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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 27 |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was reviewed by
The Denver Post on
April 30,
2007. Comments: "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent."; "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
I've said it before, but the notion that keeping the PRC and China articles seperate is in adherence to NPOV is paradoxical when what Wikipedia is doing in actuality is giving undue weight to fringe claims by the ROC of their ownership of mainland China - thusly violating NPOV. Of course, it's a clean, simple-minded approach to suggest that simply because a nation is technically contested its page should be a geographic one linking to two conflicting political entities; but the guiding principle of fairness behind it is essentially inverse, since by subverting the common understanding of what comprises 'China' (and what is a country but how it's defined?) Wikipedia is by extension advocating a process of definition very different than the one that's commonly used, and therefore politically biased. Analagous is if I managed to - with the help of a fringe political party - declare Prince Edward County a country, then claimed rightful ownership of Canada: would Wikipedia be really embodying objectivity to give claims noone takes seriously equal coverage? Or would they merely be inadvertently promoting my cause?
A better solution would be to merge the PRC and China articles together (so as to recount China's entire history) then include a section devoted specifically to the relationship between the exiled Kuomingtang in Taiwan and China proper. As it stands - and I've taught East Asian history in universities all across the country, so I should be no slouch on the subject - the unnecesary muddling of this article makes it seem amateurish and Eurocentric, and should be erected as soon as possible.
China is the country of all things and is were mostly amercian sources come from. Shoes, clothes,and materails for jobs and other important things . china is a peaceful place but also have many problems such as money depression and plenty of other problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.13.99 ( talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The fact that the historic means by which Chinese assessed what entailed 'China' wasn't a formal one so much as one based on what regime possessed foremost legitimacy (this was largely contingent upon imperial support) only reinforces how silly it is to assert that China 'means' ROC every bit as much as it 'means' PRC. But then again, I suppose Wikipedia doesn't possess a whole lot of sympathy for the idea that a nation or country is definable outside of the regimes which literally stake claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 ( talk) 06:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The communist People's Republic of China is merely the government of mainland China. It doesn't not represent China in general, nor does it represent Chinese history. The PRC has been around for 50 years. "China" has been around for at least 4200 years. Enough of this propaganda and do your math pal.
Intranetusa (
talk) 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
......
So long as the ROC continues to exist, the distinction has to be made. 1000 years from now, the distinction will also still be made. Just as we still talk about Shu-Han, Cao Wei and Dong Wu (The Three Kingdoms). The Southern and Northern Dynsties. And the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 ( talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have understood that in Wikipedia country articles should have the commonly used name of the country as the title. Thus Iran, for example, is named as Iran, not the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's because people commonly mean the Islamic Republic of Iran when they say Iran. Similarly, it is common practice to use China to mean the People's Republic of China. This practice is arguably the most common naming practice, it is used, among others, by the UN ( http://www.un.org.cn/index.htm), the US Government ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm), the EU ( http://www.eu-in-china.com/) and the OECD ( http://www.oecd.org/country/0,3377,en_33873108_36016481_1_1_1_1_1,00.html)... I could continue the list indefenetly with international agencies, media and governments. In fact, it is very difficult to find examples to the opposite effect.
Why does not the naming of articles in Wikipedia follow the practice of giving the generally used name of the country to the article about China? From there you could have links to articles such as the history of China and Taiwan. This seems to be the only instance where an exception is done, and it does look like a NNPOV. -- Tungsten ( talk) 07:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Separating China from the PRC is like separating the Obama Administration from the USA: it is absurd.
China has always been a "one party state".
Please also note that Chiang Kaishek and Mao Zedong always agreed that there was only one China. This is the basis for cross-straits relations to this day. Also note that 80% of Taiwanese exports are to the Mainland. There are direct flights and cross-straits tourism should be in the order of 350,000 mainlanders this year.
Go to the religious accessory shops in Singapore, Hong Kong or Beijing and Shanghai and you will see statues of Mao Zedong lined up for sale among Guanyin, Zheng He and other traditional divinities.
The concept that Communism has this magical ability to cut off a people from all their cultural heritage is something imaginable only by Americans and Christian supremacists. In more polite terms, the appropriate term is "US-ethnocentric".
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
I don't understand why Wikipedia is separating the Modern PRC from the history of China pre-1949. The current Chinese government is an integral and fundamental element of Chinese history. The CPC should really be looked at as a ruling dynasty more than anything else...I don't think anyone other than fringe groups questions the legitimacy of the PRC government after almost 60 years now, and the current "Chinese civilization" article is confusing and arbitrary, who's to say when "Chinese civilization" ends? This whole thing screams of political correctness gone way overboard, by this logic we should have a seperate article for each dynasty. I strongly suggest we MERGE these articles into one "China" article. Paco8191 ( talk) 14:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The PRC represents one slice of the history of China. We need one article that covers the concept of China in general and then see full article for the various time periods. We could treat the PRC as the main article and split out the other periods, but then we'd just need to reorg sometime in the next few decades when the PRC folds. Hcobb ( talk) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That the PRC will fold is a POV.
To separate the PRC from all the country's preceding governments is to put it under a political quarantine that the US Government abandoned in the 1970s. This is just plain Cold War thinking.
There are greater grounds for dividing up French history into KIngdom of France and Republic of France: after all, when this nation celebrated its bicentennial in 1989, not one kingdom sent a head of state to attend: Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom (to name but a few) sent their prime minister, not their king or queen.
The distinction between China and PRC is ridiculous and politically biased.
Let's move forward on this issue. -- Arthur Borges ( talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent entities that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs |
China (Historical) | 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) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty. |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever) |
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) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Readin ( talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No succession of governments, all of which need articles showing this succession, and something as major as the Nationalist Government really needs an article. The state existed more-or-less undisputed throughout the Republican era, but no single government gained complete control over it (so what the heck do we mean when we say the Republic of China "ruled" all of China before 1949?) and at times (e.g. WWII) there were rival governments going by the same name and flag. There are clear breaks in rule in 1912, 1916, 1928, 1937, 1945, and 1949. How many Republic of Chinas do we need? -- Jiang ( talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal for co-ordinated rewrites is a starting point. I picture a variation thereof, as follows:
This seems to me the best structure for maintaining the most neutral POV practicable at this time, provided that the Articles can be properly coordinated. The one unanswered question is whether it can be done sans edit wars. B. C. Schmerker ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I still like the Arbiteroftruth's proposal at the top of this section. To be acceptable however, the ROC post 1949 needs a "(Taiwan)" in the title to make it NPOV. Without that change it fails the fundamental NPOV test. If Arbiteroftruth is opposed to doing so, I'm also ok with keeping the ROC eras in a single article. Arbiteroftruth's description of the China article is not perfect - he's making too much effort to have Taiwan be part of China, but the details can be haggled over while writing the actual article. A possible China article description is shown below.
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Disambiguation with links to PRC, ROC and the dishes, etc.. The different definitions of what area constitutes "China", with appropriate links as necessary to general articles and geography articles (Taiwan, Mongolia, geography of PRC, geography of ROC incluing Mongolia, etc.). Etymology of "China". |
The handling of "culture and customs" will need to be worked out. We could include in the China article "Culture and customs of the PRC (culture and customs of Taiwan are already covered in the Taiwan article, and a link to the Taiwan article will have already been provided in the section on different definitions)." Or we might divide the section on the culture and customs of China into different section with a subsection called "customs and culture of disputed regions" that includes or links to articles on the culture and customs of Taiwan, Mongolia and maybe even Tibet. Readin ( talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) --- I detect a serious failure to grasp the China/Taiwan issue and the mindsets at play. WW2 negotiations among the Allies gave Taiwan back to China and that's what happened after 1945. Both the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang (aka Guomindang) are adamant that there is only one China. The USG acknowledged recognition of the One China policy, and if this too is a POV, it is a weighty one.
Yes, there are issues: the _native born_ Taiwanese hate the Chinese, but this is because Chiang Kaishek came in, decapitated the local power pyramid and set up a police state of the likes they had never before experienced -- even under the Japanese, whom they still adore. But then go and poll Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians and the odd Alaskan I know about how they feel about statehood/independence!
If you really want to go POV, then follow through: China has 56 officially recognized ethnic nationalities -- do treat each as a separate country. But if you do that, then treat any US state with some microgroup of fringe independence radicals as separate entries independent of Washington's oppression!
Returning specifically to Taiwan, Mao, Zhou Enlai and Chiang Kaishek are all heirs to Sun Yatsen and his ideal of the republic as the key for China to become a member of the world community.
Yes, they were bitter enemies before the Japanese expanded their hold on Chinese territory and it vaguely improved to being bittersweet enemies during the wider Japanese occupation, but after Chiang's death, relations warmed markedly: if you look at Mainland missile tests and Taiwanese presidential elections, you will see a correlation. Beijing would fire missiles during the election campaign to help swing the vote _in favour of_ of the Kuomintang (Guomindang). I have to infer collusion!
It is NOT neutral to imagine that Marxism/Leninism managed to erase 8,000 years of civilization and culture overnight(or 3 or 5 depending on your baseline of choice).
Really, one mustn't carry over one's personal political fantasies too far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be merged with People's Republic of China. There is no such thing as "Chinese civilization" anymore. It is now PRCs civilization. Chinese civilization is nonsense made up term. Merge with PRC. A lot of Western nonsense in this "China" article, trying to say "China" is "ancient" civilization and "multinational" or "national" entity. The people that wrote this has no idea what he/she is talking about. Period. 71.237.70.49 ( talk) 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job ignoring me guys. But hey, just because I've seen every attempt to rationalize these articles fail, don't let it keep you from wasting your time. How's that consensus coming? -- slashem ( talk) 08:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Any article titled "PRC Civilization" can, by definition, only deal with events after 1 October 1949, or events directly connected with the formation of the PRC. And even that would be a stretch given that PRC is a state. I don't think we would venture to say "West German Civilization". Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should merge "Chinese civilization" with "PRCs civilization" or not, but why on earth we are even discussing an article called something so ridiculous as "PRC civilization." 12:04, 4 November2008
-In some ways, the original poster is correct. Mao did everything he could to destroy Chinese culture (Cultural Revolution anyone?) to create a world modeled after himself as God. When was the last time school children in China studied Confucius? They never stopped studying Confucius in Taiwan. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
167.88.201.100 (
talk) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
--- --- Nobody in the PRC or ROC speaks of "PRC civilization". It's either "Han" or "Chinese" civilization.
If you need a model look at the US State Department's Background Notes: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm for the PRC and http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm for the ROC.
Note that (1) the history marks the 1949 break with a new new paragraph -- like a distinction between any other two dynasties and (2) the PRC is listed as "China" with "official name" as Peoples Republic of China and, for Taiwan, "Taiwan" entered twice (I'd put "Republic of China" as the official name, because it's what it calls itself and no, I don't know why State isn't using it).
A MERGER IS IN ORDER.
-- Arthur Borges ( talk) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:People's Republic of China there is a merger proposal proposing to merge China and People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.11.234 ( talk) 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument is simple: Both the ROC and PRC agree on the One China policy. That has been the case since Sun Yatsen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kaishek: tell anyone of them otherwise and they will turn over in their graves.
As the Chinese have a healthy respect for ghosts and science has yet to disprove their existence (innocent till proven guilty, right?), I would be cautious about ignoring the will of these three titans.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
add section or ref at bottom under "Further Reading" See long, long history of China US Ties to US Presidents in new book discussing also 4000 year time line
Um, by my count, there have been 14 military interventions by US forces in China since the early 1800s against none in the other direction on US soil.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In the section "Geography and environment", nowhere is it mentioned that china is the biggest! emitter of greenhouse gases and that air quality in china (near cities) is amongst the worst in the world. Also, please state that this is due to its huge consumption of coal (the most polluting energy source).
I also recommend seperating geography and environment, so that the environment section gets its own section (which it needs, given that its an important issue).
Thanks in advance, KVDP ( talk) 11:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Also please put in that although China is the biggest consumer of coal, it also has the biggest population, and is the biggest producer of the world's goods. If the chinese didn't use so much coal, this would lead to factory failures and people in (especially western)countries would lose most of their clothes,toys, computer monitor screens and even plastic. Also note that Chinese people traditionally have environmental-friendly habits - when cold, the chinese put on an extra coat while most Europeans light up the fireplace. KVDP's comment is biased(in my opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.227.154 ( talk) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
---
Ah yes, we should also add that about half of Chinese exports are intercompany trade between Western multinationals and their Chinese subsidiaries.
How amusing that US consumers are willing to trade their jobs for lower Walmart prices.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add the following line "China has been rated 163rd of the 169 countries based on their freedom of press, by the Worldwide Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders. The line is to be added after "Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religion, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements."
thanks, 81.244.196.75 ( talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
--- The West has strange baselines for freedom of the press: the fact that the Chinese press is state-owned and not dependent on advertising income means that journalists have MORE freedom to investigate the abuses of private enterprise in what is now a market economy -- which is why some of them get murdered. Now that money talks here, honesty is not always the best policy any more.
I have personal examples of people fired for being too investigative in China. I never saw any investigative spirit in the Western journalists I have worked with. Except if they were new. Or drunk.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is totally not religion Western countries don't understand confucianism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.53.245.107 ( talk) 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Really depends on whose definition of religion you're using. Most religious studies departments allow Marxism to be taught in Intro. to Religious Studies classes.
76.123.226.12 (
talk) 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)DaveDaveDave
---
It's very Western/Mediterranean to imagine that there is only One God who has a perpetual patent on The Truth.
China is supermarket spirituality: you have Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Buddhism is for pain management, mostly emotional but physical too. Daoism is about managing the relationship between the energies circulating inside your body with those operating the universe and Confucianism is about regulating relationships between oneself and the rest of society.
So you drink and eat like a Daoist, socialize and pay hommage to your deceased forefathers/mothers like a Confucian and then you cry and try to be helpful to your fellow wo/man like a Buddhist.
But hardly anyone in China expects any Creator of the Universe to delegate anybody to marry you or save your pair of buns from any inferno that befalls them!
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There's been some dispute over the use of the term "city-state" to describe Hong Kong and Macau in this article. So that we can have discussion here, rather than just reverts, I'll go ahead and reiterate the argument in my recent edit summary: The term city-state usually refers to a sovereignty, which HK and Macau are not. They are, at best, special cases of city-states and shouldn't be referred to as city-state without at least some form of qualification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at some of the proposed changes:
That's not too bad, but it is in the wrong place. Hong Kong and Macau are clearly part of the PRC - even the PRC's language of '1 country 2 systems makes that clear. The context of the above statement is in trying to distinguish the PRC from the ROC. There is no need to go into the details about Hong Kong and Macau. The information needs to be moved. Wherever the information is put, HK and Macau should not be called "city-states" as they are not self-sovereign. And Pyl is right to say that the defense and foreign affairs should be covered. As for internal government, it should read something like "Under the Basic Law agreed to by the PRC and UK, the PRC allows HK a almost complete autonomy in governing its internal affairs, but the PRC has the final say in interpreting any limitations placed on it by the Basic Law. Readin ( talk) 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me bring the discussion that was conducted in Da Vynci's talk page as I think it is relevant to this article and I believe Heimstern also mentioned the discussion should be done here. The discussion is reproduced, as follows:-
Which part of Hong Kong does China has effective control other then defence and foreign affairs? huh!? I am thrill to know. Does having the Queen's portrait of your all ur coins mean Australia is "effectly controlled" by the Government of the UK? NO~~. Hong Kong uses the name "Hong Kong, China" doesn't mean we are controlled by that country, says the Constitution. Hence, any 'effective control " apart from defence and foreign affairs over the city-state will be deemed as constitutional. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 11:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
---
Beijing undertook to respect Hong Kong's status for 50 years. That was 1997 when HKG's GDP was 40% of the PRC's. Since then, lots of cross-pollination has been happening.
On Australia, its head of state is the Governor General, familiarly referred to as the GG. Everybody laughs at her/him but there was this one that annulled an entire national election. And guess what? S/he has every power to pull that stunt again or simply dissolve the Australian parliament at the snap of a finger.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
---
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message so it allows me to explain what I meant.
You asked me which part of Hong Kong does PRC have control. I think you then answered the question: defence and foreign affairs. Your original sentence was:-
"[PRC] has effective control over mainland China and has sovereignty over internally self-governing city states of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999)."
Your sentence implies that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. But in fact, as you said the PRC central government has effect control over Hong Kong in respect of defence and foreign affairs. I note you cited the Sino-British Joint Declaration to back up your argument. But that's irrelevant in this issue.
Also you said that Hong Kong is a city state. It is not. It is a local government of a state called the People's Republic of China. Singapore is a city state called the Republic of Singapore.
The United Kingdom does not have any control over Australia. Please let me refer you to the Australia Act 1986. It is a piece of legislation passed by both Parliaments of Australia and the UK saying the UK Parliament shall not make any laws for Australia or any of its states. In this respect, Australia is a fully independent nation. Also, the Queen in Australia has an official title of "Queen of Australia". When she exercises her powers in right of Australia, she is acting as the Queen of Australia (not of the United Kingdom).
Hong Kong, on the other hand, is a different story. The PRC government can at any time make laws to override the Basic Law in accordance of the legal principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the parliament can make whatever laws it pleases). The Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot prevent that from happening. This is another example that PRC has effect control over Hong Kong.-- pyl ( talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
______________________________
Parliamentary Sovereignty or not, those r hypothetical at best, in practice China cannot pass any amendment of the Basic Law without first obtaining the consent from Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Because the Legislative Council has the veto power. Reference An amendment of the the Constitution of Hong Kong requires the consent of:
So China cannot do whatever they want, and do not have effective control of Hong Kong as Pyl described, and I stand by my suggestion of "China, has effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignty over internally self-governing territorties of Hong Kong" -- Da Vynci ( talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes you just opened a Pandora's box. lol.
'Parliamentary Sovereignty' is hypothetical at best? I don't believe that any reasonable person would form that view if he or she studies the relevant legal texts on this subject.
Please let me reproduce the relevant text regarding amendment to the Basic Law as follows:-
The first paragraph says it all. The power is vested on the PRC central government, not on the Hong Kong SAR government. The rest of the Article is technicalities. The PRC says they can't make amendments that's in contravention with the established basic policies but that does not mean that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. The Basic Law is PRC law (not HK law) and the power to amend is vested on the PRC. Nothing stops the PRC making laws which says "The Basic Law of Hong Kong is repealed" then replace it with another piece of legislation. The power to repeal (not just to amend) the Basic Law is clearly vested on the PRC.
Then, I also agree with Readin. The power of interpretation the Basic Law also means PRC has effect control over HK. It is the PRC who makes the interpretation, not the HK SAR government. The PRC has effective control over HK.
There is probably a misunderstanding with the City Council example that I gave above. Please let me give another example. In Australia's federation (and I think it is similar to those in the US and Canada), between local governments (such as a city council) and the federal government, there are state governments. Under Australia's constitution, the Federal government can only make laws relating to certain powers, but not others. For example, Australia's state governments have powers to make law in relation to criminal laws such as murder, etc. The federal government does not. No reasonable person would in this case argue that the Federal government have no effective control over the states. The following sentences:-
"Australia's federal government has sovereignty over Australia, but the States of Australia have effect control over their respective States as they have powers over certain matters such as criminal law, contract law, wills and estates etc."; and
"Australia's federal government has sovereignty over Australia, but the States of Australia have effect control over their respective States as they are responsible for all local matters except for defence, foreign affairs, etc, which are the responsibilities of the Federal government"
don't quite make sense, do they? After all, it is the Federal High Court who interprets the Australian federal and state Constitutions.
Please let me reproduce what Wikipedia says about 'Parliamentary Sovereignty', as follows:-
The concept is very plainly set out so I don't think I need to go into details. The PRC has the ultimate power in relation to Hong Kong. The PRC has effective control over Hong Kong.
As I said, PRC wants people to know that they can leave Hong Kong to take care of its own local affairs so they look good. The PRC doesn't have a good reputation with the business community, and it is not in their best interest if HK no longer shines as "the Pearl of the Orient" so they want to be subtle. But the PRC still has effect control over Hong Kong, they don't want people to know that because they would then look bad.-- pyl ( talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
______________________________________________________
You made reference to the political system of Australia, as deliberately inadequate examples due to the size difference is too great that make it impossible for a sensible comparison. The comparison fails also because Australia doesn’t have a region that has a completely different political system. Your example will only be applicable if, for example, Melbourne is a communist city while the rest of Australia is Parliamentary democracy.--- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Readin just added some arguments on my talk page and they are relevant to this subject. So I will reproduce it here, as follows:
I moved Da Vynci's latest comment down so it is easier for us to continue this discussion.
The way you put it is not good. Let me replace Hong Kong and Macau with Taiwan and you will see what I mean.
You see what I mean? This totally complies with the PRC's point of view on Taiwan.
As we know, Taiwan's position is different of those of Hong Kong and Macau and that sentence can be misinterpreted the wrong way.
Hong Kong and Macau are at best "largely self-governing" but not "self-governing". The statement was made absolute again without mentioning defence and foreign affairs. It also didn't mention that Beijing really has the final say over Hong Kong and Macau.
The term "reserved power" has a legal meaning. PRC doesn't have "reserved powers" on Hong Kong. It has the actual powers. The Queen has "reserved powers". She is said to have all the powers in the world, but as you know, she can't use them unless she is advised to do so by her ministers. PRC can use the power any time it likes.-- pyl ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that the ROC used to be called Nationalist China, but is it still commonly called that way today? It seems to me that it's far more often commonly called Taiwan that Nationlist China. Just trying to understand the rational here. Thanks, Laurent ( talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Remove "China's science and technology had fallen behind that of Europe by the 17th century." or you need to prove the claim! Science is a western thing. These cultures didn't need specifik rules to invent stuff!
Kunming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.82.158 ( talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out that while Traditional Chinese may be the original format, Simplified Chinese is the standard formatting used today. Street signs, menus, books are all printed in Simplified Chinese for this very reason.
I recommend using Simplified Chinese for this article and Traditional Chinese for the Taiwan article.
BUT. Make no mistake, I'm not saying we should completely eliminate Traditional text from this page. I'm merely saying that having the lead picture blaringly declare "Zhong Guo" in Traditional text goes against standardised policies, and is also a bit POVed not to also declare "Zhong Guo" in simplified text.
I understand that the lead picture was implemented for artistic purposes, however, the purpose of this article is to inform, not to appeal to the eye. ...Ω... ..¿TooT?.. ..¡StatS!.. 02:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, it is unwise to confuse western concepts of traditional and modern in regards to translations: Traditional: 中国 The first symbol means "middle" the second means "kingdom" as China(中国) is known as the "middle kingdom". Modern: 中国 The first symbol means "central" the second means "nation" as China(中国) may be understood as the "central nation".
People's Republic of China and Republic of China (1949–present)
Hong Kong and Macau were never under the PRC prior to 1997 and 1999, respectively, so how can they be "returned" to the PRC? This should be changed to something like "...handed over to the PRC" or "...returned to CHINA". Yes, most people will agree that nowadays when one mentions "China", it refers to land currently under the jurisdiction of the PRC; but to say that these two regions were returned to the PRC implies that it was the PRC that ceded these lands when in fact the PRC has only existed since 1949. 218.103.194.249 ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
-- User:Chongkian ( Talk) 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This question is a real hoot! Maybe the UK should have returned it to Taiwan??? What planet am I on here!!!
And all my condolences to Mary.
An edit war has been on-going on this subject in the Sports section of this article.
Readin wishes "disputed region" description being added to Taiwan, as she considers that Taiwan is not part of China.
T-1000 removes this description with a reason that "Currently, both KMT and DPP accept ROC = Taiwan."
My view is "disputed region" cannot be unneutrally added only to Taiwan because mainland China is also constitutionally disputed by the ROC. By adding the description to Taiwan and not to mainland China, Wikipedia is rejecting the ROC's constitutional claims.
I think Readin's concerns are valid. If there is a way to show 'Sports in Taiwan' while her POV is taken into account, I would be happy with that.
In relation to T-1000, my view is, it is actually partially correct. Currently, the KMT government accepts that the ROC is China, not Taiwan. See 1992 consensus and Special non-state-to-state relations. DPP indeed accepts that the ROC = Taiwan, and that part of the statement is not disputed.-- pyl ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia promoting a US PoV as an foreign policy tool. I wish I could read Han Chinese to check the article written in that language so that I would have a hope to take a more objective encyclopedic view on the matter. Due to my opinion this article is a disgrace. Even for an anti-communist its rather obvious that when we are reffering to China most people mean PRC otherwise they just say Taiwan.-- 92.118.191.48 ( talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Readin Keeps removing the "For sports in the Republic of China, see Sports in Taiwan" link, but She has provide no proof that there is a Dispute with Taiwan as a part of the Chinese Civilization. She has not responded to my previous post which was:
"Again, China is defined as the Civilization in the article. Do you have sources that say that the majority of the DPP or Greens denies Taiwan or ROC as a part of the Chinese Civilization? Here's a link with Chen Shui Bian saying he is proud to be a Hua ren. http://www.cnd.org/CND-Global/CND-Global.00.4th/CND-Global.00-10-19.html" T-1000 ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Quote from Chen:
"a Der Spiegel reporter asked Mr. Chen if he thinks of himself as a Taiwanese or a Chinese. "People on both sides of the strait share a common historical background, blood ties, cultural experience and religious beliefs," Mr. Chen was cited as replying. "We are all important parts of Chinese society (hua ren shehui), so we are honored and proud to be Chinese (hua ren)." T-1000 ( talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for easier reading)
With reference to my statements in the above section, I think T-1000 has made a valid point here as the DPP also considers Taiwan to be part of the Chinese society. Therefore, Taiwan should be included in this article.
Yes, as Readin said above, Wikipedia should mention any major POVs even if they represent less than 50% of the population, and that's commonly the DPP position. But Wikipedia's policy explictly states that any marginal POVs can be ignored altogether. I believe Readin's POV is marginal in this case (since KMT, DPP and CPC seem to all agree on this issue).
As I said in the past Readin's POV is often based on 8% of the Taiwanese society (the "deep-greens"), but she just goes along and pushes her POV everywhere, then accuse others with the major POVs of POV pushing. See Talk: Sinicization and her editing summaries here.-- pyl ( talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no Human Rights section in the article? I hope Wikipedians do know that human rights in China is a big concern... Uyghurs, Tibet, or even the general public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.71.143 ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we be friends Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)
This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. I also started a similar discussion in the China page. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.112.218.230 (
talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
when the people made the great wall, meny people died when making it, so the people beryed the people that died in the great wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.172.197 ( talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
BLAHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.25.152 ( talk) 09:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with the start of this article stating China as an ancient civilazation or as a leader through some of it's history then....but....They won't let me put stuff like this with India's page. And when I asked the dictators of wikipedia why this is allowed for China's page but not India's page then, one of the answer's that was given to me was to bring this up on the China's page of Disscussion then I think then or maybe something like that here and w then . So now here I am bringing it up then . . . . . 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we have table of information about the country (its GDP, population size etc) as seemingly all other countries have? And also. there is not much information on modern China.-- Gilisa ( talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
{{three other uses|the Chinese civilization|the modern political state comprising [[Mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]]|People's Republic of China|the modern political state comprising [[Taiwan]], [[Penghu]], [[Kinmen]], and [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]]|Republic of China}}
T-1000 (
talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Perhaps a small section could detail that the different population groups are a problem to the country's development and that certain people (eg George Friedman) said that china could even collapse by it (in 2100) 217.136.156.187 ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
ROTFLMFAO! Simonm223 ( talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There will not be a PRC in 2030. Hcobb ( talk) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
While I'm sure most of you know this and the suggestions above are a bit of a joke, please see this article about how Wikipedia is not meant to be a crystal ball. TastyCakes ( talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Listing the Indus Valley Civilization as one of those to have invented writing is inaccurate at best. There has never been any proof that what the Indus Valley Civilization is actually writing, and there has actually been a computational linguistic disproof of this (references: [2] and [3]). I do not have the ability to edit this phrase out of the article, but I would appreciate if someone did because it inaccurate at best, and certainly not proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruski86 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.
Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 ( talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The introduction is really a mess. It should be rewritten entirely. Polylepsis ( talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This is why i don't trust in Wikipedia any more! "China was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s when it missed the industrial revolution."
Where's the facts to back this up? It's a lot in this article tha is pure nonsens! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.103.203.254 (
talk) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:People's Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. About 1850 - In the First Opium War starting in 1839 the Chinese were clearly at a great technological disadvantage. adding citation needed for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should find sources clearly describing the decline anytime after the beginning of the 18th century to keep the "until" wording at all. I am being such a pedant only because I suspect this sentence is there to pass a POV'ish message. Fearfulleader ( talk)
The Chinese, as a nation that sees itself as a country that should always have a central place as a world power (Not unlike other nations), tends to explain it's past failure to keep up with the western world in a simplistic way, or a technical way. The fact is that China lost it's "world history edge" as soon as the qing dynasty cut itself off from other countries, believing Chinese culture is superior, long before the 19th century. The "missed the industrial revolution" together with blaming foreign imperialism is a way the Chinese make sense of their perceived, now almost forgotten, military, technological, and economic failure in the last century, but not a fact. Fearfulleader ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
Wouldn't the correct English version of People's Republic of China be Peoples' rather than People's. As I understand, plural nouns have the apostrophe after the "s" so it should be s' and not 's. Yongbyong38 ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
some people don't get what u mean, we are asking about china because we don't know so we would not be able to understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.155.238 ( talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit because the current consensus is that this article is not about China but about the Chinese civilization. If Zonghuo wants to change the scope of the article, he should seek a new consensus here. Laurent ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand there are a lot of political interests that seek to define the scope of the word "China". Far from giving in to these attempts, we should employ common sense when deciding what "China" means. If you watch the news, hear people talk or ask your travel agent to book you a trip to "China", then you will know that the word refers to the People's Republic on the mainland. Taiwan is generally not referred to as China, not even by Taiwanese themselves. This is not the CIA World Factbook, but a collection of human knowledge. Our definitions, too, should reflect this. MAKootage ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
{{editsemiprotected}} I am trying to use this information for my social studies project and I need to put it in bibliograpy form and I could not find the editor and the main author of the article about China. Maybe if it is possible You could put that kind of information there. Thank you!
Aleksisfeirvezers (
talk) 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this discussion to prevent an edit war. Laurent's reasoning for the edits was that people looking for Taiwan would not go to China. However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. Readin, the ROC cannot be described as a previous regime of China, because it still exists in Taiwan. Calling ROC historical would imply that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. T-1000 ( talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
china can not be separated by the government,but an union of its people and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.37.118 ( talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, as a frequent wikipedia reader/visitor I find it plain ridiculous too when I search for China to get some facts about this possible emerging superpower instead I'm faced with this page, and reading the discussion arguments against the merge proposal it seems to me there's a political bias given none ever uses China to refer to other "country" than PRC. After all the issue deserves better investigation considering it's the only entry which doesn't follow the standards. In regards to this matter, I don't doubt wikipedia might be suffering manipulation for political expedient to the detriment of facts. That's shameful and really very bad to wikipedia, to the readers, to the knowledge, to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.168.129 ( talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What are you guys talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.116.250 ( talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
please add
sd:چين
-- 92.8.202.26 ( talk) 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks! Spigot Map 17:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
China should be redirected to China, not to PRC Slidersv ( talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Starting this discussion about User:ProfessorJane. There are at least three POV about the Political status of the ROC, detailed on the political status of Taiwan page. User:ProfessorJane is pushing one of them. This user has also been blocked before as User talk:98.122.100.249, User talk:98.71.6.81, and User talk:74.243.218.94. Opinions on how to deal with this? T-1000 ( talk) 23:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The T-1000 has an obvious history of deceptive pov pushing to anyone who would examine his edit history. My edits have all reflected the need to adhere to the official Wikipedia policy as stated above. ProfessorJane
Seems that you have mentioned Mount Everest is in China, I feel thats a wrong fact, it falls within the territories of Nepal
Sanjeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.21.31 ( talk) 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How can someone claim this?!:
"China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization."
"For centuries, it possessed the most advanced society and economy in the world through successive dynasties"
For large periods of its history, China was no unified country and when it was it was often ruled by foreign dynasties and powers. But anyway, people should be aware that, as one economic historian had it, there are no quarterly adjusted economic numbers for the last two millennia. To act as if these numbers were facts is deeply unprofessional, and either naive or biased. Maddison says that figures before 1750 are guess work and the margin of error in calculating values such as GDP etc. in the late 19th was still 30%. So, in the light of this, what makes people here so cocksure that China was the leading economy for the last 2000 years?
That should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.72.14 ( talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is sad when people making insightful comments without any sources to substantiate them... The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
What is even sadder is that the comments are incorrect. Here is a quote fro one of the world greatest historians, WIll Durant.: (vol 1 The Story of Civilization)
"This nation, after three thousand years of grandeur and decay, of repeated deaths and resurrections exhibits today all the physical and mental vitality that we find in its most creative periods.
There are no people in the world more vigorous or more intelligent. No other people so adaptable to circumstance, so resistant to disease, so resilient after disaster and suffering, so trained by history to calm endurance and patient recovery. Imagination cannot describe the possibilities of a civilization mingling the physical, labor and mental resources of such a people with the technological equipment of modern industry. Very probably such wealth will be produced in China as even American has never known and once again, as so often in the past, China will lead the world in luxury and the art of life.
No victory of arms or tyranny of alien finance can long suppress a nation so rich in resources and vitality…… Within a century China will have absorbed and civilised its conquerors and will have learnt all the techniques of … industry..
Roads and communications will give her unity, economy and thrift will give her funds and a strong government will give her order and peace. Every chaos is a transition. In the end disorder cures and balances itself with dictatorship. Old obstacles are roughly cleared away and fresh growth is freed. Revolution, like death and style, is the removal of rubbish, the surgery of the superfluous; it comes only when there are many things ready to die. China has died many times before and many times she has been reborn."
The unsigned somment above using words like cocksure belies an emotional quality unsuited to editing wikipedia. IT certainly does not rise to serious consideration. Macrhino ( talk) 11:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please change: a country of "yellow-colored" barbarians located to: a country located
the original text is extremely offensive to folks living in that region. Maxmich ( talk) 03:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
why not show songthing of now-china? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.120.218.51 ( talk) 05:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Are the sources provided enough evidence to back up the claim that China is the oldest civilization in the world and invented writing? I do not believe that these sources provide worldwide consensus on what is the world's oldest civilization. The Taerkasten ( talk) 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
China has a continuous history of over 10,000 years and it is confirmed by archaeologists that around 8,000 years ago the first system of writing, the ancient Chinese system, was invented, several thousand years earlier than the cuneiform writing of the Babylonians and other Western civilisations in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. This is confirmed and published in peer reviewed archaeology scientific journals so please read the following two sources:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm
2.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
66.57.175.88 ( talk) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The source makes it very clear that it is the oldest system of writing, much earlier than the cuneiform writing used in Sumer and Babylonia, which is the so-called "cradle of civilization" ONLY for Western and Middle Eastern civilizations and NOT ancient China or India who both have their own independently develop civilizations that go back 10,000 years for China and at least 6,000 years for India's ancient civilizations.
71.68.248.56 (
talk) 10:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
1.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
2.) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6121225.htm
3.) http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm
4.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm
5.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source that shows that people in the Middle East invented writing a few thousand years later, after the ancient Chinese, around 4,000 to 5,000 years at most! Please read:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What they found were glyphs. Lots of ancient cultures had glyphs: see Vinca symbols, for example, which people in the Balkans have been claiming are the world's oldest writing. Neither of these is demonstrably writing as opposed to proto-writing or s.t. similar. If the Damaidi glyphs resemble early hanzi that is not surprising, since basic hanzi are pictographic in origin and were the product of a continuous culture. But hanzi are not pictographs, and for all we know the Damaidi glyphs were.
As for earliest "civilization", that would depend on how one defines civilization. What we need are WP:RSs that other researchers have accepted the Chinese claims. Remember too that many governments see propaganda value in being "first"--just think of the US-USSR space race. — kwami ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
kindly substantiate this wild claim: China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization.
it is, to put it politely, so much b.s.
substantiate, or remove
118.90.43.232 ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
As a non chinese I am amazed at the apparent jealously motiviating these remarks.
China is the oldest living civilization. If one needs substantiation for this, one should get out of the history field.
China has the longest continuous history of any country in the world—3,500 years of written history. And even 3,500 years ago China’s civilization was old!
The above is from Historian.org [1] Macrhino ( talk) 11:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong, China's history is indeed confirmed to be the oldest civilisation in the world with a continuous history going back at least 10,000 years ago to the first ancient Chinese city states. Around 8,000 ago the first system of writing, the ancient Chinese system was invented, please read the following two sources:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm
2.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
66.57.175.88 (
talk) 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
1.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
2.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm
3.) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6121225.htm
4.) http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm
5.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source that shows that people in the Middle East invented writing a few thousand years later, after the ancient Chinese, around 4,000 to 5,000 years at most! Please read:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Unlike the last section (Chinese writing is the oldest), this has merit. Everything I've read agrees that China is the world's oldest existing civilization. Think of any other civilization from 1200 BCE: all have fallen but China. (Well, China has fallen too, but put itself back together again.) — kwami ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has disambiguation bullets that note:
May I suggest adding "established in 1912" for the ROC bullet to keep the two bullets in a common format?
Hello - In the preview for this page from search engines, China is referred to as Chinkville. Please fix. DFS ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Thanks! DFS ( talk) 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why Libya is written as a country with two government while China as two country? –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think a situation that only emerged in the past month and has been fluid on a day-to-day basis since then is at all comparable to a situation that has stabilized, territorially and diplomatically, for decades. If this were November 1, 1949, Wikipedia would be treating the ROC/PRC very differently, but we do not live in November 1, 1949. -- 160.39.31.104 ( talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this should be added. A study was done that from Africa, to India, then to Asian countries, such as China. That Asian and CHinese ancestors came from India. . Here is the link . . http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ancestors-of-Chinese-came-from-India-Study/articleshow/5328596.cms . . . . 71.106.83.19 ( talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UT First of all, the tracks of human migration are not decided yet. Second, there are other haplogroups who are recognized as Chinese or other East Asians are from central Asia. Third, even though East Asians have gone through the Southern Asia continent to East Asia, which means Asians just "passed" by India not "from" India because haplogroups and sub-haplogroups have been changing all the time during the migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.145.0 ( talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The word "Cathay" is first recorded in English in 1565, so it actually appears later than "China" does (1555). These dates don't really tell us anything about when people in England found out about China, but only when Europeans started writing about geography in English. Both words appear earlier in Marco Polo's writing, which was published around 1300 but available only in French and Latin. Kauffner ( talk) 10:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Chung-kuo is the the Wade-Giles romanization of the Chinese word for China. Now Chung-kuo, Chung-Kuo, Chungkuo, and Chung Kuo all redirect China and there is a disambiguation page Chung Kuo (disambiguation). I added a disambiguation hatnote to China but it was removed (see this and this). I think that the question is whether Chung Kuo and its varieties should redirect China or be a disambiguation page. To me, both solutions are fine. But if you want to remove the disambiguation hatnote from here, you should change Chung Kuo to a disambiguation page (move Chung Kuo (disambiguation) to Chung Kuo) first. Thanks. -- Pengyanan ( talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph on China's geography states that it stretches from North Korea to Viet Nam but this Wikipedia link: [10] shows that it stretches north of North Korea. A large part of it seems to stretch from Mongolia to not only Viet Nam but also to Myanmar (or do you prefer the traditional name, Burma?), Bhutan, Nepal,and Pakistan. I don't know how to enable cookies to I can't change it myself. Also, according to the Wikipedia entry on Heilongjiang province of China, it's located north of Korea and the country north of it is Russia. Here's a link that shows a nice map of China on the first page of a PowerPoint presentation, but I don't know if you consider it a reliable source: [11]
It's hard for a lay person like myself to know if this is disputed territory like Tibet and Taiwan or not, so I leave it up to your editors to decide what to do about this if anything.
Thank you for your work to make Wikipedia so informative and helpful to so many. 99.147.168.38 ( talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate
i was looking for People's Republic of China when i typed china in the search box. Shouldn't wikipedia send readers to that article when someone types china? Syrtis from regnum online 666 ( talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I resolutely support comrade 72.81.233.159! The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians have made their rules and processes much more important than anything else. Nowhere is the more evident than in Wikipedia's No China Policy. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The original post that catalyzed this discussion was arguing that China should redirect to PRC. I disagree, not because I'm interested in going to the mat over the ROC, but because the article titled "China" rightly concerns itself with the whole of the region's history, culture, and development, rather than on the political entity that has emerged there in the last six decades. China is no more synonymous with the PRC than mesopotamia is with Iraq. Homunculus ( duihua) 03:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "History" section of this page, you should also include the Aksumite Empire along with those other great and established civilizations that you've currently listed. Like ancient Egypt and ancient China, ancient Aksum used their own script and minted their own gold coins while being a dominant civilization erecting from modern day Eritrea and stretching from eastern Sudan, northern Ethiopia, western Saudia Arabia and most of modern Yemen. To confirm Aksum's legitimacy, I ask the editor of this page to please look at the wikipedia page for "Aksumite Empire". Here is the link: [ [12]] .
Thank you.
Pages416 ( talk) 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 ( talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb ( talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
-- extracted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=424862903&oldid=424862781 . I moved it here instead of naming conventions because this is not about naming conventions, but about a redirect, something far more specific.
Not redirecting to PRC article is correct because it is NEUTRAL and educates English readers who likely are mostly non-Chinese to become aware Two Chinas exist, despite the international lie the Chinese Communists are able to push on UN. Wikipedia is for educational and reference purposes, not political. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable" isn't a crystal ball? According to Wikipedia's ROC article, the majority of the ROC public favors the political status quo and a plurality doesn't identify as Chinese anymore (opting for Taiwanese as an identifier). Most people that search China have very little at stake, and this particular "international lie" (which is being given unduly weight) frankly isn't what they meant to search. China is not unique in the fact that there is a conflict of interest over its name; this is a really weak reason for keeping this bizarre arrangement on Wikipedia. This reminds me of when Iranian nationalists try to push the name Persia onto the Iran article just because Persia "has existed in some form for far longer than" Iran. Oh wait, who do I sound like now? The current article on China gives as much representation of the PRC as the Palestine article does to the State of Palestine article. Unfortunately the rationale being used here is heavily rooted in blind nationalism that's preventing any productive change from taking place. - 141.214.17.5 ( talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
How about the non-Persian Arabs who where born in Iran? (At least in English there is a clear distinction between Han and Chinese.) Hcobb ( talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
User:T-1000 reverted my changes and claimed it was NPOV. How is it NPOV? I only stated the facts and placed founding of ROC first and described briefly. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=China&oldid=425969425. Anyone else agree I'm not NPOV? I'll revert his change tomorrow if no objections. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Prior to my edit, it already says "Two states with name China emerged" with "two states" linking to Two Chinas. So mine isn't any different. Besides, the existence of two Chinas is a fact, not an opinion or POV. But "One China Policy" is a POV of each government, which is presented in its respective articles. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Whether the legal status of Taiwan is de jure is unresolved in international law. Where's the Wikipedia policy about NPOV about de jure, or disputed de jure issues? And besides this is irrelevant. As I said, the original article PRIOR to my change already lists the two Chinas. So my improvement to switch to chronological order and add the info about the first Republic in Asia I think is justifiable. Any other thoughts? Mistakefinder ( talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This reply was unsigned. I assume it's by T-1000? I guess "TI" is referring to "Taiwan Independence". Isn't "Two states with name China emerged" stating the fact there are two Chinas? And the "Two Chinas" article is not just defining a term but describing the reality there are two Chinas. And what's wrong with China=PRC+ROC? The Communists conquered territory of the ROC to establish the PRC, so PRC split from ROC as a result of the Civil War, so the ROC became ROC+PRC. I am aware of the TI POV but that seems irrelevant because ROC did get possesion of Taiwan (whether the possession is a separate issue), and is in essence "East China" like PRC being "West China", kind of like North Korea and South Korea (which is Republic of Korea). Make sense?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a grammatical error under Prehistory in the History section. It reads, "Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains,[25][26] a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa." This is not a complete sentence. Please change to, "Much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains[25][26] (a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa)."
Kyle Roth. I are wiki 05:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to create a link for lower case china, as in fine china, to go straight to the disambiguation page or straight to fine china? Right now, lower case china also goes to the Chinese civilization. ContinentalAve ( talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This may seem out of place, however having browsed the page I am unable to locate (any) real references to the Chinese Human rights or the lack thereof. Such information would seem to me to be important for persons with little or no knowledge about China as this will inevitably be one of the great issues (politically) for China in the future. I will not add until I have received encourage or discouragement, I presume there is a reason for no addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagpipes1 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if it should be added, it would be in the "People's Republic of China" article, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 ( talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the registration of the word “China” as a civilization only violate the NPOV-policy, I post here an alternative proposal, even if neither do I support it.
as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”, or
as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems, regardless of the topic above, that people keep bringing up the notion that China should bring visitors to People's Republic of China.
Please don't make me read tons of previous discussions to find out why this isn't so. It seems like commons sense that it should be, and I don't like getting entangled in mazes of circular logic.
The vast majority of editors here want this. The vast amount of clicks on China are intended for People's Republic of China. Can't we just do that? Then, all the other hatnote and dab page issues become simple. We're here to serve the visitors, right? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Those examples given were used in a historical context; it's undeniable that China commonly refers to the PRC and rarely refers to the ROC in present days. The reality is the PRC representing China at international level at present, and most of the sources reflect that reality. STSC ( talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the validity of arguments for or against China=>PRC, consensus for that idea is muddled at best. A stronger consensus would be needed to make a change with such strong political overtones. The less-dramatic change proposed above would allow us to make some progress on this issue and re-evaluate the consensus for redirecting China to PRC in a less confusing context. If we discuss one major change at a time then we might get somewhere, otherwise we just get a never-ending and chaotic debate. China=>PRC is a distraction from the current proposal. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 18:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
See above for some discussion on this. Just to summarise, I don't think the issue of primary topic even arises, because the distinction between this article and one on the PRC, or this and the ROC, are in neither case one of disambiguation, but rather of a subset/superset relationship. The issue of Chinese porcelain vs ROC vs PRC is one of disambiguation, but not this one. What we have is currently an overview article which should have {{main}} links to the various nations who are (strongly POV) claimants to the title China (country) or China (national state), etc.. And it's a very good, NPOV solution. Andrewa ( talk) 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see this before I started a section at the end of the requested move; but I agree with the original post of this thread. There are lots of political arguments floating around, but I still think China should redirect to People's Republic of China. I'm not convinced the "political implications" of such a move are strong enough. A hatnote at the top of the PRC article explaining "China redirects here. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)", should be enough, shouldn't it? We are a modern encyclopedia, and should be going with modern usage of terms (per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names). Do people actually use the term "China" to refer to the Republic of China? (I thought the common name was "Taiwan".) Sorry if what I just said was really offensive. Mlm42 ( talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've read a lot about this now. Some guidelines say we should do one thing. Other guidelines say we should do another.
China being about PRC violates NPOV etc. China being about the civilization or going to a dab page violates COMMONNAME etc.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but shouldn't we discuss which guidelines supersede which? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The about message has been changed from "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." to "This article is about the Chinese civilization, nation and entity. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." Given this article isn't about either nation that has been commonly referred to as China at any point in the last century this new text seems likely to confuse our readers even more than the original text did. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, because those articles clearly explain what they are about in the lead, so its probably OK. It isn't OK to do here as the word usage isn't clear in common English. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of claims made that 'obviously' the people mean the PRC when they use the word 'China', and hence that is the primary topic. However, I don't believe this is true. If you ask someone who is Chinese, what China means, you get a much more nuanced answer. It is variously used, depending on context, to refer to: the region that has historically been Chinese (the PRC, Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong), the people of that region (e.g. "what will become of China?"), the PRC excluding Tibet and Xinjiang, or less commonly the national entity the PRC. When the Chinese wish to refer to the PRC or the government thereof, they usually use the term 'mainland China'. I know this is completely 'original research' on my part, but I just want to throw it out there, that for the Chinese, having 'China' redirect to the PRC is completely inaccurate, and that the current page more accurately captures the nuanced usage of the term 'China' among the Chinese. This is why the Chinese language wikipedia adopts the same set of pages for 中国 and 中华人民共和国. If the Chinese feel that 'China' refers mainly to the PRC, then surely that would occupy the main page. LK ( talk) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Who can definitively say what "most Chinese people" think? Who are they? People from PRC? People from ROC? People considering themselves ethnically Chinese? What amounts to "most Chinese?" It seems to me it's everybody's guess. I'm ethically Chinese, from Hong Kong. I don't have one single answer. -- Tesscass ( talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What the chinese think is interesting but it does not make decisions here on wikipedia except when explaining chinese words or concepts. What is much more important in this case, as has been repeated many times is what the English language things. It should be quite obvious to a reader of English that "China" is primarily the common name for the "People's Republic of China", it is often used to refer to the area now occupied by the PRC prior to the existance of the PRC, although this is usually qualified, such as "Song dynasty China". It is also sometimes used to refer to the Republic of China. If that isn't obvious then look at prominent English language newspapers. The New York Times for instances has a famously strict manual of style. They write about China everyday and they use an agreed upon language to do so. They do not choose this language randomly but it evolves over time with carefull consideration. Their language reflects common English language although some quirks can be found. Their language also greatly influences how other publications decide on style issues. The New York Times manual of style says this about the word "China":
I'm not suggesting that we generally adopt the New York Times manual of style as our policy but simply provide this as an illustration of what is overwhelmingly typical in English Language sources. The People's Republic of China is the primary topic for "China" any one disputing that should provide some evidence from a quality source. Evidence which is related to Wikipedia policy. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: There seems to be a rough consensus that the current titling situation is not ideal. However, the consensus on how and if to fix it is far less clear. As suggested, a request for comment should be considered. Kindly, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Because China can refer primarily to the current article before 1912, whereas in a more modern context it refers generally to the People's Republic of China, but also to the Republic of China - with all three being listed at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Given China's 5000 year old history this is the primary topic for the term in the past, whereas People's Republic of China is generally considered the primary topic for current usage of the term. Additionally the disambiguation link is currently not particularly clear if you want to read about china in the context of fine porcelain.
I want to keep the Republic of China's de-facto status in the current article as a sub-primary topic to reduce the scope of this move request, any issues with that its status with regards to being a primary topic can be sorted out later. Of note while generally disambiguation pages have only one primary topic, it seems to make more sense here to have multiple primary topics to aid the reader. This has also been done at iOS for example. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
*Strong oppose. "China" is the commonest English language name for the world's biggest country and one which will likely overtake the US. You won't disambiguate
United States but it could be United States of Britain!
Proud Serbian Chetnik (
talk) 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
*Oppose to the highest degree. The biggest proponent to refer the PRC as China is due to WP:Common Name but the biggest reason why the PRC article is where is it and the China article is about the Chinese nation since antiquity to the present day is due to an even more important wikipedia policy of
WP:NPOV. In no way can wikipedia afford to move away from such a core policy as to actually deviate from being a neutral entity by designating the PRC as the sole government of "China". As an overseas Chinese, I am appalled by this suggestion. Such a move has been suggested numerous times before, and repeatedly rejected due to the very reason of this being a huge minefield, and the same outcome should prevail today
regardless of the number of votes. And the
China article is no precedent when it comes to sensitive topics, especially of divided nations and disputed name usage.
Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland are also treated in this manner, just as
Taiwan and the
Republic of China are named as such.--
Huaiwei (
talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
These kinds of changes require a consensus, which cannot be achieved if we get off-topic. We can quibble over whether or not there are two Chinas and which came first another day. Wikipedia guidelines clearly call for a disambiguation page in the case of a title being associated with more than one topic. "China" is obviously such a case. Making "China" into a disambiguation page leaves us with the issue of what to do with the article currently at "China". "Chinese civilization" is an unambiguous common English term for the topic. Please limit discussion to comments directly related to this proposal. If you support or oppose the proposal please state clearly. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 04:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it true that the primary topic for the term "China", is in fact People's Republic of China? This isn't intended as a political statement, but more about what people are likely to be searching for. Mlm42 ( talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic.
Eraserhead, do you propose to rewrite the lead on China after the move? Right now the lead disambiguates very clearly and gives important information about this specific state of affairs between the ROC, and the PRC. Would a disambiguation page disambiguate as clearly? I've never seen a disambiguation as clear as the current lead on the China article. If clarity will be lost, then I oppose the move. If there is some way for a disambiguation page to do so clearly, I'd like to see that before I support the move. Cliff ( talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
By all means we could change/improve the wording as required. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:52, 26 July 2011 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 27 |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was reviewed by
The Denver Post on
April 30,
2007. Comments: "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent."; "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
I've said it before, but the notion that keeping the PRC and China articles seperate is in adherence to NPOV is paradoxical when what Wikipedia is doing in actuality is giving undue weight to fringe claims by the ROC of their ownership of mainland China - thusly violating NPOV. Of course, it's a clean, simple-minded approach to suggest that simply because a nation is technically contested its page should be a geographic one linking to two conflicting political entities; but the guiding principle of fairness behind it is essentially inverse, since by subverting the common understanding of what comprises 'China' (and what is a country but how it's defined?) Wikipedia is by extension advocating a process of definition very different than the one that's commonly used, and therefore politically biased. Analagous is if I managed to - with the help of a fringe political party - declare Prince Edward County a country, then claimed rightful ownership of Canada: would Wikipedia be really embodying objectivity to give claims noone takes seriously equal coverage? Or would they merely be inadvertently promoting my cause?
A better solution would be to merge the PRC and China articles together (so as to recount China's entire history) then include a section devoted specifically to the relationship between the exiled Kuomingtang in Taiwan and China proper. As it stands - and I've taught East Asian history in universities all across the country, so I should be no slouch on the subject - the unnecesary muddling of this article makes it seem amateurish and Eurocentric, and should be erected as soon as possible.
China is the country of all things and is were mostly amercian sources come from. Shoes, clothes,and materails for jobs and other important things . china is a peaceful place but also have many problems such as money depression and plenty of other problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.13.99 ( talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The fact that the historic means by which Chinese assessed what entailed 'China' wasn't a formal one so much as one based on what regime possessed foremost legitimacy (this was largely contingent upon imperial support) only reinforces how silly it is to assert that China 'means' ROC every bit as much as it 'means' PRC. But then again, I suppose Wikipedia doesn't possess a whole lot of sympathy for the idea that a nation or country is definable outside of the regimes which literally stake claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 ( talk) 06:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The communist People's Republic of China is merely the government of mainland China. It doesn't not represent China in general, nor does it represent Chinese history. The PRC has been around for 50 years. "China" has been around for at least 4200 years. Enough of this propaganda and do your math pal.
Intranetusa (
talk) 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
......
So long as the ROC continues to exist, the distinction has to be made. 1000 years from now, the distinction will also still be made. Just as we still talk about Shu-Han, Cao Wei and Dong Wu (The Three Kingdoms). The Southern and Northern Dynsties. And the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 ( talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have understood that in Wikipedia country articles should have the commonly used name of the country as the title. Thus Iran, for example, is named as Iran, not the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's because people commonly mean the Islamic Republic of Iran when they say Iran. Similarly, it is common practice to use China to mean the People's Republic of China. This practice is arguably the most common naming practice, it is used, among others, by the UN ( http://www.un.org.cn/index.htm), the US Government ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm), the EU ( http://www.eu-in-china.com/) and the OECD ( http://www.oecd.org/country/0,3377,en_33873108_36016481_1_1_1_1_1,00.html)... I could continue the list indefenetly with international agencies, media and governments. In fact, it is very difficult to find examples to the opposite effect.
Why does not the naming of articles in Wikipedia follow the practice of giving the generally used name of the country to the article about China? From there you could have links to articles such as the history of China and Taiwan. This seems to be the only instance where an exception is done, and it does look like a NNPOV. -- Tungsten ( talk) 07:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Separating China from the PRC is like separating the Obama Administration from the USA: it is absurd.
China has always been a "one party state".
Please also note that Chiang Kaishek and Mao Zedong always agreed that there was only one China. This is the basis for cross-straits relations to this day. Also note that 80% of Taiwanese exports are to the Mainland. There are direct flights and cross-straits tourism should be in the order of 350,000 mainlanders this year.
Go to the religious accessory shops in Singapore, Hong Kong or Beijing and Shanghai and you will see statues of Mao Zedong lined up for sale among Guanyin, Zheng He and other traditional divinities.
The concept that Communism has this magical ability to cut off a people from all their cultural heritage is something imaginable only by Americans and Christian supremacists. In more polite terms, the appropriate term is "US-ethnocentric".
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
I don't understand why Wikipedia is separating the Modern PRC from the history of China pre-1949. The current Chinese government is an integral and fundamental element of Chinese history. The CPC should really be looked at as a ruling dynasty more than anything else...I don't think anyone other than fringe groups questions the legitimacy of the PRC government after almost 60 years now, and the current "Chinese civilization" article is confusing and arbitrary, who's to say when "Chinese civilization" ends? This whole thing screams of political correctness gone way overboard, by this logic we should have a seperate article for each dynasty. I strongly suggest we MERGE these articles into one "China" article. Paco8191 ( talk) 14:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The PRC represents one slice of the history of China. We need one article that covers the concept of China in general and then see full article for the various time periods. We could treat the PRC as the main article and split out the other periods, but then we'd just need to reorg sometime in the next few decades when the PRC folds. Hcobb ( talk) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That the PRC will fold is a POV.
To separate the PRC from all the country's preceding governments is to put it under a political quarantine that the US Government abandoned in the 1970s. This is just plain Cold War thinking.
There are greater grounds for dividing up French history into KIngdom of France and Republic of France: after all, when this nation celebrated its bicentennial in 1989, not one kingdom sent a head of state to attend: Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom (to name but a few) sent their prime minister, not their king or queen.
The distinction between China and PRC is ridiculous and politically biased.
Let's move forward on this issue. -- Arthur Borges ( talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent entities that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs |
China (Historical) | 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) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty. |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever) |
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) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Readin ( talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No succession of governments, all of which need articles showing this succession, and something as major as the Nationalist Government really needs an article. The state existed more-or-less undisputed throughout the Republican era, but no single government gained complete control over it (so what the heck do we mean when we say the Republic of China "ruled" all of China before 1949?) and at times (e.g. WWII) there were rival governments going by the same name and flag. There are clear breaks in rule in 1912, 1916, 1928, 1937, 1945, and 1949. How many Republic of Chinas do we need? -- Jiang ( talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal for co-ordinated rewrites is a starting point. I picture a variation thereof, as follows:
This seems to me the best structure for maintaining the most neutral POV practicable at this time, provided that the Articles can be properly coordinated. The one unanswered question is whether it can be done sans edit wars. B. C. Schmerker ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I still like the Arbiteroftruth's proposal at the top of this section. To be acceptable however, the ROC post 1949 needs a "(Taiwan)" in the title to make it NPOV. Without that change it fails the fundamental NPOV test. If Arbiteroftruth is opposed to doing so, I'm also ok with keeping the ROC eras in a single article. Arbiteroftruth's description of the China article is not perfect - he's making too much effort to have Taiwan be part of China, but the details can be haggled over while writing the actual article. A possible China article description is shown below.
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Disambiguation with links to PRC, ROC and the dishes, etc.. The different definitions of what area constitutes "China", with appropriate links as necessary to general articles and geography articles (Taiwan, Mongolia, geography of PRC, geography of ROC incluing Mongolia, etc.). Etymology of "China". |
The handling of "culture and customs" will need to be worked out. We could include in the China article "Culture and customs of the PRC (culture and customs of Taiwan are already covered in the Taiwan article, and a link to the Taiwan article will have already been provided in the section on different definitions)." Or we might divide the section on the culture and customs of China into different section with a subsection called "customs and culture of disputed regions" that includes or links to articles on the culture and customs of Taiwan, Mongolia and maybe even Tibet. Readin ( talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) --- I detect a serious failure to grasp the China/Taiwan issue and the mindsets at play. WW2 negotiations among the Allies gave Taiwan back to China and that's what happened after 1945. Both the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang (aka Guomindang) are adamant that there is only one China. The USG acknowledged recognition of the One China policy, and if this too is a POV, it is a weighty one.
Yes, there are issues: the _native born_ Taiwanese hate the Chinese, but this is because Chiang Kaishek came in, decapitated the local power pyramid and set up a police state of the likes they had never before experienced -- even under the Japanese, whom they still adore. But then go and poll Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians and the odd Alaskan I know about how they feel about statehood/independence!
If you really want to go POV, then follow through: China has 56 officially recognized ethnic nationalities -- do treat each as a separate country. But if you do that, then treat any US state with some microgroup of fringe independence radicals as separate entries independent of Washington's oppression!
Returning specifically to Taiwan, Mao, Zhou Enlai and Chiang Kaishek are all heirs to Sun Yatsen and his ideal of the republic as the key for China to become a member of the world community.
Yes, they were bitter enemies before the Japanese expanded their hold on Chinese territory and it vaguely improved to being bittersweet enemies during the wider Japanese occupation, but after Chiang's death, relations warmed markedly: if you look at Mainland missile tests and Taiwanese presidential elections, you will see a correlation. Beijing would fire missiles during the election campaign to help swing the vote _in favour of_ of the Kuomintang (Guomindang). I have to infer collusion!
It is NOT neutral to imagine that Marxism/Leninism managed to erase 8,000 years of civilization and culture overnight(or 3 or 5 depending on your baseline of choice).
Really, one mustn't carry over one's personal political fantasies too far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be merged with People's Republic of China. There is no such thing as "Chinese civilization" anymore. It is now PRCs civilization. Chinese civilization is nonsense made up term. Merge with PRC. A lot of Western nonsense in this "China" article, trying to say "China" is "ancient" civilization and "multinational" or "national" entity. The people that wrote this has no idea what he/she is talking about. Period. 71.237.70.49 ( talk) 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job ignoring me guys. But hey, just because I've seen every attempt to rationalize these articles fail, don't let it keep you from wasting your time. How's that consensus coming? -- slashem ( talk) 08:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Any article titled "PRC Civilization" can, by definition, only deal with events after 1 October 1949, or events directly connected with the formation of the PRC. And even that would be a stretch given that PRC is a state. I don't think we would venture to say "West German Civilization". Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should merge "Chinese civilization" with "PRCs civilization" or not, but why on earth we are even discussing an article called something so ridiculous as "PRC civilization." 12:04, 4 November2008
-In some ways, the original poster is correct. Mao did everything he could to destroy Chinese culture (Cultural Revolution anyone?) to create a world modeled after himself as God. When was the last time school children in China studied Confucius? They never stopped studying Confucius in Taiwan. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
167.88.201.100 (
talk) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
--- --- Nobody in the PRC or ROC speaks of "PRC civilization". It's either "Han" or "Chinese" civilization.
If you need a model look at the US State Department's Background Notes: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm for the PRC and http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm for the ROC.
Note that (1) the history marks the 1949 break with a new new paragraph -- like a distinction between any other two dynasties and (2) the PRC is listed as "China" with "official name" as Peoples Republic of China and, for Taiwan, "Taiwan" entered twice (I'd put "Republic of China" as the official name, because it's what it calls itself and no, I don't know why State isn't using it).
A MERGER IS IN ORDER.
-- Arthur Borges ( talk) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:People's Republic of China there is a merger proposal proposing to merge China and People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.11.234 ( talk) 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument is simple: Both the ROC and PRC agree on the One China policy. That has been the case since Sun Yatsen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kaishek: tell anyone of them otherwise and they will turn over in their graves.
As the Chinese have a healthy respect for ghosts and science has yet to disprove their existence (innocent till proven guilty, right?), I would be cautious about ignoring the will of these three titans.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
add section or ref at bottom under "Further Reading" See long, long history of China US Ties to US Presidents in new book discussing also 4000 year time line
Um, by my count, there have been 14 military interventions by US forces in China since the early 1800s against none in the other direction on US soil.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In the section "Geography and environment", nowhere is it mentioned that china is the biggest! emitter of greenhouse gases and that air quality in china (near cities) is amongst the worst in the world. Also, please state that this is due to its huge consumption of coal (the most polluting energy source).
I also recommend seperating geography and environment, so that the environment section gets its own section (which it needs, given that its an important issue).
Thanks in advance, KVDP ( talk) 11:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Also please put in that although China is the biggest consumer of coal, it also has the biggest population, and is the biggest producer of the world's goods. If the chinese didn't use so much coal, this would lead to factory failures and people in (especially western)countries would lose most of their clothes,toys, computer monitor screens and even plastic. Also note that Chinese people traditionally have environmental-friendly habits - when cold, the chinese put on an extra coat while most Europeans light up the fireplace. KVDP's comment is biased(in my opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.227.154 ( talk) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
---
Ah yes, we should also add that about half of Chinese exports are intercompany trade between Western multinationals and their Chinese subsidiaries.
How amusing that US consumers are willing to trade their jobs for lower Walmart prices.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add the following line "China has been rated 163rd of the 169 countries based on their freedom of press, by the Worldwide Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders. The line is to be added after "Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religion, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements."
thanks, 81.244.196.75 ( talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
--- The West has strange baselines for freedom of the press: the fact that the Chinese press is state-owned and not dependent on advertising income means that journalists have MORE freedom to investigate the abuses of private enterprise in what is now a market economy -- which is why some of them get murdered. Now that money talks here, honesty is not always the best policy any more.
I have personal examples of people fired for being too investigative in China. I never saw any investigative spirit in the Western journalists I have worked with. Except if they were new. Or drunk.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is totally not religion Western countries don't understand confucianism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.53.245.107 ( talk) 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Really depends on whose definition of religion you're using. Most religious studies departments allow Marxism to be taught in Intro. to Religious Studies classes.
76.123.226.12 (
talk) 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)DaveDaveDave
---
It's very Western/Mediterranean to imagine that there is only One God who has a perpetual patent on The Truth.
China is supermarket spirituality: you have Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Buddhism is for pain management, mostly emotional but physical too. Daoism is about managing the relationship between the energies circulating inside your body with those operating the universe and Confucianism is about regulating relationships between oneself and the rest of society.
So you drink and eat like a Daoist, socialize and pay hommage to your deceased forefathers/mothers like a Confucian and then you cry and try to be helpful to your fellow wo/man like a Buddhist.
But hardly anyone in China expects any Creator of the Universe to delegate anybody to marry you or save your pair of buns from any inferno that befalls them!
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There's been some dispute over the use of the term "city-state" to describe Hong Kong and Macau in this article. So that we can have discussion here, rather than just reverts, I'll go ahead and reiterate the argument in my recent edit summary: The term city-state usually refers to a sovereignty, which HK and Macau are not. They are, at best, special cases of city-states and shouldn't be referred to as city-state without at least some form of qualification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at some of the proposed changes:
That's not too bad, but it is in the wrong place. Hong Kong and Macau are clearly part of the PRC - even the PRC's language of '1 country 2 systems makes that clear. The context of the above statement is in trying to distinguish the PRC from the ROC. There is no need to go into the details about Hong Kong and Macau. The information needs to be moved. Wherever the information is put, HK and Macau should not be called "city-states" as they are not self-sovereign. And Pyl is right to say that the defense and foreign affairs should be covered. As for internal government, it should read something like "Under the Basic Law agreed to by the PRC and UK, the PRC allows HK a almost complete autonomy in governing its internal affairs, but the PRC has the final say in interpreting any limitations placed on it by the Basic Law. Readin ( talk) 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me bring the discussion that was conducted in Da Vynci's talk page as I think it is relevant to this article and I believe Heimstern also mentioned the discussion should be done here. The discussion is reproduced, as follows:-
Which part of Hong Kong does China has effective control other then defence and foreign affairs? huh!? I am thrill to know. Does having the Queen's portrait of your all ur coins mean Australia is "effectly controlled" by the Government of the UK? NO~~. Hong Kong uses the name "Hong Kong, China" doesn't mean we are controlled by that country, says the Constitution. Hence, any 'effective control " apart from defence and foreign affairs over the city-state will be deemed as constitutional. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 11:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
---
Beijing undertook to respect Hong Kong's status for 50 years. That was 1997 when HKG's GDP was 40% of the PRC's. Since then, lots of cross-pollination has been happening.
On Australia, its head of state is the Governor General, familiarly referred to as the GG. Everybody laughs at her/him but there was this one that annulled an entire national election. And guess what? S/he has every power to pull that stunt again or simply dissolve the Australian parliament at the snap of a finger.
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou
---
Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message so it allows me to explain what I meant.
You asked me which part of Hong Kong does PRC have control. I think you then answered the question: defence and foreign affairs. Your original sentence was:-
"[PRC] has effective control over mainland China and has sovereignty over internally self-governing city states of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999)."
Your sentence implies that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. But in fact, as you said the PRC central government has effect control over Hong Kong in respect of defence and foreign affairs. I note you cited the Sino-British Joint Declaration to back up your argument. But that's irrelevant in this issue.
Also you said that Hong Kong is a city state. It is not. It is a local government of a state called the People's Republic of China. Singapore is a city state called the Republic of Singapore.
The United Kingdom does not have any control over Australia. Please let me refer you to the Australia Act 1986. It is a piece of legislation passed by both Parliaments of Australia and the UK saying the UK Parliament shall not make any laws for Australia or any of its states. In this respect, Australia is a fully independent nation. Also, the Queen in Australia has an official title of "Queen of Australia". When she exercises her powers in right of Australia, she is acting as the Queen of Australia (not of the United Kingdom).
Hong Kong, on the other hand, is a different story. The PRC government can at any time make laws to override the Basic Law in accordance of the legal principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the parliament can make whatever laws it pleases). The Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot prevent that from happening. This is another example that PRC has effect control over Hong Kong.-- pyl ( talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
______________________________
Parliamentary Sovereignty or not, those r hypothetical at best, in practice China cannot pass any amendment of the Basic Law without first obtaining the consent from Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Because the Legislative Council has the veto power. Reference An amendment of the the Constitution of Hong Kong requires the consent of:
So China cannot do whatever they want, and do not have effective control of Hong Kong as Pyl described, and I stand by my suggestion of "China, has effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignty over internally self-governing territorties of Hong Kong" -- Da Vynci ( talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes you just opened a Pandora's box. lol.
'Parliamentary Sovereignty' is hypothetical at best? I don't believe that any reasonable person would form that view if he or she studies the relevant legal texts on this subject.
Please let me reproduce the relevant text regarding amendment to the Basic Law as follows:-
The first paragraph says it all. The power is vested on the PRC central government, not on the Hong Kong SAR government. The rest of the Article is technicalities. The PRC says they can't make amendments that's in contravention with the established basic policies but that does not mean that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. The Basic Law is PRC law (not HK law) and the power to amend is vested on the PRC. Nothing stops the PRC making laws which says "The Basic Law of Hong Kong is repealed" then replace it with another piece of legislation. The power to repeal (not just to amend) the Basic Law is clearly vested on the PRC.
Then, I also agree with Readin. The power of interpretation the Basic Law also means PRC has effect control over HK. It is the PRC who makes the interpretation, not the HK SAR government. The PRC has effective control over HK.
There is probably a misunderstanding with the City Council example that I gave above. Please let me give another example. In Australia's federation (and I think it is similar to those in the US and Canada), between local governments (such as a city council) and the federal government, there are state governments. Under Australia's constitution, the Federal government can only make laws relating to certain powers, but not others. For example, Australia's state governments have powers to make law in relation to criminal laws such as murder, etc. The federal government does not. No reasonable person would in this case argue that the Federal government have no effective control over the states. The following sentences:-
"Australia's federal government has sovereignty over Australia, but the States of Australia have effect control over their respective States as they have powers over certain matters such as criminal law, contract law, wills and estates etc."; and
"Australia's federal government has sovereignty over Australia, but the States of Australia have effect control over their respective States as they are responsible for all local matters except for defence, foreign affairs, etc, which are the responsibilities of the Federal government"
don't quite make sense, do they? After all, it is the Federal High Court who interprets the Australian federal and state Constitutions.
Please let me reproduce what Wikipedia says about 'Parliamentary Sovereignty', as follows:-
The concept is very plainly set out so I don't think I need to go into details. The PRC has the ultimate power in relation to Hong Kong. The PRC has effective control over Hong Kong.
As I said, PRC wants people to know that they can leave Hong Kong to take care of its own local affairs so they look good. The PRC doesn't have a good reputation with the business community, and it is not in their best interest if HK no longer shines as "the Pearl of the Orient" so they want to be subtle. But the PRC still has effect control over Hong Kong, they don't want people to know that because they would then look bad.-- pyl ( talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
______________________________________________________
You made reference to the political system of Australia, as deliberately inadequate examples due to the size difference is too great that make it impossible for a sensible comparison. The comparison fails also because Australia doesn’t have a region that has a completely different political system. Your example will only be applicable if, for example, Melbourne is a communist city while the rest of Australia is Parliamentary democracy.--- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Readin just added some arguments on my talk page and they are relevant to this subject. So I will reproduce it here, as follows:
I moved Da Vynci's latest comment down so it is easier for us to continue this discussion.
The way you put it is not good. Let me replace Hong Kong and Macau with Taiwan and you will see what I mean.
You see what I mean? This totally complies with the PRC's point of view on Taiwan.
As we know, Taiwan's position is different of those of Hong Kong and Macau and that sentence can be misinterpreted the wrong way.
Hong Kong and Macau are at best "largely self-governing" but not "self-governing". The statement was made absolute again without mentioning defence and foreign affairs. It also didn't mention that Beijing really has the final say over Hong Kong and Macau.
The term "reserved power" has a legal meaning. PRC doesn't have "reserved powers" on Hong Kong. It has the actual powers. The Queen has "reserved powers". She is said to have all the powers in the world, but as you know, she can't use them unless she is advised to do so by her ministers. PRC can use the power any time it likes.-- pyl ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that the ROC used to be called Nationalist China, but is it still commonly called that way today? It seems to me that it's far more often commonly called Taiwan that Nationlist China. Just trying to understand the rational here. Thanks, Laurent ( talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Remove "China's science and technology had fallen behind that of Europe by the 17th century." or you need to prove the claim! Science is a western thing. These cultures didn't need specifik rules to invent stuff!
Kunming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.82.158 ( talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out that while Traditional Chinese may be the original format, Simplified Chinese is the standard formatting used today. Street signs, menus, books are all printed in Simplified Chinese for this very reason.
I recommend using Simplified Chinese for this article and Traditional Chinese for the Taiwan article.
BUT. Make no mistake, I'm not saying we should completely eliminate Traditional text from this page. I'm merely saying that having the lead picture blaringly declare "Zhong Guo" in Traditional text goes against standardised policies, and is also a bit POVed not to also declare "Zhong Guo" in simplified text.
I understand that the lead picture was implemented for artistic purposes, however, the purpose of this article is to inform, not to appeal to the eye. ...Ω... ..¿TooT?.. ..¡StatS!.. 02:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, it is unwise to confuse western concepts of traditional and modern in regards to translations: Traditional: 中国 The first symbol means "middle" the second means "kingdom" as China(中国) is known as the "middle kingdom". Modern: 中国 The first symbol means "central" the second means "nation" as China(中国) may be understood as the "central nation".
People's Republic of China and Republic of China (1949–present)
Hong Kong and Macau were never under the PRC prior to 1997 and 1999, respectively, so how can they be "returned" to the PRC? This should be changed to something like "...handed over to the PRC" or "...returned to CHINA". Yes, most people will agree that nowadays when one mentions "China", it refers to land currently under the jurisdiction of the PRC; but to say that these two regions were returned to the PRC implies that it was the PRC that ceded these lands when in fact the PRC has only existed since 1949. 218.103.194.249 ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
-- User:Chongkian ( Talk) 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This question is a real hoot! Maybe the UK should have returned it to Taiwan??? What planet am I on here!!!
And all my condolences to Mary.
An edit war has been on-going on this subject in the Sports section of this article.
Readin wishes "disputed region" description being added to Taiwan, as she considers that Taiwan is not part of China.
T-1000 removes this description with a reason that "Currently, both KMT and DPP accept ROC = Taiwan."
My view is "disputed region" cannot be unneutrally added only to Taiwan because mainland China is also constitutionally disputed by the ROC. By adding the description to Taiwan and not to mainland China, Wikipedia is rejecting the ROC's constitutional claims.
I think Readin's concerns are valid. If there is a way to show 'Sports in Taiwan' while her POV is taken into account, I would be happy with that.
In relation to T-1000, my view is, it is actually partially correct. Currently, the KMT government accepts that the ROC is China, not Taiwan. See 1992 consensus and Special non-state-to-state relations. DPP indeed accepts that the ROC = Taiwan, and that part of the statement is not disputed.-- pyl ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia promoting a US PoV as an foreign policy tool. I wish I could read Han Chinese to check the article written in that language so that I would have a hope to take a more objective encyclopedic view on the matter. Due to my opinion this article is a disgrace. Even for an anti-communist its rather obvious that when we are reffering to China most people mean PRC otherwise they just say Taiwan.-- 92.118.191.48 ( talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Readin Keeps removing the "For sports in the Republic of China, see Sports in Taiwan" link, but She has provide no proof that there is a Dispute with Taiwan as a part of the Chinese Civilization. She has not responded to my previous post which was:
"Again, China is defined as the Civilization in the article. Do you have sources that say that the majority of the DPP or Greens denies Taiwan or ROC as a part of the Chinese Civilization? Here's a link with Chen Shui Bian saying he is proud to be a Hua ren. http://www.cnd.org/CND-Global/CND-Global.00.4th/CND-Global.00-10-19.html" T-1000 ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Quote from Chen:
"a Der Spiegel reporter asked Mr. Chen if he thinks of himself as a Taiwanese or a Chinese. "People on both sides of the strait share a common historical background, blood ties, cultural experience and religious beliefs," Mr. Chen was cited as replying. "We are all important parts of Chinese society (hua ren shehui), so we are honored and proud to be Chinese (hua ren)." T-1000 ( talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for easier reading)
With reference to my statements in the above section, I think T-1000 has made a valid point here as the DPP also considers Taiwan to be part of the Chinese society. Therefore, Taiwan should be included in this article.
Yes, as Readin said above, Wikipedia should mention any major POVs even if they represent less than 50% of the population, and that's commonly the DPP position. But Wikipedia's policy explictly states that any marginal POVs can be ignored altogether. I believe Readin's POV is marginal in this case (since KMT, DPP and CPC seem to all agree on this issue).
As I said in the past Readin's POV is often based on 8% of the Taiwanese society (the "deep-greens"), but she just goes along and pushes her POV everywhere, then accuse others with the major POVs of POV pushing. See Talk: Sinicization and her editing summaries here.-- pyl ( talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no Human Rights section in the article? I hope Wikipedians do know that human rights in China is a big concern... Uyghurs, Tibet, or even the general public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.71.143 ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we be friends Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)
This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. I also started a similar discussion in the China page. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
174.112.218.230 (
talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
when the people made the great wall, meny people died when making it, so the people beryed the people that died in the great wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.172.197 ( talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
BLAHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.25.152 ( talk) 09:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with the start of this article stating China as an ancient civilazation or as a leader through some of it's history then....but....They won't let me put stuff like this with India's page. And when I asked the dictators of wikipedia why this is allowed for China's page but not India's page then, one of the answer's that was given to me was to bring this up on the China's page of Disscussion then I think then or maybe something like that here and w then . So now here I am bringing it up then . . . . . 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we have table of information about the country (its GDP, population size etc) as seemingly all other countries have? And also. there is not much information on modern China.-- Gilisa ( talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
{{three other uses|the Chinese civilization|the modern political state comprising [[Mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]]|People's Republic of China|the modern political state comprising [[Taiwan]], [[Penghu]], [[Kinmen]], and [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]]|Republic of China}}
T-1000 (
talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Perhaps a small section could detail that the different population groups are a problem to the country's development and that certain people (eg George Friedman) said that china could even collapse by it (in 2100) 217.136.156.187 ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
ROTFLMFAO! Simonm223 ( talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There will not be a PRC in 2030. Hcobb ( talk) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
While I'm sure most of you know this and the suggestions above are a bit of a joke, please see this article about how Wikipedia is not meant to be a crystal ball. TastyCakes ( talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Listing the Indus Valley Civilization as one of those to have invented writing is inaccurate at best. There has never been any proof that what the Indus Valley Civilization is actually writing, and there has actually been a computational linguistic disproof of this (references: [2] and [3]). I do not have the ability to edit this phrase out of the article, but I would appreciate if someone did because it inaccurate at best, and certainly not proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruski86 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.
Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 ( talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The introduction is really a mess. It should be rewritten entirely. Polylepsis ( talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This is why i don't trust in Wikipedia any more! "China was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s when it missed the industrial revolution."
Where's the facts to back this up? It's a lot in this article tha is pure nonsens! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.103.203.254 (
talk) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:People's Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. About 1850 - In the First Opium War starting in 1839 the Chinese were clearly at a great technological disadvantage. adding citation needed for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should find sources clearly describing the decline anytime after the beginning of the 18th century to keep the "until" wording at all. I am being such a pedant only because I suspect this sentence is there to pass a POV'ish message. Fearfulleader ( talk)
The Chinese, as a nation that sees itself as a country that should always have a central place as a world power (Not unlike other nations), tends to explain it's past failure to keep up with the western world in a simplistic way, or a technical way. The fact is that China lost it's "world history edge" as soon as the qing dynasty cut itself off from other countries, believing Chinese culture is superior, long before the 19th century. The "missed the industrial revolution" together with blaming foreign imperialism is a way the Chinese make sense of their perceived, now almost forgotten, military, technological, and economic failure in the last century, but not a fact. Fearfulleader ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
Wouldn't the correct English version of People's Republic of China be Peoples' rather than People's. As I understand, plural nouns have the apostrophe after the "s" so it should be s' and not 's. Yongbyong38 ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
some people don't get what u mean, we are asking about china because we don't know so we would not be able to understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.155.238 ( talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit because the current consensus is that this article is not about China but about the Chinese civilization. If Zonghuo wants to change the scope of the article, he should seek a new consensus here. Laurent ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand there are a lot of political interests that seek to define the scope of the word "China". Far from giving in to these attempts, we should employ common sense when deciding what "China" means. If you watch the news, hear people talk or ask your travel agent to book you a trip to "China", then you will know that the word refers to the People's Republic on the mainland. Taiwan is generally not referred to as China, not even by Taiwanese themselves. This is not the CIA World Factbook, but a collection of human knowledge. Our definitions, too, should reflect this. MAKootage ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
{{editsemiprotected}} I am trying to use this information for my social studies project and I need to put it in bibliograpy form and I could not find the editor and the main author of the article about China. Maybe if it is possible You could put that kind of information there. Thank you!
Aleksisfeirvezers (
talk) 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this discussion to prevent an edit war. Laurent's reasoning for the edits was that people looking for Taiwan would not go to China. However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. Readin, the ROC cannot be described as a previous regime of China, because it still exists in Taiwan. Calling ROC historical would imply that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. T-1000 ( talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
china can not be separated by the government,but an union of its people and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.37.118 ( talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, as a frequent wikipedia reader/visitor I find it plain ridiculous too when I search for China to get some facts about this possible emerging superpower instead I'm faced with this page, and reading the discussion arguments against the merge proposal it seems to me there's a political bias given none ever uses China to refer to other "country" than PRC. After all the issue deserves better investigation considering it's the only entry which doesn't follow the standards. In regards to this matter, I don't doubt wikipedia might be suffering manipulation for political expedient to the detriment of facts. That's shameful and really very bad to wikipedia, to the readers, to the knowledge, to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.168.129 ( talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What are you guys talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.116.250 ( talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
please add
sd:چين
-- 92.8.202.26 ( talk) 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks! Spigot Map 17:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
China should be redirected to China, not to PRC Slidersv ( talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Starting this discussion about User:ProfessorJane. There are at least three POV about the Political status of the ROC, detailed on the political status of Taiwan page. User:ProfessorJane is pushing one of them. This user has also been blocked before as User talk:98.122.100.249, User talk:98.71.6.81, and User talk:74.243.218.94. Opinions on how to deal with this? T-1000 ( talk) 23:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The T-1000 has an obvious history of deceptive pov pushing to anyone who would examine his edit history. My edits have all reflected the need to adhere to the official Wikipedia policy as stated above. ProfessorJane
Seems that you have mentioned Mount Everest is in China, I feel thats a wrong fact, it falls within the territories of Nepal
Sanjeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.21.31 ( talk) 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How can someone claim this?!:
"China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization."
"For centuries, it possessed the most advanced society and economy in the world through successive dynasties"
For large periods of its history, China was no unified country and when it was it was often ruled by foreign dynasties and powers. But anyway, people should be aware that, as one economic historian had it, there are no quarterly adjusted economic numbers for the last two millennia. To act as if these numbers were facts is deeply unprofessional, and either naive or biased. Maddison says that figures before 1750 are guess work and the margin of error in calculating values such as GDP etc. in the late 19th was still 30%. So, in the light of this, what makes people here so cocksure that China was the leading economy for the last 2000 years?
That should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.72.14 ( talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is sad when people making insightful comments without any sources to substantiate them... The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
What is even sadder is that the comments are incorrect. Here is a quote fro one of the world greatest historians, WIll Durant.: (vol 1 The Story of Civilization)
"This nation, after three thousand years of grandeur and decay, of repeated deaths and resurrections exhibits today all the physical and mental vitality that we find in its most creative periods.
There are no people in the world more vigorous or more intelligent. No other people so adaptable to circumstance, so resistant to disease, so resilient after disaster and suffering, so trained by history to calm endurance and patient recovery. Imagination cannot describe the possibilities of a civilization mingling the physical, labor and mental resources of such a people with the technological equipment of modern industry. Very probably such wealth will be produced in China as even American has never known and once again, as so often in the past, China will lead the world in luxury and the art of life.
No victory of arms or tyranny of alien finance can long suppress a nation so rich in resources and vitality…… Within a century China will have absorbed and civilised its conquerors and will have learnt all the techniques of … industry..
Roads and communications will give her unity, economy and thrift will give her funds and a strong government will give her order and peace. Every chaos is a transition. In the end disorder cures and balances itself with dictatorship. Old obstacles are roughly cleared away and fresh growth is freed. Revolution, like death and style, is the removal of rubbish, the surgery of the superfluous; it comes only when there are many things ready to die. China has died many times before and many times she has been reborn."
The unsigned somment above using words like cocksure belies an emotional quality unsuited to editing wikipedia. IT certainly does not rise to serious consideration. Macrhino ( talk) 11:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please change: a country of "yellow-colored" barbarians located to: a country located
the original text is extremely offensive to folks living in that region. Maxmich ( talk) 03:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
why not show songthing of now-china? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.120.218.51 ( talk) 05:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Are the sources provided enough evidence to back up the claim that China is the oldest civilization in the world and invented writing? I do not believe that these sources provide worldwide consensus on what is the world's oldest civilization. The Taerkasten ( talk) 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
China has a continuous history of over 10,000 years and it is confirmed by archaeologists that around 8,000 years ago the first system of writing, the ancient Chinese system, was invented, several thousand years earlier than the cuneiform writing of the Babylonians and other Western civilisations in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. This is confirmed and published in peer reviewed archaeology scientific journals so please read the following two sources:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm
2.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
66.57.175.88 ( talk) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The source makes it very clear that it is the oldest system of writing, much earlier than the cuneiform writing used in Sumer and Babylonia, which is the so-called "cradle of civilization" ONLY for Western and Middle Eastern civilizations and NOT ancient China or India who both have their own independently develop civilizations that go back 10,000 years for China and at least 6,000 years for India's ancient civilizations.
71.68.248.56 (
talk) 10:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
1.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
2.) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6121225.htm
3.) http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm
4.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm
5.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source that shows that people in the Middle East invented writing a few thousand years later, after the ancient Chinese, around 4,000 to 5,000 years at most! Please read:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What they found were glyphs. Lots of ancient cultures had glyphs: see Vinca symbols, for example, which people in the Balkans have been claiming are the world's oldest writing. Neither of these is demonstrably writing as opposed to proto-writing or s.t. similar. If the Damaidi glyphs resemble early hanzi that is not surprising, since basic hanzi are pictographic in origin and were the product of a continuous culture. But hanzi are not pictographs, and for all we know the Damaidi glyphs were.
As for earliest "civilization", that would depend on how one defines civilization. What we need are WP:RSs that other researchers have accepted the Chinese claims. Remember too that many governments see propaganda value in being "first"--just think of the US-USSR space race. — kwami ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
kindly substantiate this wild claim: China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization.
it is, to put it politely, so much b.s.
substantiate, or remove
118.90.43.232 ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
As a non chinese I am amazed at the apparent jealously motiviating these remarks.
China is the oldest living civilization. If one needs substantiation for this, one should get out of the history field.
China has the longest continuous history of any country in the world—3,500 years of written history. And even 3,500 years ago China’s civilization was old!
The above is from Historian.org [1] Macrhino ( talk) 11:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong, China's history is indeed confirmed to be the oldest civilisation in the world with a continuous history going back at least 10,000 years ago to the first ancient Chinese city states. Around 8,000 ago the first system of writing, the ancient Chinese system was invented, please read the following two sources:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm
2.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
66.57.175.88 (
talk) 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
1.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620
2.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm
3.) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6121225.htm
4.) http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm
5.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source that shows that people in the Middle East invented writing a few thousand years later, after the ancient Chinese, around 4,000 to 5,000 years at most! Please read:
1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm
129.252.80.187 ( talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Unlike the last section (Chinese writing is the oldest), this has merit. Everything I've read agrees that China is the world's oldest existing civilization. Think of any other civilization from 1200 BCE: all have fallen but China. (Well, China has fallen too, but put itself back together again.) — kwami ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has disambiguation bullets that note:
May I suggest adding "established in 1912" for the ROC bullet to keep the two bullets in a common format?
Hello - In the preview for this page from search engines, China is referred to as Chinkville. Please fix. DFS ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Thanks! DFS ( talk) 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why Libya is written as a country with two government while China as two country? –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think a situation that only emerged in the past month and has been fluid on a day-to-day basis since then is at all comparable to a situation that has stabilized, territorially and diplomatically, for decades. If this were November 1, 1949, Wikipedia would be treating the ROC/PRC very differently, but we do not live in November 1, 1949. -- 160.39.31.104 ( talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this should be added. A study was done that from Africa, to India, then to Asian countries, such as China. That Asian and CHinese ancestors came from India. . Here is the link . . http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ancestors-of-Chinese-came-from-India-Study/articleshow/5328596.cms . . . . 71.106.83.19 ( talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UT First of all, the tracks of human migration are not decided yet. Second, there are other haplogroups who are recognized as Chinese or other East Asians are from central Asia. Third, even though East Asians have gone through the Southern Asia continent to East Asia, which means Asians just "passed" by India not "from" India because haplogroups and sub-haplogroups have been changing all the time during the migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.145.0 ( talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The word "Cathay" is first recorded in English in 1565, so it actually appears later than "China" does (1555). These dates don't really tell us anything about when people in England found out about China, but only when Europeans started writing about geography in English. Both words appear earlier in Marco Polo's writing, which was published around 1300 but available only in French and Latin. Kauffner ( talk) 10:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Chung-kuo is the the Wade-Giles romanization of the Chinese word for China. Now Chung-kuo, Chung-Kuo, Chungkuo, and Chung Kuo all redirect China and there is a disambiguation page Chung Kuo (disambiguation). I added a disambiguation hatnote to China but it was removed (see this and this). I think that the question is whether Chung Kuo and its varieties should redirect China or be a disambiguation page. To me, both solutions are fine. But if you want to remove the disambiguation hatnote from here, you should change Chung Kuo to a disambiguation page (move Chung Kuo (disambiguation) to Chung Kuo) first. Thanks. -- Pengyanan ( talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph on China's geography states that it stretches from North Korea to Viet Nam but this Wikipedia link: [10] shows that it stretches north of North Korea. A large part of it seems to stretch from Mongolia to not only Viet Nam but also to Myanmar (or do you prefer the traditional name, Burma?), Bhutan, Nepal,and Pakistan. I don't know how to enable cookies to I can't change it myself. Also, according to the Wikipedia entry on Heilongjiang province of China, it's located north of Korea and the country north of it is Russia. Here's a link that shows a nice map of China on the first page of a PowerPoint presentation, but I don't know if you consider it a reliable source: [11]
It's hard for a lay person like myself to know if this is disputed territory like Tibet and Taiwan or not, so I leave it up to your editors to decide what to do about this if anything.
Thank you for your work to make Wikipedia so informative and helpful to so many. 99.147.168.38 ( talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate
i was looking for People's Republic of China when i typed china in the search box. Shouldn't wikipedia send readers to that article when someone types china? Syrtis from regnum online 666 ( talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I resolutely support comrade 72.81.233.159! The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians have made their rules and processes much more important than anything else. Nowhere is the more evident than in Wikipedia's No China Policy. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 10:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The original post that catalyzed this discussion was arguing that China should redirect to PRC. I disagree, not because I'm interested in going to the mat over the ROC, but because the article titled "China" rightly concerns itself with the whole of the region's history, culture, and development, rather than on the political entity that has emerged there in the last six decades. China is no more synonymous with the PRC than mesopotamia is with Iraq. Homunculus ( duihua) 03:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "History" section of this page, you should also include the Aksumite Empire along with those other great and established civilizations that you've currently listed. Like ancient Egypt and ancient China, ancient Aksum used their own script and minted their own gold coins while being a dominant civilization erecting from modern day Eritrea and stretching from eastern Sudan, northern Ethiopia, western Saudia Arabia and most of modern Yemen. To confirm Aksum's legitimacy, I ask the editor of this page to please look at the wikipedia page for "Aksumite Empire". Here is the link: [ [12]] .
Thank you.
Pages416 ( talk) 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 ( talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb ( talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
-- extracted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=424862903&oldid=424862781 . I moved it here instead of naming conventions because this is not about naming conventions, but about a redirect, something far more specific.
Not redirecting to PRC article is correct because it is NEUTRAL and educates English readers who likely are mostly non-Chinese to become aware Two Chinas exist, despite the international lie the Chinese Communists are able to push on UN. Wikipedia is for educational and reference purposes, not political. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable" isn't a crystal ball? According to Wikipedia's ROC article, the majority of the ROC public favors the political status quo and a plurality doesn't identify as Chinese anymore (opting for Taiwanese as an identifier). Most people that search China have very little at stake, and this particular "international lie" (which is being given unduly weight) frankly isn't what they meant to search. China is not unique in the fact that there is a conflict of interest over its name; this is a really weak reason for keeping this bizarre arrangement on Wikipedia. This reminds me of when Iranian nationalists try to push the name Persia onto the Iran article just because Persia "has existed in some form for far longer than" Iran. Oh wait, who do I sound like now? The current article on China gives as much representation of the PRC as the Palestine article does to the State of Palestine article. Unfortunately the rationale being used here is heavily rooted in blind nationalism that's preventing any productive change from taking place. - 141.214.17.5 ( talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
How about the non-Persian Arabs who where born in Iran? (At least in English there is a clear distinction between Han and Chinese.) Hcobb ( talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
User:T-1000 reverted my changes and claimed it was NPOV. How is it NPOV? I only stated the facts and placed founding of ROC first and described briefly. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=China&oldid=425969425. Anyone else agree I'm not NPOV? I'll revert his change tomorrow if no objections. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Prior to my edit, it already says "Two states with name China emerged" with "two states" linking to Two Chinas. So mine isn't any different. Besides, the existence of two Chinas is a fact, not an opinion or POV. But "One China Policy" is a POV of each government, which is presented in its respective articles. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Whether the legal status of Taiwan is de jure is unresolved in international law. Where's the Wikipedia policy about NPOV about de jure, or disputed de jure issues? And besides this is irrelevant. As I said, the original article PRIOR to my change already lists the two Chinas. So my improvement to switch to chronological order and add the info about the first Republic in Asia I think is justifiable. Any other thoughts? Mistakefinder ( talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This reply was unsigned. I assume it's by T-1000? I guess "TI" is referring to "Taiwan Independence". Isn't "Two states with name China emerged" stating the fact there are two Chinas? And the "Two Chinas" article is not just defining a term but describing the reality there are two Chinas. And what's wrong with China=PRC+ROC? The Communists conquered territory of the ROC to establish the PRC, so PRC split from ROC as a result of the Civil War, so the ROC became ROC+PRC. I am aware of the TI POV but that seems irrelevant because ROC did get possesion of Taiwan (whether the possession is a separate issue), and is in essence "East China" like PRC being "West China", kind of like North Korea and South Korea (which is Republic of Korea). Make sense?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a grammatical error under Prehistory in the History section. It reads, "Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains,[25][26] a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa." This is not a complete sentence. Please change to, "Much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains[25][26] (a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa)."
Kyle Roth. I are wiki 05:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to create a link for lower case china, as in fine china, to go straight to the disambiguation page or straight to fine china? Right now, lower case china also goes to the Chinese civilization. ContinentalAve ( talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This may seem out of place, however having browsed the page I am unable to locate (any) real references to the Chinese Human rights or the lack thereof. Such information would seem to me to be important for persons with little or no knowledge about China as this will inevitably be one of the great issues (politically) for China in the future. I will not add until I have received encourage or discouragement, I presume there is a reason for no addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagpipes1 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if it should be added, it would be in the "People's Republic of China" article, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 ( talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the registration of the word “China” as a civilization only violate the NPOV-policy, I post here an alternative proposal, even if neither do I support it.
as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”, or
as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems, regardless of the topic above, that people keep bringing up the notion that China should bring visitors to People's Republic of China.
Please don't make me read tons of previous discussions to find out why this isn't so. It seems like commons sense that it should be, and I don't like getting entangled in mazes of circular logic.
The vast majority of editors here want this. The vast amount of clicks on China are intended for People's Republic of China. Can't we just do that? Then, all the other hatnote and dab page issues become simple. We're here to serve the visitors, right? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Those examples given were used in a historical context; it's undeniable that China commonly refers to the PRC and rarely refers to the ROC in present days. The reality is the PRC representing China at international level at present, and most of the sources reflect that reality. STSC ( talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the validity of arguments for or against China=>PRC, consensus for that idea is muddled at best. A stronger consensus would be needed to make a change with such strong political overtones. The less-dramatic change proposed above would allow us to make some progress on this issue and re-evaluate the consensus for redirecting China to PRC in a less confusing context. If we discuss one major change at a time then we might get somewhere, otherwise we just get a never-ending and chaotic debate. China=>PRC is a distraction from the current proposal. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 18:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
See above for some discussion on this. Just to summarise, I don't think the issue of primary topic even arises, because the distinction between this article and one on the PRC, or this and the ROC, are in neither case one of disambiguation, but rather of a subset/superset relationship. The issue of Chinese porcelain vs ROC vs PRC is one of disambiguation, but not this one. What we have is currently an overview article which should have {{main}} links to the various nations who are (strongly POV) claimants to the title China (country) or China (national state), etc.. And it's a very good, NPOV solution. Andrewa ( talk) 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see this before I started a section at the end of the requested move; but I agree with the original post of this thread. There are lots of political arguments floating around, but I still think China should redirect to People's Republic of China. I'm not convinced the "political implications" of such a move are strong enough. A hatnote at the top of the PRC article explaining "China redirects here. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)", should be enough, shouldn't it? We are a modern encyclopedia, and should be going with modern usage of terms (per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names). Do people actually use the term "China" to refer to the Republic of China? (I thought the common name was "Taiwan".) Sorry if what I just said was really offensive. Mlm42 ( talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've read a lot about this now. Some guidelines say we should do one thing. Other guidelines say we should do another.
China being about PRC violates NPOV etc. China being about the civilization or going to a dab page violates COMMONNAME etc.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but shouldn't we discuss which guidelines supersede which? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The about message has been changed from "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." to "This article is about the Chinese civilization, nation and entity. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." Given this article isn't about either nation that has been commonly referred to as China at any point in the last century this new text seems likely to confuse our readers even more than the original text did. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, because those articles clearly explain what they are about in the lead, so its probably OK. It isn't OK to do here as the word usage isn't clear in common English. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of claims made that 'obviously' the people mean the PRC when they use the word 'China', and hence that is the primary topic. However, I don't believe this is true. If you ask someone who is Chinese, what China means, you get a much more nuanced answer. It is variously used, depending on context, to refer to: the region that has historically been Chinese (the PRC, Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong), the people of that region (e.g. "what will become of China?"), the PRC excluding Tibet and Xinjiang, or less commonly the national entity the PRC. When the Chinese wish to refer to the PRC or the government thereof, they usually use the term 'mainland China'. I know this is completely 'original research' on my part, but I just want to throw it out there, that for the Chinese, having 'China' redirect to the PRC is completely inaccurate, and that the current page more accurately captures the nuanced usage of the term 'China' among the Chinese. This is why the Chinese language wikipedia adopts the same set of pages for 中国 and 中华人民共和国. If the Chinese feel that 'China' refers mainly to the PRC, then surely that would occupy the main page. LK ( talk) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Who can definitively say what "most Chinese people" think? Who are they? People from PRC? People from ROC? People considering themselves ethnically Chinese? What amounts to "most Chinese?" It seems to me it's everybody's guess. I'm ethically Chinese, from Hong Kong. I don't have one single answer. -- Tesscass ( talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What the chinese think is interesting but it does not make decisions here on wikipedia except when explaining chinese words or concepts. What is much more important in this case, as has been repeated many times is what the English language things. It should be quite obvious to a reader of English that "China" is primarily the common name for the "People's Republic of China", it is often used to refer to the area now occupied by the PRC prior to the existance of the PRC, although this is usually qualified, such as "Song dynasty China". It is also sometimes used to refer to the Republic of China. If that isn't obvious then look at prominent English language newspapers. The New York Times for instances has a famously strict manual of style. They write about China everyday and they use an agreed upon language to do so. They do not choose this language randomly but it evolves over time with carefull consideration. Their language reflects common English language although some quirks can be found. Their language also greatly influences how other publications decide on style issues. The New York Times manual of style says this about the word "China":
I'm not suggesting that we generally adopt the New York Times manual of style as our policy but simply provide this as an illustration of what is overwhelmingly typical in English Language sources. The People's Republic of China is the primary topic for "China" any one disputing that should provide some evidence from a quality source. Evidence which is related to Wikipedia policy. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: There seems to be a rough consensus that the current titling situation is not ideal. However, the consensus on how and if to fix it is far less clear. As suggested, a request for comment should be considered. Kindly, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Because China can refer primarily to the current article before 1912, whereas in a more modern context it refers generally to the People's Republic of China, but also to the Republic of China - with all three being listed at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Given China's 5000 year old history this is the primary topic for the term in the past, whereas People's Republic of China is generally considered the primary topic for current usage of the term. Additionally the disambiguation link is currently not particularly clear if you want to read about china in the context of fine porcelain.
I want to keep the Republic of China's de-facto status in the current article as a sub-primary topic to reduce the scope of this move request, any issues with that its status with regards to being a primary topic can be sorted out later. Of note while generally disambiguation pages have only one primary topic, it seems to make more sense here to have multiple primary topics to aid the reader. This has also been done at iOS for example. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
*Strong oppose. "China" is the commonest English language name for the world's biggest country and one which will likely overtake the US. You won't disambiguate
United States but it could be United States of Britain!
Proud Serbian Chetnik (
talk) 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
*Oppose to the highest degree. The biggest proponent to refer the PRC as China is due to WP:Common Name but the biggest reason why the PRC article is where is it and the China article is about the Chinese nation since antiquity to the present day is due to an even more important wikipedia policy of
WP:NPOV. In no way can wikipedia afford to move away from such a core policy as to actually deviate from being a neutral entity by designating the PRC as the sole government of "China". As an overseas Chinese, I am appalled by this suggestion. Such a move has been suggested numerous times before, and repeatedly rejected due to the very reason of this being a huge minefield, and the same outcome should prevail today
regardless of the number of votes. And the
China article is no precedent when it comes to sensitive topics, especially of divided nations and disputed name usage.
Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland are also treated in this manner, just as
Taiwan and the
Republic of China are named as such.--
Huaiwei (
talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
These kinds of changes require a consensus, which cannot be achieved if we get off-topic. We can quibble over whether or not there are two Chinas and which came first another day. Wikipedia guidelines clearly call for a disambiguation page in the case of a title being associated with more than one topic. "China" is obviously such a case. Making "China" into a disambiguation page leaves us with the issue of what to do with the article currently at "China". "Chinese civilization" is an unambiguous common English term for the topic. Please limit discussion to comments directly related to this proposal. If you support or oppose the proposal please state clearly. Metal.lunchbox ( talk) 04:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it true that the primary topic for the term "China", is in fact People's Republic of China? This isn't intended as a political statement, but more about what people are likely to be searching for. Mlm42 ( talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic.
Eraserhead, do you propose to rewrite the lead on China after the move? Right now the lead disambiguates very clearly and gives important information about this specific state of affairs between the ROC, and the PRC. Would a disambiguation page disambiguate as clearly? I've never seen a disambiguation as clear as the current lead on the China article. If clarity will be lost, then I oppose the move. If there is some way for a disambiguation page to do so clearly, I'd like to see that before I support the move. Cliff ( talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
By all means we could change/improve the wording as required. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)