Jump to content

Talk:China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donotkill (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 19 January 2011 (→Error in infobox, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Talk:People's Republic of China/article guidelines

Former featured articleChina is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2006Featured article reviewKept
March 15, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
March 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:VA

Template:WP1.0 Template:China Portal Selected Article

GOV type

Administrators, can we please change the government type and take off "peoples republic", in no way, shape, or form is it a peoples republic, what is that anyway. The Chinese Government decided to name it that to mask the fact that its a Communist Dictatorship with one party rule-all. please adhere to this request, thankyou. spencer1157 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a name used to mask something up? You got something to back that up, son? Also, this has been discussed before, check the talkpage archives. Furthermore, you seem new here, so (never mind...) I'll let you know that administrators themselves have little power in decision making over article contents; rather, that is determined by WP:CONSENSUS among the greater community of contributors. Currently there is no consensus to differ from the status quo, given that People's Republic is one of the official designations given by the PRC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Peoples Republic" is a title that has often been used by Marxist-Leninist governments to describe their state. "In the West, countries governed by Marxist-Leninists are referred to as "Communist states," though they never actually used this name for themselves and used the term countries of people's democracy"

quoted right off of wikipedia, son. spencer1157 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted me. What one article says does not change WP:CONSENSUS, which is Wikipedia policy. Also, other Wikipedia articles are by no means reliable sources. Your quotation also does not disprove the contents of this article and specifically state that the term "People's Republic" is wrong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its the name used by the PRC, but that doesn't mean it's a type of government. You don't see me editing the US and saying our government is "Obamacare", do you? it's not right to insinuate that its a free peoples republic, when those "people" aren't the republic of anything. spencer1157 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC) and im not questioning the consensus, im just saying lets all be honest with ourselves, whether or not the PRC wants to name their country with Peoples Republic in it, doesn't mean we have to keep puting in the article, Wikipedia is for facts not what the PRC thinks is the government type spencer1157 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you performed a magnificent task in contradicting yourself. less confusing? I propose that more dedicated and more informed users have the right to delete any talk page sections that have been raised as issues in the past. --HXL 何献龙 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HXL, that can't be done, as per WP:PILLAR - all contributors have the right to contribute regardless, essentially. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whatever i'm just happy to live in america, this is a made in america English Wikipedia just in case you didn't know, good day spencer1157 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>Implying that Wikipedia is American, and that the location of a site's servers determines the content, rather than it's userbase -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from blanking as per talkpage guidelines. This isn't your userpage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, Wikipedia isn't an American project. Calling China a 'communist dictatorship' isn't NPOV - note that for example the lead for Osama bin Laden doesn't call him a terrorist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the obvious WP:RS and WP:V issues, calling the PRC a "Communist dictatorship", based on the accepted definition of a dictatorship, is just factually wrong. I don't condone the actions of the PRC, especially when it comes to human rights, but a country with ten year term limits for the leader is clearly not a dictatorship.--hkr Laozi speak 01:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoho, that perennial discussion again! Although China's nominal political governance hasn't changed all that much, the country itself has undergone a huge metamorphosis. only thing that can be said to still hold true is that it is a republic. I find it worrying that some people still harbour delusions that constraints upon an individual's right to hold high political office means it is not a dictatorship – it ignores that the dictatorship is in the hands of the CCP, whose power cannot be challenged, not by another political party, or religious grouping, or a lowly dissident who subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize. The constraint on individual power to enhance the power and control of the Communist Party which, as many observers have pointed out, has little in common with the Marxist-Leninist philosophy which underpinned its creation. I do, however, agree that the current label was not a reflection of political reality. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is coming from some who vocally opposes the human right abuses by the PRC and has made it clear on this talk page before, but I respectfully disagree, it is highly autocratic, but not a dictatorship. It could be called a People's democratic dictatorship, but that's a China-specific term that neither matches the definition of a democracy or a dictatorship. The statement that all single-party states are dictatorships is a highly contentious one, and one I highly doubt most will agree with. Taiwan was also a single party state for a large part of its history, but I'd be hesitant to characterise it as a dictatorship for the very same reasons. But before we all jump into this political minefield because of a random commentator, let's make this clear: This is a debate about political labels with fluid definitions, and you know how that never ends well. Better off not to start at all. ;) --hkr Laozi speak 02:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note I am not arguing to insert opinions which are on the fringes. This is a talk page where, yes, I am on record. I merely pointed out that your assertion wasn't necessarily true. You might be right in saying a sort of checks and balances exists, but I am merely suggesting that that is inadequate in the case of PRC. Jiang Zemin was one of the greatest centralisers of CCP power in the hands of a single individual since Mao, and that centralisation is fact and still current.

        Nevertheless, in most instances, I am perfectly capable of being on the right side of NPOV. I would point out in passing that all of the sources validating the label 'Communist people's republic' are somewhat biased - viz CIA factbook and US Department of State, and any source we are likely to see asserting 'single party dictatorship is likely to be dismissed by some quarters as rhetoric. Anyway, I trust this label should not cause any polemic. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll agree, I have no qualms with the current label, or the PRC article in general. Unfortunately, this is one of those topics where you can argue definitions and labels for days, but that comes with the territory. At least, we'll have the solace of knowing that it'll never end up like the Eastern Europe, Falun Gong, or Palestine-Israel talk pages. Thank you for being courteous.--hkr Laozi speak 03:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Famous last words ;-) I originally had this, and a number of other PRC-related articles watchlisted as being potential targets for disruption by Falun Gong SPA... My fears appear not to have been justified with the exception of the 'propaganda in PRC/Propaganda Department' articles. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People's republic" is in the country's official name and is appropriate given the country's communist history; it should remain included. I recommend reading the linked article on the term. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. As I said, China now is not the same as China in 1949. Whilst it may be part of the name, even if it did fit 60 years ago, the label is obsolete. Anyhoo, it won't be the first time we shouldn't take names at face value: just look at DPRK. I hope you're not about to argue it's a democratic country... ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well surely the Kim Dynasty must have been elected... :P -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion:To compromise, and also to help your everyday readers to understand this complex issue, I suggest that one or two sentences to be added at the lead section, something like :"Though the official name is "Republic", since 1949, the Chinese people had never been given the power of the ballot paper to elect their favorite rulers, when the next coming Paramount leader had always been decided behind closed door, through some unknown and mysterious process." Arilang talk 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ed conflict) And you really think that "some unknown and mysterious process" is encyclopedic and verifiable? Refer to WP:FRINGE and related pages. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people always have to use their worldview bias to treat articles as a battleground between good and evil. Please have a read of WP:NOT

The article is about a state called the People's Republic of China.

Its just a official name of the country. Most Communist countries have People's Republic, Socialist Republic or the Democratic People's Republic in their names. Communism is already mentioned in the political sections of the article.

This is similar to the blatant attempts from some people with partisan ideological leanings to put mass murderer tags in Stalin, Maozedong, Chiang Kai-shek articles a few years ago just so it fits into their own background, bias, beliefs, creed...etc Fair enough but put it into context and not some diatribe about good and evil, again using wikipedia as a battleground Visik (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Republic has been used by Cuba and more recently Burma or Myanmar, Vietnam to describe their own form of government. They may not fit the western model of representative government. But thats the official name referred in government websites, international organizations...etc.

Visik (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Visik, I agree with you 100%, "They may not fit the western model of representative government." When readers click on Wikipedia, because they have doubts on their mind, and that is exactly our job to help them. Our job is to help readers to become less confused when they finish reading wikipedia articles. And if readers remain confused about why there are different models of "Republic", like in the case of PRC, which had not had a general election since 1949 when it was formed, we are not doing our job right, you agree ? Arilang talk 08:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republic =/= democracy. You should get that straight first - what you have described is not the definition of a republic. You don't need to have a full democracy to be a republic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We understand that "user:benlisquare", But you need some people to legitimately ""rep""resent (""rep""ublic) themselves, and before you start attacking me, I am well aware of the the National People's Congress, interesting name? wouldn't you say, sir. They are picked by their "Single-Party leaders" (communist party) and in no way represent the entirety of the Chinese people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by spencer1157 (talk • contribs)

何だろう，同志様。。。 "Republic" comes from the Latin phrase res publica, meaning "a public affair". What are you on about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

  • I agree with "Communist party-led republic" or even better and more official "Single party-led republic", which is more correct and is even cited on Brittannica. I proposed this name couple months ago, but unfortunately, it was thrown down. First, we need to understand that there are two basic dividings. Republic versus Monarchy (do they have monarch or not?), and Democracy versus Oligarchy (rule of many versus rule of few). These can be combined of course, and are very basic (for example, we have parliamentary republics, presidential republics, constitutional monarchies etc). So basically said, there can be basic combinations such as democratic republic (United States), democratic monarchy (United Kingdom - if we go further, it's constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy), but also "Oligarchic" Republic - which is for example China, because the power is in hands of the few, not in hands of people, but there is no monarch. So, it is single party-led republic = communist party-led republic. We have to be correct here on wikipedia - when you look at any other country system here, you will always find the same classification as I have described above - for example Germany is democratic in democracy vs oligarchy duel, and federal parliamentary republic in monarchy vs republic duel. Communist state and people's republic - that's simply nonsense. We don't call Germany or the United States a "capitalist state", do we? --Novis-M (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, the point of having "People's republic" and "Communist state" in the infobox is that we are giving both the POV of the PRC and the POV of the "West". You may disagree that the PRC is a people's republic (and so do I) but that's how it calls itself, so I think we should take that into consideration for NPOV sake. Laurent (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no question how the country calls itself, it doesn't matter. We are talking about government system, not the name!!! And the system is single party republic. --Novis-M (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a single-party republic is a reasonable name, well inside the Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV ==spencer1157 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "Single party republic" as the NO1 preference, and "Communist party-led republic" can be the NO2 preference. As user Novic-M mentioned, PRC can call itself whatever name, wikipedia editors are free to classify "PRC", and give it a correct description. Arilang talk 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • This LINK and image are very useful. --Novis-M (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucius, I'm wondering why we shouldn't imply that the party in power is communist? That's how it calls itself so I don't see why we shouldn't make it clear in the infobox. Personally, I don't mind if we remove "people's republic", because it's too vague a description, but we should definitely mention that the government is communist. I think communist party-led republic as initially suggested is good compromise, especially since it is properly sourced. Laurent (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through this in detail, but 'Single party republic' or 'People's republic' are both fine by me (I slightly prefer the former as its more accurate) - 'Communist party-led republic' is OK, but not as good as the first two IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I voice the same opinion that Mr. Laurent does. --HXL 何献龙 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
correction: we agree that there should be a change, but not on what the change should be. I may be incorrect, as I have not bothered to read the entire heavily protracted discussion. also, be sure to use the right number of indents on talk pages. --HXL 何献龙 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is the correct change to the name, HXL? ==spencer1157 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
took a while to think of this. "Single party-led republic", because it avoids the problems of "communist party-led republic" or "socialist party-led republic" in that these two can raise objections from some that "MAINLAND CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST", even though those are the official guiding ideologies (and/or name) of the CCP. And "people's republic" is far less descriptive of a term, as Mr. Laurent rightfully complained above, even though, again, it is an official title. --HXL 何献龙 20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HXL49. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Single party-led republic", I agree completely HXL49, it's an excellent description. now we just need to get everyones opinion, and move forward. ==spencer1157 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, agree with single party-led republic. --Novis-M (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single party-led republic is best. I like the 'led' part, because just saying 'single-party' implies that there are no parties other than the CPC, but despite marginalization, there are some that legally exist. Quigley (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. I think we have a consensus here!--hkr Laozi speak 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Guo and Single party-led republic

Anyone like to compare Dang Guo and Chinese Soviet Republic, and PRC ? Arilang talk 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation of Peking University professor Pan Wei's lecture (北京大学国际关系学院国际政治系教授，潘维):" 比较司法和执法独立的分权制衡制度，“一切权力归人民代表大会”固然民主程度更高，却也成为“党之治”的基础。中共党员在人民代表大会中占绝大多数席位，共产党当然就拥有了包括立法、行政、司法在内的“一切权力”。再由于共产党员遵从“民主集中制”这一党内纪律，“一切权力”也就被集中到了党的最核心机构——中共中央政治局常务委员会。这个委员会目前由包括总书记、总理、人大委员长、政协主席在内的9位委员组成。因此，在制度上，一切权力归人民代表大会的制度导致中国由中国共产党直接治理。这个事实被写入《宪法》的《序言》部分。这就是让许多人感到中国并不“民主”，而是“党主”的原因。"


http://www.chinaelections.org/NewsInfo.asp?NewsID=111152


Dang Guo#Chinese Communist Party and People's Republic of China

Peking University professor Pan Wei (Chinese: 北京大学国际关系学院国际政治系教授，潘维) had stated that the political structure of People's Republic of China is supported by the Chinese Communist Party in six major ways:

  • （1）Communist Party and it's core decision making departments, such as Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,Politburo of the Communist Party of China, Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China, Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China, Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China,Organization Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee
  • （2）The all powerful National People's Congress has always been under the control of the CCP.
  • （3）All the PRC governmental departments are under the control of CCP.
  • （4) People's Liberation Army is under control of the CCP.
  • （5) Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is under control of the CCP.
  • （6）All the semi-governmental departments, such as trade unions, women's associations, communist youth groups, are all under control of the CCP.

Professor Pan Wei went on to state that the China's supreme control power is rest on Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China.[1] Arilang talk 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Largest Economy?

In the lede it states that China is the world's second largest economy by both nominal and PPP estimates, yet the list that is linked for nominal GDP has all 3 organizations ranking them 3rd. Is this just because the 2010 lists haven't come out yet? Starwrath (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. China passed Japan a few months ago, so official rankings, which are released anually, do not reflect this yet.--hkr Laozi speak 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Budget

This article states like so many others that china is under reporting its defence budget. My question is where is the evidence that China is under reporting its defence budget. Where is that extra money coming from and where is that money going to? It surtenly didn't go into there hardware because according to China's own omission and foreign military analysts 70% of China's weapons inventory is obsolete. How can China hide theze huge sums year after year? Wouldn't that destabillise there entire economy? I have been hearing alot about this claims for year's now and i haven't see scant evidence. The only thing we have are claims by the Pentagon and the US congress that is repeated by there media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Section

This section includes, "Some think-tanks such as the Asian European Council have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's abrupt decision to sell arms to Taipei...." I consider the use of the word "abrupt" to violate the neutrality standard. It is a biased and pro-Chinese/anti-US. Hyphenation of think-tank is incorrect. It should be think tank. Commas should be added also, as the current puntuation is wrong. For these reasons the above should read: "Some think tanks, such as the Asian European Council, have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's decision to sell arms to Taipei..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.122.241 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"China" redirect

Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is not part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education in China

Can someone add this to the education section:

In the 2009 test of the Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA), which is a worldwide evaluation of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance, Chinese students from Shanghai have achieved the best results in mathematics, science and reading.[1][2] The OECD also looked at some rural areas of China, and found they matched Shanghai’s quality[3] and that even in some of the very poor areas the performance is close to the OECD average.[4]

I think the above info would be better than the list of universities in China in that section. Thinklde (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?_r=1
  2. ^ http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_PISA1206_20101207.html
  3. ^ http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/12/07/why-are-chinese-schoolkids-so-good/
  4. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20770bf6-01e7-11e0-b66c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz17V0LJQJf

Wikileaks content on The Telegraph

The wikileaks content is all very relevant to the PRC article, editor please explain why it is being removed. Arilang talk 22:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support its inclusion on Wikipedia, but not here. relevance does not mean importance. enough said --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because some government business interests is not worth of a level 1 heading in this article. Somewhere else, sure, but not here. The Guardian (who have had a lot of Wikileaks access) doesn't even think its a big enough deal for it to appear in their China coverage at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Top Chinese leaders from Politburo of the Communist Party of China and Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China operate in "black box" style when outsiders are always kept in the dark; thanks to wikileaks, we are now able to have a peek at the real things. These are all important and explosive stuff for everyday readers, at last there is a choice between the official rose color tinted version and the "real" version. Arilang talk 23:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The USA article doesn't even mention Wikileaks at all and the whole scandal is about them. I don't think a l1 header could be due weight here for this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. with regards to history and politics, articles on nations, and especially their introductions, should limit content to the most important events in history as well as a basic outlining of the economic and political structure of the said nation. Sub-articles exist for a reason... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peeking inside the black box? Reality check: what most of the cables are, and what you have tried to put into this article, is mere speculation and opinion by U.S. embassy staff. Wikileaks did not leak China's documents. Quigley (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again. Inclusion in this article is unnecessary, and so far the arguments for inclusion have been borderline WP:SOAPBOX. Come on now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Li Keqiang, head of the Communist Party in northeastern Liaoning province at the time, was unusually candid in his assessment of local economic data at a dinner with then-U.S. Ambassador to China Clark Randt, according to a confidential memo sent after the meeting and published on the WikiLeaks website...“By looking at these three figures, Li said he can measure with relative accuracy the speed of economic growth. All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are 'for reference only,' he said smiling,” the cable added.

[1]
Now, Li Keqiang, who is expected to take up Wen Jiabao's job, his opinion at least worth something? Arilang talk 01:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are overly dramatising again. Tell me when politicians' private chats have ever been included in nation articles. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material is not warranted for inclusion, but ruling out the Wikileaks material altogether may be violating the principle of neutrality--Novus Orator 04:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the USA article doesn't include it at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.29.73.195, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the line discussing normalization of relations with Japan and soft loans, there is a grammatical error along the lines of "Japan have been #1..."

69.29.73.195 (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks much, and hope you catch more errors and report them. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Territory

Should there be corrections made on China's territorial size ? Since Tadjikistan gave up something like a 1000km² to China to settle a centuries old border dispute. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011200961.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this big news. In a few hours, I may well get to it. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is some additional information:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone...

I for one am quite reluctant to buy this, but that's just me. The claim by the person responsible seems too impressive to be true in my opinion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in infobox, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

The infobox says the country is a one party republic. This is wrong information. Some may call it a one party dictatorship. We can be nice and sugar coat it to "one party state". That I favor.

It is not like Chicago, which is a defacto one party democracy. So worse than Chicago. Donotkill (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former featured articleChina is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2006Featured article reviewKept
March 15, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
March 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:VA

Template:WP1.0 Template:China Portal Selected Article

GOV type

Administrators, can we please change the government type and take off "peoples republic", in no way, shape, or form is it a peoples republic, what is that anyway. The Chinese Government decided to name it that to mask the fact that its a Communist Dictatorship with one party rule-all. please adhere to this request, thankyou. spencer1157 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a name used to mask something up? You got something to back that up, son? Also, this has been discussed before, check the talkpage archives. Furthermore, you seem new here, so (never mind...) I'll let you know that administrators themselves have little power in decision making over article contents; rather, that is determined by WP:CONSENSUS among the greater community of contributors. Currently there is no consensus to differ from the status quo, given that People's Republic is one of the official designations given by the PRC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Peoples Republic" is a title that has often been used by Marxist-Leninist governments to describe their state. "In the West, countries governed by Marxist-Leninists are referred to as "Communist states," though they never actually used this name for themselves and used the term countries of people's democracy"

quoted right off of wikipedia, son. spencer1157 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted me. What one article says does not change WP:CONSENSUS, which is Wikipedia policy. Also, other Wikipedia articles are by no means reliable sources. Your quotation also does not disprove the contents of this article and specifically state that the term "People's Republic" is wrong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its the name used by the PRC, but that doesn't mean it's a type of government. You don't see me editing the US and saying our government is "Obamacare", do you? it's not right to insinuate that its a free peoples republic, when those "people" aren't the republic of anything. spencer1157 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC) and im not questioning the consensus, im just saying lets all be honest with ourselves, whether or not the PRC wants to name their country with Peoples Republic in it, doesn't mean we have to keep puting in the article, Wikipedia is for facts not what the PRC thinks is the government type spencer1157 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you performed a magnificent task in contradicting yourself. less confusing? I propose that more dedicated and more informed users have the right to delete any talk page sections that have been raised as issues in the past. --HXL 何献龙 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HXL, that can't be done, as per WP:PILLAR - all contributors have the right to contribute regardless, essentially. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whatever i'm just happy to live in america, this is a made in america English Wikipedia just in case you didn't know, good day spencer1157 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>Implying that Wikipedia is American, and that the location of a site's servers determines the content, rather than it's userbase -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from blanking as per talkpage guidelines. This isn't your userpage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, Wikipedia isn't an American project. Calling China a 'communist dictatorship' isn't NPOV - note that for example the lead for Osama bin Laden doesn't call him a terrorist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the obvious WP:RS and WP:V issues, calling the PRC a "Communist dictatorship", based on the accepted definition of a dictatorship, is just factually wrong. I don't condone the actions of the PRC, especially when it comes to human rights, but a country with ten year term limits for the leader is clearly not a dictatorship.--hkr Laozi speak 01:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoho, that perennial discussion again! Although China's nominal political governance hasn't changed all that much, the country itself has undergone a huge metamorphosis. only thing that can be said to still hold true is that it is a republic. I find it worrying that some people still harbour delusions that constraints upon an individual's right to hold high political office means it is not a dictatorship – it ignores that the dictatorship is in the hands of the CCP, whose power cannot be challenged, not by another political party, or religious grouping, or a lowly dissident who subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize. The constraint on individual power to enhance the power and control of the Communist Party which, as many observers have pointed out, has little in common with the Marxist-Leninist philosophy which underpinned its creation. I do, however, agree that the current label was not a reflection of political reality. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is coming from some who vocally opposes the human right abuses by the PRC and has made it clear on this talk page before, but I respectfully disagree, it is highly autocratic, but not a dictatorship. It could be called a People's democratic dictatorship, but that's a China-specific term that neither matches the definition of a democracy or a dictatorship. The statement that all single-party states are dictatorships is a highly contentious one, and one I highly doubt most will agree with. Taiwan was also a single party state for a large part of its history, but I'd be hesitant to characterise it as a dictatorship for the very same reasons. But before we all jump into this political minefield because of a random commentator, let's make this clear: This is a debate about political labels with fluid definitions, and you know how that never ends well. Better off not to start at all. ;) --hkr Laozi speak 02:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note I am not arguing to insert opinions which are on the fringes. This is a talk page where, yes, I am on record. I merely pointed out that your assertion wasn't necessarily true. You might be right in saying a sort of checks and balances exists, but I am merely suggesting that that is inadequate in the case of PRC. Jiang Zemin was one of the greatest centralisers of CCP power in the hands of a single individual since Mao, and that centralisation is fact and still current.

        Nevertheless, in most instances, I am perfectly capable of being on the right side of NPOV. I would point out in passing that all of the sources validating the label 'Communist people's republic' are somewhat biased - viz CIA factbook and US Department of State, and any source we are likely to see asserting 'single party dictatorship is likely to be dismissed by some quarters as rhetoric. Anyway, I trust this label should not cause any polemic. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll agree, I have no qualms with the current label, or the PRC article in general. Unfortunately, this is one of those topics where you can argue definitions and labels for days, but that comes with the territory. At least, we'll have the solace of knowing that it'll never end up like the Eastern Europe, Falun Gong, or Palestine-Israel talk pages. Thank you for being courteous.--hkr Laozi speak 03:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Famous last words ;-) I originally had this, and a number of other PRC-related articles watchlisted as being potential targets for disruption by Falun Gong SPA... My fears appear not to have been justified with the exception of the 'propaganda in PRC/Propaganda Department' articles. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People's republic" is in the country's official name and is appropriate given the country's communist history; it should remain included. I recommend reading the linked article on the term. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. As I said, China now is not the same as China in 1949. Whilst it may be part of the name, even if it did fit 60 years ago, the label is obsolete. Anyhoo, it won't be the first time we shouldn't take names at face value: just look at DPRK. I hope you're not about to argue it's a democratic country... ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well surely the Kim Dynasty must have been elected... :P -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion:To compromise, and also to help your everyday readers to understand this complex issue, I suggest that one or two sentences to be added at the lead section, something like :"Though the official name is "Republic", since 1949, the Chinese people had never been given the power of the ballot paper to elect their favorite rulers, when the next coming Paramount leader had always been decided behind closed door, through some unknown and mysterious process." Arilang talk 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ed conflict) And you really think that "some unknown and mysterious process" is encyclopedic and verifiable? Refer to WP:FRINGE and related pages. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people always have to use their worldview bias to treat articles as a battleground between good and evil. Please have a read of WP:NOT

The article is about a state called the People's Republic of China.

Its just a official name of the country. Most Communist countries have People's Republic, Socialist Republic or the Democratic People's Republic in their names. Communism is already mentioned in the political sections of the article.

This is similar to the blatant attempts from some people with partisan ideological leanings to put mass murderer tags in Stalin, Maozedong, Chiang Kai-shek articles a few years ago just so it fits into their own background, bias, beliefs, creed...etc Fair enough but put it into context and not some diatribe about good and evil, again using wikipedia as a battleground Visik (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Republic has been used by Cuba and more recently Burma or Myanmar, Vietnam to describe their own form of government. They may not fit the western model of representative government. But thats the official name referred in government websites, international organizations...etc.

Visik (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Visik, I agree with you 100%, "They may not fit the western model of representative government." When readers click on Wikipedia, because they have doubts on their mind, and that is exactly our job to help them. Our job is to help readers to become less confused when they finish reading wikipedia articles. And if readers remain confused about why there are different models of "Republic", like in the case of PRC, which had not had a general election since 1949 when it was formed, we are not doing our job right, you agree ? Arilang talk 08:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republic =/= democracy. You should get that straight first - what you have described is not the definition of a republic. You don't need to have a full democracy to be a republic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We understand that "user:benlisquare", But you need some people to legitimately ""rep""resent (""rep""ublic) themselves, and before you start attacking me, I am well aware of the the National People's Congress, interesting name? wouldn't you say, sir. They are picked by their "Single-Party leaders" (communist party) and in no way represent the entirety of the Chinese people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by spencer1157 (talk • contribs)

何だろう，同志様。。。 "Republic" comes from the Latin phrase res publica, meaning "a public affair". What are you on about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

  • I agree with "Communist party-led republic" or even better and more official "Single party-led republic", which is more correct and is even cited on Brittannica. I proposed this name couple months ago, but unfortunately, it was thrown down. First, we need to understand that there are two basic dividings. Republic versus Monarchy (do they have monarch or not?), and Democracy versus Oligarchy (rule of many versus rule of few). These can be combined of course, and are very basic (for example, we have parliamentary republics, presidential republics, constitutional monarchies etc). So basically said, there can be basic combinations such as democratic republic (United States), democratic monarchy (United Kingdom - if we go further, it's constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy), but also "Oligarchic" Republic - which is for example China, because the power is in hands of the few, not in hands of people, but there is no monarch. So, it is single party-led republic = communist party-led republic. We have to be correct here on wikipedia - when you look at any other country system here, you will always find the same classification as I have described above - for example Germany is democratic in democracy vs oligarchy duel, and federal parliamentary republic in monarchy vs republic duel. Communist state and people's republic - that's simply nonsense. We don't call Germany or the United States a "capitalist state", do we? --Novis-M (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, the point of having "People's republic" and "Communist state" in the infobox is that we are giving both the POV of the PRC and the POV of the "West". You may disagree that the PRC is a people's republic (and so do I) but that's how it calls itself, so I think we should take that into consideration for NPOV sake. Laurent (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no question how the country calls itself, it doesn't matter. We are talking about government system, not the name!!! And the system is single party republic. --Novis-M (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a single-party republic is a reasonable name, well inside the Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV ==spencer1157 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "Single party republic" as the NO1 preference, and "Communist party-led republic" can be the NO2 preference. As user Novic-M mentioned, PRC can call itself whatever name, wikipedia editors are free to classify "PRC", and give it a correct description. Arilang talk 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • This LINK and image are very useful. --Novis-M (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucius, I'm wondering why we shouldn't imply that the party in power is communist? That's how it calls itself so I don't see why we shouldn't make it clear in the infobox. Personally, I don't mind if we remove "people's republic", because it's too vague a description, but we should definitely mention that the government is communist. I think communist party-led republic as initially suggested is good compromise, especially since it is properly sourced. Laurent (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through this in detail, but 'Single party republic' or 'People's republic' are both fine by me (I slightly prefer the former as its more accurate) - 'Communist party-led republic' is OK, but not as good as the first two IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I voice the same opinion that Mr. Laurent does. --HXL 何献龙 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
correction: we agree that there should be a change, but not on what the change should be. I may be incorrect, as I have not bothered to read the entire heavily protracted discussion. also, be sure to use the right number of indents on talk pages. --HXL 何献龙 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think is the correct change to the name, HXL? ==spencer1157 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
took a while to think of this. "Single party-led republic", because it avoids the problems of "communist party-led republic" or "socialist party-led republic" in that these two can raise objections from some that "MAINLAND CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST", even though those are the official guiding ideologies (and/or name) of the CCP. And "people's republic" is far less descriptive of a term, as Mr. Laurent rightfully complained above, even though, again, it is an official title. --HXL 何献龙 20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HXL49. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Single party-led republic", I agree completely HXL49, it's an excellent description. now we just need to get everyones opinion, and move forward. ==spencer1157 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, agree with single party-led republic. --Novis-M (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single party-led republic is best. I like the 'led' part, because just saying 'single-party' implies that there are no parties other than the CPC, but despite marginalization, there are some that legally exist. Quigley (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. I think we have a consensus here!--hkr Laozi speak 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Guo and Single party-led republic

Anyone like to compare Dang Guo and Chinese Soviet Republic, and PRC ? Arilang talk 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation of Peking University professor Pan Wei's lecture (北京大学国际关系学院国际政治系教授，潘维):" 比较司法和执法独立的分权制衡制度，“一切权力归人民代表大会”固然民主程度更高，却也成为“党之治”的基础。中共党员在人民代表大会中占绝大多数席位，共产党当然就拥有了包括立法、行政、司法在内的“一切权力”。再由于共产党员遵从“民主集中制”这一党内纪律，“一切权力”也就被集中到了党的最核心机构——中共中央政治局常务委员会。这个委员会目前由包括总书记、总理、人大委员长、政协主席在内的9位委员组成。因此，在制度上，一切权力归人民代表大会的制度导致中国由中国共产党直接治理。这个事实被写入《宪法》的《序言》部分。这就是让许多人感到中国并不“民主”，而是“党主”的原因。"


http://www.chinaelections.org/NewsInfo.asp?NewsID=111152


Dang Guo#Chinese Communist Party and People's Republic of China

Peking University professor Pan Wei (Chinese: 北京大学国际关系学院国际政治系教授，潘维) had stated that the political structure of People's Republic of China is supported by the Chinese Communist Party in six major ways:

  • （1）Communist Party and it's core decision making departments, such as Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,Politburo of the Communist Party of China, Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China, Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China, Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China,Organization Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee
  • （2）The all powerful National People's Congress has always been under the control of the CCP.
  • （3）All the PRC governmental departments are under the control of CCP.
  • （4) People's Liberation Army is under control of the CCP.
  • （5) Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is under control of the CCP.
  • （6）All the semi-governmental departments, such as trade unions, women's associations, communist youth groups, are all under control of the CCP.

Professor Pan Wei went on to state that the China's supreme control power is rest on Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China.[1] Arilang talk 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Largest Economy?

In the lede it states that China is the world's second largest economy by both nominal and PPP estimates, yet the list that is linked for nominal GDP has all 3 organizations ranking them 3rd. Is this just because the 2010 lists haven't come out yet? Starwrath (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. China passed Japan a few months ago, so official rankings, which are released anually, do not reflect this yet.--hkr Laozi speak 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Budget

This article states like so many others that china is under reporting its defence budget. My question is where is the evidence that China is under reporting its defence budget. Where is that extra money coming from and where is that money going to? It surtenly didn't go into there hardware because according to China's own omission and foreign military analysts 70% of China's weapons inventory is obsolete. How can China hide theze huge sums year after year? Wouldn't that destabillise there entire economy? I have been hearing alot about this claims for year's now and i haven't see scant evidence. The only thing we have are claims by the Pentagon and the US congress that is repeated by there media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Section

This section includes, "Some think-tanks such as the Asian European Council have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's abrupt decision to sell arms to Taipei...." I consider the use of the word "abrupt" to violate the neutrality standard. It is a biased and pro-Chinese/anti-US. Hyphenation of think-tank is incorrect. It should be think tank. Commas should be added also, as the current puntuation is wrong. For these reasons the above should read: "Some think tanks, such as the Asian European Council, have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's decision to sell arms to Taipei..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.122.241 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"China" redirect

Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is not part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education in China

Can someone add this to the education section:

In the 2009 test of the Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA), which is a worldwide evaluation of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance, Chinese students from Shanghai have achieved the best results in mathematics, science and reading.[1][2] The OECD also looked at some rural areas of China, and found they matched Shanghai’s quality[3] and that even in some of the very poor areas the performance is close to the OECD average.[4]

I think the above info would be better than the list of universities in China in that section. Thinklde (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?_r=1
  2. ^ http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_PISA1206_20101207.html
  3. ^ http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/12/07/why-are-chinese-schoolkids-so-good/
  4. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20770bf6-01e7-11e0-b66c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz17V0LJQJf

Wikileaks content on The Telegraph

The wikileaks content is all very relevant to the PRC article, editor please explain why it is being removed. Arilang talk 22:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support its inclusion on Wikipedia, but not here. relevance does not mean importance. enough said --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because some government business interests is not worth of a level 1 heading in this article. Somewhere else, sure, but not here. The Guardian (who have had a lot of Wikileaks access) doesn't even think its a big enough deal for it to appear in their China coverage at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Top Chinese leaders from Politburo of the Communist Party of China and Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China operate in "black box" style when outsiders are always kept in the dark; thanks to wikileaks, we are now able to have a peek at the real things. These are all important and explosive stuff for everyday readers, at last there is a choice between the official rose color tinted version and the "real" version. Arilang talk 23:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The USA article doesn't even mention Wikileaks at all and the whole scandal is about them. I don't think a l1 header could be due weight here for this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. with regards to history and politics, articles on nations, and especially their introductions, should limit content to the most important events in history as well as a basic outlining of the economic and political structure of the said nation. Sub-articles exist for a reason... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peeking inside the black box? Reality check: what most of the cables are, and what you have tried to put into this article, is mere speculation and opinion by U.S. embassy staff. Wikileaks did not leak China's documents. Quigley (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again. Inclusion in this article is unnecessary, and so far the arguments for inclusion have been borderline WP:SOAPBOX. Come on now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Li Keqiang, head of the Communist Party in northeastern Liaoning province at the time, was unusually candid in his assessment of local economic data at a dinner with then-U.S. Ambassador to China Clark Randt, according to a confidential memo sent after the meeting and published on the WikiLeaks website...“By looking at these three figures, Li said he can measure with relative accuracy the speed of economic growth. All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are 'for reference only,' he said smiling,” the cable added.

[2]
Now, Li Keqiang, who is expected to take up Wen Jiabao's job, his opinion at least worth something? Arilang talk 01:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are overly dramatising again. Tell me when politicians' private chats have ever been included in nation articles. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material is not warranted for inclusion, but ruling out the Wikileaks material altogether may be violating the principle of neutrality--Novus Orator 04:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the USA article doesn't include it at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.29.73.195, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the line discussing normalization of relations with Japan and soft loans, there is a grammatical error along the lines of "Japan have been #1..."

69.29.73.195 (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks much, and hope you catch more errors and report them. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Territory

Should there be corrections made on China's territorial size ? Since Tadjikistan gave up something like a 1000km² to China to settle a centuries old border dispute. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011200961.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this big news. In a few hours, I may well get to it. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is some additional information:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone...

I for one am quite reluctant to buy this, but that's just me. The claim by the person responsible seems too impressive to be true in my opinion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in infobox, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

The infobox says the country is a one party republic. This is wrong information. Some may call it a one party dictatorship. We can be nice and sugar coat it to "one party state". That I favor.

It is not like Chicago, which is a defacto one party democracy. So worse than Chicago. Donotkill (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&oldid=408838741"