Revision as of 14:37, 19 April 2011 editXiaoyu of Yuxi (talk | contribs)14,641 edits →"China" redirect: fuck off← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:38, 19 April 2011 edit undoXiaoyu of Yuxi (talk | contribs)14,641 edits →"China" redirect: this really should be discussed at WT:NC-ZH, NOT hereNext edit → | ||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
The use of 'abrupt' is not only biased but factually inaccurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/Taiwan_Relations_Act. America has supported Taiwan's military since 1979, and is indeed obliged by its own laws to do so. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | The use of 'abrupt' is not only biased but factually inaccurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/Taiwan_Relations_Act. America has supported Taiwan's military since 1979, and is indeed obliged by its own laws to do so. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
== "China" redirect == | |||
Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is <b>not</b> part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. ] (]) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --] ] 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::That wouldn't make sense since Republic of China (Taiwan) claims all of mainland China (PRC + Outer Mongolia) as ROC national territory.] (]) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. ] (]) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
: Yes, China is the PRC, and China is not ROC, for all intents and purposes. However, the main 'China' article talks about China as a continuous civilization, a nation-state, or a cultural unit or identity... so I like the way it is now. It is fine.] (]) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: '''Political reasons within wikipedia'''. The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing ]. <small>This answer is for the original poster.</small> ] (]) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
::: For the last time, this is a <big>'''NON-ISSUE'''</big>, and ''will remain one'' so long as Taiwan is ruled by a government different from mainland China. Read ]. --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::: ]. Read ] ] (]) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::: '''I <big>''DON'T''</big> need IPs to tell me about policy''' and to talk down to me like that. So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is '''inevitable'''. Besides, China has existed in some form for '''far longer''' than the PRC. Similarly, the Republic of China had '''significant''' history on mainland China before it hopped over to Taiwan. This is ''another'' reason why we '''don't''' even ''consider'' these merges and that this is a NON-ISSUE <big>'''FOR THE LAST TIME'''</big> --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone... == | == I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone... == |
Revision as of 14:38, 19 April 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Template loop detected: Talk:People's Republic of China/article guidelines
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:WP1.0 Template:China Portal Selected Article
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 1, 2004, October 1, 2005, October 1, 2006, October 1, 2007, October 1, 2008, October 1, 2009, and October 1, 2010. |
2nd Largest Economy?
In the lede it states that China is the world's second largest economy by both nominal and PPP estimates, yet the list that is linked for nominal GDP has all 3 organizations ranking them 3rd. Is this just because the 2010 lists haven't come out yet? Starwrath (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly right. China passed Japan a few months ago, so official rankings, which are released anually, do not reflect this yet.--hkr Laozi speak 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Official numbers are out: Japan's economy shrank 2% while China's is growing at 9.8%... Remember, you only need to achieve 7% growth in order to +100% your economy in 1 decade...China, by any measure, is growing 4 times faster than the British Empire at her height... The fact she hasn't dissolved under the stress of intense reforms on all fronts is a testatment to the strenght fo the Chinese civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Military Budget
This article states like so many others that china is under reporting its defence budget. My question is where is the evidence that China is under reporting its defence budget. Where is that extra money coming from and where is that money going to? It surtenly didn't go into there hardware because according to China's own omission and foreign military analysts 70% of China's weapons inventory is obsolete. How can China hide theze huge sums year after year? Wouldn't that destabillise there entire economy? I have been hearing alot about this claims for year's now and i haven't see scant evidence. The only thing we have are claims by the Pentagon and the US congress that is repeated by there media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- the problem is they could easily be lieing. know one knows for sure but the most powerful nations in the world has inteligence saying there under reporting. the means teres claims there under reporting. dosnt say for sure if they are or arnt. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The same agency that lead the US to war in iraq??? How about nobody just mentions that china has a huge portion of low wage workers that can easily build equipment for lower wages. Or that a rising GDP can cause the percentage of spending to be unchanged(the yuan is worth six dollars). OR that countries not just the US , puts china as the next ussr threat to allow more military spending??? 162.83.157.113 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Military Section
This section includes, "Some think-tanks such as the Asian European Council have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's abrupt decision to sell arms to Taipei...." I consider the use of the word "abrupt" to violate the neutrality standard. It is a biased and pro-Chinese/anti-US. Hyphenation of think-tank is incorrect. It should be think tank. Commas should be added also, as the current puntuation is wrong. For these reasons the above should read: "Some think tanks, such as the Asian European Council, have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's decision to sell arms to Taipei..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.122.241 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The use of 'abrupt' is not only biased but factually inaccurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/Taiwan_Relations_Act. America has supported Taiwan's military since 1979, and is indeed obliged by its own laws to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.123.106 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone...
- Jan 14, 2011, China Overtakes U.S. as Biggest Economy When Measured by Purchasing Power, Bloomberg
I for one am quite reluctant to buy this, but that's just me. The claim by the person responsible seems too impressive to be true in my opinion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Error in infobox, Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine
The infobox says the country is a one party republic. This is wrong information. Some may call it a one party dictatorship. We can be nice and sugar coat it to "one party state". That I favor.
It is not like Chicago, which is a defacto one party democracy. So worse than Chicago. Donotkill (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, we had a ludicrously long discussion about this before (here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box ), and the compromise "consensus" was to place the following in the infobox:
- People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place)
- Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede)
- No one loved this compromise, but people rarely do.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope - the country is republic in its structure, and the type of the republic is single party one. This is very neutral, and very factual statement. --Novis-M (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is also important to keep the same system and categorization - all the countries' infoboxes here on wikipedia list countries as republics or monarchies, plus the type - single party, parliamentary, constitutional, etc. So if we called China something else than single party republic, anyone could say United States is "capitalist union" (instead of factual "Federal presidential constitutional republic") or something like that - which is nonsense. --Novis-M (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Novis, being the primary opponent to the changes I referenced above, do you recall those discussions? What changed from then to now to allow for the infobox to read as it now does?LedRush (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am a strong proponent of what the infobox currently says. And the discussion that led to "single-party led republic" are featured very prominently at the top, under the section "GOV type". I was a participant in that discussion, too. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops...guess I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out to me.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am a strong proponent of what the infobox currently says. And the discussion that led to "single-party led republic" are featured very prominently at the top, under the section "GOV type". I was a participant in that discussion, too. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Novis, being the primary opponent to the changes I referenced above, do you recall those discussions? What changed from then to now to allow for the infobox to read as it now does?LedRush (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is political correctness gone wild. North Korea is also called a republic. If so, almost every country is a republic!
- Yes, 99% of all countries are either republics or monarchies. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If we don't want to offend countries, just leave this subject off the infobox. It is better than lying. My vote cannot overcome 1B potential WP editors so you win, I retreat. Donotkill (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one billion editors haven't weighed in on this. While I am surprised that past consensus to include both the official form of gov't and the actual one was so quickly overturned, it should not surprise you that it can be overturned again.LedRush (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Before it was a "People's republic" which also contained republic, if you want to call it a "Communist dictatorship" or something that isn't actually true, as the leadership changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, leadership does change in dictatorships, so not sure what your point there was. However, the old compromise, before the one at the top of the page, was:
- People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place)
- Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede)
- Whis was supposed to reflect the self-image of the leadership as well as the accepted reality.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, leadership does change in dictatorships, so not sure what your point there was. However, the old compromise, before the one at the top of the page, was:
- Before it was a "People's republic" which also contained republic, if you want to call it a "Communist dictatorship" or something that isn't actually true, as the leadership changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- At least if we say "People's Republic", many readers will understand that anything described as "People's" is usually a euphemism.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, there is no "people's republic" form of government. People's/Socialist republic or Communist state - this is all nonsense. The latest consensus was "Single party-led republic. And I'm glad we finally worked all the way to correctness. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that consensus was reached in a very small window, and consensus can change. The current description is definitely not ideal.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I for one seem to distinctly remember 2 sources being cited in whatever the prior version was, whereas the current version only cites 1. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the form of government in the infobox is different from the source. On Britannica, it's a "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house" and on Misplaced Pages it's a "single party led republic", that's not totally different but not the same either. A republic is different from a people's republic. Laurent (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. I recall the article previously cited the US State Dept or CIA World Factbook, one of which specifically used the "single party-led" phraseology. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the form of government in the infobox is different from the source. On Britannica, it's a "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house" and on Misplaced Pages it's a "single party led republic", that's not totally different but not the same either. A republic is different from a people's republic. Laurent (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I for one seem to distinctly remember 2 sources being cited in whatever the prior version was, whereas the current version only cites 1. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that consensus was reached in a very small window, and consensus can change. The current description is definitely not ideal.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, there is no "people's republic" form of government. People's/Socialist republic or Communist state - this is all nonsense. The latest consensus was "Single party-led republic. And I'm glad we finally worked all the way to correctness. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the change as the consensus isn't clear, and the new text is messy, I've added the state department as a source as "single party led republic" and "communist party led state" are very similar when you are talking about China. While the CIA world factbook does call it a communist state, we shouldn't just be taking what the US government thinks the government type in China is, as that is essentially just US government propaganda - and not necessarily what more neutral observers consider to be correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, now the infobox has two citations, neither of which supports the information in the infobox.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Communist state is a widely used term for China. We can debate it's accuracy, but we can't debate that it is widely used in RSs. The language I added was the result of a long discussion and represented an uneasy compromise. The current language was introduced after barely any time at all and was pioneered by the one person who forced a very wide group of people to move off of their collective position. Now we have language that is uncited and the result of a quick switcharoo by someone discontented with the long and reasonable discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box. LedRush (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That it doesn't match completely is true, I've added the Rough Guide as a further (hopefully neutral) source and I've also been WP:BOLD and changed it from single party-led republic to single party-led state, which fits all three sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that language is better. And it has the benefit of being verifiable.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- communist state has to be best description. more accurate such as "single party state" or equvalent would be "too biased" so communist state has to be best. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- oh come on. communism is an economic theory/system and you would have to be really revisionist to think that mainland China is communist. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Protip: Don't assume that
laypeople, errr I mean, the majority of Misplaced Pages readers know the differences between economic systems and political systems, and the precise details on anything that isn't covered in the 6 o'clock news. I guess it can't be helped, unfortunately. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Protip: Don't assume that
- oh come on. communism is an economic theory/system and you would have to be really revisionist to think that mainland China is communist. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- communist state has to be best description. more accurate such as "single party state" or equvalent would be "too biased" so communist state has to be best. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that language is better. And it has the benefit of being verifiable.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That it doesn't match completely is true, I've added the Rough Guide as a further (hopefully neutral) source and I've also been WP:BOLD and changed it from single party-led republic to single party-led state, which fits all three sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No longer encouraged to return to China
I think this quote from last sentence of "Demographics" should be deleted: "The government, which imposes tight controls on immigration, no longer encourages ethnic Chinese to "return" to China."
I have read the source, and it specifically refers to the Chinese ethnic group in Indonesia, and it doesn't talk about Chinese from anywhere else. Thus, we can't use this to generalize all overseas Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.116 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed...Fixed. If someone objects, revert and come discuss here. --LLTimes (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
6 trillion $ economy
The gdp data coming out on 20 january 2011 with a growth rate of 10.3% puts the Chinese economy at about 39.8 trillion cny with an exchange rate to usd of 1 usd is 6.59 cny this puts the Chinese economy at 6 trillion $.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=71184815 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=18324&page=1
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=3070524
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/china-ends-2010-with-gdp-of-us598.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Government PR
While accompanying a rapid economic rise, the PRC since the 1990s seeks to maintain a policy of quiet diplomacy with its neighbors. Comes across as Government PR.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Population Density
Firstly, apologies for what is really only a minor change proposal. However, given that this is quite a major page within Misplaced Pages, I thought it best not to proceed without consultation.
Given the stated area of PRC (9 641 000 sq.km) and the stated population (1.342 bn), the density would seem to have been correctly calculated as 139/sq.km.
This has been ranked as 53rd densest, globally. This is incorrect, and I have referred to the List_of_countries_by_population_density page which clearly shows the UK as 53rd and China as 79th.
a) Shall I proceed to change this?
b) Is there no mechanism for automatically linking the ranking, and perhaps even the contributing popn and dens figures, to the appropriate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-b-g (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
inacuracy in economy section
the following paragraph should be corrected
... data across more than 200 countries in mid-2010 stated China is expected to overtake Japan as the second wealthiest country in the world by 2015 ($35 trillion) on the back of rapid economic growth and strong domestic consumption. Ten years ago, China was the seventh largest country in global wealth and China currently holds $ 16.5trillion, 35 percent ahead of the wealthiest European country, France....
1- France is not the largest economy in Europe, it's Germany 2- China is already the second largest economy, so there is not prediction about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.1.189 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 157.150.192.237, 11 March 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please add to Studies
- http://www.china-food-security.org/index_m.htm Can China Feed Itself? A System for Evaluation of Policy Options.
157.150.192.237 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly do you wish to change? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Manufacturer No. 1
China unseated the US as the world's top manufacturer. The first time in perhabs 110 year's that the US is no longer the world's biggest manufacturer.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42065544 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Unverified and speculative statement
I just joined, so maybe I ought to have adressed this issue some other way.
The page says: For more than 6,000 years, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies (also known as dynasties). The first of these dynasties was the Xia (approx. 2000 BC) but it was the later Qin Dynasty that first unified China in 221 BC.
This means that the 6000 years mentioned are contradicted by the following sentence, reek of propaganda to me and it requires cleanup. Don´t know how, haven´t made enough contributions yet so can´t do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woutervandijk89 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Dab fixes
Can someone fix the infobox dabs for flag and emblem (Flag of the People's Republic of China and National Emblem of the People's Republic of China)? Thanx.
Difference between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"?
Can we put "single party state" as the form of government? Or is there a difference I'm missing between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"? Laurent (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- A possible interpretation of "single party state" could mean that there is only one legal party in the mainland, when in fact, minor parties exist. Hence the "party-led" --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those are parties approved by the CPC and they have no power at all. If that's the only difference, then there's no difference. Laurent (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The contentious issue of terminology was discussed extensively at some point in the last year or two. Check the archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Limited Power Projection
Autochtony writes. Please allow a novice to comment. "China is the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities" - this may no longer be true after the recent cuts in the U.K. Defence Budget. Whether those cuts were handled supremely well is not a thread we need be involved with. A possible, and tentatively suggested, revision to the text of the article is "China has been the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities, but now has better power projection capabilities than the U.K. - and possibly France." AUTOCHTHONY WROTE: 2135z 16 April 2011. 81.132.188.36 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, sir, where is your source? Once we find at least 1 (or 2) additional source, we can revise that sentence. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:WP1.0 Template:China Portal Selected Article
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 1, 2004, October 1, 2005, October 1, 2006, October 1, 2007, October 1, 2008, October 1, 2009, and October 1, 2010. |
2nd Largest Economy?
In the lede it states that China is the world's second largest economy by both nominal and PPP estimates, yet the list that is linked for nominal GDP has all 3 organizations ranking them 3rd. Is this just because the 2010 lists haven't come out yet? Starwrath (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly right. China passed Japan a few months ago, so official rankings, which are released anually, do not reflect this yet.--hkr Laozi speak 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Official numbers are out: Japan's economy shrank 2% while China's is growing at 9.8%... Remember, you only need to achieve 7% growth in order to +100% your economy in 1 decade...China, by any measure, is growing 4 times faster than the British Empire at her height... The fact she hasn't dissolved under the stress of intense reforms on all fronts is a testatment to the strenght fo the Chinese civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Military Budget
This article states like so many others that china is under reporting its defence budget. My question is where is the evidence that China is under reporting its defence budget. Where is that extra money coming from and where is that money going to? It surtenly didn't go into there hardware because according to China's own omission and foreign military analysts 70% of China's weapons inventory is obsolete. How can China hide theze huge sums year after year? Wouldn't that destabillise there entire economy? I have been hearing alot about this claims for year's now and i haven't see scant evidence. The only thing we have are claims by the Pentagon and the US congress that is repeated by there media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- the problem is they could easily be lieing. know one knows for sure but the most powerful nations in the world has inteligence saying there under reporting. the means teres claims there under reporting. dosnt say for sure if they are or arnt. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The same agency that lead the US to war in iraq??? How about nobody just mentions that china has a huge portion of low wage workers that can easily build equipment for lower wages. Or that a rising GDP can cause the percentage of spending to be unchanged(the yuan is worth six dollars). OR that countries not just the US , puts china as the next ussr threat to allow more military spending??? 162.83.157.113 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Military Section
This section includes, "Some think-tanks such as the Asian European Council have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's abrupt decision to sell arms to Taipei...." I consider the use of the word "abrupt" to violate the neutrality standard. It is a biased and pro-Chinese/anti-US. Hyphenation of think-tank is incorrect. It should be think tank. Commas should be added also, as the current puntuation is wrong. For these reasons the above should read: "Some think tanks, such as the Asian European Council, have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's decision to sell arms to Taipei..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.122.241 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The use of 'abrupt' is not only biased but factually inaccurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/Taiwan_Relations_Act. America has supported Taiwan's military since 1979, and is indeed obliged by its own laws to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.123.106 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone...
- Jan 14, 2011, China Overtakes U.S. as Biggest Economy When Measured by Purchasing Power, Bloomberg
I for one am quite reluctant to buy this, but that's just me. The claim by the person responsible seems too impressive to be true in my opinion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Error in infobox, Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine
The infobox says the country is a one party republic. This is wrong information. Some may call it a one party dictatorship. We can be nice and sugar coat it to "one party state". That I favor.
It is not like Chicago, which is a defacto one party democracy. So worse than Chicago. Donotkill (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, we had a ludicrously long discussion about this before (here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box ), and the compromise "consensus" was to place the following in the infobox:
- People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place)
- Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede)
- No one loved this compromise, but people rarely do.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope - the country is republic in its structure, and the type of the republic is single party one. This is very neutral, and very factual statement. --Novis-M (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is also important to keep the same system and categorization - all the countries' infoboxes here on wikipedia list countries as republics or monarchies, plus the type - single party, parliamentary, constitutional, etc. So if we called China something else than single party republic, anyone could say United States is "capitalist union" (instead of factual "Federal presidential constitutional republic") or something like that - which is nonsense. --Novis-M (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Novis, being the primary opponent to the changes I referenced above, do you recall those discussions? What changed from then to now to allow for the infobox to read as it now does?LedRush (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am a strong proponent of what the infobox currently says. And the discussion that led to "single-party led republic" are featured very prominently at the top, under the section "GOV type". I was a participant in that discussion, too. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops...guess I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out to me.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am a strong proponent of what the infobox currently says. And the discussion that led to "single-party led republic" are featured very prominently at the top, under the section "GOV type". I was a participant in that discussion, too. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Novis, being the primary opponent to the changes I referenced above, do you recall those discussions? What changed from then to now to allow for the infobox to read as it now does?LedRush (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is political correctness gone wild. North Korea is also called a republic. If so, almost every country is a republic!
- Yes, 99% of all countries are either republics or monarchies. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If we don't want to offend countries, just leave this subject off the infobox. It is better than lying. My vote cannot overcome 1B potential WP editors so you win, I retreat. Donotkill (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one billion editors haven't weighed in on this. While I am surprised that past consensus to include both the official form of gov't and the actual one was so quickly overturned, it should not surprise you that it can be overturned again.LedRush (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Before it was a "People's republic" which also contained republic, if you want to call it a "Communist dictatorship" or something that isn't actually true, as the leadership changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, leadership does change in dictatorships, so not sure what your point there was. However, the old compromise, before the one at the top of the page, was:
- People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place)
- Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede)
- Whis was supposed to reflect the self-image of the leadership as well as the accepted reality.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, leadership does change in dictatorships, so not sure what your point there was. However, the old compromise, before the one at the top of the page, was:
- Before it was a "People's republic" which also contained republic, if you want to call it a "Communist dictatorship" or something that isn't actually true, as the leadership changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- At least if we say "People's Republic", many readers will understand that anything described as "People's" is usually a euphemism.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, there is no "people's republic" form of government. People's/Socialist republic or Communist state - this is all nonsense. The latest consensus was "Single party-led republic. And I'm glad we finally worked all the way to correctness. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that consensus was reached in a very small window, and consensus can change. The current description is definitely not ideal.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I for one seem to distinctly remember 2 sources being cited in whatever the prior version was, whereas the current version only cites 1. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the form of government in the infobox is different from the source. On Britannica, it's a "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house" and on Misplaced Pages it's a "single party led republic", that's not totally different but not the same either. A republic is different from a people's republic. Laurent (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely. I recall the article previously cited the US State Dept or CIA World Factbook, one of which specifically used the "single party-led" phraseology. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the form of government in the infobox is different from the source. On Britannica, it's a "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house" and on Misplaced Pages it's a "single party led republic", that's not totally different but not the same either. A republic is different from a people's republic. Laurent (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I for one seem to distinctly remember 2 sources being cited in whatever the prior version was, whereas the current version only cites 1. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that consensus was reached in a very small window, and consensus can change. The current description is definitely not ideal.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, there is no "people's republic" form of government. People's/Socialist republic or Communist state - this is all nonsense. The latest consensus was "Single party-led republic. And I'm glad we finally worked all the way to correctness. --Novis-M (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the change as the consensus isn't clear, and the new text is messy, I've added the state department as a source as "single party led republic" and "communist party led state" are very similar when you are talking about China. While the CIA world factbook does call it a communist state, we shouldn't just be taking what the US government thinks the government type in China is, as that is essentially just US government propaganda - and not necessarily what more neutral observers consider to be correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, now the infobox has two citations, neither of which supports the information in the infobox.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Communist state is a widely used term for China. We can debate it's accuracy, but we can't debate that it is widely used in RSs. The language I added was the result of a long discussion and represented an uneasy compromise. The current language was introduced after barely any time at all and was pioneered by the one person who forced a very wide group of people to move off of their collective position. Now we have language that is uncited and the result of a quick switcharoo by someone discontented with the long and reasonable discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box. LedRush (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That it doesn't match completely is true, I've added the Rough Guide as a further (hopefully neutral) source and I've also been WP:BOLD and changed it from single party-led republic to single party-led state, which fits all three sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that language is better. And it has the benefit of being verifiable.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- communist state has to be best description. more accurate such as "single party state" or equvalent would be "too biased" so communist state has to be best. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- oh come on. communism is an economic theory/system and you would have to be really revisionist to think that mainland China is communist. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Protip: Don't assume that
laypeople, errr I mean, the majority of Misplaced Pages readers know the differences between economic systems and political systems, and the precise details on anything that isn't covered in the 6 o'clock news. I guess it can't be helped, unfortunately. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Protip: Don't assume that
- oh come on. communism is an economic theory/system and you would have to be really revisionist to think that mainland China is communist. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- communist state has to be best description. more accurate such as "single party state" or equvalent would be "too biased" so communist state has to be best. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that language is better. And it has the benefit of being verifiable.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That it doesn't match completely is true, I've added the Rough Guide as a further (hopefully neutral) source and I've also been WP:BOLD and changed it from single party-led republic to single party-led state, which fits all three sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No longer encouraged to return to China
I think this quote from last sentence of "Demographics" should be deleted: "The government, which imposes tight controls on immigration, no longer encourages ethnic Chinese to "return" to China."
I have read the source, and it specifically refers to the Chinese ethnic group in Indonesia, and it doesn't talk about Chinese from anywhere else. Thus, we can't use this to generalize all overseas Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.116 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed...Fixed. If someone objects, revert and come discuss here. --LLTimes (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
6 trillion $ economy
The gdp data coming out on 20 january 2011 with a growth rate of 10.3% puts the Chinese economy at about 39.8 trillion cny with an exchange rate to usd of 1 usd is 6.59 cny this puts the Chinese economy at 6 trillion $.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=71184815 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=18324&page=1
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=3070524
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/china-ends-2010-with-gdp-of-us598.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Government PR
While accompanying a rapid economic rise, the PRC since the 1990s seeks to maintain a policy of quiet diplomacy with its neighbors. Comes across as Government PR.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Population Density
Firstly, apologies for what is really only a minor change proposal. However, given that this is quite a major page within Misplaced Pages, I thought it best not to proceed without consultation.
Given the stated area of PRC (9 641 000 sq.km) and the stated population (1.342 bn), the density would seem to have been correctly calculated as 139/sq.km.
This has been ranked as 53rd densest, globally. This is incorrect, and I have referred to the List_of_countries_by_population_density page which clearly shows the UK as 53rd and China as 79th.
a) Shall I proceed to change this?
b) Is there no mechanism for automatically linking the ranking, and perhaps even the contributing popn and dens figures, to the appropriate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-b-g (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
inacuracy in economy section
the following paragraph should be corrected
... data across more than 200 countries in mid-2010 stated China is expected to overtake Japan as the second wealthiest country in the world by 2015 ($35 trillion) on the back of rapid economic growth and strong domestic consumption. Ten years ago, China was the seventh largest country in global wealth and China currently holds $ 16.5trillion, 35 percent ahead of the wealthiest European country, France....
1- France is not the largest economy in Europe, it's Germany 2- China is already the second largest economy, so there is not prediction about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.1.189 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 157.150.192.237, 11 March 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please add to Studies
- http://www.china-food-security.org/index_m.htm Can China Feed Itself? A System for Evaluation of Policy Options.
157.150.192.237 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly do you wish to change? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Manufacturer No. 1
China unseated the US as the world's top manufacturer. The first time in perhabs 110 year's that the US is no longer the world's biggest manufacturer.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42065544 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Unverified and speculative statement
I just joined, so maybe I ought to have adressed this issue some other way.
The page says: For more than 6,000 years, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies (also known as dynasties). The first of these dynasties was the Xia (approx. 2000 BC) but it was the later Qin Dynasty that first unified China in 221 BC.
This means that the 6000 years mentioned are contradicted by the following sentence, reek of propaganda to me and it requires cleanup. Don´t know how, haven´t made enough contributions yet so can´t do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woutervandijk89 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Dab fixes
Can someone fix the infobox dabs for flag and emblem (Flag of the People's Republic of China and National Emblem of the People's Republic of China)? Thanx.
Difference between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"?
Can we put "single party state" as the form of government? Or is there a difference I'm missing between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"? Laurent (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- A possible interpretation of "single party state" could mean that there is only one legal party in the mainland, when in fact, minor parties exist. Hence the "party-led" --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those are parties approved by the CPC and they have no power at all. If that's the only difference, then there's no difference. Laurent (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The contentious issue of terminology was discussed extensively at some point in the last year or two. Check the archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Limited Power Projection
Autochtony writes. Please allow a novice to comment. "China is the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities" - this may no longer be true after the recent cuts in the U.K. Defence Budget. Whether those cuts were handled supremely well is not a thread we need be involved with. A possible, and tentatively suggested, revision to the text of the article is "China has been the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities, but now has better power projection capabilities than the U.K. - and possibly France." AUTOCHTHONY WROTE: 2135z 16 April 2011. 81.132.188.36 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, sir, where is your source? Once we find at least 1 (or 2) additional source, we can revise that sentence. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- C-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- C-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2010)