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).

Superpower?

I know there's different definitions of a superpower. But when you Google this, there's clearly no widespread agreement that China is currently one. At least not in the same sense as the US. For every article that argues this view, you can easily find a contrary one. And that's even if you only count sources within the last year or two. In 2019, even China's state-owned think tank, the Development Research Center of the State Council, says the US will be the sole superpower at least until 2035.[1] So at minimum, the claim is mixed or disputed. At most, it's outright wrong. In any case, it's incorrect or misleading for the lead to say it's "widely characterized" as a superpower - something that is later contradicted in the body of the article. It should either say that it's still a potential superpower or that it's sometimes considered as such. Spellcast (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't care much for journalistic sources supporting statements like that, but one of the citations on that comment is an academic paper with decent credentials associated with it. That, supported by the mass media references, kind of presents a compelling case for inclusion. I'd be open to a slight rewording if it makes sense with the sources, but not deletion on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If you exclude media sources, the article cites two academic papers. I can only access one. And it says in the conclusion that China "will emerge as another superpower", so it doesn't support the claim that it currently is one.[2] Spellcast (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the basis under which I'd support a slight revision, China has been widely characterized as an emerging superpower, rivaling the United States, would summarize the article's thrust more accurately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed but probably don't need to add "widely" as it doesn't seem to be disputed that it's at least a potential superpower or emerging power. And I'm not sure if "rivaling the United States" is necessary to add given the other countries or entities listed in the potential superpowers article. None of them directly compare themselves to the US when mentioning it. And it could be seen as recentist wording given the current trade war. Spellcast (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The entire thrust of the key source is that China's emergence as a superpower is a challenge to American hegemony, so I'd prefer to keep the rivaling the United States part, but I'm not wedded to the word "widely." How about China has been characterized as an emerging superpower, and a potential challenge to American hegemony.? Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And for bonus points, using that phrasing would let us include the following reference: Zhu, Zhiqun (2006). US-China relations in the 21st century : power transition and peace. London ; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-70208-9.

I get the sense that the trade war is the main, if only reason for mentioning the US rivalry in the lead. Especially since all the three media refs are about the trade war. The problem with that sentence is that it's not an undisputed fact that China will inevitably become a superpower. Sure, it might. But to assert that by only choosing sources that support that side of the argument seems rather one-sided. Even the ref you just mentioned from the the Hegemony article says it's faced opposition. In the lead, it seems uncontroversial to say that China is a great power, a regional power in Asia, and potential superpower. As to whether it's currently a superpower or will be, the views for and against seem more appropriate for the body than the lead. But I'd like to hear more opinions. Spellcast (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, look, I keep throwing drafts and you keep saying no. Would you care to propose a revision? Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That "China is a great power, a regional power in Asia, and potential superpower." I was thinking of also adding something like "...and sometimes considered a superpower". But I think that's getting too convoluted for the lead. And given the contentiousness of that statement, it seems more appropriate for the body. Also it's interesting that this ABC article from yesterday talks about this very issue. Could be a good source to use: Is America still the world's only superpower or is China a real rival? Experts aren't so sure anymore. Spellcast (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have very strong WP:NOTNEWS opinions about using media sources when there are already academic sources in use. This is exacerbated when Western media sources, such as Australian ones are used to refer to regional rivals like China. What I'm saying is I would not consider an a news article from Australia to be WP:DUE any weight for this topic compared to the extant scholarly sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes academic articles are typically better than news articles. I only linked it because of the coincidental timing. I don't think it was trying to argue for or against the claim. It just mentions various opinions. Spellcast (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been fighting a losing battle against the over-use of newsmedia as an an RS in contemporary political articles for a long time now so I'm touchy about it. Appreciate the clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

China is not commonly considered a superpower: the majority of sources use the term "potential superpower" at the most, or they just state that the United States is the sole superpower. Rarely do they cite China as a superpower, and it most certainly isn't "widely characterized" as such. Such wording is not accurate at all. You can find sources saying that China is a superpower, but most say it is not a superpower. Bill Williams (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if going by widely understood geopolitical definitions, China is probably not quite a "superpower", but one might look back to the origin of the term in the first place - most recently used to describe the relationship between the United States and the USSR, to appreciate that it means different things in different contexts, and different things to different people. To be honest, I am ok leaving it out of the lede altogether, as it is still contentious. That being said, the number of reliable media sources casually and formally referring to it as a superpower has been growing - for instance, you will notice an entire feature on The New York Times in 2018, dedicated to "how China became a Superpower". Ditto for ABC in Australia. There are of course voices to the contrary as well, such as the Economist, definitely stating that the US remains the only existing superpower, and the BBC which is somewhere in between. The current formulation, describing it as an "emerging superpower", is also not off base; but saying it is merely a "potential superpower" is perhaps not in line with what is described in mainstream media these days. Colipon+(Talk) 02:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC) I like tacos.

China is already the world superpower. It is the largest economy in the world and it defeated the US invasions of Korea and Vietnam. It has prevented the US from carrying out regime change in Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea. (86.150.124.19 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC))

While a case could be made for China's diplomatic and military efforts having been effective in supporting Iran and DPRK, and while their economic support of Venezuela was not insubstantial, I'd suggest claims they prevented regime change in these specific countries is dubious at best and encroaching upon WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As a Chinese, I've hardly heard of our business that matters on Iran. Even if someday China really surpassed US, it would still claim it is the largest developing country in the world as always, which shows no willingness to be the next superpower. We don't see any point of vital interest or much payoff to take a side against US everywhere. The picture you provide probably is quite misleading.OuiOK (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologetic language

@CaradhrasAiguo: in case you are not reading the edits made by The Account 1 who has history of censoring negative content on this page.[3] I think you should review your revert again and abide by WP:BRD. We cannot accept apologetic and unexplained edits like this or tag bomb the lead when the issue is already resolved by the sources provided. Since all very recent edits were poor and unwarranted I simply restored an earlier version. Take a look at the discussion above too titled under "Superpower?". Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, no, and no. You have also reverted (and conveniently neglected to mention) uninvolved editors such as STSC and C.J. Griffin, who have edited beyond correcting Account1's mistakes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So now in addition to WP:WIKILAWYERING you have resorted to WP:EDITWAR too. Do you have any justification for your POV pushing so far? I see none until now. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If you check my contributions here, I don't typically edit this article for content at all. If you were to revert TheAccount1's edits while taking care to respect the edits of uninvolved editors, I would not mind. In the mean time, keep your nastiness and holier-than-thou lecturing to yourself. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So you are here barely policing edits and at the same time you are failing accountability for your WP:DE? I got it.

Furthermore, don't ever edit my comments again like you did here in violation of WP:REFACTOR. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I note that CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) has a history of extremist claims when it comes to China and should not be perceived as an impartial editor. Peruse Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan for a specific (and most egregious) example of this. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That alone doesn't make CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) unique or a particularly egregious rule breaker for that matter, but their approach to those who disagree with them is almost legendary at this point, because it involves the most bizarre mention of Wikipedia policies while simultaneously breaking them to harass other editors. And just like any other bully, Aiguo can't take what they dish out, so they will automatically revert edits that they feel threatened or triggered by (which are often times actually quite friendly or at least neutral in tone) without explanation, never mind consensus. Yny501 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral; the content of this article should be presented in a balanced manner per WP:NPOV. STSC (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious: which part of the version prior to your edits did you think was not balanced? It doesn't appear to have gained consensus in my opinion. Yny501 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious in not seeing it? It was just one-sided accusation on the subject (whether it's China or USA). Actually, the original passage has not gained the consensus for its inclusion because several editors have wanted to remove it from the lead. STSC (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The truth can be one-sided. I do not think that an encyclopaedia should sacrifice the truth in the name of being balanced. However, I do not mind the removal of the original passage; I just have some concerns about you cutting out 'independent observers' and not mentioning the countries against China's policies (or the ones for, for that matter). So my main issue is with your last edit out of 4. Yny501 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I had tagged "independent observers" for sources but none has been given so I removed it as unsourced. STSC (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can find any. Yny501 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

STSC you are ignoring the fact that your tags required no addressing other than removal as disruptive tag bombing since the attached sources are clear about the matter. I would warn you to stop using apologetic language regarding the issue where  there is wide consensus that China is guilty of suppression and wide spread human rights abuses. This is not a BLP article where you throw defense from subject no matter how senseless it may sound, but a geographical article. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

since the attached sources are clear about the matter — They are about the abuses themselves, but they are not regarding the "independent observers" claim in the text, which is the point of contention. The three sources presented make reference to: 1) International Campaign for Tibet and its claims on what a UN panel has done, 2) spurious claims by the dubious U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 3) A literal op-ed whose only objective source would be the researcher Heather Kavan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Gazillions of sources are available on the matter but we don't need them. The source is not "literal op-ed" but written by the writer of the book "Firewall of China". You are not helping your case by misrepresenting sources. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User Aman, you don't warn me but I do warn you... Wikipedia is not your personal blog. You're bullying other editors on here. Learn the WP:CIVIL way to discuss and seek consensus. I asked who the "independent observers" were which I did not find in the source. And show us other reliable sources before you say any more silly things. STSC (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Their conduct doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary for this page... Also doesn't seem to be any worse than yours when it comes to civility, STSC. Aman.kumar.goel doesn't appear to be treating this page as their blog nor bullying other editors. Can you explain your rather serious accusations? I note that you have yet to condemn Aiguo’s bahavior which makes your condemnation of Aman.kumar.goel's much less egregious behavior feel just a little too convenient. I also note that condescending your fellow editors will get you nowhere, however silly you think the things they say are. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems someone wanted to pick a fight, but I'm not interested. STSC (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Human right

Human right is a main argument about China, i think it deserves its own section in the index. The article is accurate about this theme, but it’s difficult to find it because it’s included in the ‘politics’ paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.133.239 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A bit late to reply, but although there's already a separate article on human rights controversies in China, it's worth mentioning that it's already mentioned in the lead and throughout the article as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

How should China's government be described?

Should its government be described as 'Unitary one-party socialist republic' or 'Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship' ? RllyD1D2M3 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Equivocation between China as historical sociocultural region vs modern-day country of People's Republic of China

This article should be split between the modern day country of the PRC and China as a region which has not always had the same boundaries much less cultural background as the modern day one. A solution is probably to move the current article to be only about PRC and move the contents about history and culture heritage to the [Greater China] article.