Talk:Chinese civilization

Change to civil war status

Currently, the China page states "The last Chinese Civil War (which ended in 1949)" however Chinese Civil War page states "no official Peace Treaty has been signed between the two sides." and "Stalemate (no official armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed)" which means China technically is still in civil war, but conflict ended in 1949(with USA intervention)

change to main China article is needed to avoid misleading

Panzooka (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Modified to say that major combat ended in 1949. Readin (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge China and PRC

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.

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)

You can find much discussion of this already above as well as on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) and Talk:People's Republic of China. L (talk) 08:21, 3 November 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)

This should all be deleted for POV issues. All discussion of Red China and Little China is big trouble.

Childstarwars (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the PRC article, you will see that 'PRC' refers to the country, not the communist party. MaskedEditor (talk) 18:17, 17 December 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)

Proposal

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)

You'll need to change two things to make it work. First, the China can talk about the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", and even different definitions of what "China" is, but when you start talking about "geography" or more problematically "the constituent nations that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan)" you run into trouble. Your very proposal lacks NPOV by including Taiwan in the constituent nations. And if you talk about geography you'll have no end of trouble trying to decide whether to include that big island off the coast of Fujien province. By not equating China with PRC you'll even run into difficulties trying to decide whether to include that big plateau and montain range pushed up by India colliding into Asia. But if you stick to just describing the different definitions and providing links to articles with more info you'll be fine. It will be like a deluxe disambiguation page. E

There is no need to break the ROC page into two pages because of Terroritral expansion and shrinkage. T-1000 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The territorial change was very significant. There could even be three articles because the democratization was significant too.--Jerrch 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It pushes the POV that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. As for democratization, we don't have separate articles for United States (Pre 1865) and United States (post 1865), despite there was signifacant democratization. T-1000 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It also pushes the POV that Taiwan is part of China. As for the significance, there was not only democratization, but also there were localization, desinicization, and rise of Taiwanese nationalism.--Jerrch 23:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, accroding to the ROC's terrortial defintion. There's also signifancant dispute regarding those other terms. T-1000 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000, you analogy with the US is misused, and off-topic. Taiwan, as it exists today, is much different legally than the ROC that exists before. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

different legally? such as? T-1000 (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am advocating for the split, because the ROC before and after its relocation to Taiwan are different not only territorially, but legally and constitutionally as well. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of China has maintained the same constitution since 1948 (before the withdrawal/retreat/relocation to Taiwan), so constitutionally it has not changed, with of course minor changes to the parts concerning legislative duties and powers (i.e. the dissolution of the National Assembly and majority of its powers transfered to the Legislative Yuan). nat.utoronto 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Second, rename Republic of China (1949) to Republic of China (Taiwan) (1949).

Readin (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will amend the topics covered for China, but I am not going to change the current ROC page to Republic of China (Taiwan), for we might violate NPOV, as that title might be construed by some that we condone Taiwan Independence. The issue of China is no joke, and we need to be careful. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the idea that we shouldn't split the ROC article into pre and post 1949. While the territory changed, there was continuity of government. The same dictator and autocrats remained in power; and the structure of the government remained. The ROC article is about the government, not about either of the countries it ruled. The fact that you think adding the territory governed post 1949 to the title condones independence, while it is clear to me that the territory governed is integral to the article and - it is the very reason for having a post 1949 article and avoiding it would violate NPOV, shows that the split might now work anyway.

Let's keep the ROC article as one article focused on the government. The Taiwan article can continue to deal with non-governmental aspects of the modern ROC. That leaves us with a hole for the non-governmental aspects of 1912-1949 China. Let's call that "China during the Republican Period" or something similar, or perhaps lump it in with "China (historical)".Readin (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have set up this sample page here to show what the Republic of China (1912) article could look like. It is work in progress, but it's a start. Also, for ROC after 1949, I think we could suffice with the current name, instead of adding "(1949)" after it. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting is good, because of the radically different governments involved. Yes, there was continuity, but after the move to Taiwan, the government underwent radical changes that make it more localized to Taiwan. Also, the size of the ROC article is within the area where splitting is suggested. This is a good chance to truly delineate the ROC article into a pre and post Taiwan stage. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this needs to be merged onto one single talk page. China (Historical) should just redirect to History of China. The history of China is a succession of states (dynasties), all of which will have the "former countries" template applied. It is impossible to apply the template on pre-modern China as a whole.

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)

I would generally argue that the watershed for the ROC happened in 1949, when they moved to Taiwan. That is where we draw the line for the ROC, and create a page for the ROC before, and the ROC after Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for co-ordinated rewrites is a starting point. I picture a variation thereof, as follows:

• China — Geography of mainland China; history of the Chinese people; historical summaries of the Sun Empire (<1912), Republic of China (1912-1949) and People's Republic of China (1949-present). See-also's to include Dynasties in Chinese history (essentially unchanged from current Article), History of China (essentially unchanged from current Article), Republic of China (see below), People's Republic of China (see below).
• Taiwan (officially Taiwan, Republic of China) — Geography of Formosa; History of Formosan people (under Sun Empire, Empire of Japan and Republic of China suzerainties); Administrative structures of Taiwan governments by era.
• Republic of China — Governmental structure under the Zun Yatzen and Jiang Gaishek Administrations and reorganization of 1948; notable legislative acts in mainland China, 1912-1949, and on Taiwan, 1949-present; related data. (Essentially the current ROC article, with appropriate major amendments.)
• People's Republic of China — Governmental structures under First Secretaries Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, &c.; Prefectures and Autonomous Regions; notable acts of People's Congress; related data. (Essentially the current PRC article, with appropriate major amendments.)

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 believe that a split of the ROC article into the ROC today (which will be covered by the ROC article currently in existence) and the ROC of 1912 is a good solution. The ROC article is way too long anyways, and cutting some of the fat out of that article and transfer it to the ROC (1912) page would be good. The French and Spanish Wikipedia, I believe, work under the same principle. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:52, 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)

Yet more possible POV

Putting aside all my previous arguments for a moment, I have stumbled upon a dilemma:

Is it POV for a geographic article such as Shanghai to include the sentence: "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China"? Surely, according to other contributors' arguments above, and seeing as how the Republic of China claims mainland China as part of its territory, saying that any settlement such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan, Qingdao and many others, are located in the People's Republic of China, is a violation of the "non-negotiable policy" that is WP:NPOV?

Logically it would make sense to assert that mainland China is a disputed territory, and WP:NPOV infers that any location within that disputed territory can't be said to be located within either state. Therefore, the sentence "Shanghai is a city in the People's Republic of China" can only be concluded as a violation of WP:NPOV.

This leads me to wonder if that article and every location relevant, including other settlements, provinces, rivers, terrain features, and anything else of a geographic nature located within the disputed area that is mainland China, and not directly associated with either government, should state its location as "China", instead of "the People's Republic of China". Please note this is purely in a geographical sense, and anything dealing with politics such as Politics sections would require mention of the current administration governing the location.

Opinions please. --Joowwww (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You could change it to say "Shanghai is a city in China" and you probably wouldn't get any objection. There is no perfect NPOV. In this case saying Shanghai is in the PRC would not, in my opinion, "fail" NPOV. But it would not be quite as NPOV as saying Shanghai is in China. However, saying it is in the PRC is slightly more informative as it gives the official name of the country and clarifies that it is not on that island that some people mistakenly consider part of China. In this case either alternative seems fine. As for using "mainland China", that seems out of place. We use "mainland China" in relation to Hong Kong and Macau, and sometimes in relation to Taiwan to placate the imperialists. But using it when not talking about either of those is awkward and strange. Readin (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your proposal that every settlement or geographic feature located within the PRC should simply say it is in China, that would cause NPOV problems for places in Tibet and maybe even Xinjiang.Readin (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Chinese civilization" is PRCs civilization

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)

Don't blame it on "western nonsense". The objections to merging People's Republic of China (PRC) and China are largely from a thought process advocated by the PRC itself and by people and the descendents of people who fled China to occupy Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs)

You are so wrong it is unbelievable. This is a political device promoted by politicians to advance their interests. The common people call the PRC "China" and the ROC "Taiwan". --slashem (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

People, we are dealing with a flamer here. Ignore the comments from that sorry excuse of a person. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry excuse of a person" is a violation of WP:NPA. --Joowwww (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Arbiteroftruth" hahaha. --slashem (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is that supposed to mean? Comments like that are not helpful. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, remember when you said "But I don't have conversations like this with anyone else"? ;) T-1000 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I said what I said, I checked out the posts made by that IP, and they were all none too helpful to Wikipedia. Much of them were soppy edits, griping about something. I don't do things arbitrarily. I back them with evidence. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:13, 23 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)

The Taiwan and ROC issue aside, aren't the PRC and China two separate articles because China refers to historic "China" in an aggregate sense, i.e. from its inception as a unified empire under the Qin Dynasty and its solidified, collective culture by the time of the Han Dynasty, whereas the PRC refers to "China" as the modern country governed for the last 6 decades by the CCP? To reinforce this point, I think most people would say that overall "China" has a much longer history and cultural identity than the history and national identity forged in the last 6 decades under rule of the People's Republic, and that the entire history of "China" is different from that of the People's Republic. Plus, dynastic China really doesn't have much to do with the modern communist regime except for the fact that the former was the predecessor of the latter. In an anachronistic fashion, it's kind of like saying that the modern Arab Republic of Egypt is the same civilization as Ancient Egypt, no? Thoughts?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pericles. There are many ways to divide a subject up between encyclopedia articles, and this is even more true of Wikipedia because each individual article is so short. Whereas Britannica can have one article titled "China" and have it run for thirty pages, each Wikipedia article is about two or three. From my perspective it is obvious that there are many aspects of China and its history which need to be covered in many different articles, with links between them. However, I think it should be clear that the most common search term users will start with is "China" and so China should be considered the "top-level" gateway article. The real question is what belongs in China and what should be linked to in daughter articles.

The two main sides in this debate are: (1) follow common usage and the convention set by other encyclopedias, where the article listed under "China" focuses primarily on the modern country with a subsection (on Wikipedia, a daughter article) for the history, and (2) try to be neutral by not talking about any modern country in China, which therefore would only be about history.

Since you are familiar with Chinese history, I am sure you know that Chinese dynasties have always come and gone. If you want to argue that the last six decades should be treated separately, why exactly do the previous four millennia belong together? I personally don't think the "dynastic" change to the PRC is so much greater than other dynastic successions in Chinese history. Human beings always believe whatever is closest is most significant, and I think we overestimate the magnitude of the break to the PRC because it is the most recent.

The example of other ancient civilizations like Egypt has been mentioned before. If you actually look at Egypt, you will see that it is a standard country article, with a subsection that summarizes Egypt's (vast) history. This is what I favor for China.

Everyone knows by now that although we are arguing about standards, there is in fact no standard on Wikipedia. Although people keep proposing standards, with various implications for related articles, Wikipedia never has had a real standard and I don't believe it ever will have one.

Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to speak with you. --slashem (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the sides of this debate now, thank you for clarifying. Although I still believe that the People's Republic deserves its own article aside from "China", since the entity of "China" as a unified political unit was born long before 1949 (with interruptions and periods of division along the way), I also think that this article on "China" would be ridiculous if it focused entirely on bygone history and did not include details on both the PRC and ROC in their modern context, or if it made some awkward attempt to ignore the last 60 years at the tail end of the history section of "China". In regards to the modern ROC and PRC, how could one avoid that gigantic 'elephant standing in the living room'? So to speak. I think most people would regard mainland China and Taiwan as integral parts of "historic China", therefore they are integral parts of what is "modern China", despite the existence of two governments.

To make a comparison, I wouldn't dare say that the Kingdom of Tungning on Taiwan, or even the Khitan Liao Dynasty lording over the Sixteen Prefectures for that matter, weren't placed in what is "China", simply because the Qing Dynasty in the former scenario and the Song Dynasty in the latter scenario had a bigger stake or claim in holding most of what we would consider the cultural and territorial bounds of "China". However, since mainland China is such a bigger portion of China and Taiwan a much smaller portion of China, the focus on modern culture, politics, business, etc. should be aimed at what is happening within the PRC, while contemporary culture, politics, business, etc. within the ROC can be explained to a lesser degree. To make yet another comparison, if the ROC was given an equal amount of textual explanation as the PRC in regards to what is "China" today, that would be like going to the article on the United States and filling up half the article with stuff about one region, say, Hawaii. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, doesn't the largely unrecognized independent status of Northern Cyprus in the international community remind you of the status of the Republic of China on Taiwan? Since the latter is not treated by the international community at large as a legitimate separate entity from "China"?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that slashem was pointing out that the "China" article should be about the PRC with a short section on the history of China including the history of the ROC and the Chinese dynasties. It makes a lot of sense. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I oppose the merger for reasons I have given above in the previous post.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:00, 25 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)

Sports in China

The sports in China article currently violates NPOV by only addressing the sports in the PRC. There is also the mess of "Sports in China" claiming to include Sports in Hong Kong, but there is a separate Sport in Hong Kong page.

Also, do the people on Kinmen and Matsu play the same sports as People on Taiwan? If so, that also needs to be cleaned up and renamed. T-1000 (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this gets to the larger issue, the same one that we're having with the "China" article. To include Taiwan in the "Sports in China" article would violate NPOV because it would imply that Taiwan is part of China. On the other hand, T-1000 believes (and a lot of people agree with him) that leaving Taiwan out of the "Sports in China" article violates NPOV by implying Taiwan is not a part of China.

The more this debate goes on, the more I like a modified version of the above proposal by Arbiteroftruth. See next section. Readin (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently, "China" = the Civilization. Taiwan being a part of the Chinese Civilization is uncontroversial. T-1000 (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposedly about China the civilization; is the "Sports in China" article about "Sports in the civilization of China"? Does the "Sports in China" article talk about sports in Xingjiang or Tibet which are not part of Chinese civilization? Does it talk about the national sports teams from the PRC that may include Tibetan and Xinjiangnese atheletes?

If we go with the proposal in the next section, the article would be easy to fix. You would just put a link somewhere in the article saying For sports in the disputed region Taiwan, see Sports in Taiwan.

Readin (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the example in Sports in England, sports are tied to the state, not the geographical area, perhaps forked to "sports in the PRC" and "Sports in the ROC"? T-1000 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues like whether something is more closely tied to the government or to the country/region would be sorted out on a case by case basis. In general I would think that something whose identity is tightly coupled to the government (the President, the legislature, the flag, the presidential palace, army, etc.) or tightly controlled by the government (a state-run corporation) would use "ROC" and "PRC" while things that would exist anyway with the government merely helping to organize or regulate (restaurants, tourism, arts, demographics, etc.) would use "China" with links to "Taiwan". Readin (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we include something so specialized as "Sports in China" under a topic like Chinese civilization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Song2008yu (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Covers disambiguation and etymology (Update: The disambiguation would include an introductory paragraph explaining the many definitions of China with a bit of background on how they came to be.)
''Stuff'' in China unrelated to government	Covers whatever Stuff there is in the PRC. Provides a link something like "For stuff in the disputed region Taiwan, see ''Stuff'' in Taiwan.
History of China	A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) up to the end of the Qing Dynasty. It also covers non-government related stuff up to 1949, but provides a link to the Republic of China page for details about the government.
People's Republic of China	People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever)
Republic of China	Covers the government of the Republic of China. I don't care whether the article is further subdivided - that can be discussed separately. The key point is that it covers only the government.
Taiwan	Taiwan and islands associated with it (including Kinmen and Matsu, although they and other major islands like the Pescadores will have their details in a separate article). In other words the Taiwan article covers everything prior to 1949, but post 1949 it cover non-government stuff and point to the Republic of China article for more details about government info.
''Stuff'' in China related to government	Disambiguation page pointing to the ''Stuff in the People's Republic of China and ''Stuff'' in the Republic of China pages.

Readin (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

to repeat myself, China should not be a disambiguation page because disambiguation pages are meant to redirect users to mutually exclusive articles on the same term. You can use China to mean "all of the above" or "some of the above". The definitions of China are not mutually exclusive. We tried making Yugoslavia a disambigation page before and that proved unworkable since there were too many instances were the term applied to more than one successive Yugoslav regime. Likewise, there are numerous instances where "China" refers both to the existing China and the historical China, independent of the current regime. It's not going to work.

China (Historical) can redirect to History of China. Why do we need a seperate page?--Jiang (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no way China will ever be a disambiguation page. --slashem (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First, when I said "disambiguation", I did not mean a simple disambiguation that just contains a few lines pointing to different pages. Instead it would be a brief intro explaining why we have the disambiguations. That is, we would explain that in modern international law, "China" refers to the PRC including the lands it claims but has on control over. We would explain that in modern books and newspapers "China" usually refres to the PRC including only those lands the PRC actually controls. We would explain that during part of the Cold War "China" was used to refer to the Republic of China. Of course links would be provided throughout so people could go find the information they want. As someone suggested earlier, it would discuss the many definitions of "China".

Second, "History of China" works great and I've modified the proposal.

Readin (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want this disambiguation to be not an article, but an explanation depending on synthetic self-reference to inform readers on how Wikipedia has failed to agree on anything? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Have we not put together stacks of references for different meanings for "China"? How does using them advance any particular cause (as your link to WP:SYNTH suggests you think we would be guilty of)? The reason we can't agree is that the world at large doesn't agree. We didn't make that up on our own. I suppose you could call our discovery of this disagreement "original research" but given that we are writing this article it was an inescapable observation. We wouldn't inform readers that we failed to agree, we would inform readers that many definitions exist, what those definitions are. We might also explain who uses those definitions and when and how those definitions are used.Readin (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Readin (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing that most of the content on this page (save the lead) be deleted? If there's going to be text, why not have an article and use Wikipedia:Summary style to accomodate the different definitions?--Jiang (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia:Summary style say

Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article.

The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information.

Using the Summary Style would suggest that various regions of concern are part of China which would violate NPOV. What I'm suggesting is very similar to the Summary Style but avoids taking sides. The main difference between what I'm proposing and summary style is that we don't put the summary of the "subtopic" in the "main" article because doing so would suggest that the "subtopic" is part of the main article. Instead we just provide the link with the note. Having the link provides balance for not having the summary. The link acknowledges the views of those who say the subtopic is part of the main, while the lack of summary and the use of "disputed" avoids pushing the point.

So far this proposal is enjoying 100% support. Shall we move forward with it? Readin

no. Sorry, I'm too tired from the last big go around and there are implications of this I don't like but don't have the effort to explain. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You've had time to rest and recuperate. What is your thinking SchmuckyTheCat?Readin (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. This is IMO what readers expect.--Loodog (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, it looks good to me.--Jerrch 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this actually different from what we currently have? There is also no standard on whether something is related to the government or the land, for example, the economy. T-1000 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It incorporates much of what we are already doing today while providing guidance in place where we need it. You are right that we will still need to look at articles on a case-by-case basis to decide whether they are more closely tied to the region or to the state. No matter what we decide to do we'll still need to exercise good editorial judgement. This provides guidance to achieve NPOV consistently. Readin (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I finally found my way here, via (most recently) this on the WikiProject China talkpage. For comparison, here it is:

China	For non-political contexts and/or contexts whose scope extends from the present day back beyond 1912
People's Republic of China	For the country on "mainland China" since 1949
Republic of China	For the country with this name since 1912 and after 1949; or for the country with this name between 1912 and 1949..?
Republic of China (1912-1949)	Alternative to above for country known as the "Republic of China" between 1912 and 1949
Republic of China (Taiwan)	For the "Republic of China" since 1949 as distinct from 1912-1949; includes its more well-known (but technically ambiguous) name "Taiwan"
Taiwan (island)	For the island called "Taiwan" in historical / anthropological / non-political / etc contexts; alternatively, "Taiwan (island group)"..?

I've yet to study the previous proposals above more closely, but one issue readdressed here is how to refer to the Republic of China before 1949. Otherwise, I have the impression I've evolved the same kind of solution. Since "Taiwan" alone may be used to refer to the geographical island/island group or to the "Republic of China", isn't some kind of disambiguation such as "(island)" needed? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe the current disambiguation line at the top is clear enough, so the "(island)" would not be needed. Other than that, I believe the proposal is okay.--Jerrch 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeking information about China

I am doing a project on China (see china-city.webs.com) and I am searching for some general information to start with. This was my first stop, and it has given me 3/4 of what I needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.185.212 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposed

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)

• I have yet to see any sensible arguments made to support such merger, especially after you read the articles. Hmains (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

I suspect that User:Singaga is back as User:Eejcliopb. The edits are extremely similar. Perhaps a check user is needed? T-1000 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Human Civilization in China

I am having a lot of difficulty comprehending the notion of human civilization anywhere on Earth being dated at 2.1 million years! The two articles referenced adjascent to the article's text making this claim both refer to evidence that cites homo erectus may have been present during the suggested time frame. Homo erectus isn't conventionally described as "human", however - it's my understanding that title is reserved for homo sapiens, our own species.

There's little doubt human civilization in China is ancient in the extreme - but the article is going way to far pointing to origins that predate humanity (homo sapiens) gaining the capacity for sentience, tools, or much of anything else that could be qualified as distinctly human. On this basis I strongly propose revision of the article to use a standard that's a little more based on the conventions of human anthropology than staking a claim to be cradle of human civilization anywhere on Earth.ross613 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If human civilization originates with human culture, then human civilization started with one of the ancestor species to homo habilis. Having said that, H.erectus was in China, and therefore, human civilization or human culture was there, same can be said for Europe and neandertals. As anything of genus homo is "human", whereas australopithecines are hominin... 70.55.85.143 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The terminus of the Stone Age Neolithic period and initiation of the Bronze Age in China can be dated roughly 2100 BC; it is in these terms which Chinese civilization should be discussed. That and China's first proven solidified and consolidated Kingdom, the Shang (beginning c. 1600 BC).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Breach of human outreach/None mention internet censorship in the article

None mention: Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China ? Logictheo (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't find Patriot Act and CIA/NSA Tapping under "USA History" either... Mxiong (talk • contribs) 02:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more an issue for the article People's Republic of China than China. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in China RIGHT NOW and i can access this page.(IP:220.231.227.154)

History, China US Ties for 100's of Years)

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

• amazon kindle e book China's US Presidents
• amazon paperback China's US Presidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.165.95 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a self-published source of unknown reliability. See WP:RS and WP:SPSMartinlc (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Add a link

I want to add an external link to China's energy profile/statistics from the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics of the U.S. Government). I feel this is an appropriate link considering how crucial energy is to the development of China and current energy concerns.

• EIA Energy Profile for China

ARUenergy (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the sub-articles would be appropriate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Many people are interested in China because of the economic trading relationship with the United States. Thus, I suggest that a link to the China Business Information Center <http://www.export.gov/china/> be added to the list of links. Rollbison (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) June 24, 2008

Chinese Contribution to Aviation Technique

The first hot balloon was invented by ancient Chinese in San-Guo (around 200BC) period. It was called "Kong-Ming Lantern" for purpose of military communication. It shaped like a hollow lantern with a flaming swab in the bottom. As the hot air filled the hollow section of lantern it will rise high in the air.

Another contribution to aviation was prototype "glider" and rocket. The Chinese was the first to try "glider" in Han Dynasty when Wan Man took over the emperor's power.

Skyeditor (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to correct people, but that is 200 AD, not 200 BC!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese politics section

Why is there no politics section? When I enter 'Chinese politics' I get the PRC politics page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

China's claims that it governs Taiwan combined with the government's of Taiwan claims that it governs China make the handling of Chinese politics tricky. To preserver NPOV, politics of the two governments/states are delegated to articles separate from the two countries. Readin (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of China

Hi, Edmund here (30/07/08)

The name of China comes from a city in Jiangxi, Jingdezhen. It is a city that makes the world famous porcelain. China is derived from the China wares hence the name.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guasr (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's totally not the origin. The widely accepted basis of the term "China" is said to be related to the Qin Dynasty. If you decide to add that nonsense to the article, I will revert it as vandalism in a heartbeat. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

hi um how are you so wat u up to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.109.46 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Cool it. Aribiteroftruth, according to my sources ([1]) you are correct. But there is no reason to jump to hostilities. Geosultan4 (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on the internets. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oh okay. So should we even believe this page then? Think about what you're thinking, as you say is on the INTERNET. Geosultan4 (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the most likely original name for China may be the Great Chin (Qing Dynasty) Empire. During the Qing dynasty, the empire of which we now call China, is called the Great Chin Empire. Qing is only the Chinese pinyin pronunciation. Chin is the closer English pronunciation for Qing. Since there is no direct diplomat contact between China and Western Civilisations during the Qin Dynasty, the chances of which the name China being originated from the Qin Dynasty is not as high as the Chin Empire (Qing Dynasty). The real name of China is all ways changing. During the Ming Dynasty the "Chinese Empire" is called the Great Ming Empire and not the "Chinese Empire". During the Yuan Dynasty China is called the Great Yuan Empire and not China. It is also true for every single regime that come before the Great Chin Empire (Qing Dynasty).

The first OED citation for "China" is 1555, so even as an English-language word it pre-dates the Qing Dynasty. The references I've checked all agree that the word was popularized by Marco Polo, which makes a Qing connection even less likely. Kauffner (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Environment of china

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)

Freedom of press

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)

I think detailed information like that is better placed at People's Republic of China, personally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Confucianism is not religion!!!

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

Its ludicrous that this doesnt link to PRC page

For every other country which an ancient civilization, just typing in the colloquial name links to its contemporary nation.... except for china. Ridiculous rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbnormallyNormal (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this "ridiculous rubbish" almost entirely depends on how you define the status of Taiwan. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that the territorial boundaries of "China" have not been consistent throughout history and have expanded over time to include areas which were once peripheral borderlands, wilderness, or even extinct foreign countries' territories. When "China" was unified under one central regime by the Qin Dynasty in 221 BC, virtually the entire province of modern Fujian was outside its borders; Emperor Wu of Han conquered Zhao Tuo's state in what is now northern Vietnam, called Annam (Chinese province), which remained part of the Chinese empire until the 10th century. The Han Dynasty and Jin Dynasty Chinese empires also once extended into what is now North Korea. The Gansu Corridor and the Tarim Basin of what is now Gansu and Xinjiang, respectively, weren't even included as parts of "China" until the reign of Emperor Wu in the 2nd century BC. The Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty controlled not only all of Inner Mongolia, but also "Outer Mongolia", the latter pretty much being the modern state of Mongolia. See how your defintion of "China" does not match the many definitions of "China" at various points along a timeline?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this "ridiculous rubbish" almost entirely depends on how you define the status of Taiwan. It also depends on how you define China, is it a nation-state? an empire? a cultural region (Zhonghua)? Readin (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

X is. Maya is not. Africa is not well. X was once East India to one of the maritime empires. It is ultimately defined by military force and known to be just that in the world but here, Japan had a self-defining moment all over X (including Taiwan). Vy0123 (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely truth, nearly all of the southern China including Fujian was under the rule of short lived Qin Dynasty. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that is false. Fujian was hardly penetrated by Chinese farming migrants until the late Han Dynasty in the late 2nd century AD. Read Bielenstein's chapter in the Cambridge History of China.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a general introduction of Chinese history like Cambridge History of China, Fujian was under control of Western Han after Wudi era, and almost all areas of southern China hardly penetrated by Chinese farming migrants at that time, not just one province alone. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, Fujian was brought under China's control from 221-207 BC and again after 100 BC until the end of Han Dynasty, that is 220 AD. Anpersonalaccount (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, much of Fujian was not conquered by Qin at all. Plus, Michael Loewe writes (on page 170 of that same book):

To the east (Fukien), the central government had had varying relations with the independent kingdoms of Min-yüeh amd Tung-ou, which had been established in 202 and 192 BC, respectively. Although Wu-ti's generals, sometimes with naval forces, succeeded in preventing any hostile pressure from here against Han territory, the land was thought to be unsuitable for settlement and the inhabitants too refractory to admit units of provincial government. It may in any case be questioned how far the foundation of a community necessarily implied control of an outlying area.

Minyue was never completely destroyed by Han, and much of Fujian was out of Qin and Han's hands. This was not a consolidated region.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the Qin Dynasty set up commandary over the regions, and those Yue states were actually created by Liu Bang. So Qin Dynasty ruled Fujian under commandary, and Liu Bang created the local kings, but brief. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, but how far did the settlements of the Qin commandery actually penetrate into what is now Fujian? My guess would be not very far.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Until the coastal region. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they settled the coast, that would be one of the first places to settle. I'm talking about the hinterland.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually even local kings themselves has a further northerly Yue origins, they can be consider as settlers as well. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing "China" to other countries where the article is at the common short form name, such as "Italy", "Nigeria" or "Paraguay", ignores the problems of defining "China". The vast majority of the world's countries and organizations identify the People's Republic of China as the one government of all of China, but a number of countries do recognize the Republic of China as the government of all of China instead. Furthermore, making "China" about the PRC and "Taiwan" about the ROC effectively implies that Taiwan is not part of China. Taking one side on either of these issues is just not NPOV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, however, Taiwan is nowhere near remotely as historically integral to chinese civilization as the PRC is! PRC is the nation-state representing the continuity of chinese civilization and culture. Maybe we should make 'china' link to PRC but at the top of that page have an option link to taiwan, with a brief explanation of the political circumstances demanding it? By the way, china is not the only country with any of the problems regarding variable territory, etc etc. What about Egypt? What about India? Pretty much any long-standing civilization that is now represented by a nation-state has those exact same problems. Thats why this situation seems overly biased against the PRC to me. I think it just has to do with a lingering legacy of anti communism quite frankly. The fact is it is highly likely Taiwan will become a part of PRC sooner or later... in fact, Taiwan has never even officailly declared itself to be an independent nation-state, so i fail to grasp the need for such sensitivitiy to begin with.

its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making a new section on something that has been discussed here time and time again, why don't you move your conversation up to one of the appropriate sections where this has already been discussed and voted on. Also, you can look to this archived discussion which already covers this whole debate.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"its howdy doody time !!!" says:

PRC is the nation-state representing the continuity of chinese civilization and culture.

100% POV, pure and simple. Please, avoid phrases like this, it does not help your argument.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"its howdy doody time !!!" says:

in fact, Taiwan has never even officailly declared itself to be an independent nation-state, so i fail to grasp the need for such sensitivitiy to begin with.

Sure, the Republic of China has never declared itself independent from the PRC, because the ROC views itself as a sovereign power established on January 1, 1912 (not December 7, 1949 when they relocated to the islands of Taiwan). Your whole argument here thus becomes something best reserved for Political status of Taiwan.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen and KMT

Sun Yat-sen of the Kuomintang (the KMT or Nationalist Party) was proclaimed provisional president of the republic.

Sun was a political leader of Tongmenghui during his residency. KMT was founded after his resignation. Who can fix the mistake? I don't know why I can't edit the page.--MtBell (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

City-state designation for HK and Macau

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)

• LOL, that wasn't the issue, and I don't think I will contest that unless i really hv the time. The issue was more like about the sentence "China has effective control over HK". That's simply incorrect. I have cited the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" in the correction. Cheers --Da Vynci (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the way it is now looks better. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been reverted again by Pyl, who made this comment elsewhere (incidentally, I'm rather puzzled that we're discussing this on user talk pages and not on the talk page of the article where the dispute occurred. Surely such fragmented discussion can't help to build consensus?) I think this revert was a step backward. Whether or not the PRC has full control over Hong Kong and Macau de jure, the two territories are largely de facto internally self-governing, and such a thing ought to be noted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

De fato? De Jure? I think the concepts should be clarified here.

Hong Kong is largely self-governing both de facto and de jure; and

The PRC also has full control of Hong Kong, both de facto and de jure. The PRC can at any time override the Basic Law through the principles of Parliamentary Soverignty (the Parliament can make whatever law it pleases). I believe that's considered as de facto control of Hong Kong.

PRC leaves Hong Kong to administer its local affairs is nothing different from a City Council having the power to maintain roads, collect rubbish, make by-laws etc. You wouldn't say that the City Council is self-governing de facto. PRC just likes people to know that they don't interfere so they look good but it doesn't mean that they can't.--pyl (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I just realised I have opened a Pandora's Box. So to be brief, what pyl refers to is the small potatoes in District Council of Hong Kong, they have the power to maintain roads, collect rubbish, make by-laws etc. The Legislative Council of Hong Kong, however, has much higher power, since they have veto power to any amendment to the Basic Law [2], it isn't like how pyl described that China can change our Basic Law whatever/whenever they want. Thus, this is not "effect control". Of course, China can do little gestures such as blocking USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from entering Hong Kong's habour for holiday (coz that's foreign affairs & defence issue), but China can't change the Basicl Law without Legislative Council's consent. Hence, 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) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of the proposed changes:

• the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignty over internally self-governing territorties of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999).

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)

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)

Even without the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the PRC still has final say as it has the power to interpret the Basic Law any way it wants. Readin (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the wording limits the interpretation. However, with Parliamentary Sovereignty, they can legally do whatever they want with Hong Kong.--pyl (talk) 14:34, 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:

• Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC),
• the Chief Executive, and
• Two third majority of the Legislative Council.

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)

In practice China can pass any law it wants regardless of the legco, or dissolve it altogether. But they don't have to go that far. If they want want the Basic Law changed all they have to do is "reinterpret" it. And there is no check on Beijing's ability to do so. If the text of the Basic Law gets in the way, then can interpret the "spirit" of the Basic Law, and they always say that the "spirit" of the Basic Law is to give the PRC sovereignty. Readin (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the wording limits the interpretation, just as Pyl said. So the control is limited, they can't do whatever they want, and your supernatural spirit hypothesis is as thin as an anorexic. Please, we are talking about formal amendment here, not minor details such as interpretation. Interpretation without the power of amendment at will demonstrates limted control. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't go into a lot of details right now, but there is plenty of precedent for ignoring the text of laws and regulations in favor of other motivations. See Pine Tar Incident or numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Readin (talk) 22:41, 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:-

Article 159

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

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 doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

• Parliament can make law concerning anything.

• No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).

• A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is supreme law maker

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)

Well, all u have demonstrated is that China has the sovereignity. That's ok. I uploaded a version that acknowledges that. But sovereignity isn't equal to effective control here, especially when China CHOSE not to exercise such control. Now, what u are saying is that if someday in the future China wants, they can legally repeal HK's constitution at their pleasure and assume full effective control. But since they have chosen to let HK be self-governing for now, let's acknowledge this fact. Wikipedia is not acrystal ball. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a diverse of opinion over what the term "effective control" is.

To me, the times are gettting to short to be going on this wabsite and reading random rubish, there fore the china population should be completley erased!! regardless whether the power is exercised or otherwise. bananas are the main food ther, because the chinese are very clos to apes, they do enjoy a good banana every once and a while,. Well, more then every once and a while, more like evry three frickin seconds. Asians eat so many babanas! i bet you didnt know that! has the power to control Hong Kong as it has the ability to repeal whatever laws in Hong Kong and there is nothing a third party can do anything about it.

I guess to you "effective control" means the party having the power have to be actively exercising the the power.

Perhaps we can come up with a compromise that doesn't include the disputed term "effective control". I believe that it is worthwhile to point out to the reader the special position that Hong Kong and Macau are in but I don't think we should give an impression that the PRC cannot control these two places. After all, we know that it can.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The compromise might work in another context, but here it could lead to confusion over the status of Hong Kong compared to the status of Taiwan. The context here is trying to explain that whatever the various claims to sovereignty made by the PRC and ROC, the ROC maintains military and therefor political control of Taiwan, while the PRC does the same for mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau (It was PRC troops that entered HK in 1997, after all). To call Hong Kong "self-governing" also confuses because the preferred phrase for Taiwan in the international press to explain its de facto independence is to call it a self-governing island. Obviously Hong Kong is different from Taiwan in that Taiwan's constitution cannot be re-interpreted by an authority outside Taiwan, nor are Taiwan's defense and foreign relations handled externally.

I also have concerns about the level of autonomy that HK truly has. In theory they have a high level, but I seem to recall (and I admit I don't follow HK politics too closely) that every time a re-appointment of the Chief Executive, there is a lot of talk in the press about who Beijing will choose, and every time there is an election there is a lot of talk about the Beijing controlled parties vs the pro-independence parties. But I'll let those concerns go until I have time to research some sources for you.

That's why I read all media (incl Western based media) with a grain of salt. They all have an agenda to pursue. It is in America's best interest that Taiwan remains in the status quo and to keep the Tibet independence debate alive. It is also in America's interest that Beijing looks bad and authoritarian and I believe that's why the media under report Hong Kong's autonomy.

If America is all for the so called freedom and will of the people, why did it assert such large pressure on President Chen when he wanted to declare independence for Taiwan? It is because an independent Taiwan is not in America's best interest. It no longer has a puppet to play with when it wants to contain the PRC, and if PRC attacks Taiwan when it declares independence, America might have to send troops over.--pyl (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Until then, the concerns about the context are real. The context is explaining the zones of authority of the PRC vs the ROC. It is not the place for extensive discussion HK's level of autonomy. That belongs someplace else in the article. Readin (talk) 22:08, 12 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)

I don't think it would be unconstitutional if Victoria becomes a PRC-style "socialist society". After all, it is difficult for most people to tell the difference between the PRC-style "socialist society" and a western capitalist society nowadays. So i don't think the example that I gave above is inadequate.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The different is simple, becoming a PRC-style Communist state common Australian won't be able to elect their political leader. In PRC, Communist Party of China is which is guaranteed power by the Constitution. I

Again, you are making a comparsion b/w a city (hk) and a very large piece of land (Victoria). And attempt to take advantage of what comes with the nature of the difference in size such as muitlple levels of government structure to condescend hk. Using your analogy, even Singapore would rendered as a sub-national entitity simply due to their lack of federal governments. Most of China's law doesn't apply to Hong Kong and vice versa. BTW, most Australian would be outraged by your comment about making Victoria a communist state, remember you guys can't even get rid of Queen of Australia in 1999's referendum, your communist states comment will sounds ridiculous to your fellow citizens.--Da Vynci (talk) 17:33, 12 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:

When was the last time that Hong Kong's Chief Executive was not selected by Beijing? How exactly is the legislature of Hong Kong selected? From what I've read, most of the votes are indirectly controlled by Beijing. It may not be formal control, but it is effective control. That Beijing doesn't choose to exercise that control daily is not the point. The point is that Beijing has the control and can use it anytime it wants. And Beijing can always interpret the Basic Law creatively to get whatever result they want from that document. Readin (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, while you (Pyl) has some idea about what you are talking about, Readin do not. Every single member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong is elected by permenent residents of Hong Kong. In the 60 members of the Council, 30 seats are elected by Universal suffrage while the other 30 are elected by professionals such as doctors, lawyers, architects, accounts etc. People without Right of Abode in HK are not allowed to vote in the election. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved Da Vynci's latest comment down so it is easier for us to continue this discussion.

"Cool, I purposed a suggestion (see current version). It says PRC has sovereignity over HK which doesn't give impression to exclde effective control. IMHO , the term self-governing has to remain because it states the current fact. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

"LOL, for power that isn't exercised, I think the term you are looking for is "reserved control" or reserved power. But I think the word "sovereignity" is already include such power. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

The way you put it is not good. Let me replace Hong Kong and Macau with Taiwan and you will see what I mean.

the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, exercises effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignity over self-governing territory of Taiwan.

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)

history gif

If anyone knows how to edit a gif, the one showing history needs a fix. The colors separating the PRC and ROC are way too similar for anyone to tell which is which. They need to be more easily distinguishable like the various colors used for earlier maps in the same gif. Readin (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Effective control

1

continue from City-State section, regarding this sentence:

• the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effect control over mainland China, Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999).

This version is not good too, as Pyl just realized it's problem about his definition of “effective control” focus too much on event that hasn’t happened but COULD happen within legal boundary and does not acknowledge the current actual fact.

Using Pyl's definition of "effective control", if a state can constitutionally do whatever it please anytime (including future) to control a region, even such control is not being exercised currently, and cannot practically be exercised, Pyl still calls that “effective control”.

He demonstrated such definition with the following example: Although HK & Mac are self-governing, but since in theory PRC can repeal HK’s constitution’s anytime in the future within legal boundary, so PRC has “effective control” for HK & Mac.

The current fact of HK&M r self-governing is ignored and focuses on possible future event that hasn’t happen. ( coz the current situation is PRC chose not controlling HK now, except defense and foreign relation). The definition also ignores the practical problem will arise because repealing Constitution of HK will violate Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty.

If such definition is applied on ROC, the problem will be even more apparent. ROC can constitutionally do whatever it please on Mainland China anytime; despite currently isn’t exercising such control, since it could happen within the boundary ROC’s constitution, so ROC has “effective control” on Mainland China?!

Pyl worrys about putting the phrase “self-governing” before HK&M may jeopardize ROC’s status. Allow me to demonstrate it will not.

• PRC has effective control on the Mainland and is responsible for defense and foreign relation for internally self-governing territories of Hong Kong and Macau.

• ROC has effective control over Taiwan and surrounding islands.

What do u think?--Da Vynci (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

2

I think you misunderstood what I meant. You said:-

"even such control is not being exercised currently, and cannot practically be exercised, Pyl still calls that “effective control”."

My position is actually "even such control is not being exercised currently, Pyl still calls that “effective control”". The control can be practically exercised. It just isn't.

You also said:-

"The definition also ignores the practical problem will arise because repealing Constitution of HK will violate Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty."

This is the bit that's subject to dispute. That's why so many scholars in Hong Kong are arguing that PRC's power to make the Basic Law is from the Declaration, not from PRC's sovereignty over Hong Kong itself. These scholars are trying to reach a conclusion that you reached. But this position isn't universally agreed upon. Further, I am not sure if a joint declaration itself it a treaty. Treaties aren't called Declaration normally.

I am not concerned about ROC's status here. I just used that example to show the sentence you originally wrote can give an impression that the PRC has no control over Hong Kong as it is "self-governing", just like PRC has no control over Taiwan because it is "self-governing".

Yes the ROC can constitutionally do whatever it wants with mainland China but that's not effective control because the ROC cannot effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on mainland China. The PRC, on the other hand, can effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on Hong Kong.

You proposed:-

"*PRC has effective control on the Mainland and is responsible for defense and foreign relation for internally self-governing territories of Hong Kong and Macau. "

Your proposed wording is less problematic. But it is still not accurate. First calling "the Mainland" instead of "mainland China" will anger those Taiwanese independence supporters. Second, it still downplays PRC's power to have a say over Hong Kong, especially the ability to interpret the Basic Law.

I must apologise that I can't think of a more accurate wording at the moment. But let's keep braining storming and we may be able to come up with something better.--pyl (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What about adding "largely self-governing" to the current wording so it looks like:-

"the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has control over mainland China and the largely self-administering territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999)."

It is not disputed that PRC has control over Hong Kong and Macau and it is also not disputed that Hong Kong and Macau are largely self-administering territories. I changed "governing" to "administering" because "governing" can imply soverignty, and "administer" is also the word used in "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".--pyl (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3.0

First of all, the Sino-British Declaration is a international treaty, this view is supported by England's former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on his report on Citizenship, page 74. I think this authoritative reference is enough to stop your further speculation that the Declaration is not an international treaty.

Anyway, for that sentence, I think we do agree that we don’t include disputed matters. We only document what the current actual situation is, right?

The truth is we DONT know what will really happen if PRC repeal Constitution of HK (thus violate the international treaty of Sino-British Declaration) and whether it can be practically done. You say PRC can while some others may say violating an international treaty could result in wars. Whatever it is, there WILL BE DISPUTES when PRC repeal Constitution of HK, and we don’t document disputed future events.

The same goes for your opinion that ROC can’t effectively enforce its constitutional provisions on mainland China, some others may say with few more earthquake in China and natural disasters, little help from the US, it may not be impossible for ROC to reclaim few more cities from the mainland ( especially under the excuse of "good faith" rescue operation). Since we don’t know what will actually happen, and we don’t speculate what future disputed event might happen.

I suggest we adhere to current actual situation and stop the constitution argument.

As for your suggestion:

the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has control over mainland China and the largely self-governing territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999).

Personally I have major reservation toward the wording "China has control over HK&M" coz how much control is being exercised by the PRC on HK&M is disputed.

We probably won't be able to find a wording that can entertain all possible disputes. Well, I have no problem re-phrasing to "mainland China" as you suggested. I still think the following is less vulnerable to dispute.

the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effective control on the mainland China and is responsible for the defense and foreign relations of the self-governing territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (1999).

• PRC has effective control on Mainland China > undisputed
• PRC is responsible for the defense and foreign relations of HK&M > undisputed
• HK&M r self-governing except Defense & Foreign Relations > undispute

As for the possible downplay and upplay I think it is up to the perception of readers...we only states facts here. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point on the Joint Declaration being a treaty is noted. I found on page 74 of the document saying the following:-

"I am advised that this would be in a breach of the commitments made between China and the UK in the 1984 Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong, an international treaty between the two countries" (My emphasis added)

Thank you for providing the information. However, there sill remains the question whether the PRC derives the power to make the basic law from its inherent sovenignty over HK or through the operation of the treaty. The scholars in China (incl HK) cannot settle this.

When you speculate on a war between the PRC and the UK if PRC repeals the Basic Law, I feel that the odds are against HK. Would the UK seriously send troops to fight against the PRC because PRC changes its mind over HK? But that's not a speculation within the scope of this discussion.

Your suggestion that:-

The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effective control on the mainland China and is responsible for the defense and foreign relations of the self-governing territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (1999).

is problematic because the statement still downplays the role that Beijing has over things like interpretation of the Basic law. That's why I deliberately left out terms such as "defence" and "foreign relations" and replace them with an ambiguous term "largely" so we don't get into the arguments over what Beijing can do or cannot do. This is similar to the Policy of deliberate ambiguity. I also removed "effective" because how effective Beijing's control is over HK is not clear.

So I actually suggested:-

"the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has control over mainland China and the largely self-administering territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999)."

(emphasis is added for this discussion only - I am not suggesting that the emphasis should be used in the main text of the article)

"Self-Governing" can also imply de facto independence like what the PRC likes to describe Taiwan as. "Governing" can imply sovereignty but "administering" cannot. I think that's why the PRC picked this word when it named HK as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".

This statement tells people that:-

1. The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has control over mainland China, Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999); and

2. The territories of Hong Kong and Macau are largely self-administering.

I think it is a compromise to address the concerns and desires of parties from both sides.--pyl (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How about if we just change the phrase "effective control" to "effective military control" since that is that it really means. Effective military control implies the ability to use that military to do whatever one wants regardless of any constitutional restrictions. Whether or not that ability is exercised is often a separate question. In many countries, the military is not routinely used internally for governence, rule of law is followed instead. But the extent of military control prevents external powers from interfering. That's really what the sentences in question are saying. The PRC is able to make sure whatever methods of government it chooses - Basic Law for example - are used in HK, Macau and mainland China, while the ROC is able to make sure that its methods of government, mostly democracy at this point in time, are followed in Taiwan. Readin (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you were serious when you suggested "effective military control". Instinctively I would say many would find that phrase offensive. I think the word "control" without saying effective or otherwise is accepted (please tell me if I am wrong). That's why I didn't expand into the meaning of control in my proposed statement.

I can understand why some people would like to point out the largely self-administering status of Hong Kong. It is similar to most people in Taiwan who wish the world to know that their island is not part of the PRC or the so called "renegade province of China". I wish to reach a compromise in this case, and please seriously consider if my proposed statement is agreeable.--pyl (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

Sorry I cannot disagree more (about what pyl said above), especially this: "Governing" can imply sovereignty but "administering" cannot. I think that's why the PRC picked this word when it named HK as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and China and the largely self-administering territories of Hong Kong ?!?!

Consider we have terms like Administration (government) and Reagan Administration while USA is an independent country, the word "adminstering"'s meaning/implication depends on the subject. Changing from self-governing to self-adminstrating adds confusion, coz "adminstration" could means a lot of things in different situation.

Names of place created by Communists can be very misleading, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If HK Special Administrative Region is "self-administering" then Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) would be a democratic country.

The current sentence China, has control over mainland China, Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999). is still not factual and misleading, as it doesn't mention HK&M are self-governing. I think you are a bit over-worried that stating the fact that HK&M is self-governing, ppl will then say ROC's also self-governing too, so it must be part of China. Look, "self-governing" doesn't imply independency or dependency. E.g., Just like Singapore is self-governing but it is (now) not part of Malaysia, while Falkland Islands & Bermuda are self-governing but sovereignty belongs to UK. (and YES, the words self-governing/self-governance actually in the article of Falkland Islands & Bermuda.

Since the word "self-governing", when is used for HK does not deny PRC's sovereignty, and when it is used for ROC doesn't jeopardiz ROC status as a different country from PRC. I don't see any problem using it. So, the phrase "self-governing terrorities Hong Kong and Macau" must be included to reflect the fact!--Da Vynci (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the description of "self-governing" for HK. Most English speaking people who read Wikipedia wouldn't really think about sovereignty and all those over legalistic interpretation.

I mentioned it earlier because I was concerned that some Taiwanese independence supporters would make a big deal out of that word because after all the PRC has been calling Taiwan as "self-governing", and I believe those supporters would like to distance Taiwan as far away from HK as possible. So I was being careful when I suggested "Administering". Governing can (but not always) imply sovereignty, but administering cannot.

The current way of description in the main text is fine by me. As I said earlier, I don't think a normal English speaking user would, after reading your description, think that HK has soverignty.--pyl (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Effective military control

For the first time ever, I found myself indeed agree with Readin that "Effective military control" is probably the right term, because it is the ultimate, current, and undeniable fact. Using this term, we can avoid all the sovereignty disputes. By stating whom's armies is located where can make the whole things clearer, it is simple, free from endless constitution debates, and easy to understand. (Apparently no one here is certain about what effective control means, and the term is subject to dispute)

hereby I suggest:

• the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effective military control over mainland China, and self-governing territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999).
• the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, has effective military control over the islands of Taiwan, Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu.

Some may say the term may sound offensive, yes, it is almost as offensive showing to the Palestinian people that Palestine is not a country. But here in wikipedia we include facts, even that piece of fact may sound unpleasant to some people as per Wikipedia:Profanity. Yes, without using the term "Effective military control" the sentence cannot be as accurate and as honest to the truth!--Da Vynci (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

After further thought I'm not sure "effective military control" is the best way to say it. It implies martial law, troops patrolling the streets, etc.. "Self-governing" is also wrong as it implies the PRC cannot interpret the Basic Law or otherwise make decisions for HK (including areas like defense and foreign relations). So far, of the suggestions I've seen, simply "control" seems to work best, though I can understand there may still be some objection. I think getting the word "military" in there somehow is important because the purpose of the two sentences is to say which military defends which territories and guarantees that the selected forms of government are able to function free from interference by other powers. The problem is finding the right wording for that. I'm very much against trying to make statements about the level of autonomy in HK in that sentence because it detracts from the purpose of the sentence. Also, given the complexity of the situation, an explanation of HK's level of autonomy requires more than just a descriptive clause within a sentence. It needs to be handled in a later paragraph where as much text as needed can be used.Readin (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Implication" u mention is subject to personal subjectivity and percepition. I don't think "self-governing" implies any denial to details such as PRC ability interpret the Basic Law. The sentence include the word "control" and that already implied PRC ability interpret the Basic Law. "Self-governing" doesn't imply independency or dependency. E.g., Just like Singapore is self-governing but it is (now) not part of Malaysia, while Falkland Islands & Bermuda are self-governing but sovereignty belongs to UK. (and YES, the words self-governing/self-governance actually in the article of Falkland Islands & Bermuda. The word "self-governing", when is used for HK does not deny PRC's sovereignty nor details such as PRC ability to interpret the Basicl Law. I don't think worrying about subjective perception of unproven "implication" of others should prevent us to include facts on wikipedia. --Da Vynci (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is no good. Really, Taiwan is under the effective military control of the United States.--pyl (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that is truly a nice joke, Pyl. Flamarande (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's not really a good term, because if you can use it here why don't say USA is controlling native american's territory and Irak and Afganistan...? Now the world knows that China has only one legal government, so this government is totally legal and is not only controlling the territory by its military force...CHN710 (talk) 15:01, 3 january 2009(CET)

"Effective control" with wikilink to Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force?

As someone is still trying to include idea of effect military control but this time using a very long sentense that is hard to understand.

Regarding HK and Macau.I am suggesting wikilinking effective control to the Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force article , as following:

The last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China:

• the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effective control over mainland China, and self-governing territories of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999).
• the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, has effective control over the islands of Taiwan, Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu.

Do you think it is acceptable?--Da Vynci (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the push to included the clause "self-governing" in a sentence completely unrelated to Hong Kong's local government structure? Readin (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is called the Government of Hong Kong, and I don't think any local government can be entitled WTO membership on its own like Hong Kong do. Secondly, you obviously only tried to censor the notable fact that HK&M is self-govening rather then trying to make the sentence "related", evidently you removed "self-governing" but left out the much more trivial info such as "since 1997" and "since 1999". So, don't you ever use "non-related" as excuse to remove such a related and important fact.

The term "Self-governing" here is important and must be included because, without the word "self-governing", the sentense mislead readers that Hong Kong & Macau are are no different to mainland China. But we all know the different is huge and notable, the Head of Hong Kong Government doesn't has to be Communist Party member, the Head of Goverment can act mostly without PRC approval (unless on defense & foreign relations matters), HK is a member of WTO long before PRC became a member, HK has it's own currency Hong Kong dollars, along with difference in legal system, driving directions, custom controls, Communist propaganda is absent in HK , HK government doesn't censor news and info like the PRC government.

Of course, as u said, we don't include all those details, but the main concept "self-governing" (as per One country two systems) must be included to reflect the above facts. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to call the WTO in as an arbiter, you're not going to get far with me. I hardly consider the WTO an impartial observer of the international situation.

As for why 1993 and 1997 are related and not trivial, the previous line said (again, context is important) "The last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China:". Without the information about when Hong Kong and Macau became parts of China, it sounds like they were parts of China at the end of the Chinese Civil War. On the other hand, pointing out that HK and Macau are now Chinese territory makes no statement about how they are governed, so it is not necessary to clarify that. Readin (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording as appeared in the main text is fine. I think we have covered the issues that Da Vynci raised in the earlier sections:-

1. HK is not self-governing. It is *largely* self-governing. HK's self-governing is not absolute. Beijing gets to have a say over defence, foreign affairs and interpretation of basic law.

2. Having the word "control" is fine so we dont have to argue how effective Beijing's control is over HK.--pyl (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, glad that we finally have reached consensus. LOL, we typed thousands of words just to debated over change of a few, yet very signifcant, words. Welcome to wikipedia. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Go back and read the other arguments (some archived) and you'll discove that mere "thousands" of words to change a few words is pretty high signal to noise ratio for the China page. Usually there is no agreement and nothing changes.Readin (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is a neighbour of China?

I think this statement is highly problematic:-

"Historically, China's cultural sphere has extended across East Asia as a whole, with Chinese religion, customs, and writing systems being adopted to varying degrees by its neighbors Japan, Korea and Vietnam as well as the disputed Taiwan."

Taiwan is in dispute so is mainland China. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC constitution as the Main Area of the ROC. The whole historic Chinese territory is disputed territory as a result of the Chinese Civil War. So I don't think it is appropriate to mention "disputed" just for Taiwan at first place.

This is not an exhaustive list of neighbours. The list doesn't mention Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos and to a lesser extent, Burma. It is absolutely clear to most English speakers (Wikipedia's audience) that Japan, Korea and Vietnam are the main nations receiving the most Chinese influence. Taiwan doesn't have to be mentioned to avoid arguments over different POVs: whether Taiwan is part of China or Taiwan is a neighbour of China.

These arguments have been raised numerous times. They are repetitive, fruitless and frankly boring. We can never reach consensus. So I would suggest that we should be more cautious and not get into the argument at first place: Taiwan doesn't have to be mentioned.--pyl (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording is ok now. I just want to point out that the dispute over Taiwan is different than the dispute over mainland China. With both mainland China and Taiwan, there is a dispute over whether the rightful sovereign is the ROC or the PRC. But only in regard to Taiwan is there a third side that says neither ROC nor PRC is the legitimate government. Also, there is another related dispute as to whether Taiwan is part of China. No one seriously disputes whether mainland China is part of China. Readin (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But the way the word "disputed" was used, it was quite ambiguous. I didn't get the message you were trying to put across when I read that sentence.--pyl (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If Readin really wants to make sure that all readers would get that this is not an exhaustive list then we can say:-

"Historically, China's cultural sphere has extended across East Asia as a whole, with Chinese religion, customs, and writing systems being adopted to varying degrees by its neighbours, such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam"--pyl (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How come there's no statistics bar on the right side?

I was looking at the various size in area of different countries, and when I came to China I noticed it doesn't have the helpful sidebar that shows the country's flag, motto, and statistics. Was this deliberately left out or just forgotten?Godlesspinko (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, seriously, can you read? Why don't you go to the page Americas and ask the same question? The very top of the article says This article is about Chinese civilization, because there are Republic of China and People's Republic of China , which China are you looking for? --Da Vynci (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable question. The answer is: Due to the complex political situation and difficulties of NPOV, the "China" page and the "People's Republic of China" page are separate articles despite "China" being the common name for the PRC. This is related to how the "Taiwan" page and the "Republic of China" page are separate articles despite "Taiwan" being the common name for the ROC. Many ways to change or fix this confusing situation have been suggested, but none have been able to achieve consensus despite many months of effort. Readin (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing situation? China is a geographic area composed of two sovereign countries - People's Republic of China and Republic of China, simple is that. Similar situtions can be found in Korea, Yugoslavia and America pages. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's one POV. It's not the only one. Readin (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so would be nPOV? --Da Vynci (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The three "similar situations" you mention each has it's own solution. Korea uses the method you suggest for China, "Korea is a geographic area composed of two sovereign countries..." . That solution has been proposed and rejected for the China page because there is not universal agreement that Taiwan is part of China nor is there universal agreement that the ROC is sovereign, nor is their universal agreement that Taiwan or the ROC is a country. The Yugoslavia article shows how Yugoslavia has shrunk in recent years as it lost territory, and finally saying that "On June 3 and June 5, 2006 respectively, Montenegro and Serbia declared independence, thereby ending the Yugoslav state." You will find that suggestions of China shrinking or ceasing to exist will not be welcome and certainly will not get consensus (the shrinking theory has been rejected many times). Finally, the "America" page is a disambiguation page. Having "China" go directly to a disambiguation page has also been suggested and then rejected by people who feel it would be slighting China to do so. Readin (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First, just let me get something straight, when u said "there is not universal agreement that Taiwan is part of China". In that sentense, did you mean China as in ROC, PRC or the Chinese civilisation? Please speak precisely. I found majority of the problems here are caused by people not speaking precisely. And you still haven't answered my question. What is, regarding China in your opinion, nPOV? --Da Vynci (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not universal agreement on the meaning of the word "China". There is not universal agreement as to whether the ROC is "China". There is not universal agreement on the limits of "Chinese civilization". There is not even universal agreement on the meaning of the word "Taiwan" (yes, sometimes it is used for just the big island, but it is also used (but not by everybody) as the name of a country and a nation). It is difficult to speak precisely when there is no universal agreement on the meaning of any of the words I could use. Readin (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, how could "Republic of China" not be "China"? Unless the ROC you referred to is Republic of Cuba. You still fail to answer what is, in your opinion, a nPOV about China. If you don't know what is the nPOV , then what do you think yourself qualify to accuse other being POV? --Da Vynci (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How could a "silverfish" be neither silver nor fish? How could the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" be neither Democratic nor Republic? How could the "Eastern Roman Empire" not include Rome?

What is an NPOV about China? Why, my POV, of course!  :) Readin (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

according to your examples, of course the people on Taiwan are not Taiwanese then. --Da Vynci (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just find it curious how come the "Taiwanese president" Chen Shui-bian never for once said that he would return the artefacts that were stolen from China and in particular, those stored in the National Palace Museum? Surely China wouldn't bomb Taiwan, if Taiwan wants to return the artefacts back to them.

Did Chen's government bother to ask the countries recognising the ROC not to recognise the ROC as the sole legitimate country of all of China? I think the answer is no.

It is also curious to me that Taiwan independence supporters call themselves that. Independence from what country? China? If the ROC is already "Taiwan" (the country, not the common name), then I guess Taiwanese independence supporters shouldn't exist any more. The objective is served. The ROC is China as long as Taiwanese independence supporters exist. It's as simple as that.--pyl (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pyl, I'm pretty sure you know more about Taiwanese politics and Chinese attitudes than that. Chen had to work with a legislature dominated by the opposition party. (why was opposition party so strong? money politics and local machines established by the opposition when it was the only party and violently suppressed dissenters). Even if he could unilaterally ask other countries to recognize Taiwan as Taiwan, he would be risking the what little international recognition Taiwan has. He might be making the perfect then enemy of the good, so to speak.

I don't think I mentioned anything that the administrative branch of the government cannot legally do alone. So please don't bring up the legislature as it is irrelevant here.

There is no evidence that China would agree not to bomb Taiwan in exchange for the National Palace Museum treasures. Why would Chen make such an offer with no hope of success? he might as well have offered to give Hu a Popsicle in exchange for not bombing Taiwan.

I don't think I was talking about exchanging the treasures for peace. I was talking about Chen being able to easily return the treasures back to China if he really thinks that the ROC is not China. It is a simple thing to do to make the gesture. Why would Taiwan want to keep stolen goods?

Language in Taiwan has been affected by 40 years of one-party rule by a Chinese colonial government exiled from its home country. That government did in fact believe that Taiwan was part of China, and common langauge often reflects that. However, the use of the term "Taiwan independence" is no more conclusive in saying that Taiwan is not independent than the existence "One China" policy supporters is conclusive in saying there is more than one China. The "Taiwan Independence" is less a campaign for independence (which already exists) and more a campaign for formal recognition, both by the Taiwan's own govenrnment and by international observers, of that independence.Readin (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the government now still believes that Taiwan is part of China: different political parties, different ideologies.

Also, I don't think I was talking about language at all. I don't think everything that happens to be "wrong" for Taiwanese independence supporters has all to do with "40 years of one-party rule by a Chinese colonial government exiled from its home country". The term is also called "Taiwanese independence" in English. I don't think you can blame the KMT for that. That bit of the argument is quite irrelevant.

If "Taiwan Independence is less a campaign for independence (which already exists) and more a campaign for formal recognition" then I guess it is time to change the term. But I don't think the most folks in Taiwan feel the same way as what you are feeling right now.

I don't think we should use this talk page as a forum as the original question was about "helpful sidebar that shows the country's flag, motto, and statistics" and the answer of "This article is about Chinese civilization" was sufficient. The later statements are all quite irrelevant to the original question. I think they were said to make a political point, which was unnecessary. And the person who asked the question isn't even participating in the discussion anyway.--pyl (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for debating which POV we think is best. I'll let you get your points in about why you disagree with the POV that Taiwan is an independent country and how if you were a president with that POV you would have used different tactics. The important thing for us to recognize is that the POV is significant, having many adherents including at least one democratically elected president of the country (and there have only been three). Of Taiwan's 3 democratically elected presidents only one has openly disagreed with the idea that Taiwan is an independent country. You can disagree with the POV, but to be honest you have to recognize that it is significant POV. Readin (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I edit the articles, I never thought of the mainstream views of Taiwanese Independence supporters as marginal. They simply aren't.

Ma believes that Taiwan (the common name for the ROC) is an independent country, but Taiwan itself isn't.--pyl (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they were said to make a political point, which was unnecessary.

I was stating the controversy. You and Da Vynci were the ones trying to discredit one of the POVs, so I felt compelled to at least provide basic justification for the POV so that it wouldn't be ignored or marginalized.

Fair enough--pyl (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes, Ma has another POV. Readin (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Under Religion (in the main article) I think that where it starts to talk about Judaism in China, we should add the fact about how Jewish diaspora came to China.. The Kaifeng Jews. There is still a small amount of Chinese Kaifeng Jews, Who have been living in China for generations now. It is not just the Holocaust, where Jews are so specifically noted in China. Those are the EUROPEAN JEWS that came to China.. There are CHINESE JEWS of Kaifeng.. That are still in China today. See Kaifeng Jews--Animeartist1 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why this doesn't go to PRC, take 47

I've seen arguments regarding succession of states theory, and that both the ROC and PRC claim to be the successors and so forth and to say otherwise is POV, but as a simple matter of usage in the English language, which is how articles are supposed to be located, that is not on the basis of historical, technical, or political argument, "China" means to most people in most situations the People's Republic of China, and "Taiwan" means to most people people in most situations the Republic of China. Articles are placed according to how people talk, not how editors logically pontificate.

This page is misplaced and is better suited to Chinese civilization. The primary usage of the word "China" from everyday speech is the People's Republic of China.

The entire May 2008 issue of National Geographic was dedicated to China, its history, its modern dilemmas in balancing economic prosperity with ecological awareness, and at no point did they stop and say, "By the way, we're not talking about the island of Taiwan" or refer to it as the People's Republic of China.--Loodog (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is very clear on this point, and it is respected across

This article would more accurately be labeled Chinese civilisation, or perhaps more accurately, Chinese civilisation, as described with reference to the PRC/ROC debate. What we have here is an absolute farce, and an unworkable attempt to accommodate multiple positions. China in English use (which is how naming is derived in Wikipedia) overwhelmingly, 999 times out of 1000 refers to the People's Republic of China. It may not be fair, but that is the way things are. Do a Google search. How many uses of China refer to anything other than the PRC? Almost none.

I've put a bomb under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). The problem is that China has political connotations in some circumstances, but in most uses it carries no political meaning whatsoever, and it is simply used by English speakers to refer to the PRC. The guideline should reflect both those things. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see old archives on similar discussion. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of citations

I see a serious lack of citation in the religion section of the page that mentions Christianity. DaniJeanne (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)DaniJeanne

Taiping T'ien Wang

Hong called himself a son of God not the Son of God. This is consistant with what the bible teaches. Another thing that by Hong's own admission he only believes in One God who is Jesus Christ as you can find this in his own writing about what he believes. He believed in the oneness of God as Jesus Christ. If you look at the page that talks about Hong you can see the sources listed of what he actually believed and what was said in his own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DynastyWarrior (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

redirecting "China" to the "PRC"

There is a discussion going on here.--pyl (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting China to the PRC is just absurd. PRC is the modern government of mainland China. It is completely different from China. Redirecting China to the PRC is like redirecting the Roman Empire to modern day Italy. Intranetusa (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not – because today's Italy isn't referred to as the Roman Empire in common English speech. --83.253.240.46 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

China Dictatorship

Can we include China governments persecution of Dalai Lama? WalukHailey (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't put it in "China," but you include that in the "People's Republic of China" section. Intranetusa (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

External Link not working:

"The Chinese Superpower-Historical Background, Dr Rivka Shpak-Lissak" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkheilig (talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Hatnote

The disambig hatnote for this article is not good: too long, too cumbersome, not very well worded & too many extraneous links. i know there are politically sensitive issues here, but this needs to be better. have made a (now second) draft rewording, tried to keep it as clear (& neutral) as possible. the standard template just doesnt cover this situation Lx 121 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording is fine to me, but saying "Republic of China (Taiwan)" without saying "People's Republic of China (mainland China)" is not good. It is also acceptable to say, Republic of China, commonly known as "Taiwan".

"Republic of China (Taiwan)" has been used by Taiwan independence supporters to argue that is the official name of the country (which is not supported by law), and this gives rise to issues of neutrality here.--pyl (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"All of China" is a phrase used by Chinese nationalists to argue that Taiwan is part of China and should also be avoided. The previous wording was specific and disambiguating. I don't see the reason for changing it. Readin (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

fine with reword re: taiwan. BOTH countries legally claim sovereignty over "all of china" tho, until that situation changes, the wording is accurate on that point. Lx 121 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this better?

This article is an overview of China and the Chinese civilization. For the modern political states see the People's Republic of China (mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau) and the Republic of China (Taiwan). For other uses, see China (disambiguation).

pyl (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

well, it describes the article better, & drops the unnecessary date reference, but there are still 3-4 extraneous links, & the term "modern political state" seems a bit clumsy. Also "modern" is a term with variable meanings (even the qing dynasty survived into the "modern era", depending on how you define it). i've tried running thru a list of synonyms contemporary/current/present/...?

the fact that technically both "china"s" are still claiming sovereignty over the whole country (& each other) is germane, if that was not the case, we would just have separate articles. can we find a formulation that is more succinct, without offending anyone's politics? i can accept including the fact that roc = taiwan for most people, that makes sense, & avoids confusion, but do we really need to include so much geography? it is a dab note, meant to be short & to the pointLx 121 (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this-

This article is an overview of China and the Chinese civilization. For current political states see the People's Republic of China (mainland China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan). For other uses, see China (disambiguation).

--pyl (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

i like it! tho i think "the" might need to be inserted "the two current political states". i'm also concerned that the geography list will start growing again. what about:

This article is an overview of China and the Chinese civilization. For the two current political states, see the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (also commonly known as Taiwan). For other uses, see China (disambiguation)

with or without the brackets around the aka part, and with or without a live link to Taiwan. there is no real confusion about what the PRC refers to, it's just the ROC/taiwan that needs the explanation. if we can find a wording that wont provoke a war...

Lx 121 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as Pyl is concerned about the use of ""Republic of China (Taiwan)" as a code word for suggesting that Taiwan is independent unless we also say "PRC (mainland China), I'm concerned about the "whole of China" or "all of China" which is commonly used by Chinese nationalists to imply that there is more to China than just what is governed by the PRC. From the POV of a Chinese nationalists, it makes sense to include both the ROC and PRC in the disambiguation for "China" since both are part of China and thus both are still China. For others, the link between the ROC and China is merely historical. No one will come to this page looking for the ROC. So including the ROC in this disambiguation is already taking a POV. The only reason it is left there is that Chinese nationalists would argue, with some justification, that leaving it out would also be POV. Given the touchy nature of it all, being too wordy should not be our overriding concern - neutrality should.

A disambiguation serves the purpose of disambiguating a name, not a claim. It makes sense that our statement about the ROC should be based on the name, not on the claim. The previous wording, "states using 'China' in their names" gave a perfect justification for including the ROC without taking anyone's side.

Clearly stating which territories are controlled works very well for the purpose of clarifying which country is which without taking a POV.

Unless there is a better reason than "wordiness" for changing, we should keep the earlier wording. Readin (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to time

I changed all instances of BCE/CE to BC/AD since BC/AD is the generally accepted way of writing dates, BCE/CE may be more sensitive and such, but I believe that putting in the proper and accepted way is more important. Feel free to revert the change if you feel the need to, but please post here first, explaining why BCE/CE should be used instead. Sorry if I made a bad change. earle117 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There are strong feelings on both sides, and Wikipedia guideline is to use which ever you prefer when writing an article, to not change what how another editor started the article, and to keep the usage consistent throughout the article. Readin (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. I do think that it would be better to use the more commonly used and generally accepted terms though. Thank you for explaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.135.54 (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Territory and environment

Historical political divisions: Various dynasties also expanded into peripheral territories like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang, and Tibet.

It's more accurately to say "like Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, Vietnam, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asia".--Punkranka (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WHY DOES CHINA DONT LET PEOPLE HAVE SURTEIN AMOUNTS OF KIDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.203.203 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

china is annoying and bad at maths —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suresh170 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Population

Is there much info about China's population? Stars4change (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes that does seem to be a glaring omission... Is there a reason China's population isn't given, with China defined as the mainland, the SARs and Taiwan (as it is treated in the rest of the article)? TastyCakes (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in the rest of the article is China treated as including Taiwan? Such places need to be fixed. By convention and by NPOV Wikipedia does not take a position on whether Taiwan is part of China. Any mention needs to at least include a note that the issue is disputed. Readin (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party of China

Could we add a link to Communist Party of China? Stars4change (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) try google.com silly you get more stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.113.240 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.222 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I seldom see anything about the number of people in China in 1900, wasn't that a big factor in WHY China wanted Communism? Weren't there so many people (close to a billion) that were subsisting on small plots of land that it was more obvious there than it was in America, which had a small population (only 76 million) & lots of empty land, that the ideal for China would be to have Communism, where large communities would all live & work on the communally-owned land by large groups of people working together, possibly working fewer hours for each person? It will also be ideal for America when there are 1 or 2 billion people here. Stars4change (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The communes were a way to prevent peasants from "hording" grain. Stalin came up with the idea in the 1930s to starve Ukraine into submission. China had a three-year famine after communes were introduced, so it is naive to think it was about about increasing productivity. Mao wanted to maximize grain exports so he could raise money for weapons and foreign aid -- what he called the "Superpower Project." Kauffner (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's inaccurate to think the hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants had anything to do with the decisions that were made when setting up the system. The communist party beat the KMT militarily, in part because the KMT burned a lot of bridges with the peasants. Perhaps the communist party in China was set up with the idea of their giant population needing communism, but I've never heard it put that way before. Indeed, while the country as a whole had a huge amount of people, most of it was rural, which is not what Marx had in mind, he would probably have predicted communism arising in a place like America's industrial cities before rural China (or Russia). TastyCakes (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying how and why the Communist Party appealed to people would be fine provided reliable sources give reasons. However we should avoid reaching a conclusion about the effectiveness of Communism in either sparsely populated areas or densely populated areas. (nor should we note that communism often helps reduce population density by killing lots of people) Readin (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake! Saying the Communist Party of China is a blatant violation of NPOV. It's the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, as this page clearly proves. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The ROC, commonly known as Nationalist China?

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)

I just typed "nationalist china" taiwan (with quotes) in google and i found this:-

"The largest city, Taipei, is the seat of the government of the Republic of China (ROC; Nationalist China)."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580902/Taiwan

Britiannica, under the main section, calls the ROC "Nationalist China".

Personally, I must say though, this term is terribly out of date, and I doubt any young people, especially those in the west, would use the term.--pyl (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even if it appears on Britannica, it doesn't mean it's commonly called "Nationlist China". A quick search for "republic of china" "nationalist china" returns 22,900 results on Google, whereas a search for "republic of china" taiwan returns 2,700,000, so it seems clear which one is the most common. Then I guess my question is mainly: why does "Nationalist China" comes before "Taiwan" considering "Taiwan" is the most common of both terms? Laurent (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me. Maybe we should swap the order.--pyl (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've swapped them, hope there are no objections. Laurent (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalist China" suggests that the ROC is a one-party KMT state, plotting to retake the mainland. This has not been the case for many years. Kauffner (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

china

$Insertformulahere$

Kunming

Kunming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.82.158 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Traditional vs Simplified

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)

The whole images seems too focused on the past with nothing from the present. Perhaps a picture of a mondern Chinese skyline or some modern iconic image like the birds nest olympic building should be squeezed in. Readin (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A valid point, however, in the wrong article's talk page. Perhaps posting a picture of modern Chinese skyline on the People's Republic of China page would be helpful. I am suggesting the implementation of a more balanced Simplified to Traditional ratio. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But isn't this article about the Chinese civilisation. I think using those old pictures is exactly for that purpose.--pyl (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That only makes sense if you believe Chinese civilization no longer exists. Readin (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"This article is about Chinese civilization. For the modern political state comprising Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, see People's Republic of China. For the modern political state comprising Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." Ahem. ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 23:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want balance. Don't forget manchu, mongolian and the many scripts China have used for hundreds of years longer. Benjwong (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how many of these scripts are still in use today? The point of Wikipedia is to compile information, for the easy accessibility of all. Using Traditional text only, well, kind of kills that purpose. Which is why I suggest the implementation of Simplified text to balance out the article. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are putting the modern entity in line with all the other entities before it. Sorry it doesn't seem balanced at all. You might be doing the opposite. Benjwong (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But you see, technically, the modern entity is still a part of the Chinese civilization. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to be technical. Manchu and mongolian scripts are still part of the civilization. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my last point, how many of those are still in use today? The point of Wikipedia is to collect and distribute make information easily accessible to the masses. Filling a page to the max with scripts and dialects characters that are outdated would blow article sizes completely out of proportion. Undoubtedly, if somewhere in the future, Chinese language evolves to some new form, then I'm sure that would be included, and the scripts in usage now would be discarded, or archived for future reference. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom vs. nation

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".

The traditional translation is currently used and understood as the proper translation throughout China.(J03K64 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

The correct translation of 中国 is "China". Any Chinese-English dictionary will tell you this. "Middle Kingdom" is a poetic, traditional translation. "Central nation" is what you get if you translate 中 and 国 separately as if they were two separate words. This isn't a "proper" method of translation, but is done to give English speakers insight on the word's etymology. "Kingdom" is wangguo in Chinese, i.e. not the same thing as 国 guo. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau "returned" to the PRC? How?

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)

"disputed region of Taiwan"

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)

Looking Back in past discussions, it seems like we all agreed on that PRC and ROC being included in this article is because they formally uses "China" in their names, not about claims or sovereignty. My edit was "For sports in the Republic of China, see Sports in Taiwan". This is consistent with the ROC article as the demographics and education sections of the article link to demographics in Taiwan and education in Taiwan. Why should the sports section be any different? I believe Readin's concern are already addressed by defining "China" as the Civilization instead of the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PRC and ROC are mentioned in certain places in the article since they both call themselves "China". I don't think there was ever a general agreement to use them in the whole article. The few places where we do mention the ROC and PRC, we explicitly say that they both call themselves China; we don't say they are actually part of China. Linking to "Sports in Taiwan" absent this context clearly implies that Taiwan is part of China.

Linking to a "aaa in Taiwan" article from the ROC article is different from linking from the "China" article. No one believes that Taiwan is not in the ROC. But there is disagreement as to whether the ROC is still in China.

Calling Taiwan a "disputed" region has apparantly led to some confusion. Taiwan is different from mainland China because the dispute is three way. The CPC says Taiwan and Mainland China are part of the PRC. The KMT says Taiwan and Mainland China are part of the PRC. But while no one argues about whether Mainland China is in China, people argue about whether Taiwan is in China. I wanted to keep it short and simple, but perhaps that is not possible. Perhaps we need to make it more explicit like "For sports in Taiwan, which many believe is part of China, see Sports in Taiwan" It's ugly, but the only other option I can see is just to leave the links out. Readin (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Captain Obvious

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)

While I agree that "China" should be a simple redirect to the PRC, you are ignoring many arguments by many people over the history of this article. It is most certainly not a US POV issue, the arguments and holdups in the past have been dominated by the views of mainlanders and Taiwanese people. To me, this is a filler article, a bit of fluff put here to pacify both sides and satisfy neither. If the reader wants to learn about the PRC and Taiwan, they would do much better looking at their respective articles, which are pretty good. TastyCakes (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Chinese-language articles won't help you. They are just translations from the English versions. The Chinese and Taiwanese editors seem to like it this way. Perhaps it's closer to usage in Chinese. The Republic of France is a redirect to France, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a redirect to Vietnam, and the United States of America is a redirect to United States. It's an established convention to go with the short-form name. Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, but in those articles it's not contentious and complicated in the same way that it is in the PRC and ROC articles. TastyCakes (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)