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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Currently, the China page states "The last Chinese Civil War (which ended in 1949)" however Chinese Civil War page states "no official Peace Treaty has been signed between the two sides." and "Stalemate (no official armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed)" which means China technically is still in civil war, but conflict ended in 1949(with USA intervention)
change to main China article is needed to avoid misleading
Panzooka ( talk) 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Putting aside all my previous arguments for a moment, I have stumbled upon a dilemma:
Is it POV for a geographic article such as Shanghai to include the sentence: "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China"? Surely, according to other contributors' arguments above, and seeing as how the Republic of China claims mainland China as part of its territory, saying that any settlement such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, Qingdao and many others, are located in the People's Republic of China, is a violation of the "non-negotiable policy" that is WP:NPOV?
Logically it would make sense to assert that mainland China is a disputed territory, and WP:NPOV infers that any location within that disputed territory can't be said to be located within either state. Therefore, the sentence "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China" can only be concluded as a violation of WP:NPOV.
This leads me to wonder if that article and every location relevant, including other settlements, provinces, rivers, terrain features, and anything else of a geographic nature located within the disputed area that is mainland China, and not directly associated with either government, should state its location as " China", instead of "the People's Republic of China". Please note this is purely in a geographical sense, and anything dealing with politics such as Politics sections would require mention of the current administration governing the location.
Opinions please. -- Joowwww ( talk) 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The sports in China article currently violates NPOV by only addressing the sports in the PRC. There is also the mess of "Sports in China" claiming to include Sports in Hong Kong, but there is a separate Sport in Hong Kong page.
Also, do the people on Kinmen and Matsu play the same sports as People on Taiwan? If so, that also needs to be cleaned up and renamed. T-1000 ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is supposedly about China the civilization; is the "Sports in China" article about "Sports in the civilization of China"? Does the "Sports in China" article talk about sports in Xingjiang or Tibet which are not part of Chinese civilization? Does it talk about the national sports teams from the PRC that may include Tibetan and Xinjiangnese atheletes?
If we go with the proposal in the next section, the article would be easy to fix. You would just put a link somewhere in the article saying For sports in the disputed region Taiwan, see Sports in Taiwan.
Readin ( talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we include something so specialized as "Sports in China" under a topic like Chinese civilization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Song2008yu ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Covers disambiguation and etymology (Update: The disambiguation would include an introductory paragraph explaining the many definitions of China with a bit of background on how they came to be.) |
''Stuff'' in China unrelated to government | Covers whatever Stuff there is in the PRC. Provides a link something like "For stuff in the disputed region Taiwan, see ''Stuff'' in Taiwan. |
History of China | A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) up to the end of the Qing Dynasty. It also covers non-government related stuff up to 1949, but provides a link to the Republic of China page for details about the government. |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever) |
Republic of China | Covers the government of the Republic of China. I don't care whether the article is further subdivided - that can be discussed separately. The key point is that it covers only the government. |
Taiwan | Taiwan and islands associated with it (including Kinmen and Matsu, although they and other major islands like the Pescadores will have their details in a separate article). In other words the Taiwan article covers everything prior to 1949, but post 1949 it cover non-government stuff and point to the Republic of China article for more details about government info. |
''Stuff'' in China related to government | Disambiguation page pointing to the ''Stuff in the People's Republic of China and ''Stuff'' in the Republic of China pages. |
Readin ( talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Readin ( talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you proposing that most of the content on this page (save the lead) be deleted? If there's going to be text, why not have an article and use Wikipedia:Summary style to accomodate the different definitions?-- Jiang ( talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So far this proposal is enjoying 100% support. Shall we move forward with it? Readin
How is this actually different from what we currently have? There is also no standard on whether something is related to the government or the land, for example, the economy. T-1000 ( talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
China | For non-political contexts and/or contexts whose scope extends from the present day back beyond 1912 |
People's Republic of China | For the country on "mainland China" since 1949 |
Republic of China | For the country with this name since 1912 and after 1949; or for the country with this name between 1912 and 1949..? |
Republic of China (1912-1949) | Alternative to above for country known as the "Republic of China" between 1912 and 1949 |
Republic of China (Taiwan) | For the "Republic of China" since 1949 as distinct from 1912-1949; includes its more well-known (but technically ambiguous) name "Taiwan" |
Taiwan (island) | For the island called "Taiwan" in historical / anthropological / non-political / etc contexts; alternatively, "Taiwan (island group)"..? |
I've yet to study the previous proposals above more closely, but one issue readdressed here is how to refer to the Republic of China before 1949. Otherwise, I have the impression I've evolved the same kind of solution. Since "Taiwan" alone may be used to refer to the geographical island/island group or to the "Republic of China", isn't some kind of disambiguation such as "(island)" needed? Sardanaphalus ( talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I am doing a project on China (see china-city.webs.com) and I am searching for some general information to start with. This was my first stop, and it has given me 3/4 of what I needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.185.212 ( talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that User:Singaga is back as User:Eejcliopb. The edits are extremely similar. Perhaps a check user is needed? T-1000 ( talk) 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am having a lot of difficulty comprehending the notion of human civilization anywhere on Earth being dated at 2.1 million years! The two articles referenced adjascent to the article's text making this claim both refer to evidence that cites homo erectus may have been present during the suggested time frame. Homo erectus isn't conventionally described as "human", however - it's my understanding that title is reserved for homo sapiens, our own species.
There's little doubt human civilization in China is ancient in the extreme - but the article is going way to far pointing to origins that predate humanity (homo sapiens) gaining the capacity for sentience, tools, or much of anything else that could be qualified as distinctly human. On this basis I strongly propose revision of the article to use a standard that's a little more based on the conventions of human anthropology than staking a claim to be cradle of human civilization anywhere on Earth. ross613 ( talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
None mention: Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China ? Logictheo ( talk) 13:58, 21 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.
ARUenergy ( talk) 13:52, 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. Rollbison ( talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) June 24, 2008
The first hot balloon was invented by ancient Chinese in San-Guo (around 200BC) period. It was called "Kong-Ming Lantern" for purpose of military communication. It shaped like a hollow lantern with a flaming swab in the bottom. As the hot air filled the hollow section of lantern it will rise high in the air.
Another contribution to aviation was prototype "glider" and rocket. The Chinese was the first to try "glider" in Han Dynasty when Wan Man took over the emperor's power.
Skyeditor ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no politics section? When I enter 'Chinese politics' I get the PRC politics page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Edmund here (30/07/08)
The name of China comes from a city in Jiangxi, Jingdezhen. It is a city that makes the world famous porcelain. China is derived from the China wares hence the name.
Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guasr ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Umm, that's totally not the origin. The widely accepted basis of the term "China" is said to be related to the Qin Dynasty. If you decide to add that nonsense to the article, I will revert it as vandalism in a heartbeat. Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
hi um how are you so wat u up to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.109.46 ( talk) 04:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the most likely original name for China may be the Great Chin ( Qing Dynasty) Empire. During the Qing dynasty, the empire of which we now call China, is called the Great Chin Empire. Qing is only the Chinese pinyin pronunciation. Chin is the closer English pronunciation for Qing. Since there is no direct diplomat contact between China and Western Civilisations during the Qin Dynasty, the chances of which the name China being originated from the Qin Dynasty is not as high as the Chin Empire ( Qing Dynasty). The real name of China is all ways changing. During the Ming Dynasty the "Chinese Empire" is called the Great Ming Empire and not the "Chinese Empire". During the Yuan Dynasty China is called the Great Yuan Empire and not China. It is also true for every single regime that come before the Great Chin Empire ( Qing Dynasty).
For every other country which an ancient civilization, just typing in the colloquial name links to its contemporary nation.... except for china. Ridiculous rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbnormallyNormal ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely truth, nearly all of the southern China including Fujian was under the rule of short lived Qin Dynasty. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a general introduction of Chinese history like Cambridge History of China, Fujian was under control of Western Han after Wudi era, and almost all areas of southern China hardly penetrated by Chinese farming migrants at that time, not just one province alone. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In short, Fujian was brought under China's control from 221-207 BC and again after 100 BC until the end of Han Dynasty, that is 220 AD. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, much of Fujian was not conquered by Qin at all. Plus, Michael Loewe writes (on page 170 of that same book):
To the east (Fukien), the central government had had varying relations with the independent kingdoms of Min-yüeh amd Tung-ou, which had been established in 202 and 192 BC, respectively. Although Wu-ti's generals, sometimes with naval forces, succeeded in preventing any hostile pressure from here against Han territory, the land was thought to be unsuitable for settlement and the inhabitants too refractory to admit units of provincial government. It may in any case be questioned how far the foundation of a community necessarily implied control of an outlying area.
Minyue was never completely destroyed by Han, and much of Fujian was out of Qin and Han's hands. This was not a consolidated region.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Alas, the Qin Dynasty set up commandary over the regions, and those Yue states were actually created by Liu Bang. So Qin Dynasty ruled Fujian under commandary, and Liu Bang created the local kings, but brief. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Until the coastal region. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually even local kings themselves has a further northerly Yue origins, they can be consider as settlers as well. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
its howdy doody time !!! ( talk) 07:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"its howdy doody time !!!" says:
PRC is the nation-state representing the continuity of chinese civilization and culture.
100% POV, pure and simple. Please, avoid phrases like this, it does not help your argument.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"its howdy doody time !!!" says:
in fact, Taiwan has never even officailly declared itself to be an independent nation-state, so i fail to grasp the need for such sensitivitiy to begin with.
Sure, the Republic of China has never declared itself independent from the PRC, because the ROC views itself as a sovereign power established on January 1, 1912 (not December 7, 1949 when they relocated to the islands of Taiwan). Your whole argument here thus becomes something best reserved for Political status of Taiwan.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sun was a political leader of Tongmenghui during his residency. KMT was founded after his resignation. Who can fix the mistake? I don't know why I can't edit the page.-- MtBell ( talk) 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone knows how to edit a gif, the one showing history needs a fix. The colors separating the PRC and ROC are way too similar for anyone to tell which is which. They need to be more easily distinguishable like the various colors used for earlier maps in the same gif. Readin ( talk) 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
continue from City-State section, regarding this sentence:
This version is not good too, as Pyl just realized it's problem about his definition of “effective control” focus too much on event that hasn’t happened but COULD happen within legal boundary and does not acknowledge the current actual fact.
Using Pyl's definition of "effective control", if a state can constitutionally do whatever it please anytime (including future) to control a region, even such control is not being exercised currently, and cannot practically be exercised, Pyl still calls that “effective control”.
He demonstrated such definition with the following example: Although HK & Mac are self-governing, but since in theory PRC can repeal HK’s constitution’s anytime in the future within legal boundary, so PRC has “effective control” for HK & Mac.
The current fact of HK&M r self-governing is ignored and focuses on possible future event that hasn’t happen. ( coz the current situation is PRC chose not controlling HK now, except defense and foreign relation). The definition also ignores the practical problem will arise because repealing Constitution of HK will violate Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty.
If such definition is applied on ROC, the problem will be even more apparent. ROC can constitutionally do whatever it please on Mainland China anytime; despite currently isn’t exercising such control, since it could happen within the boundary ROC’s constitution, so ROC has “effective control” on Mainland China?!
Pyl worrys about putting the phrase “self-governing” before HK&M may jeopardize ROC’s status. Allow me to demonstrate it will not.
What do u think?-- Da Vynci ( talk) 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I meant. You said:-
My position is actually "even such control is not being exercised currently, Pyl still calls that “effective control”". The control can be practically exercised. It just isn't.
You also said:-
This is the bit that's subject to dispute. That's why so many scholars in Hong Kong are arguing that PRC's power to make the Basic Law is from the Declaration, not from PRC's sovereignty over Hong Kong itself. These scholars are trying to reach a conclusion that you reached. But this position isn't universally agreed upon. Further, I am not sure if a joint declaration itself it a treaty. Treaties aren't called Declaration normally.
I am not concerned about ROC's status here. I just used that example to show the sentence you originally wrote can give an impression that the PRC has no control over Hong Kong as it is "self-governing", just like PRC has no control over Taiwan because it is "self-governing".
Yes the ROC can constitutionally do whatever it wants with mainland China but that's not effective control because the ROC cannot effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on mainland China. The PRC, on the other hand, can effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on Hong Kong.
You proposed:-
Your proposed wording is less problematic. But it is still not accurate. First calling "the Mainland" instead of "mainland China" will anger those Taiwanese independence supporters. Second, it still downplays PRC's power to have a say over Hong Kong, especially the ability to interpret the Basic Law.
I must apologise that I can't think of a more accurate wording at the moment. But let's keep braining storming and we may be able to come up with something better.-- pyl ( talk) 10:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What about adding "largely self-governing" to the current wording so it looks like:-
It is not disputed that PRC has control over Hong Kong and Macau and it is also not disputed that Hong Kong and Macau are largely self-administering territories. I changed "governing" to "administering" because "governing" can imply soverignty, and "administer" is also the word used in "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".-- pyl ( talk) 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the Sino-British Declaration is a international treaty, this view is supported by England's former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on his report on Citizenship, page 74. I think this authoritative reference is enough to stop your further speculation that the Declaration is not an international treaty.
Anyway, for that sentence, I think we do agree that we don’t include disputed matters. We only document what the current actual situation is, right?
The truth is we DONT know what will really happen if PRC repeal Constitution of HK (thus violate the international treaty of Sino-British Declaration) and whether it can be practically done. You say PRC can while some others may say violating an international treaty could result in wars. Whatever it is, there WILL BE DISPUTES when PRC repeal Constitution of HK, and we don’t document disputed future events.
The same goes for your opinion that ROC can’t effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on mainland China, some others may say with few more earthquake in China and natural disasters, little help from the US, it may not be impossible for ROC to reclaim few more cities from the mainland ( especially under the excuse of "good faith" rescue operation). Since we don’t know what will actually happen, and we don’t speculate what future disputed event might happen.
I suggest we adhere to current actual situation and stop the constitution argument.
As for your suggestion:
Personally I have major reservation toward the wording "China has control over HK&M" coz how much control is being exercised by the PRC on HK&M is disputed.
We probably won't be able to find a wording that can entertain all possible disputes. Well, I have no problem re-phrasing to "mainland China" as you suggested. I still think the following is less vulnerable to dispute.
As for the possible downplay and upplay I think it is up to the perception of readers...we only states facts here. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Your point on the Joint Declaration being a treaty is noted. I found on page 74 of the document saying the following:-
Thank you for providing the information. However, there sill remains the question whether the PRC derives the power to make the basic law from its inherent sovenignty over HK or through the operation of the treaty. The scholars in China (incl HK) cannot settle this.
When you speculate on a war between the PRC and the UK if PRC repeals the Basic Law, I feel that the odds are against HK. Would the UK seriously send troops to fight against the PRC because PRC changes its mind over HK? But that's not a speculation within the scope of this discussion.
Your suggestion that:-
is problematic because the statement still downplays the role that Beijing has over things like interpretation of the Basic law. That's why I deliberately left out terms such as "defence" and "foreign relations" and replace them with an ambiguous term "largely" so we don't get into the arguments over what Beijing can do or cannot do. This is similar to the Policy of deliberate ambiguity. I also removed "effective" because how effective Beijing's control is over HK is not clear.
So I actually suggested:-
"Self-Governing" can also imply de facto independence like what the PRC likes to describe Taiwan as. "Governing" can imply sovereignty but "administering" cannot. I think that's why the PRC picked this word when it named HK as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".
This statement tells people that:-
I think it is a compromise to address the concerns and desires of parties from both sides.-- pyl ( talk) 14:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
How about if we just change the phrase "effective control" to "effective military control" since that is that it really means. Effective military control implies the ability to use that military to do whatever one wants regardless of any constitutional restrictions. Whether or not that ability is exercised is often a separate question. In many countries, the military is not routinely used internally for governence, rule of law is followed instead. But the extent of military control prevents external powers from interfering. That's really what the sentences in question are saying. The PRC is able to make sure whatever methods of government it chooses - Basic Law for example - are used in HK, Macau and mainland China, while the ROC is able to make sure that its methods of government, mostly democracy at this point in time, are followed in Taiwan. Readin ( talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I cannot disagree more (about what pyl said above), especially this: "Governing" can imply sovereignty but "administering" cannot. I think that's why the PRC picked this word when it named HK as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and China and the largely self-administering territories of Hong Kong ?!?!
Consider we have terms like Administration (government) and Reagan Administration while USA is an independent country, the word "adminstering"'s meaning/implication depends on the subject. Changing from self-governing to self-adminstrating adds confusion, coz "adminstration" could means a lot of things in different situation.
Names of place created by Communists can be very misleading, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If HK Special Administrative Region is "self-administering" then Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) would be a democratic country.
The current sentence China, has control over mainland China, Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999). is still not factual and misleading, as it doesn't mention HK&M are self-governing. I think you are a bit over-worried that stating the fact that HK&M is self-governing, ppl will then say ROC's also self-governing too, so it must be part of China. Look, "self-governing" doesn't imply independency or dependency. E.g., Just like Singapore is self-governing but it is (now) not part of Malaysia, while Falkland Islands & Bermuda are self-governing but sovereignty belongs to UK. (and YES, the words self-governing/self-governance actually in the article of Falkland Islands & Bermuda.
Since the word "self-governing", when is used for HK does not deny PRC's sovereignty, and when it is used for ROC doesn't jeopardiz ROC status as a different country from PRC. I don't see any problem using it. So, the phrase "self-governing terrorities Hong Kong and Macau" must be included to reflect the fact!-- Da Vynci ( talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the description of "self-governing" for HK. Most English speaking people who read Wikipedia wouldn't really think about sovereignty and all those over legalistic interpretation.
I mentioned it earlier because I was concerned that some Taiwanese independence supporters would make a big deal out of that word because after all the PRC has been calling Taiwan as "self-governing", and I believe those supporters would like to distance Taiwan as far away from HK as possible. So I was being careful when I suggested "Administering". Governing can (but not always) imply sovereignty, but administering cannot.
The current way of description in the main text is fine by me. As I said earlier, I don't think a normal English speaking user would, after reading your description, think that HK has soverignty.-- pyl ( talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
For the first time ever, I found myself indeed agree with Readin that "Effective military control" is probably the right term, because it is the ultimate, current, and undeniable fact. Using this term, we can avoid all the sovereignty disputes. By stating whom's armies is located where can make the whole things clearer, it is simple, free from endless constitution debates, and easy to understand. (Apparently no one here is certain about what effective control means, and the term is subject to dispute)
hereby I suggest:
Some may say the term may sound offensive, yes, it is almost as offensive showing to the Palestinian people that Palestine is not a country. But here in wikipedia we include facts, even that piece of fact may sound unpleasant to some people as per Wikipedia:Profanity. Yes, without using the term "Effective military control" the sentence cannot be as accurate and as honest to the truth!-- Da Vynci ( talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is no good. Really, Taiwan is under the effective military control of the United States.-- pyl ( talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say it's not really a good term, because if you can use it here why don't say USA is controlling native american's territory and Irak and Afganistan...? Now the world knows that China has only one legal government, so this government is totally legal and is not only controlling the territory by its military force... CHN710 ( talk) 15:01, 3 january 2009(CET)
As someone is still trying to include idea of effect military control but this time using a very long sentense that is hard to understand.
Regarding HK and Macau.I am suggesting wikilinking effective control to the Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force article , as following:
The last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China:
Do you think it is acceptable?-- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the current wording as appeared in the main text is fine. I think we have covered the issues that Da Vynci raised in the earlier sections:-
Yeah, glad that we finally have reached consensus. LOL, we typed thousands of words just to debated over change of a few, yet very signifcant, words. Welcome to wikipedia. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this statement is highly problematic:-
Taiwan is in dispute so is mainland China. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC constitution as the Main Area of the ROC. The whole historic Chinese territory is disputed territory as a result of the Chinese Civil War. So I don't think it is appropriate to mention "disputed" just for Taiwan at first place.
This is not an exhaustive list of neighbours. The list doesn't mention Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos and to a lesser extent, Burma. It is absolutely clear to most English speakers (Wikipedia's audience) that Japan, Korea and Vietnam are the main nations receiving the most Chinese influence. Taiwan doesn't have to be mentioned to avoid arguments over different POVs: whether Taiwan is part of China or Taiwan is a neighbour of China.
These arguments have been raised numerous times. They are repetitive, fruitless and frankly boring. We can never reach consensus. So I would suggest that we should be more cautious and not get into the argument at first place: Taiwan doesn't have to be mentioned.-- pyl ( talk) 15:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If Readin really wants to make sure that all readers would get that this is not an exhaustive list then we can say:-
"Historically, China's cultural sphere has extended across East Asia as a whole, with Chinese religion, customs, and writing systems being adopted to varying degrees by its neighbours, such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam"-- pyl ( talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the various size in area of different countries, and when I came to China I noticed it doesn't have the helpful sidebar that shows the country's flag, motto, and statistics. Was this deliberately left out or just forgotten? Godlesspinko ( talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable question. The answer is: Due to the complex political situation and difficulties of NPOV, the "China" page and the "People's Republic of China" page are separate articles despite "China" being the common name for the PRC. This is related to how the "Taiwan" page and the "Republic of China" page are separate articles despite "Taiwan" being the common name for the ROC. Many ways to change or fix this confusing situation have been suggested, but none have been able to achieve consensus despite many months of effort. Readin ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Amazing, how could "Republic of China" not be "China"? Unless the ROC you referred to is Republic of Cuba. You still fail to answer what is, in your opinion, a nPOV about China. If you don't know what is the nPOV , then what do you think yourself qualify to accuse other being POV? -- Da Vynci ( talk) 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Under Religion (in the main article) I think that where it starts to talk about Judaism in China, we should add the fact about how Jewish diaspora came to China.. The Kaifeng Jews. There is still a small amount of Chinese Kaifeng Jews, Who have been living in China for generations now. It is not just the Holocaust, where Jews are so specifically noted in China. Those are the EUROPEAN JEWS that came to China.. There are CHINESE JEWS of Kaifeng.. That are still in China today. See Kaifeng Jews-- Animeartist1 ( talk) 14:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen arguments regarding succession of states theory, and that both the ROC and PRC claim to be the successors and so forth and to say otherwise is POV, but as a simple matter of usage in the English language, which is how articles are supposed to be located, that is not on the basis of historical, technical, or political argument, "China" means to most people in most situations the People's Republic of China, and "Taiwan" means to most people people in most situations the Republic of China. Articles are placed according to how people talk, not how editors logically pontificate.
This page is misplaced and is better suited to Chinese civilization. The primary usage of the word "China" from everyday speech is the People's Republic of China.
The entire May 2008 issue of National Geographic was dedicated to China, its history, its modern dilemmas in balancing economic prosperity with ecological awareness, and at no point did they stop and say, "By the way, we're not talking about the island of Taiwan" or refer to it as the People's Republic of China.-- Loodog ( talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a serious lack of citation in the religion section of the page that mentions Christianity. DaniJeanne ( talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)DaniJeanne
Hong called himself a son of God not the Son of God. This is consistant with what the bible teaches. Another thing that by Hong's own admission he only believes in One God who is Jesus Christ as you can find this in his own writing about what he believes. He believed in the oneness of God as Jesus Christ. If you look at the page that talks about Hong you can see the sources listed of what he actually believed and what was said in his own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DynastyWarrior ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here.-- pyl ( talk) 05:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirecting China to the PRC is just absurd. PRC is the modern government of mainland China. It is completely different from China. Redirecting China to the PRC is like redirecting the Roman Empire to modern day Italy. Intranetusa ( talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we include China governments persecution of Dalai Lama? WalukHailey ( talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you can't put it in "China," but you include that in the "People's Republic of China" section. Intranetusa ( talk) 05:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The Chinese Superpower-Historical Background, Dr Rivka Shpak-Lissak" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkheilig ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The disambig hatnote for this article is not good: too long, too cumbersome, not very well worded & too many extraneous links. i know there are politically sensitive issues here, but this needs to be better. have made a (now second) draft rewording, tried to keep it as clear (& neutral) as possible. the standard template just doesnt cover this situation Lx 121 ( talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this better?
pyl ( talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
well, it describes the article better, & drops the unnecessary date reference, but there are still 3-4 extraneous links, & the term "modern political state" seems a bit clumsy. Also "modern" is a term with variable meanings (even the qing dynasty survived into the "modern era", depending on how you define it). i've tried running thru a list of synonyms contemporary/current/present/...?
the fact that technically both "china"s" are still claiming sovereignty over the whole country (& each other) is germane, if that was not the case, we would just have separate articles. can we find a formulation that is more succinct, without offending anyone's politics? i can accept including the fact that roc = taiwan for most people, that makes sense, & avoids confusion, but do we really need to include so much geography? it is a dab note, meant to be short & to the point Lx 121 ( talk) 09:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
i like it! tho i think "the" might need to be inserted "the two current political states". i'm also concerned that the geography list will start growing again. what about:
This article is an overview of China and the Chinese civilization. For the two current political states, see the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (also commonly known as Taiwan). For other uses, see China (disambiguation)
with or without the brackets around the aka part, and with or without a live link to Taiwan. there is no real confusion about what the PRC refers to, it's just the ROC/taiwan that needs the explanation. if we can find a wording that wont provoke a war...
Lx 121 ( talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed all instances of BCE/CE to BC/AD since BC/AD is the generally accepted way of writing dates, BCE/CE may be more sensitive and such, but I believe that putting in the proper and accepted way is more important. Feel free to revert the change if you feel the need to, but please post here first, explaining why BCE/CE should be used instead. Sorry if I made a bad change. earle117 ( talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Historical political divisions: Various dynasties also expanded into peripheral territories like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang, and Tibet.
It's more accurately to say "like Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, Vietnam, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asia".-- Punkranka ( talk) 20:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
WHY DOES CHINA DONT LET PEOPLE HAVE SURTEIN AMOUNTS OF KIDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.203.203 ( talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
china is annoying and bad at maths —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suresh170 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there much info about China's population? Stars4change ( talk) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we add a link to Communist Party of China? Stars4change ( talk) 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) try google.com silly you get more stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.113.240 ( talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.222 ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I seldom see anything about the number of people in China in 1900, wasn't that a big factor in WHY China wanted Communism? Weren't there so many people (close to a billion) that were subsisting on small plots of land that it was more obvious there than it was in America, which had a small population (only 76 million) & lots of empty land, that the ideal for China would be to have Communism, where large communities would all live & work on the communally-owned land by large groups of people working together, possibly working fewer hours for each person? It will also be ideal for America when there are 1 or 2 billion people here. Stars4change ( talk) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For goodness sake! Saying the Communist Party of China is a blatant violation of NPOV. It's the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, as this page clearly proves. 150.203.230.8 ( talk) 05:00, 22 April 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Currently, the China page states "The last Chinese Civil War (which ended in 1949)" however Chinese Civil War page states "no official Peace Treaty has been signed between the two sides." and "Stalemate (no official armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed)" which means China technically is still in civil war, but conflict ended in 1949(with USA intervention)
change to main China article is needed to avoid misleading
Panzooka ( talk) 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Putting aside all my previous arguments for a moment, I have stumbled upon a dilemma:
Is it POV for a geographic article such as Shanghai to include the sentence: "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China"? Surely, according to other contributors' arguments above, and seeing as how the Republic of China claims mainland China as part of its territory, saying that any settlement such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, Qingdao and many others, are located in the People's Republic of China, is a violation of the "non-negotiable policy" that is WP:NPOV?
Logically it would make sense to assert that mainland China is a disputed territory, and WP:NPOV infers that any location within that disputed territory can't be said to be located within either state. Therefore, the sentence "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China" can only be concluded as a violation of WP:NPOV.
This leads me to wonder if that article and every location relevant, including other settlements, provinces, rivers, terrain features, and anything else of a geographic nature located within the disputed area that is mainland China, and not directly associated with either government, should state its location as " China", instead of "the People's Republic of China". Please note this is purely in a geographical sense, and anything dealing with politics such as Politics sections would require mention of the current administration governing the location.
Opinions please. -- Joowwww ( talk) 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The sports in China article currently violates NPOV by only addressing the sports in the PRC. There is also the mess of "Sports in China" claiming to include Sports in Hong Kong, but there is a separate Sport in Hong Kong page.
Also, do the people on Kinmen and Matsu play the same sports as People on Taiwan? If so, that also needs to be cleaned up and renamed. T-1000 ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is supposedly about China the civilization; is the "Sports in China" article about "Sports in the civilization of China"? Does the "Sports in China" article talk about sports in Xingjiang or Tibet which are not part of Chinese civilization? Does it talk about the national sports teams from the PRC that may include Tibetan and Xinjiangnese atheletes?
If we go with the proposal in the next section, the article would be easy to fix. You would just put a link somewhere in the article saying For sports in the disputed region Taiwan, see Sports in Taiwan.
Readin ( talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we include something so specialized as "Sports in China" under a topic like Chinese civilization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Song2008yu ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Covers disambiguation and etymology (Update: The disambiguation would include an introductory paragraph explaining the many definitions of China with a bit of background on how they came to be.) |
''Stuff'' in China unrelated to government | Covers whatever Stuff there is in the PRC. Provides a link something like "For stuff in the disputed region Taiwan, see ''Stuff'' in Taiwan. |
History of China | A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) up to the end of the Qing Dynasty. It also covers non-government related stuff up to 1949, but provides a link to the Republic of China page for details about the government. |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever) |
Republic of China | Covers the government of the Republic of China. I don't care whether the article is further subdivided - that can be discussed separately. The key point is that it covers only the government. |
Taiwan | Taiwan and islands associated with it (including Kinmen and Matsu, although they and other major islands like the Pescadores will have their details in a separate article). In other words the Taiwan article covers everything prior to 1949, but post 1949 it cover non-government stuff and point to the Republic of China article for more details about government info. |
''Stuff'' in China related to government | Disambiguation page pointing to the ''Stuff in the People's Republic of China and ''Stuff'' in the Republic of China pages. |
Readin ( talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Readin ( talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you proposing that most of the content on this page (save the lead) be deleted? If there's going to be text, why not have an article and use Wikipedia:Summary style to accomodate the different definitions?-- Jiang ( talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So far this proposal is enjoying 100% support. Shall we move forward with it? Readin
How is this actually different from what we currently have? There is also no standard on whether something is related to the government or the land, for example, the economy. T-1000 ( talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
China | For non-political contexts and/or contexts whose scope extends from the present day back beyond 1912 |
People's Republic of China | For the country on "mainland China" since 1949 |
Republic of China | For the country with this name since 1912 and after 1949; or for the country with this name between 1912 and 1949..? |
Republic of China (1912-1949) | Alternative to above for country known as the "Republic of China" between 1912 and 1949 |
Republic of China (Taiwan) | For the "Republic of China" since 1949 as distinct from 1912-1949; includes its more well-known (but technically ambiguous) name "Taiwan" |
Taiwan (island) | For the island called "Taiwan" in historical / anthropological / non-political / etc contexts; alternatively, "Taiwan (island group)"..? |
I've yet to study the previous proposals above more closely, but one issue readdressed here is how to refer to the Republic of China before 1949. Otherwise, I have the impression I've evolved the same kind of solution. Since "Taiwan" alone may be used to refer to the geographical island/island group or to the "Republic of China", isn't some kind of disambiguation such as "(island)" needed? Sardanaphalus ( talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I am doing a project on China (see china-city.webs.com) and I am searching for some general information to start with. This was my first stop, and it has given me 3/4 of what I needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.185.212 ( talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that User:Singaga is back as User:Eejcliopb. The edits are extremely similar. Perhaps a check user is needed? T-1000 ( talk) 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am having a lot of difficulty comprehending the notion of human civilization anywhere on Earth being dated at 2.1 million years! The two articles referenced adjascent to the article's text making this claim both refer to evidence that cites homo erectus may have been present during the suggested time frame. Homo erectus isn't conventionally described as "human", however - it's my understanding that title is reserved for homo sapiens, our own species.
There's little doubt human civilization in China is ancient in the extreme - but the article is going way to far pointing to origins that predate humanity (homo sapiens) gaining the capacity for sentience, tools, or much of anything else that could be qualified as distinctly human. On this basis I strongly propose revision of the article to use a standard that's a little more based on the conventions of human anthropology than staking a claim to be cradle of human civilization anywhere on Earth. ross613 ( talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
None mention: Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China ? Logictheo ( talk) 13:58, 21 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.
ARUenergy ( talk) 13:52, 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. Rollbison ( talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) June 24, 2008
The first hot balloon was invented by ancient Chinese in San-Guo (around 200BC) period. It was called "Kong-Ming Lantern" for purpose of military communication. It shaped like a hollow lantern with a flaming swab in the bottom. As the hot air filled the hollow section of lantern it will rise high in the air.
Another contribution to aviation was prototype "glider" and rocket. The Chinese was the first to try "glider" in Han Dynasty when Wan Man took over the emperor's power.
Skyeditor ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no politics section? When I enter 'Chinese politics' I get the PRC politics page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Edmund here (30/07/08)
The name of China comes from a city in Jiangxi, Jingdezhen. It is a city that makes the world famous porcelain. China is derived from the China wares hence the name.
Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guasr ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Umm, that's totally not the origin. The widely accepted basis of the term "China" is said to be related to the Qin Dynasty. If you decide to add that nonsense to the article, I will revert it as vandalism in a heartbeat. Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
hi um how are you so wat u up to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.109.46 ( talk) 04:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the most likely original name for China may be the Great Chin ( Qing Dynasty) Empire. During the Qing dynasty, the empire of which we now call China, is called the Great Chin Empire. Qing is only the Chinese pinyin pronunciation. Chin is the closer English pronunciation for Qing. Since there is no direct diplomat contact between China and Western Civilisations during the Qin Dynasty, the chances of which the name China being originated from the Qin Dynasty is not as high as the Chin Empire ( Qing Dynasty). The real name of China is all ways changing. During the Ming Dynasty the "Chinese Empire" is called the Great Ming Empire and not the "Chinese Empire". During the Yuan Dynasty China is called the Great Yuan Empire and not China. It is also true for every single regime that come before the Great Chin Empire ( Qing Dynasty).
For every other country which an ancient civilization, just typing in the colloquial name links to its contemporary nation.... except for china. Ridiculous rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbnormallyNormal ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely truth, nearly all of the southern China including Fujian was under the rule of short lived Qin Dynasty. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a general introduction of Chinese history like Cambridge History of China, Fujian was under control of Western Han after Wudi era, and almost all areas of southern China hardly penetrated by Chinese farming migrants at that time, not just one province alone. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In short, Fujian was brought under China's control from 221-207 BC and again after 100 BC until the end of Han Dynasty, that is 220 AD. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, much of Fujian was not conquered by Qin at all. Plus, Michael Loewe writes (on page 170 of that same book):
To the east (Fukien), the central government had had varying relations with the independent kingdoms of Min-yüeh amd Tung-ou, which had been established in 202 and 192 BC, respectively. Although Wu-ti's generals, sometimes with naval forces, succeeded in preventing any hostile pressure from here against Han territory, the land was thought to be unsuitable for settlement and the inhabitants too refractory to admit units of provincial government. It may in any case be questioned how far the foundation of a community necessarily implied control of an outlying area.
Minyue was never completely destroyed by Han, and much of Fujian was out of Qin and Han's hands. This was not a consolidated region.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Alas, the Qin Dynasty set up commandary over the regions, and those Yue states were actually created by Liu Bang. So Qin Dynasty ruled Fujian under commandary, and Liu Bang created the local kings, but brief. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Until the coastal region. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually even local kings themselves has a further northerly Yue origins, they can be consider as settlers as well. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
its howdy doody time !!! ( talk) 07:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"its howdy doody time !!!" says:
PRC is the nation-state representing the continuity of chinese civilization and culture.
100% POV, pure and simple. Please, avoid phrases like this, it does not help your argument.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"its howdy doody time !!!" says:
in fact, Taiwan has never even officailly declared itself to be an independent nation-state, so i fail to grasp the need for such sensitivitiy to begin with.
Sure, the Republic of China has never declared itself independent from the PRC, because the ROC views itself as a sovereign power established on January 1, 1912 (not December 7, 1949 when they relocated to the islands of Taiwan). Your whole argument here thus becomes something best reserved for Political status of Taiwan.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sun was a political leader of Tongmenghui during his residency. KMT was founded after his resignation. Who can fix the mistake? I don't know why I can't edit the page.-- MtBell ( talk) 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone knows how to edit a gif, the one showing history needs a fix. The colors separating the PRC and ROC are way too similar for anyone to tell which is which. They need to be more easily distinguishable like the various colors used for earlier maps in the same gif. Readin ( talk) 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
continue from City-State section, regarding this sentence:
This version is not good too, as Pyl just realized it's problem about his definition of “effective control” focus too much on event that hasn’t happened but COULD happen within legal boundary and does not acknowledge the current actual fact.
Using Pyl's definition of "effective control", if a state can constitutionally do whatever it please anytime (including future) to control a region, even such control is not being exercised currently, and cannot practically be exercised, Pyl still calls that “effective control”.
He demonstrated such definition with the following example: Although HK & Mac are self-governing, but since in theory PRC can repeal HK’s constitution’s anytime in the future within legal boundary, so PRC has “effective control” for HK & Mac.
The current fact of HK&M r self-governing is ignored and focuses on possible future event that hasn’t happen. ( coz the current situation is PRC chose not controlling HK now, except defense and foreign relation). The definition also ignores the practical problem will arise because repealing Constitution of HK will violate Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty.
If such definition is applied on ROC, the problem will be even more apparent. ROC can constitutionally do whatever it please on Mainland China anytime; despite currently isn’t exercising such control, since it could happen within the boundary ROC’s constitution, so ROC has “effective control” on Mainland China?!
Pyl worrys about putting the phrase “self-governing” before HK&M may jeopardize ROC’s status. Allow me to demonstrate it will not.
What do u think?-- Da Vynci ( talk) 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I meant. You said:-
My position is actually "even such control is not being exercised currently, Pyl still calls that “effective control”". The control can be practically exercised. It just isn't.
You also said:-
This is the bit that's subject to dispute. That's why so many scholars in Hong Kong are arguing that PRC's power to make the Basic Law is from the Declaration, not from PRC's sovereignty over Hong Kong itself. These scholars are trying to reach a conclusion that you reached. But this position isn't universally agreed upon. Further, I am not sure if a joint declaration itself it a treaty. Treaties aren't called Declaration normally.
I am not concerned about ROC's status here. I just used that example to show the sentence you originally wrote can give an impression that the PRC has no control over Hong Kong as it is "self-governing", just like PRC has no control over Taiwan because it is "self-governing".
Yes the ROC can constitutionally do whatever it wants with mainland China but that's not effective control because the ROC cannot effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on mainland China. The PRC, on the other hand, can effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on Hong Kong.
You proposed:-
Your proposed wording is less problematic. But it is still not accurate. First calling "the Mainland" instead of "mainland China" will anger those Taiwanese independence supporters. Second, it still downplays PRC's power to have a say over Hong Kong, especially the ability to interpret the Basic Law.
I must apologise that I can't think of a more accurate wording at the moment. But let's keep braining storming and we may be able to come up with something better.-- pyl ( talk) 10:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What about adding "largely self-governing" to the current wording so it looks like:-
It is not disputed that PRC has control over Hong Kong and Macau and it is also not disputed that Hong Kong and Macau are largely self-administering territories. I changed "governing" to "administering" because "governing" can imply soverignty, and "administer" is also the word used in "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".-- pyl ( talk) 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the Sino-British Declaration is a international treaty, this view is supported by England's former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on his report on Citizenship, page 74. I think this authoritative reference is enough to stop your further speculation that the Declaration is not an international treaty.
Anyway, for that sentence, I think we do agree that we don’t include disputed matters. We only document what the current actual situation is, right?
The truth is we DONT know what will really happen if PRC repeal Constitution of HK (thus violate the international treaty of Sino-British Declaration) and whether it can be practically done. You say PRC can while some others may say violating an international treaty could result in wars. Whatever it is, there WILL BE DISPUTES when PRC repeal Constitution of HK, and we don’t document disputed future events.
The same goes for your opinion that ROC can’t effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on mainland China, some others may say with few more earthquake in China and natural disasters, little help from the US, it may not be impossible for ROC to reclaim few more cities from the mainland ( especially under the excuse of "good faith" rescue operation). Since we don’t know what will actually happen, and we don’t speculate what future disputed event might happen.
I suggest we adhere to current actual situation and stop the constitution argument.
As for your suggestion:
Personally I have major reservation toward the wording "China has control over HK&M" coz how much control is being exercised by the PRC on HK&M is disputed.
We probably won't be able to find a wording that can entertain all possible disputes. Well, I have no problem re-phrasing to "mainland China" as you suggested. I still think the following is less vulnerable to dispute.
As for the possible downplay and upplay I think it is up to the perception of readers...we only states facts here. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Your point on the Joint Declaration being a treaty is noted. I found on page 74 of the document saying the following:-
Thank you for providing the information. However, there sill remains the question whether the PRC derives the power to make the basic law from its inherent sovenignty over HK or through the operation of the treaty. The scholars in China (incl HK) cannot settle this.
When you speculate on a war between the PRC and the UK if PRC repeals the Basic Law, I feel that the odds are against HK. Would the UK seriously send troops to fight against the PRC because PRC changes its mind over HK? But that's not a speculation within the scope of this discussion.
Your suggestion that:-
is problematic because the statement still downplays the role that Beijing has over things like interpretation of the Basic law. That's why I deliberately left out terms such as "defence" and "foreign relations" and replace them with an ambiguous term "largely" so we don't get into the arguments over what Beijing can do or cannot do. This is similar to the Policy of deliberate ambiguity. I also removed "effective" because how effective Beijing's control is over HK is not clear.
So I actually suggested:-
"Self-Governing" can also imply de facto independence like what the PRC likes to describe Taiwan as. "Governing" can imply sovereignty but "administering" cannot. I think that's why the PRC picked this word when it named HK as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".
This statement tells people that:-
I think it is a compromise to address the concerns and desires of parties from both sides.-- pyl ( talk) 14:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
How about if we just change the phrase "effective control" to "effective military control" since that is that it really means. Effective military control implies the ability to use that military to do whatever one wants regardless of any constitutional restrictions. Whether or not that ability is exercised is often a separate question. In many countries, the military is not routinely used internally for governence, rule of law is followed instead. But the extent of military control prevents external powers from interfering. That's really what the sentences in question are saying. The PRC is able to make sure whatever methods of government it chooses - Basic Law for example - are used in HK, Macau and mainland China, while the ROC is able to make sure that its methods of government, mostly democracy at this point in time, are followed in Taiwan. Readin ( talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I cannot disagree more (about what pyl said above), especially this: "Governing" can imply sovereignty but "administering" cannot. I think that's why the PRC picked this word when it named HK as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and China and the largely self-administering territories of Hong Kong ?!?!
Consider we have terms like Administration (government) and Reagan Administration while USA is an independent country, the word "adminstering"'s meaning/implication depends on the subject. Changing from self-governing to self-adminstrating adds confusion, coz "adminstration" could means a lot of things in different situation.
Names of place created by Communists can be very misleading, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If HK Special Administrative Region is "self-administering" then Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) would be a democratic country.
The current sentence China, has control over mainland China, Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999). is still not factual and misleading, as it doesn't mention HK&M are self-governing. I think you are a bit over-worried that stating the fact that HK&M is self-governing, ppl will then say ROC's also self-governing too, so it must be part of China. Look, "self-governing" doesn't imply independency or dependency. E.g., Just like Singapore is self-governing but it is (now) not part of Malaysia, while Falkland Islands & Bermuda are self-governing but sovereignty belongs to UK. (and YES, the words self-governing/self-governance actually in the article of Falkland Islands & Bermuda.
Since the word "self-governing", when is used for HK does not deny PRC's sovereignty, and when it is used for ROC doesn't jeopardiz ROC status as a different country from PRC. I don't see any problem using it. So, the phrase "self-governing terrorities Hong Kong and Macau" must be included to reflect the fact!-- Da Vynci ( talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the description of "self-governing" for HK. Most English speaking people who read Wikipedia wouldn't really think about sovereignty and all those over legalistic interpretation.
I mentioned it earlier because I was concerned that some Taiwanese independence supporters would make a big deal out of that word because after all the PRC has been calling Taiwan as "self-governing", and I believe those supporters would like to distance Taiwan as far away from HK as possible. So I was being careful when I suggested "Administering". Governing can (but not always) imply sovereignty, but administering cannot.
The current way of description in the main text is fine by me. As I said earlier, I don't think a normal English speaking user would, after reading your description, think that HK has soverignty.-- pyl ( talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
For the first time ever, I found myself indeed agree with Readin that "Effective military control" is probably the right term, because it is the ultimate, current, and undeniable fact. Using this term, we can avoid all the sovereignty disputes. By stating whom's armies is located where can make the whole things clearer, it is simple, free from endless constitution debates, and easy to understand. (Apparently no one here is certain about what effective control means, and the term is subject to dispute)
hereby I suggest:
Some may say the term may sound offensive, yes, it is almost as offensive showing to the Palestinian people that Palestine is not a country. But here in wikipedia we include facts, even that piece of fact may sound unpleasant to some people as per Wikipedia:Profanity. Yes, without using the term "Effective military control" the sentence cannot be as accurate and as honest to the truth!-- Da Vynci ( talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is no good. Really, Taiwan is under the effective military control of the United States.-- pyl ( talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say it's not really a good term, because if you can use it here why don't say USA is controlling native american's territory and Irak and Afganistan...? Now the world knows that China has only one legal government, so this government is totally legal and is not only controlling the territory by its military force... CHN710 ( talk) 15:01, 3 january 2009(CET)
As someone is still trying to include idea of effect military control but this time using a very long sentense that is hard to understand.
Regarding HK and Macau.I am suggesting wikilinking effective control to the Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force article , as following:
The last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China:
Do you think it is acceptable?-- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the current wording as appeared in the main text is fine. I think we have covered the issues that Da Vynci raised in the earlier sections:-
Yeah, glad that we finally have reached consensus. LOL, we typed thousands of words just to debated over change of a few, yet very signifcant, words. Welcome to wikipedia. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this statement is highly problematic:-
Taiwan is in dispute so is mainland China. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC constitution as the Main Area of the ROC. The whole historic Chinese territory is disputed territory as a result of the Chinese Civil War. So I don't think it is appropriate to mention "disputed" just for Taiwan at first place.
This is not an exhaustive list of neighbours. The list doesn't mention Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos and to a lesser extent, Burma. It is absolutely clear to most English speakers (Wikipedia's audience) that Japan, Korea and Vietnam are the main nations receiving the most Chinese influence. Taiwan doesn't have to be mentioned to avoid arguments over different POVs: whether Taiwan is part of China or Taiwan is a neighbour of China.
These arguments have been raised numerous times. They are repetitive, fruitless and frankly boring. We can never reach consensus. So I would suggest that we should be more cautious and not get into the argument at first place: Taiwan doesn't have to be mentioned.-- pyl ( talk) 15:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If Readin really wants to make sure that all readers would get that this is not an exhaustive list then we can say:-
"Historically, China's cultural sphere has extended across East Asia as a whole, with Chinese religion, customs, and writing systems being adopted to varying degrees by its neighbours, such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam"-- pyl ( talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the various size in area of different countries, and when I came to China I noticed it doesn't have the helpful sidebar that shows the country's flag, motto, and statistics. Was this deliberately left out or just forgotten? Godlesspinko ( talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable question. The answer is: Due to the complex political situation and difficulties of NPOV, the "China" page and the "People's Republic of China" page are separate articles despite "China" being the common name for the PRC. This is related to how the "Taiwan" page and the "Republic of China" page are separate articles despite "Taiwan" being the common name for the ROC. Many ways to change or fix this confusing situation have been suggested, but none have been able to achieve consensus despite many months of effort. Readin ( talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Amazing, how could "Republic of China" not be "China"? Unless the ROC you referred to is Republic of Cuba. You still fail to answer what is, in your opinion, a nPOV about China. If you don't know what is the nPOV , then what do you think yourself qualify to accuse other being POV? -- Da Vynci ( talk) 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Under Religion (in the main article) I think that where it starts to talk about Judaism in China, we should add the fact about how Jewish diaspora came to China.. The Kaifeng Jews. There is still a small amount of Chinese Kaifeng Jews, Who have been living in China for generations now. It is not just the Holocaust, where Jews are so specifically noted in China. Those are the EUROPEAN JEWS that came to China.. There are CHINESE JEWS of Kaifeng.. That are still in China today. See Kaifeng Jews-- Animeartist1 ( talk) 14:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen arguments regarding succession of states theory, and that both the ROC and PRC claim to be the successors and so forth and to say otherwise is POV, but as a simple matter of usage in the English language, which is how articles are supposed to be located, that is not on the basis of historical, technical, or political argument, "China" means to most people in most situations the People's Republic of China, and "Taiwan" means to most people people in most situations the Republic of China. Articles are placed according to how people talk, not how editors logically pontificate.
This page is misplaced and is better suited to Chinese civilization. The primary usage of the word "China" from everyday speech is the People's Republic of China.
The entire May 2008 issue of National Geographic was dedicated to China, its history, its modern dilemmas in balancing economic prosperity with ecological awareness, and at no point did they stop and say, "By the way, we're not talking about the island of Taiwan" or refer to it as the People's Republic of China.-- Loodog ( talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I see a serious lack of citation in the religion section of the page that mentions Christianity. DaniJeanne ( talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)DaniJeanne
Hong called himself a son of God not the Son of God. This is consistant with what the bible teaches. Another thing that by Hong's own admission he only believes in One God who is Jesus Christ as you can find this in his own writing about what he believes. He believed in the oneness of God as Jesus Christ. If you look at the page that talks about Hong you can see the sources listed of what he actually believed and what was said in his own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DynastyWarrior ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here.-- pyl ( talk) 05:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirecting China to the PRC is just absurd. PRC is the modern government of mainland China. It is completely different from China. Redirecting China to the PRC is like redirecting the Roman Empire to modern day Italy. Intranetusa ( talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we include China governments persecution of Dalai Lama? WalukHailey ( talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you can't put it in "China," but you include that in the "People's Republic of China" section. Intranetusa ( talk) 05:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The Chinese Superpower-Historical Background, Dr Rivka Shpak-Lissak" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkheilig ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The disambig hatnote for this article is not good: too long, too cumbersome, not very well worded & too many extraneous links. i know there are politically sensitive issues here, but this needs to be better. have made a (now second) draft rewording, tried to keep it as clear (& neutral) as possible. the standard template just doesnt cover this situation Lx 121 ( talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this better?
pyl ( talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
well, it describes the article better, & drops the unnecessary date reference, but there are still 3-4 extraneous links, & the term "modern political state" seems a bit clumsy. Also "modern" is a term with variable meanings (even the qing dynasty survived into the "modern era", depending on how you define it). i've tried running thru a list of synonyms contemporary/current/present/...?
the fact that technically both "china"s" are still claiming sovereignty over the whole country (& each other) is germane, if that was not the case, we would just have separate articles. can we find a formulation that is more succinct, without offending anyone's politics? i can accept including the fact that roc = taiwan for most people, that makes sense, & avoids confusion, but do we really need to include so much geography? it is a dab note, meant to be short & to the point Lx 121 ( talk) 09:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
i like it! tho i think "the" might need to be inserted "the two current political states". i'm also concerned that the geography list will start growing again. what about:
This article is an overview of China and the Chinese civilization. For the two current political states, see the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (also commonly known as Taiwan). For other uses, see China (disambiguation)
with or without the brackets around the aka part, and with or without a live link to Taiwan. there is no real confusion about what the PRC refers to, it's just the ROC/taiwan that needs the explanation. if we can find a wording that wont provoke a war...
Lx 121 ( talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed all instances of BCE/CE to BC/AD since BC/AD is the generally accepted way of writing dates, BCE/CE may be more sensitive and such, but I believe that putting in the proper and accepted way is more important. Feel free to revert the change if you feel the need to, but please post here first, explaining why BCE/CE should be used instead. Sorry if I made a bad change. earle117 ( talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Historical political divisions: Various dynasties also expanded into peripheral territories like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang, and Tibet.
It's more accurately to say "like Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, Vietnam, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asia".-- Punkranka ( talk) 20:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
WHY DOES CHINA DONT LET PEOPLE HAVE SURTEIN AMOUNTS OF KIDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.203.203 ( talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
china is annoying and bad at maths —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suresh170 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there much info about China's population? Stars4change ( talk) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we add a link to Communist Party of China? Stars4change ( talk) 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) try google.com silly you get more stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.113.240 ( talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.222 ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I seldom see anything about the number of people in China in 1900, wasn't that a big factor in WHY China wanted Communism? Weren't there so many people (close to a billion) that were subsisting on small plots of land that it was more obvious there than it was in America, which had a small population (only 76 million) & lots of empty land, that the ideal for China would be to have Communism, where large communities would all live & work on the communally-owned land by large groups of people working together, possibly working fewer hours for each person? It will also be ideal for America when there are 1 or 2 billion people here. Stars4change ( talk) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For goodness sake! Saying the Communist Party of China is a blatant violation of NPOV. It's the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, as this page clearly proves. 150.203.230.8 ( talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)