Talk:China

Chronological Archives
Old China 1, China 2, China 3, China 4, China 5, China 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Democratic Dictatorship?

I can't but help laughing when I read in the opening paragraph the PRC is a "people's democratic dictatorship". How on earth can a dictatorship/communist state be a democracy? I suggest this be re-worded or deleted because it would be histerical if it were not so serious. 121.45.252.173 (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

--You don't need laughing. What policy US is carrying out now is exactly the "people's democratic dictatorship". Be democratic to his people, but be dictatorship to his enemy, that is exactly what the statement means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.201.202 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's used in the actual constitution; it'd be wrong to just remove it. See people's democratic dictatorship. Don't blame us if reality is weird. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I thought it was rather strange to read when whoever it was added it. I believe there was a pretty big fuss about it when they first added it. But yeah, it is in the PRC constitution, so we really have no right to remove it because it's "histerical" but true. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 07:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we all should all "take it with a (bitter)grin", so to speak. Let me expand a bit:

1. PRC's top dog(and creator) was Mao Zedong, who was more famous as a back stabbing plotting conspirator then a true Marxist revolutionary(in the romantic sense).
2. Democratic Dictatorship was created by the Chinese communist to con others, by telling others that the Chinese communist do practice democracy and dictatorship at the same time.
3. Looking at the track record of the communists, readers have to decide themselves, and ask themselves, is PRC a "Democratic", or a "Dictatorship" nation? Arilang ^talk 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Socialist republic under a single party state" is enough. No need to talk about chinese constitution in intro. Citations are also missing. --Zhonghuo (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

People's democratic dictatorship is a political concept. It is an extension of dictatorship of the proletariat which is the dual concept to dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Learn, and make good use of wikipedia. --MtBell 02:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

i should be somthing like how it's a n"demcracy" according to it's constitution, but in reality, it's dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Public health

I propose to delete this section. Opinions ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an actual reason to delete the section? Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is already a Climate/geography/environment section. There is no need for having two sections. And i didn't find any "public health" section in articles such as us, india... --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the section should stay as public health issues are different from climate or environment issues. There is also a "Public health" section in France, Italy or Republic of China for instance. Laurent (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delete this section. I am a public health major. LOL. Public health is very important. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the other editors. "Because other pages don't have it" really isn't an adequate reason to remove something. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me,...

...but why most wikies report "People's Republic of China" and not simply "China"? PRC is 300 times greater than Taiwan, and the latter is not historically related to the Mainland. --93.41.0.35 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been debated to death previously, but the short form of it is that maintaining neutrality requires doing so since both regimes consider themselves the "legitimate" ruler of all China, and that we therefore shouldn't take sides. BTW, it's factually incorrect to assert that Taiwan isn't historically related to the mainland. Ngchen (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you scroll up to the "Merger proposal" section on the talk page. That should explain people's feelings, why this page is called "People's Republic of China", and why "China" is still a separate article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

highly controvisial, this is. anyway, the china article is about it culturally, gergraphically. this is politically. and according to some rule made by that confusious(i screwed up the spelling there, i know it) that goes somthing like, which ever the privious ruler was, as long as they hold some land, they are the rightful ruler. so tecnically, acording to there tradition, unless they take over tiwan they arnt te true ruler. but, in order to stay neutral both commy. china and repub. china are listed on the china page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox links to flag and emblem

Emblem of China and Flag of China are disambiguation pages, but because the links in the infobox to the articles for the flag and emblem of China are created as a result of the use of "China" as the common name in the infobox, the infobox links to the disambiguation pages and not the correct pages. I would argue that those pages shouldn't be disambiguation pages, but to make a change will result in a neverending battle. Can someone instead fix this by either creating a separate infobox for China (instead of using "Infobox Country"), or modify "Infobox Country" to allow the links to be specified instead of using the common name parameter? Lexicon (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Image caption

W/r/t the image caption, I believe that addition of the caption would be a good thing that would clarify what the dark and light green colors mean. Ngchen (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

i think this is not very usefull. Maybe we can add the caption on the image itself, not on the article. Polylepsis (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not in the article? It is the perfect place, so there is no need to change the who picture if someone has a better wording idea. The dark/light green areas really cause confusion, since there is no explanation, and both light green regions are not controlled by the PRC. As other examples supporting the placement in the article there is Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, Austria and so many others. All with a tag bellow the map. Do you have any objection? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

see the India article : no image caption Polylepsis (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The map definitely needs a caption to explain the difference between the light and dark green areas. I'm suprised there wasn't one already. Laurent (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

if you put a caption on the india article, then ok. Polylepsis (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I´ll do it right away! Actually thank you for bringing that article to light, the map definitely needs a caption too. Thank you and good night! Uirauna (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! Both to this and the India articles! Thank you! Uirauna (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks Polylepsis (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad formatting in Military section

The bottom of the "Military" section contains badly formatted text. Unable to edit because of semi-protection. 195.8.68.130 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: A 'troop' is a military term denoting at least 150 individuals (similar to a "company"); how about not perpetuating the misuse of this term (troops) in the media? I think you mean "2.3 million active members" right? An easy fix would be, "With active duty military personnel numbering 2.3 million, ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSlack (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Superpower?

This is exactly what I was talking about (invite from Russian corruption talk):

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/unified_field_theory_google_ch.php

It will be at least a hundred years before China attains "Superpower" status. They're still a Third World Country until they mature past earthquakes that kill tens of thousands, not to mention immature political behavior such as socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trythisoneonforsize (talk • contribs) 05:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wah wah, but James Fallows' personal opinionated blog ain't a reliable source. Also, note that talk pages are not forums, and so this is not the place to discuss politics and opinions if it is not related to improving the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so let's define "major power," as noted in the article. I don't believe the definition of a confirmed Third World Country would also include the term "major power." There is way too much hype and not enough fact associated with the perceived impending downfall of the United States of America. Granted, everyone hates America based on misinformation campaigns that tend to work due to lack of intellect and/or lack of life experience based on real accomplishments (not stolen or reverse-engineered technology), as stated in the Russian Corruption article, but that doesn't change factual information. Most products arriving from Chinese manufacturing are still defective: automatic transmissions that do not function properly, basic items such as plastic tape without competent adhesive, name something manufactured in China and it is most likely defective (not to mention ongoing lead and other poisoning incidents). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trythisoneonforsize (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is related to China's status in the political arena? The quality of it's products and hype made by the US, as opposed to solid, calculable figures such as GDP, military spending and international Free Trade deals? And China's status in the political arena is related to the overall article? (as opposed to a specific article, such as Potential superpowers, which would be less vague for inclusion, if that is what you are arguing for.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually looking for the link you provided on Potential Superpowers, thank you. I'll need to examine more closely, but most of the countries listed there are fake. Try as they may, they could never attain actual Superpower status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trythisoneonforsize (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see this article : List of statistically superlative countries. China is already n°1 in many fields. Polylepsis (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations

"The PRC has started a policy of wooing African nations for trade and bilateral co-operation." Somehow I feel that 'wooing' isn't the right word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily1104 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of citations in military!

Can we removed this sentences? It has been citation-less for an extended period of time. "The PRC, despite possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is widely seen by military researchers both within and outside of China as having only limited power projection capability; this is, among other things, because of the limited effectiveness of its navy." Lily1104 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Polylepsis (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Section Image

File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg

Human rights groups have been critical of China's treatment of religious and press freedoms

---

The above file's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

Journalists rally for press freedom in the wake of a press crackdown during the September 2009 Xinjiang unrest

Is it necessary to include an image in this section ? If so, wich image shoud we use ? Polylepsis (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

i think that the first image is too violent. We should remove it. Polylepsis (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the relevance of how violent a pic is? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The journalist rally one took place in HK, not within the mainland geo region. It should not be used to represent PRC. Benjwong (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The first image is too old, it does not represent the situation in china today. Polylepsis (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What has changed? Laurent (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

[[:File:Execution in China.jpg|thumb|People's Armed Police execute prisoners convicted of murdering, according to the Laogai Research Foundation (1980s). According to Amnesty International, China executes more people each year than the rest of the world combined.]]

Peter, a man who was enslaved in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1863, whose scars resulted from violent abuse by a plantation overseer. Photo on file with U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, online at archives.gov among others. [1].

it happend in this century, in 2003. i'm not talking about tales of old china. and you know, she was a teenager. why don't you read "Human rights in the People's Republic of China" again. don't you think china is still too violent?--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NederlandsNederlands : You cannot add a new image before reaching consensus here. The execution file is clearly non neutral et does not reflect the situation in china today. Polylepsis (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture does not claim to represent the situation today, the caption itself states that it is from the 1980s. The PRC is still the leading country in capital punishment, and the most common method is execution by firearm, so the picture IS relevant and IS neutral, since it provides full context. An again, if the most common method of execution in the PRC is a rifle bullet to the head, how does the picture does not represents reality? Uirauna (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong my dear. Execution by firearm is NOT the most common method of execution in china today. Lethal injection is the most common method. Polylepsis (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"The PRC is still the leading country in capital punishment" lol ! China is still the most populous nation on earth ! Polylepsis (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think this is a WP:FORUM, it is not. So please behave in an appropriate manner. PRC not only is the leading country in capital punishment, by official government data it is the SECOND leading country in death by capital punishment PER CAPITA. And according to institutions that challenge the official numbers, it is the leading country in capital punishment per capita. So the picture IS relevant. Uirauna (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No the image is not relevant. We are in 2010 today not in the 1980s. But wait for other opinions. Polylepsis (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This image highlights important information about the PRC and so should be included. The information it gives is sourced so I see no problem with the inclusion of this image. On another note the PRC has an appalling human rights record and still does to this day, which is acknowledged by most academic sources. Removing the information on this to pretend it doesn't exist is POV. Bambuway (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Is this image included in the United States article ? No. So why would you put the execution image in china's article ? Polylepsis (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the United States outlawed slavery some 147 years ago, therefore it is historical and is already mentioned on the United States article in the history section. The PRC has yet to changes its ways in terms of human rights and capital punishment. Bambuway (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And because slavery is no longer an issue in the US, while the execution of a large number of people IS an issue today in the PRC. Polylepsis, please explain why do you believe that this image does not depicts a current issue, since: (1) The PRC is the second largest executer of people per capita; (2) The most common way to execute a prisoner is by shooting him in the head with a rifle. So the picture depicts a situation that is still very common today, and thus is relevant to the article. And the image you posted is included in the article Slavery in the United States as it should be, since it no longer depicts a current issue (for more than a century). Just my 2 cents. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you(Polylepsis ) again about this pic, it happend in this century, in 2003, not 147 years ago. so there is no reason to keep it off, but we gatta discuss a bit more!--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't talk about "lethal injection is the most common method" or not in prc, but according to the largest chinese-language infotainment web portal "Sina.com", they just did execution by shooting IN THIS WEEK, 21th jan.http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-22/064216975370s.shtml jan 21th is is not last year, not last century, and not 147 years ago. NederlandsNederlands (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all cities started about "lethal injection" in prc yet. For example beijing was planning to start from 2004(http://news.163.com/09/1215/08/5QIG0EJC000120GR.html), but according to today's newspaper, beijing hasn't started yet, and planning to start from in this year, in this century(http://fzzx.gansudaily.com.cn/system/2010/01/26/011437870.shtml). they said "it's a very big civilization revolution", and i also want to say "yes, it is...".--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Polylepsis is right : the execution image has nothing to do in this page. We must keep Wikipedia neutral and this file is clearly too agressive. Zhonghuo (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To Zhonghuo. it's not agGessive at all, just before shooting. maybe not good to put some url here, but i think i need to explain for you what's the agressive. it has connection with "File:Execution in China.jpg", but too agressive, realy horror pic, so <NOTICE:>"BE CAREFUL TO OPEN" these url, please. it's realy crazy, but it's prc. << "execution(1)", "execution(2)", "execution(3)", "way of execution in china". >>--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it WAS prc. Zhonghuo (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To Zhonghuo. but they did execution by shooting in this week. they still do. what do you chinese think about it?--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now who's the one doing WP:FORUM? Rather than arguing over what China did last week (and I'm sure China did lots of things last week), we must discuss whether the content is suitable for the article, and that it follows Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. I must agree with Zhonghuo there - use of the image is too aggressive, almost an attack critical of the PRC, and is not neutral. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That image proposed by Nederland is indeed too aggressive and I believe was proposed by someone a year ago and was discussion and a mediator came in and decided that the picture violated NPOV. Now how does it violated NPOV? too aggressive, one would just look at that image and POV's fate would be sealed. --LLTimes (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, chinaman. do not add oil to the fire, pls. --Innershookmay (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, go to hell, you along with your WP:ATTACK ego. Simply put, you just piss me off. Go on, and don't come back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:NederlandsNederlands please do not register a new account just for WP:ATTACKs. Otherwise i will have to bring this to sock-puppet investigation committee. --LLTimes (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

too old has no meaning when your talking historically. and, hey, dont they still do that? and have little to no free speach? yea! china has some of the worst human rights in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

China has been criticized for its human rights violations

Whom is missing here and both refs cited are from organizations that were formed and continue to be directed from the "Global West". I'm not saying that they don't belong, but the passive voice is the first step towards weasel-dom. When a modern nation is accused of something then put those words of accusation back in the mouth of the accusers. Don't just say that country X is nasty or has been called nasty, say who it was who called them nasty. Hcobb (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding the passive voice whenever possible but in this case I think it's hard to avoid. We can't simply write "Amnesty criticizes China for its human rights violations" because it's not just Amnesty. There are many more organizations, states and scholars who made this kind of criticism. Since we cannot list them all, I think the passive voice makes sense here. Laurent (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Then don't do the OR. Quote somebody who mentions that a great multitude finds problems with China's human rights record. Hcobb (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and once I find that, you'll ask to find "somebody who mentions that somebody mentions that a great multitude finds problems with China's human rights record". You know we can go on like that for a while. Laurent (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

fine, just link some to japan, republic of korea, australia, they say the same stuff, and there not "western" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Map concerns

Why does the map in the PRC infobox include Taiwan and parts of India, but the ROC's infobox map only includes the Free Area? Interesting double standard. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Republic_of_China#Map_concerns --Cybercobra (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Image / HR section

Maybe is this image better ? What do you think ?Polylepsis (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already an image on human rights but there needs to be one on capital punishment too. Why you might ask when some other nations also exercise capital punishment? Because the PRC executes more people than the rest of the world combined, making it important to be included. Capital punishment, while also exercised in some other nations is only minimal by comparison to the enormous levels exercised in the PRC. Bambuway (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is because of the huge chinese population. A country with 1,3 billion people executes more people than a country with 5 million, it's completely obvious. Polylepsis (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the facts Polylepsis, China is the SECOND largest executor of people PER CAPITA. It has nothing to do with it´s large population. I agree with Bambuway. Also, we need an image of human rights repression, not a demonstration for human rights, there is a huge difference between the two of them. So we keep the current image (people being arrested and abused) and keep the discussion on capital penalty. And once again, the pictures depicts an military person executing by means of a rifle shot in the head a convict. Do you agree that the PRC still executes prisioners in this exact same fashion? If you don´t agree, please tell me what´s differente. If you agree, then that picture IS representativa of today´s situation. Uirauna (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

yes,i also agree with Bambuway, and Uirauna.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

good pic for 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay, and Demonstration (people). so i put it. thanks.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

Please stop fighting. Let's try to hear both sides: Reasons for removing the picture:

1. The picture is too agressive

• Being agressive is not an issue in wikipedia. Also, the picture shows no gore, blood, etc.

1. LLTimes mentioned that a mediator considered it to be too agressive and break NPOV. Could you provide a link to the archives containing that discussion?
2. It does not represent a current issue

• As I (and several other editors) pointed, the PRC is (by official numbers) the second largest executor of people PER CAPITA. So the death penalty is still VERY relevant, specially since the PRC executes anually more people than the rest of the world together (that is, the PRC execution per capita rate must be AT LEAST 5x greater than the world's rate)
• Also, the most common method of execution in the PRC is a rifle bullet to the head.
• So the picture DOES represent something that still happens very often TODAY, and as User:NederlandsNederlands pointed, just last week the PRC executed a person in similar fashion

1. If is agressive to the PRC

• It depicts a common policy of the PRC, even if it really is agressive to the PRC, it is reality. We cannot remove content if it makes a country/person look bad. We can only remove if the content does not represent reality. I've asked you several times to explain how the picture does no represent reality, but you have not answered.

Reasons for keeping the picture:

1. I'll write this one after lunch :)

Please keep the peace. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It happend this week(21th), not lastweek http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-22/064216975370s.shtml here. The judge delivered of a judgment at 9am, and prc police shooted him on　the same day(afternoon). so the accused had no chance to appeal against a sentence. this is a prc's law...

try to read it<http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sina.com.cn%2Fs%2F2010-01-22%2F064216975370s.shtml&sl=zh-CN&tl=en>, please. thank you.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Or there's always the option of going back to the original pic (upper left), which shows some brutality rather than people being executed. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

even that pic is too agressive ! We should replace it with a more neutral file. Polylepsis (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this picture instead of the original one? Laurent (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad, seems that i have mistaken the picture for another one which is about the "Tank Man". So the picture proposed by Nether was not discussed. To Laurent, the picture is missing permissions, I think there is no consensus reach then we should just stick with the current picture.--LLTimes (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiLaurent, thank you, but we already have "File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg" from Polylepsis. and we are not discussing about there pic.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Communist state

Polylepsis, please could you explain why you've removed this sourced statement? You quote BRD but there's nothing to discuss if you don't explain why you are reverting. Are you saying that China is not Communist? Laurent (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that China is no longer a Communist country. It's economy is capitalistic after all. Polylepsis (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but "I think" means nothing against sourced content. I'll revert the changes Polylepsis, and when you find a reliable source that supports your point of view, post it here and we'll discuss the change. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why China is No Longer a Communist Country There you go Polylepsis (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook would be considered far more reliable than this article. Actually, you do use the Factbook when it serves your purpose, but of course in this case you ignore it. Laurent (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Polyepsis, that looks more like a blog post than a reliable source, and is just the personal opinion of the author, Robert Vance, for whom I have not found any information that would place him as an renowned expert on the subject. You still did not provide reliable sources, so PLEASE stop reverting changes to "communist state". Thank you and good editing. Uirauna (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The long standing term in this article was "socialist state" so i think that polilepsis is right Zhonghuo (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

if it wasnt communist then it's wouldnt be whining aboutthe dali lama meeting with obama, tiwan would have rejoined, and tibit would be at least partially independent. oh, and there would be no human right violations. and they wouldnt be holding back on punishing iran! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook, the New York Times and the TIME among others use the term "communist state". We can't just ignore these sources and put what you think is right. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

yes but there is ALREADY "communist party" ! Zhonghuo (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the last consensus (as you can see here and here) is a communist state. Also, Zhonghuo, even if the previous consensus was what Polylepsis, that still would not make him right. Consensus changes. Still, talking about the current situation we have two items:

• The last consensus is "communist state", and it is backed by several reliable sources
• The "socialist state" argument has no reliable sources

So unless reliable sources are provided for the "socialist state" argument, as well as arguments beyond "he is right" to change the last attained consensus, we should stick to the last consensus. Do you disagree? And if you do, please explain with detail your arguments. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon investigation, the references from the CIA Factbook, NY Times, and Time Magazine cannot be used to support the assertion that China is a "Communist State"

• The CIA Factbook is good, but it is not infallible http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-eastasia.asp?parentid=64049 List of countries by road network size and is still subject to an innate bias from its publisher. If you look at the definitions provide by the Factbook on the types of government, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch&regionCode=eas&#ch it is clear that the CIA Factbook either needs to change it's definition of communist or reclassify China - as private ownership is widespread and thriving. See the definition from the Factbook below

• "Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society)"

Also, if you look at the definition of Socialism, you will see the innate bias in the Factbook against the government, which is proudly NOT shared in Europe. An excerpt is posted below:

• "Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite. "

The Time article http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953025,00.html asserts that 1) China is ruled by the Communist Party (undisputed) and 2) a Communist state was founded in 1949 - NOT that China is CURRENTLY a Communist State

The NY Times reference is based on the chinese government website www.gov.cn. However, I have been unable to find any reference to a "Communist state". However I did find an official translation of the constitution on the English version of the Central Government website here http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/05/content_20813.htm which states:

"Article 1: The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants."

In conclusion, I now see no compelling evidence from an accurate AND neutral source to describe China as a "Communist State", but there is sufficient evidence to reclassify China as a "Socialist State", which according to Zhonghua was the historical standard Ouyuecheng (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just be truthful and call the PRC a feudal totalitarian state? Given China Princes of Privilege (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965608,00.html), the serfs who are tied to the land and their problems with the Catholic Church, they most closely resemble the England of Henry VIII. Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please don't change socialist/commmunist back and forth without proof or citation. Although PRC is currently run as "Socialist with Chinese Characteristics" (which is explained in article), what's in the Constitution is what's official. Either way, The next sentence can point out that it is a modified form of communism or socialism, and refer to the politics/economy section for details. Besides isn't communism the extrmest form of socialism any way? --Mistakefinder (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In a communist state, private property does not exist. Right now, private property is totally supported by the Chinese State. Calling China a communist state is being 30 years late. Is China socialist ? This will be very doubtful for similar reasons. Is China liberal ? certainly not. One might call it autocratic capitalistic (China does own the largest amounts of dollar reserves in the world, which makes it totally included in the world-liberal economy), but I doubt the old and simple words such as communist, socialist or liberal have any interest in describing what China currently is. You might as well remove the whole problematic sentence altogether, and provide more explanation further in the article. Please forget about POVitude and stick to the facts : China's economic system nowadays is heavy with contradictions and fits no known definition.--Environnement2100 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• If "communist state" is supposed by the sources, why all the hoopla? That's not POVitude. Unless there is a better suggestion based on more and better sources on the three good ones that offer "communist state," it's unclear how another quick definition would conform to wikipedia content policies, which requires deference to the most reliable sources. Correct me if this is wrong.--Asdfg12345 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there is a genuine metaphysical conundrum - what should we call something that looks, walks and quacks like a duck, but calls itself a goat? Reliable sources calling the PRC 'Communist' will certainly be wrong, although I would not imagine any one doing so without heavy qualification, so we could be left with a gross simplification. Indeed, the country is ruled by a single party called 'Communist Party'; socialism with Chinese characteristics is just another term for capitalism with a whimsical Stalinist streak. The whole setup might be difficult to distil into the lead. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Communist State" is not supported by the sources. If I look at another reference quoted inside the article http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China , there is no reference to a "Communist State". There is however a single-party people’s republic. Ouyuecheng (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In that sentence, why not just delete the part where it says it's an X state. Instead of this:

China is a socialist state, ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...

say this:

China is ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...

(or "dictatorship of the proletariat" why not)

Might simplify things a bit.--Asdfg12345 00:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Idea: how about stating that it's a (fill-in-the-blank) state according to itself (sourced to an official government website), which has also been described as a Communist state (list references for that)? Ngchen (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Burt Keidal of the Carnegie Institute / US Treasury described published a good briefing paper which described it as follows:

"China is a corporate technocracy—no longer a one-man authoritarian system."

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=20279

I'd go for **SINGLE PARTY SOCIALIST STATE** personally.

Ouyuecheng (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, i agree Polylepsis (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Lets only put in the lead what is incontrovertible - single party state ruled by the CCP - and leave the rest to be detailed in the body of the text. While we certainly can cite what is in her constitution , I don't think we ought to do that in the lead, as it will then oblige us to go into all the detail of explaining how scholar x believes it is socialist, or journal y believes it is an autocratic capitalist state. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the official name that the PRC like to call itself. But I doubt any historian with a bit of self-respect left would call nowaday PRC a Socialist state.

Battling the Information Barbarians, by Ian Buruma, the Henry R. Luce Professor at Bard College.

It was, as we know, not so much eradicated as replaced by a Communist orthodoxy after 1949. And when this orthodoxy began to lose its grip on the Chinese public after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976, Chinese officials struggled to find a new set of beliefs to justify their monopoly on power. The ideological hybrid that followed Maoism was "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," a mixture of state capitalism with political authoritarianism. Later, Confucianism actually made a comeback of sorts. But the most common ideology since the early 1990s is a defensive nationalism, disseminated through museums, entertainment and school textbooks.

Even though the WSJ article main theme is somethings else, but the above quote does shine some light on the nature of the current regime. I would call it a hybrid of State capitalism and Authoritarianism and Confucianism, any thought? Arilang ^talk 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Another quote from Ian Buruma:What’s Left After 1989? Ian Buruma

Reagan, Thatcher, and Gorbachev, assisted in the end of an ideology, which once offered hope, and inspired real progress, but resulted in slavery and mass murder. We are still waiting for a new vision, which will lead to progress, but this time, we hope, without tyranny.

Can we say that Professor Ian Buruma is calling PRC a Tyranny? Arilang ^talk 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this one?

Will China Rule the World? Dani Rodrik

The Chinese and their government are wedded to a different conception of society and polity: community-based rather than individualist, state-centric rather than liberal, authoritarian rather than democratic. China has 2,000 years of history as a distinct civilization from which to draw strength. It will not simply fold under Western values and institutions.

Arilang ^talk 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rural Taxation

The following statement below is factually incorrect as it is refers to a 2005 article using 2003/2004 data

"Today, a farmer has to pay three times more in taxes even though his income is one sixth that of the average urban dweller"

This has been replaced with the following statements, backed up by the following BBC News, Los Angeles Times and Harvard references:

"In 2003/2004, the average farmer had to pay three times more in taxes even though his income was only one sixth that of the average urban dweller.. Since then, a number of rural taxes have been reduced or abolished, and additional social services provided to rural dwellers

Ouyuecheng (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thank you ! Polylepsis (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to change this but can someone change "third biggest importer" to "second biggest importer" [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.141 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Ouyuecheng (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Inline links hurt the eyes

Can I remove all the inline links from the lead except those explicitly related to PRC topics? So many are irrelevant and general. That's a nono according to the MoS. Will anyone try to stop me if I do this? The reason is because it makes it a mess to read. I haven't even read the lead yet because it's so uninviting. All the blue, do you ever pick up something to read and see it like that? Judiciously used, makes sense. Linking everything that has a wiki article results in this.--Asdfg12345 00:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy related articles

Hello. This notice is from Wikiproject Energy. Please note that a number of "power station" articles (of China) are not included in a "List of power stations in COUNTRY" type article. It is recommended that a capable-user create such an article and link all related articles in that page. Examples and links can be found here and here. Please notify me on my talkpage ({{tb}} preferred) if there is any further questions. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will do that Polylepsis (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated, but nonetheless... China is now the world's largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels. Does this belong in the main PRC article, or the Energy policy of China article?

• Bradsher, Keith, Jan 30, 2010, China leads global race to make clean energy, New York Times

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Language spaghetti

In my view, the following text clogs up the first sentence in the lead section, and is detrimental to the reading experience for the vast majority of English-language readers of the article. The defence to this has been "this is standard practice in country articles. Let's no confuse standard practice with good practice. I have thus once again removed the spaghetti from the lead, which I feel is better suited to the infobox - and it's there already. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At the least, the infobox is missing the Traditional Chinese variant. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic of China
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese	中華人民共和國
Simplified Chinese	中华人民共和国
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó Bopomofo ㄓㄨㄥ ㄏㄨㄚˊ ㄖㄣˊ ㄇㄧㄣˊ ㄍㄨㄥˋ ㄏㄜˊ ㄍㄨㄛˊ Wu Romanization tson平 gho平 zin平 min平 gon去 ghu平 koh入 Hakka Romanization dung24 fa11 ngin11 min11 kiung55 fo11 gued2 Yue: Cantonese Jyutping zung1 waa4 jan4 man4 gung6 wo4 gwok3 Southern Min Hokkien POJ Tiong-hôa jîn-bîn kiōng-hô-kok Eastern Min Fuzhou BUC Dṳ̆ng-huà Ìng-mìng Gê̤ṳng-huò-guók
Vietnamese name
Vietnamese alphabet	[Trung Hoa Nhân dân Cộng hòa quốc (Sino-Viet.) Cộng hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa (native)] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
Hán-Nôm	中華人民共和國 (Sino-Viet.) 共和人民中華 (native)
Korean name
Hangul	중화인민공화국
Hanja	中華人民共和國
Transcriptions Revised Romanization Junghwa Inmin Gonghwaguk
Japanese name
Kanji	中華人民共和国
Kana	ちゅうかじんみんきょうわこく
Transcriptions Romanization Chūka Jinmin Kyōwakoku

Copy the box I made from here. Feel free to modify it to suit the article. I see that on the R.O.C. article, all Chinese names are omitted from the lede, and placed in a namebox under the country box. Also, leave Traditional out of the country box, as it is not official, at least on the mainland. Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin are official in the PRC, not Traditional Chinese like in the SARs and ROC, and Tongyong Pinyin in ROC antiquity. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As this seems to be dealt with fully in another article already linked to from here, I would not bother inserting it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, a bit off-topic, but does anyone know where to get a Gan Chinese online dictionary? It took me a long time to find a Hakka dictionary, but it seems that Gan does not hold a presence on the internet... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Thanks! South Bay (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New administrative subunit?

I'm placing this here and not merely at Administrative divisions of China since that page receives relatively little readership.

Is this a yet-unreported adminstrative unit of China? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in Administrative divisions of China. Apparently in Heilongjiang province, some counties have a subdivision equivalent to a township (镇/乡) called a Forestry Office (林业局) -- see, e.g., zh:巴彦县 (obviously different from an administrative agency such as 国家林业局)...this really seems to be a widespread phenomenon, see also zh:萝北县, zh:通河县, zh:方正县,zh:五常市,zh:方正县--Dpr (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

new communist leader?

shouldnt there be a section on them becoming more or less the replacment of the ussr as leader of the communists? they support north korea in almost anything. maoist rebels have suddenly showed up in nepal, which is almost like them trying to make them a satalite state as a barrier from indian, like the ussr did with eastern eurpoe. i dont think the people of nepal just came out and said "we want to limit our freedom and be dominated by china" and started revolting. it seems like a china sponsered thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V please. Otherwise, we cannot accept WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase for the acronym-impaired: Wikipedia doesn't allow original research; you'd have to find some reliable sources which back up such claims. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

dam. looks like im gonna have to become a professor in this sorta thing. no one else seems to have the guts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

People's Republic of China → China — Common name used everywhere. It's very redundant to write peoples republic of china all the time . We can move China to Chinese Civilization. PaxAmericana (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• China → Chinese civilization

• Mildly opposed. PaxAmericana is correct that the PRC is often called China, but some other places (notably the Republic of China, a.k.a. Chinese Taipei, a.k.a. Taiwan) also claim that name. I would not oppose moving China to Chinese Civilization and making that name a redirect to People's Republic of China, with proper disambiguation. Cnilep (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Our article titling policy - "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" (my emphasis). "China" alone is not unambiguous. The current title is the most common unambiguous name, and ambiguity is a very important consideration in selecting titles. Knepflerle (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Would involve us taking a stance on the One China Policy, which violates our neutrality. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose For the same two reasons stated above: Neutrality and disambiguation. Uirauna (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The notion that the country everyone knows as "Taiwan" would cause a ambiguity problerm is bordering on fringe. And that can be handled with a hatnote anyway. People looking for "China" are looking for the PRC and the direction to this page is confusing. I would also support Cnilep's proposal that we have "China" redirect to the PRC and move the text of this article to a page called "Chinese civilization". Readin (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose see One China for one reason, and this has already been discussed to death many many times before. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment you can't move one article ontop of another without figuring what to do with China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - you can't delete full-blown articles using WP:RM. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is about "Chinese civilization" the logical thing to do would be to move this article to the name "Chinese civilization". Readin (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1) In the English language when someone speaks about "China" he is talking about the country (PRC). When someone is speaking about the ROC he uses the name "Taiwan".
• 2) The same happens in the English-speaking media (TV - CNN, BBC, Sky News, NBC, etc, ad nauseam). This is also the case with newspapers and magazines.
• 3) The overwhelming majority of international organizations use the name China for the PRC (it begins with the UNO, the G8+5, etc). Look for the little name-cards upon the tables; the representative from Beijing (i.e. PRC) gets the one with the name "China" upon it. An example of this can be found here.
• 4) In international events, like for example the Olympic Games, the representatives of the PRC receive the name-tag "China".
• 5) The overwhelming majority of Academia uses "China" for the PRC. This is also taught at school.
• 6) Written encyclopaedias and dictionaries use "China" for the PRC. Seriously, grab your geographic encyclopaedia at home take look in the "China-entry" and guess what you will find? The PRC. Go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and what will you find? The PRC, none other

• Support for all the reasons listed above. Flamarande (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. m:Wikipedia is not a paper. We can afford to be specific by having multiple pages on similar topics. The print news media cannot and therefore must shorten and simplify everything when they have a chance.--Jiang (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a paper" (have you read it at all?) refers to the contents of the articles and not to their names. Flamarande (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It refers to the topical breadth of the Wikipedia universe and provides examples of how a single topic can have multiple articles on it. Here, we are not limited to a single page on China. For the reasons outlined on that page, it is unfair to compare Wikipedia to news media because we have the space to be specific.--Jiang (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per above. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Would be a neutrality hell. If this rename was to pass, we would have some complaining (depending on interpretation) that Wikipedia supported the One China Policy, others complaining that Wikipedia is advocating Two Chinas (as this would then be a brilliant excuse to rename the ROC article to ROC(TW) as well, or even worse), and henceforth we would have radicals from either side accusing us of supporting Taiwan independence, Chinese imperialism, Communism, Flunkeyism, blah blah blah. I think that this one rename can act as a spark for much larger issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: It just doesn't make any sense. The PRC is a temporal subset of 'China'. China is a historical and geographical entity through its creation to today, it includes many sovereign states (some simultaneously) which existed within its land mass. The PRC is a sovereign entity which spans from 1947 to today. Also, as benlisquare suggests, it will open up the most enormous POV battlefield WP has ever seen. The disruption caused by such a move would not be justified based uniquely on arguments of convenience - anyone arriving at the China article is immediately faced with a link to the PRC in bold. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: For all the reasons listed by Flamarande. PaxAmericana (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: You have already cast your !vote by placing the move request proposal. You can only post a Comment in this case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not the case. It's good for a nominee to show support since such support should not always be assumed. (I have proposed a number of moves that I did not support in order to establish consensus.) Anyway, since this is not a vote (ha!) it's irrelevant anyway. — AjaxSmack 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• General notice: Main requester seems to have been excluded from this discussion, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis/Archive. What is to occur now? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's clearly 'no consensus', leaning towards oppose. I'd suggest closing this per M:TROLL. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I strongly disagree. PaxAmericana was found guilty of being a troll, but this move request is worthy of serious consideration. Flamarande (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This request should be speedily closed since it goes against current (and previous) consensus, plus the requester has been exposed as a sockpuppeteer. Ngchen (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Flamarande. The current article setup is a violation of WP:NPOV as it gives undue weight to the idea that the ROC = China (a claim that even the ROC doesn't pursue seriously). Laurent (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia's continuing denial of geopolitical reality is this instance is a joke. It's the world in 2010, not USA in 1955, and the PRC is China and China is the PRC. When people say "China," they do not mean Taiwan, Chinese civilisation, or anything else. Get used to it. — AjaxSmack 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a news source. References to "China" more often than not do not refer to China in the present. From the article on Huns: "Since De Guignes linked them with the Xiongnu who had been northern neighbours of China three hundred years before, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted in investigating such a connection. However, there is no evidence for a direct connection between the Xiongnu and the Huns." China in this context clearly doesn't mean PRC.--Jiang (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment For such a case we have the article History of China (and 'Ancient China' is a redirect towards it). I honestly don't agree with your statement: References to "China" more often than not do not refer to China in the present. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a prestigious encyclopaedia and it clearly shows us the meaning of 'China'. Flamarande (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • This goes back to my earlier comment noting that "Wikipedia is not a paper." If we wanted to be like Britannica, this would be a request to merge instead of a request to move. We can be a lot more specific, detailed, and precise than Britannica, so I don't find the comparison convincing.--Jiang (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The move proposal was not formatted to take into account that two articles will be moved. The discussion so far as focused only one of the articles.--Jiang (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's since been rectified: [4] --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Chinese civilization would include Exile-Chinese in USA, SE-ASIA and so on. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support thanks AjaxSmack for a healthy dose of reality to the conversation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support For the reasons listed above by various editors. I would also suggest that the Republic of China article be moved to Republic of China (Taiwan), or simply Taiwan, with the article currently at that location be moved to Taiwan (island). 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: China as a concept is broader than any one government or time span. Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The concept of Italy long predates Italian unification in the nineteenth century, yet we don't devote the Italy page to the Culture of Italy, or have a seperate Italian Republic article on the contemporary state. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there aren't 2 contemporary Italian states and they aren't engaged in a border/sovereignty dispute. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So what if they were? We do not cater to the minority views of secessionist states anywhere in the world. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm just saying it's not the best analogy. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that "China" normally refers to the People's Republic of China, just as "Italy" normally refers to the Italian Republic. China does not normally refer to "a concept is broader than any one government or time span", nor does it normally refer to Taiwan. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're point is flatly wrong. When speaking of "Italy", people usually do mean the modern country. No one says that Italy conquered France under Caesar. While famous artists from the late-middle ages are called "Italian", people don't talk about the country of Italy doing anything during that time...they speak about the city-states taking political action. This is not true with China. People talk of China's position in WW2, China's expansion to the west in the time of the Silk Road, and how the country of China sent fleets of boats all around the world in the 1400s. Technically, they speak inaccurately as the nation of China is a modern concept. But when people say "China" with respect to most historical and cultural events, they speak about "a concept brader than any one government or time span". It may not make sense, but that's the way it is.LedRush (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that when people talk about "China", or, for example, "Chinese history", they don't exlusively mean that of the modern state since 1949. Where you are wrong though is by arguing that China and Italy are fundamentally different (or China and any other country). People do talk about travelling to Italy in works like The Mysteries of Udolpho, even though Italy was divided amongst a number of small states - the concept of Italy long predates Italian unification, just as the concept of China long predates the Chinese Revolution. The People's Republic of China article, if moved to China, would not just cover the history of the PRC, but that of China from antiquity; just as Italy#History covers the Ancient Rome and so on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is in the difference between discussing "Italy" as a politically integrated state or in a cultural or other context. Your example is the latter, not the former. Regardless, Italy is not China, and I don't know how much this conversation informs the decision to move.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If we were to merge Chinese civilization with People's Republic of China under a model similar to Italy as some people above have proposed, the article would be too damn long. Currently the PRC article is 132,415 bytes, and the China article is 64,095 bytes. It would be an absolute bitch to read through such a large article, not to mention that people with poor internet connections/outdated computers would have great trouble in accessing the page. So, what are you going to do with all the information? We cannot have the article so long, but it would be impractical to separate each section into individual articles, as that completely defies the purpose of the merger, to collect the historical and political information of "China" as with the Italy article (heck, I'm more wondering if that is just an excuse everyone is using to stay away from the more political reasons...) and place them together. We cannot abbridge the article by simplifying it and excluding information, as nobody would have any benefit from that. What do you people actually have in mind for your wonderful and brilliant idea? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that Chinese civilisation is so long and complex that it can't be placed in the same article as the state. I disagree. There are plenty of other countries with comparable histories and civilisations that long predate the exist of the modern state, from Ethiopia to Israel to Japan. I don't think the the two articles should be merged however; modifying some sections like People's Republic of China#History to cover a much longer span of Chinese history, similar to Japan#History would be enough. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mildly opposed. I understand and empathize with the arguments for the move, but I don't see a problem with the status quo. There is no confusion based on the current layout. This is not a topic about which average people are ignorant. If people wish to learn about the 60-year old political entity known as the PRC, they know precisely where to go. If they want to know about China, historically to present, they know where to go. If people want to know about Taiwan, they know where to go. Other than trying to politicize Wikipedia, what are the real benefits to a reader of Wikipedia to a move? I don't see any.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

People are confused. External reviews by laypeople that are not Wikipedians are confused. That is who we write for, not geopolitical experts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The proposal will appease only certain geopolitical experts, while providing no additional clarity for a normal person looking for information on "China". LedRush (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing an article about a country, at an article name where non-knowledgeable readers expect to find one, provides a great deal of clarity. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Do you believe that when people go to the article entitled "China" but actually wanted "PRC", they are confused? Really? Even with the links at the top and the huge flags and links at the top of the lede? I'm not buying it.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:

The PRC is the official name and should always be used due to the legacy of the civil wars and to distinguish it from the different eras where China was ruled by different dynasties. For example, the USA article is redirected to the United States rather to America. Why? it is because thats the official name of the country.

In Chinese, China is a short name for the full name, People's Republic of China.中华人民共和国. In these kinds of debate, its usually someone or a few who has a fancy for some convenience which leads to controversy. Its best to stick to a tested and tried name then to try to make simple things more complex.Takamaxa (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Exactly. There is no consensus to move "United States of America" to "America", even though "America" is frequently used in colloquial and general language to represent the country. Except in formal writing, it is extremely rare for anyone to use the mouth-numbing "United States of" here in Australia for example, we just call it America. But why not rename it on Wikipedia? For starters, there is a continent called "America"; also, one can assume that most Wikipedians prefer the use of the official name, to which this consensus arises from. Now, let's see how this relates to "China" and the PRC: "China" can be confused with a wide number of things, from Greater China to an alternative name for Porcelain used in British English. Just as with the America (continent) clause, renaming is entirely impracticable as there is the problem of confusion. Now, onto the other point: People's Republic of China is the official term, just as with United States of America, and so from a professional point of view, it would be most preferable to use the more official term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You do know that the article is at United States and not at United States of America (the official term is a mere redirect), right? Flamarande (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per One China policy; it's not just Taiwan that feebly supports the view. A significant portion of the world (and specifically the entire English-speaking world) does not recognize the PRC as "China" (just look at this map). Also, Takamaxa makes a good point vis a vis United States/America. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The One-China policy is a political agreement between the PRC and ROC, not a Wikipidia policy. The ROC has very limited diplomatic recognition; you mention the English-speaking world, but can you name a single major English-speaking country that officially uses "China" to refer to Taiwan? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily English-speaking, but Honduras, Solomon Islands and the Holy See do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, only a very small numbers of users of this website will come from those territories. All three have very small populations, and none are English speaking. The main bulk of English Wikipedia users comes from English speaking countries that do not recognise Taiwan, such as the USA and most of the Commonwealth. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the statement is true (i.e., that English-speaking governments refer to the PRC as China), not the obverse, which is totally and completely irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the USA has an embassy in Beijing, China and doesn't seem to use "Beijing, PRC". Flamarande (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The US also considers that Taiwan is part of China, per the One China policy. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. It does not recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. It also acknowledged both sides have conflicting "One China" policies. The USA's position is more along the lines of "yes, there is one China, but we're not going to tell you which one it is." Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

From your own statement, it does consider Taiwan part of China. I didn't say which one either :-) ... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zam. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Can anyone explain why China fighted under the Taiwanese flag in the Second World War? And why was the Taiwanese flag used when the United Nations was founded? Taiwan isn't a UN member is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Off-topic (this belongs elsewhere), but the Blue Sky White Sun Red Earth flag is not the Taiwanese flag, it is the flag of the Republic of China. Simply put, from 1912, China was once ruled by a group of individuals, let's call them Group A (although it gets more complicated than that, but we'll ignore those for now for simplicity's sake). During World War II, China, under the rule of Group A, fought against the Japanese and became one of the founding members of the UN. Then, in 1949, Group A lost a war against a different group of people, namely Group B, and so Group B took over China, and Group A retreated to Taiwan. This is why China fought under that flag during WW2, used at the start of the UN, etc. (I know there are holes in my ultra-simplified explanation, someone feel free to fill them in) This does not necessarily mean that the Taiwanese were responsible for A, B, and C. Group A, which used to be in China but no longer is, is now in Taiwan because Group B is in China, and both groups don't really like one another. Should I explain in a bit more detail? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • So let us disregard what happened before 1911 for the time being... for the purpose of discussion. There are four things that we are now dealing with, namely China, Taiwan, Group A and Group B. Should we call Group A China or Taiwan? Or should we simply equate China with Group B? And if we equate Taiwan and Group A, how can we explain what happened before and after 1945 (or 1949)? 210.177.66.30 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • China and Taiwan are geographical locations, that is, places. Back in the old days, Group A was the government, the people that ruled the place called China (or more specifically, mainland China). However, they lost that place to Group B. Group A had nowhere to go but to flee to Taiwan (since after all, Group B was pursuing and killing them, and Taiwan seemed like a safe place, due to proximity, etc. but I'll leave warfare strategy out of this), and so, Group B formed a new government in mainland China, this was to be later known as the People's Republic of China. This is the China with the Red Flag with 5 yellow stars. Meanwhile, Group A settles in Taiwan, kills off a few locals that don't like them, and resumes their government, the Republic of China, moved from China to Taiwan. This is the "China" with the Blue Sky White Sun Red Earth flag. The United States really likes the "China" ruled by Group A, and doesn't like the one ruled by Group B, because Group B had ties with the USSR, so the US accepts Group A's China as the sole legitimate China for many years, until the 1970s, when they realise that such an idea was rather unpractical. Then, Group A's China lost the UN seat that it got when the UN was founded, and Group B's China was given that seat. And essentially, here we are today. Group B is ruling inside China, Group A is ruling from within Taiwan, but both groups originate from within China, and both groups call themselves "China", and disregard the other group. Today, Group A is the Republic of China ruling within the place of Taiwan, while Group B is the People's Republic of China that rules within mainland China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
        • As for your second question, from 1895 to 1945, Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese Empire. The Qing Dynasty of Imperial China lost Taiwan to the Empire of Japan as a result of the First Sino-Japanese war. At the end of WW2, the Allies decided to grant Group A the territory of Taiwan. In 1945, Taiwan formally became part of Group A's territory, but then, in 1949, Group A lost the Chinese mainland due to warfare. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Please don't go too much into details. My questions were targeted at those who support the move. I want them to answer why China fighted under the Taiwanese flag in the Second World War, and used the Taiwanese flag to join the United Nations. To elaborate a little bit, I'd want them to explain, if China ≡ PRC and Taiwan ≡ ROC, why China would have fighted with Japan under the Taiwanese flag while Taiwan was then part of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You questions and reasoning are suspect. China fought under the "Taiwanese" flag in WWII because the KMT/ROC were still running China (at least large portions of it) in WWII. Of course, calling the KMT/ROC's flag during WWII the "Taiwanese flag" is misleading and stupid, but that's your answer. Once the KMT/ROC lost the mainland and moved to Taiwan in 1949, the KMT/ROC flag changed from being "China's" flag to "taiwan's"LedRush (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But that does not mean that the ROC should be equated to Taiwan on Wikipedia, and henceforth be renamed, as with China and PRC. What are you going to do with all the historical information on Republic of China? Delete it all? Move it to an article like China or PRC which would be unrelated? Incorporate all the mainland history somehow as that of Taiwan? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support the second part of the proposal (China -> Chinese civilization). No need to rename this article, a redirect (as in Frankfurt or Chinese foreign policy) should do the trick. Yaan (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The arguments being used to try to prevent the article on "China" from having access to its own name could be used against any country. As it stands now, I think it is not neutral, as it implies the claims of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are comparable, which was a fringe view in the 1950s, let alone today. I think the best solution is to get rid of the current article under the name China (or rename it Chinese civilization), name the PRC ariticle as "China", and keep the Republic of China article named "Republic of China". To those who claim that this would somehow be endorsing a one-China policy, I don't see any reason why this article, once renamed China as it ought ot be, could not mention the current dispute. What's more, by keeping the current Republic of China article, it should be pretty clear that Wikipedia is by no means acknowledging any political point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.97 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Takamaxa --LLTimes (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chronological Archives
Old China 1, China 2, China 3, China 4, China 5, China 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Democratic Dictatorship?

I can't but help laughing when I read in the opening paragraph the PRC is a "people's democratic dictatorship". How on earth can a dictatorship/communist state be a democracy? I suggest this be re-worded or deleted because it would be histerical if it were not so serious. 121.45.252.173 (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

--You don't need laughing. What policy US is carrying out now is exactly the "people's democratic dictatorship". Be democratic to his people, but be dictatorship to his enemy, that is exactly what the statement means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.201.202 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's used in the actual constitution; it'd be wrong to just remove it. See people's democratic dictatorship. Don't blame us if reality is weird. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I thought it was rather strange to read when whoever it was added it. I believe there was a pretty big fuss about it when they first added it. But yeah, it is in the PRC constitution, so we really have no right to remove it because it's "histerical" but true. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 07:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we all should all "take it with a (bitter)grin", so to speak. Let me expand a bit:

1. PRC's top dog(and creator) was Mao Zedong, who was more famous as a back stabbing plotting conspirator then a true Marxist revolutionary(in the romantic sense).
2. Democratic Dictatorship was created by the Chinese communist to con others, by telling others that the Chinese communist do practice democracy and dictatorship at the same time.
3. Looking at the track record of the communists, readers have to decide themselves, and ask themselves, is PRC a "Democratic", or a "Dictatorship" nation? Arilang ^talk 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Socialist republic under a single party state" is enough. No need to talk about chinese constitution in intro. Citations are also missing. --Zhonghuo (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

People's democratic dictatorship is a political concept. It is an extension of dictatorship of the proletariat which is the dual concept to dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Learn, and make good use of wikipedia. --MtBell 02:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

i should be somthing like how it's a n"demcracy" according to it's constitution, but in reality, it's dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Public health

I propose to delete this section. Opinions ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an actual reason to delete the section? Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is already a Climate/geography/environment section. There is no need for having two sections. And i didn't find any "public health" section in articles such as us, india... --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the section should stay as public health issues are different from climate or environment issues. There is also a "Public health" section in France, Italy or Republic of China for instance. Laurent (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delete this section. I am a public health major. LOL. Public health is very important. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the other editors. "Because other pages don't have it" really isn't an adequate reason to remove something. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me,...

...but why most wikies report "People's Republic of China" and not simply "China"? PRC is 300 times greater than Taiwan, and the latter is not historically related to the Mainland. --93.41.0.35 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been debated to death previously, but the short form of it is that maintaining neutrality requires doing so since both regimes consider themselves the "legitimate" ruler of all China, and that we therefore shouldn't take sides. BTW, it's factually incorrect to assert that Taiwan isn't historically related to the mainland. Ngchen (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you scroll up to the "Merger proposal" section on the talk page. That should explain people's feelings, why this page is called "People's Republic of China", and why "China" is still a separate article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

highly controvisial, this is. anyway, the china article is about it culturally, gergraphically. this is politically. and according to some rule made by that confusious(i screwed up the spelling there, i know it) that goes somthing like, which ever the privious ruler was, as long as they hold some land, they are the rightful ruler. so tecnically, acording to there tradition, unless they take over tiwan they arnt te true ruler. but, in order to stay neutral both commy. china and repub. china are listed on the china page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox links to flag and emblem

Emblem of China and Flag of China are disambiguation pages, but because the links in the infobox to the articles for the flag and emblem of China are created as a result of the use of "China" as the common name in the infobox, the infobox links to the disambiguation pages and not the correct pages. I would argue that those pages shouldn't be disambiguation pages, but to make a change will result in a neverending battle. Can someone instead fix this by either creating a separate infobox for China (instead of using "Infobox Country"), or modify "Infobox Country" to allow the links to be specified instead of using the common name parameter? Lexicon (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Image caption

W/r/t the image caption, I believe that addition of the caption would be a good thing that would clarify what the dark and light green colors mean. Ngchen (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

i think this is not very usefull. Maybe we can add the caption on the image itself, not on the article. Polylepsis (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not in the article? It is the perfect place, so there is no need to change the who picture if someone has a better wording idea. The dark/light green areas really cause confusion, since there is no explanation, and both light green regions are not controlled by the PRC. As other examples supporting the placement in the article there is Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, Austria and so many others. All with a tag bellow the map. Do you have any objection? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

see the India article : no image caption Polylepsis (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The map definitely needs a caption to explain the difference between the light and dark green areas. I'm suprised there wasn't one already. Laurent (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

if you put a caption on the india article, then ok. Polylepsis (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I´ll do it right away! Actually thank you for bringing that article to light, the map definitely needs a caption too. Thank you and good night! Uirauna (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! Both to this and the India articles! Thank you! Uirauna (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks Polylepsis (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad formatting in Military section

The bottom of the "Military" section contains badly formatted text. Unable to edit because of semi-protection. 195.8.68.130 (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: A 'troop' is a military term denoting at least 150 individuals (similar to a "company"); how about not perpetuating the misuse of this term (troops) in the media? I think you mean "2.3 million active members" right? An easy fix would be, "With active duty military personnel numbering 2.3 million, ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSlack (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Superpower?

This is exactly what I was talking about (invite from Russian corruption talk):

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/unified_field_theory_google_ch.php

It will be at least a hundred years before China attains "Superpower" status. They're still a Third World Country until they mature past earthquakes that kill tens of thousands, not to mention immature political behavior such as socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trythisoneonforsize (talk • contribs) 05:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wah wah, but James Fallows' personal opinionated blog ain't a reliable source. Also, note that talk pages are not forums, and so this is not the place to discuss politics and opinions if it is not related to improving the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so let's define "major power," as noted in the article. I don't believe the definition of a confirmed Third World Country would also include the term "major power." There is way too much hype and not enough fact associated with the perceived impending downfall of the United States of America. Granted, everyone hates America based on misinformation campaigns that tend to work due to lack of intellect and/or lack of life experience based on real accomplishments (not stolen or reverse-engineered technology), as stated in the Russian Corruption article, but that doesn't change factual information. Most products arriving from Chinese manufacturing are still defective: automatic transmissions that do not function properly, basic items such as plastic tape without competent adhesive, name something manufactured in China and it is most likely defective (not to mention ongoing lead and other poisoning incidents). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trythisoneonforsize (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is related to China's status in the political arena? The quality of it's products and hype made by the US, as opposed to solid, calculable figures such as GDP, military spending and international Free Trade deals? And China's status in the political arena is related to the overall article? (as opposed to a specific article, such as Potential superpowers, which would be less vague for inclusion, if that is what you are arguing for.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually looking for the link you provided on Potential Superpowers, thank you. I'll need to examine more closely, but most of the countries listed there are fake. Try as they may, they could never attain actual Superpower status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trythisoneonforsize (talk • contribs) 12:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see this article : List of statistically superlative countries. China is already n°1 in many fields. Polylepsis (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations

"The PRC has started a policy of wooing African nations for trade and bilateral co-operation." Somehow I feel that 'wooing' isn't the right word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily1104 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of citations in military!

Can we removed this sentences? It has been citation-less for an extended period of time. "The PRC, despite possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is widely seen by military researchers both within and outside of China as having only limited power projection capability; this is, among other things, because of the limited effectiveness of its navy." Lily1104 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Polylepsis (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Section Image

File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg

Human rights groups have been critical of China's treatment of religious and press freedoms

---

The above file's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

Journalists rally for press freedom in the wake of a press crackdown during the September 2009 Xinjiang unrest

Is it necessary to include an image in this section ? If so, wich image shoud we use ? Polylepsis (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

i think that the first image is too violent. We should remove it. Polylepsis (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the relevance of how violent a pic is? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The journalist rally one took place in HK, not within the mainland geo region. It should not be used to represent PRC. Benjwong (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The first image is too old, it does not represent the situation in china today. Polylepsis (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What has changed? Laurent (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

[[:File:Execution in China.jpg|thumb|People's Armed Police execute prisoners convicted of murdering, according to the Laogai Research Foundation (1980s). According to Amnesty International, China executes more people each year than the rest of the world combined.]]

Peter, a man who was enslaved in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1863, whose scars resulted from violent abuse by a plantation overseer. Photo on file with U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, online at archives.gov among others. [2].

it happend in this century, in 2003. i'm not talking about tales of old china. and you know, she was a teenager. why don't you read "Human rights in the People's Republic of China" again. don't you think china is still too violent?--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NederlandsNederlands : You cannot add a new image before reaching consensus here. The execution file is clearly non neutral et does not reflect the situation in china today. Polylepsis (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture does not claim to represent the situation today, the caption itself states that it is from the 1980s. The PRC is still the leading country in capital punishment, and the most common method is execution by firearm, so the picture IS relevant and IS neutral, since it provides full context. An again, if the most common method of execution in the PRC is a rifle bullet to the head, how does the picture does not represents reality? Uirauna (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong my dear. Execution by firearm is NOT the most common method of execution in china today. Lethal injection is the most common method. Polylepsis (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"The PRC is still the leading country in capital punishment" lol ! China is still the most populous nation on earth ! Polylepsis (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think this is a WP:FORUM, it is not. So please behave in an appropriate manner. PRC not only is the leading country in capital punishment, by official government data it is the SECOND leading country in death by capital punishment PER CAPITA. And according to institutions that challenge the official numbers, it is the leading country in capital punishment per capita. So the picture IS relevant. Uirauna (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No the image is not relevant. We are in 2010 today not in the 1980s. But wait for other opinions. Polylepsis (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This image highlights important information about the PRC and so should be included. The information it gives is sourced so I see no problem with the inclusion of this image. On another note the PRC has an appalling human rights record and still does to this day, which is acknowledged by most academic sources. Removing the information on this to pretend it doesn't exist is POV. Bambuway (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Is this image included in the United States article ? No. So why would you put the execution image in china's article ? Polylepsis (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the United States outlawed slavery some 147 years ago, therefore it is historical and is already mentioned on the United States article in the history section. The PRC has yet to changes its ways in terms of human rights and capital punishment. Bambuway (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And because slavery is no longer an issue in the US, while the execution of a large number of people IS an issue today in the PRC. Polylepsis, please explain why do you believe that this image does not depicts a current issue, since: (1) The PRC is the second largest executer of people per capita; (2) The most common way to execute a prisoner is by shooting him in the head with a rifle. So the picture depicts a situation that is still very common today, and thus is relevant to the article. And the image you posted is included in the article Slavery in the United States as it should be, since it no longer depicts a current issue (for more than a century). Just my 2 cents. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you(Polylepsis ) again about this pic, it happend in this century, in 2003, not 147 years ago. so there is no reason to keep it off, but we gatta discuss a bit more!--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't talk about "lethal injection is the most common method" or not in prc, but according to the largest chinese-language infotainment web portal "Sina.com", they just did execution by shooting IN THIS WEEK, 21th jan.http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-22/064216975370s.shtml jan 21th is is not last year, not last century, and not 147 years ago. NederlandsNederlands (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all cities started about "lethal injection" in prc yet. For example beijing was planning to start from 2004(http://news.163.com/09/1215/08/5QIG0EJC000120GR.html), but according to today's newspaper, beijing hasn't started yet, and planning to start from in this year, in this century(http://fzzx.gansudaily.com.cn/system/2010/01/26/011437870.shtml). they said "it's a very big civilization revolution", and i also want to say "yes, it is...".--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Polylepsis is right : the execution image has nothing to do in this page. We must keep Wikipedia neutral and this file is clearly too agressive. Zhonghuo (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To Zhonghuo. it's not agGessive at all, just before shooting. maybe not good to put some url here, but i think i need to explain for you what's the agressive. it has connection with "File:Execution in China.jpg", but too agressive, realy horror pic, so <NOTICE:>"BE CAREFUL TO OPEN" these url, please. it's realy crazy, but it's prc. << "execution(1)", "execution(2)", "execution(3)", "way of execution in china". >>--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it WAS prc. Zhonghuo (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To Zhonghuo. but they did execution by shooting in this week. they still do. what do you chinese think about it?--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now who's the one doing WP:FORUM? Rather than arguing over what China did last week (and I'm sure China did lots of things last week), we must discuss whether the content is suitable for the article, and that it follows Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. I must agree with Zhonghuo there - use of the image is too aggressive, almost an attack critical of the PRC, and is not neutral. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That image proposed by Nederland is indeed too aggressive and I believe was proposed by someone a year ago and was discussion and a mediator came in and decided that the picture violated NPOV. Now how does it violated NPOV? too aggressive, one would just look at that image and POV's fate would be sealed. --LLTimes (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, chinaman. do not add oil to the fire, pls. --Innershookmay (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, go to hell, you along with your WP:ATTACK ego. Simply put, you just piss me off. Go on, and don't come back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:NederlandsNederlands please do not register a new account just for WP:ATTACKs. Otherwise i will have to bring this to sock-puppet investigation committee. --LLTimes (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

too old has no meaning when your talking historically. and, hey, dont they still do that? and have little to no free speach? yea! china has some of the worst human rights in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

China has been criticized for its human rights violations

Whom is missing here and both refs cited are from organizations that were formed and continue to be directed from the "Global West". I'm not saying that they don't belong, but the passive voice is the first step towards weasel-dom. When a modern nation is accused of something then put those words of accusation back in the mouth of the accusers. Don't just say that country X is nasty or has been called nasty, say who it was who called them nasty. Hcobb (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding the passive voice whenever possible but in this case I think it's hard to avoid. We can't simply write "Amnesty criticizes China for its human rights violations" because it's not just Amnesty. There are many more organizations, states and scholars who made this kind of criticism. Since we cannot list them all, I think the passive voice makes sense here. Laurent (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Then don't do the OR. Quote somebody who mentions that a great multitude finds problems with China's human rights record. Hcobb (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and once I find that, you'll ask to find "somebody who mentions that somebody mentions that a great multitude finds problems with China's human rights record". You know we can go on like that for a while. Laurent (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

fine, just link some to japan, republic of korea, australia, they say the same stuff, and there not "western" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Map concerns

Why does the map in the PRC infobox include Taiwan and parts of India, but the ROC's infobox map only includes the Free Area? Interesting double standard. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Republic_of_China#Map_concerns --Cybercobra (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Image / HR section

Maybe is this image better ? What do you think ?Polylepsis (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already an image on human rights but there needs to be one on capital punishment too. Why you might ask when some other nations also exercise capital punishment? Because the PRC executes more people than the rest of the world combined, making it important to be included. Capital punishment, while also exercised in some other nations is only minimal by comparison to the enormous levels exercised in the PRC. Bambuway (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is because of the huge chinese population. A country with 1,3 billion people executes more people than a country with 5 million, it's completely obvious. Polylepsis (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the facts Polylepsis, China is the SECOND largest executor of people PER CAPITA. It has nothing to do with it´s large population. I agree with Bambuway. Also, we need an image of human rights repression, not a demonstration for human rights, there is a huge difference between the two of them. So we keep the current image (people being arrested and abused) and keep the discussion on capital penalty. And once again, the pictures depicts an military person executing by means of a rifle shot in the head a convict. Do you agree that the PRC still executes prisioners in this exact same fashion? If you don´t agree, please tell me what´s differente. If you agree, then that picture IS representativa of today´s situation. Uirauna (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

yes,i also agree with Bambuway, and Uirauna.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

good pic for 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay, and Demonstration (people). so i put it. thanks.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

Please stop fighting. Let's try to hear both sides: Reasons for removing the picture:

1. The picture is too agressive

• Being agressive is not an issue in wikipedia. Also, the picture shows no gore, blood, etc.

1. LLTimes mentioned that a mediator considered it to be too agressive and break NPOV. Could you provide a link to the archives containing that discussion?
2. It does not represent a current issue

• As I (and several other editors) pointed, the PRC is (by official numbers) the second largest executor of people PER CAPITA. So the death penalty is still VERY relevant, specially since the PRC executes anually more people than the rest of the world together (that is, the PRC execution per capita rate must be AT LEAST 5x greater than the world's rate)
• Also, the most common method of execution in the PRC is a rifle bullet to the head.
• So the picture DOES represent something that still happens very often TODAY, and as User:NederlandsNederlands pointed, just last week the PRC executed a person in similar fashion

1. If is agressive to the PRC

• It depicts a common policy of the PRC, even if it really is agressive to the PRC, it is reality. We cannot remove content if it makes a country/person look bad. We can only remove if the content does not represent reality. I've asked you several times to explain how the picture does no represent reality, but you have not answered.

Reasons for keeping the picture:

1. I'll write this one after lunch :)

Please keep the peace. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It happend this week(21th), not lastweek http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-22/064216975370s.shtml here. The judge delivered of a judgment at 9am, and prc police shooted him on　the same day(afternoon). so the accused had no chance to appeal against a sentence. this is a prc's law...

try to read it<http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sina.com.cn%2Fs%2F2010-01-22%2F064216975370s.shtml&sl=zh-CN&tl=en>, please. thank you.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Or there's always the option of going back to the original pic (upper left), which shows some brutality rather than people being executed. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

even that pic is too agressive ! We should replace it with a more neutral file. Polylepsis (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this picture instead of the original one? Laurent (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad, seems that i have mistaken the picture for another one which is about the "Tank Man". So the picture proposed by Nether was not discussed. To Laurent, the picture is missing permissions, I think there is no consensus reach then we should just stick with the current picture.--LLTimes (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiLaurent, thank you, but we already have "File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg" from Polylepsis. and we are not discussing about there pic.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Communist state

Polylepsis, please could you explain why you've removed this sourced statement? You quote BRD but there's nothing to discuss if you don't explain why you are reverting. Are you saying that China is not Communist? Laurent (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that China is no longer a Communist country. It's economy is capitalistic after all. Polylepsis (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but "I think" means nothing against sourced content. I'll revert the changes Polylepsis, and when you find a reliable source that supports your point of view, post it here and we'll discuss the change. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why China is No Longer a Communist Country There you go Polylepsis (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook would be considered far more reliable than this article. Actually, you do use the Factbook when it serves your purpose, but of course in this case you ignore it. Laurent (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Polyepsis, that looks more like a blog post than a reliable source, and is just the personal opinion of the author, Robert Vance, for whom I have not found any information that would place him as an renowned expert on the subject. You still did not provide reliable sources, so PLEASE stop reverting changes to "communist state". Thank you and good editing. Uirauna (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The long standing term in this article was "socialist state" so i think that polilepsis is right Zhonghuo (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

if it wasnt communist then it's wouldnt be whining aboutthe dali lama meeting with obama, tiwan would have rejoined, and tibit would be at least partially independent. oh, and there would be no human right violations. and they wouldnt be holding back on punishing iran! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook, the New York Times and the TIME among others use the term "communist state". We can't just ignore these sources and put what you think is right. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

yes but there is ALREADY "communist party" ! Zhonghuo (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the last consensus (as you can see here and here) is a communist state. Also, Zhonghuo, even if the previous consensus was what Polylepsis, that still would not make him right. Consensus changes. Still, talking about the current situation we have two items:

• The last consensus is "communist state", and it is backed by several reliable sources
• The "socialist state" argument has no reliable sources

So unless reliable sources are provided for the "socialist state" argument, as well as arguments beyond "he is right" to change the last attained consensus, we should stick to the last consensus. Do you disagree? And if you do, please explain with detail your arguments. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon investigation, the references from the CIA Factbook, NY Times, and Time Magazine cannot be used to support the assertion that China is a "Communist State"

• The CIA Factbook is good, but it is not infallible http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-eastasia.asp?parentid=64049 List of countries by road network size and is still subject to an innate bias from its publisher. If you look at the definitions provide by the Factbook on the types of government, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch&regionCode=eas&#ch it is clear that the CIA Factbook either needs to change it's definition of communist or reclassify China - as private ownership is widespread and thriving. See the definition from the Factbook below

• "Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society)"

Also, if you look at the definition of Socialism, you will see the innate bias in the Factbook against the government, which is proudly NOT shared in Europe. An excerpt is posted below:

• "Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite. "

The Time article http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953025,00.html asserts that 1) China is ruled by the Communist Party (undisputed) and 2) a Communist state was founded in 1949 - NOT that China is CURRENTLY a Communist State

The NY Times reference is based on the chinese government website www.gov.cn. However, I have been unable to find any reference to a "Communist state". However I did find an official translation of the constitution on the English version of the Central Government website here http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/05/content_20813.htm which states:

"Article 1: The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants."

In conclusion, I now see no compelling evidence from an accurate AND neutral source to describe China as a "Communist State", but there is sufficient evidence to reclassify China as a "Socialist State", which according to Zhonghua was the historical standard Ouyuecheng (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just be truthful and call the PRC a feudal totalitarian state? Given China Princes of Privilege (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965608,00.html), the serfs who are tied to the land and their problems with the Catholic Church, they most closely resemble the England of Henry VIII. Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please don't change socialist/commmunist back and forth without proof or citation. Although PRC is currently run as "Socialist with Chinese Characteristics" (which is explained in article), what's in the Constitution is what's official. Either way, The next sentence can point out that it is a modified form of communism or socialism, and refer to the politics/economy section for details. Besides isn't communism the extrmest form of socialism any way? --Mistakefinder (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In a communist state, private property does not exist. Right now, private property is totally supported by the Chinese State. Calling China a communist state is being 30 years late. Is China socialist ? This will be very doubtful for similar reasons. Is China liberal ? certainly not. One might call it autocratic capitalistic (China does own the largest amounts of dollar reserves in the world, which makes it totally included in the world-liberal economy), but I doubt the old and simple words such as communist, socialist or liberal have any interest in describing what China currently is. You might as well remove the whole problematic sentence altogether, and provide more explanation further in the article. Please forget about POVitude and stick to the facts : China's economic system nowadays is heavy with contradictions and fits no known definition.--Environnement2100 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• If "communist state" is supposed by the sources, why all the hoopla? That's not POVitude. Unless there is a better suggestion based on more and better sources on the three good ones that offer "communist state," it's unclear how another quick definition would conform to wikipedia content policies, which requires deference to the most reliable sources. Correct me if this is wrong.--Asdfg12345 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there is a genuine metaphysical conundrum - what should we call something that looks, walks and quacks like a duck, but calls itself a goat? Reliable sources calling the PRC 'Communist' will certainly be wrong, although I would not imagine any one doing so without heavy qualification, so we could be left with a gross simplification. Indeed, the country is ruled by a single party called 'Communist Party'; socialism with Chinese characteristics is just another term for capitalism with a whimsical Stalinist streak. The whole setup might be difficult to distil into the lead. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Communist State" is not supported by the sources. If I look at another reference quoted inside the article http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China , there is no reference to a "Communist State". There is however a single-party people’s republic. Ouyuecheng (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In that sentence, why not just delete the part where it says it's an X state. Instead of this:

China is a socialist state, ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...

say this:

China is ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...

(or "dictatorship of the proletariat" why not)

Might simplify things a bit.--Asdfg12345 00:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Idea: how about stating that it's a (fill-in-the-blank) state according to itself (sourced to an official government website), which has also been described as a Communist state (list references for that)? Ngchen (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Burt Keidal of the Carnegie Institute / US Treasury described published a good briefing paper which described it as follows:

"China is a corporate technocracy—no longer a one-man authoritarian system."

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=20279

I'd go for **SINGLE PARTY SOCIALIST STATE** personally.

Ouyuecheng (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, i agree Polylepsis (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Lets only put in the lead what is incontrovertible - single party state ruled by the CCP - and leave the rest to be detailed in the body of the text. While we certainly can cite what is in her constitution , I don't think we ought to do that in the lead, as it will then oblige us to go into all the detail of explaining how scholar x believes it is socialist, or journal y believes it is an autocratic capitalist state. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the official name that the PRC like to call itself. But I doubt any historian with a bit of self-respect left would call nowaday PRC a Socialist state.

Battling the Information Barbarians, by Ian Buruma, the Henry R. Luce Professor at Bard College.

It was, as we know, not so much eradicated as replaced by a Communist orthodoxy after 1949. And when this orthodoxy began to lose its grip on the Chinese public after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976, Chinese officials struggled to find a new set of beliefs to justify their monopoly on power. The ideological hybrid that followed Maoism was "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," a mixture of state capitalism with political authoritarianism. Later, Confucianism actually made a comeback of sorts. But the most common ideology since the early 1990s is a defensive nationalism, disseminated through museums, entertainment and school textbooks.

Even though the WSJ article main theme is somethings else, but the above quote does shine some light on the nature of the current regime. I would call it a hybrid of State capitalism and Authoritarianism and Confucianism, any thought? Arilang ^talk 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Another quote from Ian Buruma:What’s Left After 1989? Ian Buruma

Reagan, Thatcher, and Gorbachev, assisted in the end of an ideology, which once offered hope, and inspired real progress, but resulted in slavery and mass murder. We are still waiting for a new vision, which will lead to progress, but this time, we hope, without tyranny.

Can we say that Professor Ian Buruma is calling PRC a Tyranny? Arilang ^talk 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this one?

Will China Rule the World? Dani Rodrik

The Chinese and their government are wedded to a different conception of society and polity: community-based rather than individualist, state-centric rather than liberal, authoritarian rather than democratic. China has 2,000 years of history as a distinct civilization from which to draw strength. It will not simply fold under Western values and institutions.

Arilang ^talk 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rural Taxation

The following statement below is factually incorrect as it is refers to a 2005 article using 2003/2004 data

"Today, a farmer has to pay three times more in taxes even though his income is one sixth that of the average urban dweller"

This has been replaced with the following statements, backed up by the following BBC News, Los Angeles Times and Harvard references:

"In 2003/2004, the average farmer had to pay three times more in taxes even though his income was only one sixth that of the average urban dweller.. Since then, a number of rural taxes have been reduced or abolished, and additional social services provided to rural dwellers

Ouyuecheng (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thank you ! Polylepsis (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to change this but can someone change "third biggest importer" to "second biggest importer" [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.141 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Ouyuecheng (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Inline links hurt the eyes

Can I remove all the inline links from the lead except those explicitly related to PRC topics? So many are irrelevant and general. That's a nono according to the MoS. Will anyone try to stop me if I do this? The reason is because it makes it a mess to read. I haven't even read the lead yet because it's so uninviting. All the blue, do you ever pick up something to read and see it like that? Judiciously used, makes sense. Linking everything that has a wiki article results in this.--Asdfg12345 00:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy related articles

Hello. This notice is from Wikiproject Energy. Please note that a number of "power station" articles (of China) are not included in a "List of power stations in COUNTRY" type article. It is recommended that a capable-user create such an article and link all related articles in that page. Examples and links can be found here and here. Please notify me on my talkpage ({{tb}} preferred) if there is any further questions. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 06:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will do that Polylepsis (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated, but nonetheless... China is now the world's largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels. Does this belong in the main PRC article, or the Energy policy of China article?

• Bradsher, Keith, Jan 30, 2010, China leads global race to make clean energy, New York Times

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Language spaghetti

In my view, the following text clogs up the first sentence in the lead section, and is detrimental to the reading experience for the vast majority of English-language readers of the article. The defence to this has been "this is standard practice in country articles. Let's no confuse standard practice with good practice. I have thus once again removed the spaghetti from the lead, which I feel is better suited to the infobox - and it's there already. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At the least, the infobox is missing the Traditional Chinese variant. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic of China
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese	中華人民共和國
Simplified Chinese	中华人民共和国
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó Bopomofo ㄓㄨㄥ ㄏㄨㄚˊ ㄖㄣˊ ㄇㄧㄣˊ ㄍㄨㄥˋ ㄏㄜˊ ㄍㄨㄛˊ Wu Romanization tson平 gho平 zin平 min平 gon去 ghu平 koh入 Hakka Romanization dung24 fa11 ngin11 min11 kiung55 fo11 gued2 Yue: Cantonese Jyutping zung1 waa4 jan4 man4 gung6 wo4 gwok3 Southern Min Hokkien POJ Tiong-hôa jîn-bîn kiōng-hô-kok Eastern Min Fuzhou BUC Dṳ̆ng-huà Ìng-mìng Gê̤ṳng-huò-guók
Vietnamese name
Vietnamese alphabet	[Trung Hoa Nhân dân Cộng hòa quốc (Sino-Viet.) Cộng hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa (native)] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
Hán-Nôm	中華人民共和國 (Sino-Viet.) 共和人民中華 (native)
Korean name
Hangul	중화인민공화국
Hanja	中華人民共和國
Transcriptions Revised Romanization Junghwa Inmin Gonghwaguk
Japanese name
Kanji	中華人民共和国
Kana	ちゅうかじんみんきょうわこく
Transcriptions Romanization Chūka Jinmin Kyōwakoku

Copy the box I made from here. Feel free to modify it to suit the article. I see that on the R.O.C. article, all Chinese names are omitted from the lede, and placed in a namebox under the country box. Also, leave Traditional out of the country box, as it is not official, at least on the mainland. Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin are official in the PRC, not Traditional Chinese like in the SARs and ROC, and Tongyong Pinyin in ROC antiquity. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As this seems to be dealt with fully in another article already linked to from here, I would not bother inserting it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, a bit off-topic, but does anyone know where to get a Gan Chinese online dictionary? It took me a long time to find a Hakka dictionary, but it seems that Gan does not hold a presence on the internet... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Thanks! South Bay (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New administrative subunit?

I'm placing this here and not merely at Administrative divisions of China since that page receives relatively little readership.

Is this a yet-unreported adminstrative unit of China? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in Administrative divisions of China. Apparently in Heilongjiang province, some counties have a subdivision equivalent to a township (镇/乡) called a Forestry Office (林业局) -- see, e.g., zh:巴彦县 (obviously different from an administrative agency such as 国家林业局)...this really seems to be a widespread phenomenon, see also zh:萝北县, zh:通河县, zh:方正县,zh:五常市,zh:方正县--Dpr (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

new communist leader?

shouldnt there be a section on them becoming more or less the replacment of the ussr as leader of the communists? they support north korea in almost anything. maoist rebels have suddenly showed up in nepal, which is almost like them trying to make them a satalite state as a barrier from indian, like the ussr did with eastern eurpoe. i dont think the people of nepal just came out and said "we want to limit our freedom and be dominated by china" and started revolting. it seems like a china sponsered thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V please. Otherwise, we cannot accept WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase for the acronym-impaired: Wikipedia doesn't allow original research; you'd have to find some reliable sources which back up such claims. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

dam. looks like im gonna have to become a professor in this sorta thing. no one else seems to have the guts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

People's Republic of China → China — Common name used everywhere. It's very redundant to write peoples republic of china all the time . We can move China to Chinese Civilization. PaxAmericana (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• China → Chinese civilization

• Mildly opposed. PaxAmericana is correct that the PRC is often called China, but some other places (notably the Republic of China, a.k.a. Chinese Taipei, a.k.a. Taiwan) also claim that name. I would not oppose moving China to Chinese Civilization and making that name a redirect to People's Republic of China, with proper disambiguation. Cnilep (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Our article titling policy - "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" (my emphasis). "China" alone is not unambiguous. The current title is the most common unambiguous name, and ambiguity is a very important consideration in selecting titles. Knepflerle (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Would involve us taking a stance on the One China Policy, which violates our neutrality. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose For the same two reasons stated above: Neutrality and disambiguation. Uirauna (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The notion that the country everyone knows as "Taiwan" would cause a ambiguity problerm is bordering on fringe. And that can be handled with a hatnote anyway. People looking for "China" are looking for the PRC and the direction to this page is confusing. I would also support Cnilep's proposal that we have "China" redirect to the PRC and move the text of this article to a page called "Chinese civilization". Readin (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose see One China for one reason, and this has already been discussed to death many many times before. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment you can't move one article ontop of another without figuring what to do with China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - you can't delete full-blown articles using WP:RM. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is about "Chinese civilization" the logical thing to do would be to move this article to the name "Chinese civilization". Readin (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1) In the English language when someone speaks about "China" he is talking about the country (PRC). When someone is speaking about the ROC he uses the name "Taiwan".
• 2) The same happens in the English-speaking media (TV - CNN, BBC, Sky News, NBC, etc, ad nauseam). This is also the case with newspapers and magazines.
• 3) The overwhelming majority of international organizations use the name China for the PRC (it begins with the UNO, the G8+5, etc). Look for the little name-cards upon the tables; the representative from Beijing (i.e. PRC) gets the one with the name "China" upon it. An example of this can be found here.
• 4) In international events, like for example the Olympic Games, the representatives of the PRC receive the name-tag "China".
• 5) The overwhelming majority of Academia uses "China" for the PRC. This is also taught at school.
• 6) Written encyclopaedias and dictionaries use "China" for the PRC. Seriously, grab your geographic encyclopaedia at home take look in the "China-entry" and guess what you will find? The PRC. Go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and what will you find? The PRC, none other

• Support for all the reasons listed above. Flamarande (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. m:Wikipedia is not a paper. We can afford to be specific by having multiple pages on similar topics. The print news media cannot and therefore must shorten and simplify everything when they have a chance.--Jiang (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a paper" (have you read it at all?) refers to the contents of the articles and not to their names. Flamarande (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It refers to the topical breadth of the Wikipedia universe and provides examples of how a single topic can have multiple articles on it. Here, we are not limited to a single page on China. For the reasons outlined on that page, it is unfair to compare Wikipedia to news media because we have the space to be specific.--Jiang (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per above. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Would be a neutrality hell. If this rename was to pass, we would have some complaining (depending on interpretation) that Wikipedia supported the One China Policy, others complaining that Wikipedia is advocating Two Chinas (as this would then be a brilliant excuse to rename the ROC article to ROC(TW) as well, or even worse), and henceforth we would have radicals from either side accusing us of supporting Taiwan independence, Chinese imperialism, Communism, Flunkeyism, blah blah blah. I think that this one rename can act as a spark for much larger issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: It just doesn't make any sense. The PRC is a temporal subset of 'China'. China is a historical and geographical entity through its creation to today, it includes many sovereign states (some simultaneously) which existed within its land mass. The PRC is a sovereign entity which spans from 1947 to today. Also, as benlisquare suggests, it will open up the most enormous POV battlefield WP has ever seen. The disruption caused by such a move would not be justified based uniquely on arguments of convenience - anyone arriving at the China article is immediately faced with a link to the PRC in bold. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: For all the reasons listed by Flamarande. PaxAmericana (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: You have already cast your !vote by placing the move request proposal. You can only post a Comment in this case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not the case. It's good for a nominee to show support since such support should not always be assumed. (I have proposed a number of moves that I did not support in order to establish consensus.) Anyway, since this is not a vote (ha!) it's irrelevant anyway. — AjaxSmack 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• General notice: Main requester seems to have been excluded from this discussion, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis/Archive. What is to occur now? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's clearly 'no consensus', leaning towards oppose. I'd suggest closing this per M:TROLL. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I strongly disagree. PaxAmericana was found guilty of being a troll, but this move request is worthy of serious consideration. Flamarande (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This request should be speedily closed since it goes against current (and previous) consensus, plus the requester has been exposed as a sockpuppeteer. Ngchen (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Flamarande. The current article setup is a violation of WP:NPOV as it gives undue weight to the idea that the ROC = China (a claim that even the ROC doesn't pursue seriously). Laurent (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia's continuing denial of geopolitical reality is this instance is a joke. It's the world in 2010, not USA in 1955, and the PRC is China and China is the PRC. When people say "China," they do not mean Taiwan, Chinese civilisation, or anything else. Get used to it. — AjaxSmack 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a news source. References to "China" more often than not do not refer to China in the present. From the article on Huns: "Since De Guignes linked them with the Xiongnu who had been northern neighbours of China three hundred years before, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted in investigating such a connection. However, there is no evidence for a direct connection between the Xiongnu and the Huns." China in this context clearly doesn't mean PRC.--Jiang (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment For such a case we have the article History of China (and 'Ancient China' is a redirect towards it). I honestly don't agree with your statement: References to "China" more often than not do not refer to China in the present. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a prestigious encyclopaedia and it clearly shows us the meaning of 'China'. Flamarande (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • This goes back to my earlier comment noting that "Wikipedia is not a paper." If we wanted to be like Britannica, this would be a request to merge instead of a request to move. We can be a lot more specific, detailed, and precise than Britannica, so I don't find the comparison convincing.--Jiang (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The move proposal was not formatted to take into account that two articles will be moved. The discussion so far as focused only one of the articles.--Jiang (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's since been rectified: [6] --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Chinese civilization would include Exile-Chinese in USA, SE-ASIA and so on. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support thanks AjaxSmack for a healthy dose of reality to the conversation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support For the reasons listed above by various editors. I would also suggest that the Republic of China article be moved to Republic of China (Taiwan), or simply Taiwan, with the article currently at that location be moved to Taiwan (island). 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: China as a concept is broader than any one government or time span. Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The concept of Italy long predates Italian unification in the nineteenth century, yet we don't devote the Italy page to the Culture of Italy, or have a seperate Italian Republic article on the contemporary state. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there aren't 2 contemporary Italian states and they aren't engaged in a border/sovereignty dispute. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So what if they were? We do not cater to the minority views of secessionist states anywhere in the world. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm just saying it's not the best analogy. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that "China" normally refers to the People's Republic of China, just as "Italy" normally refers to the Italian Republic. China does not normally refer to "a concept is broader than any one government or time span", nor does it normally refer to Taiwan. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're point is flatly wrong. When speaking of "Italy", people usually do mean the modern country. No one says that Italy conquered France under Caesar. While famous artists from the late-middle ages are called "Italian", people don't talk about the country of Italy doing anything during that time...they speak about the city-states taking political action. This is not true with China. People talk of China's position in WW2, China's expansion to the west in the time of the Silk Road, and how the country of China sent fleets of boats all around the world in the 1400s. Technically, they speak inaccurately as the nation of China is a modern concept. But when people say "China" with respect to most historical and cultural events, they speak about "a concept brader than any one government or time span". It may not make sense, but that's the way it is.LedRush (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that when people talk about "China", or, for example, "Chinese history", they don't exlusively mean that of the modern state since 1949. Where you are wrong though is by arguing that China and Italy are fundamentally different (or China and any other country). People do talk about travelling to Italy in works like The Mysteries of Udolpho, even though Italy was divided amongst a number of small states - the concept of Italy long predates Italian unification, just as the concept of China long predates the Chinese Revolution. The People's Republic of China article, if moved to China, would not just cover the history of the PRC, but that of China from antiquity; just as Italy#History covers the Ancient Rome and so on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is in the difference between discussing "Italy" as a politically integrated state or in a cultural or other context. Your example is the latter, not the former. Regardless, Italy is not China, and I don't know how much this conversation informs the decision to move.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If we were to merge Chinese civilization with People's Republic of China under a model similar to Italy as some people above have proposed, the article would be too damn long. Currently the PRC article is 132,415 bytes, and the China article is 64,095 bytes. It would be an absolute bitch to read through such a large article, not to mention that people with poor internet connections/outdated computers would have great trouble in accessing the page. So, what are you going to do with all the information? We cannot have the article so long, but it would be impractical to separate each section into individual articles, as that completely defies the purpose of the merger, to collect the historical and political information of "China" as with the Italy article (heck, I'm more wondering if that is just an excuse everyone is using to stay away from the more political reasons...) and place them together. We cannot abbridge the article by simplifying it and excluding information, as nobody would have any benefit from that. What do you people actually have in mind for your wonderful and brilliant idea? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that Chinese civilisation is so long and complex that it can't be placed in the same article as the state. I disagree. There are plenty of other countries with comparable histories and civilisations that long predate the exist of the modern state, from Ethiopia to Israel to Japan. I don't think the the two articles should be merged however; modifying some sections like People's Republic of China#History to cover a much longer span of Chinese history, similar to Japan#History would be enough. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mildly opposed. I understand and empathize with the arguments for the move, but I don't see a problem with the status quo. There is no confusion based on the current layout. This is not a topic about which average people are ignorant. If people wish to learn about the 60-year old political entity known as the PRC, they know precisely where to go. If they want to know about China, historically to present, they know where to go. If people want to know about Taiwan, they know where to go. Other than trying to politicize Wikipedia, what are the real benefits to a reader of Wikipedia to a move? I don't see any.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

People are confused. External reviews by laypeople that are not Wikipedians are confused. That is who we write for, not geopolitical experts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The proposal will appease only certain geopolitical experts, while providing no additional clarity for a normal person looking for information on "China". LedRush (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing an article about a country, at an article name where non-knowledgeable readers expect to find one, provides a great deal of clarity. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Do you believe that when people go to the article entitled "China" but actually wanted "PRC", they are confused? Really? Even with the links at the top and the huge flags and links at the top of the lede? I'm not buying it.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:

The PRC is the official name and should always be used due to the legacy of the civil wars and to distinguish it from the different eras where China was ruled by different dynasties. For example, the USA article is redirected to the United States rather to America. Why? it is because thats the official name of the country.

In Chinese, China is a short name for the full name, People's Republic of China.中华人民共和国. In these kinds of debate, its usually someone or a few who has a fancy for some convenience which leads to controversy. Its best to stick to a tested and tried name then to try to make simple things more complex.Takamaxa (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Exactly. There is no consensus to move "United States of America" to "America", even though "America" is frequently used in colloquial and general language to represent the country. Except in formal writing, it is extremely rare for anyone to use the mouth-numbing "United States of" here in Australia for example, we just call it America. But why not rename it on Wikipedia? For starters, there is a continent called "America"; also, one can assume that most Wikipedians prefer the use of the official name, to which this consensus arises from. Now, let's see how this relates to "China" and the PRC: "China" can be confused with a wide number of things, from Greater China to an alternative name for Porcelain used in British English. Just as with the America (continent) clause, renaming is entirely impracticable as there is the problem of confusion. Now, onto the other point: People's Republic of China is the official term, just as with United States of America, and so from a professional point of view, it would be most preferable to use the more official term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You do know that the article is at United States and not at United States of America (the official term is a mere redirect), right? Flamarande (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per One China policy; it's not just Taiwan that feebly supports the view. A significant portion of the world (and specifically the entire English-speaking world) does not recognize the PRC as "China" (just look at this map). Also, Takamaxa makes a good point vis a vis United States/America. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The One-China policy is a political agreement between the PRC and ROC, not a Wikipidia policy. The ROC has very limited diplomatic recognition; you mention the English-speaking world, but can you name a single major English-speaking country that officially uses "China" to refer to Taiwan? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily English-speaking, but Honduras, Solomon Islands and the Holy See do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, only a very small numbers of users of this website will come from those territories. All three have very small populations, and none are English speaking. The main bulk of English Wikipedia users comes from English speaking countries that do not recognise Taiwan, such as the USA and most of the Commonwealth. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the statement is true (i.e., that English-speaking governments refer to the PRC as China), not the obverse, which is totally and completely irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the USA has an embassy in Beijing, China and doesn't seem to use "Beijing, PRC". Flamarande (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The US also considers that Taiwan is part of China, per the One China policy. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. It does not recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. It also acknowledged both sides have conflicting "One China" policies. The USA's position is more along the lines of "yes, there is one China, but we're not going to tell you which one it is." Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

From your own statement, it does consider Taiwan part of China. I didn't say which one either :-) ... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zam. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Can anyone explain why China fighted under the Taiwanese flag in the Second World War? And why was the Taiwanese flag used when the United Nations was founded? Taiwan isn't a UN member is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Off-topic (this belongs elsewhere), but the Blue Sky White Sun Red Earth flag is not the Taiwanese flag, it is the flag of the Republic of China. Simply put, from 1912, China was once ruled by a group of individuals, let's call them Group A (although it gets more complicated than that, but we'll ignore those for now for simplicity's sake). During World War II, China, under the rule of Group A, fought against the Japanese and became one of the founding members of the UN. Then, in 1949, Group A lost a war against a different group of people, namely Group B, and so Group B took over China, and Group A retreated to Taiwan. This is why China fought under that flag during WW2, used at the start of the UN, etc. (I know there are holes in my ultra-simplified explanation, someone feel free to fill them in) This does not necessarily mean that the Taiwanese were responsible for A, B, and C. Group A, which used to be in China but no longer is, is now in Taiwan because Group B is in China, and both groups don't really like one another. Should I explain in a bit more detail? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • So let us disregard what happened before 1911 for the time being... for the purpose of discussion. There are four things that we are now dealing with, namely China, Taiwan, Group A and Group B. Should we call Group A China or Taiwan? Or should we simply equate China with Group B? And if we equate Taiwan and Group A, how can we explain what happened before and after 1945 (or 1949)? 210.177.66.30 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • China and Taiwan are geographical locations, that is, places. Back in the old days, Group A was the government, the people that ruled the place called China (or more specifically, mainland China). However, they lost that place to Group B. Group A had nowhere to go but to flee to Taiwan (since after all, Group B was pursuing and killing them, and Taiwan seemed like a safe place, due to proximity, etc. but I'll leave warfare strategy out of this), and so, Group B formed a new government in mainland China, this was to be later known as the People's Republic of China. This is the China with the Red Flag with 5 yellow stars. Meanwhile, Group A settles in Taiwan, kills off a few locals that don't like them, and resumes their government, the Republic of China, moved from China to Taiwan. This is the "China" with the Blue Sky White Sun Red Earth flag. The United States really likes the "China" ruled by Group A, and doesn't like the one ruled by Group B, because Group B had ties with the USSR, so the US accepts Group A's China as the sole legitimate China for many years, until the 1970s, when they realise that such an idea was rather unpractical. Then, Group A's China lost the UN seat that it got when the UN was founded, and Group B's China was given that seat. And essentially, here we are today. Group B is ruling inside China, Group A is ruling from within Taiwan, but both groups originate from within China, and both groups call themselves "China", and disregard the other group. Today, Group A is the Republic of China ruling within the place of Taiwan, while Group B is the People's Republic of China that rules within mainland China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
        • As for your second question, from 1895 to 1945, Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese Empire. The Qing Dynasty of Imperial China lost Taiwan to the Empire of Japan as a result of the First Sino-Japanese war. At the end of WW2, the Allies decided to grant Group A the territory of Taiwan. In 1945, Taiwan formally became part of Group A's territory, but then, in 1949, Group A lost the Chinese mainland due to warfare. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Please don't go too much into details. My questions were targeted at those who support the move. I want them to answer why China fighted under the Taiwanese flag in the Second World War, and used the Taiwanese flag to join the United Nations. To elaborate a little bit, I'd want them to explain, if China ≡ PRC and Taiwan ≡ ROC, why China would have fighted with Japan under the Taiwanese flag while Taiwan was then part of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You questions and reasoning are suspect. China fought under the "Taiwanese" flag in WWII because the KMT/ROC were still running China (at least large portions of it) in WWII. Of course, calling the KMT/ROC's flag during WWII the "Taiwanese flag" is misleading and stupid, but that's your answer. Once the KMT/ROC lost the mainland and moved to Taiwan in 1949, the KMT/ROC flag changed from being "China's" flag to "taiwan's"LedRush (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But that does not mean that the ROC should be equated to Taiwan on Wikipedia, and henceforth be renamed, as with China and PRC. What are you going to do with all the historical information on Republic of China? Delete it all? Move it to an article like China or PRC which would be unrelated? Incorporate all the mainland history somehow as that of Taiwan? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support the second part of the proposal (China -> Chinese civilization). No need to rename this article, a redirect (as in Frankfurt or Chinese foreign policy) should do the trick. Yaan (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The arguments being used to try to prevent the article on "China" from having access to its own name could be used against any country. As it stands now, I think it is not neutral, as it implies the claims of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are comparable, which was a fringe view in the 1950s, let alone today. I think the best solution is to get rid of the current article under the name China (or rename it Chinese civilization), name the PRC ariticle as "China", and keep the Republic of China article named "Republic of China". To those who claim that this would somehow be endorsing a one-China policy, I don't see any reason why this article, once renamed China as it ought ot be, could not mention the current dispute. What's more, by keeping the current Republic of China article, it should be pretty clear that Wikipedia is by no means acknowledging any political point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.97 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Takamaxa --LLTimes (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)