"The first leaders of the People's Republic of China were born in the old society but were influenced by the May Fourth Movement and reformist ideals. They sought to change some traditional aspects of Chinese culture, such as rural land tenure, sexism, and a Confucian education, while preserving others, such as the family structure and obedience to the state. Many observers believe that the period following 1949 is a continuation of traditional Chinese dynastic history, while others say that the CPC's rule has damaged the foundations of Chinese culture, especially through political movements such as the Cultural Revolution, where many aspects of traditional culture were labeled 'regressive and harmful' or 'vestiges of feudalism' by the regime. They further argue that many important aspects of traditional Chinese morals and culture, such as Confucianism, Chinese art, literature, and performing arts like Beijing opera, were altered to conform to government policies and communist propaganda. The institution of the Simplified Chinese orthography reform is controversial as well."

First off, sorry that I don't know the Wiki discussion format, I'm relatively new. But this paragraph definitely needs citations; who are the "many observers" mentioned in the third sentence? I wish I had the time to find these citations, but finals are approaching…

Chinese GDP(PPP) goes in U.S.A. after four years. Will you be true? If I continue an anual rate of 10% growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.146.220.31 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Would it be possible for pictures of Tiananmen or the Forbidden City be added to this article. These would certainly add to the overall quality of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.25.197 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The vote has been moved to Talk:China page Here because the discussion is not related to the People's Republic of China - Heilme 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

141.153.114.88 keeps repeatedly adding Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 to the "See also" section even though the link is already clearly mentioned in the article. I suspect he is also using his sockpuppet User:Chairman LMAO, to evade the 3RR. User:72.65.75.237 is believed to be the same user editing under a dynamic IP address [1]. Are 141.153.114.88's appropriate? --RevolverOcelotX

"Chairman LMAO" is not me. Other "see also" links appear elsewhere in the article. This is a selective, POV-pushing deletion. 141.153.114.88 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that "Chairman LMAO" is not you? Chairman LMAO (talk · contribs) have been helping you revert war in this article and the Manchukuo article. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is clearly inappropriate in the "See also" section. The other "see also" links are broad categories which is clearly China-related. The protests links are already mentioned and it is POV-pushing to redundantly add them multiple times. RevolverOcelotX

I can not provide proof that a user is not me as it is impossible to prove a negative; it is also impossible to disprove your positive assertion as you did not provide any evidence for it.

As for the dispute, you previously asserted as a reason for its removal that it is mentioned in the article already. This is not a sufficient reason, as other "see also" links appear elsewhere in it as well. The link details an event and period which is notable, important, and commonly cited and discussed in the context of the PRC and its recent history. Deletion of it is selective and betrays a sense of removing critical information. 141.153.114.88 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you using constantly changing IP address to evade the 3RR? 141.153.114.88, if you are editing in good faith, why don't you stick to one username or one IP address. Using constantly changing IP addresses counterproductive to consensus and allows you to escape accountability.

The protest link is way too specific to be in the "See also" section and has little to do with the PRC broadly. Look at the other links in the section. Except for the China link, the other links do not clearly appear in the article at all. The protest link is already clearly in the article and re-adding redundant link is POV-pushing. Broadly speaking, the protests have little to do with the PRC as a whole, its one single incident in history, if we allow that, it will allow other people to add many other single incidents into the section. RevolverOcelotX

The above is a lie put forward repeatedly by a user who refuses to acknowledge the meaning of dynamic IPs. 141.153.114.88 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 141.153.114.88's comment above, although I'd rather attribute it to simply not understanding what a dynamic IP is. -Caudax 11:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could not the Boston Tea Party be considered one single incident in history? Is it not true that one brief incident can have a profound effect on history? I believe that such an incident is clearly China-related, and would argue that it is a broad issue, for such protests will tend to influence and instigate future protests(or in some cases the lack of future protests).--Tmchk 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the protest link is already clearly mentioned in the article. It is redundant and POV-pushing to add it in another section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly states that links should only be linked once. You could also argue that the protest are not broad as the other links in the "See also" section.

Another anonymous IP address, 83.149.72.211 (talk · contribs) has just reverted once again and re-added the redundant protest link into the article again. Are 83.149.72.211's edits appropriate? RevolverOcelotX

This user continues to add the same POV diatribe involving Chinese governmental agents to the Human Rights section of the article. Access article history to see what I'm talking about.

I'm trying to keep the user at bay. I've left notes on both user talk pages in an attempt to resolve this, and will proceed through WP:DR if necessary. However, as far as this article goes, I'm up against the 3RR and not currently sure if this falls under one of the exceptions.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Joinalex left this message at my talk page:

I would view the ideals that you have constantly ovwritten mine with as being equally, if not more POV. That you don't realise this, I'd conjecture it to be blunt evidence of a lack of research on your part - something which is just a lil unbecoming of encyclopedic entries. If you wish to discuss the issue of what is appropriate to put in this section, given the proven horrific human rights abuses in China, I am willing to do so. Until then I am more than willing to continue to attempt to gather full academic references to prove this 'point of view', and to fight to keep it within the realm of reason as opposed to a vehicle of Chinese state propoganda (can countries be guilty of points of view, or are they exempt from bias?). Or at least I would be, but I got an exam tomorrow and have 2 sleep *yawn* goodnight General/Comrade chairman.

Let us please not pretend that the direct appeal for the user to refresh the page "over the next 30 seconds," so he/she can see how the Chinese government has removed Joinalex's paragraph from Wikipedia, is neither POV nor unencyclopedic. That particular element of your edit is totally over the line.

But even if we remove that part entirely, what we have left is nothing more than you totally eliminating a legitimate paragraph about recent developments and the PRC allowance of localized demonstrations. At that point, we have your one sentence (with one cited source about executions), leading right into another, far more detailed paragraph. As a showing of good faith and construction, I've added the execution factoid into the article, with the right percentage and a more comprehensive reference.

I've done all I can now to help include your contributions. However, again, the specified paragraph should not be removed, and the personal appeal is unencyclopedic.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty I the request to refresh the page is based on anecdotal beliefs I held, which were the basis for the way I dealt with editing the page, which I felt would not remain in place for more than 30 seconds. That may have been a misguided belief, and I apologise. Nonetheless I am not certain that the attention paid to this page and in particular, this topic is completely free of partisanship, however I have to concede that it would be utterly unencycolpedic and unacademic to have the page left in the state in which I edited it (please remember that I never believed it would remain in this state). I would like, however to deal now with what the page should represent.

It does not reflect reality at all to simply gloss over facticity regarding human rights abuses with purpoted developments. The scope of human rights abuses in China is gargantuan, and the fact that this is denied by the authorities there does not materially change the facts. The PRC government's viewpoint certainly does, again in an encyclopedic sense, deserve to be part of the page, as their stated opinions are a fact in that they exist. However, to summarise - cultural genocide (seriously, I don't just use the term to be melodramatic) has been practiced upon regions that have come into PRC control in recent years. Dissidents are repressed brutally, as are demonstarations by dissidentss, or, as is now happening schoolchildren. There are few limitations to the methods that are used in this repression of political, social, economic or religious freedoms, this is well documented. A dissident who had been jailed for a number of years for reporting on a widening of a river to a relative in the US was released after pressure from Amnesty international a few weeks ago. As he was walking down the street he ws attacked by an 'unknown assailant' who severed his spinal column expertly, leaving him unable to do more than move his eyelids. The shock value of this is not sufficient to justify condemning the PRC government's human right srecord, however thsi kind of behaviour has been reported again and again and again, by the media and by human rights groups, it is not part of popular knowledge, nor is it something many people care about. However it is easily verifiable fact. I would hope that this encyclipoedia cannot be blinded by the simple virtue of repeating a lie often and loudly, and will attempt to steer it towards an accurate representation of fact, at all stages discussing this with the people who have an (independant) interest in this matter.

All the best. Alex.

I understand your concerns, and do not, by any means, feel that you are outright wrong. If you feel that changes to the article are required, you are always welcome to make them in a strictly encyclopedic way. When making changes, however, please note that the two-paragraph Human Rights section is not intended to cover all available information on the subject. Due to the length of the article, it has been split into multiple subpages. As such, the article you will likely take interest in is located here: Human rights in the People's Republic of China. (Please note that it is currently protected until an edit dispute is resolved. Discussion is present on talk page.)

So once again, if you would like to edit either article's content, you are welcome to. Please simply ensure that the final product is fact-neutral (well-cited) and encyclopedic.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask those who might be interested in the subject of ethnic groups in China to weigh in on the [[Talk:Nationalities_of_China#Let.27s_try_this_again_-_Proposed_Move_and_Split.|curr

IMPORTANT! okay, so the article and alot of resources that i look at on the time in china say +8 hours. However.. a few people that i talk too inside china all say it is +7 hours there. whats going on? does anyone know?

I plan to rename this page to China. Any objections? +-+ Latouu 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think htere will be lots! There is already a China article. --Siobhan Hansa 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the other document currently talks about the Chinese civilization and should be removed to the appropriate page. I think some data on this page can be moved to the China page. +-+ Latouu 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, you'll find that you can't do that now. Because there's already an article called China, you won't be able to make the page move. Secondly, the notion that the People's Republic of China is China is still contentious, whatever some may say. There are countries that still recognize the ROC as the legitimate government of China. Perhaps more importantly, having this article, which excludes Taiwan, as China implies that Taiwan is not part of China, which is an even more contentious point. Heimstern Läufer 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some on the other page, we have been discussing it there. However they appear to be mostly political, which means they can not really be taken into account. Really all we are doing here is alingning this page with the naming conventions. I know there is going to be oposition to it but I think with any luck and some severe explaination of the reasons for moving this page to China we should get some form of agreement. --Meanie 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you keep it as the People's Republic of China, maybe have china redirect hereSteviebengiefan 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get it in IPA?Cameron Nedland 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I　just went to the Chinese Wikipedia for this page, I noticed the page was locked and there was a notice on the top, saying something like "According to Chapter 2 Article 20 of PRC's Publishing Administration Regulation, all edits from mainland China for this article, must first be approved by the relevant department of government." The regulation basically says anything related to "national security and social order" must get approved. Do you guys think we should post that same notice here? Of course not fully locking the page. --Voidvector 13:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP blocked entirely? -- Миборовский 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just in China weeks ago. I was able to access English Wikipedia most of the time. It's on and off, not continuous. --Voidvector 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need permision to publish any part of the article, not to edit. The protection on the zh:wiki page is because of a perennial content dispute. --Sumple (Talk) 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

注意：根据中華人民共和國《出版管理条例》第2章第20条的规定:

欲在中國大陸出版與此條目相關選題，必須获得有關部門許可。 参看Wikipedia:内容声明。

So yes, you need to get approval from "relevant authorities" to publish anything on "this topic". -- Миборовский 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to cut off a substantial part of it. Suggestions? -- Миборовский 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the politics, government, and economy of the People's Republic of China People's Republic of China (PRC) that currently administers mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau. It should also not be confused with the Republic of China (ROC). For the people, history, culture, civilization, and geography of China, see China.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SiobhanHansa (talk • contribs)

3 lines, still a bit too long for my taste. How about

This article is about the state known as the People's Republic of China, which should not be confused with the Republic of China. For the non-state concept of China as a civilization, see China. -- Миборовский 05:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the following monstrosity:

to the following:

First, it is not necessary to include flags in the disambiguation. They may be pretty, but the name is all that is needed to get the job done. Second, the first sentence "This article is about the politics, government, and economy of the People's Republic of China (PRC) that currently administers Mainland China." is pointless. This article is on the People's Republic of China PERIOD. It is not on some segment of the PRC, so the list will go on forever. The sentence is pointless and says nothing. Third, the second sentence, "The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under PRC rule, but usually excludes the two Special Administrative Regions,  Hong Kong and  Macau." is irrelevant. This article is not titled "mainland China" nor can it be confused with such a name, so there is no need to define "mainland China" here. You do not put up a disambiguation link to something specific under the title of something more general. That belongs in the article text. Fourth, any confusion with the name "Republic of China" extends only to the similarity of names. It is not necessary to state that the ROC administers Kinmen and Matsu. Fifth, the "people, history, culture, civilization, and geography of China" is also covered in this article. Again, people do not go to a specific title, "People's Republic of China" in search of something general while the converse is very reasonable and true.

If you haven't already, please acquaint yourselves with the Wikipedia:Disambiguation conventions and guidelines. Dab links always appear before the article text (infobox included) as they are not part of the article itself and such messages should always contain the minimum of information to redirect users to their desired location. The disambiguation notice is not supposed to summarize the lead section of every article linked within it. Please don't write an entire article there; stick with the basics.--Jiang 03:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you were talking about. Anyway! keep this notice is quite necessary. PRC rules only Mainland China. On the other words, this topic is talking about Mainland China istself. According to the Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macao, these SARs admin. themselves and should not be mixed with the topic of PRC. leungli (Yee leung) 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know what I am talking about, then perhaps you should read what is available at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and flip through some pages linking to Template:dablink to see how it is usually done. Having a whole chunk of text summarizing remotely related concepts is not a disambiguation. --Jiang 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. 75.73.13.46 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of the territory disputed with Russia (or SU). Can somebody add? Trekphiler 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're already mentioned under the "territorial disputes" section. -- ran (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of China article is very well written, concise yet informative. Unfortunately, the China article is currently a huge mess (half the China article is about names like "Seres" and debate between "Middle Kingdom" and "Central Kingdom"). I believe most uninitated readers will never realize that there is a difference between the PRC article and the China article. I see many articles that are specifically talking about the PRC government being instead linked to the China article. This is a problem that I think needs to be better addressed. Mamin27 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliments. I have just moved the Names section out of China. As for the links in other articles, we would be very grateful if you would fix them. --Ideogram 07:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into this article, and cannot believe that it is FA. Seriously folks, this article wouldn't even pass GA at its current state. There are whole sections without references, the structure of the article is not correct etc. Regular contributors of this article should take a look at Canada for example. I am seriously considering asking for a review, there are articles with as many references that barely make the GA. I know that the FA was passed in 2004, and that the standards have risen since then, but some keep-up work must have been done to improve it constantly. Again: a)it needs to be restructured b)must be referenced much much more. If not there should be FA re-review. Baristarim 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So anybody out there? :) I hope that this article can be cleaned up soon, otherwise this article cannot stay as FA… Baristarim 09:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, hello? This article is one of the most well-cited country article in all of Wikipedia with about 90 references. Nearly every paragraph is referenced, some paragraphs are referenced for every sentence. The Canada article (your example) has 1/3 LESS references than the PRC article. Also, the PRC article has been FA reviewed as recently as Summer 2006 (not 2004). Your proposal to remove FA status for this article will be denied by other editors just so you know. This article is not edit protected (unlike the Canada article), so new edits are made all the time, and at any particular point there might be some edits without proper sourcing, but this does not merit an FA review every 6 months, as references are actually quickly added and updated by other editors (maybe not quick enough for you, but certainly within weeks). Hyperbolic charges that this article doesn't even merit GA make you uncreditable as a critic. Well-referenced GA articles that barely make GA usually have highly controversial and narrow topics, the PRC is a country article, not a specific controversial topic. --Mamin27 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The structure can be still improved. I am sorry, but I could only count four references in the history section, only three in the foreign relations section, zero in the population policy section, and only one in the culture section. There shouldn't be many subsections to begin with, preferably public health and transport sections combined, and religion and education sections merged to demographics + sports directly combined to culture. Take a look at Turkey for example. The difference is, that article and Canada have a seperate references section. The notes cited are also not in the correct format and present citation problems, (see WP:CITE). That can be corrected I suppose, however I can't say the same for references. The whole article can use more solid citations all around. Preferably CIA Factbook shouldn't be used either. There shouldn't be see alsos either (see WP:GTL and *((See also))). I still stand behind what I said, however if the regular contributors are willing to improve the article, there might not be a need for a listing in FAR. Nobody is asking for the article to be delisted, however it should conform to FA standards. If it does, then it can stay. That's all. Cheers! Baristarim 09:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please watch for civility, "maybe not quick enough for you" or other personal comments are not appropriate. I have experience with GA and FA, so pls don't do ad hominims by saying "make you uncredible as a critic". Thanks. Baristarim 09:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you have experience or not regarding GA and FA articles, I was not commenting on your experience, I was calling out your hyperbolic yet vague language used in your first comments. The "maybe not quick enough for you" statement was addressing your second paragraph "So anybody out there?" that you wrote one day after your first paragraph. Yes, we are out there, but it's holiday season, a lot of the PRC articles editors are unavailable and busy. Thank you now for clarifying and delineating what needs to be worked on for this article, which is what you should have written in your earlier comments, instead of first threatening to delist this article from FA status. I apologize if I hurt your sensitivities, but your earlier comments weren't exactly restrained or to the point either. --Mamin27 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. I am sorry to if I hadn't explained myself earlier, I apologize. I am also sorry about my poor attempt at humor with my second post :) I was not trying to be sarcastic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this article delisted or anything, in any case FA delistings are extreme cases, and generally don't happen. Anyways, maybe I am getting to stressed since I haven't been sleeping too much lately. No rush for the cleanup, as you said, it is the holidays! Baristarim 12:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has recently removed the traditional Chinese from the infobox. I reverted this, and then the editor reverted with this invisicomment: [2]. Historically, I believe we have preferred to use both versions, even when referring to the PRC, which doesn't use traditional. Could someone confirm if I am right? I don't want any revert wars, so I'd rather have some discussion. Heimstern Läufer 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically not true. Both Hong Kong and Macau are undisputedly part of the PRC, and both places use Traditional. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It must stay, then. Heimstern Läufer 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we already have name in Traditional Chinese inside the article. And can you, please, provide an example of the article, where alternative scripts are used in the infobox? Romanizations are not counted, because pinyin is already used in this infobox. In republics of the USSR a language of a republic was officially used along with Russian language in that republic, e.g. on Soviet ruble banknotes nominal is written in languages of all republics. So, why don't we use all languages in the Soviet Union infobox? Cmapm 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know if you really want to put all the languages of the Soviet Union in the infobox, but the consensus on this page is that the traditional character should be included and it is one of the official scripts of PRC. I'm reverting your edits because you did not ask for consenses before you unilaterally removed the traditional characters. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, let's make this page exceptional :) If I shouldn't know the difference between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese characters, (many readers don't know, I suppose), I'd find infobox confusing. Even because of this taken alone your version will frequently be reverted in the future, as it was previously. Happy explanations on top of the article :) Cmapm 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the info box should ony use simplified characters for the following reasons: the use of two sets of characters without indicating what they are can be confusing, and it looks messy, traditional characters are given in the very first sentence of the article and more importantly it indicates that they are traditional characters. LDHan 03:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, you can make the same arguements about the infoboxes of other nations who have romanization of the official name. To you it might look messy, doesn't mean that other editors have to agree with you. Traditional characters should remain as it is currently used by the PRC Government. The arguement that "traditional characters are given in the very first sentence of the article" doesn't work as the ROC article also includes simplified characters in the intro paragraph and the ROC doesn't even use simplified in their official documents. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 03:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments don't even have anything to the points I was making. My arguments are only about this infobox, I did not say they apply to other infoboxes, and it's not romanization either. Of course I don't expect other editors to have to agree with me, that's why I made the comments to put forward my reasons for the edit. Your comment about the ROC article as an argument against my point that "traditional characters are given in the very first sentence of this article" is not valid because my edits only relate to this article and not whether another article uses simplified characters or not. LDHan 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 202.129.0.182 (of Bangkok, Thailand) has continuously tried to add a list of POV "international rankings" for this article. Not only is the list extremely POV, it is also against the country template. This list should at best be put in a separate article (relating to Human Rights or Economy of China) and need to be greatly expanded to cover POV issues. I and other editors will continue to remove such POV and unnecessary lists from the main PRC article. --Mamin27 09:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation	Survey	Ranking
Heritage Foundation/The Wall Street Journal	Index of Economic Freedom	111 out of 157
The Economist	Worldwide quality-of-life index, 2005	60 out of 111
Reporters Without Borders	Worldwide press freedom index	163 out of 167
Transparency International	Corruption Perceptions Index	70 out of 163
United Nations Development Programme	Human Development Index	81 out of 177

I believe that the inclusion of International Rankings is consistent with Wikipedia policy:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples

Country pages with International Rankings sections (not created by me) include: Chile, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, Estonia, New Zealand

Heroeswithmetaphors 07:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, no cigar. PRC is a Featured Article (FA), none of the country articles you listed above is an FA. PRC is also too large and controversial to have an adequate and NPOV list of international rankings in a summary article. Look at that list of countries you have again. The largest country in your list is Chile with 15 million people, the size of a Chinese city. If you want that rankings table in Wikipedia, make a separate article called International rankings of China. Your table has no place on the PRC main article. If you revert one more time, I will report you (Heroeswithmetaphors/202.129.0.182) for breaking the 3-revert rule (final warning) and also open a vote to settle this issue. --Mamin27 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although the rankings table contains valuable information, it is biased in its selection of rankings. In particular, it focuses on the adverse aspects of China. There is nothing wrong with revealing the inadequacies of a country; however, WP:NPOV dictates that there should not be deliberate bias in the treatment of any subject. An adequate of NPOV table should include other relevant rankings, e.g. GDP growth, balance of payemtns, import/export volume etc. --Sumple (Talk) 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, South Africa, and Libya do not have the population of PRC, but are Featured Articles with International Rankings sections.

I need help on International rankings of the People's Republic of China. Heroeswithmetaphors 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinse military spending[edit]

… is disputed, but the higher end figure is presented as a fact here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.245.6 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Military Balance[edit]

Dear Mr Nick Tang For keep the transparency you should not delite & Hide Military Balance and Military Expence--202.239.229.7 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dragon boat race should be translated to "龙舟"，not “龙小船”. I have changed it. Anthony X Li Dec 30, 2006

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

GDP (purchasing power parity): Definition Field Listing Rank Order $10 trillion (2006 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): Definition Field Listing $2.512 trillion (2006 est.) GDP - real growth rate: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 10.5% (official data) (2006 est.) GDP - per capita (PPP): Definition Field Listing Rank Order $7,600 (2006 est.)

Matilda Sharks 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made the alternate text of the images flag and emblem of jerktown (roll over mouse) --Quaestor 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fixed --Quaestor 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this section. It's huge and contains links of limited relevance. Would anyone object if I simply deleted it? --Ideogram 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. If you want it back, please discuss. --Ideogram 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock terms are not verifiable; statistics are not peacock terms. Mandel 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire notion of "China as an emerging superpower" is problematic. --Ideogram 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls explain before reverting. Mandel 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reverting. There is no way to verify the claim that China is an "emerging superpower", the term has no widely accepted definition.

The lead is supposed to summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Your addition does not help. --Ideogram 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is commonly used eg. by Brittanica. [3] A separate Wiki article exists on it. The paragraph - not an addition but a restoration - is a valid summary of the sections 6 economy, 5 military and 2.1 Foreign relations. Mandel 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to do what Brittanica does. We have Wiki articles on all kinds of crap. I was here before the paragraph was added, thank you very much. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole article and not sections selected to support the claim that China is an "emerging superpower".

In any case, I don't care. Once the article loses its featured article status I'll let you guys squabble over the decaying remnants. --Ideogram 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way any lead can summarize the whole article - it is impossible. By the way Wiki is a collaborative effort, not a solo one, so it doesn't claim to support any particular view. It reflects views, not support them. You seem to have a view you want to Wiki to endorse; however Wiki doesn't endorse personal viewpoints unless they can be shown to reflect a large enough pool of demographics. Mandel 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you. Turn the article into a pile of crap for all I care. --Ideogram 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

China is 9.6 million km square. Say 9.5 implies you don't know how to round numbers. Also it is third largest as US is expanding every year by incorporating sea areas it see fit. In fact book 2007 US is 9.82 million sq km already. Go figure.

---

"At over 9.5 million km² (3.7 million square miles), it is roughly the size of the United States, co-ranking with the latter as the world's third and fourth largest countries in terms of geographical size."

Is it just me or does this seem like a rather weird way of making the point? To start with "co-ranking with" is an unfamiliar expression to me. It has only 5 Google matches, which doesn't seem to imply it is a generally accepted English expression. Secondly, the meaning used doesn't seem to be what one would naturally assume it to be. As "co-ranking" isn't in the dictionary, I looked up the prefix "co-" and found stuff like "together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually … indicating partnership or equality". So co-ranking would seem to imply that the two countries have the same ranking (equal 3rd perhaps?), but the sentence then goes on to say that they are third and fourth. It doesn't say which is 3rd and which is 4th, but adding "respectively" in to disambiguate that would render a rather confusing sentence even more complex!

Anyway, there are three reasons why I'm just talking about this rather than making an edit…

1) I'm not really sure whether this is just a matter of style that I subjectively disagree with or whether this is actually as starngely worded as I think it is.

2) I can't immediately think how best to reword it.

3) Part of rewording it would be to disambiguate the point of whether it is the 3rd or 4th largest country and I wouldn't like to do that without actually knowing for sure which is correct to avoid going from ambiguity to error.

80.229.220.14 04:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, the reason it doesn't say which is third and which is fourth is that it depends how you count. If you include certain disputed territories of the PRC, it's the 3rd largest, if you don't, the USA is the 3rd largest. I agree that "co-ranking" is an odd term, though, and that this sentence is not too well worded. Heimstern Läufer 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this, in attempting to salvaged parts hacked off and considered controversial. Heimstern Läufer is right - to clarify, a link should be there - unfortunately I fail to find the right one. The wording is awkward but is the best I could managed under 1 sentence. Mandel 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since removing edit semi-protection two days ago, vandalism and many arrogant, disruptive and POV edits have been made by anonymous users, including excessive use of irrelevant images and complete disregard for former Talkpage consensus. For examples of incivility, please read the disrespectful and profane comments by users 168.253.18.39 and 83.19.173.202 in the history. Also the issue of Taiwan is creating unnecessary edit wars on this article and is occupying valuable time of the veteran editors here to clean things up and maintain prior NPOV. This article should be permanently semi-protected from anonymous users, like the China article. --Naus 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is for preventing vandalism, not preventing good-faith edits that you happen to disagree with. I thought that particular editor was doing good work, in particular the images he selected were generally more relevant than the ones you have now, although I agree there were too many of them. --Ideogram 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits don't sign their edits with comments such as "stupid" and "pathetic" as that user 168.253.18.39 was repeatedly doing. Basic civility is an official Wikipedia policy. Secondly, more relevant? How is a copyrighted photo of an elite J-10 fighter in place of a public photo of China's military recruits more relevant? How are the photos of Wen Jiabao and Li Zhaoxing relevant? Should he also put in a photo of the Chinese Finance Minister in the Economics section, along with one of each of the Cultural and Health Ministers? How is an official copyrighted photo of the Chinese paper currency and coin relevant to the Economics section? This article is about the PRC, people in Hong Kong don't even use the RMB yuan by the way. And the 2008 Summer Olympics logo is copyrighted too. Good work? I think not. It is generally agreed upon that copyrighted photos have no business in an FA-class article. I and others will continue to remove copyrighted images from this article without hesitation. --Naus 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in arguing with you. In fact I have pretty much abandoned editing this article primarily because I don't like arguing with you. --Ideogram 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. --Naus 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that it is a good idea to discourage other people from editing this article. Have fun fighting the vandals while trying to hold on to FA status all by yourself. Of course it won't bother you that other people think the article is a pile of crap, because your opinion is the only one that matters. --Ideogram 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above are particularly bewildering as I don't even remember when was the last time I had an argument with you. Perhaps with one of your sockpuppets then. So I'm glad you won't be contributing much here. Your outright hostility goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. No one is preventing you from making necessary changes to make this article not "a pile of crap" (which is your opinion and not that of the consensus). I will not respond to your further replies here, because you have clearly proven that you are incapable of having a healthy and contributive discussion. --Naus 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, accusations of sockpuppetry are really in the spirit of Wikipedia. I suggest you try to think clearly about who is being hostile here. --Ideogram 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, there was really only one anonymous editor that was vandalous - and even that is arguable. The other anonymous editor who was inserting "colourful" edit summaries, if you look at his edits, they are actually good edits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree copyrighted photos (such as the J-10 fighter, the yuan currency photo, and the Beijing Olympics logo) will be removed. Adding copyrighted photos are not "good edits" and will be reverted. For a relatively small section like "Government and Politics," it is ridiculous to have 150px photos of both Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, when a photo of the head of state and commander in chief (Hu Jintao) is sufficient. The "Government and Politics" section of this article is more than just about Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao. Excessive photos in a small section on a high resolution screen is hideous, as the photos lead to excessive white space and makes reading the text (which is the meat of Wikipedia articles and given priority) difficult. It is better to have a diverse selection of photos than to have a photo of a Chinese minister in each respective section, such as "Foreign Affairs" (for instance, Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing isn't even mentioned in the section text yet 168.253.22.77 repeatedly adds his photo to the Foreign Affairs section). --Naus 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also try to scale image widths on the automatic setting, instead of assigning pixel widths (such as 250px). This makes browsing more accessible for handicapped users, and provides a more uniform experience for those with custom browser settings or using a different Wikipedia template. One exception might be vertically-long images, where 150px might be more appropriate. --Naus 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is Taiwan also red on the map? BlueShirts 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. I've returned to the previously used map, which uses green but omits Taiwan. Heimstern Läufer 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now someone has returned it again. The argument given is that the UN and almost all countries recognize the Taiwan as part of the PRC. There are two problems with this: (1) It is recognized as part of China per the one-China policy. Not necessarily as part of the PRC, just of China. (2) Our article is not a reflection of what the UN or other countries think; it is a reflection of the actual condition. Taiwan is not currently controlled by the PRC. To have it listed here is part of the PRC and then to say at Republic of China that the ROC conrtols Taiwan is not logical. We should return to the map excluding Taiwan. Heimstern Läufer 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The One-China policy traditionally states that the PRC is the sole government of all of China. 2) Why should the article be a reflection of what is controlled and not what is officially recognised? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow your logic, then the Republic of China page should have a picture claiming all of China and Mongolia. John Smith's 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that picture does appear in the Republic of China page, with two to boot.--Huaiwei 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, traditionally it has meant that to Beijing. I can tell you that other sources, Washington being an obvious example, do not hold this exact view, as they have consistently refused to honour PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. As for why we should reflect what the PRC actually controls: This is an objective standard. What is "officially recognised" is POV. It is the POV of the UN, the PRC, and many other countries. The political parties of Taiwan do not agree with this point of view (whether they support Taiwan independence or not, they refuse to accept PRC rule of Taiwan), and many Taiwanese do not. If we tried to go by what international diplomacy recognises, we'd have to completely change Republic of China to reflect that it is not controlling Taiwan. Who controls what area is a much more objective standard. Heimstern Läufer 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's "de facto" is more important and more informative. BlueShirts 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a map showing a purple Taiwan and a legend explaining the situation, I think. Xiner (talk, email) 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's confusing for a simple national profile section and best served in political status of taiwan article. BlueShirts 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but I don't see any other way to resolve this dispute. Xiner (talk, email) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we think about a method, say, half-shade, to mark the areas that are claimed but not controlled, and elaborate with a small legend or a short footnote? — Instantnood 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My purple idea comes from the Communist red and Nationalist blue, but grey works too. Just anything other than the back and forth, all or nothing approach that's proven unproductive. Xiner (talk, email) 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet before doing so we have to first make sure that this is going to be accepted by the WikiProject Country community, and would be a good example for other similar country articles to follow suit. — Instantnood 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice there. I'm not familiar with it so not sure what else I should do. Xiner (talk, email) 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bad idea. If you want just include the shaded map in the political divisions section of the prsent PRC article. No need to make the main country box more complicated than it needs to be. BlueShirts 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RoC is not a fully independent state, as can be seen in its lack of full international recognition, so there's grey area there that shouldn't be airbrushed. Xiner (talk, email) 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "de facto" independent state. BlueShirts 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this map, which obviously is disputed, but if the CIA feels the pressure to do it, we can't just make no mention on the most important map of the page. Xiner (talk, email) 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about CIA feeling the pressure to do it. We, however, don't feel any pressure to do it here. China can have a map containing both countries (ideally minus non-Chinese territorial possessions of PRC), but not this article. deeptrivia (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a political statement here but I think that to the ordinary person using Wiki seeing Taiwan shown as part of China will just be confusing. Taiwan is run by a completely seperate government to the PRC, and that's what most people see as defining it as a seperate country. At the same time I agree it would be worth adding a footnote to the image noting that this is excluding Taiwan (and if posssible to add a partial shading), but it doesn't make sense to show Taiwan as part of the PRC because of its diplomatic status when to most people that will be saying "Taiwan is administered by PRC's government". Phileosophian 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the island of Taiwan is under the defacto rule of the Republic of China, but we must also consider the fact that the official policy of the United Nations is that there is only one China, that China includes the island of Taiwan, and is ruled by the People's Republic of China (even if it is only by name). This is also the official policy of major nations around the world, such as the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Russia, etc (i can go on and on, but that would be a waste of time). If you look at a National Geographic Society map of the world (although I can't seem to find one online), the Society recognizes Taiwan as part of the PRC, although being administered by the ROC. --Nat.tang 20:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a possible compromise, if someone's able to do this, is to make a similar map that shows Taiwan shaded rather than solid, which recognizes its disputed status. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first entered this website today, I saw that somebody screwed up the Infobox and blocked this website from editing so nobody would try to fix it. Whoever did this should be blocked from editing FOREVER!!! Anonymous 18:04 March 3, 2007 (UTC)

Mandaliet421: I noticed that there is no infobox anymore. 11:08 PST May 12th, 2007

I disagree with this revert. The native name of the PRC is in Simplified Chinese, with pinyin as the second choice. That was actually a great catch by the user, whatever his/her history. The Traditional Chinese name may be included in the article, but not in that location. I hope you can reconsider the revert. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized that Hong Kong (and Macao?) uses Traditional Chinese. Xiner (talk, email) 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the 1989 incident photo. I checked multiple wiki articles about countries, no any single photo on any single incident.Lets start a debate if ppl want to introduce such photo into this page (User:Nilei.net)

This image illustrates an extraordinarily notable event in China's modern history and is entirely relevant and appropriate for the article. Many other images might be used in its place, but quite a few of those would make a rather gory alternative. Frankly, I don't know why the editor would consider this image crap. If anything, the image is rather POV in favor of the PRC in that someone viewing the image could easily fail to comprehend the degree of carnage resulting from this so-called "incident". At any rate, I recommend restoring this well-recognized image or replacing it with another image that suitably illustrates the student uprising. Rklawton 14:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nilei.net, no one is proud of the shameful episode in Chinese history, but please talk this over instead of edit warring. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very important the image is displayed as it is historically as important as September 11th. I think most people would agree. Usergreatpower 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not true. Except for Hong Kong, whose people are known for their generosity to the mainland, no one in China really remembers June 4 anymore. Money trumps everything, even in the largest socialist country in the world. To compare it to September 11 cheapens the latter. Xiner (talk, email) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the caption be changed to simply "The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989". A picture is worth a thousand words, and it's really true this time. Trust the reader to draw their conclusions, and leave the disputed goals of the protests to the article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Rklawton 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why people in China would have forgotten about Tiananmen because their government quickly tried to erase all memory of it afterwards. It is very historically important as it demonstrated to the world how the communist government would do anything to keep its grip on power in China. Tiananmen Square may be very important in the future for people to remember so they can finally throw off their oppressive government. I don't know how much it is remember in China but I know in the UK it's generally regarded around the top 10 of 20th century events. Usergreatpower 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not many Americans remember it either. See WP:NPOV. I can also assure you that the government isn't as powerful as you describe. The region around Hong Kong, for example, Guangdong, receives Hong Kong TV and radio. People forget Tiananmen because the society has been transformed since 1989, and because the country is so huge. It is a blip in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, the real story of Communist rule in China was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. If you consult people familiar with China, they'll tell you the same. Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, everyone, read WP:3RR. No one here would want to see the article be fully protected for edit-warring, right? Xiner (talk, email) 13:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Usergreatpower's statement about the goals of the Tiananmen protests. A large section of the population did believe that the government was too repressive, but as with many social protests, the economy was a big issue, and the government was seen as corrupt and some even thought that the economic reforms had gone too far. It is thus inaccurate to say that democracy was a common goal - I supported it, but many did not. Xiner (talk, email) 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to say it was on Mainland China rather than China as a whole, which includes Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau. Usergreatpower 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, let's not get into that, shall we? :) Xiner (talk, email) 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to criticize China, write about the Great Leap Forward, and the subsequent Cultural Revolution. They are now widely acknowledged to be a great mistake of Chairman Mao. Unlike Tiananmen, whose casualty numbers are widely doubted by Chinese citizens, even the government now acknowledges that the Cultural Revolution set the country back. And it didn't just affect Beijing and Shanghai, but every person in the country. It changed the psyche of the nation just as the Great Depression did in the USA. And that's no small feat in a country of 1.3 billion. Xiner (talk, email) 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article before played as an advert for 'Look how good China is' but in a way which said 'Look how good China is thanks to the CPC'. Like it had been written by the CPC itself with anything which might make the CPC look like it's been bad for China censored and removed. I personally think China has a lot of good things to show but I think the CPC is no better than the likes of Kim Jong Il and his government. There's no doubt China would be better off with a democratic government like Taiwan or South Korea. The article should include much more criticle subjects to do with the CPC's rule over China and I see no reason why the article should seem to be censored to CPC style. Usergreatpower 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can understand that people who grow up under a system will feel great attachment to it, Communist or not. Even people who do not agree with communism may find China great. When everybody seems to be against you, though, perhaps people are not censoring you. Look up the argument over Taiwan on this page, and check which map is shown on the article page. Xiner (talk, email) 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into political discussions about whether China should be bullied by Democracies to conform. Thanks to Deng, China's economy is booming and many people are better than they were under Mao. Anyways, it's a misconception in the West that Tiananmen incident is all about Democracy. It started out as a movement for more rights and more freedom of speech (students were actually singing Internationale during demonstrations in their support for the CPC). Unfortunately, more people started showing up and mob mentality turned the event into one of protests against corruption, which got the leadership really scared. What happened next is history. Hope someone will read this and take note.--141.213.198.142 11:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that this was a "democracy" protest is a curious US/Euro outlook. There were many that were there complaining that the CPC was abandoing Maoism. There were as many opinions from every part of the political spectrum as there were people. The most important thing was that they wanted to be heard by the leadership.

It's an important picture of a singular watershed event in the history of modern China, indeed, the entire world. It should stay, but the caption should not discuss democracy. SchmuckyTheCat 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the caption of the image in the Foreign Relations section, George W. Bush is the "sole superpower"?? That sounds pretty bad but perhaps I'm interpretting it the wrong way? DJ Craig 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was talking about "United States", but yeah, it was awkward. Please take a look at my edits and let me know what you think. Xiner (talk, email) 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bit better, but what I was thinking more was that the US isn't the sole superpower; aren't China, Japan, Russia, UK, and some others considered superpowers? To me, it sounds very arrogant to call the US the sole superpower. I would just take out the word "sole," but I'm still not sure if I'm just interpreting it the wrong way. DJ Craig 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even at the height of the Cold War, there were only two superpowers. One disintegrated, so we are now left with a hyperpower. That does not mean that the U.S. can do anything it wants, as you know. Xiner (talk, email) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest military spending, controls nearly all market activity, endless wars… yeah, the U.S. can do ANYTHING it wants.

-G

I disagree with the wording here. Why not just state that you have the two presidents in a meeting. Why do you have to call them "leaders of sole superpowers" or leaders "of the gloriously industrializing and growing China". Keep it simple and to the point. I changed it to read: [Image:Hu_Jintao_Bush.jpg|thumb|right|Hu Jintao with George W. Bush. Sino-American relations are closely monitored by international observers.] 132.170.54.41 16:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone that knows more about IPA fix the IPA notation because it uses obsolete symbols and i have doubts that the pronunciation is also incorrect. Also, the "˧˥"s make it an eyesore. -- Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me||what i've done||e|} 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the pronunciation was definitely correct, and the tone markers only looked like that because they weren't rendering correctly on your system. What was it you thought was wrong about it? BovineBeast 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some commentary in the introduction that had left a misleading impression exaggerating the extent of privatization in China. The sentences cited a Hung-Gay Fung article asserting "over 90% of Chinese workers are employed by nonstate enterprises." Fung's article specifically refers to enterprises that are not legally classified as State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China, a term used in a more restrictive sense in China than in the West. Not all enterprises owned by the state are SOEs. Chinese SOEs are only thoses that are operated by ministries under the PRC State Council. The state remains a dominant or major corporate shareholder of many non-SOEs. 172 | Talk 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), although the majority of the world recognize PRC instead of ROC, wikipedia treats them as equal. "One subtle yet important point: Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations." Therefore, since ROC is classified as a state, then the same should apply to PRC. An alternative is label both of them as country.--Certified.Gangsta 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That document is not policy, was never accepted by consensus, and right now has a big POV tag and a dispute tag on it. --Ideogram 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not, that doesn't mean wikipedia should endorse PRC's soverignty over ROC. That is NPOV violation.--Certified.Gangsta 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what it does. And you don't get to decide what is an NPOV violation all by yourself. --Ideogram 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's called POV pushing. I'm not deciding for myself since obviously this is a no-brainer.--Certified.Gangsta 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you call it, your opinion is not fact. The fact is that consensus has decided on this version and you aren't going to be able to change it unless you can convince us with reasonable arguments. --Ideogram 18:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already did but with the way Taiwan-China relations articles are gang-patrolled, we can't achieve NPOV anywhere. Btw you should quit writing those useless edit summary. That's very dumb.--Certified.Gangsta 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get to decide if your arguments are reasonable, we do. And careful with the personal attacks, unless you want to get blocked again. --Ideogram 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do? What's your credential? Threaten to have me blocked isn't gonna faze me. Making those threat can get you blocked since you're not an admin. As far as I'm concerned, this page is pointless and gang-patrolled. Obviously, you're just taking your time (stalling tactics) on the talkpages as long as no real change is ever made. (and if it is made you revert them, stalk me, then report me on AN/I). That's a very low way of discussing.--Certified.Gangsta 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you said is going to help you get your way. --Ideogram 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading through the Country article, it seems that "country" and "state" could mean pretty much the same thing, and often do, so calling the PRC a country and the ROC a state is not necessarily promoting the PRC over the ROC. (For example, as the country article points out, the United Kingdom is a "sovereign state", and no one is declaring that designation an attack on the status of the UK). We probably could change this article to read "sovereign state" without changing the actual meaning at all, but we could also leave them different without penalty too. I'm going to take a commonly heard stance in this controversy and advocate maintaining the status quo. It's not worth attracting swarms of people arguing about this issue when the two words mean the same thing anyway.--Danaman5 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this information is relevant to an article about the People's Republic of China. That would be completely appropriate to the article about China, but this is specifically about the People's Republic, i.e. under communist rule. Thus, the salient date is the founding of the PRC in 1949.Penser 12:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Penser[reply]

For example, if you look at the page for the Soviet Union, it only includes the dates when Russia was under Communist control. It doesn't include all important dates in Russian history, because that's not relevant to the period of Soviet control, which is what the article is about. Penser 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Penser[reply]

Any objections? Penser 06:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser[reply]

I think it's important to include China's history somewhere, but seeing as this article is on the People's Republic of China, which is modern China, it may be just as well to put it somewhere else and link to it. Good idea. Australian Raven 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is a large article just about "China," which deals with the nation throughout its varying governments. Penser 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)penser[reply]

There are many parties in China, apart from the Communist Party there are groups like the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League, China Democratic League, and China Democratic National Construction Association among others. The article should be amended to reflect this fact and be correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedChinaForever (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"One-party state" doesn't mean that there's only one party in existence, it means that only one party is legally able to form and lead the government.

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China states that:

中国各族人民将继续在中国共产党领导下，在马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想指引下，坚持人民民主专政，坚持社会主义道路(People of different ethnicities of China will continue to, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, hold fast to the people's democratic dictatorship and the road of socialism).

The other eight parties are part of the United Front which is under the leadership of the Communist Party, as is explicitly stated in each of their party constitutions.

-- ran (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call them a party when the people can't vote on them. This is very misleading for the readers. --Arigato1 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the ludicrously rediculous idea that China is a dominant party state. The other parties are either virtually illegal (Falun Gong? Kuomintang?), are far too small to get any representation, or are too tightly controlled by the Communist party to qualify as separate parties! All dictatorships, to my knowledge, are like this: if there are any parties, only one is represented. eg. Northern Ireland 1921- was dominant party. The Unionist Party was the only one which was in government, though other parties existed in the parliament, and maybe had some influence. But China is definitely single party.martianlostinspace 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Is also listed as such under the single party state article.martianlostinspace 17:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is China the second largest country. Isn't is Canada? It's third and never disputed with fourth, eh? Steviebengiefan 12:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China is 2nd in LAND area. That is, excluding bodies of water. The US is third, and Canada is fourth in land area. There is not controversy about this. In TOTAL area, including lakes, Canada is 2nd because it has many large lakes. Penser 02:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)penser[reply]

So, what are you are saying, is that Lake Ontario and the likes made up for the 270,000 km² of area difference between China and Canada. I'm surprised by this too. Oh wait, those lakes are really big, such as Lake Winnapeg. I never knew that! Oh well.--Kylohk 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the province section, would Taiwan be considered as "main land China" as well? It did not seem to exclude Taiwan from Main land China, which seems a bit odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSign (talk • contribs)

No, Taiwan is not a part of Mainland China.

That's why Taiwan is in parentheses, and there's a footnote to explain the situation. -- ran (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very good. I would like to pass this as a good article, but I am held up by a few minor concerns. First, are two statements in the 'human rights' section with citation needed tags:

• "However, there are limits to the methods that the Party is willing or able to use as the media have become increasingly active in publicizing social problems, and exposing corruption and inefficiency at lower levels of government."
• "Although organized opposition against the Party is not accepted, demonstrations over local issues are frequently and increasingly tolerated."

Second, there are some minor generalizations in the article that I am also concerned with, which either should be removed or cited:

• "Many parents are highly committed to their children's education, often investing large portions of the family's income on education." How many parents? Is this something that we can provide a reference for? It's probably obvious that most parents are committed to their child's education in most countries, but for a country like China, how many parents are able to spend a lot of their income on their child's education, particularly when so many live in poverty?
• "The NBA has a huge following among Chinese youths, with Yao Ming being the idol of many." This is an obvious generalization. Yes, I can see why he's popular. He's even popular in the US. He's probably like Michael Jordan to the Chinese. But is there anything concrete we can point to? Any sports periodicals? Articles? Something. Cite it or delete it.

I'd also recommend going over it once again with a good copyedit to clean up some minor grammatical issues, although it's overall very well written. Fix these few things, and I think it's definitely a [{WP:GA]]. Contact me when done so I can re-review and promote. Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on Yao Ming cited. American Patriot 1776 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out the two statements under human rights, and about parental commitment to the education of their children. The NBA comment has been cited. I have passed this article for GA. Now compare this to some FAs and understand why they are so and this is not. For attaining FA status, I wish you good preparation. In my opinion … everything useful comes from China.DavidYork71 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going back to check on this article after having posted my initial review, when I noticed these additional comments. I concur on your promotion to GA status, but I have to disagree with the methods slightly; rather than commenting them out, I've deleted the unsourced statements in human rights from the article. This is a wiki, so if someone does have better sources, they can use the article history. To help editors, I'll include both statements here:

"Although organized opposition against the Party is not accepted, demonstrations over local issues are frequently and increasingly tolerated."

"However, there are limits to the methods that the Party is willing or able to use as the media have become increasingly active in publicizing social problems, and exposing corruption and inefficiency at lower levels of government."

The Tank Man image is copyrighted and fits as Fair Use in the Tiananmen Square protests page, but not necessarily in the PRC page. It should be removed from the PRC page if deemed not of Fair Use for the PRC page. This photo is not essential for describing the PRC; other non-copyrighted photos can be used to depict oppositional forces in PRC history. --128.135.96.228 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description page for the image already indicates that permission has been granted to use the image on Wikipedia. This permission has no restrictions on where in Wikipedia it may be displayed. Note that the fair use tags come after the statement: "Permission notwithstanding, we still assert fair use", meaning that even if we didn't have permission, we could use the image in a limited fashion (like on the Tiananmen Square protests page) under fair use. However, since we already do have permission, this doesn't apply. The secondary fair use tags are just to cover ourselves. —Umofomia 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.. Wikipedia's upload policy states that a free image needs to be free not just on Wikipedia but potentially all its non-Wikipedia or non-commercial derivatives. If you read further on the tags on the Tank Man image summary, there is a clause stating that "This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag." If the image is not fair-use for the PRC article, then it doesn't matter that there is permission granted for specific use on Wikipedia. --128.135.96.228 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reread Wikipedia's copyright policies and it looks like you are correct in your assessment that the image does need to abide by fair use policy. I guess now the only question is whether it is fair use to use the image in the PRC article. Your opinion is that it does not, however I don't know what to think about this matter yet. The image does seem to satisfy all 10 points listed in the fair use policy, however for some of the points, it satisfies it just barely. In particular, I believe your main issue would be with point 8 (The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)…). The image does serve to illustrate the paragraph concerning the 1989 protest, though opinions may differ on whether it specifically illustrates it. Concerning what you said in your original comment about using other images, I don't think we have any other images that show the subject better than this one. All the relavent images in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 page are under the same copyright and fair use obligations as the tank image, and none of them really captures what happened there better than this one. Again, this is a subjective judgement and opinions may differ. —Umofomia 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Zedong (founder of the PRC)'s photo is not present, but Deng Xiaoping's is?

Tiananmen Square Protests is undeserving of a photo (the Tankman photo) in the PRC history section and is highly controversial. For instance, South Korea during 1980 had the Gwangju Massacre which also led to the deaths of no less than 1000 students killed and torched by ROK paramilitary forces in the South Korean city of Gwangju, and thousands more other civilians and protestors were killed. The reason you don't hear about it in the US media is because the incident was condoned by the US in support of Chun's government. Putting the Tankman photo in the PRC history section is equivalent to putting a photo of the Gwangju Massacre in the South Korea history sections, or putting Waco in the US history section. If you find the Tankman photo acceptable in the PRC history section, it is because of your political bias. Also the Tankman photo like others have stated repeatedly is COPYRIGHTED. --Intsokzen 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the deletion of the photos. Note that NPOV does not mean no point of view, it means neutral point of view. The photos accompanying the text illustrate what is currently in the text. If it's the text that is POV, then point out the issues. If you have an issue concerning Mao's photo being left out, feel free to add one there if it's appropriate to the text.

Concerning the tank man photo, it gives an illustration of what happened during the incident. The fact that it happened does not mean it is POV just because it shows the PRC in a negative light. Your analogy to Waco for U.S. History is not a fair one because Waco was not a watershed moment in the history of the U.S. Also, from the discussion above, there is no consensus that the photo is violating fair use on Wikipedia, as there is currently no better one to replace it. —Umofomia 01:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just partially reverted my reversion by taking out only the tank man photo this time. I will not revert you again because I believe in 1RR, but I will state that there is no basis in consensus regarding your action. I invite others to discuss. —Umofomia 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tankman photo is too politically charged. The history section mentions the Tiananmen Protests, not the Tankman photo. In fact, the Tankman photo was taken a day AFTER June 4 massacre/incident, thus AFTER the several months long student protests. --Intsokzen 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Tiananmen is not necessarily a "watershed moment" in Chinese history as you imply. To argue that it was, is absolutely your POV. One can argue that Tiananmen was completely inconsequential. Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms were already in motion before 1989. In fact, one of the issues raised by some of the Tiananmen protestors was that there was TOO MUCH economic reform. The fall of the Berlin Wall was a watershed moment, Tiananmen was not, as there were large scale student protests all throughout the 80s in China. The only reason Tiananmen became famous was because CNN happened to be in Beijing to cover Gorbachev's visit to China. Tiananmen was an aborted watershed moment, a could-have-been in history. History for the most part isn't about could-have-beens. --Intsokzen 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cultural Revolution is at least a magnitude more important to PRC history than Tiananmen. Everything about China changed during and after the Cultural Revolution. --Intsokzen 04:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please put the traditional chinese version "中華人民共和國" back to the info box? China doesn't only use Simplified Chinese but also Traditional Chinese, look at Hong Kong and Macau, they are part of China right? so please someone put it back…i dunno how to do it… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.6.21.231 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done. --Intsokzen 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the navigation templates should go. Links belong in the text, in context. Navigation templates take up a lot of space with links that are unlikely to be interesting to the reader. We also have categories which can replace strictly alphabetical navigational templates. Thoughts? --Ideogram 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections, I have removed the stupid huge templates. Discuss if you object. --Ideogram 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting the template deletions. Templates are useful for navigating between disparate articles with common themes. They can, of course, become unncessary clutter.

If you feel one or more of these navboxes are unnecessary clutter, you should seek deletion of the templates themselves.

Deleting the templates from one (but not all) of these articles undermines the functioning of what could well be a legitimate navbox. It also makes this article inconsistent with other comparable articles. --Sumple (Talk) 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating between disparate articles is the purpose of categories. Most them are clutter. The first few were alright but lately it seems to be that every new user who learns wiki-syntax decides to create one, resulting in half a dozen of them scattered around articles. SchmuckyTheCat 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I just looked. This article has 12 of them. Choke! SchmuckyTheCat 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree a lot of these 12 are clutter. But deleting them all from one article is not the way to approach it.

If they are cluttter - they should be removed from all articles and preferrably deleted.

If they are not clutter - they should be kept in place.

I don't accept that something like the APEC template (say) should be deleted from one member state article but kept on in another one. If it should be removed, it should be removed from all of them. The talk page of a single linked article is not the right place to discuss that… unless I guess you link the discussion on the talk pages of all related articles. --Sumple (Talk) 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should have one centralized discussion transcluded via template to every talk page of articles that use the template under discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates can be a lot better for navigation than Categories.

1. For one thing, you don't actually have to navigate away from the article to see what articles are in the same grouping.
2. Navigation templates can organise articles into sub-groupings within a grouping.
3. Navigation templates can have red-links! This is one important advantage that both navigation templates and lists have over categories. Categories are really very limiting.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like Ideogram was blocked for 48 hours, so don't expect him to reply anytime soon. I don't know how anyone manages to get blocked for his behaviour at a RfArb workshop where he is one of the involved parties to be arbitrated, before the arbitration even finished, but he sure did it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map isn't accurate, Taiwan isn't part of the PRC.--Jerrypp772000 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the image back. This was discussed briefly in the past and the rough consensus was not to show Taiwan as part of the PRC (even though the PRC certainly does claim Taiwan). This may remain controversial, though. Heimstern Läufer 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Guangzhou doesn't has anything that can be called unique, it is just one of the large cities in China.

2. There are three photos there on the page, Peiking, Shanghai and Hong Kong, all of them are the most important cities there in China. If we need that photo of Guangzhou, then how about other cities? For example, ShenZhen has much better city view, 6 million people, China's largest R&D companies, the second largest share market in China and it is built from the small village in only 30 years. How about Nanjing? That is one of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China, 8 million people living there, dozens of universities including one of the best in China, modern city skyline, so many famours culture sites. Maybe we can even use Chongqing's photo, the largest Chinese city with more than 30 Million people, very nice modern skyscrapers in the city, and the city itself is located in the central part of China not easy coast, which is so different from Shanghai/Hong Kong/Beijing.

I just can't understand why Guangzhou's photo should appear on China's wikipedia page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.38.174 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why is it necessary to put the flag of Republic of China (that is, ) beside the dab link? The name itself should be far enough. --supernorton 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the flag which China used during the world war II, that is also the flag which China used as the founding member of the United Nation. That is the flag of the Republic of CHINA, a very important link between the mainland China and Taiwan: showing both sides are a part of China. --60.242.38.174 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, having pictures in a disambiguation link at the top of an article is unconventional, otherwise we would need to put flags next to disambiguation links on the ROC page and many others as well. --68.239.70.72 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to commend all the contributors to this article. It is fantastic, concise yet full of usefull pertinent information. NPOV and balanced when addressing the sticky issues (Tienamen). This is a prime piece of work. Tekjester 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been put up and removed and put up and removed for a few times already I dunno who removed it but I would think it's resonalble to stay there

As Hong Kong and Macau use traditional character and they are inidisputable of China, so the Traditional version of the name PRC would have to stay, please don't try to remove it again, Thank you

• I agree. Even without HK and Macau, Tradition Chinese IS STILL USED by some Mainland people, though not officially. Thus, it's reasonable to include the name in Traditional Chinese. (Friend above, pls sign your name next time.) --supernorton 10:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be People’s Republic of China, with the current name a redirection. But renaming is disabled.

Desperate last move? Chronic disease? I took out this paragraph because it is biased and wrong. Its bias is easily seen, but it is wrong in how it implies all the characters were simplified, which is not correct. Only some, not even a majority, of characters are simplified. The characters are also not simplified without reason. Many times they are set to conform to an earlier variation that was made more complex over time, so some simplifications are still considered "traditional." Also, traditional characters are still used on classical works like stone engravings and wooden signs in historic parks, caligraphy, and others. Simplified characters are only used in everyday writing, government texts, and such. Character simplification might appear controversial elsewhere, but it's not so in mainland China. --24.62.238.122 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Simplified Chinese Characters were introduced as a desperate last move in the 20th century, since Traditional characters were singled out as the chronic disease responsible for the mainland's failure^[1]. Hong Kong and Taiwan continued to use of Traditional Chinese characters, which remained to be called "Real Chinese Characters"^[1]. The PRC went under the assumption that the nation would be saved if Traditional characters were eradicated^[1]. The controversial move created a major cultural disconnect for Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty as well as any future Taiwanese Independence issues."

Excuse me, this is clearly referenced. In fact, the actual wording is practically identical. Benjwong 16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still biased and wrong and unencyclopedic.--24.62.238.122 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are censoring. This is taken from sources literally as it is. You cannot claim something as biased and wrong based on personal opinions with no facts. I am shocked that the most important cultural info is not even on the frontpage. I am reverting it back, if you like you are welcome to reword. But don't revert again or someone may ban you for 3 revert. Benjwong 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it some. It is not right to hide the single most important cultural change. Benjwong 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a lot better now.--24.62.238.122 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it. I think people are more interested in what happened overall than the historical context behind it on the frontpage. Benjwong 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just put in biased assertions and present it as neutral point of view fact just because there's a source for it, it has to be cited in a neutral point of view as well. LDHan 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is published in a book, so this is not some random website source. Usually historical facts are presented first, then the controversy after. This is a very unusual case, in which everybody wants it presented as a controversy right away. Benjwong 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very naive to assume anything published in a book will be neutral or objective. Your original quote was clearly opinionated and had no business here on Wikipedia. --JakeLM 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember I was here first with facts. You are here with an opinion. Calling me naive is pretty weak btw. Anyhow there are soooo many sources all saying the same thing. Benjwong 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many sources saying the opposite, that simplified characters were first planned by the ROC government and would have been implemented anyway by the ROC government had they not been kicked off the mainland by the Communists. It wasn't just a "PRC assumption." And my comment on your naivety is based on your own argument above. LDHan accused your quote as biased and not NPOV, your counterargument was that the assertion was published in a book. Sorry, that's not a valid argument against a charge of bias, unless you take the belief that anything published in a book is the epitome of objectivity, which in that case is naive. --JakeLM 05:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the ROC "would have" implemented something, but didn't.... is hardly a valid argument. They had half a century to change, and never did. This is really not an argument for this page. I was interested in presenting facts. It just so happens this piece of fact is downright ugly, and now I am being called Naive cause it doesn't sound pleasant. As usual, I expect such comments when challenging the status quo. Benjwong 04:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox China (PRC) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of China is now the largest economy in the world (not the 4th, as the article lead says) - it overtook the US earlier this year:

" in the first three months of this year China accounted for a greater proportion of the global economy than the US."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6748803.stm

Since the PRC is growing at approximately 4x the rate of the US this position is unlikely to be reversed anytime soon. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, sometime in the past day or two, an edit was made that makes the page link to Russian. It's probably in a template, but I don't know which one, and can't see which ones were change in the last few days. Anyone who could point me in the right direction would be a great help. Thanks --Milton 00:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation template, but I fixed that, and the link still shows up. --Milton 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:National emblem of the People's Republic of China.png

Commons has another image (see right or commons:Image:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.svg). Which one is more correct? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the first one is more correct, although the second one is clearer. See the official gov't site: http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/16/content_23488.htm for the accurate version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nat.tang (talk • contribs).

I suggest we use the more correct one. Perhaps someone would even be ready to vectorise it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors, I bring before y'all two paragraphs that are basically the same paragraph, however one has additional words. Here they are:

The "Old" Text (Revision as of 03:06, 8 July 2007}

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949. The PRC is involved in a long-running dispute over the political status of Taiwan. The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT), retreated to Taiwan and surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949, and traditionally has claimed legitimacy over China and Mongolia while it is the ruling power of the Republic of China (ROC). The PRC regards the ROC claims as illegitimate. The term "Mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the areas under PRC rule, but usually excludes its two Special Administrative Regions: Hong Kong and Macau.

AND

The "New" Text (Revision as of 03:17, 8 July 2007)

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949. The PRC is involved in a long-running political and military dispute over the political status of Taiwan. The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT) which at the time led the Republic of China (ROC) and retreated to the island of Taiwan and it's surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949. While the Kuomingtang were in power they traditionally claimed the territories over all of mainland China and Mongolia, although this claim was opposed by the PRC which considered it to be illegitamate. But now, these territorial claims have been ignored and put aside by the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian's current administration in the Republic of China (Taiwan). The People's Republic of China (PRC) does not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as an independent country, and claims it to be a "renegade province" of the PRC. The People's Republic of China maintains no diplomatic relations or official contacts with the Republic of China (Taiwan)'s government or president. In addition, no peace treaty was ever signed between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan), resulting in the current political and military stalemate where they are still both technically in state of preparedness for war with each other. The term "Mainland China" is usually used to denote the areas under PRC rule, but sometimes excludes its two Special Administrative Regions: Hong Kong and Macau.

The newer and second text was introduced into the article by anon/IP user 212.51.199.173. We as a Community and as editors must reach consensus to prevent a full blown edit war. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark your comments with either a bold Old/Revert or New/Keep

1. Old With the additional words in the new paragraph, it has made the text a lot more polarized and adds a lot of politics into the text, something that we want to avoid. In addition, there are other articles that cover what the anon user has added. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]