Talk:China

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001 (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

For the infobox, can you add the status of China since 19 states do not recognize the PRC?

• Recognized by 173 member states of the United Nations
• Claimed by the Republic of China as "mainland China" (Constitution of the Republic of China)

-- 135.23.145.14 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: That's not needed for the infobox. — MRD2014 ^Talk 02:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

China has long since abandoned socialism.

Ever since Deng Xiaoping, a person who was rather right on the political scale, introduced reforms in China's economy, they have been not socialist, not even close to that, but rather state capitalist. You could call it "market socialism", but that's not even close to it. It's capitalist now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souljia 1991 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Drives on the (left)

On the right column it says China drive on the: Right

This is wrong. China drives on the: Left, only Hong Kong and Macau drives on the: Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorhuang1 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. "Nationalist China adopted [right-hand traffic] in 1946. This convention was preserved when the CCP took the mainland and the KMT retreated to Taiwan. Hong Kong and Macau continue to be [left-hand traffic]." (See: Left- and right-hand traffic and List of countries with left-hand traffic.) General Ization ^Talk 03:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I spent two years teaching in Hangzhou. The driver sits on the left side of the car and drives on the right side of the road. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Government infobox

Shouldn't the government section of the infobox read "Socialist people's republic"? (66.215.84.193 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

In "Infobox country", at "government type", change "Socialist people’s republic" to "Socialist people's republic" The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

Please change GDP(nominal)Total $11.938 trillion to GDP(nominal)Total $13.12 trillion(82.7122 trillion Yuan) according to reference source CVHuan999999 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

CHINA GDP

In the United states page Wikipedia have gdp of 2018, Why in China page Wikipedia have gdp of 2017? Imf date= GDP CHINA $14.092 trillion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.17.104 (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

CHINA GDP

IMF date April 2018 GDP CHINA $14.092 trillion http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/CHN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.17.104 (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put in the new data from the latest 2018 IMF projections. Wikipedia is very inconsistent on this point. Some major countries, like France and the US, still use the 2017 numbers. But others, like Germany, Russia, and Japan, are using the 2018 numbers. It's a mess. If there's any country that deserves the most recent data, however, it's definitely China. The combination of rapid yuan-denominated growth and the falling value of the dollar relative to the yuan (in last year) mean that nominal Chinese GDP per capita is growing way faster in dollar terms than the official 7%. So it would be a good idea to track these rapid changes.UBER ^(talk) 10:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We should use actual GDP, not projections. The most recent data is 2017. Articles with the most active editors, such as United States, United Kingdom etc, use 2017 data. If we were to use projections, why stop at 2018? IMF issues GDP forecast all the way into the 2020s, but we're not in the business of predicting the future. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me address all of your arguments.

1) Why stop at 2018? Because we're in 2018 and we already have 1st quarter economic data. Those are two facts and conditions that don't apply to any other years in the future. In other words, you can't seriously maintain that there's an equivalence between an IMF projection for the end of the current year and a projection for 10 years down the road. 2017 is the last full cycle of GDP data, but it doesn't accurately reflect Chinese standard of living in April 2018, largely because this latter figure has changed so quickly from its counterpart in 2017 (ie. 1st quarter 2017). For an economy that only grew by one or two percent we shouldn't care much, but it's a different story when the change is seven percent.

2) What standard do you propose Wikipedia adopt instead for this issue? That articles with the "most active editors" make the call? The simple truth is that there's no golden standard or consistent principle that decides which GDP numbers end up in any given country article. It's a hodgepodge of chance, editor activity, clashing viewpoints, and whatever someone reading something happened to think on that day.

3) Let me finally turn to what I think is the deeper underlying concern. Suppose we include the 2018 figures now and then China's economy absolutely tanks in the summer. Then all that would happen is the IMF would release new numbers in October, which would factor in the drop in Chinese economic activity. So we would update the article accordingly. If nothing special happens and China's economy keeps humming along this year, then the 2018 numbers will end up being more or less right and we have nothing to worry about.UBER ^(talk) 10:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"2018 and we already have 1st quarter economic data" - that's exactly my point. Nobody has full year data for 2018, only projections. But I got better things to do than keep arguing about this. If you want to use 2018 data, at least do it properly. Don't mix two sets of data from two sources for two different years and mislabel them as 2018 IMF data. -Zanhe (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So we are on the same page, I am citing the World Economic Outlook in April 2018, which gives China's nominal GDP per capita at roughly $10,000 for all of 2018. I did not add any source about 1st quarter data, and I'll happily remove the other source in the nominal GDP category so only the IMF source is left. I only mentioned the 1st quarter data to suggest that the 2018 projections are grounded in some kind of hard numbers.UBER ^(talk) 10:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the other source and only the 2018 IMF data is now included for the GDP numbers.UBER ^(talk) 10:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

For some unknown reasons, the parameter government type in this article's infobox is currently socialist people's republic which is not wrong but not detailed enough to introduce the actual type of the Chinese government to readers. The original description which was still out there back in March, 2018(see this), I believe, did much better in this. Therefore, I propose that

we change

|government_type = [[Socialism with Chinese characteristics|Socialist]] [[People's Republic|people's republic]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm|publisher=The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>

to

|government_type = [[Unitary state|Unitary]] ''de facto'' [[One-party state|one-party]] [[Socialist state|socialist]] [[republic]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm|publisher=The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China|date=15 November 2007|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>.

References

171.10.187.196 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

Please help undo the obviously disruptive edits made by Krishna Pagadala through the two edits in which this user added content not adhering to WP:UNDUE. The original version reads the government of China is very concerned about its population growth rate and has attempted since 1979, with mixed results, while the current edition claims The government implemented a strict family planning policy, known as the "one-child policy" from 1979 to 2013, with little effect on the total population. Apparently the former is more neutral and facts-based.

To make a story short, please revert to this edition. 223.104.109.245 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Both statements are fact-based and neutral, and both are adequately sourced. You will need to discuss with the editor and try to arrive at a consensus. There is no reason why both statements cannot be true, and a composite of the two is probably the best solution. General Ization ^Talk 03:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

In point of fact, the version resulting from KP's edits is preferable, because it reflects that the one-child policy was largely abandoned in 2013 (and replaced in 2016 by the two-child policy), while the original suggests that the Chinese government is still attempting to enforce the former. General Ization ^Talk 03:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please use caution in describing another editor's edits as "obviously disruptive" merely because you disagree with them. See WP:DISRUPT for a discussion of what is – and is not – disruptive editing. General Ization ^Talk 03:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

To address your concerns, I changed the wording slightly to include the idea that in 1979 China government was concerned with population growth. Please see this edit If your concerns are still not addressed please suggest new language. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "population growth or". It is not a fact that the one-child policy had "little effect on population growth". China’s population growth was already declining when the one-child policy was introduced, but the one-child policy accelerated this decline. Exactly how much is impossible to say, but it is likely the current extremely low birth rate, the skewed sex ratio of births and the declining working age population are all consequences of artificially limiting family sizes.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"but the one-child policy accelerated this decline", "likely the current extremely low birth rate...consequences of artificially limiting family sizes" are both unsourced, are factually wrong. Also note that one child policy has the same effect on both population growth and the size of the total population, they have a one to one relation. So it is strange that you removed language describing one half of that one-one relation..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Pagadala (talk • contribs)

No, that is a mathematically wrong. The population growth is the rate of change of the total population. You can have a large population an a low rate of population growth, or a small population and a high rate of population growth. Over time they are clearly related but they are not the same thing, not in 1-1 correspondence.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The population of China in 1979 is known and fixed, we are not comparing two populations each with their own growth rates. We are talking about one population and for this one population if the policy had an impact on growth rate, then it had an impact on total size of population. One follows the other. Also please provide sources for your speculations "but the one-child policy accelerated this decline" and "likely the current extremely low birth rate...consequences of artificially limiting family sizes". Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My "speculations"? It is you that added text that is contradicted by the source you used, as I explained below. I have added nothing on this to the article, speculative or otherwise, so I do not need to supply sources. Please, can you address the point I raised below, that the text I removed is not supported by the source and in fact contradicts it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Would prefer the word assumptions? Yes, you did not add text, you deleted it without reason, based on your assumptions/speculations. Can you acknowledge the 1:1 relationship between population growth and population size? Can you acknowledge that one child policy started in 1979 and *not* 1970? Can you acknowledge that the demographics of countries with similar socio-economic levels are relevant? What you quoted as contradicting in not contradicting, because it includes 9 extra years of extraordinary decline in fertility *prior* to the start of one child policy. Yong Cai in a paper included in One-child policy#References says "In contrast to the demographic effects of the one-child policy in reducing population growth, which can at best be very small". Also since you selectively quoted one of the conclusions in the paper let me continue the conclusion "China’s rapid economic development since 1980 deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the (much more modest) numbers of reduced births that have occurred as the country’s total fertility rate further declined, from about 2.7–2.8 at the end of the 1970s to perhaps 1.4–1.5 today. It is a damning indictment of the Chinese record that all of her Confucian neighbors in East Asia achieved rapid declines to their present sub-replacement fertility rates via robust economic growth supplemented by voluntary birth planning campaigns" The experience of other countries is relevant, and economic development is the reason for the decline in births according to the paper that I added. I am willing to add more citations that already exist in One-child policy#References here, will that make you happy? Krishna Pagadala (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Absent any objection to the above I’m removing it again. In the source, the relevant paragraph of the conclusion states "a substantial portion of China’s dramatic decline in fertility rates since 1970 can be attributed to the implementation of mandatory birth control". How substantial is debatable but that is hardly "little effect on population growth", so it is unsupported by that source, as well as going against all other evidence.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit was about one child policy which started in 1979, so the decline since 1970 is not relevant because "as much as three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy". For the last quarter of decline since 1979 please read the references from authors Yong Cai (3 in total) and Amartya Sen (2 in total) in One-child policy#References Please note that Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Thailand, Iran had similar declines in similar time frames without one child policy. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong have lower fertility than China today and none of them have one child policy. Will leave your edit up for a day to give you time to respond. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

None of that is relevant. The source you added says "a substantial portion of China’s dramatic decline in fertility rates since 1970 can be attributed to the implementation of mandatory birth control", i.e. the one-child policy. That is from the first sentence of the conclusion. Your text, "this policy had little effect on population growth", flatly contradicts this. What a handful of other countries experienced is irrelevant, this is about China.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note the dates one child policy started in 1979 not 1970. There was an extraordinary decline in fertility before the introduction of one child policy in the 1970's prior to the introduction of one child policy. See here and here Have you read the other 4 references I provided? It is standard in demographics to compare countries with similar socio economic levels, so the other countries are very relevant. Yong Cai, Amartya Sen and many other demographers compare across countries. e.g. Yong Cai says "Below-replacement fertility in China, as in other societies, is driven to a great extent by the increasingly global forces of social and economic development." See the papers One-child policy#References Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Please change "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a one-party state in East Asia" to "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a unitary sovereign state in East Asia".

Reason: MOS:INTRO has suggested that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Also, the first sentence had been the later version for quite a long time without being changed until this revision. 211.138.16.226 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The terms are effectively synonymous and the current version is simpler. Please establish a WP:CONSENSUS that the prior version is to be preferred. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Can you add the following lines with some amendments to the existing:

| established_event3 = Admitted to the United Nations
| established_date3 = 24 October 1945

-- 108.162.179.236 (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: That was as the Republic of China, now based in Taipei; this article is about the People's Republic, based in Beijing. Probably is best to leave the complexity to prose. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually the article is about China. Despite changing its representation from ROC to PRC in 1971, I think its best to still add it since it is one of the 51 original UN member states. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 No, this article is about the Peoples Republic of China, and we shouldn't add data from the ROC. There are several separated articles about the history and geo-political situation of "China" as a whole. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to rename back China to Peoples Republic of China, and Taiwan to Republic of China

Per the discussion here and the ROC Talk page.

I seen the related discussions about the naming the articles related to the both Chinas.

Since the use of the colloquial names, despite them are simpler, this caused confussion on the people who haven't read the articles and understanded the delicate situation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party (and caused absurd discussions, specially in other projects like the Spanish Wikipedia, see Bellow).

The rationale applied by the Spanish Wikipedia community to use the official names instead of the colloquial ones is strong, and this was demonstrated in a large discussion in ROC talk page at Spanish Wikipedia and also here. By contrast, the rationale applied here to use the colloquial names seems to be weaker for me.

Therefore, I'm finding concensus (or at least listening opinions) to change the title or keep them. I know what issues could cause this, but inverting redirections should not cause major problems I guess. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not do a big fix up just like the article Korea for example and the Zhongguo article in the Chinese Wikipedia. Its a complex region but divided similar to how China is today. The ROC still has control of Fujian's small islands and whole Taiwan province. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)