Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 19

RE: Country Issues

I agree with the below stated opinion that the territories governed by the PRC (i.e. 99.996% of "historical" China) should be defined by Wikipedia as simply "China". Just a few notes:

1) Though the current divisional format used by the "China" article purports to exist so that all major interpretations of what China is are represented, it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedians are likely a poison sample with regard to their opinions on the PRC-ROC dispute (even if most want to integrate the PRC and "China" articles) because many editing this page are probably either a) informed by a western, UN-influenced stance that's values are more aligned with the ROC than the PRC (it is no coincidence the US supports Taiwan), or b) Western citizens of Chinese ethnicity who either emigrated from China or whose lineage did so because of some dissatisfaction with the nation. While the opinion I offer is merely conjectural, it is irrefutable that bias will exist on Wikipedia as a result of the demographic that edits it, and I think it is worth considering that it implicates articles such as "China".

2) If Wikipedia strives to be objective, it should abstain from becoming involved in classifying whether countries do or do not exist, and defer to both the view held by international consensus insomuch as said consensus is reflected in the beliefs and actions of the world populace at large. Both legally (legality in matters of national recognition decided principally by the UN since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact) and effectively, the PRC has gained sweeping recognition as being synonymous with the genuine leadership of China, with contrasting opinions held by a minority of much less relative size to historical China's holistic population than, say, Quebec sovereigntists are to Canada's. One could argue, in fact, that the claim that the ROC represents China is tangential enough even to KMT members that it doesn't deserve such thorough recognition, as they have been known to operate in contrast to its precepts (usually for the sake of fostering economic growth).

In lieu of how marginalized and solely nominal the ROC's claim to China is, part of the problem it poses to Wikipedia is the method utilized in assessing the level of recognition it affords to differing claims of sovereignty: should the ROC's claim be given equal credence to the PRC's merely because it is validated by legal postures - albeit ones utterly out-of-touch with reality - taken up by a small number governing bodies? Must every claim to sovereignty that garners infintesmal publicity be accommodated to this extent in a nation's article, even when the debate fails to uphold a relevant place in said country's culture? Are the definitions of nations we provide utterly reliant on international claims (themselves subject to bias), and utterly oblivious to logically-formed public sentiment? The problem is, these lines of discussion are all slippery slopes: give the PRC and ROC's claims technically similar recognition today, and wake up tomorrow to find that the Israel page links to the PNA at its header.

It is worth pointing out, too, that Wikipedia should represent effectual reality, not serve as a forum for accommodating disparate and fantastical views about who governs a nation. When the ROC claims that they represent the whole of China, it is obviously an ideological posturing that possesses only fragmentary effects on China's governance (their historical tenure in the UN being one of the only significant examples - but we're not assessing the past). The same can be said of when Palestinian authorities claim they control Israel, etc - there are rhetorical protests, and have little influence on actuality. Personally, I don't really give a damn whether a blogger in Washington state claims he is the the rightful owner of Israel and receives a few international endorsements, what I expect to read when I look up the "Israel" article on Wikipedia IS "Israel" i.e. the nation as it is legally (and I do not expect to have to flit through seventy definitions of what the nation may entails according to such and such; consensus legal opinion should be used unless it is obviously at odds with reality), publicly, and logically perceived. China is legally, publicly, and logically perceived as being ruled by the PRC. It's that simple.

Interesting that in Wikipedia's pursuit of objectivity, it can sometimes go full circle: the fact that a claim as tangential as the ROC's is represented equally with the PRC's is evidence of this, and the clear result of Wikipedians being too comfortable overstepping reality in their desire to represent parties of varying beliefs.

I believe that this issue should be discussed, hopefully toward the goal of ensuring the only rational outcome: that the PRC article be incorporated into the "China" one. If the points here are not either argued against effectively or refuted in relation to past debates on this topic I will proceed myself in the changes.

Konrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.141.56 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Country issue

I do not want to reignite a long debate, but as an outsider just visiting this article, I find it ridiculous that China is not defined as a country when country is used 5 times in the main body of the article: "that first unified the country"; " calls for reform and revolution were heard across the country"; "able to reunify the country under its own control"; "However, the PRC government still has almost absolute control over politics, and it continually seeks to eradicate threats to the social, political and economic stability of the country".

Not describing China as a "country" in the introduction is simply ridiculous. The people arguing the semantics are so entrenched in the argument that they've lost sight of the overall picture. Furthermore, China is listed in the Wikipedia List of countries. Apart from these gross inconsistencies, not describing China as a country (no matter what the government/territory/etc) is a big omission. That's all I have to say. --Scotchorama (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not clear what is meant by "country" in some of those usages, and other usages can be said to violate NPOV. Qin is normally said to be the Emporer "that first unified the country" but the country he unified was much smaller than what is considered China today and did not contain all the cultures that are considered to be part of Chinese culture today. Did it even contain all of what is considered "China proper"? Chiang's KMT was "able to reunify the country under its own control" in the 1920s. But did not reunify all the territory controlled by the previous dynasty. "However, the PRC government still has almost absolute control over politics, and it continually seeks to eradicate threats to the social, political and economic stability of the country". Clearly in that instance the country is PRC, but quite a few people will object and say that Taiwan is also part of the "country" called "China" (and in fact they have made that objection if you read the paragraphs above). Readin (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is still continuing... Sorry I haven't responded in a while - don't have much time at present for detailed responses. But will watch debate and post soon. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I understand that there is a debate on the definition of "country". However, the dispute seems to be over boundaries and authority. Regarding Qin's unification of "China", Chiang's reunification and the PRC, we're talking about geographic division. There is thus a de facto and implicit agreement that China is a country, with a debate on its terrirory and characteristics. Because we are discussing which territories are part of China, we're acknolwedging that China is indeed a country. If China were not a country, there would be no need to discuss territories and authority. Why can't we say that "China is a country", and then debate who is in charge, what boundaries there are? There is no one type of country, and the word "country" does not automatically equal nation or state. Common usage is one thing. The question is not "Is China a country" but "Which China is a country?" Since the article does not take sides (i.e. NPOV), and remains purposefully vague, I cannot imagine what the objection is. If you mention a question of POV, in my mind it is much more NPOV to state that "China is not a country" than "China is a country." Again, this is just an explanation of my point of view.--Scotchorama (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason we have not yet implemented "China is a country" despite general support for it is that we are not entirely agreed on what else China is. For example, Readin believes that China is a "country or set of countries", while I don't agree with the "set of countries" part. You're welcome to dive into the discussion in the thread above - please have a read through the existing material. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gone through a few archives and many points seem to have been covered, from many angles. I shall refrain from pursuing the debate endlessly. My final thoughts on the matter are that in the absence of a consensus, why not apply verifiability? I could provide an unlimited amount of sources stating that China is a country. If someone wants to substantiate a claim that it isn't, he/she should provide an authoritative reference. Otherwise, that would be original research. China is called a country in the broad sense in every encyclopedia I have found, and in all journals I have found dealing with the issue. Anyway, the discussion itself is fascinating. It is interesting to also see that a similar discussion is taking place on the List of countries talk page about what constitutes a country. But let us remember that the definition of "Country" is a generic word that can be applied to many different situations, including China. Anyway, I was just "passing" through and noticed this discussion. Good luck finding a solution!--Scotchorama (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scotchorama, we should just copy what the most reputable paper encyclopedias are doing. This is a non-issue. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with calling China a country as long as we know what we're saying, that is, what we mean by country and what country we're talking about. Lots of reliable sources can be found to say "China is a country", and most of those will be talking about the PRC. For example, I just googled the sentence "China is a country" and 4 of the first 5 hits were talking about the PRC only. The other hit was talking about ancient China, which of course was located on land currently controlled by the PRC. So China is a country, and that country is the PRC. So if this article is to be about China the country, we need to modify maps and descriptions accordingly and stop trying to find ways to include the Republic of China.

The dispute is clearly political. By saying "China is a country", and then defining "country" to include both Taiwan and China, we give support to Chinese desires to annex Taiwan. However if we take the more common usages of "country" and "China" so that we say outright that Taiwan and China are separate countries, we give support to those who want to make the separation of Taiwan and China permanent. For that reason, it is probably best that we don't use the word "country" unless we say very clearly what precisely we mean when we say it.

Regarding paper encyclopedias, I doubt we can consider an encyclopedia reliable on this particular subject if the encyclopedia is sold in China or if it's parent company has significant business interests in China. We all know how China uses business pressure and threats to get organizations to comply. Consider the censorship and cooperation with speech police that Google and Yahoo have been willing to do in order to do business in China, and the fact that even a humanitarian organization like the Red Cross initially withheld aid to Taiwan after the 1999 earthquake because they tried to work first with the PRC government instead of going directly to the government of Taiwan. Readin (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal politics should not be brought into this. As far as I am concerned [based on my reading of reliable sources], China is a country. What that country actually comprises differs according to one's views. This article should reflect that: define China as a country, the territories and representative government of which is under dispute.

Readin, we can't be "sure" of "what country it is", as you call it, simply because there are so many different views on it and WP:NPOV demands that we represent all of them.

For example, you say that the most common usage of "China" and "country" is that "China and Taiwan are separate countries". That is simply not true. When "China" is described as a "country" in most contexts, Taiwan is not even in the contemplation of the author. Even when people equate "China" with the PRC, that does not imply that they necessarily regard Taiwan as a separate country: as I've said many times now, the accepted interpretation at international law is that China, including Taiwan, is de jure a single sovereign state, the sovereignty of which has been represented by the PRC since 1949. Of course, that is only one view, and there are opposing views, which is why it is necessary for us to accomodate all significant points of view. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right that when most people speak of "China" as a country, Taiwan is not part of their contemplation. But except when talking about pre-1949 history, the PRC clearly is the object of contemplation. I can easily drag out examples of this. Just going from the first five google hits we have four that talk about the PRC [1], [2], [3], and [4] and one that talks about the "ancient country". Of these sites, at least two (the Economist and the U.S. State Department) things that are often considered reliable sources in Wikipedia (though I don't agree that they are always reliable, particularly the U.S. State Department). They all treat China the country as the PRC.

As for the common usage that Taiwan and China are separate countries, I've discussed this before. Let's, for example, search Google news for the term "Taiwan" (since so much news about Taiwan involves ROC-PRC relations, articles that mention both places should be easy to find). As of right now I see the following headlines China warns Taiwan on UN bid, Taiwan's Ma vows to ease control on China fund investments. If I do a search on "Republic of China", I find this headline in first place Chinese spokesman warns against UN referendums with the first line of the article saying "China yesterday warned Taiwan that...". Other headlines for same story say China warns Taiwan over independence, Taiwan warned over independence, and China Warns Taiwan's Chen Over Agenda. Continuing down the "Republic of China" search results we find that there are almost no stories about the "Republic of China". Instead, having the word "China" in the search links us to a bunch stories about the PRC Bjork Angers Fans In China With 'Tibet' Call During concert, 2008 Pentagon Report Identifies Key Developments In China's Military, Cyber Might, China goes arms shopping to Russia, etc.. I didn't have to spend time hunting for these. The are the common usages and so very easily found. I'm sure that if one cherry-picks or ignores a lot of stories or do specially crafted searches to find the ones that agree with one's preferred interpretation, one can do so. But to discover that the country "China" is the PRC doesn't require any of that. It is well known that China is the PRC and no explanation is necessary. Readin (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that "China" is used as the short hand for the "PRC" and "Taiwan" is the short hand for the "ROC", at least in informal usage. I completely agree that this is the common usage. However, that does not necessarily mean that everyone sees (1) PRC as a country and ROC as a different country, or (2) China as a country and Taiwan as a different country, or (3) China is the PRC and Taiwan is the ROC and they are both countries.

For example, many people might say "China is a country". Many others might say "China is the PRC". However, does that then equate that "China is a country which is the PRC"? Not necessarily. We can easily have China the country and China the state, which are not the same. Thus for example, Ireland the island and Ireland the state (the Republic of Ireland) are not one and the same, even though both share the same "common name" of Ireland. Likewise, Korea the "country" and South Korea the state are not one and the same, even though in many contexts (particularly economic ones) South Korea is commonly just called "Korea". We can have "China the government" and "Taiwan the government" - which would not be inconsistent with the traditional contest of "legitimate governments" of the same country. Short of chasing down each journalist who wrote those stories, we can't be sure what they intended.

"China" means different things in different contexts. When people refer to the PRC as China, "China" refers to a state. In other contexts, "China is a country" can have entirely different meanings, depending on the political viewpoint adopted by the speaker; among the various meanings it can have are "China is the PRC according to the PRC's definitions", or "China is the territory actually controlled by the PRC". If we decide that this article is about "China the country", then naturally it should cover those various points of view. If we decide instead that this article is about China the state, then it should redirect to the PRC.

As I've said before, the first question, perhaps, is "is there any meaning of China that is not yet covered by existing articles"? We already have an article on the PRC. Is there any different meaning of China that needs covering? My view is - yes. The alternative views on what constitutes "China the country" needs covering. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PalaceGuard008. This whole question of what is China has different answer depending on who you are asking. Let me ask a few questions: "Is the PRC China?" or "Is China the PRC?", in the same way using a religious type question: Is a Pastor a Reverend?" or "Is a Reverend a Pastor?". I can tell you that a pastor is not always a reverend, but a reverend can be a pastor. In the same line of answering, China is not necessarily and not always the PRC, but the PRC is, or at least it can be China. (I know that was a bit confusing...) Anyways, as I've said before, each view of what China is different. The Government in Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party, says that "there is only one China and that China is the People's Republic of China", or what Ma Ying-Jeou stated on TalkAsia: "there is only one China and that China is the Republic of China". For some people, its only a cultural homeland and for them that is China, not the People's Republic of China, nor the Republic of China. nat.utoronto 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The example of Ireland is cited, but the article on Ireland never says "Ireland is a country". It says "Ireland (Irish: Éire; Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe...". Why should an article about a geographic region have to make such a statement when there are separate articles for the countries involved?

PalaceGuard gives a lot of different meanings for "China is a country" and says that we should cover all of them. I tend to agree with the ideas that all views should be covered. I tried to do that with my earlier suggestion that we write "China is a country or set of countries..." because one such view is called Two Chinas where one of those Chinas is the ROC and the other is the PRC.

Nat, I think your statement that "For some people, its only a cultural homeland and for them that is China, not the People's Republic of China, nor the Republic of China." is the source of the much of the problem here. Many people have an emotional attachment to the idea of a Greater China extending beyond China's current boundaries to include people who are racially Chinese or culturally Chinese. However, they have difficulty accepting the idea that not not everyone, not even everyone they want to consider Chinese, accepts their ideas. And they have difficulty understanding that not everyone is willing to accept the idea that China's boundaries might not be permanently set at the farthest extent of its empire. That idea that China could have recently shrunk strikes an emotional chord, as does a different idea that China wasn't as big as they were taught as children. Thus we have this call, in an article about (as the article currently is supposed to be) a civilization, a statement that the civilization is a "country" with all the emotional baggage the word "country" has.

Korea was mentioned. The Korea article starts with "Korea (Korean: 한국 or 조선, see below) is a geographic area, civilization, and a former state situated on the Korean Peninsula in East Asia. Korea is currently divided into North Korea and South Korea." It doesn't say "Korea is a country". Perhaps something similar could be used for China, although it would be a little harder to write since the geographic extent and country (countries) that comprise China are less well agreed upon. "China is a geographic area, civilization, and state or set of states situated in East Asia north of Indochina and south of Siberia." Then we could include the points of view about what exactly China consists of.

Readin (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One objection I can imagine to "China is a geographic area, civilization, and state or set of states situated in East Asia north of Indochina and south of Siberia." is that it doesn't solve our problem of what to include in the article and what to exclude, but hopefully it does help those who believe the "China" article should be about more than just the civilization.Readin (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, Ireland is an island, and Ireland is also a country. Of course an aritlce on Ireland the island is not going to say it is a country. That article is elsewhere. I apologise if I was confusing, but my point was that the subjects of the two articles share a common name, but they are not equivalent. Just like "China the government" (the PRC) is not necessarily equivalent to "China the country".

The Korea situation was cited to illustrate the same point of comparison.

Neither articles can serve as "precedents" that this article can just copy, because China isn't an island, nor is it a "former state". It is a currently existing country, the extent of which, and the (de facto and de jure) government of which, people disagree on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference? Isn't Ireland a country, the extent of which people disagree on (does it include N. Irleand or not?). Some would argue that Korea is also a country, just a temporarily divided one. Others would argue that the Korean peninsula has two countries. Those same arguments are made in regard to China. If the examples you cite of N. Ireland and Korea don't apply, then why were they mentioned in the first place?Readin (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"people disagree on", however, there is a clear majority/minority viewpoint. Common people identify the PRC as China. All mainstream maps print "China" above the PRC. Whether they include or exclude Taiwan is irrelevant. The common, and neutral, shorthand for PRC is China. We do not deny a recognized country it's shorthand name simply because of a territorial dispute with a rival that also claims the name. Every policy we have says NOT to do this but it is exactly what we have. A dab header and appropriate text in the article should make it clear where to find information on the RoC, but our policies pretty much demand that this be about the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

"Ireland" means two things. Ireland is a country - the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland does not claim Northern Ireland. No mainstream opinion suggests that the Republic of Ireland should include Northern Ireland. Even Sinn Fein no longer advocates for the integration of Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland.

Ireland is also an island. Ireland the island includes both the bits ruled by the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is also no dispute there.

The difference between Korea and China is that nobody claims that Korea is a single country. North Korea does not claim South Korea, and South Korea does not claim North Korea. Both governments agree that they are aiming towards reunification of the country, but there is no concensus on the precise timetable or process for that reunification.

The difference between Ireland and China is this: No significant point of view disputes the boundaries of the Republic of Ireland. However, there are several significant points of view that dispute the borders of China: the ROC government still officially claims Mongolia and bits of Burma and Russia are part of China. Taiwan independence supporters claim that Taiwan is not part of China. The PRC government claims that Taiwan is part of China, and so are bits of (de facto) north-eastern India. These are significant disputes, involve huge chunks of territory.

The difference between Korea and China is this: Neither Korean government claims that each is the sole legitimate government of Korea. Both are recognised simultaneously by most countries in the world. Neither claim to hold sovereignty over the territory of the other. Both agree on the past, present, and future status of their states: unified, divided, unified, respectively. None of these statements are true of the two "Chinese" governments. I use "Chinese" in inverted commas because the ROC government probably does not view itself as Chinese at the present time.

The similarity between both Ireland and Korea on the one hand, and China on the other, is that all three are cases where a "common name" can mean multiple things which are not equivalent to each other. "Ireland" means both the island of Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. "Korea" means both the peninsula, former state, and present cultural entity of Korea, as well as one (or another) of the two Korean states, depending on the context. Similarly, "China" is a "country" in certain contexts. In others, it is a short hand for the People's Republic of China government.

If you remember, the reason I raised these analogies was to illustrate that one common name can mean two different things in geopolitical terms, in order to refute your argument, which was that "many people call the PRC China", and "many people say China is a country", "therefore China is a country which is the PRC". My argument, if you recall, is that "many people call the PRC China", and "many people say China is a country", does not automatically lead to your conclusion; these very same people can easily regard "China" in the first context as the government and "China" in the second context as a country, the two not being identical.

I hope that makes things clear. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan vs Republic of China

Rather than "For the modern political entities, see People's Republic of China and Republic of China." it would be better if it said "[...] see People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan)." I believe it would be less confusing for people not familiar with the political dispute between PRC and ROC. After all, most people think of the two "countries" as China (i.e. PRC) and Taiwan (i.e. ROC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.51.129 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the current wording isn't useful to someone unaware of the political situation or of the formal names of the two countries. I'm not sure that changing it to "[...] see People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan)." quite fixes the problem though. Most people coming to the China page to find information about the political entity are going to be looking for information on the PRC, not on the ROC. So rather than clarifying that "ROC" means "(Taiwan)" which doesn't clarify at all to someone who isn't aware of what "Taiwan" means, we should be clarifying that "PRC" means "(China)". But "[...] see People's Republic of China (China) and Republic of China (Taiwan)." doesn't seem right either. Perhaps we should split it into two lines saying "For the modern political entity commonly known as "China", see People's Republic of China" and "For the modern political entity commonly known as "Taiwan", see Republic of China". Or, perhaps as an alternative, we could say "For the modern political entity governing mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao, see People's Republic of China" and "For the modern political entity governing Taiwan, see Republic of China".Readin (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree also that the current wording is misleading. "State" is a term of international law that has special meanings, and it is far from clear whether the Republic of China, in particular, but also according to some the People's Republic of China, is a "state". An accurate and NPOV term like "government", "regime", or perhaps even "polity" should be preferred.

Why not just have "For the government of mainland China, see People's Republic of China; for the government of Taiwan, see Republic of China."? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the government is an institution of the state, and within a state there can be different governments and levels of governments. nat.utoronto 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "state" isn't even used in the text under discussion.Readin (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the discussion was concerning the lead text which still uses "states" to refer to both governments. I have no problems with th current dab text. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This should help guiding people to the right page, and at the same time informing them of the official names of the "countries". 129.97.83.123 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think the current proposal is

"For the modern political entity governing mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao, see People's Republic of China" and "For the modern political entity governing Taiwan, see Republic of China"

Any objects? I'll contact whoever it is can do the editing unless someone objects to the new wording.Readin (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done nat.utoronto 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Protect?

I'm a little curious to know when the article might be taken off of Full Protect status, now that we're sitting on 3 months of it being locked down. I'm intimately aware of Peter zhou (talk · contribs) and his obsession with the name of China (I think I chased around two or three of his socks), but I'm a little discouraged that we're letting some petty vandal hold this article hostage. Could this issue be revisited? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i wanted to add some links to other languages, but i haven't been able to do that. I think it is VERY important to add links to other languages, please fix this soon. Woden (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Folic Acid, I would be more than glad to open discussion as to how to proceed further. And Woden, If you wish for interwiki language links to be added, just insert a new section on this talk page and add {{editprotect|place request here}}. Regards. nat.utoronto 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, can someone please put up the lock template to show up in the top-center of the article. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: how significant is the risk of JackyAustine and sockpuppets coming back? It's hard to imagine that somebody is sitting at their computer checking day after day to wait for this article to get unblocked... though there is a distinct possibility that he/they will come back at some point after unblocking, as had happened in the past. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Peter Zhou/JackAustine is somewhat unpredictable when it comes to whether or not he still has a sock or two up his sleeve and whether or not he is going to come back with those socks while creating more laying dormant for later use. nat.utoronto 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nat, thanks for being willing to discuss unlocking the article. Like I said, I think it's too important a subject to be held hostage by one vandal, persistent though he may be. I have no doubt that Peter zhou will be back, given that he's been around and doing this vandalism since at least 2006. However, I think with some vigilance on the part of the dedicated China editors, we can quash any malfeasance pretty quickly. So, my suggestion would be to open the article back up, or at least semi-protect it, so that we can move forward with the business of the project. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Request edit

{{editprotect}} It's a little odd that this article seems to be under full protection, but has no notice declaring its status. In any case, in the "Etymology" section, "they believe" should be "they believed". Also, "The use "Zhongguo"" should be "The use of "Zhongguo"", and "by states who see themselves" should be "by states who saw themselves". - AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - the page isn't protected. I successfully opened the edit page from a non-admin account of mine. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Even though the page isn't protected now, it was protected when the request was made. I made the changes regardless. BTW, now that the page is no longer full-protected, we've been getting a lot of vandalism from anonymous IPs, at the rate of about one per hour. Does this merit semi-protection? —Umofomia (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Oldest civilization"

It's written in the main article that China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. If it's not the oldest, then which is? Egypt has been Hellenized, Romanized, and 'Islamized' in sudden, massive and dramatic historical moments that this country (IMO the only other one that might claim such a title) would surely not qualify to be described as having a "continuous" civilization. Whereas China, in the two instances where it was conquered by outsiders, the Mongols and Manchus, did not dramatically alter its civilization at all, and in fact the invaders became Sinicized into Chinese civilization rather than the other way around. The other argument I have often seen used is a rather silly bit of logic. It goes something like the (e.g.) Xia dynasty was almost completely dissimilar to the (e.g.) Qing dynasty, therefore 'continuous' is an inappropriate descriptor. If this were actually a legitimate argument then no country could claim to be a continuous civilization for any period of time. And yet the same people who argue this tack wouldn't say that they were somehow not the same person as they were when they were born, or the same person they were 5 hours ago. Change is inherent in both people and civilizations, but they remain the same people and the same civilizations nonetheless. China has changed dramatically in the last several thousand years, but its civilization has been unbroken throughout this whole time, through outside invaders, through civil wars, through famines, floods and other natural disasters. Which other civilization can lay claim to this particular set of historical circumstances? Meatwaggon (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The continuity of civilization has nothing to do with being the oldest; moreover, Egypt isn't even the oldest civilization in the Middle East. Sumer is. Europe and, more recently, East Asia have experienced massive Christianization. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, so how is that any less dramatic than the Egyptians becoming "Islamized?" Before Christianity and Communism, Buddhism (an Indian religion) also flourished in China. To say China has not experienced significant external influence is really a stretch. This is somewhat of a philosophical question also, since the criteria for civilization are not firmly defined. Cultural characteristics also are not signs of "civilization" per se, either. In order to be "civilized," a society must have certain general traits (e.g. cities, government, agricultural systems, written language). Enduring cultural values and customs don't necessarily make a society "civilized." The Greeks were also under Roman, Parthian, and Ottoman spheres during different periods and converted en masse to Christianity and later to Islam (just like the Egyptians); that doesn't make them any less of a continuous civilization. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

incomplete sections (feel free to add)

This is all it says for Economy:

Main article: Economic history of China

It doesn't seem right to say that a non-existant section is based on the above article. Does anyone know how to make it say something like "See Economic history of China"? --Gramy! 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

btw it says that china's gdp is $5300, but I previously saw $8788 as the more accurate figure, which one is right? thanks please update that, as I don't think China's GDP is 130th in the world. because nominal is higher ranked than that, so it really doesn't make sense, since nominal is lower at $2800. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangyjackie (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"China is a country" redux

I think we've all agreed that the current lead as to the definition of China is unsatisfactory. I've started a draft of the relevant sections at User:PalaceGuard008/China, with the following arims:

1. State unambiguously that "China is a country", as consistent with the most common understanding of the issue.

Sorry to have to put something in the middle here, but what is that understanding?Readin (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Maintain neutrality and abide by all relevant Wikipedia policies, in order to present an unbiased and unambiguous account of the various disputes involving the nature and composition of China.

This article is not intended to exhaustively all the views on "what is China", nor to be exclusively about the common view that China = PRC, because of all the attendant difficulties with both those approaches. Specifically, simply equating China with the PRC is not NPOV, and leaves unexplored issues such as "is Taiwan part of Chian if it is not part of the PRC"? or "are territorial claims of the ROC (and not of the PRC) territorial claims of China or not?". Instead, I see its treatment on the disputes as a directory, from which readers can then explore all the gory and wonderful details about the major points of view on the topic.

The input of all editors here would be greatly appreciated. Please leave comments on the talk page, or edit the page directly as you see fit. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When did it become Wikipedia's goal to state unambiguously that "China is a country". Given that so many people now insist on usages for the term "China" that have other meanings, the situation is not unambiguous. The places where "China is a country" is normally used are places where the meaning is the PRC, but some people disagree that China=PRC, making the situation ambiguous indeed.Readin (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that the consensus was "China is a country". Whether that country is the PRC or not is irrelevant to that initial statement. Can we have a show of hands please? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

No. The consensus was clearly established and it was this: we would define China according to the balance of sources. If the balance of reliable sources state that "China is a country", then that is how it should be defined here, and not according to some wishy-washy euphemising sentiments which seek to sidestep the obvious. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

balderdash is a concept

Given

(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html) and
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html)

See how China is treated by the CIA for ambiguity.

Given

(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Chinese_civilization) with
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indian_civilization)

Given

(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/China) with
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/India)
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canada)
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russia)
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Turkey)
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/US)

See how Canada, Turkey and the US are treated for ambiguity.

See how India opens.

China is a page of a concept deserving of "X, officially Y, is a country in R..."

Do you agree or disagree? Say it in a single word.

Name:	says
Vy0123	agree
Agrees:	1
Disagrees:	0

For guidance see:
Wikipedia:Common knowledge
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Please feel free to put full argument(s) in the prior straw poll section.

Vy0123 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Vy0123 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Vy0123 (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're supposed to agree or disagree with. Are you proposing that the China article should open with

"China, officially Y, is a country in R..."? Readin (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vy0123, it's really good that you're keeping this on the talk page rather than just editing. However, can you please fill in Y and R in your formulation above? Because if Y=People's Republic of China, you're proposing a major change of consensus on a longstanding and tricky decision. I'd also appreciate a precedent for using a vote table of the kind you've kindly created, and your thoughts on the openings of Palestine and East Germany. Matt's talk 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And Korea, of course. That parallel came from Larry Sanger's comments. That's how far back this consensus goes; apparently even the very first draft of this article implemented the current consensus. Matt's talk 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know: the way this thread is set up is a clearly a violation of WP:DEMOCRACY. The policy states the following:

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding.

Cheers, nat.utoronto 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the use of a vote table. The previous thread, despite the helpful LARGE warning sign posted by Nat, was proceeding to a relatively clear consensus to use the weight of reliable sources to determine how this article should define "China". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)