Talk:China/Archive 9

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

人民民主專政 Democratic dictatorship

The term People's democratic dictatorship is written into the PRC constitution, if the word Democratic is quoted in this article, is there any reason the word Dictatorship is missed out?

http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/49150/49152/5792291.html 我國人民民主專政的國體與社會主義政黨制度 袁廷華

Google translation:China's state system of the people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist political party system Arilang talk 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not left out. The infobox lists the full "People's democratic dictatorship". --Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I dispute the reliability of this source For one thing, the domain is currently for sale, and it doesnt offer any information over a "People's democratic dictatorship". It is a search engine, not a source. I think it needs to be checked before we use it as a source for something so controversial as adding dictatorship. Thanks, Ono (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictatorship is not controversial

@ user Onopearls, quote:人民民主專政從根本上規定了我國政黨制度的核心價值和制度要素 unquoted. Translation: People's democratic dictatorship fundamentally set up China's political party system's core value and systematic main elements. End of translation. According to the above statement, which is taken from www.people.com, the official Chinese communist party's official web site, is a very clear statement, why is it controversial? Arilang talk 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Dictatorship- One-man rule. China currently is not none man rule. It is more like a rule of committee, or an oligarchy.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Teen, I am happy you join in the discussion.
  1. We should respect what is written in the Chinese constitution, otherwise we might as well treat it like a piece of scrape paper.
  2. I know China is now ruled by a group of men, 中央軍委, 中央政治局常委, are the two most powerful bodies. But if we regard CCP as an entity, then it is still the dictatorship of the CCP, CCP still is the paramount power, that just no one can deny. All the other minor political parties are just flower pots, 花瓶. Arilang talk 14:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's called a one-party state, or Oligarchy, which is different from a dictatorship.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Constitution

http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

Quote: The people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants, which is in essence the dictatorship of the proletariat, has been consolidated and developed.Unquoted. Arilang talk 09:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Phrase was invented by Mao

From People's democratic dictatorship: Quoted:"People's democratic dictatorship" (simplified Chinese: 人民民主专政) is a phrase incorporated into the Constitution of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong. The phrase is notable for being one of the few cases in which the term "dictatorship" is used in a non-pejorative manner. Unquoted.

User Onopearls, are you saying Mao's words should be deleted? Do you know in Mao's time. you would be called a 反革命反社会主義, may be subject to 死刑? Arilang talk 06:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to put words in my mouth. Also, I dont know what 反革命反社会主義 is, nor do I care that i would have been subjected to 死刑 several decades ago. Its a different time now ;).
I am saying that you must find a reliable source, not a search engine, that says that china is without a doubt currently a dictatorship, because, while it may have been one at one time, but by all recent accounts, it isnt one anymore. It is ruled, as teeninvestor said, by a single party state. If you can find an article, preferably from the PRC government, that says that they are, as of May 08, 2009, a dictatorship, feel free to add it back. However, calling a nation a dictatorship in an article that is accessed by thousands if not more a day without proof would be considered a controversial step. Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
What difference does it make, if an article is read by one person per day, or by 10,000 persons per day to the editors? None. We editors should not miss out vital info from sources such as www.people.com, which is the official CCP web site, and we should treat the Chinese Constitution with respect, that is all I am saying. And people's democratic dictatorship comes from nowhere else other than the Chinese Constitution, how much more reliable you want it to be? Arilang talk 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You offer all of these sources, yet you didnt put them in when you added "dictatorship" to the article under government form. So until you provided them, we couldn't take your word for it. And, just a thought, this is the English language article. I doubt you are going to find a lot of people that can read Chinese. Would it be possible to find an English version? Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just add People's democratic dictatorship to the lead paragraph, with inline citation of www.people.com article. Arilang talk 06:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Arg, You really hate PRC huh? Dictatorship is often one-man power that if not most of time comes with control of the military, PRC is currently a One Party State, the source you are providing are confusing. No offense, but you're acting worst than CCP supporters here --Lennlin (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Really there is no such things as hate or love involved. If the Chinese constitution has people's democratic dictatorship on it, isn't it our job to record it?
  1. The first dictator of PRC is Mao. Anybody who had read Mao: The Unknown Story would come to the conclusion that Mao was one of the worst ever rulers in China's 3000 years history.
  2. Deng Xiaoping was another dictator. When he decided to go to war with Vietnam, he said to Jimmy Carter:It is time to smack the bottom of unruly little children.
  3. Hu Jingtao might just turn into a dictator(I am not saying he is one, yet). But then this is the problem faced by all the Absolutism regime. Arilang talk 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
ROTFL! I suppose that you think that Shao of Eastern Han, Gaozong of Southern Song, Zhu Wen (through Tang Aidi), Guangxu and Xianfeng of Qing and Yuan Shikai were all enlightened, benevolent and successful. Face it. Mao was not a great ruler but to say he was one of the worst in China's history is disregarding just how many disasterous rulers there have been in a nation with rulership based on hereditary rule for 3000 years!Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe you have a personal bias on this article. You cant just declare those leaders dictators because you believe it. You can offer a source that says they were, and I can go out and find you one that says they aren't. There isn't, nor will there ever be, a consensus that says that Mao or Xiaoping were or were not dictators. Thanks, Ono (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a matter for wikipedia to solve.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Arg, I just have enough of this guy. YOU KNOW WHAT?? you're crazy!! You don't know that your heavily bias! Hu JinTao going to be a dictator just because of his party? Deng going into Vietnam War is a dictator? suppose every country that have been into a war are too, at least you could have said about Deng during Tienanmen massacre which i would have believe. And then here comes all the articals like Cannibalism in Modern China [[2]] & [[3]]. I hope your life doesn't live in black and white cuz your mind is. Your worst than the CCP, you killing the image of the Chinese not the CCP. I'M NOT telling you to like CCP yet I would support you to hate them actually but things you've done are too over. With that been say and done, I will accept all punishments toward me regarding this message.--Lennlin (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Update Needed

"A joint historical study to be completed by 2008 of WWII atrocities is being conducted by the PRC and Japan." Needs moar up-to-dateness, if someone could find the relevant information.boiled_elephant (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Protests and Economic Reform

Not disputing your information on number of protests however your placement makes it seem like the reason for the changes to policy were due to protests and riots. This is not proven by your source. Sources in China note the reasons for some economic changes, particularly rural land use taxation, as being out of sincere concern for the widening income gap. So although the information appears to be accurate, as far as it goes, it's placement was misleading. If you put the information elsewhere and include it in a way that doesn't make assertions beyond the scope of what can be proved from reliable sources I will have no further dispute.Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted your restructuring of that paragraph. I have no further dispute with current wording.Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang and Distruptive Edits

Just a friendly hint... [rant]This is probably one of the most heavily watched pages in Wikipedia. There is a tonne of misinformation going around on both sides of this conflict. EG: Rebiya Kadeer probably isn't the machiavellian mastermind behind the riots, likewise according to any verifiable reports the Chinese Police have not been slaughtering Uyghur women and children.

There is no place where disruptive edits with blatant propaghanda for either side of this conflict is appropriate. But considering we have a whole article devoted to this incident the PRC page isn't the right place for information on the Urumqi Riots of 2009 at all. Attempts to do so will be reverted and probably faster than the time it took to enter them in the first place. So just don't. Please. Thank you. [/rant]Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:People's Republic of China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Main criteria it fails is criteria 2: factual verification. I've cleaned a bit but this article still has the most cleanup tags of any wp:good article: Dead external links from March 2009. Unsourced statements from May 2008, June 2009, May 2009, October 2008, March 2009. Containing potentially dated statements from 2002. Grateful if people can improve the article, Tom B (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

State Councilor

Could someone please create an article for this very powerful position in the Chinese government. I was astonished that it doesn't already exist. See State Council of the People's Republic of China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.253 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone proofread. I just created an article. Couldn't find much in sources. Colipon+(T) 17:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other Names"

There are actually hundreds of names throughout history for China. I think a good way to include "other names" is to have a section at the beginning called "etymology" or "name". Besides which, this article only deals with the PRC state, not the concept of China as a whole. Therefore, it would be best to remove the Other Names section and see if you can include it at the "China" article, or just put it into an etymology section. Colipon+(T) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the section should stay, but I agree that the the names should only be about the PRC; not about China in general since there's another article for it. The Republic of China#Other names section could be useful as an example - the section describes how the ROC has been referred to from its creation till today. Laurent (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other Names"

There are about 60 different names for China in all different languages, about 30 alone in Chinese. It is completely unecessary to append a section like this and choose four selective names. If editors insist that this is necessary, it is possible to do this under a "Names" section, which is found on the article China. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Names of China, we have a whole article on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Exactly. That too. Colipon+(Talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was no consensus to merge --Cybercobra (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose to merge "China" and "People's Republic of China".

Arguments:

- "China" commonly refers to the PRC and "Taiwan" commonly refers to ROC

- Other countries articles refer to them by their general name eg. "Iran" for the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran, or "Russia" for the Russian Federation

- By presenting PRC and ROC as subarticles to "China" it gives undues weight to the position of ROC seperate statehood which is not accepted by the great majority of countries nor international bodies like UN, WHO, IMF etc

- History on previous regimes and dynasties can be listed in history section of main articles on China post-merger, possible a link to a seperate article, which will bring the China/PRC article in line with the standards for the articles on other countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion on this on the discussion pages of the China article which is partially protected, suggest that someone with an account tag that article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This (the status quo) is a reasonably good solution to the problem of where to put information on historical China and it avoids silly POV disputes. And the majority of countries and int'l bodies actually take no position on the matter, IIRC, as I was told as much the last time I made a similar remark regarding the international viewpoint. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"Silly POV disputes" ? I thought maintaining NPOV was one of the most important issues in writing encyclopedic material. Majority of countries have no position? Then why do near all goverments in the world have embassies and official diplomatic contact with PRC and merely a handful with ROC? Int'l bodies don't take a position? Then why is PRC a member of the UN and ROC not and why does IMF refer to PRC as "China" and ROC as "Taiwan, province of China"? link: [4]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been discussed too many times in the archive. There is nothing new presented. Benjwong (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Please mention your reasons for opposing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk • contribs)
  • Support Readin (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Would you be so kind as to provide a reason? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
My reasons are pretty much the same as two of the reasons stated earlier
"China" commonly refers to the PRC and "Taiwan" commonly refers to ROC
Other countries articles refer to them by their general name eg. "Iran" for the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran, or "Russia" for the Russian Federation
Readin (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the part about "it gives undues weight to the position of ROC seperate statehood which is not accepted by the great majority of countries nor international bodies like UN, WHO, IMF etc"? T-1000 (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Such organizations are as unbiased on this issue as the Tobacco industry on the subject of smoking's effects on health.
The organizations are pressured or tempted into their statements by China's power and China's market. Do we consider celebrity endorsements for products in commercials as representing the celebrities point of view? Do we consider statements made under duress as indicative of a person's point of view? Then why should we do so for organizations? Do we have one shred of evidence to reliably support the idea that these organizations would still pretend the ROC's separate statehood does not exist were it not for the PRC's economic and military power? The PRC is indeed economically and militarily powerful, but that does not mean we should give its views undue weight even if other organizations choose to do so. Readin (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I meant that it is ironic that TI people would support a proposal started by a person that's trying to get rid of ROC separate statehood altogether. T-1000 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose If this does merge, the history doesn't fit as you say it would. Ming Dynasty = China while Ming Dynasty ≠ PRC. Anyone forgot about ROC? there are still countries recognize it as China. This is just pushing own's point of View.--Lennlin (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The history of previous regimes is listed as seperate articles in all other instances on the articles on countries. For example the Russia article refers to the current Russian Federation, not previous regimes like Soviet Union, same with the Iran article refering to the current Islamic Republic of Iran and not the Achaemenid or Safavid empires. Why different standards for China? To me thats pushing POV.
No, because in modern politics Russia IS the Russian Federation and Iran IS Iran. But China has the PRC and the ROC officially claiming the same land. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
North America is not commonly in use as a synonym for the United States. Though China in common discourse and in regular news outlets and almost all other common sources almost invariably refers to the People's Republic of China.
But it's a convenient shorthand. In politics it is truly ROC and PRC. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So the cries of Death to America are attacks against Brazil? Hcobb (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The above comment is right in pointing out that America (though not "North America" as claimed in the earlier posting) is used in daily communication as a synonym for the United States, but it is equally true that most news outlets will refer to it as the United States. A further important difference with the question about China/PRC-merger is that the North and South-Americas consists of several sovereign states that all have membership in the UN and all have representation in important international bodies as well as having official diplomatic relations with most other countries in the world therefore making necessary the differentiation of America from the United States. In the case of China only the People's Republic of China is a UN member, with official diplomatic relations with near all countries in the world in sharp contrast ROC/Taiwan is not a UN member, is not a direct member of important international bodies, and has official diplomatic relations with only a dozen or so countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.86.90 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the current setup properly distinguishes between China as a civilization and the current entities that exist in that region. It is somewhat akin to the way that we have an article on Western civilization and then articles on all of the countries in Europe.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The most analogous way to setup up the articles on China would be to move the text in the article China to the article on Chinese civilization.
No, because "China" unambiguously refers to the Chinese civilization, but in modern politics it is still divided. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the last several proposals to do the same thing. The established consensus is to keep the two articles separate. Aside from which, it would conflict logically with the One China Policy subscribed to by the PRC, ROC, USA, the UN, etc. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The UN has only People's Republic of China as a member state, Taiwan/ROC is not a member of the UN. The US does not have an official Embassy in ROC but it has in PRC. Only a handful of states has official diplomatic contact with ROC, see the Political status of Taiwan. The One China policy is an agreement that there is only one China but that different entities interpret it differently. So far China's interpretation seems to have won ground seeing that only it officialy participates in most international bodies UN, IMF etc. And close to all countries in the world have embassies in PRC and only a handful in ROC. Giving the impression otherwise is misleading.
There are still many countries that recognize the ROC instead of the PRC. "Close to all countries" is not good enough. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support since China is the common name for the PRC. The current "China" article is incorrectly named and should be moved to "Civilization of China". Laurent (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support forever. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Could you provide your rationale? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is never going to gain consensus so this vote is essentially unnecessary. Colipon+(Talk) 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
except to shine the light on hypocrisy. I think that is always useful, even in a battle lost before it is started. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose - Violates the NPOV policy. T-1000 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
IMHO the POV that China = ROC is not very popular anymore. Yaan (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The government of the ROC still officially claims it, one. Two, the reason why "China=PRC" is so common is because the PRC pressures the UN and other governments into doing so. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Yaan (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please just read the past discussions. This has been brought up many, many times before. T-1000 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Violates the NPOV policy. Also, it is the same issue as America and United States. Uirauna (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know how you think the NPOV policy would be violated. The NPOV policy also requires us not to give undue weight to minority views, which is what's happening with the current title of the article. Laurent (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Merging China and PRC would make it impossible to be neutral about whether Taiwan is a part of China, since then Taiwan would either have to be inside or outside the China article. As Ngchen said, both sides are significant and leaving one side out would be a NPOV violation. NPOV is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, common usage is not. T-1000 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is already impossible to be neutral because of the existing China article. At least with the PRC article we can be clear on what the article is supposed to cover, and we can present the claims and counter-claims, including the history, as Schmucky has stated. The merger would make the NPOV issue much easier to deal with. Readin (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, Taiwanese do not object being included the "the Chinese Civilization". See link here: http://www.gvm.com.tw/gvsrc/200907_GVSRC_others.pdf T-1000 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Preposterous. Taiwan would not be "inside or outside" a merged PRC/China article. The claims of the PRC would be presented, along with wikilinks and everything else necessary to explain the situation for NPOV context. We do not present PRC claims over Taiwan as fact anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
All Countries either recognize either PRC or ROC as the legitimate government of China. This PRC/China and ROC/Taiwan thing you are proposing has no international recognition at all. T-1000 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
International usage of the term "China" refers to the PRC exclusively. I don't know what your second sentence means. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
You bring up a good point. However, the idea that the PRC's sovereignty (as opposed to de facto control) includes or doesn't include Taiwan is highly controversial, and the idea that it does or does not are both viewpoints with a significant number of followers. At the same time, the idea that the ROC is in some sense also "Chinese" and at least "part of China" is quite mainstream. Of course, the view that the PRC is totally illegitimate, and that the ROC is the true legitimate government of all the areas in question would be borderline fringe, but that is not what we're talking about. Ngchen (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not the PRC should or should not control Taiwan, and whether or not Taiwan is "Chinese" has no bearing on the overwhelming usage of the rest of the world outside Taiwan of the word "China" to refer to the PRC, and that usage by itself says nothing about sovereignty, rights, ethnicity, or territorial control of any of the PRCs controversial claims and controls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Actually Wikipedia already has standards on how to avoid NPOV on such issues. From WP:Naming conflict: "In English, it is conventional for states to be referred to by their geographical territory as a short form - thus the "United Kingdom" for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "Hungary" for the Republic of Hungary, and so on. Note that this applies to states even where they do not control the whole of the geographical territory in question; "Ireland" is the official name for the Republic of Ireland, and is often used rather than the extended description - even though "Ireland" is also the geographical name for the whole island of Ireland, of which the United Kingdom's Northern Ireland makes up part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.253 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The general use of China is overwhelmingly to refer to the People's Republic of China in modern discourse. Regardless of the issue of Taiwan sovereignty merging PRC with China is just a good idea.Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - for reasons stated above. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for reasons above. PRC and ROC are two entities claiming "China" and we must be neutral between them. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. What a load! As Benjwong stated, there's nothing new to argue in this case. Most of the world...blah blah blah. Fact: most of the world is uneducated. A lot of people assume Taiwan is a completely separate country having never had anything to do with the rest of China. Just because a great deal of people are ignorant of Chinese history, doesn't make the way they refer to the things correct. Educate people--isn't that what Wikipedia is for. Thankfully, the Internet isn't subject to the One China Policy. Night w (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a one China policy, because there can be only one set of text at the article named China. What is the subject that the majority of Wikipedia readers expect to find when they type "China" into Wikipedia? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose I cannot stress this, technically there are still two Chinas, PRC and ROC: Two sets of government with different economies, ideologies, electorial systems, currencies, infrastructures, laws, flags, anthems, foreign policies, passports, olympic teams, military, education and so on. Yet, both states call themsevles "China." Taiwan is strictly an island, and ROC also claims other small islands including Matsu.--Kingj123 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone close this proposed merger?, Its clear the majority is opposed to this change, many strongly opposing. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2009 (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.

Sport in China

Talk:Sport_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China. I propose to move this page to "Sport in China". Please voice opinions. Colipon+(Talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Sports are Political, ROC competed as "China" in the 1950s in the Olympics. The old Sports in China article violates NPOV by implying Taiwan is not a part of China. T-1000 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - until we get agreement to merge People's Republic of China and China. Until that happens, a "Sports in China" article will simply cause confusion as to what the article is about. Would it be an article about "Sports in Chinese Civilization"? Would the article end in 1949? Readin (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per notes above about the PROC/China merger. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support but only when we have succeeded in merging PRC with China.Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - you have to get consensus that PRC = China before you can start moving around associated articles. Night w (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweden was the first western country to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic on 9 May 1950

How they define "western"?--MathFacts (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea but the source is the Chinese embassy website in Sweden so its a good one. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is completely banned in China

Is it true?--MathFacts (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in China BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"People's Democratic Dictatorship"

I understand this is the poor English translation for 人民民主专政, but placed in an English context like this so prominently is somewhat inappropriate, especially when people already have so many misconceptions about the PRC. Can we relegate it to a footnote or just explain it in the "politics" section? The intro and infobox are cluttered enough. Colipon+(T) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a poor translation, I don't think CCP would call themselves Dictator hahaha :O --LLTimes (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a footnote is a good idea. --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Religious Protests picture

The pictures are from Minghui, a mouthpiece of Falun Gong. Do we consider it credible, exactly? Colipon+(T) 17:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's surprisingly hard to find pictures from protests in China. I would quite prefer Tankman due to that incident's notoriety, but we can't due to fair use restrictions. A picture is better than no picture. I'd say keep it, without prejudice to replacement with a better photo. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I've kept it, but added another caption for NPOV purposes. Colipon+(T) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This one is rather old & who ever took it have its intentions, but until there are better pictures, this one can be kept for now. --LLTimes (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Public health

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

Do you have an actual reason to delete the section? Onopearls (t/c) 17:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There is already a Climate/geography/environment section. There is no need for having two sections. And i didn't find any "public health" section in articles such as us, india... --Zhonghuo (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the section should stay as public health issues are different from climate or environment issues. There is also a "Public health" section in France, Italy or Republic of China for instance. Laurent (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to delete this section. I am a public health major. LOL. Public health is very important. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the other editors. "Because other pages don't have it" really isn't an adequate reason to remove something. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox links to flag and emblem

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

Image caption

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

i think this is not very usefull. Maybe we can add the caption on the image itself, not on the article. Polylepsis (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not in the article? It is the perfect place, so there is no need to change the who picture if someone has a better wording idea. The dark/light green areas really cause confusion, since there is no explanation, and both light green regions are not controlled by the PRC. As other examples supporting the placement in the article there is Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, Austria and so many others. All with a tag bellow the map. Do you have any objection? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
see the India article : no image caption Polylepsis (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The map definitely needs a caption to explain the difference between the light and dark green areas. I'm suprised there wasn't one already. Laurent (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
if you put a caption on the india article, then ok. Polylepsis (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I´ll do it right away! Actually thank you for bringing that article to light, the map definitely needs a caption too. Thank you and good night! Uirauna (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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


Government in Exile

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

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

Superpower?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign relations

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

Lack of citations in military!

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

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

Map concerns

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

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

Image / HR section

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

There's already an image on human rights but there needs to be one on capital punishment too. Why you might ask when some other nations also exercise capital punishment? Because the PRC executes more people than the rest of the world combined, making it important to be included. Capital punishment, while also exercised in some other nations is only minimal by comparison to the enormous levels exercised in the PRC. Bambuway (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is because of the huge chinese population. A country with 1,3 billion people executes more people than a country with 5 million, it's completely obvious. Polylepsis (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop distorting the facts Polylepsis, China is the SECOND largest executor of people PER CAPITA. It has nothing to do with it´s large population. I agree with Bambuway. Also, we need an image of human rights repression, not a demonstration for human rights, there is a huge difference between the two of them. So we keep the current image (people being arrested and abused) and keep the discussion on capital penalty. And once again, the pictures depicts an military person executing by means of a rifle shot in the head a convict. Do you agree that the PRC still executes prisioners in this exact same fashion? If you don´t agree, please tell me what´s differente. If you agree, then that picture IS representativa of today´s situation. Uirauna (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
yes,i also agree with Bambuway, and Uirauna.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
good pic for 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay, and Demonstration (people). so i put it. thanks.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

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

  1. The picture is too agressive
  • Being agressive is not an issue in wikipedia. Also, the picture shows no gore, blood, etc.
  1. LLTimes mentioned that a mediator considered it to be too agressive and break NPOV. Could you provide a link to the archives containing that discussion?
  2. It does not represent a current issue
  • As I (and several other editors) pointed, the PRC is (by official numbers) the second largest executor of people PER CAPITA. So the death penalty is still VERY relevant, specially since the PRC executes anually more people than the rest of the world together (that is, the PRC execution per capita rate must be AT LEAST 5x greater than the world's rate)
  • Also, the most common method of execution in the PRC is a rifle bullet to the head.
  • So the picture DOES represent something that still happens very often TODAY, and as User:NederlandsNederlands pointed, just last week the PRC executed a person in similar fashion
  1. If is agressive to the PRC
  • It depicts a common policy of the PRC, even if it really is agressive to the PRC, it is reality. We cannot remove content if it makes a country/person look bad. We can only remove if the content does not represent reality. I've asked you several times to explain how the picture does no represent reality, but you have not answered.

Reasons for keeping the picture:

  1. I'll write this one after lunch :)

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

It happend this week(21th), not lastweek http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-22/064216975370s.shtml here. The judge delivered of a judgment at 9am, and prc police shooted him on　the same day(afternoon). so the accused had no chance to appeal against a sentence. this is a prc's law...
try to read it<http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sina.com.cn%2Fs%2F2010-01-22%2F064216975370s.shtml&sl=zh-CN&tl=en>, please. thank you.--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Or there's always the option of going back to the original pic (upper left), which shows some brutality rather than people being executed. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
even that pic is too agressive ! We should replace it with a more neutral file. Polylepsis (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this picture instead of the original one? Laurent (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
My bad, seems that i have mistaken the picture for another one which is about the "Tank Man". So the picture proposed by Nether was not discussed. To Laurent, the picture is missing permissions, I think there is no consensus reach then we should just stick with the current picture.--LLTimes (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Rural Taxation

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

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

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

"In 2003/2004, the average farmer had to pay three times more in taxes even though his income was only one sixth that of the average urban dweller.[1]. Since then, a number of rural taxes have been reduced or abolished, and additional social services provided to rural dwellers[2][3][4]

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

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


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

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

Inline links hurt the eyes

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

Energy related articles

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

ok, i will do that Polylepsis (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat unrelated, but nonetheless... China is now the world's largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels. Does this belong in the main PRC article, or the Energy policy of China article?
Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Dictatorship?

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

--You don't need laughing. What policy US is carrying out now is exactly the "people's democratic dictatorship". Be democratic to his people, but be dictatorship to his enemy, that is exactly what the statement means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.201.202 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It's used in the actual constitution; it'd be wrong to just remove it. See people's democratic dictatorship. Don't blame us if reality is weird. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I thought it was rather strange to read when whoever it was added it. I believe there was a pretty big fuss about it when they first added it. But yeah, it is in the PRC constitution, so we really have no right to remove it because it's "histerical" but true. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 07:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think we all should all "take it with a (bitter)grin", so to speak. Let me expand a bit:
  1. PRC's top dog(and creator) was Mao Zedong, who was more famous as a back stabbing plotting conspirator then a true Marxist revolutionary(in the romantic sense).
  2. Democratic Dictatorship was created by the Chinese communist to con others, by telling others that the Chinese communist do practice democracy and dictatorship at the same time.
  3. Looking at the track record of the communists, readers have to decide themselves, and ask themselves, is PRC a "Democratic", or a "Dictatorship" nation? Arilang talk 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Socialist republic under a single party state" is enough. No need to talk about chinese constitution in intro. Citations are also missing. --Zhonghuo (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Excuse me,...

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

This issue has been debated to death previously, but the short form of it is that maintaining neutrality requires doing so since both regimes consider themselves the "legitimate" ruler of all China, and that we therefore shouldn't take sides. BTW, it's factually incorrect to assert that Taiwan isn't historically related to the mainland. Ngchen (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you scroll up to the "Merger proposal" section on the talk page. That should explain people's feelings, why this page is called "People's Republic of China", and why "China" is still a separate article. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
highly controvisial, this is. anyway, the china article is about it culturally, gergraphically. this is politically. and according to some rule made by that confusious(i screwed up the spelling there, i know it) that goes somthing like, which ever the privious ruler was, as long as they hold some land, they are the rightful ruler. so tecnically, acording to there tradition, unless they take over tiwan they arnt te true ruler. but, in order to stay neutral both commy. china and repub. china are listed on the china page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad formatting in Military section

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

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


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

Human Rights Section Image

File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg
Human rights groups have been critical of China's treatment of religious and press freedoms
Journalists rally for press freedom in the wake of a press crackdown during the September 2009 Xinjiang unrest

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

i think that the first image is too violent. We should remove it. Polylepsis (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the relevance of how violent a pic is? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The journalist rally one took place in HK, not within the mainland geo region. It should not be used to represent PRC. Benjwong (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The first image is too old, it does not represent the situation in china today. Polylepsis (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What has changed? Laurent (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[[:File:Execution in China.jpg|thumb|People's Armed Police execute prisoners convicted of murdering,[5] according to the Laogai Research Foundation (1980s).[6] According to Amnesty International, China executes more people each year than the rest of the world combined.[7]]]

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

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

NederlandsNederlands : You cannot add a new image before reaching consensus here. The execution file is clearly non neutral et does not reflect the situation in china today. Polylepsis (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The picture does not claim to represent the situation today, the caption itself states that it is from the 1980s. The PRC is still the leading country in capital punishment, and the most common method is execution by firearm, so the picture IS relevant and IS neutral, since it provides full context. An again, if the most common method of execution in the PRC is a rifle bullet to the head, how does the picture does not represents reality? Uirauna (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong my dear. Execution by firearm is NOT the most common method of execution in china today. Lethal injection is the most common method. Polylepsis (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"The PRC is still the leading country in capital punishment" lol ! China is still the most populous nation on earth ! Polylepsis (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to think this is a WP:FORUM, it is not. So please behave in an appropriate manner. PRC not only is the leading country in capital punishment, by official government data it is the SECOND leading country in death by capital punishment PER CAPITA. And according to institutions that challenge the official numbers, it is the leading country in capital punishment per capita. So the picture IS relevant. Uirauna (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No the image is not relevant. We are in 2010 today not in the 1980s. But wait for other opinions. Polylepsis (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This image highlights important information about the PRC and so should be included. The information it gives is sourced so I see no problem with the inclusion of this image. On another note the PRC has an appalling human rights record and still does to this day, which is acknowledged by most academic sources. Removing the information on this to pretend it doesn't exist is POV. Bambuway (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Because the United States outlawed slavery some 147 years ago, therefore it is historical and is already mentioned on the United States article in the history section. The PRC has yet to changes its ways in terms of human rights and capital punishment. Bambuway (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And because slavery is no longer an issue in the US, while the execution of a large number of people IS an issue today in the PRC. Polylepsis, please explain why do you believe that this image does not depicts a current issue, since: (1) The PRC is the second largest executer of people per capita; (2) The most common way to execute a prisoner is by shooting him in the head with a rifle. So the picture depicts a situation that is still very common today, and thus is relevant to the article. And the image you posted is included in the article Slavery in the United States as it should be, since it no longer depicts a current issue (for more than a century). Just my 2 cents. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Tell you(Polylepsis ) again about this pic, it happend in this century, in 2003, not 147 years ago. so there is no reason to keep it off, but we gatta discuss a bit more!--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I won't talk about "lethal injection is the most common method" or not in prc, but according to the largest chinese-language infotainment web portal "Sina.com", they just did execution by shooting IN THIS WEEK, 21th jan.http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-22/064216975370s.shtml jan 21th is is not last year, not last century, and not 147 years ago. NederlandsNederlands (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Not all cities started about "lethal injection" in prc yet. For example beijing was planning to start from 2004(http://news.163.com/09/1215/08/5QIG0EJC000120GR.html), but according to today's newspaper, beijing hasn't started yet, and planning to start from in this year, in this century(http://fzzx.gansudaily.com.cn/system/2010/01/26/011437870.shtml). they said "it's a very big civilization revolution", and i also want to say "yes, it is...".--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Polylepsis is right : the execution image has nothing to do in this page. We must keep Wikipedia neutral and this file is clearly too agressive. Zhonghuo (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To Zhonghuo. it's not agGessive at all, just before shooting. maybe not good to put some url here, but i think i need to explain for you what's the agressive. it has connection with "File:Execution in China.jpg", but too agressive, realy horror pic, so <NOTICE:>"BE CAREFUL TO OPEN" these url, please. it's realy crazy, but it's prc. << "execution(1)", "execution(2)", "execution(3)", "way of execution in china". >>--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it WAS prc. Zhonghuo (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To Zhonghuo. but they did execution by shooting in this week. they still do. what do you chinese think about it?--NederlandsNederlands (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Now who's the one doing WP:FORUM? Rather than arguing over what China did last week (and I'm sure China did lots of things last week), we must discuss whether the content is suitable for the article, and that it follows Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. I must agree with Zhonghuo there - use of the image is too aggressive, almost an attack critical of the PRC, and is not neutral. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

hey, chinaman. do not add oil to the fire, pls. --Innershookmay (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, go to hell, you along with your WP:ATTACK ego. Simply put, you just piss me off. Go on, and don't come back. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
User:NederlandsNederlands please do not register a new account just for WP:ATTACKs. Otherwise i will have to bring this to sock-puppet investigation committee. --LLTimes (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
too old has no meaning when your talking historically. and, hey, dont they still do that? and have little to no free speach? yea! china has some of the worst human rights in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

China has been criticized for its human rights violations

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

I'm all for avoiding the passive voice whenever possible but in this case I think it's hard to avoid. We can't simply write "Amnesty criticizes China for its human rights violations" because it's not just Amnesty. There are many more organizations, states and scholars who made this kind of criticism. Since we cannot list them all, I think the passive voice makes sense here. Laurent (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Then don't do the OR. Quote somebody who mentions that a great multitude finds problems with China's human rights record. Hcobb (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, and once I find that, you'll ask to find "somebody who mentions that somebody mentions that a great multitude finds problems with China's human rights record". You know we can go on like that for a while. Laurent (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
fine, just link some to japan, republic of korea, australia, they say the same stuff, and there not "western" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Communist state

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

I think that China is no longer a Communist country. It's economy is capitalistic after all. Polylepsis (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but "I think" means nothing against sourced content. I'll revert the changes Polylepsis, and when you find a reliable source that supports your point of view, post it here and we'll discuss the change. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why China is No Longer a Communist Country There you go Polylepsis (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook would be considered far more reliable than this article. Actually, you do use the Factbook when it serves your purpose, but of course in this case you ignore it. Laurent (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Polyepsis, that looks more like a blog post than a reliable source, and is just the personal opinion of the author, Robert Vance, for whom I have not found any information that would place him as an renowned expert on the subject. You still did not provide reliable sources, so PLEASE stop reverting changes to "communist state". Thank you and good editing. Uirauna (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The long standing term in this article was "socialist state" so i think that polilepsis is right Zhonghuo (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
if it wasnt communist then it's wouldnt be whining aboutthe dali lama meeting with obama, tiwan would have rejoined, and tibit would be at least partially independent. oh, and there would be no human right violations. and they wouldnt be holding back on punishing iran! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The CIA Factbook, the New York Times and the TIME among others use the term "communist state". We can't just ignore these sources and put what you think is right. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
yes but there is ALREADY "communist party" ! Zhonghuo (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the last consensus (as you can see here and here) is a communist state. Also, Zhonghuo, even if the previous consensus was what Polylepsis, that still would not make him right. Consensus changes. Still, talking about the current situation we have two items:
  • The last consensus is "communist state", and it is backed by several reliable sources
  • The "socialist state" argument has no reliable sources
So unless reliable sources are provided for the "socialist state" argument, as well as arguments beyond "he is right" to change the last attained consensus, we should stick to the last consensus. Do you disagree? And if you do, please explain with detail your arguments. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Upon investigation, the references from the CIA Factbook, NY Times, and Time Magazine cannot be used to support the assertion that China is a "Communist State"
  • "Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society)"
Also, if you look at the definition of Socialism, you will see the innate bias in the Factbook against the government, which is proudly NOT shared in Europe. An excerpt is posted below:
  • "Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite. "
The Time article http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953025,00.html asserts that 1) China is ruled by the Communist Party (undisputed) and 2) a Communist state was founded in 1949 - NOT that China is CURRENTLY a Communist State
The NY Times reference is based on the chinese government website www.gov.cn. However, I have been unable to find any reference to a "Communist state". However I did find an official translation of the constitution on the English version of the Central Government website here http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/05/content_20813.htm which states:
"Article 1: The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants."


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



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

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

In a communist state, private property does not exist. Right now, private property is totally supported by the Chinese State. Calling China a communist state is being 30 years late. Is China socialist ? This will be very doubtful for similar reasons. Is China liberal ? certainly not. One might call it autocratic capitalistic (China does own the largest amounts of dollar reserves in the world, which makes it totally included in the world-liberal economy), but I doubt the old and simple words such as communist, socialist or liberal have any interest in describing what China currently is. You might as well remove the whole problematic sentence altogether, and provide more explanation further in the article. Please forget about POVitude and stick to the facts : China's economic system nowadays is heavy with contradictions and fits no known definition.--Environnement2100 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If "communist state" is supposed by the sources, why all the hoopla? That's not POVitude. Unless there is a better suggestion based on more and better sources on the three good ones that offer "communist state," it's unclear how another quick definition would conform to wikipedia content policies, which requires deference to the most reliable sources. Correct me if this is wrong.--Asdfg12345 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think there is a genuine metaphysical conundrum - what should we call something that looks, walks and quacks like a duck, but calls itself a goat? Reliable sources calling the PRC 'Communist' will certainly be wrong, although I would not imagine any one doing so without heavy qualification, so we could be left with a gross simplification. Indeed, the country is ruled by a single party called 'Communist Party'; socialism with Chinese characteristics is just another term for capitalism with a whimsical Stalinist streak. The whole setup might be difficult to distil into the lead. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
"Communist State" is not supported by the sources. If I look at another reference quoted inside the article http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China , there is no reference to a "Communist State". There is however a single-party people’s republic. Ouyuecheng (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

China is a socialist state,[8][dubious – discuss] ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system...

say this:

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

(or "dictatorship of the proletariat" why not)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

yes, i agree Polylepsis (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Lets only put in the lead what is incontrovertible - single party state ruled by the CCP - and leave the rest to be detailed in the body of the text. While we certainly can cite what is in her constitution , I don't think we ought to do that in the lead, as it will then oblige us to go into all the detail of explaining how scholar x believes it is socialist, or journal y believes it is an autocratic capitalist state. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will China Rule the World? Dani Rodrik

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

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

Language spaghetti

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

At the least, the infobox is missing the Traditional Chinese variant. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
People's Republic of China
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese中華人民共和國
Simplified Chinese中华人民共和国
Vietnamese name
Vietnamese alphabet[Trung Hoa Nhân dân Cộng hòa quốc (Sino-Viet.)
Cộng hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa (native)] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
Hán-Nôm中華人民共和國 (Sino-Viet.)
共和人民中華 (native)
Korean name
Hangul중화인민공화국
Hanja中華人民共和國
Japanese name
Kanji中華人民共和国
Kanaちゅうかじんみんきょうわこく
Copy the box I made from here. Feel free to modify it to suit the article. I see that on the R.O.C. article, all Chinese names are omitted from the lede, and placed in a namebox under the country box. Also, leave Traditional out of the country box, as it is not official, at least on the mainland. Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin are official in the PRC, not Traditional Chinese like in the SARs and ROC, and Tongyong Pinyin in ROC antiquity. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As this seems to be dealt with fully in another article already linked to from here, I would not bother inserting it. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, a bit off-topic, but does anyone know where to get a Gan Chinese online dictionary? It took me a long time to find a Hakka dictionary, but it seems that Gan does not hold a presence on the internet... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Thanks! South Bay (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New administrative subunit?

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

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

new communist leader?

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

WP:RS, WP:V please. Otherwise, we cannot accept WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To paraphrase for the acronym-impaired: Wikipedia doesn't allow original research; you'd have to find some reliable sources which back up such claims. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
dam. looks like im gonna have to become a professor in this sorta thing. no one else seems to have the guts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The major Nepalese Maoist grouping are opposed to the PRC - they say its not Maoist enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.124.48 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Mildly opposed. PaxAmericana is correct that the PRC is often called China, but some other places (notably the Republic of China, a.k.a. Chinese Taipei, a.k.a. Taiwan) also claim that name. I would not oppose moving China to Chinese Civilization and making that name a redirect to People's Republic of China, with proper disambiguation. Cnilep (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Our article titling policy - "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" (my emphasis). "China" alone is not unambiguous. The current title is the most common unambiguous name, and ambiguity is a very important consideration in selecting titles. Knepflerle (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same two reasons stated above: Neutrality and disambiguation. Uirauna (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The notion that the country everyone knows as "Taiwan" would cause a ambiguity problerm is bordering on fringe. And that can be handled with a hatnote anyway. People looking for "China" are looking for the PRC and the direction to this page is confusing. I would also support Cnilep's proposal that we have "China" redirect to the PRC and move the text of this article to a page called "Chinese civilization". Readin (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose see One China for one reason, and this has already been discussed to death many many times before. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Since this article is about "Chinese civilization" the logical thing to do would be to move this article to the name "Chinese civilization". Readin (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 1) In the English language when someone speaks about "China" he is talking about the country (PRC). When someone is speaking about the ROC he uses the name "Taiwan".
  • 2) The same happens in the English-speaking media (TV - CNN, BBC, Sky News, NBC, etc, ad nauseam). This is also the case with newspapers and magazines.
  • 3) The overwhelming majority of international organizations use the name China for the PRC (it begins with the UNO, the G8+5, etc). Look for the little name-cards upon the tables; the representative from Beijing (i.e. PRC) gets the one with the name "China" upon it. An example of this can be found here.
  • 4) In international events, like for example the Olympic Games, the representatives of the PRC receive the name-tag "China".
  • 5) The overwhelming majority of Academia uses "China" for the PRC. This is also taught at school.
  • 6) Written encyclopaedias and dictionaries use "China" for the PRC. Seriously, grab your geographic encyclopaedia at home take look in the "China-entry" and guess what you will find? The PRC. Go to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and what will you find? The PRC, none other
  • Support for all the reasons listed above. Flamarande (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. m:Wikipedia is not a paper. We can afford to be specific by having multiple pages on similar topics. The print news media cannot and therefore must shorten and simplify everything when they have a chance.--Jiang (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a paper" (have you read it at all?) refers to the contents of the articles and not to their names. Flamarande (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It refers to the topical breadth of the Wikipedia universe and provides examples of how a single topic can have multiple articles on it. Here, we are not limited to a single page on China. For the reasons outlined on that page, it is unfair to compare Wikipedia to news media because we have the space to be specific.--Jiang (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It just doesn't make any sense. The PRC is a temporal subset of 'China'. China is a historical and geographical entity through its creation to today, it includes many sovereign states (some simultaneously) which existed within its land mass. The PRC is a sovereign entity which spans from 1947 to today. Also, as benlisquare suggests, it will open up the most enormous POV battlefield WP has ever seen. The disruption caused by such a move would not be justified based uniquely on arguments of convenience - anyone arriving at the China article is immediately faced with a link to the PRC in bold. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: For all the reasons listed by Flamarande. PaxAmericana (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: You have already cast your !vote by placing the move request proposal. You can only post a Comment in this case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's not the case. It's good for a nominee to show support since such support should not always be assumed. (I have proposed a number of moves that I did not support in order to establish consensus.) Anyway, since this is not a vote (ha!) it's irrelevant anyway. — AjaxSmack 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • General notice: Main requester seems to have been excluded from this discussion, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis/Archive. What is to occur now? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's clearly 'no consensus', leaning towards oppose. I'd suggest closing this per M:TROLL. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment I strongly disagree. PaxAmericana was found guilty of being a troll, but this move request is worthy of serious consideration. Flamarande (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: This request should be speedily closed since it goes against current (and previous) consensus, plus the requester has been exposed as a sockpuppeteer. Ngchen (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Flamarande. The current article setup is a violation of WP:NPOV as it gives undue weight to the idea that the ROC = China (a claim that even the ROC doesn't pursue seriously). Laurent (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia's continuing denial of geopolitical reality is this instance is a joke. It's the world in 2010, not USA in 1955, and the PRC is China and China is the PRC. When people say "China," they do not mean Taiwan, Chinese civilisation, or anything else. Get used to it. — AjaxSmack 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a news source. References to "China" more often than not do not refer to China in the present. From the article on Huns: "Since De Guignes linked them with the Xiongnu who had been northern neighbours of China three hundred years before, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted in investigating such a connection. However, there is no evidence for a direct connection between the Xiongnu and the Huns." China in this context clearly doesn't mean PRC.--Jiang (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment For such a case we have the article History of China (and 'Ancient China' is a redirect towards it). I honestly don't agree with your statement: References to "China" more often than not do not refer to China in the present. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a prestigious encyclopaedia and it clearly shows us the meaning of 'China'. Flamarande (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • This goes back to my earlier comment noting that "Wikipedia is not a paper." If we wanted to be like Britannica, this would be a request to merge instead of a request to move. We can be a lot more specific, detailed, and precise than Britannica, so I don't find the comparison convincing.--Jiang (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The move proposal was not formatted to take into account that two articles will be moved. The discussion so far as focused only one of the articles.--Jiang (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Chinese civilization would include Exile-Chinese in USA, SE-ASIA and so on. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support thanks AjaxSmack for a healthy dose of reality to the conversation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose: China as a concept is broader than any one government or time span. Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The concept of Italy long predates Italian unification in the nineteenth century, yet we don't devote the Italy page to the Culture of Italy, or have a seperate Italian Republic article on the contemporary state. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, there aren't 2 contemporary Italian states and they aren't engaged in a border/sovereignty dispute. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
So what if they were? We do not cater to the minority views of secessionist states anywhere in the world. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I'm just saying it's not the best analogy. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The point is that "China" normally refers to the People's Republic of China, just as "Italy" normally refers to the Italian Republic. China does not normally refer to "a concept is broader than any one government or time span", nor does it normally refer to Taiwan. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
But you're point is flatly wrong. When speaking of "Italy", people usually do mean the modern country. No one says that Italy conquered France under Caesar. While famous artists from the late-middle ages are called "Italian", people don't talk about the country of Italy doing anything during that time...they speak about the city-states taking political action. This is not true with China. People talk of China's position in WW2, China's expansion to the west in the time of the Silk Road, and how the country of China sent fleets of boats all around the world in the 1400s. Technically, they speak inaccurately as the nation of China is a modern concept. But when people say "China" with respect to most historical and cultural events, they speak about "a concept brader than any one government or time span". It may not make sense, but that's the way it is.LedRush (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that when people talk about "China", or, for example, "Chinese history", they don't exlusively mean that of the modern state since 1949. Where you are wrong though is by arguing that China and Italy are fundamentally different (or China and any other country). People do talk about travelling to Italy in works like The Mysteries of Udolpho, even though Italy was divided amongst a number of small states - the concept of Italy long predates Italian unification, just as the concept of China long predates the Chinese Revolution. The People's Republic of China article, if moved to China, would not just cover the history of the PRC, but that of China from antiquity; just as Italy#History covers the Ancient Rome and so on. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
My point is in the difference between discussing "Italy" as a politically integrated state or in a cultural or other context. Your example is the latter, not the former. Regardless, Italy is not China, and I don't know how much this conversation informs the decision to move.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If we were to merge Chinese civilization with People's Republic of China under a model similar to Italy as some people above have proposed, the article would be too damn long. Currently the PRC article is 132,415 bytes, and the China article is 64,095 bytes. It would be an absolute bitch to read through such a large article, not to mention that people with poor internet connections/outdated computers would have great trouble in accessing the page. So, what are you going to do with all the information? We cannot have the article so long, but it would be impractical to separate each section into individual articles, as that completely defies the purpose of the merger, to collect the historical and political information of "China" as with the Italy article (heck, I'm more wondering if that is just an excuse everyone is using to stay away from the more political reasons...) and place them together. We cannot abbridge the article by simplifying it and excluding information, as nobody would have any benefit from that. What do you people actually have in mind for your wonderful and brilliant idea? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that Chinese civilisation is so long and complex that it can't be placed in the same article as the state. I disagree. There are plenty of other countries with comparable histories and civilisations that long predate the exist of the modern state, from Ethiopia to Israel to Japan. I don't think the the two articles should be merged however; modifying some sections like People's Republic of China#History to cover a much longer span of Chinese history, similar to Japan#History would be enough. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
But that would involve cutting out and omitting information. The Chinese Civilisation article would be carved up to fit the new article. If it wasn't carved up, it would fit unnaturally into the article, but by doing so, you are leaving out too much information. Exactly how much detail would we have if we have a country article with a abbridged history section? We can't have one section that is 27 paragraphs long, and we can't have 15 sections that have nothing to do with the People's Republic of China itself other than it's historical roots. Have a look at Japan#History. How short is it? Now have a look at Chinese civilization. It describes much more than history, but culture, etymology, and geography as well, and not all of it fits into the PRC article without a little bit of tailoring, and I am worried about how this tailoring will turn out. Have a look at how long the history section is, and see how unpractible it would be to merge these two articles without simplifying the information. And then you have to include the full history of the PRC, from the PRC article, as an article on the PRC would be incomplete without full PRC history. Hell, you could even merge ROC in with it, and create a Wikipedia-wide record for the country article with the longest history section. Please don't bring in Japan#History and tell me that it is comparable, it is not. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Mildly opposed. I understand and empathize with the arguments for the move, but I don't see a problem with the status quo. There is no confusion based on the current layout. This is not a topic about which average people are ignorant. If people wish to learn about the 60-year old political entity known as the PRC, they know precisely where to go. If they want to know about China, historically to present, they know where to go. If people want to know about Taiwan, they know where to go. Other than trying to politicize Wikipedia, what are the real benefits to a reader of Wikipedia to a move? I don't see any.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
People are confused. External reviews by laypeople that are not Wikipedians are confused. That is who we write for, not geopolitical experts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The proposal will appease only certain geopolitical experts, while providing no additional clarity for a normal person looking for information on "China". LedRush (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Providing an article about a country, at an article name where non-knowledgeable readers expect to find one, provides a great deal of clarity. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Do you believe that when people go to the article entitled "China" but actually wanted "PRC", they are confused? Really? Even with the links at the top and the huge flags and links at the top of the lede? I'm not buying it.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose:

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

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

    • Exactly. There is no consensus to move "United States of America" to "America", even though "America" is frequently used in colloquial and general language to represent the country. Except in formal writing, it is extremely rare for anyone to use the mouth-numbing "United States of" here in Australia for example, we just call it America. But why not rename it on Wikipedia? For starters, there is a continent called "America"; also, one can assume that most Wikipedians prefer the use of the official name, to which this consensus arises from. Now, let's see how this relates to "China" and the PRC: "China" can be confused with a wide number of things, from Greater China to an alternative name for Porcelain used in British English. Just as with the America (continent) clause, renaming is entirely impracticable as there is the problem of confusion. Now, onto the other point: People's Republic of China is the official term, just as with United States of America, and so from a professional point of view, it would be most preferable to use the more official term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • You do know that the article is at United States and not at United States of America (the official term is a mere redirect), right? Flamarande (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per One China policy; it's not just Taiwan that feebly supports the view. A significant portion of the world (and specifically the entire English-speaking world) does not recognize the PRC as "China" (just look at this map). Also, Takamaxa makes a good point vis a vis United States/America. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The One-China policy is a political agreement between the PRC and ROC, not a Wikipidia policy. The ROC has very limited diplomatic recognition; you mention the English-speaking world, but can you name a single major English-speaking country that officially uses "China" to refer to Taiwan? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily English-speaking, but Honduras, Solomon Islands and the Holy See do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
With due respect, only a very small numbers of users of this website will come from those territories. All three have very small populations, and none are English speaking. The main bulk of English Wikipedia users comes from English speaking countries that do not recognise Taiwan, such as the USA and most of the Commonwealth. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is whether the statement is true (i.e., that English-speaking governments refer to the PRC as China), not the obverse, which is totally and completely irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the USA has an embassy in Beijing, China and doesn't seem to use "Beijing, PRC". Flamarande (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The US also considers that Taiwan is part of China, per the One China policy. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. It does not recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. It also acknowledged both sides have conflicting "One China" policies. The USA's position is more along the lines of "yes, there is one China, but we're not going to tell you which one it is." Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
From your own statement, it does consider Taiwan part of China. I didn't say which one either :-) ... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Zam. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You can say "Zam" all you want, but you're both missing the point. And the point is that the US has unequivocaly refused to recognize either the PRC or Taiwan as "China." That's what matters here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Parsecboy, you can certainly disagree with the move request all you want, but the US government clearly uses the name 'China' for the PRC and the name 'Taiwan' for the ROC (as does the overwhelming majority of the people of this planet). Flamarande (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Except, of course, when talking about "One China", or anything involving the history or culture of China. But other than that...LedRush (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
More important, I think, is that while many people refer to the PRC as "China," the same holds true for the United States vis a vis "America," yet "America" is a redirect. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can anyone explain why China fighted under the Taiwanese flag in the Second World War? And why was the Taiwanese flag used when the United Nations was founded? Taiwan isn't a UN member is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Off-topic (this belongs elsewhere), but the Blue Sky White Sun Red Earth flag is not the Taiwanese flag, it is the flag of the Republic of China. Simply put, from 1912, China was once ruled by a group of individuals, let's call them Group A (although it gets more complicated than that, but we'll ignore those for now for simplicity's sake). During World War II, China, under the rule of Group A, fought against the Japanese and became one of the founding members of the UN. Then, in 1949, Group A lost a war against a different group of people, namely Group B, and so Group B took over China, and Group A retreated to Taiwan. This is why China fought under that flag during WW2, used at the start of the UN, etc. (I know there are holes in my ultra-simplified explanation, someone feel free to fill them in) This does not necessarily mean that the Taiwanese were responsible for A, B, and C. Group A, which used to be in China but no longer is, is now in Taiwan because Group B is in China, and both groups don't really like one another. Should I explain in a bit more detail? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • So let us disregard what happened before 1911 for the time being... for the purpose of discussion. There are four things that we are now dealing with, namely China, Taiwan, Group A and Group B. Should we call Group A China or Taiwan? Or should we simply equate China with Group B? And if we equate Taiwan and Group A, how can we explain what happened before and after 1945 (or 1949)? 210.177.66.30 (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
        • China and Taiwan are geographical locations, that is, places. Back in the old days, Group A was the government, the people that ruled the place called China (or more specifically, mainland China). However, they lost that place to Group B. Group A had nowhere to go but to flee to Taiwan (since after all, Group B was pursuing and killing them, and Taiwan seemed like a safe place, due to proximity, etc. but I'll leave warfare strategy out of this), and so, Group B formed a new government in mainland China, this was to be later known as the People's Republic of China. This is the China with the Red Flag with 5 yellow stars. Meanwhile, Group A settles in Taiwan, kills off a few locals that don't like them, and resumes their government, the Republic of China, moved from China to Taiwan. This is the "China" with the Blue Sky White Sun Red Earth flag. The United States really likes the "China" ruled by Group A, and doesn't like the one ruled by Group B, because Group B had ties with the USSR, so the US accepts Group A's China as the sole legitimate China for many years, until the 1970s, when they realise that such an idea was rather unpractical. Then, Group A's China lost the UN seat that it got when the UN was founded, and Group B's China was given that seat. And essentially, here we are today. Group B is ruling inside China, Group A is ruling from within Taiwan, but both groups originate from within China, and both groups call themselves "China", and disregard the other group. Today, Group A is the  Republic of China ruling within the place of Taiwan, while Group B is the  People's Republic of China that rules within mainland China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Please don't go too much into details. My questions were targeted at those who support the move. I want them to answer why China fighted under the Taiwanese flag in the Second World War, and used the Taiwanese flag to join the United Nations. To elaborate a little bit, I'd want them to explain, if China ≡ PRC and Taiwan ≡ ROC, why China would have fighted with Japan under the Taiwanese flag while Taiwan was then part of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You questions and reasoning are suspect. China fought under the "Taiwanese" flag in WWII because the KMT/ROC were still running China (at least large portions of it) in WWII. Of course, calling the KMT/ROC's flag during WWII the "Taiwanese flag" is misleading and stupid, but that's your answer. Once the KMT/ROC lost the mainland and moved to Taiwan in 1949, the KMT/ROC flag changed from being "China's" flag to "taiwan's"LedRush (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
But that does not mean that the ROC should be equated to Taiwan on Wikipedia, and henceforth be renamed, as with China and PRC. What are you going to do with all the historical information on Republic of China? Delete it all? Move it to an article like China or PRC which would be unrelated? Incorporate all the mainland history somehow as that of Taiwan? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the second part of the proposal (China -> Chinese civilization). No need to rename this article, a redirect (as in Frankfurt or Chinese foreign policy) should do the trick. Yaan (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The arguments being used to try to prevent the article on "China" from having access to its own name could be used against any country. As it stands now, I think it is not neutral, as it implies the claims of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are comparable, which was a fringe view in the 1950s, let alone today. I think the best solution is to get rid of the current article under the name China (or rename it Chinese civilization), name the PRC ariticle as "China", and keep the Republic of China article named "Republic of China". To those who claim that this would somehow be endorsing a one-China policy, I don't see any reason why this article, once renamed China as it ought ot be, could not mention the current dispute. What's more, by keeping the current Republic of China article, it should be pretty clear that Wikipedia is by no means acknowledging any political point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.97 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC) — 130.64.150.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment: I don't think you seem to understand that by renaming this article, you have given the perfect excuse for a handful of editors to argue for a renaming of Republic of China to "Taiwan" or something similar. It isn't as simple as thinking that there still will be an ROC article, there are consequences that occur if the PRC article was to be renamed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per Takamaxa --LLTimes (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose:

It should be never absent from our recollection that there are now two distinct nations in China--the Chinese and the Tartars--whose characters essentially differ, notwithstanding their external appearance be nearly the same. They are both subject to the most absolute authority that can be vested in a Prince(Qianlong), but with this distinction--that to the Chinese it is a foreign tyranny, to the Tartar a domestic despotism.q:George Macartney

Presumed that the move is successful(which I doubt), then your everyday readers would be very confused with George Macartney's China and the PRC's China. The only way to stop the possible confusion, is to let PRC, ROC, Chinese civilisation, Ancient China, or whatever China, to have their own individually named articles. Arilang talk 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: How does the point you are bringing up not apply to every other country page? China is not the only place with a long and diverse history. Certainly there are huge differences between historical France and modern France (to choose a random example), but I don't think potential confusion would justify the article on France not using the name France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.204 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about France, but it is quite difficult to find another civilization which enjoy such a long(3000-4000 years) and complex history. Ancient India? Ancient Greece? Maya? Babylon? Arilang talk 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: So you would support renaming the article about Greece and France to the Hellenic Republic and the French Republic and having their proper names redirect to a poorly written "civlization" article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.97 (talk • contribs)
France has a reach history and they have reunified all their territories and they have very few territorial disputes. In fact France is the only country which claims to be the original Francophone country. Quebec was once called New France (part of it) but that is now part of Canada. So they do not have any identity issues with France. Quebec has some sections of its populations who are secessionist. Takamaxa (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: "China", other than politically and diplomatically, is used in everyday speech to refer to the general region, tied together culturally and as an ancient civilisation. "PRC" is a subset of this concept of China. "PRC" is not equivalent with the concept of China. Moving this page will also cause some intolerable faults in how we cover the topic "China". Take for example - how would we cover Chinese history? Do we simply start from the founding of the Communist Party? How is that fair when the big bulk of Chinese history occurred before the twentieth century? WHSL (Talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment other than politically, diplomatically, and commonly (as in a common conversation: "I'm going to spend my vacations travelling through China."). We would follow the example of the majority of 'country-articles' (like for example Egypt, France, Mexico). Flamarande (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: PRC is not "equivalent" with the concept of China, but neither is the Republic of India equivalent with the concept of India. Again, this seems like a double standard to me—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.97 (talk • contribs)
      • How is India relevant to this? Republic of India representing the region India is non-controversial. WHSL (Talk) 00:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should let sleeping dogs lie; the current title is uncontroversial.--Ptolion (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: The fact that Wikipedia contradicts usage by other major sources (CIA World Factbook, United Nations, Britannica, etc) and the very divided opinions on this discussion page make me feel that this is in fact controversial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.150.97 (talk • contribs)

Comment: In wikipedia, "building up a consensus" is the goal of all the discussion. Looking through the discussion on this topic, I would say the Support side does provide a very weak defense. Short of telling IP user 130.64.150.97 to "stop the sh*t stirring", I would politely suggest to IP user 130.64.150.97 to throw in the towel. OK? Arilang talk 03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other Political Parties

There are at least 9 political parties in the People's Republic of China. It is not a single-party dictatorship as Wikipedia claims. The Communist Party holds the most governmental seats, but other parties have significant representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.68.97 (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not just one party per se, they all form one coalition known as the United Front (PRC). It's more or less a "single party", hypothetically, as they would all share the same views. Coalitions form in almost any and every country, for example, Australia's opposition coalition is made up of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, however, there are more than one "sides", so to speak (in this case, the Australian Labor Party opposing them). In China, there is only one "side" to politics. The Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang, China Democratic League, China Democratic National Construction Association, etc. are all parties within the United Front, and there are no parties outside of this coalition. (referring to legal parties, see List of political parties in the People's Republic of China.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
To put it more bluntly, China is a one party state for all purposes except symbolically. One party controls all the real decisions. WHSL (Talk) 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please respect the talk page guidelines. South Bay (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Form of gov't listed in info box

Currently, the info box lists the following as the form of government: "Communist party-led people's republic,[2] People's democratic dictatorship,[3] Unitary state"

I consider myself moderately intelligent, and I am well versed on Chinese politics and history, but I have no idea what these terms mean. Are these informative to an average reader? Couldn't we simplify this so that people coming here to learn would not be confused by terms that are both conflicting and confusing? I fear providing suggestions due to the obviously polarized nature of this board, so I would ask someone else to demonstrate more moxy than I have.LedRush (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"People's democratic dictatorship" is unique to the PRC, so it's unsurprising that that might be unfamiliar. Unitary state, if you look at the article, is pretty simple, it just means it's not a (con)federation. As for "Communist party-led people's republic", it used to be (IMO) more simply phrased, but this is the current outcome of the very recent edit war over the phrasing of it. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
These terms just don't make sense on their own. A democracy involves people voting...what is a people's democracy? Are farm animals voting in other countries? And how can a democracy be a dictatorship? Did all the people vote for the dictator? And what about a "communist party-led people's republic"? "People's republic" is a euphemism for "communist dictatorship". Saying it is "communist party-led" sounds like it would be possible for this "republic" to be otherwise led. "unitary state" is easy enough to understand once reading the article, but why is it in the infobox as a description of the gov't? As a description, it offers almost no value. Wouldn't every state be either unitary or federal? Why do so few comment on the status? I assume because it's not a helpful distinction, especially not when the government has been otherwise so badly and described.LedRush (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First, some people don't understand what the form of government is. Okay, it is nice that Chinese Constitution includes "People's democratic dictatorship", but it is not the government type, so it should be removed (I tried, but some reverted it). Second, basic form of government is Republic vs. Monarchy - rule of many vs. rule of one. Then we have to be more specific about it - so China is, for example, single-party republic (same definition could be found on Britannica), or Communist Party of China-led republic. Again, I made these changes, but somebody reverted it. Just take a look how the government form classification works on wikipedia, and study these two articles - Form of government and List of countries by system of government. Then, I believe, you will agree with me, that China is "Single-party republic". --Novis-M (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you that China is a republic in any way except for the purposes of propaganda. China is a "communist state", "communist dictatorship", "single party dictatorship" or "single-party state". LedRush (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (replying to LedRush) You make a good point about federal vs. unitary, I've removed Unitary state from the box. As for the other descriptors, they can somewhat be considered terms of art, but I agree the current phrasing (particularly "Communist party-led") is not optimal; however, it is a compromise that was able to be agreed upon. For context, prior to the recent changes, instead of "Communist party-led people's republic", it read: Single-party state, Socialist state, Communist state. Perhaps the other recent editors would care to weigh in? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

China is NOT communist state, and communist state is not basic form of government. But you could definitely say "single-party state" or more to be more accurate, "single-party republic". --Novis-M (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. It's not a basic form of government, but it's most certainly a form of government:

A communist state is a sovereign state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communist party and a professed allegiance to a communist ideology as the guiding principle of the state. — Communist state

That seems to describe China quite well IMO and incorporates and is more specific than single-party state. The CIA and their World Factbook also disagree with you:

Government type: Communist state — CIA - The World Factbook - China - Government

--Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I also find calling it just a republic misleading:

A republic is a form of government in which the citizens choose their leaders [1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government. — Republic

The Chinese, in most cases, don't choose their leaders in any meaningful sense (with the exception of some local elections, which I recall reading are comparatively free) and largely don't have an impact on their self-perpetuating government. Calling the PRC a people's republic is much more accurate (not to mention more specific and what the country chooses to calls itself). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-tangent: turns out the US State Department uses "Communist party-led state" to describe the PRC. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

While I prefer my "plain English" suggestions above, I like "communist party-led state" better than the current options.LedRush (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


CIA factbook is very misleading - putting together government types like republic and democracy - that's nonsense, we're talking about different levels. There could be democratic republic, and also democratic monarchy. Or single-party republic (like China), and absolute monarchy. You really DON'T UNDERSTAND - are we going to call the United States "capitalist state"????? It is not about your personal opinion of what you think republic is - China is republic, thats a fact - you don't even know what a communism is - and again, read these two articles - Form of government and List of countries by system of government and this http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China. All countries in the world that have articles on wikipedia are either republics or monarchies (in infobox - government form) - THESE ARE THE BASIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. Now excuse me for a minute - I promised my dog to have much more meaningful conversation - at least he understands basic things. --Novis-M (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Find me 1 reliable source that calls China just a "republic" (as opposed to "people's republic", "socialist/communist republic", etc. [disregarding "single-party" as we all are in agreement on that point]). --Cybercobra (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I also note that List of countries by system of government cites barely any sources and in the section "Systems of Governance" places the PRC under "One-party states" and not under the republican subsections. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - you were definitely right that it is people's republic :) But the article about it is pretty much stub, and chaotic...so I think there should be link to the "types of republic" in the republic article - but thats, of course, only my opinion :) Please understand - since the system on wikipedia works in that way, we need to keep with it...since every state is "some form" of republic, or "some form" of monarchy. --Novis-M (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We have 2 reliable sources (CIA World Factbook, US Dept. of State) classifying it as communist, and it fits the definition given in communist state. The PRC is hard to classify, but whatever it is, that thing is nominally communist. I invite you find a reliable source not describing it as communist/socialist. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Novis-M, please do not insult me by claiming to know precisely what I know and don't know. I know that China is often called a "Communist State", and despite the fact that communism is primarily a form of economy, the term is used more broadly than that in this context. I also know that in a republic, the citizens of the country (or at least a significant portion of them) choose their leaders. This does not happen in China. While putting the term "people's" in front of "republic" parrots the name of the country, it does little to describe the form of government to readers on wikipedia. In fact, it obscures the meaning of the term as it seems to imply that the "people" take a more active role in the republic than is normally the case. Of course, this is not true in China's case.LedRush (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't "targeting" you, LedRush, but Cybercobra - and I meant no offense, I hope you understood the point, plus I meant it pretty much as a joke...Anyway, the link Cybercobra has asked for is here - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China . And I am saying again - "CIA factbook is very misleading - putting together government types like republic and democracy - that's nonsense, we're talking about different levels. There could be democratic republic, and also democratic monarchy. Or single-party republic (like China), and absolute monarchy." China is NOT communist. North Korea is a communist state, the country I come from used to be communist state, but not China. Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society - not Chinese case AT ALL! --Novis-M (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're talking around each other at this point. Let's back up. Here are the sources that have been brought up, along with the descriptors that have been brought up. Do you two agree this chart is a correct reading of the sources? --Cybercobra (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Source Description "Single-party"? "Communist"? "Socialist"? "Republic"?
Brittanica "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house"
China has been a socialist country since 1949 [...] 		Yes No Yes Yes
(people's)
US State Department Communist party-led state Implicit Communist-led No No
CIA Factbook Communist state No Yes No No
PRC's own constitution [...] under the leadership of the Communist Party of China [...]
The People's Republic of China is a socialist state [...] 		Implicit ? Yes Yes
(people's)
(implicit)

One word - NO. First, constitution is not source - I bet we won't call Iran "Allah's paradise", if it was in its constitution. Second - CIA factbook is not reliable SOURCE - now let me explain why: There is no system and order in government types on CIA "fact"book. For example, there are two same monarchies, while one is called "Parliamentary democracy", and the other one is "Constitutional Monarchy". The United Kingdom's from of government there is "Constitutional Monarchy" - but guess what - it is parliamentary democracy too!!! What is CIA going to do now? Maybe they should ask some 5th grade teacher. This website doesn't recognize levels of government, just open up Geography book from elementary school and you'll see it. First, you need to decide whether it's rule of one (monarchy), or rule of many (republic). Then you can recogonize country's freedom (democracy vs. authoritian style) etc etc....understand? --Novis-M (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with the chart, though I would say say that for "communist" the US dept of state should say "yes" and PRC Constitution should say "Implicit". My other issue is that I doubt, but don't know, that the Brittanica does not describe the gov't as "communist" somewhere in the article, regardless of whether or not it appears in the initial description.LedRush (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
After searching Politics part of the Brittanica text, there's one sentence about "The Chinese communist political system", but that's in the context of internal Party politics. However, Economics turns up this gem: "China has been a socialist country since 1949 [...]". --Cybercobra (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(re to Novis): This binary division of all states into either monarchies or republics seems to be your own personal idiosyncrasy and does not match the referenced definition given by republic, nor apparently the opinion of the presumably intelligent people at the government of a major world power. And indeed it can be disproven directly: a dictatorship is neither a republic nor a monarchy.[that wasn't going to help anything] Secondly, it is entirely appropriate to consider the primary source of the country's own constitution, if only to mark it as de jure or nominal; observe that North Korea's gov_type is not Dictatorship despite obvious contrary evidence and my personal efforts at having it so classified; it is instead reported as what its constitution says. Cuba's government type is also cited to its constitution, however there is admittedly less controversy there. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cyber, I think that the information in the Constitution can be useful, but we shouldn't overly rely on it either. North Korea is a dictatorship. That the infobox does not make this clear makes the entire article less credible, imho.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Let me reply in points, answering your conclusions:
- again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government - I am only saying it is the first and basic division - browse through the country articles on wikipedia, and you will almost always see ".... republic" or ".... monarchy".
- I am not talking about inteligency level of CIA staff, however, I am pointing out that their definitions of government forms are very incorrect (United Kingdom case, or "communist state") - and I don't think it depends on the "power" of that country (= it doesn't mean that since the US is superpower, all of the government employees are more intelligent than Einstein). Another example could be American politics - I am not saying that CNN or political experts (in the US) are stupid when they say Democratic Party is liberal. However - it is not liberal party, but social liberal (if it was liberal party, it would support free market without regulations - Laissez-faire - Democrats instead support Keynesian economic policies, some of them similar to those of Western-European social democratic parties)
- Military dictatorship is neither republic or monarchy, but for example North Korea is socialist (and communist) single-party republic
- Yes, there are some mistakes in Cuba and North Korea articles. But, of course, citation from constitution is debatable
--Novis-M (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all say what our ideal value for the field is and then work backward from that. I'd go with "Communist state". I assume you'd go with "Single-party republic"? --Cybercobra (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
How about compromise - first line: Single-party state ruled by CCP, - second line: people's republic, - third line: people's democratic dictatorship? I think thats fair :) And by the way, CIA really makes mistakes sometimes, as all of us - http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-eastasia.asp?parentid=64049 . --Novis-M (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Continually pointing out that the CIA makes mistakes is superfluous to the discussion: if we couldn't use reliable sources because they were sometimes wrong, the entire global press would be suspect, and the entire Chinese press would never, ever be used. But, back on point, all 3 of Novis' suggestions are deeply flawed for the reasons stated in my first post. I would suggest first line: Communist State (linking to communist state, not China Communist Party); second line: dictatorship.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If the CIA Factbook is wrong then so is the New York Times an TIME magazine since they also use the term "communist state" to describe China's government. Also it's not for us to decide what is wrong or not - if we have three reliable sources saying it's a communist state, we can't just dismiss them as "mistakes". If anything, "people's republic" is just as incorrect or at least very biased (it's the POV of the government that the republic belongs to the people. However, when you look at the facts, it's obviously different). So personally, I would go for something like:
Laurent (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I realize at some point compromise will be necessary, but I still don't see the sense of calling it a "people's democratic dictatorship". The term itself is both redundant and contradictory, making the whole thing meaningless. Also, if we are going to go with this 1-western, 1-chinese pov idea, why not call it a communist state (a term that gets 8-times more hits on google than cmmunist party-led state does....and many of those come from this article).LedRush (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "People's democratic dictatorship" is a strange term, however the linked article explains it quite well, which is why I think it's a better choice than "people's republic" (which also has its problems).
I would also prefer "communist state", but "communist party-led state" seems to be less controversial so I am fine with it too. Laurent (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


Use anything BUT communist state, because China is NOT a communist state (I know, I keep repeating it :D ). Personally, I would go with my "compromise proposal", if Cybercobra agrees:

and that's it.
--Novis-M (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by all accounts China is a communist state. You may like that term, but the definition of that term (which is much more readily apparent than your suggested terms) and its use in this case is not controversial. Regardless, our four opinions have been clearly stated, so we should either act on them or wait for new voices. I don't see us progressing beyond our current standoff if Nova will not accept Laurent's proposed compromise (which I will reluctantly agree to if it says "Communist State" despite the fact that it gives equal prominence to fringe views on the subject).LedRush (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If you remember, we were talking about some "republics" and "basic forms of government", so it is not that easy. Don't acuse me of some intentional changing and sabotaging this article - I live in former communist state, and I have to tell you that it is very inaccurate to put China to the same category as North Korea or Cuba. It is also against the common categorization of government forms on wikipedia, as I wrote previously (same like calling US "capitalist state"). --Novis-M (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I accused you of sabotaging the article...I said that our discussions were stalled if you were unwilling to compromise. Additionally, I lived in an actual communist state...China. Alas, both of our experiences are original research and superfluous to this conversations. Also, China is commonly referred to as a communist state; that is a fact, and one which cannot be disputed. You can say this is a misconception, but it is a fact that China is referred to in this way. Your point about the US being a capitalist state is off-topic and doesn't hold water. Virtually no reliable sources name the US this way, and even if they did, this would be a discussion on the US page.
It seems like you don't like the term "communist state" based on your personal experiences and a misunderstanding of the term. You seem to say that communism is merely an economic descriptor (which it isn't, but, whatever) and therefore the term "communist state" cannot be accurate as a form of government. This is false, and, quite honestly, it's very easy to see why. Simply look to the "communist state" article..."A communist state is a sovereign state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communist party and a professed allegiance to a communist ideology as the guiding principle of the state." This describes China precisely. Why are we even discussing this?LedRush (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying you did, I'm "only saying" :) It's not about my "relationship" to this term. You don't understand my point - since ALL country articles on wikipedia have their government styles "some type of republic" or "some type of monarchy", we should put this to the infobox (that China is a single-party republic). That's why I wrote US as "capitalist state" - no, it is "federal presidential republic". See? Not "capitalist state" versus "communist state", but "federal presidential republic" vs. "single party people's republic".I just want to stick with the classification system on wikipedia. By the way, the introduction to the Communist state article that you cited is not sourced. The only communist thing in todays China is the name of the rulling party, social system is authoritarian (so it could be both fascism and communism, or something else), and economic system is more capitalist than European Union. --Novis-M (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I understood your point and addressed it in two ways. Also, ledes don't need to be sourced.LedRush (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
What is ledes? --Novis-M (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
A lede is the introductory section of an article or news story. Per wikipedia policy, ledes don't need citations, though the statement therein should be cited in the main article.LedRush (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see the source anyway. Look at the problem from different view - you'll list China as a communist country. Most people who will read it will think it is a state where is no private property, where everybody has the same, where government controls completely everything, where Marx is worshiped, and where you can't speak, can't think, can't pray, can't do almost anything. Like North Korea. --Novis-M (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe most people will think it is a country in which the government wields almost absolute power, where dissent is not tolerated, and where the people are not represented in the government. (also, on a side note, you cannot "own" real property in China; you lease it from the government for a period of 40, 50, or 70 years for industrial, retail, or residential purposes, respectively. Also, Mao is still widely worshipped. Prayer is dramatically curbed and controlled, as is speech.)LedRush (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess you will agree that have gone off the topic little bit :) But I am really interested in this stuff. If you had some time, could you please tell me more about this, and how does it work in China? You must have good information since, as you said, you lived there for some time. Thanks a lot. --Novis-M (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know as a courtesy, since the discussion is going comparatively fast: I'm about to go comatose for a few hours, hallucinate vividly, and probably suffer amnesia about the whole event, but then I'll be back and give a cogent reply (my current all-nighter stupor is not conducive to logical reasoning). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good :D :D :D --Novis-M (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, how about this:
--Cybercobra (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a couple of problems with these terms. "Communist party-led state" implies to me that different parties could lead the state. The term "communist state" is more precise and more common.
"People's Republic" is a made up term. Not only is it redundant (all republics are made up of people) it is inaccurate...in no meaningful way is China a republic.
"People's Democratic Dictatorship" is similarly ridiculous. Aren't all democracies made of people? Is there such thing as a democratic dictatorship? If there is, there is nothing democratic about the PRC's dictatorship.
Anyway, I don't mind the one western and one PRC idea, but let's try to be more specific with our terminology...LedRush (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree about "Communist party-led state", but Novis seems absolutely opposed to "Communist state" and at least 1 source does use the former term. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I am also OK with "Communist party-led state" if it's less controversial. I still think we can remove "people's republic" though because it's really just a synonymous for "communist state" (are there any people's republics today that are not considered communist states?) so it seems redundant to have it there on top of "Communist party-led state". "People's democratic dictatorship" is fine because the linked article is quite good and specific to China. Laurent (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
LedRush, saying that there is no such thing as a democratic dictatorship is simply a show of ignorance. "People's Democratic Dictatorship" is the name of a concept, where the proletariat are deemed the rulers of the state, under the leadership of the party which acts on their behalf. Regardless of what is democratic and what is dictatorship, that is what PDD is. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is being ignorant? The term "people's democratic dictatorship" is an oxymoron and is not in wide use. The only usage of it that I know is one that Mao made up so that his dictatorship seemed more benign (and that N. Korea later copied). Your parroting of party line, benlisquare, says a lot about you.
Given the choice between having to suffer the ridiculous statements "people's republic" or "people's democratic dictatorship", I would choose the "people's republic" for a couple of reasons. First, "people's republic" is at least a well-known euphemism for a communist state (meaning that fewer people will be confused by the misnomer). Second, it is at least an internally consistent (though redundant) term, even if it doesn't mean what it purports to mean. The other term, as discussed above, is both redundant and an oxymoron, making it hopelessly confusing. Third, "people's republic" is in the name of the country itself...if we're going to use a lie the country uses, we might as well choose the one in the country's name.
Regardless of which of the terms we choose, I think it is highly unfair to use both. There is no need to give multiple, inaccurate, propaganda terms in what is supposed to be an educational article.LedRush (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Parroting of party line my ass, I gave the only official definition. Repeal that WP:ATTACK now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I see some of you have problems with CPC-led state and People's republic. How about putting "Single-party republic" (universal usage) on the first line, "Communist state" (western usage) on the second line, and "People's Democratic Dictatorship" (chinese usage) on the third line. But since this is the first time I agree with use of communist state, I would really like to have "single-party republic" on the first line.

--Novis-M (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can't condone calling it a bare "republic"; I have no issue with people's republic however. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. What about this compromise:
I agree with LedRush's proposal. Laurent (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I would likewise accept that proposal. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I don't agree. It is not a compromise. --Novis-M (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You may not like the compromise, but it is indeed a compromise. I gave my first, and logic- and reality-based, suggestions above. "people's republic" was not among those for the obvious reasons I have already stated several times. Novis, you are one person with a minority view, and you have altered the discourse dramatically. I believe that my compromise above is deeply flawed for not pointing out that the country is a dictatorship (not the fantastically and ridiculous democratic dictatorship...whatever that is) and for including a silly euphemism, "people's republic". Even though I feel that we have pandered to your minority view too much already with my compromise, I am willing to accept it to gain consensus. Quite honestly, it is insulting that you claim my suggestion is not a compromise seeing how far from reality and my first suggestions we have traveled. And remember, we don't need 100% agreement to reach consensus...LedRush (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to arrive late (and for not being able to stay long) to this debate, but I'm wondering why no one has mentioned the word "oligarchy". Readin (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a good and appropriate word. However, I think that "Communist State" would be more appropriate. "Communist Oligarchy" could be a compromise term (instead of "Communist State"), but I suspect that Novis won't like that term much either, and I think that it is less recognized term for China.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't see why is it compromise, because I was FOR the "single-party republic" from the beggining. This is really stupid - Communist state number 1 - North Korea - is not defined as communist state in its infobox, but as "socialist republic" plus words from constitution. Awesome. So China is communist, North Korea isn't. Now I think I really fell in love with smartness of Wikipedia. --Novis-M (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a compromise because no one is getting what they asked for. You know that I don't agree with the term "people's republic", yet you persist in claiming that this isn't a compromise. You know I pushed for other descriptions (like dictatorship) which I have agreed not to put into the article, yet you still insult me by saying I won't compromise. I know you are young, but it is time for you to grow up a little and act with some maturity. Calling people stupid and acting like a petulant child will get you no further in Wikipedia than it will get you in life. If you disagree with the proposal, state the reasons (without lying and saying it's not a compromise) and propose something else. But realize, we have general agreement with 3 people (and potentially a 4th) with you as the lone holdout. You have already moved this discussion much farther into the realm of fake names which mean the opposite of what they say than I would wish. As I have stated above, consensus does not mean 100% agreement.
North Korea is a different article, and per Wikipedia policy the decisions on that article are not binding on this one. Your argument is especially disingenuous as two of us have already stated that we wanted to change the info box on that article.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "father", but now you're insulting me, and I'm not the one who is acting like a child right now. I didn't insult you, only said I don't see the compromise - the only one who got all he wanted is cybercobra I guess. Also didn't call anybody stupid - only said it is REALLY stupid to have communist state in China infobox, and not having it in North Korean infobox. I have stated the reasons above - hundred times, and I won't repeat it again. I have the right to disscuss this article, and it almost looks like you can't deal with somebody who ultimately doesn't agree with the majority. Sorry for being as stupid as Britannica editors, who also called China "single-party republic". --Novis-M (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I also think we should stop fighting - I believe everyone in here is only trying to do their best and to improve the quality of the article, that is what connects us, so let's put heads together one more time, and reach the conclusion. --Novis-M (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the ball is in your court. I made the last suggestion (one which was agreed upon by all the participants of the discussion besides you). Unless Readin wants to suggest something, I think it is your turn to make a suggestion...one which you believe may address our issues with your last suggestion.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, is my proposal as close as we will get to agreement?LedRush (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to suggest this one a bit tongue-in-cheek. Reading its lead, I'm inclined to think this label is strongly applicable; I suspect most of you familiar with what goes on in China might think the definition applies to a fairly strong degree. Naturally, it's nothing related to how it sees itself, though. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
True enough, but you're suggestion goes even further away from what would be acceptable to Novis, I think.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the human rights section image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposer (User:Macau Big Fan) was a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Polylepsis.
I now this has been discussed before but please even in the Zimbabwe article we have this image :
. The real problem in China is press freedom. So we should replace the existing image with another where we see a demonstration for press freedom. Macau Big Fan (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg should be replace by like it was said before. I dont know how to do that but maybe someone knows. Macau Big Fan (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The image has been discussed at length previously. Consensus was for the current image. Please read the archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I was not a part of the archived discussion, but to me the current picture is clearly much better than the proposed substitute. It shows actual footage, not a sign. Also, it has four instances included, rather than zero in the sign.LedRush (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
no consensus was reached about this image : . We cannot let the current image in this article. Even the countries with the worst human rights records have not such aggressive images in their article ! Macau Big Fan (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia then! Reasoning by analogy to other articles often doesn't work; WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (rather frequently in fact), it just means people haven't happened to got around to fixing it yet. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote ! (no ip)
just write ~ 4 times in the table

New image
Current image
File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg
1. Macau Big Fan (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
2.LedRush (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion! This is really premature. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

no this is not premature please vote ! i'm sure that the majority will want to replace the current image. Macau Big Fan (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been no discussion on this issue at all, and a previous consensus was formed to keep this image. How is this not premature?LedRush (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, a vote is inappropriate at this stage, and I don't see why one can be sure that the majority will want to replace the image without a bit more discussion! Unnachamois (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2010 (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.

Reliability of population statistics

Chinese population estimates are sometimes challenged,[7] Are there any reputable assessments of the likely reliability of these statistic? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with the article about how government policy itself impacts the level of reliability of official figures. Physicists might draw parallels with the Uncertainty principle; those in the auditing profession might qualify such data as 'fundamental uncertainty', but I would give credit to officials for abandoning the census rather than, as happens too often, carrying on the charade. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Our current opening demographics paragraph does not provide citations for the very specific 2009 numbers we report. I would suggest "according to the [national census bureau/(or whatever relevant gov't body)] after the official numbers and include a short sentence or clause stating something like "Because a full census has not been conducted since 1989, some estimate that the Chinese population could be greater than officially reported, perhaps as great as 1.8 to 2 billion people." I would also add fact tags to the current unsourced info. However, because any changes to a topic on this article can be the subject of controversy, we should probably discuss this here first.LedRush (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Mislaying perhaps half a billion people is not a minor issue. There are also issues with China over reporting production. Are there any other reputable assessments of the likely reliability of China's production statistics? The combination of under-reporting population and over-reporting production can introduce significant distortions. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well the drawn-out silence here is a tad strange. Am I alone in thinking these are issues? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I somehow doubt that you're alone (In my personal opinion many numbers provided by the government of China are plain BS - what suits them is increased and what they don't like is diminished). However you would have to provide hard evidence by reliable sources. Flamarande (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, is there even a realistic alternative source for such statistics? --Cybercobra (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The only alternative sources would be estimates. I'd highly doubt that you'd be able to obtain "leaked exact figures" (and even if that was the case, how can one confirm the authenticity of a "leaked" source?). And then comes the question, how does one determine whether a figure is accurate? Parties sympathetic or opposed to the PRC may by all means formulate a figure to fulfil their own arguments and the like. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being naive, but why would population figures be so politicized? Can't we just say "as of [year], the official population of China is [number], though estimates of the actual population are between [one number] and [two number]". Is this really a difficult task?LedRush (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference apartheid was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/30/world/fg-agtax30
  3. ^ www.hsph.harvard.edu/ihsp/publications/pdf/RuralPolicy06.pdf
  4. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6174847.stm
  5. ^ http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/03/28/executions-attract-thousands/
  6. ^ Laogai Research Foundation. "Chinese Executions". ABC News. p. 5. Retrieved 2009-03-26.[dead link]
  7. ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT50/003/2009/en
  8. ^ "The role of the government, China". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-01-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China/Archive_9&oldid=1136609609"