in the feudal periods, there's no need to merge these articles. FromFoamsToWaves ( talk) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion is, make the current "China" redirect to "Chinese civilization" and redirect "China" to "People's Republic of China." That might be less controversial. 71.237.70.49 ( talk) 05:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While I personally agree with many of the sentiments expressed by supporters above, in the interests of being politically correct I think it's best to keep it the way it is. Splitting up info between articles on the PRC, ROC, Taiwan and China might not be easy, but given the sensitive political context, it's the most prudent option. Brutannica ( talk) 21:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. China can be used for the People's Republic, the Republic and any number of former states and regimes over the last few millennia. Having the People's Republic as the main article does not only violate NPOV but glosses over a complex historical and political progress. Dimadick ( talk) 05:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
STRONG Oppose per Arbiteroftruths argument above. "China" is like "Ireland", it's a region. PRC and ROC occupy parts of the region, as ROI and NI do in Ireland. Keeping China as a region page largely avoids a POV issue due to the two China's. - JVG ( talk) 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose First China and PRC is different. PRC refers to the self-declared Communist government, whilst China is the vast expanse of land. Think of this Taiwan is also China, would you want to merge ROC's article to here to. Of course not. For the pure sake of conveniency we have disambugations and redirects.
--
Felipe
Aira 12:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There are two Chinese nationstates, to say otherwise is POV. Lord of Light ( talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. IF MAIN LAND CHINA AND TAIWAN UNITE IN FUTURE, WE COULD EMERGE, OTHERWISE JUST LEAVE THEM THERE FOR THE MOMENT... Using "China" as it is. Synyan ( talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Per the arguments of others, inherently violates NPOV. A single article cannot cover the civilization and both states. — Lowellian ( reply) 08:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. In addition to the arguments given above, the history of a cohesive political unit known as "China" has existed since 221 BCE with Qin's empire, not 1949 CE when the PRC was established. The national identity of what it is to be "Chinese" was cemented into China's culture during the four centuries of rule by the Han Dynasty. In the past 6 decades, a completely different political identity for the governing state and China's citizenry was forged under the modern nation state of the PRC. There is also the issue of historic "China" conquering parts of northern Korea and northern Vietnam; obviously, the current PRC does not hold onto parts of northern Korea or Vietnam. This brings up the question of what are the bounds of historic "China" and how are they different today from let's say, the Tang Dynasty. Even the definition of what China proper is and how much territory is included in this definition has changed over time. Merging "China" with the "People's Republic of China" ignores not only the ROC on Taiwan and geographic issues, but also Imperial China and the mainland Republic of China from 1912 to 1949; I would say ignoring anything that vital would be a POV decision.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. There are two Chinas, whether the name China is commonly used to refer to the People's Republic of China makes no difference to the fact China split into two seperate entities in 1949 after the Chinese civil war, with the communist People's Republic of China taking control over the mainland, and the fascist Republic of China taking control over the island of Taiwan. China remains split effectively as two countries, just as Korea is. Merging the article on China with the article on the People's Republic of China would be like merging the article on Korea with the article on South Korea. People may commonly refer to South Korea as Korea but it is very misleading as it states South Korea is the sole legitimate claimant over Korea, just as refering to the People's Republic of China as China is stating the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate claimant over China. Merging the article on China and the article on the People's Republic of China does just this, and it is not Wikipedia's place to state who is the legitimate claimant over China, but to simply state the facts as they are in this long running dispute, and would be just as wrong if it did so with such disputes as the one over Korea. I feel this merger proposal has not been initiated due to people wanting to find the article on the People's Republic of China more easily, but by a desire to see Wikipedia give its seal of approval to the People's Republic of China's claim to be the sole legitimate claimant over China for the whole world to see, effectively turning Wikipedia into a mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China. I can't express enough how wrong it would be to merge these two articles on those grounds. Signsolid ( talk) 05:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose: To clarify the differences between China, PRC, and ROC is not the same "eliminating" or covering up the differences. There is a larger idea of China that is broader than PRC and ROC together or separately. Neither of these states are even 100 years old!!!! How can you cover the remaining several thousand years of cultural history with either of these very young countries? -- Tesscass ( talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Same as User:Lowellian. Per the arguments of others, inherently violates NPOV. A single article cannot cover the civilization and both states. -- Folic_Acid | talk 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral "Strongly" means absolutely nothing so please don't bother. We know your political views already just from your opposition. It is not a bad idea, however, this article in particular describes the PRC as a political entity and not its culture. I suggest adding more demographics to the main China page. Please be nice and don't turn this page into a political debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.57.91 ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
STRONG Support Taiwan is a break-away separatist province, and even in the most benevolent stance towards it it would be inappropriate to dub it China regarding the amount of its territory. I am obliged to agree with 71.237.70.49 above about (most, luckily not all) Westerners being supercilious about PRC and embracing Taiwan. Taiwan was ousted, expelled from the ONU in 1971, when the PRC acquired its rightful place, it is time for it to acquire it here too and I am a staunch proponent thereof! Bogorm ( talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Regardless of political leanings, the fact is when anyone thinks of China, they do not think of Taiwan, they think of mainland and Beijing. In respect for everyone who thinks that Taiwan is not part of the PRC, that is fine. But even then, they are calling for TAIWAN as an independent nation, and not to be a new seat for the nation of China. I do not see any parallel to this situation and that of Ireland, for the reasons stated above, and I strongly support. (
Majin Takeru (
talk) 00:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
Support IMO, I think most Wikipedia editors to the China articles should be politicians. Their strong concern for "political correctness" seems to have deluded their minds into neglecting their primary job as a Wikipedian: to help make a Wikipedia article more user friendly to the general readers, which in most cases...means less politics. The truth is, dear fellow Wikipedians, unlike many of you, many people in the rest of the world simply do not give a damn about the childish PRC/ROC rivalries. They might have read it somewhere in the news these days, but I really don't think you should bother them or patronize them by teaching the whole PRC/ROC conflict everytime they had an innocent search of "China" on Wikipedia. Instead, why not combine the China article with the PRC one while providing a brief but comprehensive subsections on preceding Chinese dynasties as well as the Nationalist KMT rule up to 1949 (after which they deserve their own separate article as "Republic of China on Taiwan"). Some editors mentioned and compared China to Ireland. This is a horrible comparison because at the very least their distinction (Republic of Ireland vs. Northern Ireland) is clear as glass and universally recognized even by the people living on the island. PRC/ROC difference however is more murky and subject to nationalist feelings which is why this problem happened in the first place. I don't know what will be the outcome of this proposal. It sounded dead and has always been since the same proposal appeared periodically for 4 years running now (as soon as the PRC article is separated from the original unified China article). Good luck and have fun debating meaningless ideological differences. -- Heilme ( talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Support When people want to know about China they want to know about the country. Even if the countries PROC and ROC are different, most people think of PROC when they think of China. Therefore, we should have PROC, (Which China redirects to), ROC, and Dynastic China (for covering China before the last emperor). We can put this text at the top: "This article discusses the People's Republic of China. To find out about the history of China, go to Dynastic China. To find out about the island China, go to the Republic of China." We can put similar statements on all three pages. Zzez1919 ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The rendering of the font in the infobox with the text People's Republic of China looks a bit off—isn't it possible to render it like Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó? - Lasse Havelund ( p) ( t) 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has changed the Infobox map so that it now shows Taiwan and Chinese claims in India as a part of the People's Republic of China. Once again it is not Wikipedia's place to state whether a claim is legitimate and these claimed lands are not currently a part of the People's Republic of China. An Infobox map should simply display where the country's boundaries are, not where that country would like its boundaries to be, that is for the politics section on an article. Once one country Infobox map starts colouring all its claimed territories so will all the others, and so will all territories that claim to be an independent state. It is not hard to see what massive edit warring could errupt over articles such as Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Serbia/Kosovo, not to mention the potential for China/Taiwan/Tibet edit warring on China related articles. That is why all country Infoboxes should all follow the rule that they only display where that country's current boundaries are, not where it would like them to be. Most country articles follow this rule. Besides, how does Wikipedia maintain a neutral point of view policy when individual articles are supporting differing political views? This map clearly breaks the NPOV Wikipedia policy. An encyclopaedia should be simply stating the facts, not acting as a propaganda tool for certain political views otherwise Wikipedia is no different than any Chinese state controlled media. Signsolid ( talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The map should show China's borders under international law. No more, no less. perfectblue ( talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You can check out the "India" item, there're also claimed lands showed. Same thing happened to "Argentina". If anyone want to change this one, he should change other maps too. Derekjoe ( talk) 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Derekjoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekjoe ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the merge tag, the debate was closed on the 18th of May. - perfectblue ( talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at those citations claiming China is majority Buddhists. Having lived in China for the majority of my life I for one must speak against this notion mistaken for fact. Most Chinese adhere to a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, and other folk religions, and do not have specific religious affiliations. In the United States, you can easily make religion into a statistic by simply counting baptized individuals. You cannot do this in China. Even official Buddhists are hard to pinpoint a number on. Taoists being 30% of the entire population? That is ridiculous. I have not met a single person this lifetime that claimed to be officially Taoist. Most urban population in China is officially atheist with some superstitious folk beliefs that kick in once in a while.
The section must be completely re-written. Colipon+( T) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How did rugby and golf get mentioned? Golf, at least, has a very small following among wealthy people in the city, but in 6 years of living in China I never once saw Rugby on local TV nor, despite playing it myself, did I see a Chinese person play it. Surely tennis is more popular than both these sports. Perhaps I was just sheltered (China is a big place, after all), but do we have any citation for Chinese people playing rugby in China? LedRush ( talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When I was in China I saw soccer, basket ball, ping pong, tennis, badminton, wushu and various track and field sports being participated in... never rugby. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Socialist Republic? more like capitalist one party state although other socialist states had a one party system too. 141.155.142.146 ( talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can add more than one, can't we? Since, countries can have more than one type of government, for example, Canada, its three types are federal, constitutional monarchy and representative democracy. And PRC IS undoubtedly capitalist, not communist. Being Chinese, I can say that, since I've also been there, it's actually quite sad that China's capitalist... but what can you do... I'm not sure, but could a country be both socialist and capitalist... Hmm... If it can, then add Capitalist as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosfan4ever ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My friends, let us introduce some logic into our discussion around whether or not to call China a 'socialist republic.' ReignMan, your comparison to the Democratic Republic of the Congo is bad logic. The "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is a noun. In the context it appears in the PRC entry, "socialist republic" is not used as a noun, but as adjectives, in this case modifying the noun "PRC". The difference is significant. As ReignMan points out "Names are never to be taken as fact." That is often true in the case of nouns, but not in the case of adverbs. Also, ReignMan seems to want to offer his own definition of the word "socialist". Correct me if I am wrong, but should we not try to use definitions that are more or less agreed upon? So rather than abiding by ReignMan's definition of the word socialist, should we not have a look at what the word really means? Would most people agree that "socialism" is "a hybrid term used to describe someone in between, for instance, the Cello..." or should we go by the dictionary definition? Also, what does "socialism with Chinese characteristics" mean? I am fat. Does it mean I can be accurately described as "thin with my own special characteristics?" I guess I could call myself think with my own special characteristics. BUT, if I announce to other people that I am thin without referring to my definition, I may be in for a healthy dose of ridicule. So please, we can argue about a lot of things, but let's try to resolve the issues that can easily be resolved using the objective laws of reasoning. Song2008yu ( talk) 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
--
204.126.132.34 (
talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The government is certainly not a republic, nor is it socialist. Communist dictatorship with capitalistic elements is more accurate.
Latest minor edit, tried to shuffle the the first paragraphs so it mentions the current political system last. Messed it up the to the point that paragraph went under the TOC. Can somebody fix it? Roswell Crash Survivor ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple resources I think you should consider adding to the external links section. They are from a site that provides and extensive library of English language online videos about China. The below are just a few suggestions where the site ties in nicely with existing external links.
For overviews/studies section (it ties in nicely with Danwei.org) China Video Online
For documentaries Living in China Documentaries
For Travel/Maps Virtual China Tour Guide and Map
Chinaontv ( talk) 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Thalia K
Can we have a better GNU-compatible photograph than "plainfantry.jpg"? It is hardly informative. Wouldn't one of those Xinhua press-release photos taken during a 1st of October parade be a better image? Always a ballistic missile on one of those parades. I'm going to make the change and see if anyone objects.
- Roswell Crash Survivor ( talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Roswell Crash Survivor ( talk) 05:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to add an external link to China's energy profile/statistics from the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics of the U.S. Government). I feel this is an appropriate link considering how crucial energy is to the development of China and current energy concerns. I might want to add some energy content under the economy section as well. Any thoughts or concerns?
ARUenergy ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Many people are interested in China because of the economic trading relationship with the United States. Thus, I suggest that a link to the China Business Information Center < http://www.export.gov/china/> be added to the list of links. Currently, there are no links to US government sites on the People's Republic of China links list. Perhaps a link to < http://www.export.gov/china/> could be added to the government links.
Rollbison ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) June 24, 2008
Is this document located anywhere else? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.206.49 ( talk) 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to hit shift to sign my previous post 68.57.206.49 ( talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this sentence necessary on this article with the title " People's Republic of China". I understand that if a user types "China", the user will be redirected to the general article on China. If "Republic of China" is entered, that could possibly warrant the need for a "Not to be confused with the People's Republic of China." warning on the page Republic of China. But if the only way to arrive at this page is if "People's Republic of China" in its entirety is typed (and since there is already a redirect warning for the PRC abbreviation), I don't see how a user could arrive at this page without typing the full "People's Republic of China". Why would the sentence "Not to be confused with the Republic of China." be needed here then? Thanks! -- Shibo77 ( talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
To indicate that it and the ROC are not the same thing - something that people should be aware of whereever they are coming from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.101.129 ( talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have restored some paragraphs back due to vandalism from users like New haven86 and Onetwo1. thanks Buddha24 ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
" Falun Gong, now severely persecuted in China, had 50-70 million practitioners in 1998 according to the Sports Administration. [1] As there are no membership lists, current global numbers are unknown." has been removed due to the source being Epoch Times, which claims that the "Sports Administration" claims there to be 50-70 million, all verifiable sources stated, at most 2 million. If 50-70 is to remain, then a citation from the original source should not be too difficult to come by. Laomei ( talk) 11:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/042799china-protest-leader.html -- reinstating with this source.-- Asdfg 12345 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, removing this. If this is a government claim, cite a government source, webarchive goes back far enough if it is legitimate, this is using second hand information for a very specific claim which should be easy to correctly source if true. However, personally I am finding much inconsistency in the claim.
Which is it? The Administration, the Police or the Ministry? Find an original source please, the FLG-linked sites cannot even agree on the numbers or the source.
The second edit which was put back in, once again, mentions nothing about Falun Gong in its references and will likewise be removed once more. Laomei ( talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
i don't get it. NYT says the CCP says that's the figure. We can quote that. there's no question here. (the other one i find almost as odd--there are thousands of references that say Falun Gong is repressed in China. I can find one from US State, where they also talk about censorship, in three seconds)-- Asdfg 12345 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
NYT is using a number and claiming a source which is disputed, you can either cut your loses and walk from this one, find an archived original source, or I will be adding in all the claimed sources and various numbers to this article as well as all other articles making this claim which makes a mockery of the claim as you well know it will. Stop pressing your blatant agenda here, or there will be an arbitration request. FYI, I have already located 3 copies of what was claimed and it is 2 million according to pre-ban state media, find the source yourself and feel free to use it, nothing else will be accepted.
The following
is the claim being made equating the Tiananmen Square protest of 6/4 with Falun Gong. The sources cited makes no such claims. Laomei ( talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The NYT is relying on the claim on Li Hongzhi. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0211/sr.china3.falungong.html
But, let's make it interesting. Here's a critical source, as critcal as you can get and still stay semi-legit. Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/1999/09/08/1308 BOTH numbers go in now, as promised —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomei ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict not noticed for 10 minutes] Just seeing this now. The version I restored gives three figures: the original one made by the Sports Administration, the one claimed by Falun Gong, and the post-persecution figure claimed by the CCP. This isn't the place to get into the "cult status" or not of Falun Gong, that's another field. I'm not aware of a citation for 20 or 150 million. These are the main numbers I'm aware of, they represent three distinct claims, and finally it says that numbers are actually unknown. I may not fully understand your view, Laomei, about why the revised version you are supporting is more appropriate. I also think LedRush may not understand. I guess maybe we could flesh that out on the talk page.-- Asdfg 12345 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to Laomei's latest comment: I still don't understand a few things. The article now cites three distinct claims made by key parties, and two of them are claimed to be from an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. There are other sources which say that the figure was changed from 70 million to 2 million in an effort to downplay Falun Gong's significance in Chinese society--but we should not have that in this article, I don't think, because this isn't the place for it. I don't know where all those other figures come from (20, 60, 130?). I think if it just documents these three central ones and says that the numbers are actually unknown, then wikipedia is doing what it should. I don't believe we need to dispute the methods of the NYT in making the claim about the CCP, nor a Chinese speaking administrator to find the original citation or translate source documents. I think we do need more editors to come and take a look at this though.-- Asdfg 12345 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Then here we go, I am adding all sources of numbers to any and all claims on all pages Laomei ( talk) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Back to the Epoch Times link again eh? Thought this was settled. It seems funny that you are determined to get that link onto this page. It's not a credible media source and will be removed (again)
Laomei (
talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why this verifiable news source (Epoch Times) is not reliable under wiki-guidelines. LedRush ( talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Tons of fake and made up stories for one, and it was founded, funded and run by Falun Gong... it has about as much credibility as a tabloid. Laomei ( talk) 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, Falun Gong is not a religion and they are on record claiming it is not a religion. What is it even doing in the "religion" section? Non-response to this counts as consensus by the way. Laomei ( talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
some say it's a religion some say it isn't. There doesn't seem any other obvious place to put this piece of information. Why not just leave it?-- Asdfg 12345 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source, a Falun Gong one as well: http://dawn.thot.net/fofg/whatis.html Q1: Is Falun Gong a religion? A: Falun Gong is not a religion. Li Hongzhi himself says it is not a religion http://www.newstatesman.com/200307140014 As for Master Li, his message is available in a torrent of video- and audiotapes, websites and books. He continues to preach that there are aliens on earth, that he is a being from a higher level and that his followers can develop X-ray vision. Falun Gong, he says, is not a religion - and indeed, it lacks the rituals that conventional religions feel required to provide.
Followers say it is not a religion http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/china/falun_gong.html Falun Gong, which translates to wheel of law, borrows from Buddhist and Taoist traditions. But follower and Canadian spokesperson for the group, Joel Chipkar, says it is not a religion, but a spiritual discipline that can improve physical and mental health.
Not my opinion at all here, it does not belong in the religion section period, for it is in fact not one. Laomei ( talk) 20:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I find comments such as "This is not a debate, nor is it up for debate" quite troubling. I agree in the sense that we should not be fiercely arguing against each other, but instead freely exchanging ideas, but I don't think that's what you are pointing towards with that remark. Please simply check the Falun Gong main page for a few sources which identify Falun Gong as a religion, or as religious. And you should know that, traditionally, the idea of what is religion and what isn't in Chinese history is not always clear-cut. Again, why not simply stop this storm in a teacup ?-- Asdfg 12345 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This is article is so full of unnecessary information and jargon, it makes me laugh every time I read it. Nissanaltima ( talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed other pages like Switzerland and France have a motto, but none for PRC. Should it be listed, but just be blank? Legaia ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no state Motto(and flower, bird...) for China.-- 刻意 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Agriculture is mentioned once in the article. Once.
How do 1.3 billion people feed themselves?
I know in 1909 an American agronomist named FH King toured China and the Orient; wrote a book Farmers of Fourty Centuries.
Elementalwarrior ( talk) 14:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"Currently China is one of five remaining communist states, along with Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cuba."
The above sentence has been deleted twice in the last day. While I know that technically no country would be considered Communist, isn't there wide enough agreement that certain countries that espouse socialist causes and are led by a Communist party are "Communist". I feel that we shouldn't let semantics get in the way of providing accurate and useful information. Any contrasting thoughts welcome. LedRush ( talk) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Kontoenmin ( talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, with regard to this, I deleted the sentence above but then I replaced that with the new phrase in the first paragraph of the introduction with "...It is ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...". I think that this is much clearer than simply mentioning China is a communist nation because right now China is neither 100% communist economically (it operates on a capitalist model) or socially (it has unequal income distribution). China is a socialist state. That's what the 1982 PRC Constitution Article number 1 states. Socialism is actually somewhere between communism and capitalism, so that fits China perfectly. Socialist economic model also can refer to relatively free market model but one that is eventually controlled by the state, as is the case in China, where big corporations are state-owned. Not communist because wages/incomes are not state-directed. Mentioning Laos, N Korea, Cuba and so on is irrelevant - it's a Chinese article. Heilme ( talk) 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to play with cites, I can do that too: Why China is No Longer a Communist Country, China's Communist Party - different in all but its name. Something about you LedRush that I don't understand is, if you want to say that China is ruled by the Communist Party under one party system, why not just write that? "Communism" means politics, economics, and social structures. 2 out of these 3 in China are definitely nothing to do with "Communism". Please think!! Heilme ( talk) 19:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though there was no consensus to remove this sentence from the lede, and even though the article is probably less accessible because of the change, in the spirit of compromise I will back of my position that the sentence should be in the lede and insert it in the politics sections. Hopefully this can keep everyone happy. LedRush ( talk) 16:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made this, is it OK to put on the main page. Can people help me with fact check etc? [url] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Chinese_political_system.jpg[/url] Kontoenmin ( talk) 18:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do the formatting, but the way the front page looks now is unacceptable. It looks completely blank (or like it's loading) as there dozens (if not hundreds) of blank lines between the title and the first text. Can someone please change this quickly, (or I'll revert the most recent changes and see if that helps). LedRush ( talk)
Why is Beijing ahead of Shenzhen when Shenzhen has a larger population? Zazaban ( talk) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that it has been discussed before, but the size of China is disputed. [2] So it relly shouldnt be listed as the third largest, as the United States page states that it is the third or fourth largest in size. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onopearls ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
China have World 2nd Largest Amphibious fleet They can Transport 400 Tanks by one Voyage Equal Trasportation Capacity of US PAC amphibious fleet Twice as much as Russia (TWNTotal1000Tanks/Japan900>600Tanks) But this article say "China only have LIMITED POWER PROJECTION AVILITY" I think it is awful under-estimation How's your opinion? guys-- Jack330 ( talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the recent change to the article which replaces the terms "fast growing economy" with "fastest growing". I can't find in the citations provided the support for this statement, and even if someone does find one, I doubt we can conclusively find the parameters to define fastest: fastest in the last year? 4 Years? 27.3 years? I feel the language "among the fastest is good enough to get the message across, is supportable by citations, and avoids unnecessary controversy and possible peacock language issues. LedRush ( talk) 01:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1 Azerbaijan 23.40 2007 est. 2 Bhutan 22.40 2007 est. 3 Timor-Leste 19.80 2007 est. 4 Angola 16.70 2007 est. 5 Macau 16.60 2006 Macau is a SAR of the PRC 6 Armenia 13.70 2007 est. 7 Equatorial Guinea 12.40 2007 est. 8 Georgia 12.00 2007 est. 9 China 11.90 2007 est.
As you can see, of the 7 recognized states that grew faster than China last year, all are not powers (not even middle powers) by any definition of the term. Therefore, there is really no argument to contest. Economics dictates that the larger the economy, the harder is it for it to grow at rapid rates, which makes China really remarkable in the context of rapid, sustained economic growth over the past 30 years. In fact, I'm not sure if you are aware but this has never been seen in human history before. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, we could just put in both pieces of information: China is the world's eighth fastest growing economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP growth, and the fastest in the world among major economies." By providing both we do a couple of positive things:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rapidly+aging+China&start=0&sa=N
Here is a google search with over 70 citations that could be used for the article (though the current one is reliable and verifiable, and therefore can be used). There are probably a lot more, but I stopped counting. I have never seen a source to dispute that China's population is rapidly growing, and frankly I'm surprised anyone has a problem with language. LedRush ( talk) 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
全世界只有一个中国 这网站上面有个中华民国是什么意思
建议取消 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.232.87.244 ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
GDP numbers on the top right hand column are given a 7,346 trillions of US dollars. It should be 7,346 billions of US dollars or US$7.3 trillions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.199.115 ( talk) 11:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use the word trillion since it can (and will) be misunderstood. In this article is is meant to be 10 to the power of 9 (US notation/"short form"), but in most countries it means 10 to the power of 12 ("long form"). Please use scientific notation instead. Example: USD 7.3 * 10 9 or USD 7.3E9.
78.108.52.23 ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) /Magmatrix 2008-12-29 02:00 CET
Actually, 1012 is a short trillion. The long form trillion is 1018. 1012 is a long form biillion. Ngchen ( talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here.-- pyl ( talk) 05:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Since this has already been gone over so many times, and the current version until now stable for months, I think it would just be simplest if PCPP explained why this edit [1] is an improvement. PCPP, in your response, please be sure to thoroughly address these two key points:
Please be clear. Thanks.-- Asdfg 12345 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
1) Your characterizations are irrelevant. FLG is one of the new religious movements founded in the 20th century, and should be introduced as such. Just because some pro-FLG material you dug out says so doesn't make it factual to wikipedia. 2) The "persecution" material is nosensial FLG propaganda largely used by FLG groups, and the cult nature of FLg has already been used long before the ban. There is no set definition of the extend of FLG's repression, and whatever FLG and its supporters think doesn't mean wikipedia should endorse one view over others.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please present reliable sources to back up your point of view, or I will be justified in simply reverting. Your opinions are of no consequence, only the sources you can bring to bear on this subject. Labelling sources which present a viewpoint that make you feel uncomfortable or disagree with as "pro-FLG" is meaningless. Their independence is not related to your feelings on the subject. I have 1) presented a source which shows the importance of Falun Gong in recent Chinese history, 2) here is something from a non-Falun Gong related source which makes my second point: “It was Mr. Jiang who ordered that Falun Gong be branded a ‘cult,’ and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults.” (Washington Post, November 9, 1999) -- okay? Please provide sources, your opinions are not relevant.-- Asdfg 12345 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'm getting sick of you and your FLG buddies hiding propagandic edits under the guise of consensus.--
PCPP (
talk) 05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for the last comments, but I think that the particular paragraph should be worded as "banned", as it avoids a endorsing a particular POV and introduces the situation clearly to readers without going too deeply into the subject. Regardless of outside uses, WP guidlines states that endorsing particular viewpoints should be avoided. According to WP:Title#Controversial names "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion."-- PCPP ( talk) 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, PCPP, when people are jailed and tortured to death, it is a persecution. Human rights organisations, journalists, the United Nations, the US State Department, etc., all testify to this fact. The word "banned" is not a neutral word. It is the word of choice by the Chinese Communist Party, used to hide the persecution. If Falun Gong was only banned in China, there would not be so much fuss. It is the beatings, electric batons, mass-arrests, labor camps, gang rape, etc., that is at question, not merely some abstract legal status. I'm going to copy some lines here from Edelman and Richardson's analysis of the CCP's apparent "ban" of Falun Gong. Please note, they are considered a reliable source on this topic. The Chinese Communist Party is not considered a reliable source on this topic. I'm simply going to copy a number of passages from it here. I'll put them in the 'hide' box, so you can click to view them. Source: Edelman, Bryan and Richardson, James. “Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 2003, Vol. 6:2, pp. 312-31.
This, at the very least, shows that the legal basis for the decision is quite unsound. My purpose is presenting all this here is to make very clear from yet another angle that the term 'banned' is not some middle-ground, and certainly not a neutral term. It's the Communist party's term, not the term of reliable sources.
“In 1999 the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) labeled Falun Gong an ‘evil cult’ and began a campaign to eliminate the qigong movement of which it was a part” (312).
“Criticism of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) actions and the crackdown will not be based on Western standards of democracy and law, bit on concepts of government and justice formulated by the CCP and put forth in Party documents, the CCP constitution, and the PRC Constitution (313).”
“The People’s Republic of China is not adhering to the principles laid down in its own official documents that would seem to allow its citizens freedom of association, speech, and religion, as laid down in its official documents…” (313)
“Unlike the West, where law is usually seen as a constraint on the power of the state, the PRC views law as a means to maintain stability, regulate society, protect the interests of Communist ruling class, and strengthen and enforce the government’s authority” (314).
“The ruling Communist elite may use laws to enforce its policies, but the elite class itself is not easily constrained by law. This reflects a system known as the rule by law…The rule by law enables the power holders to use law enforcement to exert social control over the populace” (314).
“…the decisions concerning Falun Gong seem to have been made hastily and without acting within official guidelines” (315).
“Coupled with the State Council’s ban on the Falun Dafa organization in July, the regulations and Internet ban seem to contradict several rights guaranteed in the PRC Constitution, including citizens’ rights to enjoy freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration protected under Article 35” (319-20).
“It is the responsibility of the NPC Standing Committee to negate any legislation that is not in accordance with the constitution. However, due to Party/state overlap, coupled with the apparent adherence to Party policy doctrine described herein, the negation of such legislation on constitutional grounds ins quite unlikely” (320).
“The statements made by Ambassador Qiao and the PRC delegation run counter to the crackdown taking place in the PRC” (326). [Regarding a press briefing on March 21, 2000 in which Qiao said that the PRC practices toward Falun Gong are in accordance with those of all governments regarding cults, and that the PRC follows the rule of law] “…the Party and government’s response to the Falun Gong movement violates citizens’ right to a legal defense, freedom of religion, speech and assembly enshrined in the Constitution and treaties to which the PRC is a party” (326).
“The recent treatment of Falun Gong practitioners clearly demonstrates that the PRC is not yet willing to recognize the individual rights of its citizens…If the harsh reaction to Falun Gong, and the anticult legislation passed over the last few years is any indications, the Party will do whatever is necessary to crush any perceived threat to its supreme control. This represents a move away from the rule of law and toward this historical Mao policy of ‘rule by man.’” (326)
“…the Party stands to lose the very legitimacy it is fighting to protect. If the Party oppresses a large portion of the working class, it is clearly no longer the ‘party of the people.’” (327)
-- Asdfg 12345 10:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I won't be able to respond in more detail until I have a chance to read through the rest of this discussion later, but in the meantime, my stance (the same as what I said at a recent discussion on this same topic at Talk:The Epoch Times is that we should go with the wording that's most neutral and easiest to verify in the books. Now, I'm not an expert on the current situation of FLG and all that's going on with that, but I do know that a legal policy is a black-and-white thing—is there a law in the books, or isn't there—that can be verified and agreed upon. We may disagree on how the law should be interpreted, or on what "banned" means, but a word like "outlawed" should be relatively clear-cut: is there a law against FLG, or isn't there?
"Persecuted," on the other hand, opens up a whole can of worms. You and I both agree that the group is persecuted, but nevertheless, the term is open to a lot more interpretation, and where something is open to interpretation that means editors will interpret it different ways and there will be edit warring. The word "persecuted" is pretty much inviting nationalist editors to come on and yell at us about how all the reports come from Epoch Times and Clearwisdom & co., or about how FLG is evil anyway, or yada yada...and it's something that can't be measured as easily. "Persecuted" can't be defined as clearly as "outlawed," especially when a large portion of editors here believe that the reports of persecution are falsified anyway. I think "outlawed" is just a much safer way to go, especially if it's a matter of a single sentence where you have to say that; the persecution issue really deserves a whole section so we can address it and talk about what people think about it, etc., whereas if you want to wrap the whole situation up in a couple words I think it's better to go with "an outlawed group" rather than "a persecuted group." — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Life is full of such quirks, wiki's no exception. Anyway, another case closed. Well done. *dusts off hands* -- Asdfg 12345 13:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Worth noting that there is no definite term defining the ban of FLG. Amnesty has used the terms "outlawed", "intimidation", "persecution", "crackdown" pretty much interchangebly in a recent report. [10] Rewrote the phrase somewhere along the lines of "the crackdown is considered religious persecution by several human rights groups"-- PCPP ( talk) 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Persucuted" is obviously not neutral in its point of view. I think there can be no doubt about that. Sources bring nothing to bear on a NPOV comment, in my opinion (lest we start citing Mein Kampf on the persecution of the aryan race by the jews). It should be noted that "outlawed" is a excercise of jurisdiction of a sovereign nation, whilst "persucuted" in the context of religion is a violation of human rights, much akin to violation of the laws of war (e.g. a "war crime"). However, nothing can be done in this article about the title of another article (or should; it should be dealt with in the other article) so use of "persecution" in the context of an article title must stand.
I therefore say we leave as it stands as of LedRush's . And I say we just remove that nasty "NPOV" thing at the top. Ugh. Int21h ( talk) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, under the picture of China's flag, the link should be fixed so that it goes to flag of the People's Republic of China, instead of flag of China. 70.108.159.148 ( talk) 16:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I put the Forms of Government template on the article. Arilang talk 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof that this is happening? I don't doubt the Qipao, but I've never seen a Hanfu worn not related to a stage or costume party. LedRush ( talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Replying to Ledrush
There are drama/television shows of people dressing in Hanfu which is their old tradtional clothing. There are huge surge of web forum dicussing on hanfu in chinese mainland. please if you go check forum like baidu or tianya . if u don't know chinese i can see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennlin ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
To Balthazarduju
i don't think every country should ave the same structure okay? take a look at japan korea and others. they include somethings that doesn't belong there consider by people like you. why can't i put traditional hanfu under the culture section huh? i will stay by my position. That section only exaplains the reemergence not going in detail of how it look and it's significance.
s.Korea even have things about Kpop online games and drama in the main section Japan wrote about jpop and geisha.......SHOULD THEY BE ALL REMOVE ???
Should public health and sport and recreation sections be in the main section too if there is a huge sub section of it?
If you keep doing this i will fight till the end
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lennlin (
talk •
contribs) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The section about Hanfu and Qipao added by Lennlin under the Culture is not fitting for a main summary article about a country. This section added by Lennlin is specifically about clothing, and it is very long, grammatically messy and not very well-written, thus ill-fitting for a summary article which its individual sections should be concise, clear and well structured. The section added by Lennlin, are also mainly the same contents that this user copy-pasted from several other articles ( Han Chinese clothing and Qipao), thus it is simply repeating the same information here. No country/nation articles on Wikipedia has a major and overly-long section that solely talks about the popular clothing, this article shouldn't make any exception. Remember, this is summary article, thus its Culture section should only have a well-written and relatively brief general introduction to Chinese culture.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. The infobox says that China is on UTC+8, but also says "DST not observed UTC+9". If it's not observed, then why is it even mentioned? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a "ruling party" section on the side panel? There is none for Russia or United States. HanBoN ( talk) 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes , i agree we should remove this ruling party section and the world governement template. it's not use and just takes up space. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.199.99.9 (
talk) 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should remove the "Forms of government" template on the side because it's taking up too much space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.99.9 ( talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In the article, it's acknowledged that the state is popularly called "China". However, the article uses the acronym PRC in place of "China" quite a bit, and in at least a couple places it's a bit awkward. Might I propose some sort of uniform editorial guideline for the article be decided upon? Your thoughts+opinion would be greatly appreciated. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cybercobra, I appreciate your effort, I am not sure if u r familiar with the complicated issue u have got yourself into, but I don't think we will ever able to form a clear guideline. Let’s me explain why PRC and ROC are always the preferable term especially in modern articles.
Now let’s look at this situation objectively and logically. Let’s begin with the rule constantly stressed by PRC, that the island Taiwan is a undividable part of China, therefore: China=Mainland+Taiwan This would be easy if both mainland and Taiwan is under the same government, but unfortunately it is not. Mainland=PRC while Taiwan=ROC
If China=Mainland+Taiwan, PRC can’t logically call himself China because it has not gain control of the entire China (Mainland+Taiwan). Strictly speaking, PRC has (large) parts of China while ROC has (small) part of China. Only those who is under the influence of PRC’s propaganda would tell you China=PRC, the Chinese Communists have been doing this for years.
Now PRC use its military might, economy power, trading opportunities to force other countries to overlook this little glitch of logic, that despite PRC on one hand keep saying China=Mainland+Taiwan while on the other hand it does not actually has complete control over “Mainland+Taiwan”, but PRC still wants to be called China anyway.
If China=Mainland, this could actually work logically if PRC now change the definition of “China” to China=Mainland, and since PRC really has complete actual control of Mainland, this is perfectly logically acceptable. i.e. If China = Mainland, and Mainland belongs to PRC, then PRC = China. But PRC oppose this view theself because if Taiwan is removed from the formula, Taiwan would easily become a “Republic of Taiwan” and PRC will lose the chance of including Taiwan as their territory in their future. Cybercobra and SchmuckyTheCat suggested PRC=China, this logically exclude Taiwan from the formula of “China=Mainland+Taiwan” , and logically portray “China=Mainland only”, this has been furiously refused by PRC itself. So it wouldn’t work if logic is still a priority here.
PRC’s definition of what is China is logically self-contradictory, that’s why we have to be precise and use the terms of PRC and ROC, and avoid using the term “China” because we haven’t got general consensus about whether China includes Taiwan or not. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 04:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Consider the following:
substitute PRC & ROC into the formula, we will get:
How could China=PRC be possibe?! -- Da Vynci ( talk) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Closed RfC - Results inconclusive, no consensus either way -- Cybercobra ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have issues with this part of the opening paragraph:-
The mainland (inland) part of the PRC uses the socialist system, but the SARs of the PRC use the capitalist system. I don't think the above is a correct statement. It needs rewording, but I can't think of anything good at the moment. I will remove the word "socialist" for now. Any suggestions are welcome.-- pyl ( talk) 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this statement is 1) crystal ball, 2) irrelevant in providing encyclopedic information about the PRC, 3) I can also find similar articles claiming the opposite - that China will soon implode due to social unrests. In other words, don't put in statements that are not a consensus. - Heilme ( talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Definitely a more acceptable format, but still, I wonder why it has to be mentioned at all - whether China will go up or down in the future. Should we put scholars debate on China's future on this PRC article? Future, by the way, should not be in the history section, right? - Heilme ( talk) 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Though reluctantly as I am, if the word "superpower" really matters that much to the PRC article, then by all means incorporate it in the Politics section, more fittingly in the Foreign relations sub-section. In fact, the last paragraph of the Foreign relations sub-section already makes a good lead into this superpower concept. Heilme ( talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Hi! Could someone explain to me the "Article guidelines" rule #1 which states that traditional characters shouldn't be removed because they are official in Hong Kong and Macao? But, they are provincial-level divisions of the country, they are not official at the national-level. Similarly I could argue that Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, Zhuang, Portuguese, and English are official languages at the provincial-level, but why aren't the country's name in the aforementioned languages shown at the top of the infobox? In my opinion, only the simplified Chinese should be shown at the top of the infobox, other official languages at the provincial-level should be moved to the body of the article. Rule #2 cites the Manual of Style which pertains only to the body of the article (specifically the introductory sentence), which should have the simplified and traditional shown one after the other, and needs no change. Thanks! -- Shibo77 ( talk) 04:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are some examples:
|
— ASDFGH =] talk? 01:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean like this it looks good. — ASDFGH =] talk? 06:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
|
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The USSR was seen as a country, but it was made up of Republics who had their own represenatitives, etc. A union of countries. Is China comprised of several regions who have representatives/presidents? Or has China always been unitary?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.53.98 ( talk) 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The People's Republic of China is one country, but it has "provinces" or "states" like the United States. They have a parliament in which member "provinces" send members to the national government, just like the US Congress. Be careful when you say "China" though, it might get confused with Chinese Taipei, more commonly known as "Taiwan". 71.191.62.253 ( talk) 00:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Cui Jian's new concert photo replaced an old one for 2 reasons: 1. To show modern Chinese rock'n'roll concert, Cui Jian's band performance is undoubtedly the most appropriate. 2. The background of the replaced photo displayed concert sponsor's commercial products logo, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's philosophy of commercial products neutrality. -- New haven86 ( talk) 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know the term "Red China' has fallen out of usage, but Wikipedia is about information, and I think it appropriate to include names by which a country was formerly identified, even if they are no longer identified by such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
not Red china. Kontoenmin ( talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As a Chinese, I don't identifiy myself a "Red China" citizen. Use this kind of Cold War term is very childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say that using the term "Red China" is childish? In order for you to make such a statement, wouldn't you have to have some kind of knowledge about the motivations for why the person in question made such a statement in the first place? In other words, how do you know that the use of this word in this context, by this specific user, is childish? Also, the fact that you don't identify yourself as a citizen of "Red China" does not mean anything unless we are writing an entry about you and your emotional life. The real question here is if the term "Red China" (a term that was indeed used in the past) should be included in the article or not. As pointed out above, "Red China" is not, I repeat NOT a pejorative noun. (This does not mean that it can't be used in a pejorative context.) So let's remove the chips from our shoulders and discuss this in a logical manner, not making wild assumptions about other people's assumptions for saying this or that. Besides, anybody who is Chinese or know a bit of Chinese history will know that the term "red" was something very positive in China. Song2008yu ( talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
y not create a new topic and list it as a related topic.-- Classic91 ( talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia has no political or ideological stances, but wouldn't it be prudent to add something about china's history of Human Rights violations, exspecialy with the olypic torch protests in the news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.14.59 ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have re-worded the current section. It missed an important point that the Constitution does not afford protection to anyone accused of criminal activity. Also I changed the bit about when censorship occurs because we need to say that it's happening because the ruling authorities are challenged. To say that it is because the gov is concerned over "security" is to just repeat their position. Let's be honest and say why it happens.
Other changes are simplifications or other small points. Comments are welcomed. John Smith's ( talk) 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
各位,I will rename this page to the China page, similar to India and Republic of India, later on we can move stuff in "Chinese Civilization" back to China.-- Singaga ( talk) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
各位网友,I will make the changes tomorrow,如有问题,请提出。反華份子就滾屎好了。-- Singaga ( talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
请注意, article and discussion will be moved altogether. -- Singaga ( talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Singaga!!! Why are you making us Chinese loose face by making such a comment as above!!! Please show some respect. Wikipedia is a wonderful project where people off all races and all opinions can build something valuable and free for all. Why do you want to soil it?
Song2008yu (
talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
will be changed to
-- Singaga ( talk) 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This change is similar to India/Republic Of India. -- Singaga ( talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed this merger to try and eliminate disputes over the terms for China, and improve information given by Wikipedia to a 'typical' user who types in 'China'.
I think it is quite possible to create a full, balanced, NPOV article which contains a clear explanation of ROC and PRC, whilst providing all other essential details about the country.
The merged document may well be too large, and require subsections.
I have no interest or opinions regarding Chinese politics; I merely want to improve the experience for users of wikipedia by providing clear information on the topic of "China" - be it PRC, ROC, historic deliminations, etc.
It is my hope that, in creating a single main article, through discussion and consensus it will be possible to make a great page.
-- Chzz ► 04:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Name | Topics |
---|---|
China | Geography, Definition, Constituent nations (PRC, Taiwan), Culture and Customs |
China (Historical) | History of China, including its successive dynasties, with a cutoff point at the Qing Dynasty |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China (no change) |
Republic of China (1912) | ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan |
Republic of China | ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government) |
Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I think this isn't a problem about policy, but the articles are too long as it is, I think it's simply not practical as it is. Besides, China is more refering to the civilization, and the People's Republic of China is more like the current government. There's been lots of governments refered to as China, even in the feudal periods, there's no need to merge these articles. FromFoamsToWaves ( talk) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion is, make the current "China" redirect to "Chinese civilization" and redirect "China" to "People's Republic of China." That might be less controversial. 71.237.70.49 ( talk) 05:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While I personally agree with many of the sentiments expressed by supporters above, in the interests of being politically correct I think it's best to keep it the way it is. Splitting up info between articles on the PRC, ROC, Taiwan and China might not be easy, but given the sensitive political context, it's the most prudent option. Brutannica ( talk) 21:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. China can be used for the People's Republic, the Republic and any number of former states and regimes over the last few millennia. Having the People's Republic as the main article does not only violate NPOV but glosses over a complex historical and political progress. Dimadick ( talk) 05:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
STRONG Oppose per Arbiteroftruths argument above. "China" is like "Ireland", it's a region. PRC and ROC occupy parts of the region, as ROI and NI do in Ireland. Keeping China as a region page largely avoids a POV issue due to the two China's. - JVG ( talk) 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose First China and PRC is different. PRC refers to the self-declared Communist government, whilst China is the vast expanse of land. Think of this Taiwan is also China, would you want to merge ROC's article to here to. Of course not. For the pure sake of conveniency we have disambugations and redirects.
--
Felipe
Aira 12:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There are two Chinese nationstates, to say otherwise is POV. Lord of Light ( talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. IF MAIN LAND CHINA AND TAIWAN UNITE IN FUTURE, WE COULD EMERGE, OTHERWISE JUST LEAVE THEM THERE FOR THE MOMENT... Using "China" as it is. Synyan ( talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Per the arguments of others, inherently violates NPOV. A single article cannot cover the civilization and both states. — Lowellian ( reply) 08:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. In addition to the arguments given above, the history of a cohesive political unit known as "China" has existed since 221 BCE with Qin's empire, not 1949 CE when the PRC was established. The national identity of what it is to be "Chinese" was cemented into China's culture during the four centuries of rule by the Han Dynasty. In the past 6 decades, a completely different political identity for the governing state and China's citizenry was forged under the modern nation state of the PRC. There is also the issue of historic "China" conquering parts of northern Korea and northern Vietnam; obviously, the current PRC does not hold onto parts of northern Korea or Vietnam. This brings up the question of what are the bounds of historic "China" and how are they different today from let's say, the Tang Dynasty. Even the definition of what China proper is and how much territory is included in this definition has changed over time. Merging "China" with the "People's Republic of China" ignores not only the ROC on Taiwan and geographic issues, but also Imperial China and the mainland Republic of China from 1912 to 1949; I would say ignoring anything that vital would be a POV decision.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. There are two Chinas, whether the name China is commonly used to refer to the People's Republic of China makes no difference to the fact China split into two seperate entities in 1949 after the Chinese civil war, with the communist People's Republic of China taking control over the mainland, and the fascist Republic of China taking control over the island of Taiwan. China remains split effectively as two countries, just as Korea is. Merging the article on China with the article on the People's Republic of China would be like merging the article on Korea with the article on South Korea. People may commonly refer to South Korea as Korea but it is very misleading as it states South Korea is the sole legitimate claimant over Korea, just as refering to the People's Republic of China as China is stating the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate claimant over China. Merging the article on China and the article on the People's Republic of China does just this, and it is not Wikipedia's place to state who is the legitimate claimant over China, but to simply state the facts as they are in this long running dispute, and would be just as wrong if it did so with such disputes as the one over Korea. I feel this merger proposal has not been initiated due to people wanting to find the article on the People's Republic of China more easily, but by a desire to see Wikipedia give its seal of approval to the People's Republic of China's claim to be the sole legitimate claimant over China for the whole world to see, effectively turning Wikipedia into a mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China. I can't express enough how wrong it would be to merge these two articles on those grounds. Signsolid ( talk) 05:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose: To clarify the differences between China, PRC, and ROC is not the same "eliminating" or covering up the differences. There is a larger idea of China that is broader than PRC and ROC together or separately. Neither of these states are even 100 years old!!!! How can you cover the remaining several thousand years of cultural history with either of these very young countries? -- Tesscass ( talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Same as User:Lowellian. Per the arguments of others, inherently violates NPOV. A single article cannot cover the civilization and both states. -- Folic_Acid | talk 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral "Strongly" means absolutely nothing so please don't bother. We know your political views already just from your opposition. It is not a bad idea, however, this article in particular describes the PRC as a political entity and not its culture. I suggest adding more demographics to the main China page. Please be nice and don't turn this page into a political debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.57.91 ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
STRONG Support Taiwan is a break-away separatist province, and even in the most benevolent stance towards it it would be inappropriate to dub it China regarding the amount of its territory. I am obliged to agree with 71.237.70.49 above about (most, luckily not all) Westerners being supercilious about PRC and embracing Taiwan. Taiwan was ousted, expelled from the ONU in 1971, when the PRC acquired its rightful place, it is time for it to acquire it here too and I am a staunch proponent thereof! Bogorm ( talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Regardless of political leanings, the fact is when anyone thinks of China, they do not think of Taiwan, they think of mainland and Beijing. In respect for everyone who thinks that Taiwan is not part of the PRC, that is fine. But even then, they are calling for TAIWAN as an independent nation, and not to be a new seat for the nation of China. I do not see any parallel to this situation and that of Ireland, for the reasons stated above, and I strongly support. (
Majin Takeru (
talk) 00:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
Support IMO, I think most Wikipedia editors to the China articles should be politicians. Their strong concern for "political correctness" seems to have deluded their minds into neglecting their primary job as a Wikipedian: to help make a Wikipedia article more user friendly to the general readers, which in most cases...means less politics. The truth is, dear fellow Wikipedians, unlike many of you, many people in the rest of the world simply do not give a damn about the childish PRC/ROC rivalries. They might have read it somewhere in the news these days, but I really don't think you should bother them or patronize them by teaching the whole PRC/ROC conflict everytime they had an innocent search of "China" on Wikipedia. Instead, why not combine the China article with the PRC one while providing a brief but comprehensive subsections on preceding Chinese dynasties as well as the Nationalist KMT rule up to 1949 (after which they deserve their own separate article as "Republic of China on Taiwan"). Some editors mentioned and compared China to Ireland. This is a horrible comparison because at the very least their distinction (Republic of Ireland vs. Northern Ireland) is clear as glass and universally recognized even by the people living on the island. PRC/ROC difference however is more murky and subject to nationalist feelings which is why this problem happened in the first place. I don't know what will be the outcome of this proposal. It sounded dead and has always been since the same proposal appeared periodically for 4 years running now (as soon as the PRC article is separated from the original unified China article). Good luck and have fun debating meaningless ideological differences. -- Heilme ( talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Support When people want to know about China they want to know about the country. Even if the countries PROC and ROC are different, most people think of PROC when they think of China. Therefore, we should have PROC, (Which China redirects to), ROC, and Dynastic China (for covering China before the last emperor). We can put this text at the top: "This article discusses the People's Republic of China. To find out about the history of China, go to Dynastic China. To find out about the island China, go to the Republic of China." We can put similar statements on all three pages. Zzez1919 ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The rendering of the font in the infobox with the text People's Republic of China looks a bit off—isn't it possible to render it like Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó? - Lasse Havelund ( p) ( t) 11:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has changed the Infobox map so that it now shows Taiwan and Chinese claims in India as a part of the People's Republic of China. Once again it is not Wikipedia's place to state whether a claim is legitimate and these claimed lands are not currently a part of the People's Republic of China. An Infobox map should simply display where the country's boundaries are, not where that country would like its boundaries to be, that is for the politics section on an article. Once one country Infobox map starts colouring all its claimed territories so will all the others, and so will all territories that claim to be an independent state. It is not hard to see what massive edit warring could errupt over articles such as Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Serbia/Kosovo, not to mention the potential for China/Taiwan/Tibet edit warring on China related articles. That is why all country Infoboxes should all follow the rule that they only display where that country's current boundaries are, not where it would like them to be. Most country articles follow this rule. Besides, how does Wikipedia maintain a neutral point of view policy when individual articles are supporting differing political views? This map clearly breaks the NPOV Wikipedia policy. An encyclopaedia should be simply stating the facts, not acting as a propaganda tool for certain political views otherwise Wikipedia is no different than any Chinese state controlled media. Signsolid ( talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The map should show China's borders under international law. No more, no less. perfectblue ( talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You can check out the "India" item, there're also claimed lands showed. Same thing happened to "Argentina". If anyone want to change this one, he should change other maps too. Derekjoe ( talk) 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Derekjoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekjoe ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the merge tag, the debate was closed on the 18th of May. - perfectblue ( talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at those citations claiming China is majority Buddhists. Having lived in China for the majority of my life I for one must speak against this notion mistaken for fact. Most Chinese adhere to a mix of Buddhism, Taoism, and other folk religions, and do not have specific religious affiliations. In the United States, you can easily make religion into a statistic by simply counting baptized individuals. You cannot do this in China. Even official Buddhists are hard to pinpoint a number on. Taoists being 30% of the entire population? That is ridiculous. I have not met a single person this lifetime that claimed to be officially Taoist. Most urban population in China is officially atheist with some superstitious folk beliefs that kick in once in a while.
The section must be completely re-written. Colipon+( T) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How did rugby and golf get mentioned? Golf, at least, has a very small following among wealthy people in the city, but in 6 years of living in China I never once saw Rugby on local TV nor, despite playing it myself, did I see a Chinese person play it. Surely tennis is more popular than both these sports. Perhaps I was just sheltered (China is a big place, after all), but do we have any citation for Chinese people playing rugby in China? LedRush ( talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
When I was in China I saw soccer, basket ball, ping pong, tennis, badminton, wushu and various track and field sports being participated in... never rugby. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Socialist Republic? more like capitalist one party state although other socialist states had a one party system too. 141.155.142.146 ( talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can add more than one, can't we? Since, countries can have more than one type of government, for example, Canada, its three types are federal, constitutional monarchy and representative democracy. And PRC IS undoubtedly capitalist, not communist. Being Chinese, I can say that, since I've also been there, it's actually quite sad that China's capitalist... but what can you do... I'm not sure, but could a country be both socialist and capitalist... Hmm... If it can, then add Capitalist as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosfan4ever ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My friends, let us introduce some logic into our discussion around whether or not to call China a 'socialist republic.' ReignMan, your comparison to the Democratic Republic of the Congo is bad logic. The "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is a noun. In the context it appears in the PRC entry, "socialist republic" is not used as a noun, but as adjectives, in this case modifying the noun "PRC". The difference is significant. As ReignMan points out "Names are never to be taken as fact." That is often true in the case of nouns, but not in the case of adverbs. Also, ReignMan seems to want to offer his own definition of the word "socialist". Correct me if I am wrong, but should we not try to use definitions that are more or less agreed upon? So rather than abiding by ReignMan's definition of the word socialist, should we not have a look at what the word really means? Would most people agree that "socialism" is "a hybrid term used to describe someone in between, for instance, the Cello..." or should we go by the dictionary definition? Also, what does "socialism with Chinese characteristics" mean? I am fat. Does it mean I can be accurately described as "thin with my own special characteristics?" I guess I could call myself think with my own special characteristics. BUT, if I announce to other people that I am thin without referring to my definition, I may be in for a healthy dose of ridicule. So please, we can argue about a lot of things, but let's try to resolve the issues that can easily be resolved using the objective laws of reasoning. Song2008yu ( talk) 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
--
204.126.132.34 (
talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The government is certainly not a republic, nor is it socialist. Communist dictatorship with capitalistic elements is more accurate.
Latest minor edit, tried to shuffle the the first paragraphs so it mentions the current political system last. Messed it up the to the point that paragraph went under the TOC. Can somebody fix it? Roswell Crash Survivor ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple resources I think you should consider adding to the external links section. They are from a site that provides and extensive library of English language online videos about China. The below are just a few suggestions where the site ties in nicely with existing external links.
For overviews/studies section (it ties in nicely with Danwei.org) China Video Online
For documentaries Living in China Documentaries
For Travel/Maps Virtual China Tour Guide and Map
Chinaontv ( talk) 05:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Thalia K
Can we have a better GNU-compatible photograph than "plainfantry.jpg"? It is hardly informative. Wouldn't one of those Xinhua press-release photos taken during a 1st of October parade be a better image? Always a ballistic missile on one of those parades. I'm going to make the change and see if anyone objects.
- Roswell Crash Survivor ( talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Roswell Crash Survivor ( talk) 05:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to add an external link to China's energy profile/statistics from the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics of the U.S. Government). I feel this is an appropriate link considering how crucial energy is to the development of China and current energy concerns. I might want to add some energy content under the economy section as well. Any thoughts or concerns?
ARUenergy ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Many people are interested in China because of the economic trading relationship with the United States. Thus, I suggest that a link to the China Business Information Center < http://www.export.gov/china/> be added to the list of links. Currently, there are no links to US government sites on the People's Republic of China links list. Perhaps a link to < http://www.export.gov/china/> could be added to the government links.
Rollbison ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) June 24, 2008
Is this document located anywhere else? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.206.49 ( talk) 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to hit shift to sign my previous post 68.57.206.49 ( talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this sentence necessary on this article with the title " People's Republic of China". I understand that if a user types "China", the user will be redirected to the general article on China. If "Republic of China" is entered, that could possibly warrant the need for a "Not to be confused with the People's Republic of China." warning on the page Republic of China. But if the only way to arrive at this page is if "People's Republic of China" in its entirety is typed (and since there is already a redirect warning for the PRC abbreviation), I don't see how a user could arrive at this page without typing the full "People's Republic of China". Why would the sentence "Not to be confused with the Republic of China." be needed here then? Thanks! -- Shibo77 ( talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
To indicate that it and the ROC are not the same thing - something that people should be aware of whereever they are coming from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.101.129 ( talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have restored some paragraphs back due to vandalism from users like New haven86 and Onetwo1. thanks Buddha24 ( talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
" Falun Gong, now severely persecuted in China, had 50-70 million practitioners in 1998 according to the Sports Administration. [1] As there are no membership lists, current global numbers are unknown." has been removed due to the source being Epoch Times, which claims that the "Sports Administration" claims there to be 50-70 million, all verifiable sources stated, at most 2 million. If 50-70 is to remain, then a citation from the original source should not be too difficult to come by. Laomei ( talk) 11:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/042799china-protest-leader.html -- reinstating with this source.-- Asdfg 12345 12:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, removing this. If this is a government claim, cite a government source, webarchive goes back far enough if it is legitimate, this is using second hand information for a very specific claim which should be easy to correctly source if true. However, personally I am finding much inconsistency in the claim.
Which is it? The Administration, the Police or the Ministry? Find an original source please, the FLG-linked sites cannot even agree on the numbers or the source.
The second edit which was put back in, once again, mentions nothing about Falun Gong in its references and will likewise be removed once more. Laomei ( talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
i don't get it. NYT says the CCP says that's the figure. We can quote that. there's no question here. (the other one i find almost as odd--there are thousands of references that say Falun Gong is repressed in China. I can find one from US State, where they also talk about censorship, in three seconds)-- Asdfg 12345 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
NYT is using a number and claiming a source which is disputed, you can either cut your loses and walk from this one, find an archived original source, or I will be adding in all the claimed sources and various numbers to this article as well as all other articles making this claim which makes a mockery of the claim as you well know it will. Stop pressing your blatant agenda here, or there will be an arbitration request. FYI, I have already located 3 copies of what was claimed and it is 2 million according to pre-ban state media, find the source yourself and feel free to use it, nothing else will be accepted.
The following
is the claim being made equating the Tiananmen Square protest of 6/4 with Falun Gong. The sources cited makes no such claims. Laomei ( talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The NYT is relying on the claim on Li Hongzhi. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0211/sr.china3.falungong.html
But, let's make it interesting. Here's a critical source, as critcal as you can get and still stay semi-legit. Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/1999/09/08/1308 BOTH numbers go in now, as promised —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomei ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict not noticed for 10 minutes] Just seeing this now. The version I restored gives three figures: the original one made by the Sports Administration, the one claimed by Falun Gong, and the post-persecution figure claimed by the CCP. This isn't the place to get into the "cult status" or not of Falun Gong, that's another field. I'm not aware of a citation for 20 or 150 million. These are the main numbers I'm aware of, they represent three distinct claims, and finally it says that numbers are actually unknown. I may not fully understand your view, Laomei, about why the revised version you are supporting is more appropriate. I also think LedRush may not understand. I guess maybe we could flesh that out on the talk page.-- Asdfg 12345 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to Laomei's latest comment: I still don't understand a few things. The article now cites three distinct claims made by key parties, and two of them are claimed to be from an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. There are other sources which say that the figure was changed from 70 million to 2 million in an effort to downplay Falun Gong's significance in Chinese society--but we should not have that in this article, I don't think, because this isn't the place for it. I don't know where all those other figures come from (20, 60, 130?). I think if it just documents these three central ones and says that the numbers are actually unknown, then wikipedia is doing what it should. I don't believe we need to dispute the methods of the NYT in making the claim about the CCP, nor a Chinese speaking administrator to find the original citation or translate source documents. I think we do need more editors to come and take a look at this though.-- Asdfg 12345 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Then here we go, I am adding all sources of numbers to any and all claims on all pages Laomei ( talk) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Back to the Epoch Times link again eh? Thought this was settled. It seems funny that you are determined to get that link onto this page. It's not a credible media source and will be removed (again)
Laomei (
talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why this verifiable news source (Epoch Times) is not reliable under wiki-guidelines. LedRush ( talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Tons of fake and made up stories for one, and it was founded, funded and run by Falun Gong... it has about as much credibility as a tabloid. Laomei ( talk) 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, Falun Gong is not a religion and they are on record claiming it is not a religion. What is it even doing in the "religion" section? Non-response to this counts as consensus by the way. Laomei ( talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
some say it's a religion some say it isn't. There doesn't seem any other obvious place to put this piece of information. Why not just leave it?-- Asdfg 12345 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source, a Falun Gong one as well: http://dawn.thot.net/fofg/whatis.html Q1: Is Falun Gong a religion? A: Falun Gong is not a religion. Li Hongzhi himself says it is not a religion http://www.newstatesman.com/200307140014 As for Master Li, his message is available in a torrent of video- and audiotapes, websites and books. He continues to preach that there are aliens on earth, that he is a being from a higher level and that his followers can develop X-ray vision. Falun Gong, he says, is not a religion - and indeed, it lacks the rituals that conventional religions feel required to provide.
Followers say it is not a religion http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/china/falun_gong.html Falun Gong, which translates to wheel of law, borrows from Buddhist and Taoist traditions. But follower and Canadian spokesperson for the group, Joel Chipkar, says it is not a religion, but a spiritual discipline that can improve physical and mental health.
Not my opinion at all here, it does not belong in the religion section period, for it is in fact not one. Laomei ( talk) 20:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I find comments such as "This is not a debate, nor is it up for debate" quite troubling. I agree in the sense that we should not be fiercely arguing against each other, but instead freely exchanging ideas, but I don't think that's what you are pointing towards with that remark. Please simply check the Falun Gong main page for a few sources which identify Falun Gong as a religion, or as religious. And you should know that, traditionally, the idea of what is religion and what isn't in Chinese history is not always clear-cut. Again, why not simply stop this storm in a teacup ?-- Asdfg 12345 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This is article is so full of unnecessary information and jargon, it makes me laugh every time I read it. Nissanaltima ( talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed other pages like Switzerland and France have a motto, but none for PRC. Should it be listed, but just be blank? Legaia ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no state Motto(and flower, bird...) for China.-- 刻意 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Agriculture is mentioned once in the article. Once.
How do 1.3 billion people feed themselves?
I know in 1909 an American agronomist named FH King toured China and the Orient; wrote a book Farmers of Fourty Centuries.
Elementalwarrior ( talk) 14:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"Currently China is one of five remaining communist states, along with Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cuba."
The above sentence has been deleted twice in the last day. While I know that technically no country would be considered Communist, isn't there wide enough agreement that certain countries that espouse socialist causes and are led by a Communist party are "Communist". I feel that we shouldn't let semantics get in the way of providing accurate and useful information. Any contrasting thoughts welcome. LedRush ( talk) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Kontoenmin ( talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, with regard to this, I deleted the sentence above but then I replaced that with the new phrase in the first paragraph of the introduction with "...It is ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...". I think that this is much clearer than simply mentioning China is a communist nation because right now China is neither 100% communist economically (it operates on a capitalist model) or socially (it has unequal income distribution). China is a socialist state. That's what the 1982 PRC Constitution Article number 1 states. Socialism is actually somewhere between communism and capitalism, so that fits China perfectly. Socialist economic model also can refer to relatively free market model but one that is eventually controlled by the state, as is the case in China, where big corporations are state-owned. Not communist because wages/incomes are not state-directed. Mentioning Laos, N Korea, Cuba and so on is irrelevant - it's a Chinese article. Heilme ( talk) 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to play with cites, I can do that too: Why China is No Longer a Communist Country, China's Communist Party - different in all but its name. Something about you LedRush that I don't understand is, if you want to say that China is ruled by the Communist Party under one party system, why not just write that? "Communism" means politics, economics, and social structures. 2 out of these 3 in China are definitely nothing to do with "Communism". Please think!! Heilme ( talk) 19:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though there was no consensus to remove this sentence from the lede, and even though the article is probably less accessible because of the change, in the spirit of compromise I will back of my position that the sentence should be in the lede and insert it in the politics sections. Hopefully this can keep everyone happy. LedRush ( talk) 16:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have made this, is it OK to put on the main page. Can people help me with fact check etc? [url] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Chinese_political_system.jpg[/url] Kontoenmin ( talk) 18:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do the formatting, but the way the front page looks now is unacceptable. It looks completely blank (or like it's loading) as there dozens (if not hundreds) of blank lines between the title and the first text. Can someone please change this quickly, (or I'll revert the most recent changes and see if that helps). LedRush ( talk)
Why is Beijing ahead of Shenzhen when Shenzhen has a larger population? Zazaban ( talk) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that it has been discussed before, but the size of China is disputed. [2] So it relly shouldnt be listed as the third largest, as the United States page states that it is the third or fourth largest in size. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onopearls ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
China have World 2nd Largest Amphibious fleet They can Transport 400 Tanks by one Voyage Equal Trasportation Capacity of US PAC amphibious fleet Twice as much as Russia (TWNTotal1000Tanks/Japan900>600Tanks) But this article say "China only have LIMITED POWER PROJECTION AVILITY" I think it is awful under-estimation How's your opinion? guys-- Jack330 ( talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the recent change to the article which replaces the terms "fast growing economy" with "fastest growing". I can't find in the citations provided the support for this statement, and even if someone does find one, I doubt we can conclusively find the parameters to define fastest: fastest in the last year? 4 Years? 27.3 years? I feel the language "among the fastest is good enough to get the message across, is supportable by citations, and avoids unnecessary controversy and possible peacock language issues. LedRush ( talk) 01:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1 Azerbaijan 23.40 2007 est. 2 Bhutan 22.40 2007 est. 3 Timor-Leste 19.80 2007 est. 4 Angola 16.70 2007 est. 5 Macau 16.60 2006 Macau is a SAR of the PRC 6 Armenia 13.70 2007 est. 7 Equatorial Guinea 12.40 2007 est. 8 Georgia 12.00 2007 est. 9 China 11.90 2007 est.
As you can see, of the 7 recognized states that grew faster than China last year, all are not powers (not even middle powers) by any definition of the term. Therefore, there is really no argument to contest. Economics dictates that the larger the economy, the harder is it for it to grow at rapid rates, which makes China really remarkable in the context of rapid, sustained economic growth over the past 30 years. In fact, I'm not sure if you are aware but this has never been seen in human history before. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, we could just put in both pieces of information: China is the world's eighth fastest growing economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP growth, and the fastest in the world among major economies." By providing both we do a couple of positive things:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rapidly+aging+China&start=0&sa=N
Here is a google search with over 70 citations that could be used for the article (though the current one is reliable and verifiable, and therefore can be used). There are probably a lot more, but I stopped counting. I have never seen a source to dispute that China's population is rapidly growing, and frankly I'm surprised anyone has a problem with language. LedRush ( talk) 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
全世界只有一个中国 这网站上面有个中华民国是什么意思
建议取消 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.232.87.244 ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
GDP numbers on the top right hand column are given a 7,346 trillions of US dollars. It should be 7,346 billions of US dollars or US$7.3 trillions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.199.115 ( talk) 11:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use the word trillion since it can (and will) be misunderstood. In this article is is meant to be 10 to the power of 9 (US notation/"short form"), but in most countries it means 10 to the power of 12 ("long form"). Please use scientific notation instead. Example: USD 7.3 * 10 9 or USD 7.3E9.
78.108.52.23 ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) /Magmatrix 2008-12-29 02:00 CET
Actually, 1012 is a short trillion. The long form trillion is 1018. 1012 is a long form biillion. Ngchen ( talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here.-- pyl ( talk) 05:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Since this has already been gone over so many times, and the current version until now stable for months, I think it would just be simplest if PCPP explained why this edit [1] is an improvement. PCPP, in your response, please be sure to thoroughly address these two key points:
Please be clear. Thanks.-- Asdfg 12345 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
1) Your characterizations are irrelevant. FLG is one of the new religious movements founded in the 20th century, and should be introduced as such. Just because some pro-FLG material you dug out says so doesn't make it factual to wikipedia. 2) The "persecution" material is nosensial FLG propaganda largely used by FLG groups, and the cult nature of FLg has already been used long before the ban. There is no set definition of the extend of FLG's repression, and whatever FLG and its supporters think doesn't mean wikipedia should endorse one view over others.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please present reliable sources to back up your point of view, or I will be justified in simply reverting. Your opinions are of no consequence, only the sources you can bring to bear on this subject. Labelling sources which present a viewpoint that make you feel uncomfortable or disagree with as "pro-FLG" is meaningless. Their independence is not related to your feelings on the subject. I have 1) presented a source which shows the importance of Falun Gong in recent Chinese history, 2) here is something from a non-Falun Gong related source which makes my second point: “It was Mr. Jiang who ordered that Falun Gong be branded a ‘cult,’ and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults.” (Washington Post, November 9, 1999) -- okay? Please provide sources, your opinions are not relevant.-- Asdfg 12345 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'm getting sick of you and your FLG buddies hiding propagandic edits under the guise of consensus.--
PCPP (
talk) 05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for the last comments, but I think that the particular paragraph should be worded as "banned", as it avoids a endorsing a particular POV and introduces the situation clearly to readers without going too deeply into the subject. Regardless of outside uses, WP guidlines states that endorsing particular viewpoints should be avoided. According to WP:Title#Controversial names "Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion."-- PCPP ( talk) 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, PCPP, when people are jailed and tortured to death, it is a persecution. Human rights organisations, journalists, the United Nations, the US State Department, etc., all testify to this fact. The word "banned" is not a neutral word. It is the word of choice by the Chinese Communist Party, used to hide the persecution. If Falun Gong was only banned in China, there would not be so much fuss. It is the beatings, electric batons, mass-arrests, labor camps, gang rape, etc., that is at question, not merely some abstract legal status. I'm going to copy some lines here from Edelman and Richardson's analysis of the CCP's apparent "ban" of Falun Gong. Please note, they are considered a reliable source on this topic. The Chinese Communist Party is not considered a reliable source on this topic. I'm simply going to copy a number of passages from it here. I'll put them in the 'hide' box, so you can click to view them. Source: Edelman, Bryan and Richardson, James. “Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 2003, Vol. 6:2, pp. 312-31.
This, at the very least, shows that the legal basis for the decision is quite unsound. My purpose is presenting all this here is to make very clear from yet another angle that the term 'banned' is not some middle-ground, and certainly not a neutral term. It's the Communist party's term, not the term of reliable sources.
“In 1999 the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) labeled Falun Gong an ‘evil cult’ and began a campaign to eliminate the qigong movement of which it was a part” (312).
“Criticism of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) actions and the crackdown will not be based on Western standards of democracy and law, bit on concepts of government and justice formulated by the CCP and put forth in Party documents, the CCP constitution, and the PRC Constitution (313).”
“The People’s Republic of China is not adhering to the principles laid down in its own official documents that would seem to allow its citizens freedom of association, speech, and religion, as laid down in its official documents…” (313)
“Unlike the West, where law is usually seen as a constraint on the power of the state, the PRC views law as a means to maintain stability, regulate society, protect the interests of Communist ruling class, and strengthen and enforce the government’s authority” (314).
“The ruling Communist elite may use laws to enforce its policies, but the elite class itself is not easily constrained by law. This reflects a system known as the rule by law…The rule by law enables the power holders to use law enforcement to exert social control over the populace” (314).
“…the decisions concerning Falun Gong seem to have been made hastily and without acting within official guidelines” (315).
“Coupled with the State Council’s ban on the Falun Dafa organization in July, the regulations and Internet ban seem to contradict several rights guaranteed in the PRC Constitution, including citizens’ rights to enjoy freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration protected under Article 35” (319-20).
“It is the responsibility of the NPC Standing Committee to negate any legislation that is not in accordance with the constitution. However, due to Party/state overlap, coupled with the apparent adherence to Party policy doctrine described herein, the negation of such legislation on constitutional grounds ins quite unlikely” (320).
“The statements made by Ambassador Qiao and the PRC delegation run counter to the crackdown taking place in the PRC” (326). [Regarding a press briefing on March 21, 2000 in which Qiao said that the PRC practices toward Falun Gong are in accordance with those of all governments regarding cults, and that the PRC follows the rule of law] “…the Party and government’s response to the Falun Gong movement violates citizens’ right to a legal defense, freedom of religion, speech and assembly enshrined in the Constitution and treaties to which the PRC is a party” (326).
“The recent treatment of Falun Gong practitioners clearly demonstrates that the PRC is not yet willing to recognize the individual rights of its citizens…If the harsh reaction to Falun Gong, and the anticult legislation passed over the last few years is any indications, the Party will do whatever is necessary to crush any perceived threat to its supreme control. This represents a move away from the rule of law and toward this historical Mao policy of ‘rule by man.’” (326)
“…the Party stands to lose the very legitimacy it is fighting to protect. If the Party oppresses a large portion of the working class, it is clearly no longer the ‘party of the people.’” (327)
-- Asdfg 12345 10:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I won't be able to respond in more detail until I have a chance to read through the rest of this discussion later, but in the meantime, my stance (the same as what I said at a recent discussion on this same topic at Talk:The Epoch Times is that we should go with the wording that's most neutral and easiest to verify in the books. Now, I'm not an expert on the current situation of FLG and all that's going on with that, but I do know that a legal policy is a black-and-white thing—is there a law in the books, or isn't there—that can be verified and agreed upon. We may disagree on how the law should be interpreted, or on what "banned" means, but a word like "outlawed" should be relatively clear-cut: is there a law against FLG, or isn't there?
"Persecuted," on the other hand, opens up a whole can of worms. You and I both agree that the group is persecuted, but nevertheless, the term is open to a lot more interpretation, and where something is open to interpretation that means editors will interpret it different ways and there will be edit warring. The word "persecuted" is pretty much inviting nationalist editors to come on and yell at us about how all the reports come from Epoch Times and Clearwisdom & co., or about how FLG is evil anyway, or yada yada...and it's something that can't be measured as easily. "Persecuted" can't be defined as clearly as "outlawed," especially when a large portion of editors here believe that the reports of persecution are falsified anyway. I think "outlawed" is just a much safer way to go, especially if it's a matter of a single sentence where you have to say that; the persecution issue really deserves a whole section so we can address it and talk about what people think about it, etc., whereas if you want to wrap the whole situation up in a couple words I think it's better to go with "an outlawed group" rather than "a persecuted group." — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Life is full of such quirks, wiki's no exception. Anyway, another case closed. Well done. *dusts off hands* -- Asdfg 12345 13:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Worth noting that there is no definite term defining the ban of FLG. Amnesty has used the terms "outlawed", "intimidation", "persecution", "crackdown" pretty much interchangebly in a recent report. [10] Rewrote the phrase somewhere along the lines of "the crackdown is considered religious persecution by several human rights groups"-- PCPP ( talk) 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Persucuted" is obviously not neutral in its point of view. I think there can be no doubt about that. Sources bring nothing to bear on a NPOV comment, in my opinion (lest we start citing Mein Kampf on the persecution of the aryan race by the jews). It should be noted that "outlawed" is a excercise of jurisdiction of a sovereign nation, whilst "persucuted" in the context of religion is a violation of human rights, much akin to violation of the laws of war (e.g. a "war crime"). However, nothing can be done in this article about the title of another article (or should; it should be dealt with in the other article) so use of "persecution" in the context of an article title must stand.
I therefore say we leave as it stands as of LedRush's . And I say we just remove that nasty "NPOV" thing at the top. Ugh. Int21h ( talk) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, under the picture of China's flag, the link should be fixed so that it goes to flag of the People's Republic of China, instead of flag of China. 70.108.159.148 ( talk) 16:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I put the Forms of Government template on the article. Arilang talk 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any proof that this is happening? I don't doubt the Qipao, but I've never seen a Hanfu worn not related to a stage or costume party. LedRush ( talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Replying to Ledrush
There are drama/television shows of people dressing in Hanfu which is their old tradtional clothing. There are huge surge of web forum dicussing on hanfu in chinese mainland. please if you go check forum like baidu or tianya . if u don't know chinese i can see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennlin ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
To Balthazarduju
i don't think every country should ave the same structure okay? take a look at japan korea and others. they include somethings that doesn't belong there consider by people like you. why can't i put traditional hanfu under the culture section huh? i will stay by my position. That section only exaplains the reemergence not going in detail of how it look and it's significance.
s.Korea even have things about Kpop online games and drama in the main section Japan wrote about jpop and geisha.......SHOULD THEY BE ALL REMOVE ???
Should public health and sport and recreation sections be in the main section too if there is a huge sub section of it?
If you keep doing this i will fight till the end
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lennlin (
talk •
contribs) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The section about Hanfu and Qipao added by Lennlin under the Culture is not fitting for a main summary article about a country. This section added by Lennlin is specifically about clothing, and it is very long, grammatically messy and not very well-written, thus ill-fitting for a summary article which its individual sections should be concise, clear and well structured. The section added by Lennlin, are also mainly the same contents that this user copy-pasted from several other articles ( Han Chinese clothing and Qipao), thus it is simply repeating the same information here. No country/nation articles on Wikipedia has a major and overly-long section that solely talks about the popular clothing, this article shouldn't make any exception. Remember, this is summary article, thus its Culture section should only have a well-written and relatively brief general introduction to Chinese culture.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. The infobox says that China is on UTC+8, but also says "DST not observed UTC+9". If it's not observed, then why is it even mentioned? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a "ruling party" section on the side panel? There is none for Russia or United States. HanBoN ( talk) 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes , i agree we should remove this ruling party section and the world governement template. it's not use and just takes up space. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.199.99.9 (
talk) 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should remove the "Forms of government" template on the side because it's taking up too much space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.99.9 ( talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In the article, it's acknowledged that the state is popularly called "China". However, the article uses the acronym PRC in place of "China" quite a bit, and in at least a couple places it's a bit awkward. Might I propose some sort of uniform editorial guideline for the article be decided upon? Your thoughts+opinion would be greatly appreciated. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cybercobra, I appreciate your effort, I am not sure if u r familiar with the complicated issue u have got yourself into, but I don't think we will ever able to form a clear guideline. Let’s me explain why PRC and ROC are always the preferable term especially in modern articles.
Now let’s look at this situation objectively and logically. Let’s begin with the rule constantly stressed by PRC, that the island Taiwan is a undividable part of China, therefore: China=Mainland+Taiwan This would be easy if both mainland and Taiwan is under the same government, but unfortunately it is not. Mainland=PRC while Taiwan=ROC
If China=Mainland+Taiwan, PRC can’t logically call himself China because it has not gain control of the entire China (Mainland+Taiwan). Strictly speaking, PRC has (large) parts of China while ROC has (small) part of China. Only those who is under the influence of PRC’s propaganda would tell you China=PRC, the Chinese Communists have been doing this for years.
Now PRC use its military might, economy power, trading opportunities to force other countries to overlook this little glitch of logic, that despite PRC on one hand keep saying China=Mainland+Taiwan while on the other hand it does not actually has complete control over “Mainland+Taiwan”, but PRC still wants to be called China anyway.
If China=Mainland, this could actually work logically if PRC now change the definition of “China” to China=Mainland, and since PRC really has complete actual control of Mainland, this is perfectly logically acceptable. i.e. If China = Mainland, and Mainland belongs to PRC, then PRC = China. But PRC oppose this view theself because if Taiwan is removed from the formula, Taiwan would easily become a “Republic of Taiwan” and PRC will lose the chance of including Taiwan as their territory in their future. Cybercobra and SchmuckyTheCat suggested PRC=China, this logically exclude Taiwan from the formula of “China=Mainland+Taiwan” , and logically portray “China=Mainland only”, this has been furiously refused by PRC itself. So it wouldn’t work if logic is still a priority here.
PRC’s definition of what is China is logically self-contradictory, that’s why we have to be precise and use the terms of PRC and ROC, and avoid using the term “China” because we haven’t got general consensus about whether China includes Taiwan or not. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 04:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Consider the following:
substitute PRC & ROC into the formula, we will get:
How could China=PRC be possibe?! -- Da Vynci ( talk) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Closed RfC - Results inconclusive, no consensus either way -- Cybercobra ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have issues with this part of the opening paragraph:-
The mainland (inland) part of the PRC uses the socialist system, but the SARs of the PRC use the capitalist system. I don't think the above is a correct statement. It needs rewording, but I can't think of anything good at the moment. I will remove the word "socialist" for now. Any suggestions are welcome.-- pyl ( talk) 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this statement is 1) crystal ball, 2) irrelevant in providing encyclopedic information about the PRC, 3) I can also find similar articles claiming the opposite - that China will soon implode due to social unrests. In other words, don't put in statements that are not a consensus. - Heilme ( talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Definitely a more acceptable format, but still, I wonder why it has to be mentioned at all - whether China will go up or down in the future. Should we put scholars debate on China's future on this PRC article? Future, by the way, should not be in the history section, right? - Heilme ( talk) 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Though reluctantly as I am, if the word "superpower" really matters that much to the PRC article, then by all means incorporate it in the Politics section, more fittingly in the Foreign relations sub-section. In fact, the last paragraph of the Foreign relations sub-section already makes a good lead into this superpower concept. Heilme ( talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Hi! Could someone explain to me the "Article guidelines" rule #1 which states that traditional characters shouldn't be removed because they are official in Hong Kong and Macao? But, they are provincial-level divisions of the country, they are not official at the national-level. Similarly I could argue that Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, Zhuang, Portuguese, and English are official languages at the provincial-level, but why aren't the country's name in the aforementioned languages shown at the top of the infobox? In my opinion, only the simplified Chinese should be shown at the top of the infobox, other official languages at the provincial-level should be moved to the body of the article. Rule #2 cites the Manual of Style which pertains only to the body of the article (specifically the introductory sentence), which should have the simplified and traditional shown one after the other, and needs no change. Thanks! -- Shibo77 ( talk) 04:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are some examples:
|
— ASDFGH =] talk? 01:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean like this it looks good. — ASDFGH =] talk? 06:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
|