Talk:China/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Largest exporter and importer?

"(China) is also the world's largest exporter and importer of goods."

"China trade now bigger than US". Daily Telegraph. 10 February 2013. Retrieved 15 February 2013.

I can't find it in the source. The news report says, "China is now the largest trading nation in the world in terms of imports and exports, after overtaking the US last year." It means the total value of imports and exports of China is larger than the United States in 2012. --Makecat 08:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

UN stats for area of Hong Kong, Macau & Taiwan

Any one have UN stats for the areas of the above? UN sourced is what I am looking for. Properly sourced. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Section 9.3 Urbanization Reference does not contain the referenced material

Since 2000, China's cities have expanded at an average rate of 10% annually. It is estimated that China's urban population will increase by 400 million people by 2025,[368]

When I clicked on 368, it took me to the article ^ Sridhar, Asha (14 December 2011). "Round and about: Urban planning gone haywire". The Hindu (Chennai, India). Retrieved 18 February 2013.

This article does not contain any information on the estimates of China's urban population or the supposed 10% annual growth rate, in fact it does not contain any numbers at all. It is just a short(less then one page) article about "Haphazard development" and "zoning" problems.

This information is not properly referenced and should be removed until such time that properly referenced material can support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.69.243 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox(Drive on the)

I've noticed that in the Infobox it says that the Chinese drive on the Right, however that's just mainland China, not Hong Kong and Macau. So I'm wondering if it's okay to add in the infobox; "Hong Kong and Macau drives on the left". Seqqis (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles for Hong Kong and Macau already include this information. Including it on this article would be redundant.130.65.109.90 (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

China Containment

Recently these issues have been politicized by United States as part of their China containment policy and East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. Durianlover1 (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Michaelmas1957 undid revision 560830184 by Durianlover1 needs a reliable source to support assertiom that the US has "politicized" it

This is how China sees it. I'm providing a balanced perspective. Though US Gov denies it, there has been some analysis from US-based expert on how China perceives it, e.g.

http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/2013/05/13/hedging-the-real-u-s-policy-towards-china/
http://asiasociety.org/blog/asia/op-ed-could-conflict-south-china-sea-lead-new-cold-war
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/should-china-be--contained--
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138009/andrew-j-nathan-and-andrew-scobell/how-china-sees-america
Durianlover1 (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

China`s largest download a single U.S. company

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Chinese companies Shuanghui International buys largest U.S. pork producer Smithfield Foods Inc. For $ 4.7 billion, according to Reuters. It is China's largest download a single U.S. company. It is expected that the acquisition of Smithfield provoke strong reactions from the U.S. Council on Foreign Investment (CFIUS), Office of Government assesses the risks to national security.78.2.120.83 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request : China = Central Kingdom

Zhōngguó literally means "the Central State" or "the Central Kingdom", please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiljaoprsl (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Largest building" in Economy section

The building mentioned in the Economy section may well be the world's largest building (I'm not disputing that). That doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in a summary article like this, which is intended to give an overview of the Chinese economy, not every single specific detail. No other country article has an entire paragraph to describe a single building. That info can easily be moved to the article on the building itself, or maybe Architecture of China. The Economy section is for infomation on matters actually relevant to the Chinese economy (GDP, employment levels, trade, fiscal data). – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an entirely reasonable comment that also includes alternatives. I will relocate the content and other copyeditors can advise further if this is not satisfactory.--Soulparadox (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable about it. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

Akshay nagar f (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)just i am planning to hack about chinese power ad pakistan !!! this countries are too dangerous to our country. so i request you to allow for this......

Not even clear what you are asking for but it seems to have little to do with improving this article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't even specify what "our" country is. He appears to be asking wikipedia's permission to hack something to do with China and Pakistan, don't know why he thinks this website has the power to grant him permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.76.22 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's only one country in the world that would be in some sort of opposition to both China and Pakistan... (hint: it's the other billion-person country) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OH so he's from India then. Jersey John (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this vandal actually asking permission to vandalize? That's gotta be a first. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

History section

I think the later half of the history section should be trimmed per WP:RECENTISM. China has thousands of years of history, yet over half of the history section is about post-1800 events.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair; which events in particular do you plan to cut down? – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The part about the Qing dynasty would probably be a good place to start. There are certain details here and there that can are likely safe to remove. For example, the quote "Over the years new wars with Western powers would expand these impositions on China's national sovereignty, culminating in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95". Also the sentence: "Hong believed himself to be the son of God and the younger brother of Jesus."--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I've already cut a lot out of the section on post-1949 history (some more can be cut from there, but not a huge amount more, as we still need coverage of most significant events (Civil War, Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen, Deng's economic reforms). – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese box

The Template:Infobox Chinese box is very long and taking up a lot of space, squeezing text and images. Can we remove the Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang names? Are these really necessary?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the box, or part of it, can be made collapsible. Then the info will be preserved without automatically filling up half the article. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm on 1920x1080, and it looks perfectly fine to me, nothing looks squeezed. If it does become a problem, the ethnic names can be made collapsible like Michaelmas1957 mentioned. The rationale for those names is that they are official names, and the government deems them just as "proper" as if they were written in Chinese (it's a part of the whole "multi-ethnic state" idea, and that China is the sovereign state that represents the Zhuang people, et cetera). Similarly, both Eire and Ireland are the official names of the Republic of Ireland, just in different languages. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this template, so I'm not sure how to make those parts collapse. Can someone familiar with the template do it? Also, I guess "squeeze" isn't the best word to describe the problem. The long box, along with the long infobox, is pushing images further down the text, so we end up with images on both sides of the article (thus sandwiching the text), which is a problem per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've figured out how to collapse it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture

The picture under politics of the Great Hall of the People isn't very good. At a glance it looks like the building has a giant tower, but it's just a trick of perspective. Maybe someone could use a better one?69.205.120.39 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I replaced that image with one that more clearly shows the Hall itself, without a monument in the foreground. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Incorrectly States That China is the Largest Importer of Goods in Header

A careful reading of the citation given states that China has the largest trade volume not the most imports, so it is still behind the United States in terms of total imports, as also can be seen by List of countries by imports. 64.134.11.47 (talk)

Have too look at this. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

Just updating the index of economic freedom ranking to reflect the 2013 results. Please change "although it is only ranked 135th among the 179 countries measured in the Index of Economic Freedom" to "although it is only ranked 136th among the 179 countries measured in the Index of Economic Freedom" and please change the title of the reference to 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. The URL for the updated version is still the same. EconomicsFTW (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Good Article roadmap?

Hi everyone. I noticed that the page was put forward for GA status last year but didn't get it. Since then it appears to have languished a bit. I don't have the time to go through the article and start improving it, but I was curious if anyone (or groups of editors) were thinking of working on the article.

As someone who hasn't worked on this article for a while, I think the key issue is referencing. For example, the lead has a reference to "The ancient Chinese civilization – one of the world's earliest – flourished in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain". I wouldn't make a huge point about it, but I wonder if "flourished" could be replaced with something a bit more restrained. But more importantly, "one of the world's earliest" would need to be referenced. Indeed could it be dropped altogether? Most countries can lay claim to early civilisations. The Egypt has Ancient Egypt, Iraq has Babylon, there's evidence of civilisation in Japan from over 10,000 years ago, etc.

Perhaps one way to improve the article is to take an axe to some of the more controversial/hard to reference points? Just a thought. John Smith's (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get this article to GA status. If a good a ref can be found, and if the statement is notable enough, I don't think it's necessary to remove it. Other than the referencing, the article as a whole is too long. For example, the the foreign relations section is way longer than that found in most country FA. The modern portion of the history section is still too relatively long imo. If we can get these two issues fixed, I think we are all set to go.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Internationalization of the renminbi

With China's new currency swap with the European Union taking effect soon, I thought its time to create an article on the internationalization of the renminbi. My question is whether this is important enough to deserve a mention in the article's introductory section, or should we just leave a sentence or two under China#Economy ? -A1candidate (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The latter is suitabkle(Lihaas (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)).

Challenges

Benlisquare, China do face challenges, which are related to poverty, corruption, health care, human rights, as you said as an explanation that terrorism is not problem in China as big as it's in India or elsewhere, but it doesn't means that china doesn't faces it as a challenge? The page Terrorism in china actually mentions enough recent incidents. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This page seems to be comparable to Russia, though, but russia has actually got the same problems as well. And in fact a lot higher corruption. So also there, it can be added. As for this edit[1], i think that it's not really "few deaths", but 300 deaths on china's side, it's not actually forgotten either, because since that war, china hasn't made a single fire on india. So whether add chola incident or limit the line with "China's border with india is disputed." Bladesmulti (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sub-section for Internationalization of the Renminbi

The Internationalization of the Renminbi has profound implications for the global financial industry, and will ultimately change World history. I believe this deserves its own sub-section, and should be allowed at least as much coverage as China#Environmental_issues which, for the most part, is a purely domestic issue.

Whether China becomes the world's dominant economic power or not will ultimately depend on whether the yuan becomes the world's reserve currency. If we are to keep a sub-section on the possible status of China as a superpower, then its only fair to have a sub-section on how the currency is replacing the dollar right before our eyes -A1candidate (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very convinced a section heading for Renminbi paragraph is so more important than the other paragraphs in the economy section that it deserves its own section heading while the others don't. Take a look at FA country articles: India, Japan, Indonesia, Germany, etc. I don't see subsection headings in those articles for currency. For the article Japan, I don't see much discussion about the Yen. The Yen is more traded than the Yuan, so by your logic, the Japan article should have a subsection on the Yen. I'm not seeing good arguments for why info on currency should be given that amount of weight. If you want to remove the superpower status section, go ahead, that's fine with me. But that's a different issue.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Different countries follow different paths of economical development and therefore there will be varying differences in the structures of their articles. Im glad you've pointed out the example of Japan because it is quite a well-written one which this article could adapt from.

While I still believe that the internationalization of the Renminbi is of utmost importance, I do agree with you that the other paragraphs in the economy section are fairly important too. We could, for example, start by breaking up the economy section to cover a little more on Exports and Imports, just like how the article on Japan does. Perhaps other editors may like to give their take on this too.

What I strongly object, however, is the condensation of the entire economy of China into a single section. It is far too huge, important, and unencyclopedic for us to do so.

-A1candidate (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added subsection headings for the other topics in the economy section as well. I hope you can accept this as a compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is certainly a much better improvement to the article. Whether or not the exact titles need to renamed, I believe other editors should have a say as well. -A1candidate (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree on sub-section within economy on internationalization of RMB. The next step of China's economic reform is free market system, of utmost importance is the convertibility and market determination of RMB value... It definitely requires it's own section, because it's the only thing separating China from getting a "free market" status is the inconvertibility of RMB. Phead128 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add the movie "As Time Goes By in Shanghai"

Dear Wikipedia editors,

hereby I request to add the movie "As Time Goes By in Shanghai" to your site. The film portraits the oldest band in the world (per Guieness Book of Records), who comes from Shanghai. Through the biographies of the musicians and the images the film talkes about China's past and present. The film is a festival "darling" and audiences connect with is very well. The film is partly set in the Peace Hotel, a Chinese landmark in itself.

Please have a look at the trailer:https://vimeo.com/64463627

More information on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsTimeGoesByInShanghai?ref=hl

Thank you very much,

H. Albers

89.247.35.154 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: that would be to give it undue weight in this country-level article. The film has no Wikipedia article. The trailer on vimeo and the facebook page are promotional primary sources and nowhere near sufficient to establish notability. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality sources and references

The three sources are listed in the references section of this article.

• 40. "Xia Dynasty". TravelChinaGuide.com. Retrieved 11 July 2013.
• 50. "Ming Dynasty". TravelChinaGuide.com. Retrieved 9 December 2012.
• 403. "The Imperial Examination System in China". ChinaTourGuide.net. Retrieved 14 July 2013.

These are travel agent websites and not generally considered high quality sources for the topics discussed (history of Xia, Ming and Imperial Examinations). There better sources available which should be used instead. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I went ahead and replaced two of those sources with more academic sources. I removed the second TravelChinaGuide source without replacement because Zhu Yuanzhang overthrowing the Yuan Dynasty is common knowledge among scholars of Chinese history, so a source for that is probably unnecessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

While we are on the subject:

• 118. "Gobi Desert Facts". Retrieved 24 September 2011.

This is a self-published website or blog with no editorial oversight.

• 142. "Tackling China's water crisis online". ChinaDialogue.net. 21 September 2006. Retrieved 23 November 2011.

• 147. Ma, Jun Li, Naomi (2006). "Tackling China's Water Crisis Online". ChinaDialogue.net. Retrieved 18 February 2007.

A nice looking site that uses submissions form volunteer writers without much editorial oversight.

• 415. "Tai Chi Helps Seniors Live Fuller Lives". China On The Brink. Retrieved 13 July 2012.

This is a student blog made by University of Texas at Austin students. It is not a reliable source for the frequency of Tai chi practice in China.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed/replaced those sources with better ones.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern Science & Technology - Nobel prizes

The first paragraph in the Science & Technology - Modern Era subsection presents scientific research expenditure and the esteem of science in modern China, and then goes on to mention 5 Chinese-born people who have won Nobel Prizes in science. While there is nothing incorrect stated, it seems a little misleading to present these scientists vis-à-vis science in China given that none of these scientists earned his PhD or conducted his award-winning research career in mainland China. A clause pointing this out might be an appreciated clarification, e.g., while 5 Chinese-born scientists (one Taiwanese) have won Nobel Prizes, they all received their PhDs and had careers in the West. (Obviously not that exact wording). --Spacepotatoes (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Spacepotatoes: I agree. I added the clarifications you requested. Is the paragraph better now?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: I went ahead and reworded that just a little bit for the sake of brevity. --Spacepotatoes (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Top trader claim not so straight forwards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25678415 China has claimed that it is "very likely" that it overtook the US as the world's top trading nation, a title the US has held for decades.

Can we tune down our wording on this, if even China isn't certain of it? Hcobb (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

China economy update

I'm only an IP, but can someone add this little fact about trade to the economy section, please? From a Financial Times blog:

Chinese exports increased by 4.3 per cent in December compared to the same month last year, while imports rose by 8.3 per cent. That gave China a total of $4.16tn in combined exports and imports in 2013, a figure that the US will find difficult to match. This leaves no doubt that China, the world's second-biggest economy, is now the world's biggest trading nation on an annual basis.

86.179.38.188 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this already in first sentence of the "China in the global economy" section?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

World's largest reserves rise to new record in December

FT reports PBoC data: "The PBoC ... reported on Wednesday that China's foreign reserves, the world's largest, rose to a record $3.82tn at the end of December." 86.180.45.2 (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

China's area

Obvious misinformation in regard to China's size, in the political geography section it is stated that China is the 2nd largest nation in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.127.247 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it is correct. China is 2nd largest by area. But 4th largest, if you count total area, including islands. OccultZone (Talk) 08:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent removal of content

@Sevilledade: should tell that why he is removing sourced content. None of the edit summary provide legible reason. It is true that 70% speak mandarin[2],[3] not more than that. Also the Etymology's section has multiple sources. They shouldn't be removed. OccultZone (Talk) 08:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

These content in the Etymology was recently added by a banned user User:Debrained [4]. That user also removed the reference to Online Etymology Dictionary among other content. However, if these content are indeed essential to the section, I will properly fix these citations (adding publishers, isbn, etc.).--Sevilledade (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Mandarin, the languages section was talking about the spoken variety (such as Mandarin, Wu, Yue, Min, etc.), whereas the sources are talking about the official language. Two different things. Thus I thought the reference was not applicable.--Sevilledade (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see who added them now. But the information is still essential, its good if you have fixed the citation. Also it is good to point that 70% can speak mandarin, it echoes that China has multiple languages, and contrary to common thought, that everyone in china knows only mandarin. OccultZone (Talk) 11:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you get what I'm what saying above. Here's the thing. I don't have problem with the part about 70% speaks Mandarin, but the reference isn't right for that statement, because that article is talking about the official/national language, while the statement in the Languages section is talking about the language variety. It seems as though you don't understand this part about Chinese linguistics.--Sevilledade (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, "70%" can be surprising to some, that is why a source was added. Honestly speaking, I wanted to fix the URLs and remove the dead link, but I had performed my 2-3 edits. Was more concerned about 3 reverts than editing. Hope it is fine. OccultZone (Talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sevilledade: The GA criteria requires citations for statistics. The statistic is currently unsourced. Since you said that NYT source is inappropriate, please replace it with one that is.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Western Name: "qin" thing is weak assumption... Чайная (страна) - Russian, other slavic for "tea country" more historically and geographically fitting, sounds the same, infinitely more likely

Only reason it's not taught across the board is the implied contradiction in that modern Russia and other Slavic/Eastern Euro countries use versions of "Китай" (Kitaj; eng., Cathay) instead today. Looking into "Cathay", though, it becomes clear that the two terms, Mongol and Slavic, coincided but were presumed different by Europeans, until Jesuit expeditions set the matter to rest. As that conclusion became known, people adopted one term or the other, but as coincidence would have it, the very languages that originated the "China=country of chai/tea" name chose the Mongol-influenced Cathay naming... hence obscuring the connection to a casual observer. To overlook it in the digital age, though, and get mired down in one fairly ignorant Italian traveller's dated "qin > chin > china" logic, via Persian Sanskrit etc? A mere look at a map, as well as the Russian and English national addictions to tea, historically the most notable product sourced to Europe via, yeah, China, makes for a straight-up "China = Chai (tea) Land; via abbreviated Russian chainaya, literally 'of chai' " designation for its then-best-known export. Essentially, it's from a 'from the same region as tea' description of origin (for products, people, etc.), likely used informally but widely by merchants for being as matter-of-fact as the shrouded in myth Cathay is vague, mysterious, and uninformative. 208.127.70.219 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We would really need a reliable source to back up your claims. See WP:RS and WP:OR. I suspect that the name China pre-dates the tea trade to Europe. Also, for most of China's history, its major export was not tea but silk—hence the adjective/prefix 'sino'. Then later porcelain—hence the other meaning of 'china'. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Map not correct

Not everyone agrees that Tubet is part of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.56.145 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential image copyvios?

Recently a group of images were placed within this page. However, in the case of File:PLA Honor Guard.jpg, I'm suspecting that this is a copyvio. This image was uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons on 1 April 2014, but it already existed online in January 2010. See this tineye search. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Chinese_calligraphy.jpg is also a copyvio, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinese calligraphy.jpg. It's likely that all of these image additions are copyvios. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've confirmed that all of these images are copyvios, refer to deletion requests on Commons. Reverted image additions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Falun Gong

In the main article there is no mention of Falun Gong (and no connection), only one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014

42.117.28.20 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 胡锦涛 作为公民做诚实的，没有人愿意战争。越南，中国，或任何国家的公民不太多。每个人都想给她，她的家人和孩子们温暖和快乐。只有好战的领导人时，他们的重点是武器，巧妙认为其他国家的人民，并开始互相残杀。他们强迫全国人民前线之前，和他们坐在那里的安全控制。人类的罪孽将倾注在好战的领导人。任何积极的领导者在世界上。

Not done: Requests must be in English and in the form "Change X to Y" in order to be considered. "Add X after Y" or "Delete X" are also acceptable. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This was 100% WP:FORUM to begin with, it wasn't even an "edit request". OP is just talking politics. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

original: and Boeing expects that China's fleet of active commercial aircraft in China will grow from 1,910 to 2011 to 5,980 in 2031

should be: and Boeing expects that China's fleet of active commercial aircraft in China will grow from 1,910 in 2011 to 5,980 in 2031

what is changed: 1,910 to 2011 ->1,910 in 2011

BTW. I'm behind a corporate network(proxy), so unblock my IP, your bureaucratic idiot!

abryl 02:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done OccultZone (Talk) 02:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What measuring system?

I was interested in the auto industry, but couldn't find what system they measure in, or when. Same deal at "Soviet Union". The infobox here has everything, but I couldn't find inches vs centimeters or miles vs kilometers. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

They use metric. For information on historic usage see Chinese units of measurement. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, is that complex? I'll try to figure it out, but it sounds like anything anywhere. Plus politics.

"Chinese units" isn't even in "See also". There is so much info there, let people know about it?

Specific question: what would a Soviet license built truck (Jiefang CA 30) built between 1958 and 1986 have used?

Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The units in the article I referred you to are largely historic but some are still used in day to day life. In manufacturing, they are not used at all so they don't need to be mentioned in the article. As for the Soviet truck, much as I hate to say it, I have no idea. Maybe you could ask at WP:RUSSIA. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am still thinking that measuring system should be somewhere, probably infoboxes. You can know what side of the street they drive on, but not how far (miles vs meters). Still, I didn't see it at any other country, either. Oh well.

I checked Russia, I'm in over my head, but will probably poke around some more. I sort of thought that China and the USSR auto industry were neglected, not just here, but in my whole country. I remember doing that to Japan, times sure change.

Again, thank you so much for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See Metrication. Except for a few specialised things like pints of beer, automotive wheel diameters in inches and pins on semiconductor packages at 1/10 inch spacing, almost everyone is now using metric. Only three countries are still mainly using the Imperial system: the US, Liberia and Myanmar. Pashley (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Land area?

The article currently says China is the 2nd largest country and gives a citation. List of countries and dependencies by area puts it 3rd, with Canada 2nd and US 4th. I have also seen China placed 4th, after the US. To some extent, this is a matter of definition, depending on whether you include Taiwan in China, Puerto Rico in the US, how you count lakes, ...

This probably does not matter much; China, Canada and the US are all within 5% of each other at 9.5-10 million km² and no-one else is close; Russia is way up at 15+ and #5 Brazil around 8.5. On the other hand, it would be nice to be consistent. Currently, both China & Canada articles say they are 2nd, US says it is 3rd or 4th.

Worth fixing, I think. Pashley (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Propose a summary then? OccultZone (Talk) 16:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It says ' second-largest country by land area' which it is if you look at the relevant column of List of countries and dependencies by area. The US and (especially) Canada have large bodies of inland water which largely account for the difference. See also the detailed footnotes of List of countries and dependencies by area which explain in far more detail than most people need why the rankings can be inconsistent.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2014

Reichs Kanzler von Nationaler Sozialismus KaiserReich☆Talk 04:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the PLA should be in the"Military"

The PLA is ruled by The CPC,not the PRC(link:[5],simplified Chinese).So maybe it should be moved to the CPC-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Communist Party is a PRC party. Since, as you claim, the PLA is ruled by the CPC, the PLA has every right to be mentioned here. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 17:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Romanization

The pinyin romanization for 中國 appears is my screen as Zhōngguò but when I copy-paste it it appears as Zhōngguó. A glitch or something? —Gheiratina ^{(Touch~^)} 01:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Zhōngguó, with the upward sloping accent for the second tone over the last letter is correct and is what I see in the first line. It sounds like you're having a display problem. There are known problems with Firefox with certain settings. See Template talk:Zh#Latn problem. I've not checked the newest version but I don't think it's fixed, so you may have to change browsers, change settings or put up with it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it only the guó on this article or do other ó on other pages display the same? Can you post which OS and web browser you are viewing on so that we can try to recreate the bug for ourselves? Rincewind42 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Windows 7 x64, Mozilla Firefox 31.0. The Mínguó in the article for Taiwan is displayed correctly, but appears to be a different font. —Gheiratina ^{(Touch~^)} 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

China is not a "socialist state"

Apparently the non-sense about the term "socialist state" in Wikipedia has gone to its logical extreme and it is used to describe even China as a "socialist state", merely because its constitution says so and a bunch of guys agreed to it in the talk page. Since when does a primary source beat both common sense and multiple reliable sources and, which contend that China's system is, obviously, capitalism? Of course now all of you guys are going to use common arguments like "well, if the state constitutionally describes as socialism then it is a socialist state" etc. etc. Oh please. I would rather not have any of this. Are there even any reliable sources published after the 2000s (up to date) describing China as a "socialist state"? Zozs (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The official line courtesy of the CPC is that the country is governed according to "socialism with Chinese characteristics." Quite what that means is anybody's guess.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It means "capitalism" and sources anti-socialist, socialist, and neutral alike all agree on that. Zozs (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88 and Zozs: It means Marxism adapted to Chinese circumstances, and officially China is in the primary stage of socialism, which contains high number of capitalist elements. The only reason why China is still socialist (according to the CPC itself), is that the socialist/public sector still dominates the economy (and "guides" the market forces)... Its in line with Lenin's thinking: "State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrict, the limits of which we shall be able to fix". China is still socialist, according to the CPC, since "socialist tendencies" still dominate, but that capitalist tendencies are very much alive (and kept alive by the CPC)... This line of thinking is very communist, just read the party line of the Romanian Communist Party explaining why Romania had gone from a people's democracy to a socialist democracy out of nowhere. --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014

ok,there is no neccessary talk about the state system of china ,that^s meaningless!--zhengyuanjun (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2014

form of government

The form of government of China is the people's democratic dictatorship. It doesn't make any sense to describe it as a Marxist-Leninist single-party state, or a Single-party socialist state.. First, Marxism-Leninism is an ideology, single-party state is not a form of government (but rather a description on how a state is ruled) and socialist state is not a form of government either (but in Western discourse, it may have been generalized to mean such. However, not even the WP article refers to the concept of a "socialist state" as a form of government. It makes as much sense to refer to the US as a capitalist state... In keeping in line with the convention in articles about democratic capitalist states, China's form of government should be referred to as people's democratic dictatorship (directly borrowed, or evolved from the Soviet concept of people's democracy) --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014

There are 6 Chinese descendants who have won Nobel Physics Prize and 2 for Nobel Chemistry Prize, so the original data is underestimated. 6 Physics winners are: Chen-ning Yang, Zheng-dao Li, Zhao-zhong Ding, Cui Qi, Steven Chu, Gao Kun 2 Chemistry winners are: Yuanzhe Li, Rodger Tsien IsaacLi124 (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I edit?

How can I unlock the lock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyducklips (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bloodyducklips: Welcome to wikipedia. The page is semi protected so you can request any edit by using this talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bias

@Zozs, Bridies, and FutureTrillionaire: I find it interesting that everyone here on WP has decided to accuse that every ideological concept conceived by China is propaganda, while Western concepts, such as liberal democracy, constitutionalism and so on are treated as facts (even if in countries like China, they are scorned)... The people's democratic dictatorship is not a propaganda concept, but is Marxist terminology at its best; PRC is democratic because its based around the majority (the CPC being the party of the working class and the common masses), its a dictatorship because (as in all societies, according to Marxism, one class rules the state) and its the People's state because the CPC is based upon (as mentioned) the working class and the common masses. You may not believe it as such (and I don't believe it either), but I find it strange that the Chinese people and Communist cadres sacrificed their lives for this idea if it was merely propaganda. They believe in it. And WP does not have the right to claim that the Marxist idea of people's democratic dictatorship is any more nonsense then liberal idea of constitutitionalism... Of course, this is not surprising, this article from the New Statesman proves my point. At last, its not like communism is dead; it officially rules four countries, while one (North Korea) calls themselves Juchites. Its not like communism is gone in Western countries; its an electoral force in Portugal, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Russia, Greece, Slovenia so on, and large in Latin America in Brazil, Chile, Venezuela. Therefore, to claim that all communist terminology is just all propaganda is biased, not neutral, and also shows a clear bias that you have to liberalism (everything else is propaganda with the exception of our system).. Communism isn't dead and WP shouldn't treat it as such either.

At last, Marxism-Leninism is an ideology. You don't write that the US is a Liberal democratic presidential system do you? No, why do we treat socialist states differently? Single-party state is not a political system, a form of government and does not the answer the question of what China is.. Therefore, the correct answer is either "Socialist republic", "Socialist republic of the people's democratic dictatorship" or the "People's democratic dictatorship". --TIAYN (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

None of those though are terms commonly used in English. "socialist republic" sort of makes sense, but is far too vague. "people's democratic dictatorship" doesn't even make sense. It can't be both democratic and a dictatorship, they have opposite meanings, while "people" here doesn't mean anything. "people's democratic dictatorship" seems to be something the CPC calls itself; maybe it works better in Chinese as it doesn't really work in English, and is just confusing if used to describe the political system.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that "people's democratic dictatorship" doesn't make sense. It's a bit Chinglisy but I think it gets across the meaning of the people dictating how the state is run, which is of course nonsense in actuality, but it is the way that the Chinese government itself describes the political framework of the country. Just my 2 RMB's worth.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: I agree with Philg88, its nonsense, but thats how they view their own state. At last, how is "socialist republic" vague? Tell me of one socialist republic which hasn't introduced single-party rule? You can't think of any because not one modern case of it exists (post-1917 all declared socialist states have had single-party rule or one-man rule) ... At last, democracy and dictatorship has opposite meaning in liberal terminology and not in Marxist terminology. According to Marxism, every society created in history so far has been a class dictatorship of some kind .. The whole point of communism is to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, since the proletariat are the biggest class (it forms the majority). As with democracy, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a dictatorship against all other classes but is a democracy for the bourgeoisie. Similarly, the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed too, in theory, be the dictatorship of the proletariat which safeguards the democratic rights of the proletariat (hence why communist regimes talked about "proletarian democracy"). .. --TIAYN (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"socialist republic" is vague as "socialist" is an imprecise term applied to many systems - right-wing American commentators use it to describe a wide range of things on the left they disagree with such as Obamacare, which to anyone outside the US is still a market-led right-wing healthcare system. "republic" is either meaningless, as many states self-identify as republics or misleading, as it more precisely means a government of elected representatives. The problem with both "socialist republic" and "people's democratic dictatorship" is they seem to be ones the PRC chooses to identify itself. I.e. they are examples of propaganda, not the correct political terms for the system.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to take these histrionics seriously. Nevertheless, I also think "socialist" is a dubious term to apply to China, though less so than the other archaic guff suggested above. Single party (I'm inclined to drop "state", if it necessary to make it clear we're referring to the government; it redirects to the same article, which also has "one party system" bolded in the first sentence), which is far more prevalent in the secondary literature (think it's biased? Tough), is the appropriate term. If one thinks nominal Communism is not being afforded recognition, I'm not opposed to adding "Communist" as a second term, as someone did to the Vietnam article recently. bridies (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: This article should be treated similar to Syria; it is referred to as a "Unitary dominant-party semi-presidential republic". China is a "Socialist republic of the people's democratic dictatorship".. Adding "Communist" wouldn't help at all since "Communist republic" is not a form of government according to anyone, Socialist republic isn't either. However socialist republic is a definition of what form a state it is (and both communists and non-communists alike agree on that), but does not describe the political system. Therefore, the right terminology is "Socialist republic of the people's democratic dictatorship" is more correct. Its more correct then Marxist-Leninist socialist republic. Single-party socialist republic doesn't make since you are mentioning the same thing twice; every post-1917 socialist state has had single-party rule (with the exception of maybe North Korea which has royal family rule, but that state formalyl has one-party rule).. --TIAYN (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I must add that the People's congress system in China is based upon the people's democratic dictatorship. So the people's democratic dictatorship describes the legislative system in China. --TIAYN (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If "communist" were added, it would just be "communist", not "communist republic"; I, personally, am happy for it to say "single party" rather than "single party socialist XYZ"; there are prevalent secondary sources which will describe either the government or the state as "single party". bridies (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Many of these arguments contain some logic, but it really doesn't matter what kind of government you think China has. What matters is what reliable sources say about the matter. Beyond that we have to make adjustments because of context or because our purposes and language is slightly different from those sources. Single party state is notheless both the common way to refer to the system and reasonably accurate. Ultimately it's good to be concise here. There's no way we are going to explain their governmental system in a few words, thats what the body of the article is for. The label used at syria is ridiculously convoluted. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Metal.lunchbox: The problem with this line of thinking is that you're saying the sources within Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China, Syria etc are not trustworthy when defining China's political system. Even if those states are dictatorships, its still a view they hold. --TIAYN (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Vietnam and Laos, with their world-renowned scholarship and universities, and fine, independent media. bridies (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: Independent media doesn't really mean anything, its a view. Its a view held by those states. And you would have thought a view supported by a state was more notable then a view supported by some in the free press. Wouldn't you think? .. And stating that because these states are dictatorships their views don't count is BIAS. And state, somehow, that the views pronounced in the free world are somehow of a higher standard because they are expressed in the free world is wrong.. This smells like a "we always right, they always wrong" scenario.--TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's rather central, since Wikipedia is entirely based on reliable, independent scholarship. We don't cover the views of states, we cover the views of sources, and sources are not reliable third party ones on the subject of a government if they are owned by that government (!). (And similarly, if you are talking about, for example, Vietnamese media commenting on China's fundamental political system, it is subject to censorship on that subject and neither independent nor reliable). bridies (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: First, that's biased. Secondly, that doesn't make sense, since WP routinely uses Chinese sources.. This article, a GA, uses Xinhua, People's Daily and more. --TIAYN (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not biased. There are Chinese state sources, yes, but the only relevant content I can see that is sourced to them is to give the numerous neologisms the Chinese leaders have espoused, as well as names of the bits and pieces of the bureaucracy; as primary sources, essentially, and not secondary analysis. This info could - and should - just as easily be sourced to scholarly secondary sources. bridies (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Single-party state too socialist republic/state

@Zozs, Bridies, and JohnBlackburne: Per a quick google search, a search for "China" "socialist republic" gives 1,900,000 hits, while a search for "China" "single-party state" gives only 386,000. Per WP guidelines, we should use what the sources use (and the majority of people on the internet seem to "socialist republic" and only "socialist republic" to describe China.. A search for "China" "single-party socialist state" gives hit 362,000.. A search for "China" "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" gives 388,000 hits. Its clear what most people use. --TIAYN (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"A quick google search" is entirely useless. bridies (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the second page of that first Google search (telling me less than 500k hits, not 1.9m). I've got a dictionary entry for "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" and the address of the "Embassy of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka" in China. Highly relevant. bridies (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: Why? A quick google search is commonly used on WP to find out if an article is notable or not. A quick google search should then suffice to see what term is most commonly used to describe China. What is clear is that no establish scholar as I know of (if there are some, they are the minority) use the term "Single-party socialist state" to describe socialist systems , and never "Marxist-Leninist single-party state".. They do, however, describe them as having a Marxist-Leninist ideology and having single-party rule, but adding the terms together without thinking its controversial is suspect. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: But I agree, its not reliable. A search on Google Books (where you only access books, articles, newspapers etc), more reliable, gives 8 hits for "China" "Marxist-Leninist single-party state", gives 63,000 hits for "China" "socialist state", a search for "China" "single-party socialist state" gives 90 hits, "China" "single-party state" gives 2,450, while a search for "China" "single-party system" gives 17,000 hits, a search for "China" "socialist system" gives 96,900 hits, a search for "China" "Marxist-Leninist state" gives little more then 4600 hits.. Google books is much more specific.

I think it's worth reading parts of this in the context of the current discussion. Multiple Chinese language sources do exist to verify China's governmental ideology. The fact that they're not in English, per the guideline on reliable sources, is irrelevant. Although such references may not be accessible to the majority of English readers because of the language barrier, Wikipedia policy allows for their acceptance in good faith. We should not try to foist Western political analogies onto something that is considerably different from Western systems of government.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: The problem is, as Birdies has stated, he doesn't believe we can use Chinese sources because China is a dictatorship (and lacks a free press). Therefore, according to his own statement, the only way to interpret/define the Chinese political system is to use Western sources, and Western sources only (that is, from liberal democratic countries), and define China from a liberal democratic perspective. --TIAYN (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am again looking at first page of the "China socialist system" (or similar) Google Books search, and again: almost all of them refer to economics, one is referring to the 1950s - Google results with no context are again just useless. Both the strawmen posted above are spurious, and further indicative of TIAYN's descent into bad faith accusations and personal attacks. The relevant argument was that Chinese state media are simply not secondary sources on this subject, and academic sources within China both tend to be of lower quality and subject to censorship (even if this may not disqualify them per se). PhilG's suggestion that this is a linguistic issue and that Western analogies are being shoehorned into the article is not true: anyone remotely familiar with Communism and its nomenclature will be familiar with its Western lineage (nope, dictatorship-as-democracy is not a Chinese linguistic concept). Finally, the suggestion that all sources coming out of the West are liberal is preposterous, and in fact much of Western academia is notoriously to the left; second, one is aware that Chinese academics actually publish fairly widely in Western scholarly journals, right? Finally, can we not just begin a genuine debate on the subject, by citing actual sources with context? bridies (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: Liberal in the sense that the majority of people in democracies actually support LIBERAL democracy, the democratic system which formally exists in all of Europe (maybe with the exception of Belarus) and North America. Iliberal in the sense that they oppose liberal democracy (if a person is to the left doesn't really matter in this sense of the word liberal). The political system of all these countries are based on liberalism; the question of left and right in democracies don't often question the legitimacy of the political system itself, but instead the economic system. You see, different things... "anyone remotely familiar with Communism and its nomenclature will be familiar with its Western lineage (nope, dictatorship-as-democracy is not a Chinese linguistic concept)" it may not be a Chinese linguistics term, but thats what they use to describe their own system. That the West doesn't support this position is another topic to say the least; but thats not surprising, since in the West the idea of liberal democracy has hegemony and in China (and in other countries), illiberal ideas have hegemony (or at least looks like they have hegemony on the surface - you never know how rotten it is until the surface breaks, e.g. USSR) in China (and other countries). --TIAYN (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you keep referring to states and not sources: there are many - again, notoriously many - in Western academia who are not liberal democrats, and who are Marxists, anarchists and whatever else. bridies (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree that illiberal ideas are hegemonic in China (or in Vietnam etc.). bridies (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: its a reason why that, here on WP, we don't discuss if the US is a bourgeoisie democracy or not, because liberal ideas have hegemony (and are not threatened by Marxist ideology, Anarchist theory or any such thing; it was, however, during certain parts of the Cold War)... But back to the point. Google Books is as good as any; socialist state is predominantly used more then Marxist-Leninist state and "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" and "Socialist single-party state". Therefore, socialist state should be used. .. As Metal Lunchbox said "Many of these arguments contain some logic, but it really doesn't matter what kind of government you think China has. What matters is what reliable sources say about the matter "Many of these arguments contain some logic, but it really doesn't matter what kind of government you think China has. What matters is what reliable sources say about the matter." What matters are what scholars say, and scholars use socialist state. If we are going to try to find a generalized way of what is most commonly used, a search on Google Books is the best I can think of (can you think of anything better)? --TIAYN (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said iliberal ideas had hegemony in China (said it looked like that on the surface). --TIAYN (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Try doing more than looking at the alleged surface, then. bridies (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: You are looking at the surface; you say you're version is more acceptable because its more commonly used, but haven't been able to put one single reason for why it should stay. You're argument is based on this; me wrong, this better. But you havn't been able to define why you're version is better (with an argument based upon reliable sources, or sources at all). --TIAYN (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It takes longer to give an actual citation and an indication of context, as opposed to a search result consisting of plainly bullshit entries. Here are half a dozen cites - all I have time for at the moment; these are neverthless to peer-reviewed, academic journals and give an indication of the credence of "single party" (and I do not care what if anything goes after that), in reference to either/both (given TIAYN's current attempt to change the template itself) China's government and/or political system, in a broad range of contexts and with a broad set of scholars, and is better than TIAYN's reverting on the strength of zero cited sources.

• Malesky, E., Abrami, R., ; Zheng, Y. (2011) “Institutions and Inequality in Single-Party Regimes: A Comparative Analysis of Vietnam and China”. Comparative Politics.
• Schubert, G. (2008) “One-Party Rule and the Question of Legitimacy in Contemporary China: preliminary thoughts on setting up a new research agenda”. Journal of Contemporary China, 17 (54).
• Smith, B (2005) “Life of the Party: The Origins of Regime Breakdown and Persistence under Single-Party Rule”. World Politics, 57 (3). [yes, China is discussed in this context]
• Roy, D. (1994) “Singapore, China, and the “Soft Authoritarian” Challenge”. Asian Survey, 34 (3). [“Beijing government claims a single-party system is required to maintain stability and unity”]
• Lo, C. W. H., Yip, P. K. T. Y. & Cheung, K. C. (2000) “The Regulatory Style of Environmental Governance in China”. Public Administration and Development, 20. [“It is shown that China's being a single-party regime with a “rule of persons” tradition has heavily shaped its environmental governance”]
• Sato, H. (2006) “Housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China in the late 1990s”. China Economic Review, 17. [“The differences in the impacts of meritocracy and political credentialism by business/nonbusiness sectors seem to reflect the characteristic of the Chinese-style systemic transition, in which marketization is progressing under the single-party system.”] bridies (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• The "socialist state" refs I've checked from the Google searches - those which aren't completely irrelevant, like works referring to '40s - appear to discuss the actual (welfare, hukou etc.) state apparatus, and not the basic central government system. Some indication of otherwise might be nice. bridies (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: To quote another user (at the Talk:South Yemen article;

I am no expert; however, from the little I do know, that statement gives two, main important pieces of this puzzle. Those are Marxist–Leninist and socialist state. Just a scan of those two articles can lead to truth here. The former describes an ideology, not a type of government, although forms of government may be based upon that ideology. The latter, "socialist state", describes a type/form of government that may be based upon an ideology. Ideologies and types of governments are two different things, aren't they? It would seem that no matter how many sources one may provide, it is how those sources are interpreted that applies here. And they should be interpreted by use of the definitions of "ideology" and "type of government". When a source refers to a country as "Marxist–Leninist", the source refers to the ideology, not to the type of government. I could be wrong, but it strongly appears that when the ibox parameter is "government_type", this country's entry should be "socialist state".

Just replace Marxism-Leninism with single-party and ideology with system/institution.. A single-party system is not a form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, see Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#Politics and Template:Infobox country/doc.. It suggests that we either use short terms, such as Socialist republic or go more into depth; socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship.--TIAYN (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"I am no expert...", yes, exactly, yet more editors' own talk page original interpretations; I have cited above some actual experts. Struggling to see that a comment regards a defunct state on another continent is very useful, in any case. A single-party system is very plainly a form of government, and again I'm happy for "socialist state" to be removed but "single party" must remain (why are you even mentioning Marxism-Leninism? Is that used in this infobox? Is anyone arguing for it to be used?). bridies (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

no sources to defend you're position

@Bridies: I'm going to very clear here; none of the sources you purportedly gave says China has a "form of government" which is a "Single-party state"... For instance while the article's title is "One-Party Rule and the Question of Legitimacy in Contemporary China: preliminary thoughts on setting up a new research agenda" the article itself doesn't say that china's form of government is a single-party system, but its used as a description/generalization. It doesn't even say "One-party system", but "One-party rule"... To break down one of the sentences, "It is shown that China's being a single-party regime with a “rule of persons” tradition has heavily shaped its environmental governance" doesn't neither say that China has single-party form of government. It says regime, regime is not the same as form of government, and even if it was, it would be more apt adding in the infobox that China is a "Single-party socialist regime". Regime it at last, is not easily defineable (if we forget one trait; all definitions says a regime is by definition authoritarian). .. Another quote, "The differences in the impacts of meritocracy and political credentialism by business/nonbusiness sectors seem to reflect the characteristic of the Chinese-style systemic transition, in which marketization is progressing under the single-party system", is more tricky since the term "system" is used. But there is a difference between "Form of government" and "Political system". Wikipedia even have two articles on the subject, see Form of government and Political system.. You say that I havn't given any useful sources, neither have you. Socialist republic/system is apt because a "Socialist system" is clearly definable; all socialist states from Soviet Russia to modern China have had the same basic traits; one-party system, dormant legislatures, weak state agencies (if compared with the party, and so on). The consensus before was a "sham consensus", it was factual inaccurate, and thats been my whole point from the very beginning... And it doesn't help really that no modern sources actually talk of a form of government in the former, or present socialist republics. --TIAYN (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be better if I'd cited the address of Sri Lanka's embassy in China... Again, it is clear both from the context and the explicit terms (One-Party Rule is synonymous with a form of government here; regime is synonymous with government here). You seem to want a sentence that explicitly says "China's form of government is one-party" from the one hand; and on the other cite nothing but your own original analysis, Wikipedia articles, and irrelevant addresses on the other. Nevertheless, from a quick search, I have from Wang (would that be a Chinese scholar?), 2006: "The term “regime” here refers to government in power. Hence, “Chinese regime” denotes the Beijing Government that is under Chinese CCP rule. As it is still a one-party government or a party-state, sometimes “the Party”, “the CCP”, “the CCP regime”, or “the CCP Government” is used." Also from my quick search I have "China is a country with a fifty-year tradition of one-party government" (Galbraith, 1999). There's more but at this point I can't even be bothered. bridies (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: Alas, what should I say, that Yan Sun's book The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976-1992 he has two chapters entitled ""The Noncompeting Nature of the Socialist Political System" or ""The Reassessment of the Socialist Political System". Using terms, which he believes, rightly, are clearly definable. To the point, which you still have failed to answer; why do we have to terms which mean the same; "Single-party" and "socialist"? The difference between the terms are simple; socialist explains the current system in China in every way, while single-party explains only one (important) feature of the system. Remove single-party state. --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another work about the '70s and '80s? "Reassessment of the Socialist Political System"? Does he even say it still has a socialist political system? "Single-party" may inherently be part of "socialist state" but not vice-versa. Those sources calling it "single party" do not necessarily call it "socialist" (because, frankly it isn't; for every source you can find calling China "socialist" you can probably find more saying that it is not socialist; good luck finding anyone saying it's not single party). Put a semi-colon between "single-party" and "socialist" (Or again, just remove socialist) if you like. bridies (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: You don't need to be socialist to have a socialist political system; there is no universal law which says that.. The majority of people analyzing China admits it has a socialist political system, but capitalist economy. Secondly, no one argues that China's political system is none-socialist, they say the economy is non-socialist.... the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front in Ethiopia operates in a multi-party system, however, they are still authoritarian and cheat in every election, it doesn't make the system less of a multi-party system (since parties exist which oppose them). --TIAYN (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Spurious. You are again inventing a "majority". For the majority of analysts, as I have demonstrated, the defining factor in China's political system is that it is single-party. Socialism doesn't come into it. A single party happens to be part of an archaic, minority view that you happen to prefer, so you want the defining factor subsumed into that definition, spuriously. bridies (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: Of course its socialist; its the continuation of the system conceived by the Chinese communists under Mao in 1949. The system doesn't suddenly change along with ideological change you do know that? The party and state are still based upon democratic centralism, the People's Congress system still exists, opposition to the separation of powers still exists (and are still referred to as bourgeoisie/capitalist), there still is a United Front, there still exists a body in which the other progressive parties can have their say(officially at least). These things all remain the same, the only thing that has changed, Bridies, is ideology. Stop saying yeah, its not socialist, so neh. The system is clearly socialist, clearly Leninist (its still organzied on democratic centralism conceoved by Lenin), so its clearly a socialist political system. If the party still remains socialist is another question, but as you know as well as me; foreign commentators often lament that their have been radical economic reforms, but that there has been an absence in political reforms. A system doesn't change because the party's belief changes - those are two very separate things, and you know that. --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, in fact there has been a lot of change, in practice, in the system and this is the reflected in the literature (you have been citing a source about political "Reassessment" over 2 decades, for example). Everything you've described is merely nominal, from an increasingly niche POV (Marxist), and dubious in the first place. Ideology and economic MO are part of the package - as demonstrated by the way consensus has been going in the other disputes in which you're involved - even if we don't need to put them in the infobox (and hell, if we do not need to put the actual ideology and MO in the box, we certainly shouldn't put a discarded ideology and economic MO in the box). Again, you are spuriously extrapolating that every scholar defining the government/system as "single party" is therefore calling it "socialist" because Marxists/Leninist/Maoists call it "socialist" and that the "single party" remains part of their POV. bridies (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: huh? I literally have no clue what you're talking about here; rambling about "MO", "niche POV", what Marxists think and son. Everyone agrees that the Soviet Union had a socialist political system. That system was defined as a party-state based upon democratic centralism, belief of a vanguard, unitary executive power (as seen in the Supreme Soviet) and opposition to a separation of power. All these defining features exists in China. Non-socialist calls the Soviet political system socialist, non-socialist calls the Chinese political system socialist. The system conceived by Lenin is generally conceived by the great majority of being a socialist political system. That system may have been oppressive (Kautsky), deformed (Trotsky), not representing the will of the proletariat (Kautsky, Luxembourg), may have been the logical evolution of a system based on such an ideology (right-wing scholar Robert Service, neutral Archie Brown) but that system was, and still is, defined as socialist. In The Rise and Fall of Communism by Brown he even goes as far as to state that China has totally rejected communism, but despite this he acknowledges that the socialist political system is still in place. --TIAYN (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I nearly stopped reading at the mention of the Soviet Union. Brown is merely one of many that point out that China has indeed, uncontroversially rejected Communism and Marxism-Leninism. You are again showing your (ever-increasingly) niche Marxist political readings: China's system is no longer analysed merely as part of Marxist political theory. Other political scientists (Brown being a scholar of Communism), political geographers, Asia scholars and so on, place it other contexts, one of the main ones being Asian authoritarianism. It is just as easily compared to Singapore as it is to the Soviet Union (one of these has the advantage of not being defunct). The common denominator here is "one party" state/system/regime (and tbh, if the issue is one of nomenclatural bias - although apparently today it's not - and we want to clarify its lineage, I'm not opposed to adding "democratic centralism" or "centralised democracy", in brackets or after a semi-colon, if it can be demonstrated there is any currency). And yet again, that calling it a "socialist" state/republic/government implies a whole host of things, in addition to one-party, that it does not have. First you wanted to cite loads of economics-focussed mentions of "socialist" into the discussion, now you want to dismiss that aspect - which is it? bridies (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: I'm not a Marxist, even if it seems like you think I am. Secondly, political system is not the same as the economic system. The one doesn't necessarily follow the; Venezuela is very close to having a planned economy, however, the system is still (in institutions at least) a liberal democratic democracy. Alas, Asian authoritarianism is not a form of government, the socialist political system is a form of government. You're widening this discussion for no reason; my point is simple, the socialist political is a form of government. Yes China and Singapore shares many similarities, but not in government structure. officially Singapore has a separation of power, officially Singapore is not a one-paryy state, officially (I can go on). And not even that, in Singapore you have in practice a whole set of different instutions and even have opposition parties. China is similar, and may still exist because of this "Asian authortarianism" concept, but thats not what the government_type parameter is asking for. Its asking for form of government. The form of government in China, how the government is structured has no similarities with Singapore... And honestly, you can't add Democratic centralism because democratic centralism is not a form of government.. You seem to be going out of you're way to not add the form of government of China; adding words together don't make a form of government... Tell me what features in the Chinese political system in which China doesn't share with its present and former counterparts? "And yet again, that calling it a "socialist" state/republic/government implies a whole host of things, in addition to one-party" - what other hosts of things does it imply? .. It doesn't matter what it implies if you're talking about economics, because economics is not the same as form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You may not be a Marxist, but your discourse here is limited entirely to Marxist political theory. Officially (nominally) this, offically that... again, I refer you to the top of the discussion (and however many other times the point has been made by others): we refer to what the scholarly literature says it actually is, not what it nominally is according to state sources. The literature does discuss Singapore as a one-party state (oh, it nominally has more than one party? And did you not point out above, that China does also? Burma too under the junta...). Japan also. Perhaps I'll be forced to cite some. I'm not "widening the discussion for no reason", this reflects the scholarly discourse on China's political system, as I've demonstrated with cites: you have been narrowing the discussion to Marxist theory (which you've given parity with absoulutely everything else, which equates to "liberal theory", as you see it). bridies (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: Its a reason why Singapore, unlike China, is referred to on WP as a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional republic" (thats because thats what the majority of scholars say it is).... To formulate myself in a different way, the institutions in Singapore are not similar to those in China. In China you have other parties, but they all support the CPC continued rule, and exist to strengthen the CPC's rule by criticizing it through proper channels ("consultative democracy"). In Singapore you have three forms of elections; city council, municipal and national. In China you one; the people elect the members of the local People's Congress, the local people's congress elects amongst its members people to the municipal people's congress, and so on, until it reaches the National People's COngress. UNlike in Singapore, China does not have three branches; executive, legislative and judicial. In China all power is in the people's congress system; there is no executive, judicial or legislative in the traditional sense, but was the Chinese call most aptly "people's power". All power is in the assembly. Because of democratic centralism, that means all power is in the Presidium/Standing COmmittee of the National People's Congress and its chairman. The role of president has only a ceremonial role (similar to that of the former eastern bloc countries, and other existing socialist states), and the post is connected to power because the CPC GEneral Secretary is the state president. In China, unlike nominally in Singapore, the courts are not independent (they are nominally under the control of the people's congress at their level, but in reality under the control of the CPC at that level).. I could go on forever. Unlike China, Singapore has opposition parties in every sense of the words which vehemently oppose the ruling People's Action Party, there doesn't exist opposition parties in China (and there never will under CPC rule)... Most commonly Singapore, in literature, is most commonly tagged in the dominant-party system category. At last, very important, the state institutions are not organized on line with democratic centralism - of course it wouldn't, since Singapore doesn't have a socialist political system. Democratic centralism is important here, and which is why the remaining socialist countries Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China and even North Korea is important - its the basis for high comformity and discipline in which the CPC leadership is able to force upon its members and the society as a whole.. There is one important similarity, the PAP is organized on a semi-Leninist basis, but doesn't have the same organizational structure (fewer at the top, much stronger leader). Burma was a military dictatorship; are you saying that China is a military dictatorship? .. I'm not narrowing my discussion on Marxist theory, none of what I've written the last two days have any connection to Marxist theory (with the exception to show that the Chinese use some sort of deformed Marxist theory to rationalize their system)

you're argument seems to base on the preposition of "Asian values", and that all these states have similarities, and therefore using the term socialist political system would somehow weaken that link to the other states. I don't get that rationale at all. To the point, what you've proven so far is that the socialist political system has certain things in common with the system in Singapore, and thats certainly right. But doesn't explain the need to include "single-party" in the description, when its already, by definition, included in the socialist state tag. You seem to argue against the inclusion of the socialist political system tag here on this article since it would somehow confuse the connection between China and the other authoritarian states. Which a strange argument, and again taking the discussion a bit too far. My point is simple, socialist state means; one-party system (or as in China, a system in which only party can rule), democratic centralism party-state, an ideological apparatus (shown in China through the propaganda apparatus) and one form of dictatorship.. Singapore has, in contrast, a multi-party system, a semi-Leninist system in the party but non in the state, not an ideological apparatus but control over the media, and a authoritarian/guided democracy (elections are held, but rules/laws are always enacted which helps the ruling PAP). There are clearly similarities, but no one disagrees with that (only the PAP would I guess, the Chinese themselves agree with the similarities and have written a ton of stuff about it...) --TIAYN (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I bet you could go on forever. "You seem to argue against the inclusion of the socialist political system tag here on this article since it would somehow confuse the connection between China and the other authoritarian states. Which a strange argument, and again taking the discussion a bit too far." Pretty much, in addition to the equally significant fact that it makes China seem like a socialist state per se, when it's not. It's neither "strange", nor "too far"; it's mainstream, as least as much so as peddling tired, nominal Marxist concepts. "Asian values" is part of the relevant discourse, yes; much as Trotskyism, Gramsci(ian)(ism?), demoncratic centralism, or any slice of communist ideology is part of the discourse on communist states. The states have many similarities, yes, for broader reasons, and my point is while they are certainly not the same, they are at least as the same as China now is to the Soviet Union (Ahem: "the Chinese themselves agree with the similarities and have written a ton of stuff about it..."; right, so who is neglecting the Chinese viewpoint again?). Single-party state may not be the prevalent view of Singapore (which is why it doesn't get into the respective infobox) but it's a verifiable, justifiable view, and at least as salient as your assertion that China's system has any real vestiges of the Soviet Union. Single-party is again part of socialist state, but crucially, not vice-versa. The references I provided do not refer to a socialist system but a one-party system, which is the crux of the argument; which if you disagree, refer to the actual sources to demonstrate why. If you're really unhappy about the two terms, again: remove "socialist", as it's by far the most tenuous of the two. bridies (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bridies: You're best argument so far, and one I can respect. I would disagree that socialist is the least tenuous of the two in a system sense of the word. If the question was, what China is, then of course single-party would be far-less controversial and socialist would have been tenuous at best (since we in the West don't accept the Chinese ideological discourse as a lot of talking but lack in content).. China is a socialist state, and according to WP itself, it fits the bill; "The term socialist state (or socialist republic) usually refers to any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the construction of a socialist society." it is dedicated to the cause in every way, the only difference between these communist and former is that the meaning of what socialism is has changed dramatically. But I'm off. To the point, the infobox is not the place to try to connect China with other states. And I consider it a bit POV too. It would be like adding the Marxist tag on the Ethiopia article since scholars admit that the modern Ethiopian state, the state established after the Derg, was based around and inspired by the Marxist national question and the later developments in the USSR (in which Gorbachev tried to establish a Union of Soviet Sovereign States), which called for the establishments of independent states based around ethnicity. However, adding Marxist woouldn't make sense since the institutions themselves are not socialist in any sense of the word, despite them being created on the basis of reading and intepretation of Marxist writing on the national question... The infobox is not the place to try to connect China with other states, thats what we have the Politics section for. It asks for one thing only government_type. --TIAYN (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What about following the CIA World Factbook and calling it a [big "C"] "Communist state?"[6] It is governed according to a constitution written by the Communist Party of China. TFD (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: In that instance I think Communist state is synonymous with Socialist state... From what I gathered from this article, they differentiate between Communist state and socialism so as to make it more accessible to readers. In this cases they are synonymous, I think. Of course, I'd rather have just Communist republic then "Single-party socialist state".. But to be clear, the issue here is wether to use the term Single-party in the description when by definition a communist-socialist system is a one-party state. Its superfluous including "single-party" when socialist state already, by definition, implies one-party rule. I can't think of one socialist state post-1917 which hasn't had a one-party system of one kind or another. --TIAYN (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact many Communist states had multiple parties, although the Communist Party was guaranteed a majority. The GDR for example had five parties, two of which merged into the CDU and two which merged into the FDP after re-unification. The fact that their members would choose to align with "bourgeois" parties indicates that they had at least some degree of difference from the main Communist parties. But I prefer "Communist" over "socialist." That these countries were not only run by big-"C" Communist parties but that these parties wrote their constitutions is a matter of fact. That they were socialist is a matter of opinion. TFD (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've currently got very little time this week, to reply. Briefly, again the preference for single-party isn't a desire for a POV comparison, but again pertinent to how the term, and China's system, is understood broadly to scholars and probably general readers. I am happy for a second term - currently it's "socialist" (which someone au fait with Marxism apparrently finds a tautology alongside "single-party"; but I don't think a general reader - i.e. WP's audience - would), but I am probably also fine with "centralised democracy", "democratic centralism", "people's democracy" or "communism" (whichever can be shown to have most currency in sources) to illustrate the nominal specifities of China's system. At this point, I don't see that one or two editors, at most a handful, having lengthy discussions with piecemeal reference to sources will amount to much; if one is determined to change it, an RfC or something may be required. Regards the CIA factbook: I think that is a dubious source to use, from an NPOV standpoint, for China's system; in any case, I wouldn't regard it as definive. bridies (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in the picture of trade relations

In Trade Relations there is an error because the picture is from the G-20, and not from the BRICS, as the third from the left is the former President of Mexico (which is not part of the BRICS), and not Vladimir Putin, who founded the BRICS Group.--83.63.225.149 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only photo on the page with a Mexican president is a photo of the G-5. It is labeled as "A meeting of G5 leaders". It has been this way for a while. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk)

That is ridiculous. The article should be more serious about that because the so called G5 doesn´t exist, and cannot be compared to the BRICS Group which even have created a common Development Bank and has annual meetings. --83.63.225.149 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@83.63.225.149: Yes they do, see Group of Five. --TIAYN (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And that so called "G5" didn´t meet again since 2005, nine years ago...Ridiculous.--81.35.196.42 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think a different photo would be more appropriate then replace it. Claiming that the G5 doesn't exist, or that the image is incorrectly labeled is confusing and unhelpful. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tibet

From the article: "Political meetings between foreign government officials and the 14th Dalai Lama are also opposed by China, as the latter considers Tibet to be formally part of China.[168]" Could this be made to sound like Tibet is in fact part of China (the reality, I gather from other articles), instead of "China would like Tibet to be a part of China"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.157.119 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted that sentence, mainly because the Telegraph source doesn't support the claim (it just mentions one such event, and doesn't explictly say why). Otherwise, I don't think this is that controversial: Tibet is de facto part of the PRC territory but frankly not part of a Chinese civilisation or nation (or we could be generous to the Chinese view and say it's contentious). So that sentence was again just falling foul of the China = PRC or China = historical Chinese civilisation problems (and China view Tibet as part of the latter, is what the sentence was about). As I said, it needs clearer semantics and a proper source. bridies (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian ruble is accepted as valid tender in Suifenhe, China

Chinese government allows to use both the Russian ruble and the yuan, in Suifenhe, China as a legal tender. It is the first time in the history of PRC when the usage of a foreign currency as a payment for goods and services is allowed on its territory. I suggest to add the Russian ruble to the list of currencies along with the yuan in the same fashion as it's done for Panama and US dollar, but with a footnote that its usage is only allowed in a certain region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.141.26 (talk • contribs) 11:24, November 26, 2014

both nominal total GDP and purchasing power parity

China is number one by both nominal total GDP and purchasing power parity not number two. Please edit ????. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swax2 (talk • contribs) 16:44, December 19, 2014

China now the largest economy

According to the IMF, China is now the worlds largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Someone should update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipm (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Hi, I just wanted to change the description of China (mainland China) from the second largest economy to the first. Example (current form) "As of 2013, it is the world's second-largest economy by both nominal total GDP and purchasing power parity (PPP), and is also the world's largest exporter and importer of goods.[21]" to (proposed form) According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) as of 2014, it is the world's largest economy by purchasing power parity (PPP) and second largest in nominal total GDP, and is also the world's largest exporter and importer of goods.[21]

Many reliable sources have already claimed China as the largest Economy by PPP including: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483762 http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2015/01/china-worlds-largest-economy http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/06/china-surpasses-us-to-become-largest-world-economy/ http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21609649-china-becomes-again-worlds-largest-economy-it-wants-respect-it-enjoyed-centuries-past-it-does-not http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/07/chinas-now-the-world-number-one-economy-and-it-doesnt-matter-a-darn/

-Solstice8088

Solstice8088 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The IMF's 2014 stats are still estimates/projections, not the actual figures like the 2013 stats. Stickee (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

PRC redirects to this page. Please put information about that in the hatnote at the top of the page to let viewers of the page know because they might be searching for other things with the name "PRC" (in organizations, biology, politics, etc.). 174.29.75.144 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already there -

"This article is about the People's Republic of China. For the Republic of China, see Taiwan. For other uses, see China (disambiguation) and PRC (disambiguation)." Cannolis (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the article China is mixed with The People's Republic of China

I just want to see the article China, but I find that it's mixed with The People's Republic of China. Why? When we say 中國 (China), we mean 中國 (China), not the People's Republic of China. The history of 中國 (China), is not the history of the People's Republic of China. The culture of 中國 (China), is not the culture of the People's Republic of China. The art of 中國 (China), is not the art of the People's Republic of China..... Can the article The People's Republic of China itself be created, so we can have the article China? --一二十 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, even in today, besides the People's Republic of China, there is the Republic of China. So how can People's Republic of China = China? Even in politics, China does not mean a dynasty/state/government, but all dynasties/states/governments of China. --一二十 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

See the 'Frequently asked questions' section at the top of this page. When people say 'China' in English, they normally mean the PRC. William Avery (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I think it needs rediscussion, because there is no article China (中國) in English version, only the article of China (中國) mixed with People's Republic of China. The article China (中國) is needed. --一二十 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is on China, the country. Which is also/more formally called the People's Republic of China. But they are the same thing. 'China' is the common name.

If you are looking for Chinese history then there's the History of China, which links to many other articles on Chinese history topics. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But I do not simply want see the History of China, but the whole of China, a complete China. I think many people is the same. So why shouldn't there be the article China? --一二十 (talk)

I don't agree. PRC should be called Mainland China. China includes both Mainland China and Taiwan. It is because "some" people got confused between China and Mainland China, and this confusion propagated to Wikipedia. Some people love China but hate PRC or ROC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelababy00 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is "Mainland China" is a term seldom used outside of greater China. i.e. people use it in Hong Kong, Taiwan to refer to the PRC but otherwise it's not commonly used or understood. And you can like a country but not like its government – I think that's a common attitude throughout the world. If you mean "love China", thinking of China as an entity including the PRC and ROC then that's not a real state at the moment but an ideal. It does have a name and article, Greater China, but like Mainland China it's a concept and name largely restricted to the territories it contains. To most of the world the states are Taiwan and China, together with SARs Hong Kong and Macau.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

China is a concept. The states are PRC and ROC. The concept, China, includes Mainland and Taiwan. It also refers to its history or culture. It is like Britain or British Empire. You have UK as the state. England as part of UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marschina (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

China is the common name of the PRC. Go to the BBC's China news page and you can see headline after headline where 'China' is used for the PRC. As I type the lead headline is "China executes two cult killers" and it's perfectly clear what it means, as it is in the dozen or more other headlines with "China" in them. I picked the BBC for their comprehensive coverage but could have picked probably any English language news source outside of China itself.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is the correct usage of China. Newspapers or news agency are known to make mistakes and this misnaming of China as PRC continues with the western tradition. It is like saying Britain is UK and UK is Britain. Why does the wikipedia create a disambiguation page for Britain and not just direct the user to UK if you type Britain in the search box? I think for BBC it is mere convenience to refer to China then PRC because not many UK readers know the difference and history about PRC, ROC and Chinese history. It does not mean that BBC's usage is correct. I think it is better to stop disseminating the mistake and create a China disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marschina (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow what sources say and the BBC is one of many sources that support using "China" for the country. If you want to change it you'll need sources yourself, to support your assertion that it is a mistake.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am quoting the Wikipedia source 1992 Consensus where both PRC and ROC are trying to claim that they are China. I quote the 1992 Consensus on the "one China principle": both PRC and ROC recognise there is only one "China" - both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China! So, this should be the official stance of Wikipedia on the issue about China, not the Western media common usage which is for readers who are unfamiliar with China. I think the web page on China is also not correct to say OFFICIALLY China is PRC and OFFICIALLY Taiwan is ROC!!! Who recognizes OFFICIALLY China is PRC? On what authority does the OFFICIAL comes from? If it is official, China should refer to Mainland China and Taiwan according to the 1992 Consensus. I think it is more accurate to say that many western media refer China to PRC (this is done only for those who do not know China). For the Chinese people, it may be an insult to say that China is officially PRC because PRC does not represent them. The PRC is a dictatorship regime and so it does not represent the Chinese people, not even the people who live in Mainland China. Like Angelababy00, may be a lot of people like China but dislike PRC or ROC states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marschina (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If the encyclopedia is compiled or hosted by United Nations, I'll have no problem that People's Republic of China = China politically, since there has always been only one representative government of China in a single time, and now it recognizes only the People's Republic of China. But it's not a fact there is only one state of China. There are two states (republics) with the name China, although Republic of China is not recognized by UN and many states in the world. And, actually, when we say 中國 (China), we mostly often do not mean it politically. When we say we love China, we do not mean we love the People's Republic of China. That’s totally two different kinds of meanings, concepts and phrases. --一二十 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have brought your opinions forward during the page move discussion that took place during 2011. It's too late for this now, community consensus has already established the PRC as the primary topic of "China", and this discussion is rather unlikely to be going anywhere. If you were to propose a page move, I really doubt that you can gain consensus. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

When we look at the history between 1911 and 1949 (before PRC), Republic of China was China, and ROC includes both the Mainland China and Taiwan. So, PRC can only be Mainland China. It cannot be China. In 1990s, the PRC government representative and ROC government representative agreed that each state should interpret its own meaning of China, but both consider that China includes Mainland China and Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelababy00 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I should add that consensus can change, and it appears that this consensus is moving slowly more and more towards the decided outcome of the move decision. That is to say that what at the time was highly controversial, is becoming less and less controversial, so if you wish to request a move, you may find a time machine helpful. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) what do you mean "I do not simply want see the History of China, but the whole of China, a complete China."? What would be on this "complete China" page that isn't on this page or the History of China page? 2) more importantly, what relevance does the usage of Chinese words in the Chinese language by Chinese speakers have to the usage of the English word "China" in the English language by English speakers? --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm Chinese and I can confirm that when we say "China" in Chinese we do mean "People's Republic of China". If we want to refer to "Republic of China", we simply say "Taiwan". It's completely the same usage with English speakers. --JesseW900 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. My Chinese friend told me that they refer to PRC as Mainland China (not China) and ROC as Taiwan. China includes both Mainland China and Taiwan. Probably, you are from PRC and wants PRC to become China. I think this page should be called Mainland China. Or if this page remains to be called China, then it should state clearly that China is now splitted into Mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC). This would stop the confusion and the incorrect designation that PRC is China.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelababy00 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If we go with the logic of the 2011 page move discussion, then shouldn't the corresponding pages in Chinese, French, Spanish, etc. all be moved too? There is a huge number of these pages that describe the general cultural concept "China", and by having this page, it would be NPOV and a reader would quickly see that Two Chinas actually exist and be educated instead of this fact being hidden. The fact that corresponding "English" version of this article doesn't exist is simply odd..., and suspect I think. Mistakefinder (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Each Wikimedia project has a separate community, local ruleset and site consensus, what happens on one language Wikipedia project does not extend to another. If anything is to be changed on the French and other Wikipedias, a local RfC needs to take place on that site. The local consensus at enwiki might be based on the 2011 discussion, but established consensus elsewhere is still different. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that the articles on the other wikipedia have also some discussions. I'm hardy try to change to situation on wp:fr, wp:de have also some discussions (I don't read german). --Nouill (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I donnot see any necessary to merger the two terms into one. I never see any notice about no enough space on the site web server. I think there are enough space for articles. We all know that, in time, China is consisted of many dynasties. The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China are only two dynasties(or state dominating China, equivilant to dynasty) of all dynasties. And it's an undeniable fact that The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China exist at the same time at present, no matter what opinions towards them there may be. It's obvious that, China = All dynasties (states) of China ≠ The Republic of China ≠ The People's Republic of China. Each needs to have its own article. -一二十 (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Republic of China does have a discrete article - Taiwan Simonm223 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not an article on Falun Gong

Notwithstanding certain editor's zeal for attacking the current government of china over the dispute between the cult and the communist party, this article is about China as a whole. As such, an accumulation of unnecessary detail regarding the various claims and counter-claims regarding the Falun Gong are out of place here. We have articles about the cult just for that. With respect to WP:DUE can we please keep extraneous details to a minimum? Simonm223 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The organ harvesting claims are undue imo.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this has happened, so I'm not surprised that this is going on again. I'd rather not have the article's quality become significantly degraded because editors with a political axe to grind are intent on forcing their undue content on this page, it's taken a long time and lot of hard work amongst plenty of editors for us to reach this far. If anyone remembers this article from 2009, it was a horribly written one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I walked away from trying to keep the Falun Gong pages and the organ harvesting pages under control as keeping those in some semblance of WP:NPOV is a constant and unending struggle. I'm not willing to walk away from core China articles. They're too important. I am still of the opinion that both the Kilgour / Mattas report and Ethan Guttman's book are no more reliable for the fraught matter of Chinese organ transplantation than the China Daily would be. They're misled by an aggressive misinformation campaign at best, propaganda at worst. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Persecution of Falun Gong has been happening since 1999. Because there were 70 million practitioners in China its significant. The CCP doesn't just persecute practitioners it also affects family members. Persecution of Falun Gong is a comprehensive wiki article with 161 references. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a paragraph about the persecution of Falun Gong in the China article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of which depend on Kilgour / Mattas or FLG claims to support them, while authors like Kavan who have discussed how the FLG uses claims of persecution as a mechanism of driving group cohesion and how practicioners have been instructed by Li Hongzhi to lie to journalists regarding FLG teachings, especially the bits about aliens and the straight-up racism have been sidelined or removed. And you know what? I'm past caring about that disaster area of a propaganda job. But it's not spreading to the China article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11, this is a general country article. All sorts of things might have happened, however that is not what this article is for. It is not a catch-all article that covers all remotely-related topics, nor an indiscriminate repository of all information that falls within a certain bracket; rather, it is an article that deals with a very large topic, and there is much more to the topic of "China" than politics. These articles are supposed to cover geography, history, economy, demographics, society, and the much broader topics that cover the central topic of "China". Forcing in a disproportionate amount of niche information specific to one subtopic constitutes WP:UNDUE, and it's for the same reason why the India article doesn't have huge chunks of content dedicated to curry samosas (they belong in the Indian cuisine article), and why the South Korea article doesn't have huge chunks of content related to e-sports (they belong in the Korean e-Sports Association article). In your case, your new additions belongs in Human rights in China or Falun Gong, but definitely not here.

There has been longstanding community consensus that country articles should not be inundated with politics-centred content, and if you continue to disbalance the POV of an article by shifting the due coverage of content away from neutrality, then I'm afraid you are the one who is violating Wikipedia's core principles, policies and guidelines. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Persecution of Falun Gong is a very serious and current human rights issue in China, not politics. There is only one link on the article to Amnesty and its dead. So the article would appear to need updating. Never heard of e sports before, but thanks for the info.Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that I'm talking to a wall here, so if you're not willing to compromise then I have no choice but to give up. It doesn't matter how noble your brilliant cause is, you need to adhere to WP:UNDUE. If the persecution of FLG is a serious human rights issue in China, then your content belongs in human rights in China, which means that you've essentially helped me answer your own questions. And before you play the "but it's an important issue" card, keep in mind that your past actions involve forcing in a WP:NOTNEWS sentence about Jiang Zemin dating back to 2009 which has little to no lasting impact on the wider topic, in addition to edit warring over wording without even discussing the issue properly. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits such as this [7] walk a very fine line with regard to Wikipedia's policies on tendentious editing. When you've just been advised, at some length, that there is a long-standing community consensus that inserting Falun Gong related content is not in keeping with WP:DUE to give the Falun Gong their own section as your very next edit is... well, it's difficult to assume good faith although I'm really trying. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Genocide

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

---

If an official has been indicted for Genocide, I see no reason why it and the number of other officials also indicted for Genocide in the same case shouldn't be included in their article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to start a second-level header for every single thing. Please read the talk page guidelines, this could have perfectly fitted under any of the above talk page sections as a new, unindented paragraph. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the China article only, and is not a general discussion board for all China-related topics which span other independent articles. What you are seeking is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. This page is not a forum for discussion of topics not relevant to the contents pertaining to this specific article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:13, 1 April 2015 (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.

Other spiritual practices

There should be a new heading for other spiritual practices under Demographics

Falun Gong is a spiritual practice rather than a religion.Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A few things - A) No, there are a plethora of reliable sources (Kavan and Ownby for instance) that characterize the Falun Gong as a religion. B) The percentage of the Chinese population that adheres to other faiths, including the FLG is tiny, WP:DUE does not warrant a section for "other spiritual practices" separate from the religion section. C) Even if that was the case, you gave the Falun Gong almost as much text there as Buddhism gets. That's also not within the bounds of WP:DUE. D) There's a certain of WP:IDHT going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223. Please do not reinsert the section heading. Thanks.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is not an indiscriminate repository of everything related to China. A few brief mentions is tolerable, but you've essentially made a section dedicated to FLG, for the sake of tipping the balance towards FLG. Having a dedicated section is a completely different scenario to having a few sentences, it's a blatant attempt at forcing in imbalance in content. And don't pretend to be unaware by playing coy and giving me some sort of "it's not a FLG section, it's a spiritual practice section" excuse, you're not fooling anyone when the only mention the section contains relates to FLG. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Just because you write a book about Falun Gong doesn't mean you know all the facts about it. The first sentence of the Falun Gong article states, "Falun Gong or Falun Dafa (literally means "Dharma Wheel Practice" or "Law Wheel Practice") is a Chinese spiritual practice for mind and body."

The first reference on Falun Gong is

Seth Faison, "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors", New York Times, 27 April 1999. Quote: "Buddhist Law, led by a qigong master named Li Hongzhi, claims to have more than 100 million followers. Even if that is an exaggeration, the government's estimate of 70 million practitioners represents a large group in a nation of 1.2 billion."Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if there are currently 70 million FLG adherents (and I suspect that number has shrunk in the intervening decade and a half with Li Hongzhi no longer able to proselytize in China) that represents 0.06% of the total population of China, in 1999, and even less now. With regard to your protestations regarding characterizing them as a religion, Kavan is an expert in the Falun Gong she represents the gold standard for a reliable source regarding the religion. And even so, this still does not address any of the commentary from any of the editors who have pointed out to you the clear consensus that your edits are undue detail on the Falun Gong inserted for the sole purpose of shifting the POV of the article toward your (in my opinion) fringe claims of a genocide. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Kavan hasn't been used for any of the 241 references on Falun Gong. The people who really know about FG are long term practitioners. I think you will find your figure of 0.06% is incorrect. Try multiplying by 100.Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

1.35 billion. Dropping 150 million people isn't quite a small thing, you know (you just ignored the equivalent to the total population of Japan or Russia). As for that 70 million figure, that figure is from 1999, and represents the worldwide population of adherents; it's fallacious to include British adherents of FLG in a WP:SYNTHesised percentage figure of the Chinese population. Just in case I'm not being clear enough, 1999 was 16 years ago, my co-workers have children who are now 16 years old. With a stretch of almost two decades, we're talking about a long timespan here. Do you know how many years it took for the Ottoman Empire to lose 70% of its territory? --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pop of China in 1999 was less than 1.3 billion. The vast majority of FG live in China. You can figure that out from the FG article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My point just went over your head. Please, at least maintain some degree of intellectualism, and read the entire comment, not just the sections that you want to read. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The 70 million is the CCP's estimate of FG. Its unlikely that includes FG outside China. And even if it does the numbers outside China are insignificant compared to China. Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See I've seen FLG pov pushers make the claim that 70 million is a CCP number. But they always cite american sources. And we KNOW (Kavan) that american media is regularly lied to by FLG members under instruction from Li Hongzhi, and so I'd like to see a non-Epoch Times Chinese source suggesting China ever made that claim. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on the The New York Times, source for 70 million. It has won 114 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization.Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some estimates from 2012 put the Falun Gong population, at its height, at closer to between 280,000 and 650,000. [8] (Queue the usual argument that anybody from China critical of the Falun Gong is a liar while all Falun Gong people are 100% truthful in 5,4,3,2,1) Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Falun Gong article for numbers of FG. Insignificant views should hot appear there. Its been through many thousands of edits.Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Two things - 1) Wikipedia is not a WP:RS for other articles. 2) I wasn't trying to include that entirely significant estimate of the (much lower than FLG claim) FLG population in this or any other article. I was just pointing out, on talk, that YOUR claim as to the size of the religion is not entirely uncontroversial, and may be substantially less than the FLG claims. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Falun Gong article has gone through many thousands of edits and its listed as a good article. Some of the people who make edits on the FG article are quite knowledgeable. Although the China article is listed as a good article it doesn't seem to have the same level of unbiased input.Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. Again, notwithstanding the barbed comments, Wikipedia is not a WP:RS for other articles, no matter how good an article is categorized. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you really not see anything wrong in this article?Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is some serious cognitive dissonance right here. You're complaining that this article is not impartial because you can't have your own way over here? Seriously, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince with that sort of reasoning. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, you're here solely to push your own agenda, and will cry wolf at any opportunity because it's always everyone else who's at fault. Have a look at your past 500 contributions, are there any edits of yours that are not dedicated to pushing a pro-FLG POV? This is essentially a perfect textbook example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, your account's sole purpose is to focus on FLG damage control. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Have look at my user pageAaabbb11 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the WOEFUL exclusion of Kavan as a source from FLG articles, that's because of FLG POV pushers cutting out dissenting views.Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is pointless. I've said my piece. I don't want to get dragged into this nonsense anymore. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Simonm223, I suggest giving it a rest, I really don't think Aaabbb11's going to bother to listen no matter what you say. You're only going to end up with the same stubborn WP:DEADHORSE responses over and over again, it's a waste of your time and energy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm reviewing some of the exchanges here, and have a few thoughts.

• The notion of religion in China is a bit different from how it's conceptualized it in the West. I understand that before the 1900s, there really was no word for "religion" as there is now. Spiritually was just something that permeated a lot of different aspects of the culture. This article also makes that point, noting that for many people, aspects of Buddhism, Daosim, Confucianism, and folk traditions all sort of blend together. Despite these caveats, I have no objection to religion as a subject heading. The meaning is clearly understood, and it can encompass quite a lot.
• One other option to consider is to modify the sentence on qigong a touch. For example it could note that from the 1970s onward, hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens participated in various qigong exercises, including but not limited to Tai Chi and Falun Gong.
• Self-published sources (i.e. books from iuniverse press) are not reliable when it comes to establishing demographic numbers for any religious group.
• On how the page should cover Falun Gong more generally, this article covers China in its entirety, from ancient times to the present, and even very important topics and are likely to get only one or two sentences. From that perspective, it doesn't make sense to have a stand-alone section on Falun Gong. One or two lines is appropriate, but should be kept as a very high level summary with wikilinks to the relevant articles as required. Organ harvesting is just one category of the persecution, and does not need to be singled out on this page. I make a couple edits to the human rights section with the goal of providing a more general overview of this issue, keeping it concise. Keihatsu ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't really intending to include that source anywhere. I've just got a little hot under the collar dealing with Aaabbb11's unremitting campaign to shoehorn Falun Gong accusations into every article. And I stand by what I said about not seeing a Chinese source that ever attributed the number of 70 million as a government estimate of the Falun Gong. (In fact I suspect that many american sources may be conflating FLG population estimates with estimates for the population of qigong organization membership). Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM applies and I'll cop to going off topic for this article a bit yesterday, so I'm going to stop now on the issue of Falun Gong demographics on this page. Just felt that it would be appropriate to contextualize those comments from yesterday. Simonm223 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

CPC's power is enshrined in the constitution of the PRC？

How crazy! After 1982,the CPC has cancelled all the terms in its constitution that declare its power.Just read this (in zh-s)costitution of the PRC-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 07:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

the level of public support for the government (of the PRC) and its management of the nation is high?

I think this section is a bit one-sided.firstly,there are many di idents(like Liu Xiaobo and others) in the PRC ,opposition groups and many protests (Like the protests in support of Cantonesemedia localization in Guangzhou, 2010 and the Chinese Jasmine Revolution) in the PRC now.Secondly,the survey now isn't well-agreed and (maybe)one-sided.Thirdly,that section should cite more point of view/survey about this(like this)-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 07:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Panzer VI-II: Sorry to say, but dissidents don't make up the majority of the country (and I guess just like in democracies, the majority of people just complain and do little).. The majority of the protests are directed against local party elites, but rarely at the central party leadership (and the Chinese Jasmine Revolution barely happened; very few individuals actually met up)... The problem with the poll is that it asks if free-market economies are best (and not capitalism)... Everyone in China supports market economics (and the state does to). If the question had been, do you support capitalism the result would have been murkier... I doubt the majority of Chinese look down on the state-centered market economic model, since their living standards is improving and the country's prestige is improving. Therefore, its the question itself which is formulated wrongly. --TIAYN (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

maybe you are right...-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 12:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Panzer VI-II: This of course is Original Research from my end, but you have to agree, can you think of a country in history in which the people oppose an economic system which produces increased material comfort? ... The interesting thing here is what will happen if China faces an economic downturn that hurts the standard of living. Stalin always complained that a huge number of communist members only supported the party in good times, and left it in bad—of course Stalin was mad, but he may have had a point. Anyhow, cheers! --TIAYN (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on removal of native state names from article lead sentences

There was an RfC opened that might affect tens of articles, including this one. Your opinions would be welcome. “WarKosign” 05:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese style guide deprecates native names in article leads as they can go in the {{Chinese}} infobox, which should have been the case here, and is now.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

Imagineayacht (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yulin Dog Meat Festival in GuangXi China

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

President of CHINA IS SOLOMON FHANTOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.153.3.27 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Genocide

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Genocide that people editing this page might be interested in. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sociopolitical issues, human rights and reform

I can see no reason why 2 topics are combined here - human rights and politics. Aaabbb11 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you really need to start a second level header for every single post here? --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, there's meatpuppetry going on between Aaabbb11 and an old group of topic-banned pro-FLG editors including User:HappyInGeneral and User:Asdfg12345 - based on a specific pattern of behaviour I suspect, beyond meatpuppetry, Aaabbb11 is a sockpuppet of Asdfg12345 and have requested an investigation into this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks you 2 don't have any problem with what I'm proposing, which is to split the topic into 2. Both off topic (Simonm223 you are wasting people's time) Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus from silence is not a valid argument on your part. You need to gain consensus, not assume consensus. Choosing to not put up with your shenanigans until you can learn to use talk pages properly does not equate to conceding to you. Also, you haven't even given it one day - are you for real? --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record I categorically disagree with the inclusion of any additional Falun Gong content on the China page and will continue to do so until I say otherwise. I feel no need to beat a dead horse and pop on every five minutes just to say, "No, WP:DUE" again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Socialist? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.162.235 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this section should be renamed Human Rights. Info not relating to human rights should be moved to the appropriate section. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Socialist state

So I'm going to bring this up again. China IS NOT a socialist state, nor a communist one, but a state capitalist one. This is universally agreed by all capitalists and anti-catpailists. China revolves around Maoism, which is a derivative of Marxism-Leninism, which is universally accepted to be state capitalism. It seems previously this was agreed within the achieves, but the article no longer goes along with the talk page consensus. DocHeuh (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Heuh0:However, sir, at least, the CPC thinks the PRC is a socialist state.-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 05:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make it true, that just means they want to be initially perceived as a socialist state. DocHeuh (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Heuho: Officially China has a socialist political system, but a system of diverse forms of ownership (or put it more bluntly, non-socialist forms of ownership). The CPC's policy is that the state sector (read; socialist sector) should dominate and guide the rest of the economy. This they refer to as the primary stage of socialism.... And another note, "China revolves around Maoism, which is a derivative of Marxism-Leninism, which is universally accepted to be state capitalism", this is highly biased. From a Trotskyist (and other currents too) perspective Marxism–Leninism is state capitalism, but Liberal Western observers mostly equate Marxism–Leninism with anti-capitalism. --TIAYN (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about calling it a de jure socialist state? Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 04:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alexlur: Because saying that sounds like its not a socialist state at all, and it sounds like the rulers have no socialist intentions at all ... --TIAYN (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Trust Is All You Need: Good point, what about “it describes itself as a socialist state”? Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 06:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Military

The section on the military needs updating periodically and I agree that global perspective must be maintained. I added a C-Span program (http://www.c-span.org/video/?327492-5/washington-journal-mark-perry-us-military-approach-toward-china) on the topic but it was reverted because it was 'undue' and from a USA perspective. See http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/10/china-military-conducts-drills-near-taiwan-philippines.html for international perspective. Note this telling sentence:

China has ramped up defense spending to modernize its forces, which are the world's largest and are gaining experience in operating far from its coast.In a defense strategy paper last month, China vowed to continue growing its “open seas protection,” ...

The current text of the section contains amble evidence of the Air & sea denial advances in Chinese weaponry which my modest update confirms.

In addition see: http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/04/anti-accessarea-denial-isnt-just-asia-anymore/109108/Church of the Rain (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130310055617/http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0603/free/p005.html to http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0603/free/p005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Move contents about political divisions and territory disputes in the introduction to dedicated chapters?

Those contents are meaningful, but not enough for the first paragraph really. A vote maybe? --SilAshkenazi (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that part should be removed or trimmed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Organ harvesting

I think this should be mentioned in article, and Ethan Gutmanns estimate of 65,000 being killed, because it is objective information about numbers killed. For other types of persecution in China (for FG anyway) its unclear how many have been killed. The number killed shows how big the problem is. (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11 - thank you for trying to discuss. I'm open to a possible compromise, but I'm not sure you'll be entirely satisfied with my proposal. I suggest adding, at the end of the sentence on Falun Gong, another short line to the effect of "In addition, some researchers estimate that tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents, Uyghurs, and prisoners may have been killed to supply a trade in human organs." That's pretty close to my maximum position, personally. In a more focused article Ethan Gutmann's findings could be included, but I'm not comfortable singling out a single researcher here. I'm also wary of the false precision involved in citing that number, as Gutmann himself supplies a pretty large estimate range, with 65,000 being the median.Keihatsu ^talk 02:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the three key organ harvesting investigators David Matas, David Kilgour) and Gutmann, Gutmann is the only one to estimate the numbers killed. Gutmann doesn't have to be mentioned, but his estimate was published by Prometheus Books. Two independent reviews of his 2014 book published 65,000 from 2000 to 2008. While in an interview with the Toronto Star he stated, "The number of casualties is close to 100,000."Q&A: Author and analyst Ethan Gutmann discusses China’s illegal organ trade. Gutmanns's guesstimate of Tibetans, Uyghurs and House Christians killed was 2,000 to 4,000.

But I think its important to mention that 5 leaders were indicted for genocide because that is objective information, which makes the situation quite clear. I'm OK with tens of thousands killed if 5 leaders being indicted for genocide is mentioned. Sure things have be kept very brief in an article like this but I can see less important info that could easily be deleted.Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't agree with you on the genocide issue. It can be mentioned on those respective officials' pages and pages about Falun Gong where appropriate, but it's undue weight here. If there were actual findings of guilt, I might reconsider, but with indictments alone I don't see a compelling case. And it does not seem that you've convinced other editors either.Keihatsu ^talk 04:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The campaign against FG began in 1996 with banning FG books. So no need to mention, "large-scale demonstration in Beijing", which was probably a peaceful gathering see Falun Gong. When you gather in large numbers no need to demonstrate. Numbers is all that's needed.

Kilgour and Matas stated, "we believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners". And there's no "may" or Uighurs in their conclusions and only have Falun Gong prisoners of conscience [9] No need to mention "trade in human organs". 70 million practitioners should also be mentioned, because it shows how popular Falun Gong had become. I think it should be worded like this

Falun Gong was first taught publicly in 1992. In 1999, when there were 70 million practitioners, the Communist Party launched a campaign to eliminate Falun Gong, resulting in mass arrests, extralegal detention, and reports of torture and deaths in custody.[212][213] Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann believe that tens of thousands of practitioners, were killed for their organs.[214][215]

and remove the Communist Party to shorten it further...

Falun Gong was first taught publicly in 1992. In 1999, when there were 70 million practitioners, the persecution of Falun Gong began, resulting in mass arrests, extralegal detention, and reports of torture and deaths in custody.[212][213] Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann believe that tens of thousands of practitioners, were killed for their organs.[214][215]

This reference can be used for 70 million

These references should be used so the reader can read more if they are interested. This ref from The Toronto Star should be used as it doesn't limit the time frame to 2000 to 2008. Gutmann states, "the number of casualties is close to 100,000." This ref should be included because it quotes from Ethan Gutmanns 2014 book and provides estimates of Falun Gong in the Laogai system. Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In order to include Guttman's views, we need to show (1) the degree of acceptance of his views among experts and (2) that have prominence in books about China. Neither of that has been done yet. His claims are so shocking that one would expect mainstream sources would comment on them if they had any merit. TFD (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Getlen, "China’s long history of harvesting organs from living political foes", New York Post, 9 August 2014

Barbara Turnbull (21 October 2014) "Q&A: Author and analyst Ethan Gutmann discusses China’s illegal organ trade", The Toronto Star

Mainstream newspapers seem to shy away from this issue. I'm not aware of a truly independent source in English for 5 leaders being indicted for genocide in Spain. In Spanish there is one. Aaabbb11 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If Gutmann's views are widely ignored in the mainstream, then weight requires us to ignore them too. The Star btw is widely respected, but it only mentions the book in the book section. What we would want to see is academic papers discussing the issue. China has political prisoners and has sold organs from executed criminals. There are unconfirmed reports they take organs from living prisoners. But Gutmann's claims go beyond that. TFD (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Jay Nordlinger (25 August 2014) "Face The Slaughter: The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem, by Ethan Gutmann", National Review

Viv Young (11 August 2014) "The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem", New York Journal of Books

Gutmann's estimates aren't shocking. Kilgour and Matas published estimates in 2006. Their work is referenced and accepted. Gutmann's estimates have been on the internet for years. Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

But their conclusions are not accepted either. It's a "walled garden", a small number of writers whose studies receive attention almost exclusively in opinion pieces in mostly right-wing media and Falun Gong's own publications. For example in The International Trafficking of Human Organs, Falun Gong is mentioned only in passing and it says they have "allegedly been targeted." TFD (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Trafficking isn't necessarily the same as harvesting. Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. On the US National Library of Medicine site there are 4 articles that reference or mention it.

On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.

The Government of China attempted to rebut both versions of the report at organharvestinvestigation.net Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is that what you find so essential to this article receives almost no coverage anywhere else. Per Balancing aspects, the article should include what sources consider important, not what you do. TFD (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Murtagh, "China ‘murdering Falun Gong members for organ harvesting’", Irish Times, 11 July 2013

Thomas Nelson (Fall 2014) "The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvestings, and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem by Ethan Gutmann A Review", International Affairs Review

Gutmann's articles are published in the World Affairs Journal, The Weekly Standard and elsewhere. His estimate of 65,000 was published in the book State Organs. Google 65,000 Falun Gong and its says "about 104,000 results".

Many medical professionals believe that organ harvesting of Falun Gong is happening. Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, Professor of Medicine, Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics, Dr. Jacob Lavee, cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Ghazali Ahmad, Professor Maria Fiatarone Singh and Dr. Torsten Trey, wrote essays for State Organs.

Transplant doctor Henkie P. Tan stated, "Everybody, any transplant position, any transplant personnel is against this. This should never have happen. We're surprised this is happening. There's no doubt about it. It should just never happen. It should be stopped." Aaabbb11 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two negative reports of the NZ government and the US department of State for Falun Gong supporters and Kilgour-Matas report: [10] [11] Wikipedia is NOT a propaganda tool of anybody, including Falun Gong.小梨花 (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@小梨花: The new article Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China is now being reviewed for DYK (see nomination page), and editors have raised neutrality and other issues with it. I don't know much about FLG and its controversies, but if you're familiar with it, you may wish to comment at the nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@小梨花:

I think you should be aware of this.

In March 2006, The Epoch Times published the allegations of three Chinese individuals who said that thousands of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry, including a doctor, said who said there were 36 concentration camps all over China.

The information provided by the 3rd allegation http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-3-31/39910.html is interesting. It states "It takes no more than a day to transfer 5,000 people in a closed freight train on a special route. I have witnessed a specially dispatched freight train transferring over 7,000 people in one trip from Tianjin to the Jilin area."

So US representatives visiting one site and finding no evidence of organ harvesting as shown in this 16 April 2006 article http://iipdigital.ait.org.tw/st/english/texttrans/2006/04/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html#axzz3kfKr3ebz does not prove that organ harvesting is not happening in China.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the New Zealand government in November 2013 claimed "Neither committee members nor the Government are aware of any independent evidence verifying the Falun Gong claims on organ harvesting." as you can see on the last page of this report http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/50DBSCH_SCR6012_1/8254a6b4c6aaae0d848a465615b7b3bf71752f9a

But the only piece of evidence they list is the "significant US State Department investigation", presumably from 16 April 2006 (no references provided) which is not significant because it predates the first Kilgour–Matas report which was released in July 2006. There have been 3 books about organ harvesting in China published in 2009, 2012 and 2014 that you will not be able to buy in China.

You should also be aware of the New Zealand China Free Trade Agreement which is the first free trade agreement that China has signed with any developed country, and New Zealand's largest trade deal since 1983. The New Zealand government is not known for its moral values and is pro business as evidenced voting to keep the legal drinking age at 18 despite drinking related problems in NZ. Because the relatively small NZ economy (population of NZ 4.6 million) is heavily dependent on exports it is not surprising that the NZ government would not want to upset the Communist Party of China by finding evidence of organ harvesting in China.

So the organ harvesting information should be reinstated. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You saying that the Kilgour–Matas report is naturally neutral without support from an official third party because NZ government would not want to upset the Communist Party of China? So what evidence indicate that the these governments made this deal and Kilgour & Matas have no any backstage supporter? This is just a conspiracy theory and the word "killed for their organs" is still a controversial legend.小梨花 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@小梨花:

The Kilgour–Matas report at organharvesting.net is a reliable source.

On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.

You claim this there is a negative report from the NZ Government http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/50DBSCH_SCR6012_1/8254a6b4c6aaae0d848a465615b7b3bf71752f9a when its a Falun Gong petition that wasn't supported by the NZ government that has no references at all. So no credibility either in my opinion.

The 16 April 2006 US report isn't mentioned on Falun Gong#Organ harvesting or Persecution of Falun Gong#Organ harvesting because wikipedia is Wikipedia:Summary Style and the US report is an early report that's not important as officials on only visited one site.

I suggest you read Falun Gong#Organ harvesting or Persecution of Falun Gong#Organ harvesting or the 3 books published about organ harvesting in China.

The New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement is on wikipedia and has 15 references. I can assure you that it is real. Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean that you said that the New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement is an evidence that NZ government made false for the CPC, however that is your conspiracy theory, a tendentious speculation.小梨花 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of persecution of Falun Gong is internationally recognized as mentioned in the current article, but in my personal opinion the Kilgour–Matas report is not suitable for this article for the above reason, and there are other important issues of the PRC could be added, such as Islamic extremism in Xinjiang, excessively long paragraph should also be avoided. BTW the FLG itself is a controversial organization.小梨花 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I might add, you said “Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann believe what what” in the article. If we have to talk about "somebodies BELIEVE something", “somebodies don't believe it" should also be mentioned for neutrality, especially when disbeliefs are besed on investigations, furthermore “believe sth. or no” is not accord with the standard of this encyclopedia. While an appropriate length is also important as this article is a geography and places good article. In addition, The Epoch Times belongs to the FLG itself, when one testify for oneself, the probative force is really weak, that's also why I don't even mention Chinese official position.小梨花 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@小梨花:

On 28 August you deleted important human rights information about organ harvesting in China that was added to this article on 27 April after a discussion involving 3 editors that ended on 7 April.

There is now even an article titled Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China with 111 references that is likely to be expanded. On 30 August 2015 you made a comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China using the same "reports" which are not significant. You stated,

"I don’t really care about this, but I have noticed that the neutrality of Kilgour-Matas report is suspicious for it has been denyed by the reports of the NZ government and the US department of State. [1] [2] but these reports have been ignored."

The TheBlueCanoe responded to you the same day, but you have yet to respond. If you do care about organ harvesting I suggest you make comments on that page, which seems to be the appropriate place for an in depth discussion about organ harvesting in China. What you have done to the China article amounts to disruptive editing and the organ harvesting information that you deleted based on your opinion should be reinstated.

David Matas, David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann are the three key investigators and authors of organ harvesting in China. Gutmann is a China watcher who spent about 7 years compiling the information for his 2014 book. He has testified before the U.S. Congress, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the European Parliament and the United Nations. Kilgour and Matas have visited many countries raising awareness of organ harvesting in China and gained more information while doing so. So its more than just a case of believing.

The 27 April 2015 version of China does not mention or use Epoch Times as a reference. ‎Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In order to add it you need not merely show that it has been reported in reliable sources but that it is considered to be significant in reliable sources about China. China is in the news every day, yet there is little if any mention of organ harvesting. TFD (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither committee members nor the Government are aware of any independent evidence verifying the Falun Gong claims on organ harvesting. This conclusion is based on both New Zealand and foreign inquiries. New Zealand officials discussed the allegations with Kilgour and Matas; the office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture; human rights non-governmental organisations; and other countries interested in the human rights situation in China. Other international organisations also attempted to verify whether the claims on organ harvesting made in the Kilgour/Matas report had substance. This included a significant US State Department investigation that concluded that there was no evidence of the practice. Officials are not aware of any independent assessment that supports the Falun Gong’s claims of forced organ harvesting.

This paragraph is excerpted from the report Petition 2011/84 of Sam Fang on behalf of the Falun Gong Association Incorporated (21 November 2013)(as reported by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee) as one of the strong enough opposition views of NHK, Rambodoc, the article Inside China's 'crematorium' of The Ottawa Citizen and many others, the Kilgour-Matas report has not been considered as an independent assessment. The neutrality is a pillar of wikipedia, presumption of innocence is an important principle to keep it. It is not proper to propagate an unilateral view in a good article.

I mentioned the Epoch Times because you tried to use it to prove your point on this page.小梨花 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So far 3 books on Organ Harvesting in China have been published. Publishers aren't keen to wreck their reputations or lose money by publishing misleading information. You can google "live organ harvesting" and see articles like China’s long history of harvesting organs from living political foes from http://nypost.com

But on the Communist Party's US Embassy topic page http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ the topics of Falun Gong and organ harvesting are absent. Aaabbb11 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of the info. As per The Four Deuces and other users above, adding a controversial report that's received little coverage from mainstream media to this article is WP:UNDUE. -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe

1. Since 23 September 2014 User:小梨花|小梨花 has only made about 14 edits to other articles or talk pages other than China. So getting close to a single article editor.

2. You and 小梨花|小梨花 have deleted organ harvesting information not a report. To claim it is a report is disruptive editing.

3. Human rights in China#Organ harvesting has more detailed information. One solution is to copy the most important information from that section. There is no need for a completely fresh debate on this page. Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe

You seem to being doing a very large number of edits to China related articles. So you may be a single purpose account. I note that on 21 September in 10 minutes you deleted more than 50,000 bytes of the Terrorism in China article and the number of references dropped from 220 to 122.

I see no reason not to put the sentence about organ harvesting information back in as your editing seems highly suspect. Maybe your editing should be investigated.

The sentence was "Kilgour, Matas and Gutmann believe that tens of thousands of practitioners, were killed for their organs.[226][227][228]" Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aaabbb11: Be careful of casting aspersions about other editors. Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. You need to focus on following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not the actions of others when they are playing by the rules.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: Have you had a look at the edits done by those editors? There is a genocide happening in china as per Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Genocide. Deleting information about a current genocide is very serious because it helps prolong it as there is no information about it on wiki. People who are unaware of the current genocide in China will remain uninformed if they read the China article. Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aaabbb11: Wikipedia is not a soap box and any information you wish to add must abide by our guidelines on undue weight and reliable sourcing in independent sources. I have no desire to get into a long discussion on policy here, just edit according to the rules, OK?  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: Did you read all of this topic? Organ harvesting information was added after a significant discussion. It has been deleted by what may be single purpose accounts, without adequate reasons in my opinion. If I have to report editors for deleting important information without consensus I am prepared to do that.

I do not think that undue weight and reliable sourcing in independent sources are an issue in this case. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aaabbb11: Please read what it says above: No long discussion. If you wish to report anyone then I suggest you do so on the relevant board rather than continue to make accusations here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: Stating that someone maybe a single purpose account is not listed under Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. So i do not think I made a personal attack. Aaabbb11 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is listed under WP:No personal attacks. Your accusation of an editor with 50,000+ edits and 200+ DYK credits (me) of being an SPA fits that description. The accusation is especially ridiculous when it comes from an editor (you) with less than 700 article edits, mostly Falun Gong related. By the way, the info I deleted from Terrorism in China was mainly undue info about Uyghur fighters in Syria added by a single user, which is irrelevant to the topic. -Zanhe (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the DYK nomination for Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China was rejected by administrator Gatoclass for neutrality, synthesis, and other issues. This stuff clearly does not belong in a high-profile Good Article like China. Besides, the United States article does not mention police abuse of the blacks, even though such incidents (unlike the organ harvesting claims) are widely reported and indisputably confirmed, because it would be undue to focus on an issue, however grave, that is minor in the big picture. -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I've written plenty of articles about dissidents and scandals in China, see Tie Liu, Wang Shouye, Ma Faxiang, Jiang Zhonghua, etc. But I only use respectable mainstream media or academic publications, not politically motivated advocacy sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just chiming in here, the claim against Zanhe which accuses him/her of being a SPA is clearly pot calling the kettle black, given that Zanhe is a well-established editor who's been here since 2009 and is involved with a wide variety of different topics. If the accuser wants to discuss a content dispute in relation to Wikipedia policy, then they are free to do so; turning this into a personal dispute directed at a specific user is not acceptable for this talk page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Hatnote

Recently quote marks were added around "Republic of China" in the hatnote. I realize that quote marks have a legitimate use, but commonly it can also be used to indicate sarcastic or that something is illegitimate or a pretender. With that in mind, I think it's easier, simpler, and will ultimately be less controversial to simply leave it as-is, with no quote marks. hbdragon88 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Information about water supply and sanitation infrastructure

My proposal is to keep the information about water supply and sanitation infrastructure with the existing heading on infrastructure (but someone deleted it, saying it's part of environmental issues). It is not an environmental issue, it is about providing people with infrastructure and services. Since this page already has a section in infrastructure, it fits very well. If needed, it could be shortened. See also related discussion the talk page of the WikiProject Countries template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Suggestion:_Add_infrastructure_to_the_template and also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philg88#Your_edits_about_water_supply_and_sanitation_on_the_China_page EvMsmile (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The section has been removed by three different editors, [12] by Moxy, [13] by 小梨花 and [14] by myself, so there is consensus that is is not needed, though for varying reasons. For myself it is primarily an environmental issue and one of many, and the section was both misplaced and gave undue weight to the topic in this summary article, so does not belong.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's three people who removed it versus 3 people who put it in (see here by User:Philg88 and before that by User:Mll mitch and myself), so I don't see how this is "consensus" already? I'd rather think we should have a proper discussion here before declaring this as closed. Access to water supply is NOT an environmental issue. What is your argument for saying it is an "environmental issue"? Access to sanitation in itself is also not an environmental issue. See here about Millennium Development Goals which explains why access is important for people. - In which sense is the section "misplaced"? Where should it be rather placed? And if it gives "undue weight" then how else should it be incluced? EvMsmile (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On content, the overlap of that section and the original article was clear. No matter what issue it is, it has been adequately mentioned, including its background, its status and the infrastructural growth, It does not need another with a style like a government report or thesis of vague statements and sweeping generalizes (like "sth. pose great challenges" and "increased...increased...increased...and increased..."). Perhaps some substantive contents like South–North Water Transfer Project is more suitable for this article.小梨花 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Where has it been adequately mentioned already? Like the JMP access figures, they have not been mentioned yet? And just to make sure everyone is on the same page, this is the part that I would like to see added (of course the wording can be improved, e.g. if the word "increased" is repeated too often!)

+++++++

Main article: Water supply and sanitation in China

Water supply and sanitation sector is undergoing a massive transition while facing numerous challenges such as rapid urbanization, a widening gap between rich and poor as well as urban and rural areas. Water scarcity, contamination, and pollution in China also pose great challenges.<ref name="Chinatocleanuppollutedlake">BBC News. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7065095.stm China to clean up polluted lake]. 27 October 2007.</ref><ref name="Water Scarcity in China">{{cite web |url = http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d6f69ea-bc73-11e2-b344-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TMae0Kjs|title = China: High and dry: Water shortages put a brake on economic growth|publisher = Financial Times|date = May 14, 2013|accessdate = 2013-05-15|author = Hook, Leslie}}</ref>

Much has been achieved during the past decades in terms of increased access to services, increased municipal wastewater treatment, the creation of water and wastewater utilities that are legally and financially separated from local governments, and increasing cost recovery as part of the transformation of the Chinese economy to a more market-oriented system. The government quadrupled investments in the sector during the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006–10).

However, according to survey data analyzed by the Joint Monitoring Program for Water and Sanitation of WHO and UNICEF, about 100 million Chinese still did not have access to an improved water source in 2008, and about 460 million did not have access to improved sanitation. Progress in rural areas appears to lag behind what has been achieved in urban areas.<ref name="Water Scarcity in China" />

+++++++ EvMsmile (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that anyone can argue that water supply and sanitation shouldn't be included in country articles, so the question is where. Our own article on infrastructure defines it as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions". Water and sewage services fall within that gamut so that seems to be our answer.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The article has include this:

The country also has water problems. Roughly 298 million Chinese in rural areas do not have access to safe drinking water,[148] and 40% of China's rivers had been polluted by industrial and agricultural waste by late 2011. In 2011, the Chinese government announced plans to invest four trillion yuan (US$618.55 billion) in water infrastructure and desalination projects over a ten-year period, and to complete construction of a flood prevention and anti-drought system by 2020.[150][158]

Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. This is a consensus of Wikipedia, about this we could take a cue from some featured country articles such as Germany or India. So we could edit something different, concise and clear to the point with real data and references, such as wastewater treatment ratio, the number of wastewater treatment plants, the number of reservoirs, per capita possession of water resources, number of serious water shortage city and South–North Water Transfer Project.小梨花 (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what User:Philg88 said. About this sentence that is currently in the article "Roughly 298 million Chinese in rural areas do not have access to safe drinking water,[148]" - it is actually in the wrong location, namely under environmental issues, but it is not an environmental issue whether someone has access to drinking water, it's an infrastructure and service issue. Also the reference given there is not great. I had added a much better one, data from UNICEF and WHO from 2015 - therefore it makes no sense to me why that old sentence and old reference is allowed to stay in but my new statement and better reference is not. I would propose to carefully weed through the section on "environmental issues" and take those things out of there that actually concern infrastructure and then put them where they belong, i.e. in the new section on water supply and sanitation infrastructure. As the article already has a section on infrastructure, I really don't see the reason for the great resistance to say something about water and sanitation infrastructure there, too. And yes, it could be built up with new information about sewage treatment plants, which is probably already included here: water supply and sanitation in China, so it would not need to be repeated, but mentioned briefly and otherwise the reader should be referred across to the other article (which of course should also then be updated if needed). And yes, the same logic does apply to other country articles, too.EvMsmile (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think (hope) that I've come up with a good compromise now: I have added a section called "other infrastructure" and put very basic information about water supply access and sanitation there, together with Wikilinks. I think this is now good to remind people that there is more infrastructure than IT and tranport but without giving undue weight to water supply and sanitation. I hope this can serve as a starting point for other editors to contribute more. EvMsmile (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

Gini_year = 2014

| Gini_change = | Gini = 46.9 | Gini_ref = <ref name=PNAS>{{cite web |url=http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2015_statistical_annex.pdf |format=PDF |title=2015 Human Development Report Summary |date=2015 |accessdate=14 December 2015 |publisher=United Nations Development Programme | pages=17}}</ref> | Gini_rank = Noahlee (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

Antonioga (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

In section 9.3 Urbanization I'd change the second sentence data:

"The percent of the country's population living in urban areas increased from 20% in 1990 to over 50% in 2014."

Actually, this are the real urban percentages given by the National Bureau of Statistics of China: 19.39% (1980), 26.41% (1990), 54.77% (2014). Source: http://data.stats.gov.cn/english/easyquery.htm?cn=C01

So, I'd leave the above sentence like this: "The percent of the country's population living in urban areas increased from 20% in 1980 to over 50% in 2014." Changing 1990 to 1980 and the souce of the data as well.

See you

Done —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Republic of China (1912 - present)

Ref: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B Ref: http://www.mofa.gov.tw/default.html 12.12.154.125 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest removal citation 173

Citation 173 is both unnecessary and potentially controversial. The point made already has a citation and The Washington Times (as opposed to Washington Post) is not a very legitimate source of information - backed by religious interests and publishing highly editorialized content as "news." Even title of article cited "Red China's Iron Grip on Power" raises red flags as biased and inflammatory in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarlyj (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Wash Times is a legitimate source of information regardless of the religious preferences of its owners. Its statements about the iron grip of the Communist Party, and widespread corruption, are of course not permitted inside China, but they are well known facts and the rest of the world. Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest: retain #173, remove citation 172. Any particular article in the NY Times, Wash Times, or Toonerville Gazette could be a Reliable Source, depending on the topic and the nature of the information. In this case, the article cited in #173 is written by Reza Hasmath, a lecturer in Chinese Politics, University of Oxford, and is a technical but lucid discussion of four reasons why the government stays in power. The title is indeed biased and inflammatory -- "Red China"!? -- but the article itself is not.

Citation 172, on the other hand, is 1) Behind a pay wall 2) Dated 2002, and thus a dozen years out of date. 3) Superfluous.

ch (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the point about 172 being little better, but still feel some resistance to relying on a source that refers to "Red China" (though I understand the argument that the article can be legitimate from any source or with any title). Could I suggest replacing both citations with the 2012 report from the Pew Research Center (hard to argue with their legitimacy?), "Growing Concerns in China about Inequality, Corruption"? I think this provides all the same information, but from a less controversial source. Snarlyj (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

China's governing party is a legit topic but the religious beliefs of the owners of a newspaper = not a legit argument against the credentials of an established expert. Newspaper headlines are written by staff not by the RS himself. Removing such material is a POV violation. SO go ahead and ADD the Pew materials, drop 171 as too old, but let's keep the Wash. TIMES story Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me, and an actual improvement. I agree with Rjensen that the religious (or political) persuasion of a publication is not enough to disqualify a particular article as a RS, but on the other hand, the article doesn't talk much about the statement that needs to be sourced and the sentences covered by the Hasmath reference don't do justice to the material in the article. In addition, linking the Pew report gives readers information on a wider range of topics.

Looking at the whole "Government" section in relation to the article, it seems thin and incomplete in any case. Logically, a section "Government" should come before "Party." Sourcing an important article like this from old newspapers and radio broadcasts does not make Wikipedia look good! Perhaps Snarlyj could expand the section "Government" with added material from the Pew survey and some more solid references? Any political science textbook on China would be good enough. "Government" should include more than public opinion. Footnote "M" is redundant and scarcely neutral ("not a real executive like the US"?). Cheers. ch (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can definitely write a revised "Government" section. Should I then submit it under this thread or start a new discussion (or both)? Snarlyj (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy says "Go for it!." No need to submit first. If questions arise, we can discuss them. I'll add a See Main link to Government of China -- not sure why there isn't one already, so my understanding is that the section here doesn't have to be comprehensive.ch (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not change to "football is currently the most popular spectator sport in China"

Do not change to "football is currently the most popular spectator sport in China" with a reference about the number of audiences of a certain football match. There is already a Chinese reference of a 2014 survey result of General Administration of Sport showing which is the most popular spectator sport, basketball is 34.9%, while football is 10.4%.[15]

小梨花 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Already in 2014 football was far and away China's most popular spectator team : http://qz.com/222407/this-chinese-soccer-club-is-now-the-worlds-16th-most-valuable-thanks-to-alibaba/ Now ? No doubts............. http://internchina.com/football-in-china-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.233.168 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove doubled 'are spoken are spoken'

In the first paragraph of section 9.2 Languages, it says "... and Yi, are spoken are spoken across the Tibetan ...". Could someone who is able to edit the page please remove the extra 'are spoken'. 2601:646:8101:23A4:ACE6:4013:27B3:8B35 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for pointing this out. It is now fixed.

Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Flag

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

---

official and most commonly used version? proposed

currently used version in this article Official

Should we adopt or restore or (replace file) this flag with 7 February 2011 version of the flag Dannis243 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• It seems that there is no consensus for either keeping the current version or restoring the correct version, the preceding discussion was a decade ago and is not authoritative right now we need to have consensus for either keeping this or restoring the correct version. The lighter version is the official one and the one most commonly used. Also this current version being used in Wikipedia is based on original Dannis243 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Could you show both images here so we know what we're choosing between? And are there any arguments for or against either? -Darouet (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, could you please show both images so we know what we are looking at here? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think that maybe these are the options: current flag and proposed flag. The proposed flag is brighter. -Darouet (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think that the more common flag is the one you should use. If I were editing this article, I would not hesitate to put up the more common/official one. I don't know how an WP:RFC got into this. I think it is policy somewhere to use the most common or official version of something available.
• What are the differences beyond the shades of red? Don't countries usually specify what shade their flags are? What is the argument for each one? Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Is there a reason the official/more common one shouldn't be used? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• If that's the right color, we should use it. Eman235/talk 08:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The consensus was reached in 2008 does not mean that the consensus becomes invalid in 2016. You will have to start a new discussion to reach a new consensus before changing the flag files en masse. As I see now, the discussion above did not produce a consensus. Here is the official flag from the Simplified Chinese-language website of the Central Government of the PRC, and its file has been in use on Wikimedia projects since January 2008, both using the paler colours. Please discuss more before changing files. Thank you! --Shibo77 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support replacing the current flag with the proposed flag for two reasons: 1.) it is more bright and 2.) more commonly used. Meatsgains (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support 1 - It's much brighter and if it's the most commonly used one then we should probably use it here. –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement with File:Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg – I don't think an image on a government site is sufficient proof that the "neon" colors are official (assuming your source is the Hong Kong gov't site, which you seemed to be referring to here), if there is no textual statement about the exact colors that should be used. The latter does exist for other flags whose Commons files use  #ff0000 , such as Switzerland and Australia. Official specifications of the color shades of the Chinese flag need not exist at all. Some evidence or explanation for your claim that the bright colors are more common would also be welcome. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016 "China map of Köppen climate classification"

Section 3.2 Geography/Landscape and climate

The "China map of Köppen climate classification" is missing four colours in the legend. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_map_of_K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification.svg)

The missing colours (different shades of green) are" Cwa: Temperate/mesothermal climates - Dry Winter - Hot Summer Cfa: Temperate/mesothermal climates - Without dry season - Hot Summer Cwb: Temperate/mesothermal climates - Dry Winter - Warm Summer Cfb: Temperate/mesothermal climates - Without dry season - Warm Summer

The name and classification of the four colours are from the Wikipedia page "Köppen climate classification" and the map of the world that is shown on this page.

184.227.248.38 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page China. A new version of the image would need to be made and uploaded. I suggest asking Ali Zifan about it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

first dynasty mentioned in the infobox

Should it be? Most scholars believe it was legendary, so I think a different formative date should be mentioned. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, [[]] says October 3, 2333 BC 107.72.98.181 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. All are national legends which cannot be verified reasonably. South korea's is particularly egregious.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's just outrageous to remove something mentioned in old sources while it's still being disputed. It's as if you already decided only because Western scholars like to deny everything about China. How can you be sure anything in the past happened? People investigate and always find new sources supporting or debunking historical events. But until then they are accepted as facts and become common knowledge among people. And the way you mention South Korea proves your unscientific approach to this matter. You are basically grouping all Asians together and calling them a bunch of liars. --2.245.215.24 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh... guys

I'm not saying we should use a Chinese map with Taiwan and the South China Sea shown as integral parts of the PRC, but it is bizarre that the present maps on this page acknowledge the claims to areas of India that haven't been an issue since the '60s while omitting the claims to the South China Sea and Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands that are potential flashpoints for war in the intermediate future. I'm not sure it's legal in China these days to sell a map of the country without it mentioning the nine-dash line. Thing even has its own page here. — LlywelynII 02:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What else would this be about??

The FAQ has only one question:

Why is this article about the People's Republic of China?

Because of the overwhelming usage of "China" to refer to the People's Republic of China in both Chinese and English languages; we use the common name to title our articles.

What else would people expect this article to be about?? The whole of East Asia?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan considers itself the "Republic of China". Both countries claim ownership of each others territories.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We should probably clarify the FAQ a little bit to avoid confusion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You should probably also mention the many, many arguments and consensus from the move arguments and talk pages in the archives to avoid comments like the one above. — LlywelynII 03:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Because "China"—like Zhongguo—covers a lot more ground than just the PRC, which wasn't the "official" China into the '70s. See the many, many, many arguments about this in the archives. Personally, I'd expect it to be about the entirety of Chinese history and culture, which is what it used to be. That said, we've got policy and it's definitely more common to cut "PRC" down to "China" in general English. — LlywelynII 02:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Literal Meaning of China/中国/Zhongguo

"中国" tends to be translated as "the Middle Kingdom", I think a better translation would be "the Central Realm".

1. "Middle" does not imply the same level of importance that China historically and currently considered itself.
2. "Kingdom", China for a long period of its history was governed by emperors, "kingdom" seems like a misnomer. There are other translations offered by this page like "country" and "nation". "国" like the oftenly and inaccurately translated German concept "Reich" to me means "Realm." "Country" and "nation" to me refers to the land or the people and does not imply the governmental and authority structure implied by "国". "Realm" conveys the concept of the government, the land, the people, and an abstract value of that character. "Realm" also is not limited to kings or emperors. "State" can be a more mild translation of "国", but it still does not convey the same level of authority as "realm" It is similar to the confusion of the way how people translate "Reich" as "Empire" instead of "Kasierreich" as "Empire"

A. Kindly sign your posts.

B. That's all very considered (though German has nothing to do with the topic), but none of it changes the fact that "Central Realm" is a neologism used by no one and understood only by yourself and "Middle Kingdom" is a COMMON Name of China in ENGLISH.

C. Not that it matters, but Buddha taught the "Middle Way" and China's idea of itself was not that it was "central" among the nations but that it was the only civilized nation surrounded by the barbarian extremities of cold, mountain, jungle, and ocean wastes. "Middle Kingdom", while archaizing and orientalizing, is a much better translation than yours philosophically; "central" or "middle state" is similarly better when glossing the meaning of the characters, but needs cites. — LlywelynII 02:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Found one. Moving the literary and approximate "Middle Kingdom" to the #Names section. — LlywelynII 03:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Odd for a major page but it's currently using both forms and there's nothing in the archives about it. This edit established the usage of the article as BC/AD and it continued to be used for much less stubby forms as well. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. One thing that occasionally pops up is the idea that since 公 means "public" 公元 must mean "common era" in translation. T'ain't true. English.gov.cn has no problem using the translation BC/AD; they understand it's dating from some event in Western culture they don't necessarily care about, but they understand it's a translation into another language and that the phrasing doesn't change the substance. Moreover, BCE involves an extra letter for no reason and that's 麻烦 any way you look at it. — LlywelynII 05:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, see the same links for the establishment and use of American English on this page (WP:ENGVAR). In 2015, someone tagged the article with a British template, but—having gone through the archives—no one ever talked about it or established any evidence or consensus here. From the American forms already used before I got here, no one's been paying attention since either, so I'll just clean that up as well. — LlywelynII 07:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2016

The article has been vandalized. "China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), located in Asia, is the world's dirtiest, evilest country, with a population of over 1.381 billion."

The article states "dirtiest, evilest country" which is entirely opinion, while also providing absolutely no reference or evidence to support this outrageous claim.

Please replace it simply with "China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), located in Asia, is the world's most populous country, with a population of over 1.381 billion."

Thank you.

Epicdragon44 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That was vandalism and has been fixed. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

Aksai chin though it is claimed by China it is also claimed by India so it should be termed as a disputed state as of now. It should be marked with light green colour on the map as well. Harshad16 (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If you refer to File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg, consider contacting the user who uploaded the file to the commons. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2016

Hong Kong is not China

Housebravin (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done As clearly, stated Hong Kong and Macau are "mostly self-governing special administrative regions" - the full title of Hong Kong is currently the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303053302/http://purl.pt:80/435 to http://purl.pt/435
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib775/aib775n.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214120404/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sinodefence.com/army/default.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hongqi9.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/16/content_23691.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6X0w2JWPr?url=http://suen.educ.psu.edu/~hsuen/pubs/KEDI%20Yu.pdf to http://suen.educ.psu.edu/~hsuen/pubs/KEDI%20Yu.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It appeared some new info

this page request updating because are more info about china and i can see this page is blank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silviu200530 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Christians in China

The estimated number of 2,3 % is far from reality.

Pew Reasearch Center gives an estimate of 67 million, or 5 % of the population, as of 2010 (this is more than double, of the source used in the article). http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/ChristianityAppendixC.pdf

While other estimates, as from billionbibles.org, give numbers far above 100 millions. http://www.billionbibles.org/china/how-many-christians-in-china.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.162.221 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That's covered in more detail at Christianity_in_China#Mainland_China. This article is more general in its coverage. The Pew resource is certainly reliable, but is a year older than the current source in this article. Billionbibles.org's number is an estimate (not a scientific analysis) from a partisan source that would want to piously overestimate in order to encourage missionary work. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So the Pew resource should be mentioned as a sidenote. 1 % is not little in China, and being a year older - I don't think there has been a decline, after any reports I hear. When it comes to missionary work, I would say it's more encouraged by small numbers, than big (most growth in China doesn't come from outside missionary work, which was in larger degree before Mao). So that would be your opinion about billionbibles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.162.221 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:China (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This move request has been closed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Keep the current title per WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 17:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

---

China → People's Republic of China – China may be a short form name, but this article should be renamed to the People's Republic of China in contrast to the Republic of China that controls Taiwan. We know both entities claim to be the legitimate government of China. Wrestlingring (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose as my default position. The relevant subsection of the article titles policy is WP:COMMONNAME, which states that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. In this case, prior discussion has found that the most frequent usage of the term "China" is the People's Republic of China. This consensus is also restated in this talk page's FAQ page. Since the initiator of this discussion has not advanced any argument along the lines of COMMONNAME, I have to oppose on the basis of prior consensus. Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To respond to a few comments below that have brought up WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE: I think COMMONNAME and UNDUE go hand in hand. In assigning the proper weight to viewpoints, we look at their prominence in reliable sources. Here, prior consensus has determined that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use "China" to mean the People's Republic of China. Unless evidence can be provided to oppose this, we would actually be violating NPOV if we assign the same weight to the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China for the term "China". Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree! The relevant policies are WP:POVTITLE (within WP:TITLE) and WP:POVNAMING (within WP:NPOV). Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support biasing this term to either entity is bound to be not complying with NPOV. The article about China in a politically neutral context should be restored at the China title, as is the case on the Chinese Wikipedia and dozens of others. English-language reliable sources don't always use this term to refer to the political entity, for example, the term "Chinese culture" does not necessarily refer to that of the PRC, if this is retained, I'd support moving North Korea to the Korea title just for consistency. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Chinese culture" is no more separate from China (ie the PRC) than French culture is separate from France, so that argument is completely invalid.--Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Chinese Wikipedia's article, 中國 (Zhongguo) seems to cover it. The PRC and ROC on the same Wikipedia are just two articles. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike the Korean states, only one "China" is a member of the United Nations. Taiwan maintains diplomatic relations with about a dozen countries; over 100+ countries do not maintain any sort of official relations, whether diplomatic, at all. This debate would be more contentious if the Republic of China's WP:COMMONNAME were its official name. Because it is not, and for reasons stated in the prior consensus, I oppose the move. GEORGIAN^{Go Dogs} 04:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy close - this isn't going to pass and the tag doesn't need to be on the article for 7 days. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's 2016 not 1949 and we should not go back to the complete mess the articles were in for years by following what had long been a minority POV. Timrollpickering 12:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support – There are two current entities that lay claim to all of China, and the present situation results in oversimplification. China and the PRC are not one and the same. China is ancient country, the PRC only one of the two governments that exist in China today. Why is the PRC being given WP:UNDUE weight as the only government of China? RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close – ***This discussion has been held before*** (in August 2011), and after a month of detailed deliberations it resulted in a move from "People's Republic of China" to "China" (see Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011 and the statements by three different closing admins). Clincher: some may find the name "China" non-neutral, but per WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAMING, even a non-neutral name can be used as an article title if it reflects usage in "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". The archived discussion gives a long list of sources that use "China" and "Taiwan" instead of PRC and ROC. This line of reasoning anticipates the WP:NPOV objection to WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore invalidates all the "Support" arguments that have been made so far. The 2011 decision could be overturned only if the proponents of the move can prove that usage in reliable sources has shifted since 2011, a prospect I find extremely unlikely considering the state of international affairs. Because the arguments for "People's Republic of China" were made with forceful detail in 2011 but were still rejected, and because it's unlikely that RS usage has shifted since 2011, I suggest we close this discussion quickly. Madalibi (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above, plus: the content of the article, starting with "Pre-history" would make no sense for an article titled PRC.ch (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's simply no reason at this time to make the move - unlike the Ireland or Macedonia situation, the PRC is the clear primary topic for "China".  ONR  (talk)  13:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything Madalibi posted.--Khajidha (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - What has changed since the last discussion? If the answer is 'nothing', an original and cogent argument is required. William Avery (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—"[b]ecause of the overwhelming usage of 'China' to refer to the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both Chinese and English languages; we use the common name to title our articles". —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per clear WP:COMMONAME. --T*U (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Just no. You may not like it from a political viewpoint, and heck knows neither do I, but the common name of the country is China, regardless of the governing body in charge of "it". I'm not too familiar with the guidelines on issues such as these but from what I have seen here they all point towards keeping this page at its current title. The only other argument I see being put forward for serious consideration is that the title is confusing because of the existence of other entities using the name "China" - going by this logic, the name of Taiwan would also need to be changed.--Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• oppose. The request makes no sense as it is. It needs remaining to contrast the People’s Republic of China with the Republic of China? If anything renaming one or both would just lead to more confusion, as these names are not as widely known as the current names, and are so similar that they are easily confused. That may be in part why people started calling the ROC “Taiwan”, for clarity. This country has of course been known as “China” for a very long time, it’s the common name, and so by far the best thing to call the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really, have you read the 中國 (Zhongguo) article on the Chinese Wikipedia? Taiwan and Mainland China are only One China. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm, doesn't undermine the fact "China" is the most common name (by a country mile) for the sovereign entity currently occupying the aforementioned name on Wikipedia. "Zhonggua/o" is the mandarin name for China. It should be noted that the Zh wiki is blocked in the PRC, which I found out to my determent when I was last in China...the zh wiki is dominated by Hong Konger's, Taiwanese and Chinese expat editors. (I even raised this issue with Jimbo Wales and received a response, he was hopeful over the prospects of the Zh wiki being unblocked in China. I wasn't too optimistic, I think you can guess why) --Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This is about the common name of the country in English. This is the English Wikipedia. What other Wikipedias say is irrelevant, if it disagrees with English usage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • This^. I wasn't entirely sure what our IP editor was trying to convey in their last message, but if they're trying to suggest the Zh wiki is somehow more "neutral" then I am inclined to disagree. However, to a Chinese speaking audience it may make more sense to have "China" at a disambiguation page, but what the Zh wiki does is of course pretty much immaterial to this discussion. --Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overwhelmingly the common name for the country, whatever the legal niceties. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The PRC is typically the entity that comes to mind whenever "China" is brought up. The Legal status of the ROC typically has little impact on that discussion. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 23:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Because the People's Republic of China ONLY controls 22 Provinces, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Hainan, I strongly support renaming the entire article to the PRC since it's one of the two entities that govern the Mainland. Any additional questions? 135.23.144.153 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  Taiwan isn't considered part of the mainland. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  "22 Provinces, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Hainan" That's one heck of an "only". --Khajidha (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

This is just a heads up that another user has started a discussion to merge this page into China (cultural region) at Talk:China (cultural region). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Rchabes (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
::Hi! can you give me any advice for improving this artical?--Rchabes (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

XIA dynasty correction in introduction

In the introduction, the Xia dynasty was called a dynasty of China. However, the Xia's existence hasn't been confirmed by history and archeology, so it would be for the best if mythical status would be noted in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.113.23 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added "semi-legendary" to the lead, as its historicity is accepted by some scholars but questioned by others. Few scholars consider it completely mythical. -Zanhe (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion now closed with no change. Can we please get a moritorium on China-related article moves? oknazevad (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Superpower

The article should mention that China has now surpassed the United States to become the world superpower. (31.50.130.128 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Facts like these need to backed up by credible sources. Do you have any? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that such things as having a larger military, and larger economy could be considered sources. Also, they seem to be having an increasing power over the affairs of other countries. Socialistboyy (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC) socialistboyy

Convert PROC redirect into article?

Since "China" can't be moved back into "People's Republic of China", shall the redirect "People's Republic of China" become an article instead? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That specific redirect shouldn't since this article would be a primary topic for that title. A otherwise disambiguated one might be, depending on the topic you had in mind, although there's likely better titled articles covering it already. CMD (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Then what shall we do with growing number of China vs. PROC and Taiwan vs. ROC discussions? I tried raising it at WT:NC-ZH, but I've not yet received a reply there. I wonder whether WP:NC-ZH helps. George Ho (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

They should be discussed on those pages. Unredirecting as you propose shouldn't affect those either way. CMD (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added some comments at WT:NC-ZH, which is the best place I think to discuss this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"Then what shall we do with growing number of China vs. PROC and Taiwan vs. ROC discussions?" Laugh at them? --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: There aren't any PROC/ROC RM discussions currently. The proposal to update WP:NC-ZH is still open. --George Ho (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Dear all. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2017

Please add Heilmann, Sebastian (2017) (editor) China's Political System (editor). Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1442277342 to "Further Reading", because this book provides one of the most comprehensive existing guides to China's political system. It is a must read when dealing with Chinese politics. Baicai1234 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A number of changes

To completely mirror the article in the Chinese Wikipedia, this article needs an major overhaul and the article needs to change it name back to the "People's Republic of China" since there are Two Chinas exist. Supreme Dragon (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. Read the previous move discussions to see why title is the way it is.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as has been pointed out repeatedly the consensus is for the current name. As for what it is called in other languages, this is the English WP, we use the name of the country in English. No one WP is 'correct' so all other languages have to be based on it. Each WP has its own policies, guidelines and practices, and decides such matters independently.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)