Talk:China/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

Splitting the article Politics of the Republic of China is proposed at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China#RfC, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Poor word choice

Change the word "its" to "the" before the words "...capital is Beijing". The word "its" is illogical and does not follow how the word "state" is being used earlier in the sentence "The state is governed by the Communist Party of China and its capital is Beijing." We're not talking about the "state" as a country or territory (e.g. the "state of China"). That sentence, previously in quotes as it is presently in the article, should instead read as "The state is governed by the Communist Party of China and the capital is Beijing." One-state solution (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don’t see what the problem is. "State" is just another word for country, and clearly refers to China. You could write "The capital of China is Beijing", and "its capital is Beijing" means the same thing, given that "China" is the subject of the article, was mentioned in the first sentence, and does not need to be repeated every sentence. I.e. it is just good writing to avoid unnecessary repetition, perfectly clear and unambiguous.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The use of the word "its" after the form in which "state" is used makes China as described in that sentence sound like less of a wholly-constituted nation-state and more of a member of a federation, as the word "state" is more often used in the West to refer to members of a larger federation that is in fact a nation-state itself (e.g. the states of Australia, Germany, and the US). This is the English Wikipedia, and most of the English used here is American and British, and therefore "Western" English. One-state solution (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I doubt many people will be confused by the word "state". It is widely used to describe countries, and is a better, more well defined term than "country", which can refer to things other than states, such as Scotland, or even the SW of England. Most importantly if anyone is unsure which state we refer to it is qualified and linked to sovereign state in the first sentence. No chance anyone will confuse it with one of the 50 US States.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne—FYI, User:one-state solution is a blocked sock of []User:Motivação]], the 25th sock of User:Motivação blocked so far in 2017. — Neonorange (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede

@FourLights:: The lede doesn't go into detail about the economic history of China. Most articles about countries don't. If you want to add information about it in the economy section, it should be presented as 3 phases: pre-1820, 1820-1978, and post-1978.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can accept that, though I would have considered the country notable for it's economic history even more than for anything else in the lead. But does the geographical paragraph belong in the lead? Such a paragraph is not present in the leads of Russia or US.FourLights (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in working on the geography but I don't know that any of it belongs in the lead.FourLights (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Geography can be removed. The difficult thing about economic history is that concepts like GDP are fairly modern. The best thing we can do is guess how big a country's economy is during the ancient era and the middle ages. It's not exactly clear when did Europe surpass China in "economic advancement" (how do you define/measure that?). Could be anywhere from 1200 to 1800. This is why I'm not comfortable with making such historic economic comparisons in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories

China is not listed in a few categories that have most other countries in them, such as Category:Member states of the United Nations and Category:Countries in Asia. The only category it is in is Category:China.

Any reason why this is the case? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. You add can them if you want. I don't see an issue with that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Another RM at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China

The move request is made at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China#Requested move 24 May 2017, which is ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

democracy

timeline and planning.

Amanbir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.170.147 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Protrctions

Why is a protected page? Why not make a edits to a China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.115.205 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You can always request a user to make edits for you. I hope that this helps. 😉 --Codename Alex (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External link to twitch.tv

There seems to be a link to twitch.tv/lrhlive on the whole article:

HTML affected: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" rel="nofollow"><img alt="Arimaa-border.png" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Arimaa-border.png" width="7000" height="7000" data-file-width="18" data-file-height="18"></a>

Not sure on how this made it's way here, it's not a browser issue, tested it on Firefox and Chrome. Also not an OS issue, tested it with Linux (Ubuntu) and Windows (8).

--Unrealzocker (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing. Definitely needs looking into. 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
That was a very strange error. It seems to be fine now. Whiff of greatness (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
What was the error? I haven't seen "twitch.tv" in the source. How did it get there? --Unrealzocker (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strangely compromised page. It was problem with a template, not this page. If it were still a problem, now the template is fixed, purging the page would remove it here but that presumably has been done.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

august

expand some source more about the recent events between China and India?.AlfaRocket (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No need, it's too insignificant to be included in this article which is covering the whole things about a country rather than international relations. --123.161.169.118 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit Proposal

Hello Wikipedians! I am a student at Rice University, and I am thinking about editing this article as part of my class (Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities). I am currently interested in learning about political repression in China and adding what I learn into Wikipedia articles. I would like to contribute to this page by adding information to the subsection "Sociopolitical issues, human rights, and reform" under Politics. I would add a link to the "Censorship in China" article, flesh out information about how China has treated its political activists (such as Liu Xiaobo), and add how citizens have been going around China's different forms of censorship. I have already been doing some reading, and a list of relevant resources are on my user page if you are interested! Please let me know if you have any suggestions about the direction I should take this! RiceStudent (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can learn about how some factory-owners treat workers and break the labor law (even the CHINESE labor law!). The unionist may suffered more than other activists nowadays.wkbreaker 14:25, September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbreaker (talk • contribs)

Etymology

The etymology section has recently been revised to stress the theory that the word China is derived from “Qin,” the name of the first imperial dynasty. Although this theory is certainly popular, it is refuted by the fact that Sanskrit usage predates the Qin dynasty by several centuries. The theory dates to the 17th century, before the development of modern philology. It apparently falls into the category of “too good to check.” Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative source on these matters, traces the derivation to Sanskrit Cīna, a word that has been used to refer to China since at least the second century AD. For earlier history, it directs us to a journal article by Lecoupiere. Lecoupiere rejects the Qin theory and argues that usage in the Indian epics refers to a state other than China. That is to say, the word was repurposed sometime after the Indians began to receive silk from China and wondered what land it came from. See Geoff Wade’s “The name China and the Polity of Yelang” for a detailed and up to date discussion of this issue. Great scott (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

Please change

" Under Xi, the Chinese government began large-scale efforts to reform its economy,[128][129] which has suffered from structural instabilities and slowing growth.[130][131][132][133]"

to

" Under Xi, the Chinese government began large-scale efforts to reform its economy,[128][129] which has suffered from structural instabilities and relatively slowing growth.[130][131][132][133]".

Reason: China's economic growth rate still considerable compared with other others' which is why I propose to add the word "relatively". 106.185.25.41 (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done. What you have proposed is neither good English nor clear what it means; "relatively" needs some indication of what it is relative to. The article already covers the country’s high economic growth, both in that section and in the Economy section, so it does not need restating in such a way.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Founding date

Well, that was odd. It's a common misconception that the PRC dates to 1 Oct. since that became the basis for the country's National Day but the new state was actually proclaimed a few days earlier on 21 Sept., which occasionally gets remembered (at embassy shindigs &c) as "Chinese Independence Day". What's strange is that the source for 1 Oct. in the current page already made it clear that the date was 21 Sept. I know this is a highly-trafficked page and no urge to get into an edit war, so added two further sources as well. — LlywelynII 04:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Super edit! Such a pleasure to see a popularly held misconception debunked. sirlanz 05:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Caption for image in section 4.4 - Foreign Relations

There's an image in section 4.4 simply captioned "Diplomatic relations with China" that is color coded. I would like to request that the caption is updated with a key to represent what each color means. Because this page is protected, I am unable to do so. The file itself has a key, it's just not listed in the caption. Here is a link to the image in question. 24.207.148.200 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll take a look at it. Codyorb (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "An estimated 200,000 Chinese were massacred in the city of Nanjing alone during the Japanese occupation.[103] " ,it should be 300,000, and "China hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, where its athletes received 51 gold medals " already cha

I think "An estimated 200,000 Chinese were massacred in the city of Nanjing alone during the Japanese occupation.[103] " ,it should be 300,000, and "China hosted the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, where its athletes received 51 gold medals " already change for 48. (I come from China) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.83.109 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation involving Wrestlingring and Supreme Dragon

A case involving User:Wrestlingring and User:Supreme Dragon has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrestlingring. They were heavily involved in China/Taiwan articles, especially regarding the naming dispute. Your input may assist with the case. Cheers! --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline in the Territorial disputes section has a number of problems. It is far too wide for the page; at a normal width it disappears off the right edge of the screen. Even at this width it barely fits; the text has been made smaller to take up less space but that just makes it less readable, especially against the strongly coloured backgrounds.

Mostly though it assigns too much weight to one particular territorial dispute, the one with Taiwan. In fact almost all of the timeline does not concern this; the bulk of it on the Ming, Qing, Dutch and Spanish has no bearing on the modern dispute, which started in 1949. The only bit really concerning it is the rightmost end of the second row, as it covers the period from 1949, when Taiwan has been in dispute. And even that does not illustrate the status of Taiwan, it simply says Taiwan exists.

Removing everything before 1949 would eliminate the irrelevant periods, and make it fit properly. But that would reduce it to just one time period, and rather pointless as a timeline. If that is the only way to fix it then it makes no sense in the article, and should be removed, which is what I propose, unless someone can find some way of fixing it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the timeline should be deleted, or using a more details one:

--Lisan1233 (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That is far worse. It fixes none of the problems I raised, just makes it much bigger. The new lines make it look like there are three or four territorial disputes, not one. The only people likely to understand what the different lines represent are people already familiar with the detailed history of cross-straight relations. To the average reader it is just a confusing waste of space, and puts far too much emphasis on one particular territorial dispute.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There have been no good proposals how to fix it so I have removed it. The section is on current territorial disputes, not the last 200 years of China–Taiwan relations. It’s not that the timeline is wrong and can be fixed, a timeline is simply inappropriate for a section on current territorial disputes, of which the one with Taiwan is only one of them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Largest City

Shanghai's population is 24 256 800, but Chongqing's population is 30 165 500. Chongqing is larger than Shanghai. (source: List of largest cities)--Make WP Great Again (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

China's rank by area.

The lede muddles one of the non-confusing facts about the countries of the world. Namely, China is the 3rd largest country in the world, by pretty much every authority there is out there. Yet right now we have this in the lede:

Covering approximately 9.6 million square kilometres (3.7 million square miles), it is also the world's second-largest country by land area and third- or fourth-largest by total area

Third or fourth largest by total area? Not according to the CIA factbook, or any other reputable source. The ostensible ambiguity is tied to issues of extraterritorial possessions that no one except some editor here decided were important. It's enough, for the lead, to note that it's generally regarded as the 3rd largest, and leave the details for the Geography section.

Then there is the question of "second largest country by land area". Now this is not in dispute, but it still does not belong, because it's sheer boosterism. Look at the other large countries in the world: Do their articles list their rank by "land area"? Russia doesn't, the US doesn't, Brazil doesn't. Of the twelve largest countries in the world, ONLY the articles on Canada and China mention this. This is simply not how countries in the world are ranked by area.

I could understand it if it was a question of coastal waters. Those of us of a certain age remember the disputes a few years ago when the question of offshore territoriality raged around the world, as countries extended their territories from 12 miles to (eventually) 200 miles offshore. And if Canada's #2 ranking was based upon this, given its enormous coastline, then I could understand the issue--it would not give an accurate picture. But that is not the issue here. The difference between Canada and China's rankings is not about offshore water, it is about freshwater well within the land mass of Canada. Canada does have some very large lakes. But every authority in the world includes them in the ranking of Canada as the 2nd largest country in the world because their ownership is simply not in dispute.

So what I am saying is that it appears that some Sinophile, many years ago, came upon this interesting piece of trivia (that is, China being #2 in land area), inserted it into the lead, which now gives an inaccurate impression to the unaware reader. I have no problem with this being included in the article, but I do have a problem with some booster including it because they get to make China look bigger than it already is. (I'm guessing that it is also included in Canada because someone also wanted to make it clear there that China was "bigger".

I'm going to work on a balanced revision, and would appreciate discussion before reversion. Unschool 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that this information is already included in the Geography section (as it should be) so my revision really needs only to be an excision of the booster material in the lede. Unschool 01:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You have to provide enough reliable sources for backing your information. Not just area, but also "China also claims sovereignty over Taiwan, a claim that is recognized by the United Nations and the overwhelming majority of countries in the world." Capitals00 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm okay with the removing my comment on Taiwan—I don't know enough about policy to know whether what I did was in accordance with policy or not. But sources on area? They are already in there. And our own list of countries by area says that China is #3. Unschool 20:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Decided to add the sources you said I needed, and . . . I found out I was wrong. Not really, but I've changed the article because the source I leaned on the most has changed its mind (keep in mind I had not consulted said source [the CIA] for over 20 years). So yes, the CIA does list the US as #3 and China as #4, but it's really BS. Why? Because the homeboys at Langley are counting the United States' territorial waters, but not China's. Unschool 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You are correct about the size, that it is either "third or fourth", though you should use better source than Youtube, but maybe source is not needed on lead given the sourced content on China#Political geography. Capitals00 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

174.117.67.21 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
  • You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

Please change "Chinese Family Panel Studies" to "China Family Panel Studies" in "References 481", and change the Link along with it. Thanks! 222.29.98.88 (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The map, köppen climate type of China, is wrong.

Taiwan is part of China. But the map, köppen climate type of China, doesn't contain Taiwan. It's wrong. Remove the map, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.237.62.121 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Which China? Because this is specifically about the People's Republic of China. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

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

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

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

China has long since abandoned socialism.

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

Drives on the (left)

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

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

Sorry, no. "Nationalist China adopted [right-hand traffic] in 1946. This convention was preserved when the CCP took the mainland and the KMT retreated to Taiwan. Hong Kong and Macau continue to be [left-hand traffic]." (See: Left- and right-hand traffic and List of countries with left-hand traffic.) General Ization Talk 03:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I spent two years teaching in Hangzhou. The driver sits on the left side of the car and drives on the right side of the road. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Government infobox

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

Please change GDP(nominal)Total $11.938 trillion to GDP(nominal)Total $13.12 trillion(82.7122 trillion Yuan) according to reference source [1] CVHuan999999 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

CHINA GDP

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

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

we change

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

to

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

References

  1. ^ http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/201801/t20180118_1574943.html

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

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

CHINA GDP

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

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

We should use actual GDP, not projections. The most recent data is 2017. Articles with the most active editors, such as United States, United Kingdom etc, use 2017 data. If we were to use projections, why stop at 2018? IMF issues GDP forecast all the way into the 2020s, but we're not in the business of predicting the future. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me address all of your arguments.
1) Why stop at 2018? Because we're in 2018 and we already have 1st quarter economic data. Those are two facts and conditions that don't apply to any other years in the future. In other words, you can't seriously maintain that there's an equivalence between an IMF projection for the end of the current year and a projection for 10 years down the road. 2017 is the last full cycle of GDP data, but it doesn't accurately reflect Chinese standard of living in April 2018, largely because this latter figure has changed so quickly from its counterpart in 2017 (ie. 1st quarter 2017). For an economy that only grew by one or two percent we shouldn't care much, but it's a different story when the change is seven percent.
2) What standard do you propose Wikipedia adopt instead for this issue? That articles with the "most active editors" make the call? The simple truth is that there's no golden standard or consistent principle that decides which GDP numbers end up in any given country article. It's a hodgepodge of chance, editor activity, clashing viewpoints, and whatever someone reading something happened to think on that day.
3) Let me finally turn to what I think is the deeper underlying concern. Suppose we include the 2018 figures now and then China's economy absolutely tanks in the summer. Then all that would happen is the IMF would release new numbers in October, which would factor in the drop in Chinese economic activity. So we would update the article accordingly. If nothing special happens and China's economy keeps humming along this year, then the 2018 numbers will end up being more or less right and we have nothing to worry about.UBER (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"2018 and we already have 1st quarter economic data" - that's exactly my point. Nobody has full year data for 2018, only projections. But I got better things to do than keep arguing about this. If you want to use 2018 data, at least do it properly. Don't mix two sets of data from two sources for two different years and mislabel them as 2018 IMF data. -Zanhe (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
So we are on the same page, I am citing the World Economic Outlook in April 2018, which gives China's nominal GDP per capita at roughly $10,000 for all of 2018. I did not add any source about 1st quarter data, and I'll happily remove the other source in the nominal GDP category so only the IMF source is left. I only mentioned the 1st quarter data to suggest that the 2018 projections are grounded in some kind of hard numbers.UBER (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the other source and only the 2018 IMF data is now included for the GDP numbers.UBER (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

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

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

 Not done Both statements are fact-based and neutral, and both are adequately sourced. You will need to discuss with the editor and try to arrive at a consensus. There is no reason why both statements cannot be true, and a composite of the two is probably the best solution. General Ization Talk 03:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In point of fact, the version resulting from KP's edits is preferable, because it reflects that the one-child policy was largely abandoned in 2013 (and replaced in 2016 by the two-child policy), while the original suggests that the Chinese government is still attempting to enforce the former. General Ization Talk 03:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please use caution in describing another editor's edits as "obviously disruptive" merely because you disagree with them. See WP:DISRUPT for a discussion of what is – and is not – disruptive editing. General Ization Talk 03:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
To address your concerns, I changed the wording slightly to include the idea that in 1979 China government was concerned with population growth. Please see this edit If your concerns are still not addressed please suggest new language. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I removed the "population growth or". It is not a fact that the one-child policy had "little effect on population growth". China’s population growth was already declining when the one-child policy was introduced, but the one-child policy accelerated this decline. Exactly how much is impossible to say, but it is likely the current extremely low birth rate, the skewed sex ratio of births and the declining working age population are all consequences of artificially limiting family sizes.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"but the one-child policy accelerated this decline", "likely the current extremely low birth rate...consequences of artificially limiting family sizes" are both unsourced, are factually wrong. Also note that one child policy has the same effect on both population growth and the size of the total population, they have a one to one relation. So it is strange that you removed language describing one half of that one-one relation..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Pagadala (talk • contribs)
No, that is a mathematically wrong. The population growth is the rate of change of the total population. You can have a large population an a low rate of population growth, or a small population and a high rate of population growth. Over time they are clearly related but they are not the same thing, not in 1-1 correspondence.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The population of China in 1979 is known and fixed, we are not comparing two populations each with their own growth rates. We are talking about one population and for this one population if the policy had an impact on growth rate, then it had an impact on total size of population. One follows the other. Also please provide sources for your speculations "but the one-child policy accelerated this decline" and "likely the current extremely low birth rate...consequences of artificially limiting family sizes". Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
My "speculations"? It is you that added text that is contradicted by the source you used, as I explained below. I have added nothing on this to the article, speculative or otherwise, so I do not need to supply sources. Please, can you address the point I raised below, that the text I removed is not supported by the source and in fact contradicts it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Would prefer the word assumptions? Yes, you did not add text, you deleted it without reason, based on your assumptions/speculations. Can you acknowledge the 1:1 relationship between population growth and population size? Can you acknowledge that one child policy started in 1979 and *not* 1970? Can you acknowledge that the demographics of countries with similar socio-economic levels are relevant? What you quoted as contradicting in not contradicting, because it includes 9 extra years of extraordinary decline in fertility *prior* to the start of one child policy. Yong Cai in a paper included in One-child policy#References says "In contrast to the demographic effects of the one-child policy in reducing population growth, which can at best be very small". Also since you selectively quoted one of the conclusions in the paper let me continue the conclusion "China’s rapid economic development since 1980 deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the (much more modest) numbers of reduced births that have occurred as the country’s total fertility rate further declined, from about 2.7–2.8 at the end of the 1970s to perhaps 1.4–1.5 today. It is a damning indictment of the Chinese record that all of her Confucian neighbors in East Asia achieved rapid declines to their present sub-replacement fertility rates via robust economic growth supplemented by voluntary birth planning campaigns" The experience of other countries is relevant, and economic development is the reason for the decline in births according to the paper that I added. I am willing to add more citations that already exist in One-child policy#References here, will that make you happy? Krishna Pagadala (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Absent any objection to the above I’m removing it again. In the source, the relevant paragraph of the conclusion states "a substantial portion of China’s dramatic decline in fertility rates since 1970 can be attributed to the implementation of mandatory birth control". How substantial is debatable but that is hardly "little effect on population growth", so it is unsupported by that source, as well as going against all other evidence.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
My edit was about one child policy which started in 1979, so the decline since 1970 is not relevant because "as much as three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy". For the last quarter of decline since 1979 please read the references from authors Yong Cai (3 in total) and Amartya Sen (2 in total) in One-child policy#References Please note that Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Thailand, Iran had similar declines in similar time frames without one child policy. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong have lower fertility than China today and none of them have one child policy. Will leave your edit up for a day to give you time to respond. Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
None of that is relevant. The source you added says "a substantial portion of China’s dramatic decline in fertility rates since 1970 can be attributed to the implementation of mandatory birth control", i.e. the one-child policy. That is from the first sentence of the conclusion. Your text, "this policy had little effect on population growth", flatly contradicts this. What a handful of other countries experienced is irrelevant, this is about China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please note the dates one child policy started in 1979 not 1970. There was an extraordinary decline in fertility before the introduction of one child policy in the 1970's prior to the introduction of one child policy. See here and here Have you read the other 4 references I provided? It is standard in demographics to compare countries with similar socio economic levels, so the other countries are very relevant. Yong Cai, Amartya Sen and many other demographers compare across countries. e.g. Yong Cai says "Below-replacement fertility in China, as in other societies, is driven to a great extent by the increasingly global forces of social and economic development." See the papers One-child policy#References Krishna Pagadala (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

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

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

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

 Not done for now: That was as the Republic of China, now based in Taipei; this article is about the People's Republic, based in Beijing. Probably is best to leave the complexity to prose. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually the article is about China. Despite changing its representation from ROC to PRC in 1971, I think its best to still add it since it is one of the 51 original UN member states. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 No, this article is about the Peoples Republic of China, and we shouldn't add data from the ROC. There are several separated articles about the history and geo-political situation of "China" as a whole. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

Please change

The Communist Party of China exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces

to

Governed by the Communist Party of China, it exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces


The former version is logically incorrect since only a state can exercise jurisdiction. A party clearly cannot do so. 211.142.189.67 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Add native name of China in the first paragraph?

In other countries' wikipedia pages, like Japan and Germany, the first paragraph (generally sentence) of the article has the name and pronunciation of the country in its native language in parentheses. This information is present in the article, but for consistency and easy access I propose adding it to the first paragraph.PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK I added it, but not sure if the IPA thing is right... I think it is though. Please note your concerns below if you have any.PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s not needed. The full name in Chinese appears at the top of the main infobox. More detail on how its written in Chinese is given below. Also the way you added it was far from ideal. It‘s best to use the template for Pinyin as well, as it then uses proper HTML markup for it. E.g. Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó. But that’s only one of the two writing systems for Chinese, as traditional characters are different and should be included. At which point it gets overlong and is better in the infobox. IPA is not needed as pronunciation is clear from the pinyin, which is more readily understood.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Here’s an idea: put the simplified name of China in the infobox as well, maybe in parentheses. As well as “People’s republic of China” you could add “China” and to the native names the shortened forms could be added as well. It’s not clear without searching down the page that the general native name of China is “Zhongguo” because in the infobox it says the full name, “Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo”. Basically I think the word “Zhongguo” should be present somewhere at the first section of the article. And for comparison, the first paragraph of Japan & South Korea’s pages have all that stuff and they take up a huge amount of space, so I don’t know what the standard is for that here. PerhapsXarb (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Here’s an idea: put the simplified name of China in the infobox as well Which infobox are you referring to? If the state infobox, then all of the articles for East and Southeast Asian states, excepting Malaysia and Japan (which don't have an official name longer than the common name), use the full, official name in English and the native equivalent, not the common name. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, it would be weird to put the simplified name in the infobox. But to JohnBlackburne's point, why then is the native name and IPA for Vietnam in the first line of that article? I think it would help if just the pinyin & IPA were added here in some form. PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

Please change


Despite the high results, Chinese education has also faced both native and international criticism for its emphasis on rote memorization and its gap in quality from rural to urban areas.

to

Despite the high results, Chinese education has also faced both native and international criticism for its emphasis on rote memorization and its gap in quality from rural to urban areas.[citation needed]

because this sentence is completely unsourced and clearly needs at least one citation per WP:V. 123.161.170.190 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for the country area statement.

Please change

"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area"

to

"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the fifth-largest country by total area"


so it matches citation for the current claim [19], OR find a source that supports the existing claim, as the CIA factbook has it as #5 behind Russia, Canada, Antarctica and the US. There's argument that the text "fourth-largest country" would also be relevant because Antarctica is not really a sovereign nation.

Kuriosly (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Removed Change Request, because who knows how big China is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area They certainly don't in the talk page for it.

I think that to get away from said controversy change it to second biggest country by total land area. No one's disputing that. And it's a higher placement. So win-win. Kuriosly (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.59 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained major edit

I'm looking at this edit, and am concerned. Although it's difficult to see just by looking at the dif, this edit removes from the reader's sight the fact that China is one of the four largest countries in the world by area. Frankly, I consider that to be a pretty major fact that belongs early in the lead.

This edit also includes some changes the significance I'm not sure of; I wouldn't say they're as bad as the one just mentioned, but I don't see how they improve the article. One changes the verbiage regarding the role of the CPC, and the other changes the wording about the number of countries China borders. Not seeing any justification for these edits either here on the talk page, or in the edit summary (which just reads, rejig a bit), I'm going to revert it in toto, and suggest that the changes be made individually, to make discussion easier. Unschool 05:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert. I also don't understand the utility. Shenme (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to rename back China to People's Republic of China, and Taiwan to Republic of China

Per the discussion here and the ROC Talk page.

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

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

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

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

Why not do a big fix up just like the article Korea for example and the Zhongguo article in the Chinese Wikipedia. Its a complex region but divided similar to how China is today. The ROC still has control of Fujian's small islands and whole Taiwan province. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is needed. Taiwan is a mess, a mix of the history of Taiwan with the history of the ROC, and I insist, this is caused due the use of Taiwan as synonym of Republic of China. This is why I proposed also there, and propose deep changes.
This will take some time and coordination. Once the mess is fixed (I don't have much time to edit rather than minor ones), the articles may be renamed, if the community agree. I thing the Village Pump is a better place to discusse this, due the large amount of articles related to "China". --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
To move a page you need a requested move. But it is very unlikely to succeed. We had one which examined this thoroughly and the consensus was to move the page to its current title, "China". See Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26. Nothing has changed since then, except we probably have even more evidence that the country is overwhelmingly known as "China". So I cannot see the outcome being any different, and a further requested move discussion would be pointless.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to this change. Keep the usual names, China & Taiwan. Pashley (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I am strongly oppose to this change. This has long been debated for many many years and the general consensus is to keep China/Taiwan. Taiwan just lost 3 diplomatic allies since you proposed this (Burkina Faso, Dominica Republic, and El Salvador). Rwat128 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


I support Amitie 10g's proposal. After the end of Chinese Communist Revolution between 1946 and 1950, China is divided by two Chinese regimes: "People's Republic of China" which only de facto controls Chinese mainland, and "Republic of China" which only de facto controls Taiwan area of China, but the two Chinese regimes claim the sovereignty of whole China. Thus, it is ridiculous to regard the regime "People's Republic of China" as the country "China" and regard the regime "Republic of China" as the area "Taiwan". MouseCatDog (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Having the government officials running away and hiding on an island after their forces got their asses kicked in combat does not provide any sort of real state continuity. The people who set up the ROC on Taiwan may be the same as the ones who ruled the ROC as actual China, they may use the same constitutional framework, but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state. The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded. Anything else is simply delusional posturing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me answer in parts:
  • does not provide any sort of real state continuity: Have you any proof of your claiming? Or it is just pro-communist POV? The ROC still existed and never dissapeared. They just moved the capital from Beijing to Taipei, where the PRC established its capital there, then, both Chinas claimed the territories until today. Even, the United Nations still considered the ROC as the legitime "China" until 1971, where the countries dicided to consider the PRC as the legitime one.
  • they may use the same constitutional framework: The constitution of the ROC has not been (substantially) changed until 2005. In other words, the used the same constitution since its foundation in 1912. The PRC, obviously, created a new constitution according to their interests (you know how are the communists actually).
  • The people who set up the ROC on Taiwan may be the same as the ones who ruled the ROC as actual China: The ROC was founded in the early XX century and still existed until today; the just moved its capital from Bejing to Taipei, but the state never disasapeared.
By mentioning actual what do you mean, actual or current?
  • If you mean current, both are the "current" Chinas, and both claim the same territories. The effective control of territories is another story.
  • If you mean actual, both are the actual Chinas, where most countries have formal relationships with the PRC but not the ROC, while few others (including the Vatican City and some countries of Latin America) have formal relationships with the ROC but not the PRC.
  • but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state: The only ridiculous is your comment
  • The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded: Is just the opposite, the PRC has been founded in 1949, while the ROC still existed.
--Amitie 10g (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
1) The only proof is the fact that the ROC, as a state controlling the territory that had been known as China for centuries, ceased functioning as a government of that territory.
2) You do realize that my statement shows agreement that the constitution of the ROC is the same? I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.
3) There was a little more going on than just relocating the capital. The effective state fell apart and reconstituted itself on Taiwan using the existing constitution.
4) By "actual" I mean the territorial accumulation that had developed over millennia as "China" before the island of Taiwan came under its for a time.
5) So, if a revolution tomorrow toppled the US government and Trump and company fled to Hawaii to set up administration there, you would consider both the mainland and Hawaii to be the United States?
6) see 4
--Khajidha (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • commentAmitie 10g is now trying to re-open this discussion at the Taiwan talk page for anyone interested. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Religion gallery

We seem to have a small problem of the unsourced image gallery in the religion section being implemented over and over despite WP:BURDEN problem raised and our MOS WP:GALLERY. There is a few problems with having a one off gallery causing undue weight to the section per WP:UNDUE and the fact WP:GALLERY discourages galleries of this nature that add content without sources that overwhelm a section. Have to ask is religion the most important part of this article that it needs 10 or more images - 5 times as many as other sections? Also would be good to review WP:SANDWICH as this has also been corrected a few times and reverted with no explanation. --Moxy (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just a selection of pictures: the pictures come with informative captions that decisively add to the section. Obviously no one is going to derive their ideas of the importance of religion in China from the number of images in this section, so that's a non-argument. It also doesn't ‘overwhelm’ the section.
Instead of ploughing through with legalism, it would behoove you to take a step and back and notice that this gallery improves the article, while removing it would worsen it. There is a certain kind of editor who thinks that WP:IGNOREALLRULES is the only rule that can be ignored. Don't be one of those editors. Scriptions (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies to Scriptions, who has done excellent work on this article, but I agree with Mr. James Dimsey and Moxy who have removed the gallery before. The captions are indeed informative, but captions should not be mini-essays, only about the images. The Gallery distracted rather than enhanced because the size is out of proportion with images in the rest of the article and show only architecture.ch (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Why should the captions be shorter when they're so much better at their current length? How could the fact that the number of images is greater in this section than in others distract anyone from anything, and why would that be a problem? Why is it an issue that most (not all) of the images are of architecture?
You would find me more inclined to take your arguments into consideration if you explained what the issues were with these things rather than just state that there are issues with them. Currently you're just removing a lot of valuable content for no comprehensible reason. Scriptions (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I see two points of discussion. One is the need for a Gallery at all and whether it is distracting because it is out of proportion, which I and two other editor have agreed on.
The other is the captions. WP:CAP offers criteria for a good caption:
  1. A good caption clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious;
  2. is succinct;
  3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article;
  4. provides context for the picture;
  5. draws the reader into the article.
The captions here, aside from being unsourced, do meet criterion #1. Not #2, #4, or #5, because they are short essays, set off from the article and do not refer to it. Indeed, much of the material in the captions is independent of the image, which is too small to see anything visually informative. Much material in the captions is not mentioned in this article at all, e.g. Religion in Inner Mongolia, Yellow Emperor, folk religions of Chinese and Manchus, vernacular religious traditions, City Gods. These images would indeed be welcome if placed in appropriate spots at the Religion in China article.
BTW, this Religion section could stand a reworking, so maybe you could use your talents to incorporate these points into it. All the best!ch (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You're still not explaining how anyone could be distracted by this gallery. Even if they could, I don't see why that should be Wikipedia's concern. Surely, if a section is so good that a reader is distracted from whatever else they're doing, then that's a credit to the section.
I'm pleased to finally see someone recognise an issue that is one of my main concerns, namely that you and the others have been removing textual information along with the photos rather than incorporating said information into the rest of the section. One thing is to remove pictures, another to remove relevant text instead of incorporating it. After this, I'm expecting you to incorporate the information into the running text before removing the gallery again.
The captions containing material that is not mentioned in the rest of the section is a feature, not a bug. One of the main qualities of captions is the ability to express information there that doesn't fit into the running text. Succinctness is not in itself a quality in a caption, and ideally, all captions on Wikipedia would include as much extra information as those in this gallery.
As to the size of the images, they're clickable, so that doesn't matter.
As for providing context for the picture and drawing the reader into the article, that's precisely what these captions are so good at. I was pleasantly surprised to see so many pictures and such long captions in an encyclopaedia that generally has far too few pictures and overly short captions, and I think it's a shame that so many editors fail to see how this sort of thing makes Wikipedia better, not worse. Scriptions (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that the religion section has many images that should be diversify, Because the rest of the other sections do not contain the amount of these many images. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, the problem is that there are too few images in the rest of the article, not that there are too many in this section. A gallery like this, particularly with similar amounts of extra information in the captions, would be a welcome addition to every section of the article. Scriptions (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Dont get blocked WP:BURDEN. So at this point we have only one editor that is unable to explain why we should not follow policy and guidelines on this..... so removed again as per above. We need to disuss with Scriptions the unsourced changes. At this point we are going to require sources for your changes. --Moxy (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a policy as well, you know, and I do explain above why we should follow that policy here, but you refuse to address my specific points. If you genuinely wanted to improve Wikipedia, rather than entertain yourself by identifying imagined policy violations and ‘correcting’ them, you would react to unsourced information that is obvously correct by either sourcing it or letting it be, because no encyclopaedia is served by the removal of correct information. But all you want to do is remove correct information on the pretext that it's unsourced – like most of Wikipedia – never mind that it's perfectly transparent that you're using it as a vicarious argument. Scriptions (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
"Succinctness is not in itself a quality in a caption". This is absolutely, positively, categorically, 100% WRONG. If you have that much to say about the topic, write a paragraph about it and use the image to illustrate. it.--Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If you think something is wrong, saying that it's ‘absolutely, positively, categorically, 100% WRONG’ is not going to convince anyone. Explaining why you think it's wrong might. As I pointed out above, one of the main qualities of captions is the ability to express information there that doesn't fit into the running text. Scriptions (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Explain? have you not read any of the links provided? What your saying is the opposite of protocols. --Moxy (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, Moxy. And the text you placed in captions isn't something that "doesn't fit into the running text", you didn't even try to fit it in the running text. --Khajidha (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't try to fit it into the running text because ... it doesn't fit into the running text. Anyway, I'll bow out now, as I'm obviously not getting anywhere with you two. Neither of you seems to understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive statements. Scriptions (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fowler, Jeanine D. (2005). An Introduction to the Philosophy and Religion of Taoism: Pathways to Immortality. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1845190866. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp. 200–201

Proposal to remove the Manchu name from infobox

Please remove the Manchu name ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ
ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠᡳᡵᡤᡝᠨ
ᡤᡠᠨᡥᡝ
ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ (Dulimbai niyalmairgen gungheg' gurun) from the multilingual infobox.

Reason: Manchu has never been an official language of People's Republic of China (PRC), and PRC is never known to have published its official Manchu name, so I believe this 'Manchu name' listed in the infobox is an original research. --Pawmot (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above. For all we know, it could be just gibberish anyway. FineStructure137 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: There is no designated "official language" of the PRC. It's a touchy subject in a country with so many "dialects," regional languages, ethnic languages, etc. etc.
The 1982 COnstitution of the PRC here does not specify an "official" language, whether Putonghua, Manchu, or any other, but guarantees equal treatment. A Google image search finds Manchu used commonly on currency. Here, for instance, the (slightly) smiling face of the late Chairman adorns one side of a Five Yuan note, and in tiny font on the other are the five languages, including Manchu.
In 2000, the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Order of the President No.37)" directed in Ch. ! Article 2 that "For purposes of this Law, the standard spoken and written Chinese language means Putonghua (a common speech with pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect) and the standardized Chinese characters" and Article 8 that "All the nationalities shall have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages," and that the "spoken and written languages of the ethnic peoples shall be used in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Law on Regional National Autonomy and other laws." See also Pan, Haiying (2016), "An Overview of Chinese Language Law and Regulation", Chinese Law & Government, 48 (4): 271–274, doi:10.1080/00094609.2016.1118306
I assure my friend FineStructure137 that the writing is not "just gibberish."ch (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you could justify doing all 56 of China'a national languages. But it seems to me we have to draw the line somewhere. The banknotes currently display five languages: Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang.[1] FineStructure137 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Seeing as the current banknotes hold the official name of China in Mandarin, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang, there's no reason to keep a potentially unofficial name of the country in the infobox. Maybe it would belong better somewhere in the article, if it correlates anywhere. Bailmoney27 talk 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The only thing achieved by the proposed edit is to make it harder to find out what the Manchu name is, so it's a net loss, with nothing of any consequence gained. Scriptions (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that there are five languages on the banknotes, but we have six. Five is an important number in Chinese culture, what with five elements, five thousand years of history, five stars on the flag, etc. In all of these cases, somebody worked things out so there would be exactly five. Adding Manchu messes up the numerology. FineStructure137 (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding to that, the name would still be accessible at Names of China anyway, wouldn't it? Bailmoney27 talk 05:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow. You actually seem to seriously think that numerological concerns constitute a valid argument. Scriptions (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I'm sure I am not only one who appreciates your amateur psychological musings. FineStructure137 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
‘[A]mateur psychological musings’? You literally wrote: ‘Adding Manchu messes up the numerology.’ No psychology, amateur or otherwise, needed. Scriptions (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Support because this is actually hilarious. The Manchus had never heard of the People's Republic of China, so this was never the "name" used by them for anything, i.e. there is a flat misstatement in the infobox now in that it suggests there is or ever was such a name. Beyond that, we have the simple principle that a line has to be drawn at some reasonable level and an end put to the scripts presented to readers. If some level of judgement is not exercised, pages just bloat with useless, irrelevant clutter. sirlanz 06:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

‘The Manchus had never heard of the People's Republic of China’? There are ten million Manchus currently living in the People's Republic of China, some of whom still speak Manchu. Sure a line has to be drawn somewhere, but this isn't like adding Assamese because the PRC claims some minor parts of Assam. We're talking about the language of the ethnic group that ruled China for most of its recent history. Scriptions (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
WP tells us that there are 10 native speakers of Manchu - yes, 10, not 10 thousand or 10 million. Putting the Manchu script of "People's Republic of China" up on this page is as risible as providing Middle English for England Latin for European Community. Curious, even fascinating, but really just a linguist's divertisement. sirlanz Sirlanz 01:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
To follow up on Scriptions's point, please note that the article is "China," not "People's Republic of China," so the relevant point is not the number of speakers in the PRC but the role that the Manchus and the Manchu language played in constructing "China." Manchu was the language of China's rulers from 1644 to 1912, longer than the PRC has been around (what the Qing "official" languages were is another and probably anachronistic question).ch (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The transcription is of "People's Republic of China" which is the time-warped incongruity to which I have drawn attention. It is doubtful the expression was ever printed in Manchu; WP could be a first. sirlanz 07:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
What? The article is called "China", yes, in reference to the People's Republic. It's literally right there in the first sentence of the article. While the "History" section provides a timeline of events of previous states that led to the present-day PRC, this article is primarily about the PRC, not any other "China". That's what we're focusing on here. Bailmoney27 talk 07:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is getting a bit esoteric and Bailmoney27 has not had time to read into it. The issue was whether, in addition to the mainstream transcriptions of "People's Republic of China", we should have the Manchu version. My point was that Manchu-speaking society died out long before the PRC was established and thus the expression was never uttered; absurd to "create" it on WP. There would be no objection at all to the Manchu for "China" in an appropriate historical context. sirlanz 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That does make more sense. Hard to follow the conversation at this rate. Thanks for clearing it up, still agreeing with your point, doesn't make sense to invent the term on the article. Bailmoney27 talk 01:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the lively discussion, friends. After reading the points brought up, I have no beef with the outcome (though the Edit Summary explaining the removal should have noted the correct numbers in support and opposition). However, this discussion does point to the need for further pruning to make the article about the PRC. I will start a new section to start a discussion. ch (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the originator of the material is not to be counted in the outcome of the debate, hence the numbers in the summary. If I'm wrong in that, my apologies to all, especially Scriptions. sirlanz 06:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific: there were two of us opposed. ch (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Reduce irrelevant mattter in pre-1949 sections?

The article retains too much material that is not relevant to the PRC, which is the subject of the article. The lede now spends a long but scattershot paragraph on pre-1949 history, leaving too little room for PRC material. The History section of the article occupies something like 1,500 of the article's roughly 14,000 words but its coverage is so haphazard so as to be nearly useless.

The Science and Teachnology, Religion, Culture, and Cuisine sections are only a little out of balance, but the literature section has only one sentence on PRC literature.

Any objections to cutting perhaps a total of 1,500 words, mainly the History section?

Cheers, ch (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the country of China. The article covers the entire history of China, not just the current regime of the PRC. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree, Khajidha. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No objections. It makes sense to me. Bailmoney27 talk 12:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

China is a superpower

I have edited the last sentence of the lead to reflect the growing consensus in the West that China is now a superpower. I have cited that claim with numerous reputable sources (from New York Times, The Economist, etc).

Here are my problems with the old sentence: it was based on older sources (like a BBC article from 2012) and it did an awkward job of capturing China's significance to the current international system. While I don't dispute that the United States still remains the world's leading superpower, it's highly dubious to classify China in the same league as, for example, Britain or France. China is more important to the world order than both of those two countries put together. So it's not "just another" great power. It's the world's largest economy (by purchasing power) and the current obsession of everyone from Patagonia to Siberia.

The language of this article should reflect China's new standing in the world.UBER (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

Please change '"Laogai" in Chinese means forced labour and reform.' to '"Laogai" in Chinese means labour reform.' because the sentence is providing a translation, which should be precise. Fl580 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done: The material on Laogai in this paragraph is out of date -- one source is from 1991 -- but I added one that is perfectly adequate. For more details, see Laogai, which should have been linked to begin with.ch (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

I want to put this country on the microwiki 64.125.67.45 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

About first dynasty in infobox

@Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) . At first, Qin dynasty is not the first Chinese dynasty. Shang dynasty and Zhou dynasty is earlier than more than 1000 years. Even Qin itself was established in 897 B.C which was 600 years earlier than 221 BC. There are lots of archaeological writing discovery about these two dynasty. Consider you claim previous (than qin) non-imperial dynasties are of lesser importance, I see page Ancient Rome put 753 BC as the founding date when Rome was only a city state, not the 27 BC when Augustus became the first Emperor of Rome.
Then, the date 753 BC was based on myth, Capitoline Wolf myth, not the historical record. Page Ancient Rome also used mythological kingdom as the first kingdom. Except page Ancient Rome, page South Korea did the same thing. Use the mythological Gojoseon dynasty in 2333 BC as the first dynasty. It seems there is no rule to forbid the semi-legendary.
At last, Xia is in controversy. There is no consensus whether Xia is myth or not. The discovery of Erlitou site was defined as Xia by some scholar. It remains unclear whether Xia is Bronze age Erlitou site. Hence, Xia is claimed as semi-legendary. The full mythological first kingdom of China was Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors before Xia.Miracle dream

I did not claim the Qin were the first dynasty overall, but the first imperial dynasty, the first unified chinese state and the dynasty of which the name China originates. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
You do not have concensus to change the history-section. Gain concensus or forget it. The Xia is not considered relevant in regards of the establishment of the chinese state. The Qin were the first unified chinese state and is also the origin of the name of modern China itself. The history-section in the infobox is about China from it's first establishment as a unified state to it's modern version. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Why are you so arrogant when you don't understand Chinese history? The Xia dynasty was considered mythical by many historians until scientific excavations found early Bronze Age sites at Erlitou, Henan in 1959 (It remains unclear whether these sites are the remains of the Xia dynasty or of another culture from the same period). Even if excluding the Xia, the Shang and the Zhou should not be neglected. Not only the autocratic emperor's rule, but the three feudal dynasties are also Chinese nations. The three dynasties are not unified, but each of them is a unity like the feudal system used in medieval Europe.Rzzgn (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The Xia dynasty remains mythical in the sense that the list of kings given in traditional sources and the stories told about them are dubious at best. Whether or not it was a literal dynasty, there was a neolithic people living in China at this time and they built Erlitou and other archaeological sites. It is not for us to blaze a trail. The Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project and Cambridge History of China, the two most authoritative sources on the subject of Chinese eras, both include the Xia.
I have to concur regarding the Shang and Zhou dynasties. They are fully historically dynasties and there is no basis to leave them out. How can a Chinese history leave out the era that Confucius lived in? FineStructure137 (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
At least, it seems both Rzzgn and FineStructure137 supported my idea in this discussion.
1. For your claim, you said the name of China originated from Qin dynasty is all about English language. In all East Asian language including Chinese, Korean, Japanese or other Southeast Asian language, the name of China nothing related about Qin dynasty. For example, China are called Middle Kingdom in both Chinese and Japanese. Chinese never call the country China or anything Qin-related country. I really confuse why the name of China was defined by English which most of Chinese never use in their regular life.
2. Then as I said before Xia remains unclear whether bronze Erlitou site are the remains of the Xia dynasty or of another culture from the same period.Then Qin is the first imperial dynasty but not the first united dynasty. Can you tell me when western Zhou dynasty ruled China, are there any other Chinese state in the same period? Then one of most important Chinese people, Confucius, lived earlier than Qin dynasty about 300 years.
3. At last, I really confuse why cannot put mythical period in infobox? Are there any rule about it in wiki? Please check wiki page Ancient Rome and page South Korea. Page South Korea use mythical Dangun as the establishment of Korea in its infobox. Page Ancient Rome use Capitoline Wolf myth of 753BC as the establishment of Rome in its infobox. Why South Korea and Ancient Rome can use myth as the establishment in infobox but others cannot? Miracle dream 07:47, 26 December 2018‎
The word "China" is from Sanskrit Cīna. This word is used in Indian literature centuries before the Qin dynasty appeared.[2] It must have referred to another country before it referred to China. As for the Xia, Cambridge notes that ancient literature refers to "Ten Thousand Kingdoms" that are said to have flourished during this era. So the period was not necessarily a dynastic one. FineStructure137 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said before, "China" is the English name of this country, even it is from Sankrit word, it is just Sankrit not East Asian language. There is no Chinese called its country "China" or any Qin-related word. Chinese and Japanese use "Zhongguo"(which means "Middle/Central Country") as the name of China."China" itself is a totally foreigner word for Chinese. Chinese never use any Qin-related word to refer their country or people.
For the problem of dynasty, we can put the Xia period or period of Xia or something similar in infobox to avoid the dispute. Miracle dream

When did the population double?

The article says: The Chinese population almost doubled from around 550 million to over 900 million. This seems right, since the population is well above one million now. But it is rather meaningless, since it does not say what time period it is refering to. It should. --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The Source says during Mao Zedong leadership.--Moxy (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, fine, I think it would be an improvement if you put that in the article.--Ettrig (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Political Meritocracy: Skill NOT Popularity

A majority of the population believe that China is a pure dictatorship which is completely and utterly false and do not understand how China selects its leaders. Numerous scholars and news articles have stated that China selects its future leaders based upon skill not popularity[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It is time that this is mentioned and emphasized, preferably with its own section in order to explain to the general population that China selects its leaders based upon skill. I would like to be given editing authority.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AvikemArruters (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

FineStructure137 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC) REPLY:

What about corruption in China? Perhaps we can classify the country as a kleptocracy. In the course of his career, Xi Jinping was promoted by 18 separate personnel boards. Previous leaders were the proteges and successors of earlier leaders. Xi worked his way up from the bottom. He should be the best the meritocratic system has to offer. Yet he is hugely corrupt. His secret overseas investments are documented in the Panama Papers. I can only conclude that he is the best they have and that other candidates for party leadership are even more corrupt. If Xi has a skill beyond giving extremely long speeches, the party has been keeping it quiet.

AvikemArruters (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC) REPLY:

We're here to discuss whether or not my proposal should be implemented. There is a separate page for corruption in China and I believe that if it is not already, corruption can be acknowledged on this page, however, I remind you that people utilize Wikipedia for academic purposes/ to lead to other sources and the inclusion that China is a kleptocracy WITHOUT proof (and in clear contradiction of academic consensus in political science circles AND REALITY) would degrade Wikipedia's authenticity and integrity. In regards to your other comment, Xi has other skills, however, defending him will not help my cause as 1 example cannot prove a point. Irishtigger416 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


What about adding a section on recent economic declines? This article reviews China's rise but not its most recent decline and massive loss of wealth which may intersect with Corruption in China proposed section.04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)~~

References

  1. ^ https://theconversation.com/our-democracy-can-learn-from-chinas-meritocracy-51471
  2. ^ https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/06/12/chinas-political-meritocracy-versus-western-democracy
  3. ^ https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/chinas-meritocracy-vs-western-democracy/
  4. ^ https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/is-china-meritocratic-society-gaokao-examination-5254088/
  5. ^ http://www.governancejustice.org/blog/2018/7/8/chinese-meritocracy-nothing-to-fear-so-much-to-learn

Guizhou listed as "one of the poorest provinces"

I noticed that Guizhou is listed as one of the poorest provinces under the education section. For evidence of this, it appears to link to the provincial GDP per capita article for China. I just wonder if using GDP per capita is appropriate to draw conclusions as to how rich or poor a province is? As for countries, Iran, Bosnia, Belarus, Namibia, and Fiji have a similar GDP per capita to Guizhou, but I'm not sure if many would consider Bosnia and Belarus to be poor countries. But others might draw the conclusion that Namibia is a poor country. These countries also have different poverty rates, as well.

Thoughts? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Government section in infobox

Please stop adding "Marxist-Leninist". China is in no way that. Yes, the constitution says it is, but constitutions are not a reliable source. Otherwise you could call North Korea democratic, and we all know that it isn't. China is socialist with capitalist policies. Private companies are commmon (although they are still monitored by the Communist Party to ensure they don't do any shenanigans), and they wouldn't exist if China was Marxist-Leninist. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not adding it; I'm retaining a long-standing stable element of the article. Sorry that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT but you have provided no evidence that China is not Maoist other than your opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
And I'd suggest before you edit-war your preferred version back in you should review No true Scotsman. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
According to this article[1] it says that China is not as Marxist-Leninist as it once was, and it's now "socialism with Chinese characteristics". --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know we were down to the dregs of using a news aggregator website for statements of political science. Their opinion is not WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
We should find a better source other than the constitution that says that China is Marxist-Leninist/Maoist then. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
ok--better sources. What do the RS say? Try these three recent scholarly studies: 1) "Each new generation of leaders has added a perspective overlaying these traditional Chinese and Marxist-Leninist values." [China in the Era of Xi Jinping: Domestic and Foreign Policy Challenges (2016)]; 2) " the political orthodoxy continues to follow a Marxist–Leninist ideology, with Chinese characteristics," [China's Socialist Rule of Law Reforms Under Xi Jinping (2016) - Page 208]; 3) "Xi is the first Chinese leader since Mao to quote the classics with such ease. ... borrowing is above all a sign that he finds the Marxist-Leninist base solid enough to graft onto it the long history of 'wonderful Chinese civilisation'." [Inside the Mind of Xi Jinping (2018) - Page 116]. That's pretty convincing to me--keep it. Rjensen (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, but don't revert totalitarian. That is already sourced. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Totalitarianism is the rule of one, something which is far from how China is governed. Furthermore, dictatorship of the proletariat is already the official description through the marxist-leninist form of a socialist state, a description of China as totalitarian, authoritarian or even autocratic is thus unnecessary! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
China is governed by the rule of one, one party. Also since when did authoritarian states include as much censorship, propaganda and mass surveillance that China has? --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Kingerikthesecond here. is under the control of one party--- whether it is one person (like Xi) or a group that fits inside a small room. News reports in recent years have strongly emphasized that Xi is taking over more and more control-- there've been academic debates on the topic: here's the conclusion of one article that deals directly with the issue: the paradigm of totalitarianism, rather than outmoded, is still useful and applicable to the study of the Chinese communist regime. The Chinese communist regime has remained totalitarian rather than "authoritarian" or "soft authoritarian" or "evolving away from the authoritarian regime of the Deng era." There has been no adequate evidence to prove that the dynamic core and essential features of the Chinese communist regime--the absolutist philosophy, the inevitable goal, the ideological commitment, and the single one-party dictatorship---have fundamentally changed. [Sujian Guo, "Totalitarianism: An outdated paradigm for post-Mao China?" Journal of Northeast Asian Studies. Summer 1995, Vol. 14 issue #2 pp 62-90 quoting p 87. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please, no contentious, simplistic labels in the infobox, especially ones backed by such discredited sources as the notorious Gordon G. Chang. Do some research on the sources you cite folks. Most think tanks have a political agenda; it's usually ok to cite them for factual information, but their opinions are typically biased. -Zanhe (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Unbiased sources??? not many of those around regarding China. Here's the Wiki guideline WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Rjensen (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Gordon Chang is not just biased, he's fringe. If he had been a reliable source, Communist China would have collapsed five times by now and Xi Jinping wouldn't even have had a chance to become its leader. Per WP:V, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and the sources used to support the exceptional claim of totalitarianism fail spectacularly. Besides, the infobox is for straightforward facts or widely accepted assessments, not contentious opinions which require nuanced and balanced treatment. -Zanhe (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
And as I mentioned in my edit summary, the article is explicitly and specifically about digital policy which means we can only treat as a euphamism, rather than a statement of overall political direction. This is WP:COATRACK to a ridiculous extent. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Is China socialist? A long (and better) answer". Inkstone. Retrieved 6 March 2019.

Fixing the religion pie chart

This article was recently changed to use the {{pie chart}} template to put a pie chart into the side bar. The key for the pie chart users several {{efn}} templates to add notes, but the article didn't previously have a {{reflist}} for notes and produced an erorr. I've remedied this problem coarsely by adding an inline {{reflist}} for the notes, but it interrupts the flow of the article.

Is there a better way to present this information? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

The date for the article The Land That Failed to Fail is NOV. 18, 2018, not 2006. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC) 71.31.30.66 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

HEY CHINA JANGAN IKUT CAMPUR DI NEGARA KAMI !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.9.34 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

Please change

China has been widely characterized as a global superpower, rivalling the United States.

to

In recent times, scholars have argued that it will soon be a world superpower, rivaling the United States.

since the latter is arguably more precise and accurate while the former is somewhat assertive. 1.198.22.229 (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, the sources on the sentence call it a super power. They do not say it will soon become one. You will need to show sources to support your change and gain consensus here before it will be implemented. ~ GB fan 11:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

Can you add the superpower category for China if the page itself calls it a global superpower that rivals the United States? If there is a wide consensus on China's superpower status than it would be a bit odd for a page about a superpower lacking any categories that deems it as part of the very exclusive special group. 134.7.65.106 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

I'm wondering why isn't "Marxist-Leninist" added in the "government" section in the infobox but it was added before. DerpyUser420 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That would violate the current consensus around maintaining the current form. "Marxist-Leninist" is something that is heavily disputed. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 04:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Abote2 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

the pandas

just insert this page hereCattleiscows30 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

___a Panda said "give me Bamboo and I will let you in" (the page shall be protected by pandas) Cattleiscows30 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Classifying China as a fascist country

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html https://quillette.com/2019/08/05/china-and-the-difficulties-of-dissent/

Whit everything happening now, should it be mentioned that China has the qualities of a fascist country? The above articles would seem to agree. Aberration (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not enough for inclusion of "fascist" tag but this sure tells that reception of Chinese government is at least mixed. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
AberrationForced: No. There are plenty of scholarly sources on the topic and that cannot be overriden by a couple of news pieces. Please, see Ideology of the Communist Party of China. --MarioGom (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Quillette is a fringe publication. The other article is an opinion piece by a writer for NYT and as such not WP:DUE any notice. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Generally a nationalist, nominally socialist state I feel(ironically Lenin opposing nationalism), NYT also mentions it depends on how to define fascism. OuiOK (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Superpower?

I know there's different definitions of a superpower. But when you Google this, there's clearly no widespread agreement that China is currently one. At least not in the same sense as the US. For every article that argues this view, you can easily find a contrary one. And that's even if you only count sources within the last year or two. In 2019, even China's state-owned think tank, the Development Research Center of the State Council, says the US will be the sole superpower at least until 2035.[3] So at minimum, the claim is mixed or disputed. At most, it's outright wrong. In any case, it's incorrect or misleading for the lead to say it's "widely characterized" as a superpower - something that is later contradicted in the body of the article. It should either say that it's still a potential superpower or that it's sometimes considered as such. Spellcast (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't care much for journalistic sources supporting statements like that, but one of the citations on that comment is an academic paper with decent credentials associated with it. That, supported by the mass media references, kind of presents a compelling case for inclusion. I'd be open to a slight rewording if it makes sense with the sources, but not deletion on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If you exclude media sources, the article cites two academic papers. I can only access one. And it says in the conclusion that China "will emerge as another superpower", so it doesn't support the claim that it currently is one.[4] Spellcast (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That's the basis under which I'd support a slight revision, China has been widely characterized as an emerging superpower, rivaling the United States, would summarize the article's thrust more accurately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed but probably don't need to add "widely" as it doesn't seem to be disputed that it's at least a potential superpower or emerging power. And I'm not sure if "rivaling the United States" is necessary to add given the other countries or entities listed in the potential superpowers article. None of them directly compare themselves to the US when mentioning it. And it could be seen as recentist wording given the current trade war. Spellcast (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The entire thrust of the key source is that China's emergence as a superpower is a challenge to American hegemony, so I'd prefer to keep the rivaling the United States part, but I'm not wedded to the word "widely." How about China has been characterized as an emerging superpower, and a potential challenge to American hegemony.? Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
And for bonus points, using that phrasing would let us include the following reference: Zhu, Zhiqun (2006). US-China relations in the 21st century : power transition and peace. London ; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-70208-9.
I get the sense that the trade war is the main, if only reason for mentioning the US rivalry in the lead. Especially since all the three media refs are about the trade war. The problem with that sentence is that it's not an undisputed fact that China will inevitably become a superpower. Sure, it might. But to assert that by only choosing sources that support that side of the argument seems rather one-sided. Even the ref you just mentioned from the the Hegemony article says it's faced opposition. In the lead, it seems uncontroversial to say that China is a great power, a regional power in Asia, and potential superpower. As to whether it's currently a superpower or will be, the views for and against seem more appropriate for the body than the lead. But I'd like to hear more opinions. Spellcast (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, look, I keep throwing drafts and you keep saying no. Would you care to propose a revision? Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
That "China is a great power, a regional power in Asia, and potential superpower." I was thinking of also adding something like "...and sometimes considered a superpower". But I think that's getting too convoluted for the lead. And given the contentiousness of that statement, it seems more appropriate for the body. Also it's interesting that this ABC article from yesterday talks about this very issue. Could be a good source to use: Is America still the world's only superpower or is China a real rival? Experts aren't so sure anymore. Spellcast (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I have very strong WP:NOTNEWS opinions about using media sources when there are already academic sources in use. This is exacerbated when Western media sources, such as Australian ones are used to refer to regional rivals like China. What I'm saying is I would not consider an a news article from Australia to be WP:DUE any weight for this topic compared to the extant scholarly sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes academic articles are typically better than news articles. I only linked it because of the coincidental timing. I don't think it was trying to argue for or against the claim. It just mentions various opinions. Spellcast (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been fighting a losing battle against the over-use of newsmedia as an an RS in contemporary political articles for a long time now so I'm touchy about it. Appreciate the clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

China is already the world superpower. It is the largest economy in the world and it defeated the US invasions of Korea and Vietnam. It has prevented the US from carrying out regime change in Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea. (86.150.124.19 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC))
While a case could be made for China's diplomatic and military efforts having been effective in supporting Iran and DPRK, and while their economic support of Venezuela was not insubstantial, I'd suggest claims they prevented regime change in these specific countries is dubious at best and encroaching upon WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Chinese, I've hardly heard of our business that matters on Iran. Even if someday China really surpassed US, it would still claim it is the largest developing country in the world as always, which shows no willingness to be the next superpower. We don't see any point of vital interest or much payoff to take a side against US everywhere. The picture you provide probably is quite misleading.OuiOK (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologetic language

@CaradhrasAiguo: in case you are not reading the edits made by The Account 1 who has history of censoring negative content on this page.[5] I think you should review your revert again and abide by WP:BRD. We cannot accept apologetic and unexplained edits like this or tag bomb the lead when the issue is already resolved by the sources provided. Since all very recent edits were poor and unwarranted I simply restored an earlier version. Take a look at the discussion above too titled under "Superpower?". Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, no, and no. You have also reverted (and conveniently neglected to mention) uninvolved editors such as STSC and C.J. Griffin, who have edited beyond correcting Account1's mistakes. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So now in addition to WP:WIKILAWYERING you have resorted to WP:EDITWAR too. Do you have any justification for your POV pushing so far? I see none until now. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
If you check my contributions here, I don't typically edit this article for content at all. If you were to revert TheAccount1's edits while taking care to respect the edits of uninvolved editors, I would not mind. In the mean time, keep your nastiness and holier-than-thou lecturing to yourself. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So you are here barely policing edits and at the same time you are failing accountability for your WP:DE? I got it.
Furthermore, don't ever edit my comments again like you did here in violation of WP:REFACTOR. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I note that CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) has a history of extremist claims when it comes to China and should not be perceived as an impartial editor. Peruse Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan for a specific (and most egregious) example of this. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
That alone doesn't make CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) unique or a particularly egregious rule breaker for that matter, but their approach to those who disagree with them is almost legendary at this point, because it involves the most bizarre mention of Wikipedia policies while simultaneously breaking them to harass other editors. And just like any other bully, Aiguo can't take what they dish out, so they will automatically revert edits that they feel threatened or triggered by (which are often times actually quite friendly or at least neutral in tone) without explanation, never mind consensus. Yny501 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral; the content of this article should be presented in a balanced manner per WP:NPOV. STSC (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious: which part of the version prior to your edits did you think was not balanced? It doesn't appear to have gained consensus in my opinion. Yny501 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious in not seeing it? It was just one-sided accusation on the subject (whether it's China or USA). Actually, the original passage has not gained the consensus for its inclusion because several editors have wanted to remove it from the lead. STSC (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The truth can be one-sided. I do not think that an encyclopaedia should sacrifice the truth in the name of being balanced. However, I do not mind the removal of the original passage; I just have some concerns about you cutting out 'independent observers' and not mentioning the countries against China's policies (or the ones for, for that matter). So my main issue is with your last edit out of 4. Yny501 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I had tagged "independent observers" for sources but none has been given so I removed it as unsourced. STSC (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll see if I can find any. Yny501 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
STSC you are ignoring the fact that your tags required no addressing other than removal as disruptive tag bombing since the attached sources are clear about the matter. I would warn you to stop using apologetic language regarding the issue where  there is wide consensus that China is guilty of suppression and wide spread human rights abuses. This is not a BLP article where you throw defense from subject no matter how senseless it may sound, but a geographical article. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
since the attached sources are clear about the matter — They are about the abuses themselves, but they are not regarding the "independent observers" claim in the text, which is the point of contention. The three sources presented make reference to: 1) International Campaign for Tibet and its claims on what a UN panel has done, 2) spurious claims by the dubious U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 3) A literal op-ed whose only objective source would be the researcher Heather Kavan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Gazillions of sources are available on the matter but we don't need them. The source is not "literal op-ed" but written by the writer of the book "Firewall of China". You are not helping your case by misrepresenting sources. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 04:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
User Aman, you don't warn me but I do warn you... Wikipedia is not your personal blog. You're bullying other editors on here. Learn the WP:CIVIL way to discuss and seek consensus. I asked who the "independent observers" were which I did not find in the source. And show us other reliable sources before you say any more silly things. STSC (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Their conduct doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary for this page... Also doesn't seem to be any worse than yours when it comes to civility, STSC. Aman.kumar.goel doesn't appear to be treating this page as their blog nor bullying other editors. Can you explain your rather serious accusations? I note that you have yet to condemn Aiguo’s bahavior which makes your condemnation of Aman.kumar.goel's much less egregious behavior feel just a little too convenient. I also note that condescending your fellow editors will get you nowhere, however silly you think the things they say are. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems someone wanted to pick a fight, but I'm not interested. STSC (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

This article should be split between the modern day country of the PRC and China as a region which has not always had the same boundaries much less cultural background as the modern day one. A solution is probably to move the current article to be only about PRC and move the contents about history and culture heritage to the [Greater China] article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.97.121.9 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Virtually no country has had the same boundaries throughout its entire history, so there is no reason to treat China any differently. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Read the FAQ at the top of the page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Human right

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

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

Yes . Republics have a lot of problems. Yes, there is another one. Russia has closed its state border.Dick Shane 2 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course! 170 people were killed.33Habujin (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Religious section should be amended

"No religion/Chinese folk religions" would seem a nonsensical pairing. Not sure why they're listed together, especially on the pie chart. Chinese folk religions are a very broad school and should be listed separately. BBX118 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"中華人民共和国" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 中華人民共和国. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus economic disaster getting worldwide attention

It's a medical issue yes but more it's a major economic disaster for China, with production and employment plunging in 2020. and it's a major economic crisis for USA, France, Japan, Iran, Italy etc. (US stock market lost over $3 trillion last week attributed to virus issues). Also it's a political issue regarding the ability of the Chinese govt to handle the double crisis. In terms of Wiki reader interest, there are 21,300 hits/ day on this China page with all its dozens of topics, and 10,000+ pageviews a day on the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in Mainland China page on this one topic. Official Chinese data for Feb 2020 (reported in Wall St Journal) shown manufacturing DOWN 28%, non-manufacturing output DOWN 46% and employment DOWN 32% --that's getting worlwide attention in every news outlet. read the Wall Street Journal Feb. 28, 2020 Now let's hear the evidence that that the issue is unimportant for wiki readers concerned with China. I notee the editor involved also erased virus info from the Wihan page, calling it vandalism --see this edit. @Yeungkahchun: comments on Chinese 2020 economic crisis Rjensen (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the pageviews metric, after 4 Feb, pageviews of this page quickly began receding to normal levels. Even at the onset of the Hubei lockdowns ahead of Lunar New Year, the peak in pageviews could not match that attracted by the 70th anniversary of the PRC's founding. Further demonstrating the WP:RECENTISM of that addition, a JPMorgan economist has cited possible 15% second quarter GDP growth in the mainland. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"and it's a major economic crisis for USA, France, Japan, Iran, Italy etc" -- The fact that you say it is an economic issue for the whole world goes against the argument of putting it on China's page specifically. And there are thousands of cases in Italy and Korea and hundreds of cases in many more countries. -- Coronavirus should have its own page. And Spanish Flu should not be included as a section on Spain's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"China republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect China republic should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#China republic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Differentiation between de iure and de facto form of government

181.179.34.64 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) It's true the state structure envisioned in the P.R.C. Fundamental Law is followed, however, the top posts are help by top-ranking party officials that act according to Politburo decisions and orders. China is not an autocracy, it's an oligarchy. No need to alter the current political regime, current one is fully oligarchic. Please edit the article.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

third or fourth largest ]] country by area. 'to' Stranger Things El (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How is talking about China's atrocities considered neutral

I have been surfing some pages regarding political oppression carried out by China but have so far seen only people blocked or edits reversed due to violating neutrality (take 8964 as an example, the scene was clearly a massacre as many were killed, but such mentions were deleted), so how would describing atrocities commited by the CCP considered neutral? Genuine question not troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.120.108 (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

National motto

The infobox currently lists Serve the People (为人民服务) as the PRC's motto, but I wasn't able to find any sources to suggest that this motto (though it appears on Xinhuamen and in older Maoist literature) has official recognition as such. Indeed, my understanding is that its use has significantly decreased since the end of the Cultural Revolution. I was wondering if anyone had any sources to support its inclusion in this article. Rfwang4 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article itself says it's unofficial and that it's "less often used in China today". I tried to remove, but was reverted for no reason. Brandmeistertalk 07:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

Should the recent coronavirus outbreak and its consequences on the Chinese population, economy, and political standing be mentioned in this article. SamsonKriger (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It should NOT be mentioned. How is an illness descriptive of a country's political and economical evolution relevant? The line currently in the article is just to satisfy the US stance on COVID-19 as "The China virus". Also there are indications that this sickness goes back further than December both in France and the US. Please remove the line. It only "appears" factually correct, but is Sinophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of China?

Gathering opinions on the proposed section. The criticism of the US Gov't has several pages, but only one section for country with the highest population. Apart from this one critical portion, the entirety of the article gives a glowing review, almost like an advertisement. What think ye? IDeagle94 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about the China article? A seperate "criticism" section in this article is not necessary, this article is not meant to persuade people as to whether or not China/the Chinese government is good or bad. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Articles and sections devoted to criticism are not preferred. WP:CRITS I'd rather make the argument the Criticism of the United States government article should be merged into the History of the United States article. The US criticism article has multiple issue tags and does not read well as a single subject. Just because the US criticism article slipped past Wikipedia's best practices doesn't mean we should do the same for China. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes , we prefer a page on the criticism of Communist China as China have violated international law, human rights law also threaten other countries sovereignty. Kushal2024 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And which major country (and even lesser country) has not been accused of at least one item of your diatribe? For example india violates human rights all the time through its caste system, and its failure to feed its population. The USA beats and kills its Black citizens. The USA also threatens the sovereignty of many other countries, including China. india physically threatens the sovereignty of several countries. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You will also find that the USA consider itself outside of International Law, as well as The Geneva Convention. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

The name in chinese means "middle country" sometimes interpreted more historically as "middle kingdom" not "middle" per reference 15. I think this is just a basic typo type error. You can find the interpretation in any chinese->english dictionary, such as https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=guo. 108.51.103.157 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current information in the article is cited to academic books on the matter. An online dictionary is not appropriate to challenge this information. Also, please establish consensus for this change before asking again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
No. The endonym actual mean "The Central States" in the plural, and not "Middle Country" or even "The Middle Kingdom". These states existed simultaneously. This was not any different from many other countries as we know them today such as England, Germany, Italy for example. Similarly, a modern example is The United States (in the plural). 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"China (People's Rep.)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect China (People's Rep.). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#China (People's Rep.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"ChinA" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ChinA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#ChinA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The name Zhongguo is also translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English.

This should be "The name Zhongguo is also mistakenly/ wrongly translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English. The original translator probably did not know enough English or Chinese. The correct translation of Zhongguo is "Central State". Originally it was in the plural and referred to the "Central States". 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Middle Kingdom" was a poetic way of saying it though I don't know who came up with it. It may be good to have published sources about this. @2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4: WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Lost in translation and history. Maybe someone in the Church. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2014:F101:7F42:6DB0 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How should China's government be described?

Should its government be described as 'Unitary one-party socialist republic' or 'Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship' ? RllyD1D2M3 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship Wandavianempire (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with just "Red China" that way there is a differentiation between free China aka: Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.10.30 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a socially responsible one-party republic. It is not very socialist, or communist for that matter, considering how the party encourages the creation of private enterprises and allows previously unknown people to become (very!) rich. It is also not a dictatorship despite the "president" being in there for life. The communist party has around 8 million members (from memory) and regions have a fair amount of autonomy. It is simplistic and misleading calling China socialist, communistic, or a dictatorship. It is a socially responsible one-party republic. Socially responsible in the same sense Democracies in Europe see it with universal healthcare, shelters and food for the poorest and an expectation for all to contribute to the society - or pay for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be described as 'Unitary one party socialist republic authoritarian communist dictatorship' Kushal2024 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of dictatorship, China (The PRC) has never not claimed it is not a dictatorship, it is called a people's dictatorship. Also the number of members of the CCP is probably closer to 80 million and not 8 million. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It would depend on which period you are talking about. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Totalitarian state capitalist republic" would be most accurate. It cannot be called communist since it doesn't follow communism for 40 years now. Andro611 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would go with 'Unitary one-party semi-presidential socialist republic,' or something similar. --Lord ding dong (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Extensive Inaccurate Content in this article

There is extensive inaccurate content in this article. Most notably, well-documented and indisputable facts are stated as being opinions or accusations. This is not to be tolerated in an encyclopedia. Upon reviewing the edit comments and archives of talk pages, it appears that there has been a general concession that in the interest of WP:POV, description of human rights abuses and atrocities is to be couched in measured terms. This is not the policy of wikipedia. Facts are to be stated as facts when they are so well documented as to be indisputable. Sbelknap (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: I see such items discussed throughout the article, and featuring prominently in the lead. And neither do they appear to be couched in weasel words, nor described as “alleged” or anything of the sort. It’s all described rather matter-of-fact, and in encyclopedic writing style, as far as I can tell. Can you provide some examples of what you’re talking about? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is one that I corrected. [6]
Here is one in the current China article: Several Chinese telecommunications companies, most notably Huawei and ZTE, have been accused of spying for the Chinese military.[370] (Not just accused, strong evidence supporting).
Here is one that is false (social controls are more restrictive now than just a few years ago): While economic and social controls have been significantly relaxed in China since the 1970s, political freedom is still tightly restricted.
Sbelknap (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

March of the Volunteers

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Why do you use an inaccurate summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&type=revision&diff=970963117&oldid=970931498 when you changed the music? Why do you think the audio should be changed?Manabimasu (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, that's not an inaccurate summary, I actually made punctuation edits (please tell me you didn't revert those)... Forgot to mention the change in audio. Given that this rendition was performed by the Chinese PLA (and subsequently used by the China Central Television for its sign-ons) - it's a much more pleasing rendition of the March. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Where is the consensus to change the music?Manabimasu (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Manabimasu: Well, there was no consensus to establish the US Navy Band's version of the March as the file used in the article in the first place. I reckoned, based on WP:BOLD, that the Chinese rendition of the March would be a better fit. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Editors did revert changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:China/Archive_15#Sound_file . But even then consensus was not established. So how about I or you start an rfc on which rendition should be used? I’m fine if there is consensus.Manabimasu (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Manabimasu: Sure - would you like to do the honours and notify me? Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Yes, I will.Manabimasu (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Considering the political bias from western media towards China, a large amount of sources could have questionable credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Windwillow (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The bias is not simply political bias against China. The bias is also racial, and is directed against all Chinese people as a race. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest replace it? And what racial bias? 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:A9AD:71FF:114:B0F (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Recently there was a change made by @Matthewberns expand the third paragraph in this article to include more explanation on Xinjiang which I think is unnecessary. The sentences read:

"In Xinjiang, the Chinese Government has detained Uyghurs in Vocational Education and Training Centers, which critics call internment camps.[12][13][14] According to the U.S. Department of State, actions including political indoctrination, torture, physical and psychological abuse, forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor are common in these facilities.[15] The Chinese government denies these statements and says its response helps combat terrorism in the province.[16][17]"

The topic of Xinjiang is currently a highly debated political topic, and many of the sources linked (Radio Free Asia, Human Rights Watch, NED) have been proven to be US-sponsored bias laundered through western media outlets. This is not to say that the current situation in Xinjiang isn't happening or that it should not be mentioned at all in this article, but the first couple paragraphs should be a very brief, general overview of China. This paragraph already addresses human rights abuses in China in the first couple sentences, but to devote the entire rest of the paragraph to all of the alleged details in Xinjiang seems excessive and seems like it's politically motivated. I think it makes more sense to move these sentences to a different article. Right now the topic of Xinjiang takes up nearly a fourth of the first section on China, which is ridiculous when you juxtapose it with China's entire history, culture and existence.

For comparison, we don't spend an entire paragraph talking about police brutality or children dying in ICE concentration camps in the beginning of the United States article. Nor do we talk about the forced sterilization of indigenous peoples in the first four paragraphs of the Canada article. I shouldn't be reading a brief overview on China and already feel like China's own overview on Wikipedia has a heavy anti-China slant. Mangomystery (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the 2nd sentence (DoS) to the "Sociopolitical issues and human rights" section below, as it is too specific for a general overview of the country. I'll leave the request open for another editor to decide if the first and third sentences are repetitive of the sentence immediately before. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done This does not seem to be biased. I'm not sure how the ICE camps relate to China. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Claims by Albertaont

@Albertaont: You said that the findings of the Tribunal were "not reported in BBC, CNN" and I asked you whether you really believe that, you called it sarcasm but it wasnt. I'm asking whether you really believe that the findings havent been "not reported in BBC, CNN" As far as I can find they've been reported by every mainstream WP:RS. The further reporting by those WP:RS also supports the findings of the Tribunal, see this story published the other day by The Diplomat about the conditions in the camps [7]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: the tribunal itself has the list of sources which has reported on its "judgement": CNN and BBC are not one of them. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wait... So you dont think they're reliable source for information but you trust them absolutely about who has covered their report? You didnt read the Diplomat article did you? The Tribunal was wide ranging and definitely FG backed... We probally shouldnt be using them as a source for anything other than their own opinion, but thats what we were using them for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Correct, the tribunal is not a reliable source. You mention a citing of Diplomat, which could be considered a reliable source, but that is different from citing of the tribunal. There would be no reason for the tribunal to not include CNN or BBC had they covered them, the tribunal would want to show that as many sources covered them to give them legitimacy. Like I said, you are free to include citations from reliable sources from whats happening in Xinjiang, (which I believe are already included), but the sourcing of opinion, verbatim, in its entirety, is not appropriate. It is both not NPOV, as well as undue weight. Please do not assume that I have not read the diplomat article however, that is unprofessional. Albertaont (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I would agree how we had it before probally undue. There isn't a NPOV issue here though. You do appear to be trusting the Tribunal for some things and not others based on your suppositions about their interests, thats not generally how we do things. I'm fine with removing the text you originally wanted to remove after seeing your new explanation for the removal. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"Chung-Kuo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chung-Kuo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chung-Kuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Chungkuo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chungkuo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chungkuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Chung-kuo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chung-kuo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Chung-kuo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

I think you guys should keep an eye out for @Matthewberns's edits. Once again, he is trying to insert his political points and expand on the Uighur situation in the beginning overview paragraphs of this article. The "suppression of religious and ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang" was how it was worded beforehand in the third paragraph, which was a fine summary, but yesterday he edited to also say "genocide of Uighurs," which is not only redundant, but also too specific to be included in a general overview. Furthermore, what is happening in Xinjiang has also not been officially labeled as a "genocide." His first edit (which was reverted a few days ago) was similar in that he intentionally inserted two detailed sentences smearing China over the Uighur situation in the general overview; this new edit should be reverted as well. Mangomystery (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 08:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

Now I understand that Wikipedia has a pro-US bias, but isn't it a bit ridiculous that criticisms of China, Russia, Iran, etc are included in their lead sections while this is not the case with say the US or the UK's wikipedia page?

Should criticisms be removed out of the China, Russia, Iran, etc headers or should they be allowed on the lead section of all other countries as well? Which would be more encyclopedic? Otherwise I think criticisms should only be added in sections below, and not in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadesTheEldest (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • That would be consistent with a NPOV. It should be included in sections below for all countries. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree, the criticisms shouldn't be in the lead Yeungkahchun (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC music

In this brief discussion, a small number of editors attempt to decide which music file to use for the national anthem of the People's Republic of China. They decide to go with option (a), which is the version currently used in the article. Therefore the outcome of this discussion is no change.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently the article uses anthem rendition File:China_-_CCTV_Sign-on_Rendition.ogg in the infobox.

Question: What is the best rendition for the anthem?

  1. (a) File:China - CCTV Sign-on Rendition.ogg
  2. (b)
  3. (c) No music
  4. (d) Other. Please identify.

Manabimasu (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1 (a) is more suitable, considering it is used on Chinese state television sign-ons and sign-offs. Idealigic (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • C. The infobox isn't designed for such a file, and already somehow extends down past the very long table on contents and forces the Infobox Chinese into the History section. Different variations can be included with context on the main article. CMD (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    CMD I'm not sure what problem you're seeing, but I checked seven arbitrary articles for nations across the world both large and small. The infobox in every article does include an audio file for the national anthem. It is supposed to work, and it would be abnormal to exclude it from the China article. If you're seeing a problem then you probably get the same result at every other articles as well, and that should be investigated as an independent issue. Maybe the formatting needs to be tweaked or something. Alsee (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
At some point someone added one to one article and then people saw this and copied (a common trend for a variety of items that have been scattered throughout country articles for better or worse). However, it is not "supposed to work"; there is no provision for it in the template and it is simply appended to the text field. For this article there is actually less of a problem than normal, as "March of the Volunteers" contains no letters with a descender, but quite often the file actually obscures the anthem name. Whether the text is obscured may also be dependent on specific device and browser considerations, which bring up WP:ACCESS concerns. CMD (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1(a), which as I understand it is the version used by Chinese state television. That makes it more authentic / more authoritative / better representation. While I'm no music expert, the 2(b) version did sound slightly 'cleaner' to me - however unless there is a gross quality problem I have no business passing judgement on what China's national anthem is supposed to sound like. Chinese state television can, and have, passed judgement on a good representation of the anthem. We should defer to their judgement. Furthermore 2(b) was apparently preformed by the United States Navy Band, which needlessly and unwisely invites nationalized conflicts or complaints. Alsee (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Hi - I'm advocating in favour of (a), which is a rendition by the People's Liberation Army's music band and used on Chinese state television sign-ons and sign-offs. The music flows much better than the US Navy Band's rendition, which is (b), which is an added bonus. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute over the introduction

JShark's original section header was too lengthy, so I trimmed it. It originally read: Information too long for an introduction. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. El_C 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User:CaradhrasAiguo To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first.

Check the articles about other countries, those articles are not full of unnecessary information in the introduction. Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China.

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. A lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Information too long for an introduction. Much of that information is available in other parts of the article. --JShark (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China.—Instead of using WP:SOAPBOX-violating inflammatory language, explain to me how the:
  1. World Bank (cited at least twice)
  2. Investopedia ([8]; which isn't open to editing in the same manner Wikipedia is)
  3. Business Insider ([9])
  4. Statista ([10])
  5. Forbes ([11])
  6. The Economist ([12])
are "Communist Party propaganda"? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Propaganda. China for you is perfect and you only cite articles that speak well of China and that speak well of the infrastructure projects of the communist party that put countries in debt. In China there is inequality but you only talk about the rich people. --JShark (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Average per capita GDP in the United States remains much higher, and many poor people in the United States are on average richer than the poor in China. --JShark (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, many Chinese state-owned enterprises are unproductive. These companies survive thanks to the subsidies. --JShark (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Bullet trains are only productive on certain routes within China but other routes are a big waste of money. I have lived in China and that is why I do not believe in the propaganda of the Chinese government.--JShark (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I was also able to see with my own eyes the human rights violations in regions of China like Xinjiang. --JShark (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this a serious attempt at earnest discussion?
  1. Propaganda. China for you is perfect and you only cite articles that speak well of China—Mind the ad hominem (personal attack, if you will) mixed with the strawman, lest the big fat BLOCKED or Has blocks appears when I scroll your username in popups.
  2. that speak well of the infrastructure projects of the communist party that put countries in debt—There is no mention of the Port of Gwadar or any of the African railways in the lede, and even within the body, the Belt and Road Initiative has barely two full sentences.
  3. but you only talk about the rich people—Nope, I personally have never added content here on the number of billionaires or millionaires, do not personalize your talk page posts to give the impression that I have. If you wish to propose a similar Gini coefficient superlative, write a proposed one here instead of flooding this page with nauseating polemics.
  4. State-owned enterprises are not mentioned until the section on Economic growth.
  5. I have lived in China is a complete non-argument. No one on this site is willing to indulge in anecdotal BS. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I also know the Wikipedia rules. You clearly have something against me. That is why I request a third opinion since I am not going to reach any agreement with this type of users who believe that they are owners of the absolute truth. --JShark (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
In addition, many of these skyscrapers were designed by architects from other countries. Little innovation in China. Other countries are leaders in architecture and design. --JShark (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A powerful army is also the one that innovates the most. But even countries like Russia have better military technology. Israel innovates in military technology and Saudi Arabia innovates very little; that also happens to the very "powerful" Chinese army. --JShark (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The cited references are reliable sources independent from China and are easily verifiable to dozens of other reliable sources not already cited. The lead also isn't extraordinarily long for the article; there are four accessible paragraphs summarizing important points in the article in line with MOS:INTRO. Stating the RS-given statistics behind China being a quantifiably major economic power, the size of its finance sector, and its infrastructure projects don't really have to do with state propaganda, the GDP per capita of the US, nor what any editor saw in Xinjiang.
    Wikipedia is based on reliable source statements of fact, not editorial opinion. — MarkH21talk 21:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Even the new Beijing airport was designed by a foreign architect. Little innovation in architecture within China. --JShark (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
So because other articles about other countries do not have that disproportionate addition of information. --JShark (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
JShark You clearly have something against me—Not my problem that A) you have chosen to personalize this B) You have addressed none of my counter-arguments. C) Or that part of your initial post was described by the protecting admin as "innuendo".
1) Simply stating the mere number of supertall skyscrapers does not imply the architects are all native-raised mainland Chinese. Similarly, Frank Gehry and I.M. Pei, who have both designed some of the most recognizable U.S. landmarks (Walt Disney Concert Hall, National Gallery of Art East Building, etc) were not U.S.-born-and-raised. 2) Conflating modern architectural design with actual, recent hi-tech innovation is a facetious "argument" at best, and flippant trolling at worst. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Many European countries also have many billionaires and those articles do not talk about billionaires or bullet trains in the introduction. --JShark (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JShark, your tone in many of the above comments has been inappropriate, still. You are acting too aggressively. Again, please refrain from innuendo. Please also refrain from accusations that are not supported by evidence. Please do not personalize. Please substantiate. This is not the right way for you to advance your argument in defense of your changes. All these assertions you are making that are meant to be taken as factual — well, you are failing to represent them as such, because you have yet to cite a single reliable 3rd party source to support any of your claims. It is essential that you self-correct, then, both on the conduct end (acting aggressively, personalizing) as well as the content front (original research by virtue of not citing any sources). El_C 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources:

Li, S., Lin, Y., Selover, D. D., Stein, M., Wu, H., & Yang, Z. (2010). Chinese State-Owned Enterprises: Why Aren’t They Efficient.

Hurley, J., Morris, S., & Portelance, G. (2019). Examining the debt implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a policy perspective. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 3(1), 139-175.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/04/01/income-inequality-is-growing-fast-in-china-and-making-it-look-more-like-the-us/ Income inequality is growing fast in China and making it look more like the US


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-should-not-expand-bullet-train-network-expert/articleshow/38206060.cms China should not expand bullet train network: Expert --JShark (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a start, but changing the introduction in such a major way (not to mention for such a key article), probably requires a Request for comment which is properly closed so that consensus over the decision is codified. You have already had a Third Opinion by MarkH21, who did not appear to find your reasoning convincing. El_C 21:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Surely because others have not reviewed my sources and many others that exist but I did not want to overload this discussion with sources. But if you want to keep including that sad information in the introduction it is a shame for many people who want to learn about China. They end up learning more about billionaires and bullet trains when there are more interesting things about beautiful Chinese culture. --JShark (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Bye. I will work on other beautiful articles where my contribution is appreciated. No hard feelings. If they see my contributions as something bad, then I can't do anything about it. --JShark (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

JShark, I have no opinion about either inclusion or exclusion at this time, since I've yet to review the actual edit closely. That's really besides the point. A significant bold edit to the introduction of such a key article, probably merits a wider discussion than three editors, especially if the other two editors do not agree with your changes. So, yes, reaching and identifying consensus does warrant a significant expenditure of high-quality work. That's just the way it is on Wikipedia. Anyway, I will downgrade the protection since you have withdrawn from the dispute. El_C 22:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Pls delete my edit

My child has mistakenly removed some contant pls add it again ChandlerBing29 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Idell (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

POV issues

CLOSED
The user who began this thread and has been blocked as a sock. Since they were the only editor advocating for their changes, the discussion is no longer relevant.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Firstly send my greetings to the fellow editor, I want to raise the issue about POV issues regarding the general content based on various sources within the article. Apparently, some of the original words which are mostly carried directly over from the sources has breached the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia, or somewhat, I'm pretty sure, at least. I have been trying to fix that and it last over 7 hours today but a fellow editor just challenged the new version, my edit summaries are presented with reasons, I will discuss more detailedly on this to convince for a more persuasive posture. FRIGB (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Reply: FRIGB, I have restored some of the information you had removed, specifically regarding COVID. You're edits reflect a serious POV problem. I have tagged the article for copy editing the peacock terms.
When you make mass changes to an entire article all in one edit, it is difficult for other editors to work with your changes and makes WP:BRD much more difficult. I'm certain you do not want to make things more difficult for other editors, so please do not make mass changes to an entire article in one edit; I am requesting that you edit one paragraph or at most one section in a single edit. I'm reasonably sure CentreLeftRight joins me in this request.
You're edit may still be reverted because of POV and peacock problems by another editor, but I have not done so. I will request this article be reviewed by the WP:GOCE to correct the peacock issue.  // Timothy :: talk  10:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
My original reply was lost in an edit conflict, but my main grievances are that a lot of the changes in wording do not address any POV issues, are grammatically incorrect, break WP:MOS standards and are oversimplifying and/or generalizing content. CentreLeftRight ✉ 11:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the last stable version per WP:BRD. Making mass changes to an established article like this makes it extremely difficult for other editors to review and potentially revert individual changes. Just skimming over your edits, I can already find dozens of edits that I immediately disagree with. Be bold, but not reckless. Split your edits into small, individual changes, and do not make too many edits at once. Wait until one set of edits are considered stable before making more changes. Side note: also seeing a potential problem with WP:SPA here. intforce (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for the misconception, I did split the edits into small, individual edits pairing with respective sections of the article, and the first editor that opposed the newer version have mostly make agreement with the newer version, he/she just fixed some parts relevant to my edits. FRIGB (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi FRIGB, per WP:BRD, please don't re-add your edits before this has been thoroughly discussed here. I don't object to your edits in general. I'm asking you to tackle one subsection at a time, and split your edits into significantly smaller ones, perhaps each not exceeding 100 bytes. Once all your edits for a subsection have been vetted (and can thus be considered WP:STABLE), you can move on to the next subsection. Yes, through this process it will probably take weeks before you're through the entire article, but that's just the way this works. It would also be best if you give detailed reasonings for each edit, to help others reviewing your edits understand them. intforce (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
FRIGB, I appears that your intention is to remove information related to COVID from the article. Three editors have specifically objected to your mass edits, and I have specifically objected above to this in particular. You have done another mass edit and continue to change the article with POV words. You need to cease the POV edits and because multiple editors have objected to you changing a stable article, you needed gain consensus before you introduce your changes to the article.  // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Intforce, then if so, just for a quicker process, can you skim and list out the immediate edits that you find needed to be vetted. I mostly rephrase, rewrite or remove words, phrases or sentences that may not be neutral. The aggregated changes seems relatively large but they are generally in the same mannerism, if a section is vetted, it's rather similar for other sections. FRIGB (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edits have been reviewed objected to already by three editors. It is up to you to bring the specific edits you wish to make here and gain conensus for the changes you wish to make per BRD and ONUS. Do not continue to reinsert material that has been objected to by three editors.  // Timothy :: talk  15:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, instead of bringing up all the edits (which is a strenuous process) that obviously not all of them is objected but only parts of them, how about instead I ask the opposing user to just swiftly list out the edits which he/she is immediatly disagreeing with, and we can directly discuss on that, and swiftly move on to the next ones, wouldn't it be quicker? FRIGB (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@FRIGB: This is not about being quick. In fact, it should be a strenuous process. This is an extraordinarily high-profile article, and thus we should expect that major changes are thoroughly vetted by the community. I can't just "make a list" of the edits I disagree with. Other editors may not have the same view as I do. That's why you need to make the changes in a format that enables discussion here. It is impossible to discuss 100+ changes at once. So once again, make your edits in one subsection, divided into several smaller edits, we discuss here, and then we move on to the next subsection. intforce (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce:, if you bring up the changes you disagree with, they are likely to be the same problems other editors are looking for, we can cumulatively discuss on that, if so, a problem is fixed for multiple editors, then if there are still other changes that hasn't been brought up, any editor is free to brought them up, and we continue to discuss on that, until all problems are solved, so instead of bringing up all of the edits which including the many ones that do not need discussion, this will save a lot more time for us. What do you think? FRIGB (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The onus is on you to provide rationale for your changes. You argue with WP:NPOV, but as other editors have pointed out, most of your edits were not addressing NPOV issues. This is not about saving time, this is about being thorough, as we should be. And STOP making your changes without consensus here again. That is considered disruptive editing and may lead to a block. intforce (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I'm not intending to remove information about COVID, you can retain it as long as it does not breach NPOV. FRIGB (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

FRIGB you specifically removed all COVID information twice from the article after the edit had been objected to.  // Timothy :: talk  15:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, well I did not, when you restored the information about COVID in the "Health" section, I did not removed it, but only rephrase a small part that is not neutral. FRIGB (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are the diffs: [13], [14].  // Timothy :: talk  15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, those removals were before you restored the information about COVID, I did not remove it again after you restore the information, we can leave it there, it's fine. FRIGB (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @FRIGB: even after all this discussion I don’t think you understand our WP:NPOV policy... For the most part your edits were not addressing NPOV issues and the arguments you’re making here aren’t within the realm of NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Intforce, firstly, check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch in the "Words that may introduce bias" - "Puffery" section, and then swiftly skim over my edits again, you will see what I mean and trying to do.

For example, in the lead of the article, I removed adjectives or words like widely, heavy, numerous, widespread,... many more and some other phrases that may introduce subjective evaluation or biasness. FRIGB (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You are somehow refusing to get the point. You first argue NPOV, and after other editors point out that that does not make sense, you suddenly argue MOS:WTW. As I've said, I don't disagree that some words could be replaced in the article. However, I probably disagree with more than half of your changes. WTW does not mean that the words are not allowed to be used, but simply that some caution is required. Many of your edits only degrade the quality of writing without reducing bias. Some examples:
  • China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain. How does removing "fertile" improve the quality of the article? All early civilizations arose in some fertile river basin. That is a fact.
  • Since then, China has expanded, fractured and re-unified numerousmultiple times. Literally adds nothing to improve the sentence.
And those are just literally the first two changes you made. I have neither the time, nor the patience to painstakingly go through all 100+ of your edits and manually revert them. The onus is on you to provide rationale each edit. I suggest you make a list here with the changes you propose and your reasons behind them, so we can have a productive discussion on them. That is, if you really want to improve this article. intforce (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce "fertile" is a vague adjective, isn't it? Every basins has some degrees of fertile-ness, removing the words like "fertile" does improve the quality of the article in the way that it does not put a sujective evaluation by using such kind of adjectives because each individual have their own definition of which basin is considered "fertile", how can we agree upon a single one? Do you understand? FRIGB (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"Numerous" is a bias adjective, just search for its definition on Oxford, it's used to describe something is "many", how can we commonly agree upon a point for it to be considered "many"? I remove the "re" in unified because it's also vague, reunified in what term? It may be the first time they are unified because it's a total different regime and land area.
If a adjective used is bias and is subjected to individual perception, we just can't used it, that just the way it is. MOS:WTW says that you use the words with caution, well, it is obvious that these words are used in totally wrong ways, you just have to abolish them. FRIGB (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Fertile is not vague, it contains implications of conduciveness to agriculture, which was an important stage in human history. As for numerous/multiple, I don't think it's particularly biased, but also don't think changing to multiple is detrimental. CMD (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, give me a detailed number and date to which extend a land is considered "fertile", please? FRIGB (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
FRIGB, Several editors have objected to the edits you are making. The above noted changes are examples of how your edits are not improvements. Fertile is not vague and numerous is not biased.  // Timothy :: talk  17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes they are, look for the definition of these words on dictionaries and you will find out. FRIGB (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Intforce Finally, you said that it is my onus to list ALL of the edits and provide rationale for every single one of them but then you immediately said that you "don't have neither the time, nor the patience to painstakingly go through all" of my edits. What? Well, if I'm the one that have to list all of the edits, then you will still have to sit through all of it and discuss on it, isn't it?. How about instead, I recommend to you an alternative method in that you just have to list the edits that you find it likely to be controversial, then you move onto the less controversial ones, until we handled a majority of them. In either ways, you will still have to sit through and discuss, however, the later method that I recommend is much quicker, more efficient one. So what would you like to choose? FRIGB (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I said it is not my obligation to compile and format a list of your edits. However, if you compile such a list, I am happy to offer my comments on each edit you make. Please stop suggesting that other editors should accommodate you. You are the one proposing changes, so it is your obligation to convince others that your changes should be made. intforce (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Intforce Well then, if you are so persistent that every single change must be listed. What about the reasoning I give about how the words "fertile" and "numerous" cannot be used above? FRIGB (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Intforce, there, you ask me and after reading again, I have compiled a list of changes in the article here. These are all of the changes in the article:

First is the list of words or phrases throughout the article (have been altered or moved in the new version) in which their usage is likely to has infringed the neutral wording according to the Manuel of Style:

  • History section: often, many, slowly, powerful, is famed for having, soon, harsh, widespread, considerably, notably, central, swiftly, largely, drastic, developmentally disabled, quickly, golden, abundant, enjoyed, short-lived, great, catastrophes, popular, deft, uneasy, numerous, idealistic massive, quickly, significant, high, severely, large-scale, suffered, vast.
  • Geography section: is vast and diverse, broad, low, major, pronounced, highly complex, prolonged, poor, important, very suitable, most famous, acute, rare, "...are fairly stringent, they are poorly...", frequently, rapid, heavily, generally.
  • Politics section: meaningful, few, complicated, substantial, small, tightly, routinely, regularly, much, far, inefficient, massive, mainly, leading examples of, enormously, slightly, undervalued, widely, large, a lot.
  • Remaining sections: repeated, vital, "..numerous world-leading..", almost all, common, strain, enormous, "...the unpopularity of the strict limits", "..the great bulk..", distinct, small, recent, long-term, diffcult, elite, better, rife, nearly, serious, "...been largely contained", densely populated, divine, worthwhile, heavily, prestigious, deep, vigorous, burgeoning, "...is highly diverse", precise, simple, become popular, loosely, abstract, huge, "..held in high esteem", more recently, "many more..".
  • Some other words or phrases are not necessarily bias but too vague and not specific in statistics: recent, local-scale, an entirely new, mass, consistently, actively, early-modern, ancient, modern, "..biggest of them all", "...are among the busiest in the world", "which has three of longest railroad bridges in the world", traditional, normal, "..most commonly spoken..", "..one of the poorest provinces".

Other, longer phrases that has been removed or altered:

  • Because of biased personal/subjective evaluation: "The ill-fated anti-foreign Boxer Rebellion of 1899–1901 further weakened the dynasty"; "...and was later considered one of the primary victors in the war"; "China has had a long and complex trade relationship with the United States..."; "...its most important export market"; "...healthy and highly diversified"; "..as among the highest in the world", "...despite low to moderate rankings for religious-related social hostilities"; "...The rapid economic growth of China (blue) is readily apparent..."; "...during which it has seen cycles of prosperity and decline..."; "...highly diversified economy and one of the most consequential players in international trade..."; "...China was once a world leader in science and technology up until the Ming dynasty..."; "...The Chinese space program is one of the world's most active..."; "...The Belt and Road Initiative could be one of the largest development plans in modern history..."; "...while Confucianism as a religious self-identification is common within the intellectual class..."; "...one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world..."; "...one of the oldest sporting cultures...".
  • Or removed because of being too detailed or unrelated: "..which then spread to other parts of East Asia, including Japan and Korea" (unrelated); A minor info about Covid in the History section (too recent); "The current General Secretary is Xi Jinping, who took office on 15 November 2012 and was re-elected on 25 October 2017..." (repeated from below). FRIGB (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

The words to watch are explicitly the words to watch, not the words to blindly delete. The guideline explicitly says, in bold, that it "should not be applied rigidly". It is impossible to assess a simple list of words, many or most of which can be appropriately used in a variety of situations. One example is fertile, as covered above. Another, picked at random (from TimothyBlue's diffs since none are provided with the list of words), is the change from "accounting for the great bulk of that reduction" to "accounting for a size of that reduction" which both removes information and doesn't read well. CMD (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, the words can be used in different situations but I have read carefully and pretty sure that none of the words having been used is appropriate to use in any situations here. "Great bulk" and "fertile" just can't be used because both are vague or personal assessment on the amount of something.FRIGB (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
As I noted before, both contain information which is removed by your proposed edits. They appropriately qualify information in their particular use cases. CMD (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: agree with CMD, the content wording currently accurately reflects sources and the changes proposed do not reflect the accurately sources.  // Timothy :: talk  11:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
"Reflecting the sources" so that you can add anything from the sources including all of its non-encyclopedic wording? The information contained are with subjective evaluations and should rightfully be removed. FRIGB (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
You're free to disagree with the consensus, but not free to change content based on your opinions without consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  15:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
FRIGB you are incorrect and multiple editors have told you so, including one that blocked you from the article. Repeating essentially the same thing over and over is not forming consensus, it is bludgeoning. The words you want to remove are not inappropriate, they are not biased, they make the article readable and understandable, and are support by sources and normal English language usage. You need to read WP:BLUDGEON, particularly WP:SATISFY.  // Timothy :: talk  05:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
TimothyBlue First of all, I'm primarily talking to the other editor, not you, so let us has a singular space to form a solid discussion, if you don't mind, I'm moving the specific talk between you and me upwards. Secondly, if you tell me that I'm "bludgeoning", you're actually doing exactly the same thing, by continuingly pushing an arguement without actually rebuking my points (which I have stated in respect to every points the fellow editors made, just read again) or without any evidences, so stop being hypocrite. Stop putting the things you are doing into my hands, that's called falsified accusation. Also, the words should not be used based on their respective contexts and I'm being supported by MOS:WTW in this, removing them does not make the article less "readable", more or less it actually make the article more neutral, and neutrality is which Wikipedia primarily upholds, not all type of words from sources and "normal English language usage" is allowed to be brought into Wikipedia unchecked like you said. FRIGB (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Intforce has responded and explained why. WP:SATISFY.  // Timothy :: talk  12:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Clearly hasn't responded to what is directly above... And you, Timothy, are using a wrong essay to advise me, you don't need to teach me like you know it all, I know well what i'm doing. What you're doing is just a cheap way to mislead and avoid encountering arguements. FRIGB (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Five editors have objected to these changes: You need to read both WP:SATISFY and WP:LISTEN, then WP:DROPTHESTICK.  // Timothy :: talk  13:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Timothy, actually, it's only you and intforce overtly objecting at the moment. None of the articles you provide is an official guideline. Also, you have refused to address the relevant reasons I have given and continue pushing your agenda. FRIGB (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Intforce:, what's your opinion? FRIGB (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your list of words is useless without context. Once again, MOS:WTW does not specify a list of banned words. And as other editors have pointed out, you seem to not understand that words like fertile are rooted in academic contexts. intforce (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce:. So now you ask for "context", does that mean adding the whole article's text to this talk page? The context is literally in the diffs, are you too lazy to read? Did I say that words mentioned in MOS:WTW are "banned"? I said that it was under no context in this article were they suitable for use. There is not a single academic context that is relevant for any words mentioned above. In the example of the word "fertile", every soil has a level of fertility, I have researched and there is no commonly established level of standard fertility, that makes it a subjective evaluation to determine if a land is "fertile" or not. FRIGB (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
No, that means discussing entire sentences, and hence why this should be done one subsection at a time. I repeat that Wikipedia does not owe you anything and you are not entitled to make changes (not that you would be able to do it anyway, given that you are now blocked from editing the article). Rather, you have to convince other editors that your proposed changes should be made, something you've rather done a poor job of until now. I have nothing else to say in this matter. intforce (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce: you still don't understand, do you? I don't have to mention the whole sentences since each of these words in each sentences are all unusable for the same reason: used for the personal evaluation of something and not used under quotes or brackets. All sentences in here have the same context, in that they are not shown in quotes or in brackets "". If I have to mentioned all the sentences then the rationale for each of them would all be the same, why do I have to repeatedly doing the same thing? There is no need to discuss the entire sentences since the words themselves are used in that same way (not having quotes or ""), therefore they are definitely used to represent subjective evaluations and hence cannot be used, they can only be used having quotes or brackets, there is no other alternative that the words can be used without subjectivity. FRIGB (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. And it seems that you are alone in your opinion. intforce (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce: If you disagree, can you detail why? You are not responding to my points at all. When I asked you about how some of the words cannot be used, you slipped away. FRIGB (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce:, you still have not addressed the point I give about quotes above, simply saying "disagree" isn't helpful. FRIGB (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

2409:4071:2015:153C:64F1:C628:9F43:7D30 (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There are many mistakes in grammar and to update the photos

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China/Archive_17&oldid=1136609584"