Talk:People's Republic of China

; Chronological Archives
	Old; China 1, China 2, China 3, China 4, China 5, China 6; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8;

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People's Republic of China article.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

This is not a forum for general discussion of People's Republic of China. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

People's Republic of China has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as GA-Class.

People's Republic of China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

People's Republic of China has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 15, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 23, 2006	Featured article review	Kept
March 15, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
March 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 14, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current Status: Former featured article, current good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject China (Rated GA-Class)

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

GA

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Possible POV problem i Culture section

Have anyone noticed the sentence One example being Chinese character simplification, since traditional characters were blamed for the country's low literacy rate at the time. Which is used as an example of things which happen in the cultural revolution. When reading the whole section you get the impression that simplication was at bad thing destroying traditionel chinese culture but the article Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters does not take it as a fact that simplification was a bad thing so I think that the sentence should be removed. Kinamand (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the aforementioned sentences. --Shibo77 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a partial restore, basically reworded it. It would violate POV if you didn't mention at least some of this. Benjwong (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of cause the article can mention that the simplification of the chinese letters was introduced in the Peoples Republic of China but try to read the context:

...were altered to conform to government policies and propaganda at the time. One example was the altering of traditional characters to simplified characters on the mainland.

and then from the article Simplified_Chinese_character:

In the 1930s and 1940s, discussions on character simplification took place within the Kuomintang government, and a large number of Chinese intellectuals and writers have long maintained that character simplification would help boost literacy in China. In many world languages, literacy has been promoted as a justification for spelling reforms.

Which means that it was not a communist thing to introduce simplification. It would have happen also if Kuomintang had won the war. And it was not a result of communism policy or propaganda but from a believe that it would help boost literacy in China. Kinamand (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Map (again)

According to the consesus reached at Talk:People's_Republic_of_China/Archive_7#Map, the map should not include claimed but not controlled areas. Someone changed the map so I'm changing back. Uirauna (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the map in the infobox should only contain controlled territories, it seems to me that the PRC's territorial claims are shown somewhere in the article, just as they are in the Republic of China article. TastyCakes (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm never mind it seems to be in the administrative divisions section. TastyCakes (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The concensus was reached half a year ago when the orthographic maps hadn't been created, the concensus relates to a different map. Since then arguments made during that concensus of other infobox maps not depicting claimed but not administered areas had changed as new infobox maps had been made using orthogrphic projections instead of Robinsons with claimed but not administered areas in a different shade of green. Compare File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg (People's Republic of China) and File:India (orthographic projection).svg (India). --Shibo77 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the gist of the argument still stands: the area claimed by the ROC is not included on their infobox map, so that of the PRC shouldn't be either. TastyCakes (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not showing claimed areas seems slightly POV to me. Wikipedia is basically saying "this is where the PRC is", and it shouldn't, it should say "this is where the PRC says the PRC is, but this is where the PRC actually has control over". --Joowwww (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:TastyCakes, I don't think the Republic of China actively claims mainland China, Mongolia and other "inherent territories". Furthermore, even in its constitution, what is meant by its "inherent territories" is not defined. Similarly, an infobox map for Argentina should have the Malvinas (Falklands) in a lighter shade of green as it is actively claimed by Argentina and Argentine Antarctica in grey as claim is suspended per the Antarctic Treaty to which Argentina is a signatory. The current situation (after your reversion), is that the infobox map for China does not show claimed but not administered territories and yet the infobox map for India does. Its map was actually altered by me due to the exact same concern that originally the infobox map for China depicted claimed but not administered territories but the one for India did not. Now it seems to have reversed as User:Uirauna claimed that a neutral point-of-view means that claimed but not administered territories should not be shown at all. The following is a link to the previous discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard which, according to my understanding, seemed to have reached the concensus that the Indian map should be changed to depict claimed but not administered territories in a lighter shade of green: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_3#ATTENTION_ALL:_Map_of_India. --Shibo77 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I note, though, that the Falklands are not in Argentina's infobox. Joowww, I think I would say it the other way around: these are the undisputed areas of the PRC. Beyond that requires some degree of discussion that almost certainly goes beyond the scope of the infobox. I note in India's article there is light green on the map, but it is not clear what this is referring to... It appears to be the areas disputed areas with Pakistan, not China. I think there has probably been a lot of talk about this in the past, are there no precedents/standards for the issue in general and China in particular? TastyCakes (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict, my English is bad so I tend to type slow. The Indian map shows all disputed areas in a lighter shade of green, both with Pakistan and with China, (their disputes with Bangladesh and Nepal seemed too small to render). The newer orthographic maps replaced older Robinson projections both white-grey-green scheme .png/.svgs and blue-tan-red scheme .svgs. If I remember correctly an orthographic .svg map for Argentina was made showing the Malvinas (Falklands) in a lighter shade of green, however that was either deleted or reverted. I would be happy to make a temporary orthographic .svg infobox map for Argentina with the Malvinas (Falklands) in a lighter shade of green. I agree with User:Joowwww, however my argument is that by using different colour schemes, we can depict that a dark green area has a boundary status different from that of a light green area which also has a boundary status different from that of a grey area. By showing all claimed but not administered areas grey, it would seem to me that one is equating far off grey areas such as Iran as having a similar status in regards to the nation's territory as a claimed one such as South Tibet. I'd rather think that this method would only provide more information and decrease edit conflicts in that many editors would say that the line of actual control does not equal national boundaries, and yet more editors would say that claimed but not administered territories cannot be equated with actual sovereign territories of that nation, thus by using a simple grey-light green-dark green three colour scheme solution, this would not only provide more information to Wikipedia's users, but also satisfy more editor's points-of-view. --Shibo77 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I am less sure of my position than I was at the beginning of this conversation. I've left a question at the help desk asking for input, but I'm not sure anymore what should be included. Are you sure about what you're saying in the ROC, that they "don't really" claim the rest of China? TastyCakes (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is only my understanding, sorry if I am mistaken. My understanding is that the Republic of China has not formally renounced sovereignty over those areas, as doing so would be difficult (amending or rewritting the constitution and threats from the mainland, etc.), which in my understanding means that claims over these areas are suspended but sovereignty over them has not been renounced (at least not formally in the legal political sense) and that the main problem (Taiwan Problem) is non-recognition of the legitimacy of an entire state (the People's Republic of China and perhaps Mongolia) as a result of the Chinese Civil War and other factors, this is a different matter from an active territorial dispute or territorial claim. In short, I believe the claim is suspended (pending a solution to the main Taiwan Problem of cross-strait relations), and therefore treated as grey in an infobox map. --Shibo77 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So what is the concensus here? --Shibo77 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not showing Taiwan is extremely POV and is in gross violation of NPOV. The UN and the majority of the world recognises PRChina's sovereignty over Taiwan, only 23 countries (most of which are Banana Republics) do not recognise PRChina's sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan should be coloured in light green as it was before, this is the most neutral solution IMHO. Ijanderson (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's news to me... Source? TastyCakes (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, and this (albeit PRC) article where Ban Ki-Moon reiterates that there is only one China according to the UN. --Joowwww (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So the US and Japan, say, recognize the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan? TastyCakes (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The US and Japan do not accept PRC claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Instead they "acknowledge" PRC claims. The language was chosen carefully to mollify China without having to agree with China's claims.

It is not POV at all to state the situation as it is - the PRC does not control Taiwan. Wikipedia is supposed to describe things as they are, not as they should be and not as some group or institution says it should be. The demonstrable objective fact is that the PRC does not control Taiwan. Whether or not the PRC should control Taiwan is POV. The claims that the PRC makes that it should control Taiwan are the PRC's POV. Readin (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just changed the map to the orthographic one, but later found dispute here. The map in the info box should show the territory of PRC, including not only areas actually controled but also areas claimed by PRC. It would be biased if either of them is neglected or overstated. The orthographic map clearly depicts these two with different colors, and I think it is precise and less confusing comparing to the previouos one. --MtBell (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no answer to my question at the help desk. Consequently, I don't know if there is a convention used across Wikipedia. I think there are good arguments for both sides, but if it comes to a vote, I still vote for "controlled territory" being shown in the locater map and the claimed territory thoroughly demonstrated in a later section. TastyCakes (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Any one noticed File:People's_Republic_of_China_(no_claimed_territories).svg is a wrong map? Please pay attention to the line east of Bhutan. I replaced it with the original one File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg, which illustrates both areas controled and claimed by China. --MtBell (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please compare these two maps. File:People's_Republic_of_China_(no_claimed_territories).svg is incorrect: there is an unnecessary border line near Bhutan. I cannot understand why the user Onopearls prefers a map with such an obvious mistake. --MtBell (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's showing South Tibet as an independent country. The map should not be used at all until that line is removed. --Joowwww (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day the UN officially recognises PRChina sovereignty over the Island of Taiwan regardless if there is a de fact independent state there or not, so to not reflect that the UN recognises PRChina sovereignty over Taiwan as well as PRChina's legitimate claim over the island would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Living in Poverty

__________________________________________________\

Hello I am doing some research on China and I came across this statement under economy section..

"Today, about 10% of the Chinese population (down from 64% in 1978) live below the poverty line of US$1 per day (PPP) while life expectancy has dramatically increased to 73 years. "

10% of population is under poverty line? That is all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that is probably the figure for living under 1 US dollar per day according to Wikipedia's List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty. 10% of China's population is around 130 million, which is a lot of people! --Shibo77 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Does China have its own definition of poverty line? What dollar amount to they place it at? Fuzbaby (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagon annual military report on China

I feel that the report is a very important paper, any discussion? Arilang ^talk 07:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How is your above question relevant to improving the article? --Joowwww (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC will have to interact with USA somehow, be it military, politic or commerce, moreover, they treat each other as military rivals. Arilang ^talk 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So its relevance is not sourced? Try find any summary article from reliable source whose scope is PRC (not just PRC military in 2009) that mention this report.--Skyfiler (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In describing the PRC we describe its military, to describe its military we use sources about its military. We can use information from sources about "just PRC military," though I am not saying that I think we should necessarily mention this year's Pentagon report. I am just once again responding to the most recent repetition of a spurious definition of relevance. Chedorlaomer (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should keep this, I will keep it straight! a response from Pentagon is not important enough to put it on the front page, it suppose to be a page of simplicity and short paragraphs describing the topic. If some are interested then they would go to the military page for deep details. move it to sub page. --Lennlin (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This article keeps having WP:Summary style issues. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not make sense to take assessment from 1 country to post on this article. At least take it from the UN. This part is getting removed. Benjwong (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tank man picture

I was told here, by an admin on the Chinese wikipedia, that using this pic is a violation of the fair use rationale (which specifically covers all things that are a critical discussion relating to the PRC.) See here for the fair use rationales. I believe that it is acceptable to use it, as the happenings of the demonstrations were abusive of civil rights, and this picture depicts said demonstrations. Thanks, Ono (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time, Please try to post over on the Chinese Wikipedia instead of the English Wikipedia. South Bay (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Unacceptable usage of fair use image, line 5, "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image) " Use of Tianasquare.jpg in the article PRC is unacceptable because Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 has its own article. The fair use statements in the image page are against the guideline. And Ono, regarding your editing summary "...are you just removing it due to the negative nature in which is depicts the PRC?" this is assuming bad faith of Wmrwiki's removal, please avoid it later. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Communist dictatorship?

Johnys88 continues to change it, without offering a irrefutable source. I personally beleive it is POV, when the nation doesnt describe itself as a dictatorship. Is there any reason to change it? Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One guy's master's thesis is not a sufficiently good source for this. "Single-party communist state", as we current have, is a sufficient description. I'd personally add oligarchy, but that's kinda implied by "single-party" and I don't see any good sources for it. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dictatorship of the proletariat

In the pre-Deng Xiaoping era PRC was under Dictatorship of the proletariat 無產階级專政, why this article do not mention this vital fact in the politic section? Arilang ^talk 11:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because the new constitution (the one made after Mao's death) explicitely removed any mention of a dictatorship. It currently stands as a single party democractic socialist state. If you wanted to add your sourced information to the history section, I wouldnt be against it. However, I am feverently against adding "communist dictatorship" to the opening paragraph. Thanks, Ono (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There were many political movements conducted by the Maoist government during pre-Deng era, movements such as Land reform(殺土豪,分田地), nationalization(公私合營), Anti-Rightist Movement (反右派運動) People's commune (人民公社), Great Chinese Famine(大飢荒), exporting of world revolution(解放全人類), went to a war(抗美援朝), all these major topics are somehow missing from the article, resulting in a ill-informed and distorted article. Arilang ^talk 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is your belief, you are, as I and several other editors have stated before, welcomed to add well sourced reliable information to the article. I would take note to the fact that you tend to add either biased or POV subjects to this article (see the previous discussions.) But please, if you have reliable sources that speak of the subjects you mentioned above, and they are absolutely needed in this article to make it complete, then add it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC should be treated as any other China related history article such as Tang Dynasty, Song Ming, Qing, even though it has only been 60 years, compared to 300 plus years long history of past dynasty. It is not fair to readers if we exclude all the pre-Deng era history, as if that part of history had never ever happened, like I said before, wikipedia has not been bought by the Chinese department of propaganda, yet. Arilang ^talk 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel that any hopes of attempting to participate in a productive dialogue with you has failed. I, and several other editors for that matter, have said several times that you are welcomed to add the info, so long as it is sourced by a reliable source and is completely relevent to this article.

PRC should be treated as any other China related history article such as Tang Dynasty, Song Ming, Qing, even though it has only been 60 years. I must disagree with you on that. We cannot treat the PRC article in the same manner as the former dynasties of china for several reasons. The most prominent is, of course, the fact that the People's Republic of China is a current entity, whereas the others are all former entities that have a definite beginning and end, with all their history and information about them not subject to change with current events. We must treat the PRC as we would any article over a modern state, that is with an objective eye, ready to edit it as time progresses and information about China changes. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how all those events can fit into the article. Maybe slowly move things into history of the People's Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 人民民主專政 Democratic dictatorship

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

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

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

It's not left out. The infobox lists the full "People's democratic dictatorship". --Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Dictatorship is not controversial

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

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

Teen, I am happy you join in the discussion.

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

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

[edit] Chinese Constitution

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

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

[edit] Phrase was invented by Mao

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

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

You are trying to put words in my mouth. Also, I dont know what 反革命反社会主義 is, nor do I care that i would have been subjected to 死刑 several decades ago. Its a different time now ;).

I am saying that you must find a reliable source, not a search engine, that says that china is without a doubt currently a dictatorship, because, while it may have been one at one time, but by all recent accounts, it isnt one anymore. It is ruled, as teeninvestor said, by a single party state. If you can find an article, preferably from the PRC government, that says that they are, as of May 08, 2009, a dictatorship, feel free to add it back. However, calling a nation a dictatorship in an article that is accessed by thousands if not more a day without proof would be considered a controversial step. Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What difference does it make, if an article is read by one person per day, or by 10,000 persons per day to the editors? None. We editors should not miss out vital info from sources such as www.people.com, which is the official CCP web site, and we should treat the Chinese Constitution with respect, that is all I am saying. And people's democratic dictatorship comes from nowhere else other than the Chinese Constitution, how much more reliable you want it to be? Arilang ^talk 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You offer all of these sources, yet you didnt put them in when you added "dictatorship" to the article under government form. So until you provided them, we couldn't take your word for it. And, just a thought, this is the English language article. I doubt you are going to find a lot of people that can read Chinese. Would it be possible to find an English version? Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just add People's democratic dictatorship to the lead paragraph, with inline citation of www.people.com article. Arilang ^talk 06:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Arg, You really hate PRC huh? Dictatorship is often one-man power that if not most of time comes with control of the military, PRC is currently a One Party State, the source you are providing are confusing. No offense, but you're acting worst than CCP supporters here --Lennlin (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Really there is no such things as hate or love involved. If the Chinese constitution has people's democratic dictatorship on it, isn't it our job to record it?

The first dictator of PRC is Mao. Anybody who had read Mao: The Unknown Story would come to the conclusion that Mao was one of the worst ever rulers in China's 3000 years history.
Deng Xiaoping was another dictator. When he decided to go to war with Vietnam, he said to Jimmy Carter:It is time to smack the bottom of unruly little children.
Hu Jingtao might just turn into a dictator(I am not saying he is one, yet). But then this is the problem faced by all the Absolutism regime. Arilang ^talk 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL! I suppose that you think that Shao of Eastern Han, Gaozong of Southern Song, Zhu Wen (through Tang Aidi), Guangxu and Xianfeng of Qing and Yuan Shikai were all enlightened, benevolent and successful. Face it. Mao was not a great ruler but to say he was one of the worst in China's history is disregarding just how many disasterous rulers there have been in a nation with rulership based on hereditary rule for 3000 years!Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have a personal bias on this article. You cant just declare those leaders dictators because you believe it. You can offer a source that says they were, and I can go out and find you one that says they aren't. There isn't, nor will there ever be, a consensus that says that Mao or Xiaoping were or were not dictators. Thanks, Ono (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Arg, I just have enough of this guy. YOU KNOW WHAT?? you're crazy!! You don't know that your heavily bias! Hu JinTao going to be a dictator just because of his party? Deng going into Vietnam War is a dictator? suppose every country that have been into a war are too, at least you could have said about Deng during Tienanmen massacre which i would have believe. And then here comes all the articals like Cannibalism in Modern China [[1]] & [[2]]. I hope your life doesn't live in black and white cuz your mind is. Your worst than the CCP, you killing the image of the Chinese not the CCP. I'M NOT telling you to like CCP yet I would support you to hate them actually but things you've done are too over. With that been say and done, I will accept all punishments toward me regarding this message.--Lennlin (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Update Needed

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

[edit] PRC ALSO commonly known as Mainland China

PRC ALSO commonly known as Mainland China, SEE the article of Mainland China, so it should add to the article of PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.175.55.214 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if it was properly contextualized: "(also known as mainland China in relation to Taiwan)" --Cybercobra (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mainland China is yet another poorly translated term

The correct Chinese term is 大陸, literary means Big continent

哥倫布發現新大陸 translation:Columbus discovered the New Continent (the Americas)
歐洲大陸 the European Continent
反攻大陸 popular slogan during Chiang Kai-shak's time, literary: counter offensive to reclaim the continent
大陸 is a everyday used term by residents of Hong Kong and Taiwan when refer to China, because they themself live on islands, whereas China is situated on the continent.

大陸(mainland/Big continent) definitly need to be explained in this article, because it is a fact. Arilang ^talk 13:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 神州大地

神州大地 literary: Big land that owned by Gods(Taoism believes in many Gods) is another popular name for China

[edit] 天朝大國

天朝大國 Tianchao Daguo.

天朝, literary:Celestial court, is often used in Chinese blogosphere when refer to PRC government. Arilang ^talk 14:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

These are all uncommon and/or archaic terms for China, and would definitely not be used by somebody from People's Republic of China. This section should be moved to the bottom of the page at least. In addition, China's multitude of names have already been covered in detail in Name_of_China, I think this section ought to be omitted. Aintaer (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, “大陆/大陸” is simply "mainland" or "continental". Similarly the UK and Ireland are the British/North Atlantic Isles, and the majority of Europe being named Continental or Mainland Europe ("Mainland Europe" is probably more common in languages other than English). --Shibo77 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is not a translated term, but an English language term. So there is no issue of correct translation. Kauffner (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] QUESTION AND SUGGESTION

the question is this: what does 9,671,018 km2 include? I know 9.64 includes aksai chin and etc. Also, china's figure does include territorial waters but if you look at the US page, it does. This is not fair. China should include its territorial water as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.23 (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help would be appreciated

Chinese involvement in Africa is in desperate need of help from experienced editors with a knowledge of the PRC. The creating editor has made it incredibly long and detailed. However, 99% of the page borders on illegible, as the creating editor does not speak english as a first language, or even on a professional level. So any help in copy editing, expanding some info, and moving/removing irrelevant info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 01:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

This article needs clean up, too much frivolous useless non-encyclopedic trivia in the article. South Bay (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] socialist in name only

I've said this before and I'll say it again. China is not a socialist country by any stretch of the imagination. The do not follow the principals of socialism as laid out by Marx. Capitialists like to call China socialists to use it as a straw-man. This should at least be addressed in the article. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you have any sources to back up your claims? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Readers can already infer it from the Politics and Economy sections. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Would love to help but it'd break the original research policy. :DSimonm223 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 6.1 Corporatization in Economy Section

The creation of a company, which now operates in America, along the lines and structure of a conventional American corporation is a significant development in China. Howwever, listing only one, if there are many of a similar stature, is ADVERTish. Better to list more, than delete this one, if so. Even better would be to get MORE info on Yasheng Group, and include information on how it operates in a communist system, yet has a capitalist structure. I went to Wikipedia to find this information, expecting it to already be there, researched and parsed by others, but found nothing, so started with this little bit. The entire article Yasheng Group needs more info. But clearly the existence of one such company operating in China is of value to researchers on this subject. More info would have been of value to me, and it was not on WIki. Perhaps clean up the references, which are very ADVERTish, but dont delete this info, which is certainly of value to an encyclopedia user interested in the Corporatization of the Economy in China. ChinaUpdater (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The content is of value to encyclopedia users interested in this subject. Also, perhaps someone knows of other such specific corporatization historic events in China that might be added, so as not to just mention Yasheng Group. I do not. Excluding this would be like excluding mention of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel from an article on America, saying that it is ADVERTish for Standard Oil. Similarly, there are five corporations that dominate South Korea operating almost like monopolies, but mention of this was deleted from the South Korea article, which creates a VERY misleading picture of the economy in South Korea. Mention of a company that is almost a monopoly is not necessarily POSITIVE advert. Can anyone help make the info less ADVERTish, but keep the content? Thanks. ChinaUpdater (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This group is not unique at all and I've NEVER heard of it. There are tons of companies in China that operate with "American-style" structure; in fact, almost all of them since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. That is why China is cited as a free market economy. Adding one group which is quite insignificant and ignoring others is a complete and utter attempt to advertise. There are thousands of corporations in China. Should I list them all?Teeninvestor (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. Heck... Baidu anybody?Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Should I list them all?" No, but could you list some others that are public, operating in America, and being used to control population movement as Yasheng Group is, by being given such size and monopolistic strength that people and investment are induced to be moving west, rather than east, in China? The situation is very similar to the Homestead Act in the US in intent. Leving this info out makes an innacurate picture of what is going on in China. Yasheng Group is the largest agrictultural operation in China, but others are the largest in other sectors, and it would be of interest to me if I could find an encycopedia article with the info, rather than just the adverts online. I came to Wiki to find reliable information on this, but I foung nothing. I could not find info on South Korea's monopolies either, which is very inaccurate by ommission, rather than being and Advert. Teeninvestor, could you ADD info on this topic, rather than delete it?

Yasheng Group and others are PUNY compared to most Chinese companies. PetrocHina, for example, was once worth a trillion dollars- this company is barely worth three hundred million dollars. I'll change the wording of it I guess. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Many big companies are already mentioned in economy section:

The state still dominates in strategic "pillar" industries (such as energy and heavy industries), but private enterprise (30 million private businesses)[85] now accounts for approximately 70% of China's national output, up from 1% in 1978.[86] Its stock market in Shanghai (SSE) is raising record amounts of IPOs and its benchmark Shanghai Composite index has doubled since 2005. SSE's market capitalization reached US$3 trillion in 2007 and is the world's fifth largest exchange. China now ranks 34th in the Global Competitiveness Index.[87] Twenty nine Chinese companies made the list in the 2008 Fortune Global 500.[88] Measured on market capitalization, 3 out of 10 of the world's most valuable companies are in China including #2-PetroChina, #5-China Mobile (world's most valuable telecommunications company), and #6-Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (world's most valuable bank).[89]

Teeninvestor (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Protests and Economic Reform

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