Talk:China/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Moreover, China has been criticized for its human rights violations by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGO),

Should it be included in the lead? As I know, many countries were criticized, including U.S.--MathFacts (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not many are criticized on the scale of China. Whether or not the criticism is founded, the criticism of China is unique for a country with its economic power.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error

The statement "Other factors include ... that some areas unofficially allow a second child if the first is not a male but not otherwise." in the population analysis is false, or at least unclear in context. Allowing a second child if the first is not male will not impact the ratio of males to females in a population This is an unintuitive bit of basic probability. Observe:

- Assume that boys are born at a rate B%, and girls at a rate G% if only natural causes for selection of sex are taken into account. - B% of all first children will be male, and G% female, thus, if the one child policy were strictly enforced, the ratio of males to females will be B/G.

- Now, keeping the probabilities the same (i.e. that a particular given child will have B% chance of being born male, and G% of being born female), assume that any family whose first child is female may have one more child. - B% of all second children are male, and G% of all second children are female. - Assume there are F first children born. Then there are B*F boys, and G*F girls who are first children. - Assume every family who had a girl has a second child. Then there are G*F second children. B*G*F of them are boys, and G*G*F are girls. - There are thus B*F + B*G*F boys, and G*F + G*G*F girls in the population all told. - The total proportion of males to females in the population will be: (B*F + B*G*F)/(G*F + G*G*F)

- (B*F + B*G*F)/(G*F + G*G*F) = (F*(B + B*G))/(F*(G + G*G)) //factor out the F from both the numerator and denominator

                              = (F/F) * (B + B*G)/(G + G*G)               // Pull the F's out into a separate ratio
                              = (B + B*G) / (G + G*G)                     // F/F = 1, F's cancel out                  
                              = (B*(1 + G))/(G * (1 + G))                 // Factor out B from the numerator and G from the denominator
                              = B/G * ( (1 + G)/(1 + G) )                 // Pull the B and G out into a separate ratio
                              = B/G * 1                                   // (1 + G)/(1 + G) = 1
                              = B/G                                       

which is that same ratio found under a strict enforcement of the one child policy.

- Thus, allowing an additional child if the first child is female will not change the ratios of males to females in the population at all, independent of what rates males and females are born at.

I suggest either rephrasing the population section to note that the bending of the one child policy will _not_ change the population ratio, although it is commonly though to have an effect, or omitting mention of it entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.122.8 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm how about providing some factual numbers together with credible sources instead? Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understood the basics correctly

• On average circumstances the natural ratio is more or less 1 girl to 1 boy.
• China has a one child policy.
• Because of cultural values boys are considered more valuable (they are expected to take care of their parents eventually while girls will take care of their husbands' parents).
• Some provinces are closing their eyes to the one child policy provided the couple already had a girl (the provincial authorities allow a second child IF the first is a girl).
• This does not solve the imbalance, because almost all the girls get a little brother (while most first-born boys don't get any sister at all).
• 1: In easy numbers: 100 couples have a child: 50 will be girls and 50 will be boys (assuming that they don't cheat through selective abortions).
• 2: The 50 couples which got a girl go the eyes-closing provinces to have a second child.
• 3: In theory half of these 50 couples get a boy and half get yet another girl.
• 4: In theory the grand total would be 75 girls against 75 boys. However what truly happens is that the majority of the "50 couples which got a girl" are simply going to cheat (i.e.: are going to abort the girls because they really want boys).
• 5: The final result is 50 girls and 100 boys (just an example, nothing more).
• Even then it is somewhat better than the 100 couples killing most girls in step 1 (which would in theory lead to something like 30 girls to 70 boys - just an example, nothing more). At least this way the survival of the 50 first-born girls is more or less assured. Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we would need a good source to mention these calculations in the article. Most reliable sources agree that the one-child policy "worked" in the sense that it indeed reduced the number of children but at the cost of an aging population and a major gender imbalance. Laurent (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Original poster person here again. To clarify, I agree that the 1 child policy _did_ cause a gender imbalance to occur. The issue is that the article seems to imply it occurred as a result of a second child being allowed only if a girl was born first in some states, as though that would make any difference on its own. In fact, that makes no difference at all, as shown in detail in a mathematical proof above, or more concisely in the fact that the genders' of siblings are uncorrelated. A source for this should not be necessary, since it's sub-high school mathematics, and thus common knowledge.

That said, it's fairly well established that there _are_ more boys than girls in China. The reason isn't that people are sometimes allowed a second child if the first is female. The reason is that parents game the system, and may preferentially game it if they've already tried and failed to produce a boy once by obtaining gender identification and abortions. The article should reflect this, rather than suggesting (incorrectly or ambiguously ) that the cause of the difference is the bending of the rules itself, instead of the actions of parents preferentially aborting female fetuses, especially on their second try.76.11.122.8 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unclear statistic

I yanked this from the article:

According to a survey titled "Top 10 political figures in Mainland China and Taiwan" conducted in Hong Kong, approximately 1000 participants were given a list of 10 well-known political leaders in Mainland China and Taiwan. Mainland leaders (such as Zhu Rongji, Wen Jiabao and Hu Jintao) have received higher rating than leaders in Taiwan (such as Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeou and Lien Chan).

The article is about the PRC, not about Taiwan. Statistics that mix the two can be misleading particularly if it is not clear how the sample was collected. Was it proportional (50 Chinese for every 1 Taiwanese), split equally between the two countries (500 Chinese and 500 Taiwanese). The source provided doesn't say. As such it is entirely unclear what we are to make of the results of the survey. Readin (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are other questionable errors, it says under the economy section the yuan is de-pegged from the dollar, this did happen in 2005 but it was re pegged in late 2008 following the global financial crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.74.238 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Metadata?

Do we really need to say that the article is about the People's Republic of China? The People's Republic of China is a fairly large country - more than one out of five people on the planet live there. You'd think the rest of us could figure out that the article is about their country. Do people on the street talk about "the People's Republic of China" - no, they talk about China. Has anyone considered merging the China and People's Republic of China articles together? Seems obvious to do so. Synesthetic (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem being that there are Two Chinas. To honor NPOV under these circumstances, the solution devised was to have separate articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there just China and Taiwan, by their common names? 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Synesthetic (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Two Chinas page has Taiwan before China. Seems like most people would mean China, and not Taiwan, when they say China. If anything, China has many more people than Taiwan. It seems that would give it preference. Heck, it's not even alphabetical on the Two Chinas page. I'm not pro-China or anything, but it looks like there is some subtle stuff going on here on Wikipedia. Divide and conquer?  :-) Synesthetic (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommended reading: Talk:People's_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Merger_proposal and prior similar proposals in the talkpage archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The people opposing may have won back in September. Most of the people who voted were probably from America. I bet China would get the "China" article on the Chinese "Wikipedia", wherever that may be. Synesthetic (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be here, and in point of fact, no; said article parallels the current English setup and is not about the PRC. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cybercobra, that there is the Chinese-language Wikipedia, not the the Chinese "Wikipedia". Saying that site is the Chinese equivalent of "Wikipedia" is like saying Baidu and Google China are pretty much the same thing. Of course Google got kicked out of China. Baidu is still there for some reason. Strangely, I'm starting to see why China may want to filter some internet content. Synesthetic (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... the closest thing to a "Chinese Wikipedia" would be Baidu Baike: 中华人民共和国 - 百度百科 notice how the scenario you have predicted is not the case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Chinese but it appears that the first link on that site when searching for China is to the PRC - there's also one to the porcelain "China". I don't see one to Taiwan nearby - porcelain beats Taiwan for second place. As predicted, no?  :-)

[| China refers to PRC first here and porcelain second] Synesthetic (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that even Baidu Baike, a mainland China encyclopedia, separates PRC from ROC. It lists PRC as the country, and it lists ROC (naturally, due to POV, being a mainland website) as a historic state as well as a "disputed regime that is not internationally recognised"; additionally, there is no page regarding any "Taiwan" political state. PRC and ROC are both listed, as opposed to a China/Taiwan type system. Hence, your claim of PRC=China and ROC=Taiwan on a "Chinese Wikipedia" isn't really that supported in concrete, so to speak. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Your prior statement was vague, hence my misinterpretation. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. I still think China should get the China article. I guess we can agree to disagree. When will it be up for re-vote? I've got 1.3 billion people who might be interested.  :-) Synesthetic (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people here have missed the point. The PRC supports 2 Chinas because that implies that Taiwan will eventually be "reunited" with China. It is the Taiwanese nationalist position that there is one China plus an independent Taiwan. Why the PRC supports the 2 China position is clear. Why Wikipedia feels bound to endorse it (given that since 1895 Taiwan has been part of China for only about 3 years) is a mystery to me.Dejvid (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The PRC explicitly has the One-China Policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes. That was careless of me. You are right. However, PRC insists that Taiwan continues to claim to be the government of all China - hence that currently there exists de-facto two states that are China even if they are part of one "true" China. For Taiwan to renounce its claim to the mainland would be deemed a hostile act by the PRC as it would be in effect a Declaration of Independence. Respecting the PRC position leads to the current wiki split. While the PRC would probably be happy with a single China article so long as it treated Taiwan as a province of that China that would be so POV to be off the scale.Dejvid (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of 1961-1966 history

This section is to complain not only about the lack of 1961-1966 history on this article, but many other, including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, related articles as well (even at the Deng Xiaoping. at most Wikipedia says that the two embarked on reformist practices without elaborating further. --华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you happen to be knowledgeable about that period of history, you are highly encouraged to be bold and improve the sections/pages yourself. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article on Liu Shaoqi happens to have more information on his actions as president. I haven't read it in detail, but what I will translate what I do find useful and add it to at least the English Wikipedia's equivalent article. My complaint is not specifically to the lack of 1961-1966 (between end of Great Leap Forward and the beginning of the Cultural Revolution) history here, but on all of English Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will add one sentence to this article to explain this brief epoch. Anything more here, I believe, will be out of proportion to the rest of what is covered in that section. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There's a discussion on the Frigate article which users here might be interested in. 88.106.100.225 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

...because...? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

China redirect target

I searched China and it doesn't redirect here! This is wrong. People who search for China are going to be looking for the current Chinese state. Relistically speaking, few people are going to mean Republic of China if they search China. Even if someone does search for Republic of China, it is most likely they are going to be looking for the historical Chinese state from 1912 to 1949 not Taiwan. I don't think this is NPOV.174.91.49.165 (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

However consensus does not state that this is "wrong". Have a quick browse through the talk archives; this has been brought up many times, and has been rejected many times. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Relistically (sic) speaking, few people are going to mean Republic of China if they search China" - implying they won't. I for one know of many Chinese who know the difference between the two Chinas, and might want to search for one or the other. "most likely they are going to be looking for the historical Chinese state from 1912 to 1949 not Taiwan" - true in 99% of cases, however that is also implying that the Republic of China article is all about Taiwan and has nothing to do with the historical state. Have a good read through the article, especially the "History" section. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.252.254.1, 31 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Just letting you know that the article on the People's Republic of China has an error pertaining to its GDP. The article states numbers in trillions, where it should be billions of dollars. Used the same source to verify this as the article currently provides:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=71&pr.y=8

AKA

|GDP_nominal = $5,296 trillion |GDP_PPP = $9,711 trillion

SHOULD BE:

|GDP_nominal = $5,296 billion |GDP_PPP = $9,711 billion

128.252.254.1 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Someone fscked up the punctuation apparently. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Red China

China was for many years known to many people in the west as Red China, it is therefore legitimate to put this appelation in a list of names by which the country is known. If you do not like the name, that simple fact does not give you sufficient cause to remove the name from the article, as Wikipedia is about cataloguing information, not advcancing political interests. If it is removed, I will continue replacing it until such time that it no longer is subject to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 (talk • contribs)

"Red China" is not used anymore so I think it's giving it undue weight to put it in the first sentence of the lead (especially when we don't mention more common names such as "Communist China"). Note that the name "Red China" is mentioned in the History section though so no information has been lost. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that constant and repeated replacement of a reverted edit can be considered as a WP:POINT, and may warrant a block. There is no consensus among the larger group of editors to have "Red China" emplaced towards the front, as if it were an official name or neutrally used name. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you undue weight *shakes fist* GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think both of you have a point, China was called that name at one time, but it has fallen out of favor. To come to a compromise position, you might want to add "Red China" to a list of names that the PRC was historically known as in the West, but than make note that since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms, the PRC is now more commonly called "Mainland China" or simply "China".--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You will see that I have juxtaposed my idea in the current revision. Feel free to respond and or edit if you feel this is a misrepresentation.--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic names? There's already an article entirely dedicated to that: Names of China. Many many years ago, in Wikipedia infancy, it was decided that since China had too many names, associated terms and synonyms that listing them all in a China or PRC article was too messy, but excluding them would have been out of the question, something must be done. So they came up with the ingenious idea of giving the names and etymology their own article. As you can see, the term Red China has already been listed under Names of China#People's Republic of China as an informal name used by "many in the West during the Cold War". Since the Names of China article is linked from the PRC article in the infobox, there is no need to add additional information here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for my ignorance of there being a seperate article on names of China-that works even better--Gniniv (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that relevant anymore, so question its inclusion. Out of interest, was the term used outside the U.S.? How about in languages other than English? This seems like a very US-centric term.Ndriley97 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

China

I read on other pages on Wikpedia that "The PRC is the successor to the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China on the mainland." Is this NPOV? Republic of China claims itself to be the successor to the Qing and ruler of the Mainland but... caveat is that "successor" directly implies exercising sovereignty over the piece of land. So is this NPOV?Phead128 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not neutral because indeed the ROC still officially claims the mainland and, more importantly, it still exists. If we write that the PRC is the successor of the ROC, we are taking the PRC's POV that the ROC is not a legitimate government and doesn't officially exist. I think it's better to simply describe the facts (the Qing were overthrown, the ROC lost the war, the PRC took over the mainland, etc.) rather than including oversimplified descriptions. Laurent (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to better clarify: It's actually the ROC and PRC that are both successor to the Qing dynasty. More specifically, PRC then succeeded ROC on the mainland, though ROC still exists in the self-administrative state of Taiwan. Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, PRC has succeeded ROC on the mainland, but it gives undue weight to PRC's position, while relegating ROC's position to a lower status, which is not neutral. Phead128 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

However, is it not true that the PRC is the successor of Qing/ROC on the Mainland? ROC may have territorial claims, but indeed, PRC is administrating the mainland. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Change from china.org.cn to cntv.cn on the government website

Please change china.org.cn to cntv.cn as CNTV has videos and it also links to china.org.cn and other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B694kp8d (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

nominal GDP

According to Bloomberg, China's nominal GDP has surpassed that of Japan.

• 16 August 2010, China Overtakes Japan as World's Second-Biggest Economy, Bloomberg

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Blumberg says China did last quarter. However, it also says "Japan remained bigger in the first half of 2010". No one denies that China will surpass Japan in the full year 2010. It is a bit hasty to change the order. Please wait for the full year 2010 result comes out. I reverted the change to the article of Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is orientating its nominal GDP ranking on an annual basis issued by the IMF. The 2010 GDP figures for the PRC will be published in April 2011. Before that, China is regarded the 3rd largest economy, no matter what. If this article wants to behave in an unreliable premature state, fine, otherwise it should correct the facts as soon as possible.

Why are the gdp numbers in this article that of 2010 and not 2009? I have noted that alot of other articles also us 2010 numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Such as? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

South Korea, USA etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article

requires moar pictures of modern-day China with all its magnificent skyscrapers, plazas and airports and less of that human rights/free tibet/eastern beauty stereotypical Western bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

btw, USA is the prison country #1 in the world https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate, yet I don't see any human rights section in it's article, a major hypocrisy. Also, the order of sections is really fucked-up. So either fix it or lift editing restrictions.

Agree. Can you help me editing this article ? You can create a new account. In four days you will be able to edit this page. Causeplot767 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the current set of pictures to be overly POV, whereas your comments seem to indicate you would like to show only a positive image of China. Please keep NPOV in mind in any editing. This is not progaganda for or against China, it needs to be an accurate reflection, warts and all. Jbower47 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights section should be deleted

Human Rights is not a top important topic that should appear in a general description of a country. It doesn't appear in most of the countries. So it should be deleted here in PRC. Desmond2046 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Since human rights are an issue that has garnered substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources vis-a-vis the PRC, a summary of the human rights situation is appropriate.Ngchen (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It deserves a mention there. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your use of "vis-a-vis". In any case, reliable secondary sources have also substantially covered the state of human rights in the United Kingdom, India, and the United States. What's different is that Western countries claim to care more about China's human rights record, possibly due to the proliferation of special interest groups like the Taiwanese lobby, Tibetan exiles, Falun Gong, etc. (Cynics and critics have noted that this factors much less in diplomacy with China than the domestic politicking would have some believe). It could be mentioned briefly in the foreign relations section, but having a huge section on it like it did is surely a violation of NPOV. Quigley (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to write something about human rights, it is NPOV to just use the source from NED and other western organizations. One should make a objective survey which covers enough population. One should also cite the reports made by organizations inside China. I don't think such kind of research has been done. So it is obviously improper to make any comment on the current situation of the human rights in China. Desmond2046 (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be WP:BOLD enough to help find some sources from organizations within China? If you are able to find reliable sources regarding organizations from within China, you might be able to balance the point of view a bit. Then again, the sources do have to be verifiable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Benlisquare, you haven't addressed the issue of whether it's neutral to devote such a big and prominent section to the subject in the first place. It's as if someone decided to take something negative about India, such as the Caste system, which is similarly mentioned in discussions of India, and give disproportionate weight to it on the main article. Even if you write in a thousand rebuttals by the Chinese government, it's still emphasizing the topics opponents of the regime want.

We wouldn't put in serious explorations of topics such as "China's efforts to build a harmonious society", because the idea is inherently slanted towards one viewpoint. Similarly, we shouldn't just assert that human rights are an essential topic to China; we have to place them where they will make sense in context. I suggested foreign policy. Are there any other areas where it comes up? Quigley (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Human rights have garnered substantial coverage because communist China is potential superpower and second largest economy, how many people in the west know that 6 million children die of hunger every year[1], mostly in shining democracies of India(malnutrition is more common in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa, one in every three malnourished children in the world lives in India[2]) and Africa? By nobody cares about them in the west because the west don't see them as a threat.Poet kkkk (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Human right section is innapropriate. It is positioned in a calculated part of the article, close to the header, in order to garner the most attention. A separate article on human rights in china is enough and is already in existence, no need to double up on the same information, a single sentence followed by a link to that article would be sufficient, just like the india article links to the caste system, it doesn't try to advertise it propaganda style near the beginning of the article. English wikipedia is under attack from the usual anti-chinese propagandists, even as they commit atrocities against humanity in the middle east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.98.197 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Those who are arguing for removal fail to appreciate that, unlike other countries in the developed world, China is a single-party dictatorship where the government systematically violates its own constitution by being serial violator or human rights, and is notable for such abuses. There are no independent organisations reporting on or campaigning for human rights inside China. Any reports are usually either sanitised or heavily censored makes achieving the notional balance impossible. Their so doing means we have to rely on Chinese government rhetoric or propaganda and not reliable factual information. The approach ensures that systematic bias persists, and this is not of our doing. There is no question that the topic should be given due prominence. Not including such a section would be a serious breach of WP:NPOV, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a dictatorship. In fact it is far from being one. The organs of power are complex and not subject to a single individuals control. Including so much pro-falun gong garbage in chinas national article is just more western meddling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.98.197 (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Party is the dictator. How it functions internally to exercise that dictatorship is not all that relevant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A more appropriate comparison for China, rather than the developed world, is the developing world where human rights abuses (and single-party dictatorships) are common. Human rights sections from their respective articles certainly could be written for countries like India, but I am sure such a section would be removed there for undue weight concerns. The best way to fairness would be through having our country articles be consistent in what top-level subjects they cover.

As for there being "no question" that the topic should be given "due prominence", I am questioning it, so please explain why you think that a long and dedicated section is "due", because the concern that it is too much has been repeatedly raised by different people but too often dismissed without serious consideration. Quigley (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• User Quigley, you are saying "Wikipedia editors should give China, India, USA, Great Britain equal status" when writing up the "National article". Well, please remember that PRC is not your usual everyday "Nation", when none of the everyday "Western countries" have something as nasty as Great Chinese Firewall, and Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China Arilang ^talk 03:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that's not what I said. And plenty of nations—even those considered democracies—use political internet censorship and have publicity departments. The difference, perhaps, is that when India bans text messaging in Kashmir, the media uncritically repeats the Indian government assertion that it will help with "communal tensions" (harmonious society). The Chinese exceptionalism that you have expressed and that journalism so casually reflects should be identified, scrutinized, and neutralized. Quigley (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• It's interesting that you should cite examples of Brazil and India. I would say that while it may be interesting to draw that comparison, not all things are equal on WP. This budding superpower is flexing her muscles and is now playing in the field of the big league, and should be measured using the same yardstick. One may argue that human rights abuses in India or Brazil do not get so well publicised, but scarcely a day goes by where there isn't any mention or news report of abuse or some other travesty in China being committed in the name of Harmonious society which are hard to ignore – and this is just the stuff which is getting through the censors. Although WP is not the news, these make it a highly notable topic worthy of a section in the main country article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If the trends and stereotypes of the popular Western media established notability for top-level coverage, then this article would have more sections on some of the other memes that you guys have repeated here, such as China as a potential superpower. That subject is less emotional, so we can all recognize there that it is not covered separately from the politics section because in this article we are trying to be broad and have perspective. And this perspective transcends provincial Western perspectives wherein concepts such as "human rights" and press freedom trounce social harmony. We should also write independently, and feel no obligation to compensate for a supposedly monolithic Chinese censorship. Quigley (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Quigley, I would challenge you to find yet another normal everyday western nation who would jail a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and, because most of the Nobel Prize nomination committee are Norwegian, this PRC would try it's best to give Norway a hard time. Arilang ^talk 06:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hai guise, can we please stop beating the dead horse already? The original discussion was two months ago, and we're going off track here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Stop replying and let the discussion get auto-archived. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will create a new discussion section if formality requires it, but I don't think that it does. This discussion is not beating the dead horse: the horse has been avoided for the longest time, and only now is it being brought out into the open. In any case, if brought to a natural conclusion, this discussion will be a helpful reference if someone brings this topic up again in the future. Quigley (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

March of the Volunteers or Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ

I would like to suggest, I think it is better to replace the national anthem which titled in English to native language in alphabetic pinyin version (Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ) rather than March of the Volunteers, do you agree? Calvin Lourdes He ^discussion 13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. This is the English wiki and it's unwise to use the native name (Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ) as most English speakers are unable to understand its meaning. That's the whole point of translating foreign languages: you don't understand what the other side is talking/writing about, therefore you translate it into your language. Honestly: you can forget your proposal. Flamarande (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then how about German Das Lied der Deutschen, Israeli Hatikvah, Indian Jana Gana Mana or Singaporean Majulah Singapura? Are they confusing english wikipedians also for they are titled in native languages, are they totally different to Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ? Cheers! Calvin Lourdes He ^discussion 14:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing diffrent anthems with each other (diffrent anthems, diffrent rules - it may not be "fair" - whatever that means - but that's the way of the world). I honestly haven't ever heard of a The Song of the Germans, but knew of the Das Lied der Deutschen and of the Hatikvah. I also knew of the March of the Volunteers - the national anthem of China. I believe that you may be judging it backwards; China and its anthem are so important and so interresting that the title was translated into English for a better and easier understanding, unlike other national anthems. In the end, to justify a change you need to provide evidence that the title "Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ" is used more often than 'March of the Volunteers' by the English-speaking media (books, encyclopedias, TV, documentaries, etc). Flamarande (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Suppose we list both titles with "March of the Volunteers" at the top since it's the most common English term? Ngchen (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Notice that the article already lists 'March of the Volunteers' and '《义勇军进行曲》' and to add yet another version may be too much (or not). In the end it's your decision, provided that "March of the Volunteers" stays (the English title/translation has to stay). Flamarande (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME is the most important point here. In the English-speaking world, "March of the Volunteers" is the most common usage of the Chinese anthem, whilst Kimi ga yo is the most common name for the Japanese anthem. It appears that it's just how things have unfolded over time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is very interesting indeed. What is the indicator of most common usage of an non-English languaged anthem? Does Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ is helping much more for non-Chinese wikipedians to recognize the native title of the song without reading another article (March of the Volunteers) first? Or at least, why the pinyin of March of the Volunteers is vanished for not many people could read Chinese characters? Is it better to put the pinyin on the table? Cheers! Calvin Lourdes He ^discussion 12:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Trotsky

Was Trotsky a hate-figure in the PRC? Are there examples of purged cadres being painted Trotskyists? BillMasen (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

China Template showing up as Filipino one

Hi, I noticed browsing this page, that the template of "cities in China" seems to have been replaced in name by the one for the Phillipines, and this seems to not be a mistake, due to what I can see in the edits. Is there any way this can be changed? Zobango (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone edited the template directly, and doing the same on the analogous Philippines template, although it was caught sooner there. I have reverted the edits. Quigley (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kirkenes10, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} China maintains diplomatic relations with most major countries in the world. Norway was the first western country to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic on 7 May 1950 Kirkenes10 (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Where is this supposed to go? Also reliable sources are required for information added to an article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hirahiralal, 25 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hirahiralal (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The Peak of Mount Everest does not lie in China as mentioned in the sixth line of the second paragraph of "Geography and Climate" section. It lies in Nepal instead.

 Done by User:Ohconfucius --Cybercobra (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello ! Can you provide a source for this ? The peak of Everest is not in Nepal, so this is wrong. Dtehapm (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dtehapm, 27 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The peak of Everest is NOT in Nepal, this is totally wrong ! The previous user has not provided any source for this. Thanks. Dtehapm (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

After cursory googling, I'm unable to find anything verifying the peak/summit's location with regard to country borders. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would expect the border to go through the top of the mountain, but this may not be the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do now is to delete the modification asked by Hirahiralal and made by Ohconfucius until we find a credible source. Dtehapm (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tank Man image

The Tank Man image needs to be under the human rights section. Tank Man is one of the most iconic images of the 20th century, and serves as the best known symbol of the human rights plight in China. I've replaced it with the previous image, but hopefully this move is non-controversial. I understand China is a heated topic, especially concerning human rights.--hkr Laozi speak 18:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an iconic image, but are you sure that it is a symbol of "the human rights plight in China"? The Tienanmen Square protests are generally construed to be as "pro-democracy" protests. Respect for human rights and representative government are not the same thing, as a Hong Kong resident might know. Quigley (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square Protests, in which the protesters were beaten, 300 people were killed, and the incident completely censored out of existance, making it a human rights issue. The Nobel Committee thinks so as well, when Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China", the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited his participation in the Tiananmen protests in 1989 as an example (ref:"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2010"). The Tiananmen protests may have initially been about promoting representative government, but after the violent clampdown, it became a symbol of human rights in China, even if it initially may not have been. The same could be said about Tibet or Falun Gong or Xinjiang, the seperatist movements were not initially focused on human rights, but after violent clampdowns, they became so. Last year, thousands gathered here in Hong Kong for a Tiananmen virgil, some of them may not support a representative government, but none are for the human rights abuses that followed, which I believe to be true all around the world, even here in Hong Kong. ;) --hkr Laozi speak 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that Tank Man is an iconic image of human rights? His own article does not mention it. Quigley (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I've heard that Wikipedia's not a reliable source. There are plenty of references though, Amnesty Internation certainly considers him a symbol. While I disagree that Tank Man isn't a symbol for human rights, I can see where you concern comes from. I've replaced his image with that of Liu Xiaobo's, who's also a symbol of the human rights movement.--hkr Laozi speak 19:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe copyright issues are a primary reason the image isn't currently used. Read the exact text of the license tag on the image. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hongkongresident, the tank man image is better than the previous one. Thatdumisdum (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to concur with Cybercobra, he makes a very good point; if there's a free image available, it's always better to opt for that. I've replaced the Tank Man picture with a public domain picture of Liu Xiaobo.--hkr Laozi speak 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The image of Liu Xiabo is too big. It should be reduced (150px). Thatdumisdum (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the size.--hkr Laozi speak 19:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Thatdumisdum, 30 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Can someone add this to the "Science and Technology" section :

Tianhe-I, developed in Tianjin, becomes in October 2010 the world's fastest supercomputer.

It's a very important technological step for China (see Wikipedia main page) Thatdumisdum (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the section. I agree, it's a very significant event.--hkr Laozi speak 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! Thatdumisdum (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

For the love of god stop over-hyping China's gdp. Why is it that every other country is still on 2009 IMF gdp data, yet China magically is almost on 2011 data. How did China go from 5 trillion to 5.7 trillion overnight? Stop being children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

>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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

      • 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)
        • 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)
• "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)

• 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)

Well surely the Kim Dynasty must have been elected... :P -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Dear, Dear Leader. He must've thought they were referring to Himself when talking about North Korean won ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

_{(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)

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)

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.

• Socialist Republic of Vietnam
• Republic of Cuba

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

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)

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)

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)

Proposal

• As I, and at least one other editor take issue with the current description of China as "people's republic", I would like to suggest an alternative (which was vetoed by Cybercobra, presumably pending further discussion): It should be classified as "Communist party-led republic". This has been reliably cited to this state department article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• Although a "Socialist single-party republic" would be more accurate, I really don/t want to stir up all of the biased users in this discussion.spencer1157 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC) ==

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)

• If I won't find any reasonable counter-arguments to my and Ohconfucius' proposal, I will change government type to "Single party Republic". --Novis-M (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No disagreements here, go ahead. But remember to add in the Britannica citation that you brought up (which labels China as a "single-party people’s republic"). I don't care for it, but you might need to add the "people's" part in so that it matches the reference. --hkr Laozi speak 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Novis-M (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also find that acceptable. It's factual, and does not imply that the party in power is "communist" – which might be objectionable to some – is a benefit. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• This LINK and image are very useful. --Novis-M (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)

• • • I partly agree with you, and I think communist party-led republic is still better than what we have now. --Novis-M (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

I voice the same opinion that Mr. Laurent does. --HXL 何献龙 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, so we agree it should be changed, but who is going to do it, do we have the authority to edit the PRC gov't type? HXL49, Novis-M, Laurent, do you all know? ==spencer1157 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

What do you think is the correct change to the name, HXL? ==spencer1157 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Support per HXL49. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"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)

As I wrote above, agree with single party-led republic. --Novis-M (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

No objections from me. I think we have a consensus here!--hkr Laozi speak 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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. The OECD also looked at some rural areas of China, and found they matched Shanghai’s quality and that even in some of the very poor areas the performance is close to the OECD average.

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

[3]

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)

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)

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)

Not when the USA article doesn't include it at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Official numbers are out: Japan's economy shrank 2% while China's is growing at 9.8%... Remember, you only need to achieve 7% growth in order to +100% your economy in 1 decade...China, by any measure, is growing 4 times faster than the British Empire at her height... The fact she hasn't dissolved under the stress of intense reforms on all fronts is a testatment to the strenght fo the Chinese civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

The use of 'abrupt' is not only biased but factually inaccurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act. America has supported Taiwan's military since 1979, and is indeed obliged by its own laws to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.123.106 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone...

• Jan 14, 2011, China Overtakes U.S. as Biggest Economy When Measured by Purchasing Power, Bloomberg

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)

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)

I agree, we had a ludicrously long discussion about this before (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box ), and the compromise "consensus" was to place the following in the infobox:

• People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place)
• Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede)

No one loved this compromise, but people rarely do.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope - the country is republic in its structure, and the type of the republic is single party one. This is very neutral, and very factual statement. --Novis-M (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also important to keep the same system and categorization - all the countries' infoboxes here on wikipedia list countries as republics or monarchies, plus the type - single party, parliamentary, constitutional, etc. So if we called China something else than single party republic, anyone could say United States is "capitalist union" (instead of factual "Federal presidential constitutional republic") or something like that - which is nonsense. --Novis-M (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Novis, being the primary opponent to the changes I referenced above, do you recall those discussions? What changed from then to now to allow for the infobox to read as it now does?LedRush (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a strong proponent of what the infobox currently says. And the discussion that led to "single-party led republic" are featured very prominently at the top, under the section "GOV type". I was a participant in that discussion, too. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops...guess I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out to me.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is political correctness gone wild. North Korea is also called a republic. If so, almost every country is a republic!

Yes, 99% of all countries are either republics or monarchies. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If we don't want to offend countries, just leave this subject off the infobox. It is better than lying. My vote cannot overcome 1B potential WP editors so you win, I retreat. Donotkill (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, one billion editors haven't weighed in on this. While I am surprised that past consensus to include both the official form of gov't and the actual one was so quickly overturned, it should not surprise you that it can be overturned again.LedRush (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Before it was a "People's republic" which also contained republic, if you want to call it a "Communist dictatorship" or something that isn't actually true, as the leadership changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, leadership does change in dictatorships, so not sure what your point there was. However, the old compromise, before the one at the top of the page, was:

• People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place)
• Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede)

Whis was supposed to reflect the self-image of the leadership as well as the accepted reality.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At least if we say "People's Republic", many readers will understand that anything described as "People's" is usually a euphemism.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is no "people's republic" form of government. People's/Socialist republic or Communist state - this is all nonsense. The latest consensus was "Single party-led republic. And I'm glad we finally worked all the way to correctness. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that consensus was reached in a very small window, and consensus can change. The current description is definitely not ideal.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one seem to distinctly remember 2 sources being cited in whatever the prior version was, whereas the current version only cites 1. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the form of government in the infobox is different from the source. On Britannica, it's a "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house" and on Wikipedia it's a "single party led republic", that's not totally different but not the same either. A republic is different from a people's republic. Laurent (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I recall the article previously cited the US State Dept or CIA World Factbook, one of which specifically used the "single party-led" phraseology. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change as the consensus isn't clear, and the new text is messy, I've added the state department as a source as "single party led republic" and "communist party led state" are very similar when you are talking about China. While the CIA world factbook does call it a communist state, we shouldn't just be taking what the US government thinks the government type in China is, as that is essentially just US government propaganda - and not necessarily what more neutral observers consider to be correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, now the infobox has two citations, neither of which supports the information in the infobox.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Communist state is a widely used term for China. We can debate it's accuracy, but we can't debate that it is widely used in RSs. The language I added was the result of a long discussion and represented an uneasy compromise. The current language was introduced after barely any time at all and was pioneered by the one person who forced a very wide group of people to move off of their collective position. Now we have language that is uncited and the result of a quick switcharoo by someone discontented with the long and reasonable discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box. LedRush (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That it doesn't match completely is true, I've added the Rough Guide as a further (hopefully neutral) source and I've also been WP:BOLD and changed it from single party-led republic to single party-led state, which fits all three sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that language is better. And it has the benefit of being verifiable.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

communist state has to be best description. more accurate such as "single party state" or equvalent would be "too biased" so communist state has to be best. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

oh come on. communism is an economic theory/system and you would have to be really revisionist to think that mainland China is communist. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Protip: Don't assume that laypeople, errr I mean, the majority of Wikipedia readers know the differences between economic systems and political systems, and the precise details on anything that isn't covered in the 6 o'clock news. I guess it can't be helped, unfortunately. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No longer encouraged to return to China

I think this quote from last sentence of "Demographics" should be deleted: "The government, which imposes tight controls on immigration, no longer encourages ethnic Chinese to "return" to China.[185]"

I have read the source, and it specifically refers to the Chinese ethnic group in Indonesia, and it doesn't talk about Chinese from anywhere else. Thus, we can't use this to generalize all overseas Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.116 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed...Fixed. If someone objects, revert and come discuss here. --LLTimes (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

6 trillion $ economy

The gdp data coming out on 20 january 2011 with a growth rate of 10.3% puts the Chinese economy at about 39.8 trillion cny with an exchange rate to usd of 1 usd is 6.59 cny this puts the Chinese economy at 6 trillion $.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=71184815 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=18324&page=1

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=3070524

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/china-ends-2010-with-gdp-of-us598.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Government PR

While accompanying a rapid economic rise, the PRC since the 1990s seeks to maintain a policy of quiet diplomacy with its neighbors. Comes across as Government PR.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Population Density

Firstly, apologies for what is really only a minor change proposal. However, given that this is quite a major page within Wikipedia, I thought it best not to proceed without consultation.
Given the stated area of PRC (9 641 000 sq.km) and the stated population (1.342 bn), the density would seem to have been correctly calculated as 139/sq.km.
This has been ranked as 53rd densest, globally. This is incorrect, and I have referred to the List_of_countries_by_population_density page which clearly shows the UK as 53rd and China as 79th.
a) Shall I proceed to change this?
b) Is there no mechanism for automatically linking the ranking, and perhaps even the contributing popn and dens figures, to the appropriate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-b-g (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

inacuracy in economy section

the following paragraph should be corrected

... data across more than 200 countries in mid-2010 stated China is expected to overtake Japan as the second wealthiest country in the world by 2015 ($35 trillion) on the back of rapid economic growth and strong domestic consumption. Ten years ago, China was the seventh largest country in global wealth and China currently holds $ 16.5trillion, 35 percent ahead of the wealthiest European country, France.[131]...

1- France is not the largest economy in Europe, it's Germany 2- China is already the second largest economy, so there is not prediction about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.1.189 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 157.150.192.237, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add to Studies

• http://www.china-food-security.org/index_m.htm Can China Feed Itself? A System for Evaluation of Policy Options.

157.150.192.237 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you wish to change? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturer No. 1

China unseated the US as the world's top manufacturer. The first time in perhabs 110 year's that the US is no longer the world's biggest manufacturer.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42065544 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

the problem is they could easily be lieing. know one knows for sure but the most powerful nations in the world has inteligence saying there under reporting. the means teres claims there under reporting. dosnt say for sure if they are or arnt. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The same agency that lead the US to war in iraq??? How about nobody just mentions that china has a huge portion of low wage workers that can easily build equipment for lower wages. Or that a rising GDP can cause the percentage of spending to be unchanged(the yuan is worth six dollars). OR that countries not just the US , puts china as the next ussr threat to allow more military spending??? 162.83.157.113 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unverified and speculative statement

I just joined, so maybe I ought to have adressed this issue some other way.

The page says: For more than 6,000 years, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies (also known as dynasties). The first of these dynasties was the Xia (approx. 2000 BC) but it was the later Qin Dynasty that first unified China in 221 BC.

This means that the 6000 years mentioned are contradicted by the following sentence, reek of propaganda to me and it requires cleanup. Don´t know how, haven´t made enough contributions yet so can´t do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woutervandijk89 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Difference between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"?

Can we put "single party state" as the form of government? Or is there a difference I'm missing between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"? Laurent (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A possible interpretation of "single party state" could mean that there is only one legal party in the mainland, when in fact, minor parties exist. Hence the "party-led" --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are parties approved by the CPC and they have no power at all. If that's the only difference, then there's no difference. Laurent (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The contentious issue of terminology was discussed extensively at some point in the last year or two. Check the archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Limited Power Projection

Autochtony writes. Please allow a novice to comment. "China is the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities" - this may no longer be true after the recent cuts in the U.K. Defence Budget. Whether those cuts were handled supremely well is not a thread we need be involved with. A possible, and tentatively suggested, revision to the text of the article is "China has been the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities, but now has better power projection capabilities than the U.K. - and possibly France." AUTOCHTHONY WROTE: 2135z 16 April 2011. 81.132.188.36 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, sir, where is your source? Once we find at least 1 (or 2) additional source, we can revise that sentence. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Government leader

I reverted an edit by ASDFGH changing Hu Jintao's title in the infobox from "CPC Leader, President" to simply "President" with the explanation: CPC General Secretary or CPC leader has nothing related to the state positions (state ≠ party). I think that the party title is more important and should stay. I think of the relationship between the party and the government in China as comparable to the relationship between the monarch and his government in a monarchy: the monarch is not part of the government, but the monarch is the leader of the government. In China, it's pretty vague what the highest title is because, historically, the de facto role of paramount leader doesn't necessarily require any particular formal title. However, there's a lot of precedent for treating Communist Party chief as the highest title, and it's certainly one of the titles of the current paramount leader, so I think we should work with the assumption that that is the most important title.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the party title isn't that important relating to the government of PRC also noted all the paramount leaders does hold a official role but its often over look it call the "Chairman of the Central Military Commission." i.e. Deng Xiaoping did not hold the party leader position during his term as the paramount leader of china but does hold military power as the "Chairman of the Central Military Commission". Also you mention the monarch which alway the "Head of State" of that particular nation. The party leader isn't the Head of State in China if you read the PRC Presidency it clear states the President is indeed the only Head of State of the PRC not the party leader a.k.a "CPC General Secretary." — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly to say that "the party title isn't that important relating to the government of PRC"? That seems to be the crux of the matter. It seems quite clear that the opposite is true. At any level of government in China, the party chief is very important to the government.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted ASDFGH's statement differently; that the party title General Secretary is not that important; that constitutionally, the leader of the CPC is given no role, so he or she should not be placed before or equivocated with the President in the infobox. If Presidents are often party chiefs, then that fact can be mentioned in the President of the PRC article. Quigley (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's in dispute that the Chinese Communist Party rules China. It ranks above the government. That being the case, why would Hu Jintao's government title be considered more important than his party title?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Han Chinese proportion in China's population drops

The proportion of Han Chinese in China's total population had dropped to 91.51 percent by Nov. 1, 2010, according to the six national census data released on Thursday.[4]. Shift12 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

a lot of new data for the demographics section

see here:[5], someone should update the demographics section. Shift12 (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A total of 593,832 foreigners were living on the Chinese mainland at the end of 2010, the top three home countries of the foreigners were the Republic of Korea (ROK), the United States and Japan.[6] Shift12 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More data here:[7]. Shift12 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More data: [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulietLing (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For those who are interested, there's a page on the 2010 Sixth National Population Census of the People's Republic of China that relates to this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

a criticism section of People's Republic of China is needed in my opinion, since various violations against human rights occurs in (PRC) among the most famous (forgive me for writing famous) are the abduction of the native artist Ai Weiwei which occured recentley, the banning of youtube and other incidents such as the Tiananmen Square massacre that occured in 1989, and the Tibet issue these are all well documented offenses made by the PRC and they are not mentioned anywhere in this article.--85.228.166.25 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are never written for anything that is not a philosophy, work of the arts, an event, a building, or a person. You get the idea –HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry i should have rephrased it the human rights section--85.228.166.25 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well we already have that. End of discussion. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally Internet censorship and the Tiananmen square massacre are both covered, with the latter getting an entire paragraph. Mentioning Ai Weiwei specifically would be WP:RECENTIST. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, "abduction" makes no sense; what do you mean by that? Was George W. Bush "abducted" by the Texas State Police when he was 18 for drink-driving? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the West is so indoctrinated with anti-China rhetoric, that they are considering a 'criticism section' like it's nothing. I've never seen a criticism section for a country ever on Wikipedia. Is there a criticism of the United States section? I'd be it will take up a lot of pages, and be very POV.Phead128 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking it should be renamed "human rights controversies". Monterey Bay (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"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)

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)

That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense since Republic of China (Taiwan) claims all of mainland China (PRC + Outer Mongolia) as ROC national territory.Phead128 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Yes, China is the PRC, and China is not ROC, for all intents and purposes. However, the main 'China' article talks about China as a continuous civilization, a nation-state, or a cultural unit or identity... so I like the way it is now. It is fine.Phead128 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Political reasons within wikipedia. The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. This answer is for the original poster. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, this is a NON-ISSUE, and will remain one so long as Taiwan is ruled by a government different from mainland China. Read Chinese naming conventions. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

wikipedians are not a crystal ball and will remain like that as long as wikipedians are not a crystal ball policy is not overthrown by a new consensus. Read wikipedians ain't a crystal ball 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I DON'T need IPs to tell me about policy and to talk down to me like that. So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable. Besides, China has existed in some form for far longer than the PRC. Similarly, the Republic of China had significant history on mainland China before it hopped over to Taiwan. This is another reason why we don't even consider these merges and that this is a NON-ISSUE FOR THE LAST TIME --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To redirect China to here would be recentist, there is a huge amount of Chinese history before the PRC came along. However I think a section on China about the PRC with this being the main article on that topic would be a step forward, rather than not covering it there at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

HXL, calm down, and don't take the troll's bait. He's either pretending he knows a bit about policy, or he's much smarter than that, and intentionally trying to make you lose your top. Sage and ignor-- whoops, wrong website. As for the whole "China" naming hubbub, I support the status quo at WP:NC-ZH because the status of "China" is disputed and not in concrete. Also 190.51.168.236, it's obvious that Wikipedians aren't crystal balls, you don't have to tell me that since I'm quite sure I'm made of proteins and lipids, and not crystal. I'm sure the page you're referring to notes that "Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball". Even so, the "China" naming used on WP has nothing to do with that at all. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced there is any real dispute that China refers to anything other than the PRC these days. If you wanted to refer to Taiwan you'd either use Taiwan or ROC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But ROC isn't Taiwan. ROC was one of the main allied beligerents during WW2, at a time when Taiwan was a prefecture of Japan. Even today, ROC isn't Taiwan; ROC is comprised of the Tai-Peng-Kin-Ma region that makes up the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, in addition to Dongsha Islands and Taiping Island. Geographically, the other 5 locations have nothing to do with the geographical island of Taiwan. Penghu is located quite far away off the western coast of Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu are located in Fukien (Fujian) Province, and Taiping Island is located in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, which is claimed by the PRC as part of Hainan Province. Dongsha Islands are located a few hundred miles south of Hong Kong, and is claimed by the PRC as part of Guangdong Province. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from a few small islands Taiwan is all the ROC has controlled since 1949. No-one claims Britain still has an empire just because they also control some small groups of islands in various parts of the world.

And more fundamentally if one was talking about China in a modern context it'd be pretty obvious one was talking about the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"People's Republic of China" is propaganda. In no way is China what anyone in their right mind consider a republic. In common english use, China and Taiwan are separate entities. The headline of the article needs to be changed to simply China, with the first sentence stating China's official name, similar to what was done with North Korea and South Korea. Furthermore, Taiwan and China "re-uniting" has not happened yet, and does not even appear to be on the horizon. Wikipedianamepolicysucks (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And then where should the extensive history of China before the People's Republic of China go? They've been a civilisation for 5000 years, and a single entity of some kind for a large part of the last 2000 years, so there needs to be an article on that.

Additionally there is quite clearly enough content on post-1949 China to have a separate article about it, and that's what this is. And regardless of your political views on modern China, given you can't call this article "China" there is no better title for the post-1949 Chinese entity than People's Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is a republic, just not in the sense of a "vote-every-4-years-democracy". There is a president, judiciary and a legislature. Well, I'm sure it certainly isn't a monarchy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead contradiction?

Am I the only one confused by this part of the lede: "For more than 6,000 years, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies (also known as dynasties). The first of these dynasties was the Xia (approx. 2000 BC)" If the first dynasty began about 4,000 years ago then wouldn't that make the dynastic era 4,000 years old? (Not 6,000). Do we mean to say that the first agreed-upon dynasty is 4,000 years old, or what? For a non-expert this is unclear. Wragge (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as only people inside China consider the "culture" to be 5000 years old, and most outside stick to a 4000 number, I agree with Wragge.LedRush (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I can't seem to find any reference to this in the article itself. In order to make the lede, it should be an essential part of the article body. Perhaps this sentence should be deleted.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Population (2010 Census)

The number listed in the infobox is only for Mainland China. And since PRC de facto includes Hong Kong and Macau. I think there should be a note saying that the population number is only for Mainland.--67.84.226.232 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a nice article but the Demographics numbers don't make sense. For example it sounds like between July 2010 and the end of 2010 the percentage of young people plunged from 21% to 16.6% -- someone might want to look into that :) Brmull (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Search archives

Maybe it is just my computer, but the "Search archives", three items down from the top of this page, is thoroughly broken (on my computer). --Epipelagic (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Demographics & accuracy

"As of July 2010, there are 1,338,612,968 people in the PRC. About 21% (male 145,461,833; female 128,445,739) are 14 years old or younger, 71% (male 482,439,115; female 455,960,489) are between 15 and 64 years old, and 8% (male 48,562,635; female 53,103,902) are over 65 years old. The population growth rate for 2006 was 0.6%.[189]

By end of 2010, the proportion of mainland Chinese people aged 14 or younger was 16.60%, while the number aged 60 or older grew to 13.26%, and totally both 29.86%. This means about 70% of the population is of workable age.[190]"

There are 3 issues with the above two paragraphs and consequently they collectively lose their value as reconciliation between them, and therefore clarity and understanding, is almost impossible. The 3 areas which cause this difficulty are:

1) Less subjective comment required: 'workable age' (the sentance implies this is 60 or below) 2) Compare like for like regarding population age groups: 'are over 65 years old' vs. 'while the number aged 60 or older' 3) Compare like for like regarding regions: 'mainland Chinese people aged 14 or younger' vs. 'people in the PRC'

These leads to huge imbalances between the 2 paragraphs:

a) 21% (PRC: paragraph 1) and 16.6% (mainland China: paragraph 2) as being 14 or younger b) Those aged over 65 representing 8% (PRC: paragraph 1) and the 13.26% of the population as over 60 (mainland China).

As a result neither paragraph and be understood properly.--86.143.94.222 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)