Talk:China/Archive 2

China's Military

I was wondering if anyone had a source for the part about the Russian aircraft carrier that China bought but "was destroyed before they received it". It's the first I've heard of this and I did a brief search and couldn't find anything else. China did buy 3 decomissioned Russian aircraft carriers after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but apparently these were converted into floating hotels and casinos. Also, I think there should be some mention of China's push to modernize it's forces. TastyCakes 15:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I checked, china bought one carrier from the USSR after its collapse, I don't think the carrier was even finished when it was sold to china. It is at first said that the carrier will be build into a casino/hotel, but after being dragged over to china, they turned it...I think to a museum...and now they are covering it up with scaffolds again... --24.85.147.171 04:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Even if it is partly true (which at the moment I doubt) it's probably too detailed for this overview. TastyCakes 03:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ran

As a freshman here, I was surprised by the languages and words in the China Politics, Foreign Relations and Military. They are not NPOV. The POV is critic but not neutral. Some words are bias and the others are guessing. That's not objective. Pashan 12:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, those sections are not NPOV at all. But replacing them with the opposite POV isn't the way to solve the problem.

I was part of an effort earlier to NPOVize the history section. You can still see how it was done: "A says X because of P, and B says Y because of Q..." and so on. This way, the history section encompasses a huge span of views, from people who believe that the Great Leap Forward was great and didn't kill anyone to the people who believe that it killed 40 million people; from people who think that Deng's reforms were all good and will make China a modern country to people who think Deng's reforms were all bad and will cause China's demise; and so on. All sorts of views are rolled up in that section. You can take a look at it for reference.

Unfortunately I don't know that much about the topics you're working on, so you'll have to work those out with others here. (Many of them have very negative opinions of China's political system, so, for the sake of NPOV you'll need to keep them happy too. That's where the fun of it is. ;) ) But if you put back what you have now, it'll get reverted for sure, again and again. That frustrates everyone, doesn't accomplish anything, and certain isn't how NPOV is done.

Welcome to Wikipedia, btw. ;) -- ran (talk) 19:48, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that--Pashan Talk 15:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands

On Adminstered vs. controlled Yes in terms of administrative hierachy it is part of Okinawa prefecture. But the Japanese authorities do not exercise normal administration over the islands. They are patrol by the navy. In reality the authorities aren't able to treat them as ordinary islands like many other those in the Southwest Islands or in the Pacific.

Okay, is there any difference between how Japan controls the Diaoyu Islands, and how Japan (or any other country) controls other uninhabited islands or regions? (Such islands probably don't need departments for education or healthcare. ;) ) -- ran (talk) 22:30, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

What if a Japanese want to visit the island, say for research purpose, does she/he have to apply with the Japanese Defense Agency? Or is it the same like going to the Iwo Jima? Bear in mind designating an island as natural reserve or national park is also an act of administration. -- 17:56, January 27, 2005, UTC

there's no population there. the whole debate is about economic zones and therefore oil and gas.--Sumple 00:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moves of "X in People's Republic of China " articles

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

X in People's Republic of China → X in China

• Also X of People's Republic of China → X of China
• Also People's Republic of China's X → China's X
• etc.

There are a number of articles and categories with titles that use "People's Republic of China" in the title where just "China" would be more suitable, on grounds of "using common names". For instance People's Republic of China's trademark law and many other examples.

The use of "China" (in reference to current events and situations) in modern news media and everyday usage always refers to the territory, population, and society that is the People's Republic of China... the only political controversy is over whether China includes Taiwan or not. The term "Republic of China" is always used in full (or abbreviated to "ROC") — that is, the term "China" alone (in reference to current events and situations) never refers to the Republic of China.

For instance, when the news media refer to "China's economy" (a major topic these days), it is always the People's Republic of China's economy that is being referred to.

Exceptions: there are currently separate full articles on China and People's Republic of China, and History of China and History of the People's Republic of China. These are therefore not simple page moves, and are outside the scope of this "requested moves" page.

Note: the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) would be edited in accordance with the outcome of this vote and the votes below on ROC/Taiwan issues. However, the votes are not linked: voting for one does not imply voting for the other. -- Curps 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support with condition PRC/China gets to use the term "China" as the name of the political entity; meanwhile, ROC/Taiwan gets to use the term "Taiwan" as the name of the political entity. Taiwan and ROC are interchangable as China and PRC when these terms are used to refering political entities. When the term "China" is being used in either political context or geographical context, it strictly refers to the territory under PRC jurisdiction. Territories outside of the current PRC jurisdiction depends on the context such as historical territories would be mentioned as part of historical territory. Taiwan would be only claimed by China as part of China, but not regarded as part of China. Provinces of China and the political divisions of China refers to the provinces of PRC with her claim over Taiwan. No articles of China would make Taiwan as part of it, only make claims of it. ROC is not China(here, PRC) or part of China(here, PRC). ROC should not be listed in a article which make it look like part of China/PRC.Mababa 04:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Saying the ROC and Taiwan are the same is not neutral. See this (from the PRC), and this (from Lee Teng-hui) for example, regarding the criticism of Chen Shui-bian for making such a claim. Certainly in the many times I've heard "China" being used, it does not strictly refer to, either in a politically, and especially and a geographical and cultural context, to the PRC. Your POV is one supporting Taiwan independence. We must represent all sides here. What if we regarded both the PRC and ROC to be part of China? What if we want to be ambiguous? What you propose is certainly not NPOV. --Jiang 05:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah... I do see what you mean. Your statement "What if we regarded both the PRC and ROC to be part of China" is an obvious unification supporter's POV and I do not believe Wiki should have any thing to do with this statement though. Further, I do not think my proposal is supporting Taiwan independence by all means. I do not believe my proposal would ever damage PRC's claim over Taiwan nor bolster it. It is sheerly for connecting common perception to the Wikipedia so that we are not locked in our ivory tower and make a twisted encyclopedia that is not recognizable. PRC's claim would always be addressed as her claims as usually being processed here. There is a strong and clear need to have China to be directed to PRC in this Wikipeida for those readers searching information on PRC, and there is obviously some articles written not inline with the current naming convention and used China as political entity refering to PRC. I am only proposing a fair and easy solution so that no straneous or dramatic changes would be required to fix the current situation. I have been following the convention NPOV policy and most ROC related articles are quick to be fixed. Now I wish same priniciple would be applied to the POV in some articles using the term "China" as a political entity or we should change this policy to another fair and neutral usage. With the current poll land sliding toward opposition, I am confident that the wisdom envisioned in the NPOV convention dictating the term "China" would not be used refering any political entity (and often used to include ROC and PRC together under a political entity called as China) would be enforced and carried out.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • China can be a geographical or a cultural area, that both mainland China and Taiwan belongs to. Saying Taiwan is part of this geographical or cultural concept of China does not necessarily means pro-unification. — Instantnood 13:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Conditionally oppose - This not an issue of which political entity is China--that was the Cold War debate. This is over the definitions of the entity named China. By endorsing the "People's Republic of China" as the sole China, we are still making a political statement. This goes against the notion that China is a cultural/geographic entity that transcends regimes--almost no Chinese, and no one familiar with China, will dispute that this can be at least an alternative definition of "China" given how many dynasties have passed through. Those who hold the view that China is a cultural/geographic entity currently divided politically between the PRC and ROC are not few. The news media usage is not NPOV. It's meant to be simplistic since news is designed to be short and cater to the masses. Do you also recommend moving Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia and Republic of Ireland to Ireland because the media does the same? This is awfully western-centric because in a Chinese political debate where there are multiple sides, the neutral terms mainland China and Taiwan are used, never simply China and Taiwan. As an encyclopedia, we can be different. We are supposed to be neutral and to educate. Any confusion in the title can be cleared up in the text. When most/many Chinese refer to China, they do not refer simply to the People's Republic of China, but Greater China. Just walk into San Francisco Chinatown and you'll see the flag of the PRC and flag of the ROC appearing in equal frequency--the ROC flags aren't being flown by Taiwanese, they are being flown by Cantonese-speaking immigrants and their descendants. Given that this is a politically contentious issue, this deserves exception to the "use common names" approach. The same exception has been given to Macedonia and Ireland. Why not China? Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) may not be changed without proper consultations on the proper talk page, in the least a note directing others to this page. This said, I oppose mainly in principle. References in the text to the President of the People's Republic of China should not be changed. I oppose strongly on that. But for Politics of China to sit where it is, I will remain neutral. There was lengthy debate on this at Talk:People's Republic of China/Talk:China archives. Unfortunately, some of these are lost to the software and we'll need further help to retrieve them--Jiang 05:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be neutral on the Politics of China as well since it is clearly dedicated to the PRC (and no ROC involved), even this usage was not complying with the convention. As to the province of China and political divisions of China, they included ROC together with PRC under a political entity called "China" which is against the convention and makes a political statement endorsing the PRC's position :"There is only one China in the world. Both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.[1]" This is clearly not neutral and should get fixed in a way that either making the article purely dedicated to PRC (just like the politics of China) or having the NPOV convention enforced, so that not a single political entity would be called "China."Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The concept of province to the ROC and to the PRC is more or less the same (except for the autonomous regions under PRC's system (or to be exact, mainland China's system), which are either titled provinces or regions/areas). Splitting the article on "province of China" into two is probably redundant. — Instantnood 17:59, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose (unconditionally). The treatment of the title of these articles depends on the scope of the content. If it is about China in general, without dealing with any government (such as calligraphy, history, etc.) or both governments are addressed (such as province of China), the title "X of China" or "Chinese X" should be used. If it involves the two governments, "X of the People's Republic of China" and "X of Republic of China" should be used. If Hong Kong and Macao are not covered, such as economy, trade, culture, customs, cinema, etc., "X of mainland China", "X of Hong Kong", "X of Macao" should be used, instead of "X of the People's Republic of China". The same should apply to templates and categories.
  I also oppose editing the naming conventions according to the votes on this page. It should be done at the discussion page of that article. — Instantnood 08:41, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment: province of China involves a political power (a goverment called China in this case) exterting a state's sovereignty over territories. It is not something goegraphical. It is political and not neutral of the current article and your proposal in that talk page. Please understand that your political POV is not neutral.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: On the other hand, there are two governments called China, so which one are you refering to?--Huaiwei 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Your question is my concern and also your own answer. Which one? Please take note that PRC vehemently objects "two China" and thus we should not bias against their POV. Nor should we make ROC part of PRC 'casue it's biased against Taiwanese. You are more than welcome to participate the POV dispute in political divisions of China if you have any suggestions. We need more opinions to solve the POV dispute.Mababa 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • For provinces, its the same thing for the ROC and the PRC, just like calligraphy of China. — Instantnood 18:01, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given by Instantnood. --MarkSweep 09:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons given bt Instantnood. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - XED.talk 10:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, vehemently even. The term China embodies and invokes different meanings to different people, and to assume that they all refer to the PRC alone goes against wikipedia conventions of respecting the views of all sides, as pointed out by Jiang and Instantnood above.--Huaiwei 21:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jiang and Instantnood have said all that needs to be said. -- ran (talk) 02:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose ObsidianOrder 06:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, and assume bad faith. A.D.H. (t&m) 03:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why bad faith? The Taiwan voting trend below seemed to indicate people wanted to abandon using "Republic of China" because "everyone just calls it Taiwan". For this reason I invoked "everyone calls it China", I thought surely these same voters would agree. And English speakers talking about "China" are just talking about a country, not mystical Tianxia. Inconsistency in voting here is frankly surprising. -- Curps 12:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt if everyone who voted for the DPP is pro-independence. Some of them voted the DPP as an alternative to KMT, which was associated with "hēi jīn" (black gold). Indeed many polls show that the majority of people on Taiwan support neither independence (i.e. changing the official title to Taiwan and officially renounce claims on the mainland) nor reunification (or rejoining/joining), but to keep the status quo. — Instantnood 13:36 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It will invoke a NPOV dispute. --Aphaea* 11:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. BlankVerse ∅ 06:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. POV. —Lowellian (talk) 09:45, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Should Republic be spelled with a capital? This is against Wikipedia naming conventions. -MarSch 15:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Giant emblem

The State Emblem is giant; far larger than with other nations and than before. Why is this? 81.153.145.6 17:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

it's not that big... its a round shield with an image and surrounded by appropriate decoration - comare the US coat of arms which is also a round shield --Sumple 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Two Versions

Me and Ran are having two versions of the Article, here are some points we raised during the revert war, which I see have gone too far. Here's some points we raised:

winhunter - Most = All?<-- Ridiculous, as I said before, " claims sovereignty over but does not administer" is a more accurate description, and stop pushing that Mainland China thing, because it's known as China

Ran - winhunter: your version says the PRC comprises "most of China". this implies 1) Taiwan is part of winhunter - Rev Ran - It implied nothing, don't you see the sentence " claims sovereignty over but does not administer"

Ran - ok; but your version is the one that implies China = mainland + Hong Kong + Macau + Taiwan winhunter - Rv Ran - because you said it's referred as Mainland China, which is true only in HK and maybe Taiwan, but most of the world referrs it as China

Ran - (winhunter: that is exactly the reason why i reverted to my version. why are you reverting it back again?)

winhunter - Rv. Ran - I never said that, it remains controversial, but the fact remains that ppl refer PRC as China)

Ran - winhunter: there is NO consensus that China = PRC + ROC. whether Taiwan is a part of China is controversial, so it is POV to imply that it is. Zhouij: if you have better statistics, give a source

I think we should discuss instead of endless reverting, please stop further reverts until this is throughly discussed, anyone is welcomed to join in this discussion. --Hunter 14:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Winhunter: what do you mean "Mainland China" is known as "China"? Mainland China is an unambiguous and NPOV term that refers to the territory of the PRC up to 1997. "China" is a term that can include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. In fact, if you try to imply that China = just Mainland China, a lot of people aren't just going to disagree, they're going to get seriously offended. I understand that "Mainland China" sounds like politically-correct crap to lots of non-Chinese people, but that's just the way it is. Contentious issues (e.g. the name of Macedonia, the extent of Armenia, the Oder-Neisse line, Derry / Londonderry etc.) tend to sound like frivolous crap to the rest of the world, but Wikipedia is NPOV so we have to deal with these issues anyways.

And besides, the version you keep reverting to refers to the PRC as comprises most of the cultural, historic, and geographic area known as China. That implies that a) all parts of the PRC today are part of China {i.e. Hong Kong and Macau are part of China} and b) some minor parts of China are not part of the PRC (possibilities include Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, Arunachal Pradesh, etc. depending on POV, though I'm going to guess that it was originally written with Taiwan in mind). This is already and immediately POV, because a) we're implying that Taiwan is a part of China, which is unacceptable to lots of Taiwanese people and b) we're implying that Taiwan is not a part of the PRC, which is unacceptable to lots of Mainlanders, who think of Taiwan as a renegade province of the PRC. So you see, neither side is placated.

Which is why I rewrote the article. My rewrite takes into account all points of view. -- ran (talk) 22:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is, PRC is simply being referred as China, this practice is being used in all around the world with the example here: [2]. Mainland China is to referred as to PRC WITHOUT HK, Macau & Taiwan, PRC in general is being referred as simply China. I state once again, I am NOT trying to imply anything, but this is just how it's being used all around the world. Pickup any world famous prints like Time Magazine, you can see it's just referring PRC as China.

And what are you trying to say, HK and Macau is of course part of China! Why not? And again, most does not mean all, I find that the sentence " claims sovereignty over but does not administer" as a more accurate description of the case, as this is merely a description but not any POV. For geographical, you can calculate the percentage of land Taiwan and those islands comprise and find that most is a accurate descrption, for cultural and historical? you can really see how much it have in the PRC.

P.S. forgive me if I make any gramatically mistake or something similar, because I really have written this in a hurry. --Hunter 00:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with your definition of "China"? Earlier on you said that China is Mainland China, now you say that China is the PRC, and yet the version you're defending says that China is the PRC + ROC.

And which part of my version do you not agree with? You've basically disagreed with your own version, which implies that Taiwan is unambiguously a part of China. -- ran (talk) 01:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's not about how I define China, it's about how the world sees the term of China, when they refer something as China, they are talking about PRC. I never said China is mainland China, please qutoe me if I am wrong.

As for your version, that Mainland China thing is as stated above, and I strongly doubt the referral of ROC as PRC's rival and that invisible country thing. Furthermore, the definition of China is redundant, as here is talking about PRC, not China in general. If people try to search for China in general, they'd be redirected to the China page, not here. And, should you try to give a definition of China, you shuold either state description or views from both side(or all sides), as I can see you stated views from ROC people only. --Hunter 04:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not about how I define China, it's about how the world sees the term of China, when they refer something as China, they are talking about PRC. - and what is the PRC in this case? The PRC's POV is that PRC = China, where both "PRC" and "China" include Taiwan. Is this reflected in your version? The Green camp in Taiwan also believes that PRC = China, where both "PRC" and "China" exclude Taiwan. Is this reflected in your version?

I never said China is mainland China, please qutoe me if I am wrong.. In an edit summary you said: "it's referred as Mainland China, which is true only in HK and maybe Taiwan, but most of the world refers it as China." Here you are drawing an equation between China and Mainland China, excluding HK and Taiwan.

and I strongly doubt the referral of ROC as PRC's rival and that invisible country thing. What?

the definition of China is redundant, as here is talking about PRC, not China in general. Since a large portion of the world believes that talking about the PRC is the same thing as talking about China (be it mainlanders who feel PRC includes Taiwan, Taiwanese who feel China excludes Taiwan, or outsiders who don't have a clue), we do need to set the terms straight and clear up confusion.

And, should you try to give a definition of China, you shuold either state description or views from both side(or all sides), as I can see you stated views from ROC people only.. ... no, I clearly and unambiguously state the position of the PRC: "The PRC considers the combined area of control of both itself and the ROC as a complete and indivisible country known as China. " On the other hand, your version starts by endorsing as fact the general Blue camp view, which is that China is made up of the PRC and ROC. You have left out the Green camp view, while the PRC view is presented as a POV (unlike the Blue camp view). -- ran (talk) 08:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

For the 1st paragraph: in my version: cultural, historic, and geographic area known as China is simply an descrption, not any POV, therefore there's no point of view from either side. The reason is because this is an article describing PRC, not to bring out the controversy, therefore, I see a description to be more fit for the purpose.

For the 2nd paragraph: I admit I may have failed to bring out my meaning in the edit summary, what I was trying to say is, when people use Mainland China, they are trying to talk about the area that excludes Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. However, people do referr RRC in short as simply China.

For the 3rd paragraph: I just want to know why you trying to say ROC is PRC's rival? In what way? And the invisible country thing, I really have no idea what you are trying to say. As stated above, people just referr PRC in short as China, it's not some sort of invisible country.

For the 4th paragraph: I agree a definition of China maybe needed, but not here. When people search in wikipedia about China, they get China, only when they click the disambiguation link they get PRC. So should there be a definition, it should be on the China Article, not in here.

For the 5th paragraph: I see no reason to change the original article's description: The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over but does not administer Taiwan, it's merely a description, not any point of view, therefore no views is stated, not from Blue not from Green. --Hunter 12:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph: The key is the word most. The article states that the PRC comprises most of China. This already flies in the face of the PRC's definition of itself. That was what I meant when I said POV.

The second paragraph: if so, then we shouldn't endorse an article that clearly states that PRC != China (PRC is a subset of China).

The third paragraph: Of course the ROC is the PRC's rival. What else would you describe them to be? Also, the word that I'm using is indivisible. Indivisible. This is crucial, because the PRC views China as one permanent country called the PRC, and the current ROC situation as a temporary, transigent existence

The fourth paragraph: then how would you define "PRC"? It's impossible to give a coherent view of various definitions of the PRC without also explaining along the way what people conceive "China" to be.

The fifth paragraph. No no, that's not what I'm saying. That statement, taken alone is fine, because it frames the PRC's viewpoint as a POV. But it's not fair to put that statement if the Blue camp's and the Green camp's views are not treated the same way. The Blue camp's view is basically taken as fact (PRC is a subset of China), while the Green camp's view (Taiwan is outside China) is completely ignored. -- ran (talk) 15:49, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have in mind the land Taiwan comprise of? Even if we exclude Taiwan, how much land does PRC have? 95% maybe 90%? I see it justify the word most.

PRC maybe =! China but I say again, people referr PRC in short as China, it's not like I am making this up, I already gave source on this and you can check other world famous medias like reuters and CNN, to see how they referr PRC.

Rival by definition means competing person or group, I don't see ROC have the power to compete with PRC. In terms of millitary, if there's a war and the American is not coming, ROC would be taken over in a matter of days. In terms of international influence, PRC have much much greater influence than ROC. In terms of Economy, the GDP of PRC is much greater than ROC. So in what aspect you think ROC is a rival of PRC?

I am sorry for making such careless mistake, yes PRC sees Taiwan as an indivisible part of itself. However, similar meaning is being stated in the original version: "The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over but does not administer Taiwan".

I see the opening sentence as sort of the definition of PRC. For definition of China, it should be in the China page. Should there be any people having such need of such definition, they would have searched the term: China and arrived at that page. Therefore, if any definition is needed it should be on that page, this article should focus on PRC.

Description of facts does not need views, there's a sentence that comes after it: it is administered by the Republic of China, also description of fact. Both Sentence added together: PRC claims soverinity over Taiwan, PRC is not currently controlling it, ROC is currently controlling Taiwan, I see this is good enough. So can you please point out(with quote) where you see as the said Blue Camp's view PRC is a subset of China? --Hunter 17:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look at the first sentence of your version, the definition of the PRC.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a state that comprises most of the cultural, historic, and geographic area known as China.

What does this imply? This implies that:

• The PRC does not comprise all of China.

In other words, there are regions which are part of China, but not part of the PRC. Do you agree with this interpretation? -- ran (talk) 19:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this is a controversial issue, the reason of not using all is because it's POV, however, the use of word most is correct in any case. --Hunter 01:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So all is POV, but most isn't? -- ran (talk) 01:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Because we never able to know what's all, so most is the best description. --Hunter 06:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What? I don't understand this. All means that the PRC includes all parts of China. Most means that the PRC does not include all parts of China. If all is POV, how can most be NPOV??? It's like saying, if "Taiwan is not a part of China" is POV, how is "Taiwan is not a part of China" NPOV??! -- ran (talk) 13:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to say, the definition of all China varies a lot, all China = China in Tong Dynasty? Ching Dynasty? Or others? What's the definiton of all China? We may never know, however, the use of word most should be correct in any case. --Hunter 14:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The PRC defines China to be all areas that it either controls or claims. Areas that it does not control etc. (Taiwan, etc.) are also part of both China and the PRC, they are just temporarily being occupied by other powers. So you see, China = PRC in this case. So the use of most is not NPOV. -- ran (talk) 14:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I see the world generally perceives the term China as the land that includes the area controlled by PRC and ROC, even the CIA World's factbook: Map of China in CIA World's factbook, so you see, the use of the term most conforms with the definition of how the world sees the term of China. --Hunter 17:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The PRC refers to China as synonymous to the PRC. In other words, the PRC conceives of Taiwan as being part of the PRC and temporarily administered by an enemy regime on the other side of an unfinished civil war. So you see, it is utterly wrong, from the PRC's point of view, to say that "the PRC comprises most of China".

The Green Camp in Taiwan also refers to China as synonymous to the PRC. Hoewver, this China does not include Taiwan. Thus, it is also utterly wrong from the Green Camp's point to view, to say that "the PRC comprises most of China". -- ran (talk) 20:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Should we add a short paragraph somewhere in the article to explain the use and the meaning of "China" in common use, the policy based on community consensus on Wikipedia, and direct readers to the China article, the manual of style and the conventions? The meaning of China really varies and depends on situation. In common use, politically it is often used to refer to the PRC, while talking economy and many other topics it may mean only the mainland. — Instantnood 10:08, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

It think it'd be nice if you give an example parahraph before I comment, however, I give my support to redirect readers to the China article for the definition in any case.

I still feel most of the world feels China included the total area controlled by PRC & ROC, and I see those governmental claims as political ones, which, if you think it's really necessary, can be mentioned. (all in what case and most in what case) --Hunter 12:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

For starters, the rest of the world generally considers China to be just the PRC. I believe you yourself were saying this somewhere else.

Also, these are not just political claims. Nationalist fervor is reaching a high point in mainland China, while the Green camp is winning elections in Taiwan. So we're talking about very popular viewpoints here.

Also, mentioning all viewpoints is exactly what my version tries to do. -- ran (talk) 12:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion: In common use by the mass media, the word "China" is often used synonomously to the territories administered by the PRC, while territories under the Republic of China government are, although not entirely correct and ignoring islands on the coast of the continent, referred to as "Taiwan". In economic and trade contexts, as well as in sport events, and in presentation of statistical information, however, "China" is usually used to refer to mainland China, excluding Hong Kong, Macao and ROC-administered territories. Although in most cultural contexts Taiwan is considered part of the broader sense of "China", whether Taiwan is geographically part of "China" is subject to political disputes. For further details, please refer to the China article. Feel free to comment and make necessary changes. :-D — Instantnood 15:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an article from BBC News Online that "China" is used meaning the mainland: HK quashes Falun Gong convictions. One of the paragraphs from this article is " Falun Gong is banned in China and its practitioners complain they are subject to sometimes violent persecution, but they are free to practice in Hong Kong. ". — Instantnood 15:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ran: I am not going to argue with you any longer about the definition due to its difficulty to prove how the world thinks, thus further arguments would simply become arguing over positions.

Instantnood: Your definition is good, though some minor changes is necessary. Like, however, "China" is usually used to refer to mainland China, excluding Hong Kong, Macao and ROC-administered territories should change to however, "China" is usually used to refer to [[China]] excluding Hong Kong, [[Macau]] and ROC-administered territories OR however, "China" is usually used to refer to mainland China, which excludes Hong Kong, [[Macau]] and ROC-administered territories.

I give my support to put this into the China article, however I still feel it's a little bit long to put into this article, thus I think it's best to keep only that about the PRC and remove those about ROC and Taiwan, and redirect readers to the China article for the full definition. --Hunter 00:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Winhunter: by ignoring POVs and contradicting yourself ("the world means Mainland China when they say China"; "the world means PRC when they say China"; "China is PRC + ROC") you have not achieved your original purpose, which was to disprove my revision to the intro.

Here it is for everyone to see:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC), and has administered a large amount of territory commonly known as Mainland China (or simply "China", for short). The PRC has also administered Hong Kong and Macau since 1997 and 1999 respectively. In addition, the PRC claims sovereignty over the zone of control the Republic of China (ROC); this includes Taiwan Island, the Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu. The PRC considers the combined area of control of both itself and the ROC as a complete and indivisible country known as China. This definition of China, and the political status of Taiwan, are controversial subjects, with many in the ROC conceiving of the ROC as an independent Taiwanese nation.

I've removed the word "rival" because it is sketchy, but I fail to see what's wrong with the rest of it or how it is not more NPOV than what we have. -- ran (talk) 01:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I fail to see where you quote this from: "the world means Mainland China when they say China", second I already mentioned above that further arguments over the term of China would become arguing over positions because of it's difficult to prove what the world thinks. Third, I said the world thinks the China is the area controlled by both PRC & ROC.

I stated over and over again that it's commonly known as China only, NOT MAINLAND CHINA, I already mentioned above in what circumstances they used such term. And that PRC claims sovereignty over the zone of control the...., where similar meaning sentence is already mentioend in the original article, which, I see no reason to change, as mentioned above. --Hunter 02:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Because using the word most in the first sentence is POV. It's not "difficult to prove" what the attitude of the PRC is - that it encompasses all of China and is synonymous with it. To present most as an NPOV fact, then all as a POV, is itself POV. -- ran (talk) 13:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I did not say difficult to prove what the PRC thinks, I said it is difficult to prove what the world thinks about the term China. The use of the word most is base on my definition of China, which, as stated above, I see no point to argue with you any longer about such definition due to the difficulty to prove. --Hunter 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not "difficult to prove". The difficulty is that the world has different ways of thinking about China, thus both "most" and "all" are POV. There is no single definition and our current article (your version) does not reflect this. -- ran (talk) 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be contradicting the statment you made earlier :"For starters, the rest of the world generally considers China to be just the PRC.", where you seems to say that most of the world considers China in one way? --Hunter 15:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why would that contradict what I said? The rest of the world (i.e. outside China) generally considers China = PRC without Taiwan, but the PRC considers China = PRC with Taiwan. The Blue camp considers China = PRC without Taiwan + ROC (Taiwan). The PRC, the blue camp, and the rest of the world think differently. Why would this be a contradiction?

Besides, so what if the rest of the world considers China to be PRC without Taiwan? If you really think that, then shouldn't you disagree with your own version, which states without question China to be PRC without Taiwan + ROC (Taiwan), the blue camp interpretation? -- ran (talk) 15:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Let me do a simple side by side comparison:

Viewpoint	Your version	My version
PRC view + Blue camp view: China includes Mainland China and Taiwan	presented as fact	presented as POV
Green camp + rest of world view: China is PRC, excludes Taiwan	not presented	presented as POV

Now who is more NPOV? -- ran (talk) 15:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I guess we have to take into consideration that "China", and sometimes even "People's Republic of China", is used, though inaccurate, to refer to mainland China alone, excluding Hong Kong and Macao. And by the way "Macao" is the spelling used by the Macanese government in English, including the cover of the passports it issues, although "Macau" is sometimes used. "Macau" is always used in Portuguese. — Instantnood 18:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ran: And how do you prove that the rest of the world thinks it that way, this is where we have difference in position and where I say is difficult to prove!

Instantnood: Ok.. I never know about the Portuguese version as I have no knowledge whatsoever about it. As for that the use of China, when it's used to describe a country, it's PRC, when it's used in other places (like sporting events or similar), due to the specialities of Macao and Hong Kong(heh and that's why they are called SAR(s)), China is the term used to describe mainland China alone. So in this article, we should say PRC is being referred in short as China only. --Hunter 00:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Winhunter: who cares? You're the one who brought up this entire "what the world thinks" issue in the first place. Either way the Green Camp thinks it, yet you're not presenting it in your version. Unless you can prove that The Green Camp considers Taiwan to be a part of China, your version is unacceptable. -- ran (talk) 00:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I brought this up to explain my reasoning, but fine, if you dislike the word most so much, then it can be changed this way:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a state that is commonly known as China, comprises most of the cultural, historic, known as China. --Hunter 02:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The word "most" is still there. And now you're confusing the reader...

Here's a revision on my version:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). The PRC claims sovereignty over but does not administer the zone of control the Republic of China (ROC), which includes Taiwan Island, the Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu, all of which it considers as a complete and indivisible country known as China. This definition of China, and the political status of Taiwan, are controversial subjects, with many in the ROC conceiving of the ROC as a Taiwanese nation independent of China.

The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China", especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism.

-- ran (talk) 02:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)\

The term most was used to describe cultural and historic, and you feel this is incorrect? And you feel that PRC is not commonly known as China? --Hunter 11:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The word "most" implies that Taiwan is a part of the "cultural and historic" entity called China. This is POV. Many people feel that Taiwan is not a part of China in any sense.

Also, of course the PRC is commonly known as China. If you feel that I'm not bringing this out sufficiently, here's a rewrite:

The People's Republic of China (PRC or China) is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). The PRC claims sovereignty over but does not administer the zone of control the Republic of China (ROC), which includes Taiwan Island, the Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu, all of which it considers as the complete and indivisible country of China. This definition of China is controversial, with many in the ROC conceiving of the ROC as a Taiwanese nation independent of China. See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.

The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China", especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism.

-- ran (talk) 15:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

What? The word "most" is used to describe PRC, NOT TAIWAN, it just imply how much cultural and historic PRC has inherited, which have nothing to do with Taiwan. --Hunter 10:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you really need me to draw a Venn diagram for you??? When you say that the "PRC comprises most of China", you mean that there is a part of China not in the PRC. Now, which part is it if it's not Taiwan? Please, offer some suggestions. -- ran (talk) 15:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't I removed the word "most" in the geographical description? In my suggested version as shown above, I only shown how PRC is being referred in short, and I see no problem to use "most" in cultural and historic. --Hunter 15:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, which part of cultural China does the PRC not include? Please keep in mind that the Chinese diaspora is not the same thing as China. -- ran (talk) 16:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, so you suggest to change it to all? --Hunter 16:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Why would I suggest that?! It would be just as bad. And I have already posted my suggestion. -- ran (talk) 16:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

You mentioned "which part of cultural China does the PRC not include?", it's just like asking "isn't everything included?"--Hunter 17:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, is Taiwan a part of cultural China?

Also, please tell me, do you understand what NPOV means? -- ran (talk) 17:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

If I understand what POV means then how can I not understanding what's NPOV? And I see no problem to include Taiwan because ROC by it's country name is saying it's part of China (that OC part) (Look, I NOT saying here it's part of PRC, nor do I say here it's PRC's sovereignty), and even if you exclude Taiwan, do you have in mind that PRC underwent cultural revolution(s) in its history? Some of them are very destructive, so the Chinese culture it inheried must not be all of them, but most. --Hunter 23:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Lots of people in Taiwan want to change the name of the "Republic of China". They do not feel that Taiwan is part of any geographical or cultural entity called "China". Look, if you think that it's okay to present "Taiwan is a part of cultural China" as fact, based on Taiwan's official name, then why do you think there's so much dispute going on over at Taiwan?
2. If that's your definition of "comprising a cultural entity", then we might as well scrap that portion altogether. All cultures are constantly changing, and no cultural entity can comprise the entirety of itself even one year before, or one day before. As such, to say that any state comprises "most" of any cultural entity is essentially meaningless. But this is clearly not what the original author intended when writing this paragraph. The original author intended the "cultural entity" to mean the Chinese civilization, i.e. what's described at the article China. This cultural entity also has a geographical extent associated with it, and to use the word "most" would exclude a certain geographical portion, which can be interpreted as Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, etc. And as I have shown already, any such presentation is POV.

Look, we have to work towards consensus here. I don't like going in circles with you, it wastes your time and it wastes mine. Sometimes we both have to take a step back, and right now you are not being helpful. For example, why don't you tell me what you don't like about my version? For example, is there anything in my version more POV than yours? -- ran (talk) 00:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

1. Lots = All? And this is merely an minority voice. They start to reject their histry? How the ROC is originated, what does the term "中華" in thier country name means, and how did it used to occupy that UN place? They are trying to reject them all, saying it never legitmately occupied that "China" seat? Or suddenly something happened after three decades that changed it all?

2. So you are saying that the term Chinese Culture and History referrs to that of only current ones? How about those in the past, all those dynasties, they are not Chinese Culture and History? This is why we say PRC inherited only "most" of it, never "all".

3. And yes I really wanted to seek conseusus and end this, I do realize we are going in circles, and ok, it seems like I missed to respond to your latest version while responding to some of your points, this is my mistake, I apologize, If my interpretation is right, you are trying to rewrite the first paragraph of the article, so(If I am wrong please post the whole thing up to that TOC):

1. I just curious why you removed that population count and the area standing, bordering countries.. etc.
2. Also, why to move that claims soverign part to such an early place instead of right before the TOC? I feel with all those description then this claims soverign thing would be much more better. --Hunter 02:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a minority voice... you need to start reading some of the debates on Talk:Taiwan. Some people do think of Taiwan as comparable to Singapore, i.e. a country populated by a Chinese diaspora community.

Also.... look, your interpretation of cultural entity is very strange. It's almost certain that when the original author wrote that, he meant that the cultural entity is the China described at China (i.e., including Taiwan), and the PRC includes most but not all of that China.

Do you know why I'm trying to rewrite this article? Because China was rewritten. By me. It was rewritten to accommodate both the view that Taiwan is a part of it, and the view that Taiwan isn't. For more NPOV. Now I'm trying to do the same thing here. Why do you have to block me? -- ran (talk) 05:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you think both and all are POV, then give me a sentence to describe how much PRC contains the cultural and historic of that is known as China. And still I want to know why you removed all those descriptions. --Hunter 07:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove any of those information. Take a closer look at my version: [3].

Also, the current "cultural and historical entity" idea is itself subject to heavy dispute (is Taiwan part of it? is Tibet part of it? Is Inner Mongolia part of it? Is Outer Mongolia part of it? Is Korea part of it? etc.) and so I rephrased that part completely. -- ran (talk) 07:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean that old edit, I mean your newest edit in this talk page, can you integrate both and show here so that I can take a look? --Hunter 08:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

My newest edit is a minor change to the first paragraph. Did you think that I somehow made the last two paragraphs disappear?

The People's Republic of China (PRC or China) is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). The PRC claims sovereignty over but does not administer the zone of control the Republic of China (ROC), which includes Taiwan Island, the Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu, all of which it considers as the complete and indivisible country of China. This definition of China is controversial, with many in the ROC conceiving of the ROC as a Taiwanese nation independent of China. See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.

The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China", especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism.

The PRC is the world's most populous country, with a population of over 1.3 billion people, most of whom are classified as the Han Chinese ethnicity. It is the largest country in area in East Asia and the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and the United States. [4] The PRC borders 14 countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Myanmar/Burma, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Vietnam. Although it officially remains a communist state, the PRC has considerably liberalized its economy in the past three decades.

The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China," especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the colour red and communism.

-- ran (talk) 14:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say your order makes one feel this article has over-highlighted the controversy, rather than focusing on PRC. I think it should be something like this:

The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly being referred as China, is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). It is the world's most populous country, with a population of over 1.3 billion people, most of whom are classified as the Han Chinese ethnicity. It is the largest country in area in East Asia and the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and the United States. [5] The PRC borders 14 countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Myanmar/Burma, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Vietnam. Although it officially remains a communist state, the PRC has considerably liberalized its economy in the past three decades.

The PRC claims sovereignty over but does not administer the zone of control of the Republic of China (ROC), of which it considers as a complete and indivisible country of its own. Such claim is controversial, with many in the ROC consider it as an independent state. See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.

The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China", especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism.

--Hunter 03:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that perhaps you aren't providing enough information. How about the following:

The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly referred to as China, is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). It is the world's most populous country, with a population of over 1.3 billion people, most of whom are classified as the Han Chinese ethnicity. It is the largest country in area in East Asia and the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and the United States. [6] The PRC borders 14 countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Myanmar/Burma, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Vietnam. Although it officially remains a communist state, the PRC has considerably liberalized its economy in the past three decades.

The PRC claims sovereignty over but does not administer the zone of control of the Republic of China (ROC), which includes Taiwan and some neighbouring islands. The PRC considers the ROC's zone of control as part of a complete and indivisible country of its own. This claim is controversial, with many in the ROC considering it as an independent state. See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.

The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China", especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism.

-- ran (talk) 03:24, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Basically OK, I'd add some minor modifications:

The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly referred to as China, is a state in East Asia. Since its founding in 1949, it has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC). It is the world's most populous country, with a population of over 1.3 billion people, most of whom are classified as the Han Chinese ethnicity. It is the largest country in area in East Asia and the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and the United States. The PRC borders 14 countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Myanmar/Burma, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Vietnam. Although it officially remains a communist state, the PRC has considerably liberalized its economy in the past three decades.

The PRC claims sovereignty over but does not administer the zone of control of the Republic of China (ROC), which includes Taiwan and some neighbouring islands. The PRC considers those areas as part of a complete and indivisible country of its own. Such claim is controversial, with many in the ROC considering it as an independent state. See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.

The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC is sometimes also referred to as "Red China", especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism.

--Hunter 03:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

islands near south america?

I was looking at an atlas at an airport and noticed a couple islands off of south america (way, way south pacific) that are marked (CHINA) - what's the story on those islands? 24.4.135.95 08:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a mistake. -- ran (talk) 13:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

must be, because im from Chile and those islands appear to be of our own (theres not much in that islands anyway, except for a possible tactical location on the map). No part of south america belongs to China, as far as im concerned.

"The PRC comprises most of China"

... is a POV statement. According to the PRC, the PRC comprises all of China. According to Taiwan independence advocates, the PRC also comprises all of China. "The PRC comprises most of China" is the POV of the Blue Camp and hence should not be presented as NPOV fact. -- ran (talk) 00:23, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

What i don't get is why the opinions of political parties in taiwan always take centre stage whenever a discussion about china arises. I mean, you don't see anything about the Cornish Independence Movement in the lead section of the United Kingdom... --Sumple 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Taiwan is not part of China as POV

Did not add opposing POV either.

Background reading on issue :

Taiwan independance One China China Reunification

add yours. -- anon

What? There was no POV. Here's what you removed:

The PRC claims sovereignty over but has never controlled Taiwan and some neighboring islands, which are administered by the Republic of China. The PRC considers those areas as parts of itself, a complete and indivisible country. This claim is controversial, with many in the ROC considering it an independent state.

Which part is POV? Let's see.

The PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan 中华人民共和国宣称对台湾拥有主权 - true

The PRC has never controlled Taiwan 但从未实际控制过台湾 - true

Taiwan is administered by the ROC 中华民国实际管辖台湾 - true

The PRC considers those parts as part of itself, a complete and indivisible country 中华人民共和国认为台湾是自己的领土，认为自己是一个不可分割的完整的国家 - true

Many in ROC considers it as an independent state 但中华民国有许多人认为中华民国是一个独立的国家 - true

This is NPOV writing. Which part do you disagree with? -- ran (talk) 15:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is part of China. And like all parts of China its controlled by Beijing. Theres no need for PRC to claim. If the provincial govt of Taiwan, the ROC, were to claim otherwise, it will mean war. See Anti Secession.

In no way is Taiwan controlled by Beijing except as an outside force. Are there any institutes of Beijing political power in Taiwan? No. Do they have any control over any forces on the island? No. Do they have any say in the laws or day to day government? No. Either you have a very strange concept of "control" or you're ignoring the blatant truth. China may claim sovereignty over Taiwan, but that's a far cry from de facto control from Beijing.

Many in Taiwan see it that way. Vey few consider it a country. At most a SAR or autonomous province, or to use the POV term, renegade province.

Autonomous province maybe, but I don't think a SAR is an accurate description as it implies the blessing of the PRC. But if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and maintains it's own military, economic, political and cultural institutions like a duck, I'm gonna call Taiwan a Nation State, whether it's officially acknowledged as one or not.

The debate almost always centres around independance. But its just to sway the voters, just like shooting yourself for sympathy votes. Certainly not NPOV.

As the text that ran quoted stands I see no problems with it. It mentions both sides of the issue and makes no statements that are not untrue. Taiwan operates as independently of mainland China as possible for any small asian island and the only real issues that have arisen recently were related to the actual declaration of independence. 69.19.172.102 8 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

Taiwan Declared Independence!

Just kidding. There's a section at the end that needs to be changed. The PRC's view of culture can be summarized as the following:

1. ) No real critique of traditional culture but co-opting Chinese cultural forms to promote the Communist party (pre-1949)
2. ) Mao makes big speech, must purge traditional culture.
3. ) Culmination of rejection of traditional culture/civilization in Cultural Revolution. The forms themselves are rejected and only completely new arts can be used. For example, many opera singers are persecuted and thrown in prison or shipped off to the countryside for reeducation.
4. ) After rehabilitation, many old forms are seen as okay if the content is changed.
5. ) Today, there is still propaganda, but not to the extent in the past, and "feudal" art forms are free to perform along with "feudal" content.

--Wherewaldo2 03:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody says "feudal" anymore, it's quaint. Instead, anything that's Chinese, and traditional, is now lauded as an achievement of the glorious and magnificent and creative and venerable Chinese civilization.

Or should I say: practices can be feudal. E.g. valuing boys over girls, strict taboos against contact between men and women except after marriage, etc. can be called "feudal". Burning incense, praying to local spirits, etc. can be called "superstitious", which is almost as bad. But visiting temples and holy mountains, watching Beijing Opera, traditional paintings and calligraphy, Confucianism and other traditional values, traditional martial arts, etc. are all venerated and treasured. -- ran (talk) 03:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights in China

Any thoughts on having a seperate section on human rights in China? There's a little under politics but I'm not sure it really fits there and it could certainly be expanded. TastyCakes 22:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There already is a separate article on human rights in the People's Republic of China. --MarkSweep 22:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As there is for History of the People's Republic of China and Economy of the People's Republic of China. What kind of excuse is that? TastyCakes, Be Bold--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's not an excuse for anything, just a pointer to an existing article. If you think that a section on human rights is warranted, you may want to add a pointer to that article, and you can refer to it when writing the section you propose. I don't feel strongly either way about the presence of a section on human rights in this article. --MarkSweep 05:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm well I think it warrants at least a brief overview here. I'll add it when I've got a bit of time. And hopefully it won't be immediately reverted.. ;) TastyCakes 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Section added. TastyCakes 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this not part of the Politics section, btw? -- ran (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I should have put it there I just wasn't thinking. Could I put the tank picture in the history section next to Tianenmen square? I think it's one of the defining images of modern china, at least to foreigners.. TastyCakes 16:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

the bad part is that us westeners will never truly know if such things are true in its entirely or just a political propaganda view on the matter (a lá readers digest, i remember that in every issue it had at least 1 anti-comme story, it was usually abouts gulags, etc). I wish a real chinese would give some word about it.

Ask ten Chinese people and you'd get ten different answers. It's like asking ten Americans about the Iraq War or Guantanamo Bay. -- ran (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The CIA map of china are POV

The CIA map of china are POV map, because the South Tibet are claimed by china, and the map are not show.--icywind 15:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to include the map with the comment "There are border disputes in every region of the world. If every map showed every side of every dispute, they'd be incomprehensible." Now that I look at it again, this map does show both sides of this dispute, and in a readable way. Nothing POV about that. --Mr. Billion 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

the CIA map only show the indian claims which is china actrual control (Aksai Chin), but not show the South Tibet (indian name is "arunachal") that china claimed and actrual control by india. you can see the map Image:China administrative.png the area painted in blue. so the CIA map of china is not NPOV.--icywind 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

LinkFix Dump

See also: User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

It's huge... if someone gets a chance, fix these links, will ya? I have to go to bed.

LinkFix dump for "People's Republic of China", no edits made:

PRC (disambiguation) ! Disambiguation Page
Mandarin Chinese % Mandarin (linguistics)
Simplified Chinese % Simplified Chinese character
Authoritarian % Authoritarianism
One-party state % Single-party state
Portuguese ! Disambiguation Page
Mongol language % Mongolian language
Living standard % Standard of living
Gang of Four (China) % Gang of Four
Corruption % Corruption (disambiguation)
PLA ! Disambiguation Page
Political scientist % List of political scientists
Communist government % Communist state
State capitalist % State capitalism
Capitalist % Capitalism
UN Security Council % United Nations Security Council
The Rape of Nanking % Nanking Massacre
Kosovo conflict % Kosovo War
EP-3 % EP-3E Aries II
Hainan Island % Hainan
South Tibet % Arunachal Pradesh
Diaoyu Islands % Senkaku Islands
PLAN % People's Liberation Army Navy
PLAAF % People's Liberation Army Air Force
Delivery ! Disambiguation Page
PLA ! Disambiguation Page
Chang Jiang ! Disambiguation Page
Xi Jiang % Xijiang River
Takla-Makan % Taklamakan
West Coast ! Disambiguation Page
Command economy % Planned economy
Special Economic Zones % Special Economic Zone
Industrial relations % Labor relations
Pegged ! Disambiguation Page
Demographics of China ! Disambiguation Page
List of Chinese ethnic groups % Ethnic groups of China
Population explosion % Overpopulation
Nationalities of China % Ethnic groups of China
Tibetans % Tibetan people
One child policy % One-child policy
Sex selective abortion % Sex-selective abortion and infanticide
Putonghua % Standard Mandarin
Public health in China % Public health in mainland China
SARS % Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
SARS % Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
WHO % World Health Organization
Avian flu % Avian influenza
Legalism % Legalism (disambiguation)
Chinese society % Cambridge University Hong Kong and China Affairs Society
List of famous Chinese people % List of Chinese people
List of China-related topics ! Disambiguation Page
Nationalities of China % Ethnic groups of China
Police in China % Police in the People's Republic of China
Transportation in Hong Kong % Transport in Hong Kong

— Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

OK, done! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 15:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Heixiazi Island

I believe Heixiazi Island and the relative terrotory dispute worth a page of its own. Also added some new paragraph into that section of the article, which I welcome everybody to check for its neutrality. -- 59.121.201.123 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

New China

Should we add the typical (Simplified Chinese: 新华, Traditional Chinese: 新華, pinyin: Xīnhuá) for New China in the lead section? Thanks --Dpr 05:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean 新中国? It's used mostly in a historical context though... -- ran (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It would seem you're right about the Chinese. Anyway, are you emphasizing the historical use to say we don't need the Chinese translation? In either case, I withdraw my suggestion from adding the Chinese at this time. Thanks --Dpr 03:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Um... I think you midunderstood me. By historical context, I mean that "New China" is used when people are talking about history, not that it was used in the past. -- ran (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I did misunderstand you, sorry. In any case, thanks for the continuing attention to this portion, but I did want to say--do you think you could modify your most recent edit on "New China" a bit...the previous version was my attept to be as neutral/objective as possible. Is it only the PRC that calls itself this? I was trying not to start the sentence with the PRC in active voice...Besides, don't we need Traditional and pinyin --Dpr 04:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well... certainly the ROC doesn't refer to the PRC in that way. -- ran (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the ROC wouldn't refer to it in that way. But I feel the term is broader than just something used by the PRC government; it would be used by CPC members, by many pro-PRC Marxists, and indeed by many authors who are politically or at least journalistically neutral but prefer to use the term occasionally for variety. Would you be upset if I inserted this version:

The name New China has been frequently applied to the PRC as a term contrasting China pre-1949 and the new socialist state

Thanks. An in terms of my last edit, I just think that--in the absence of evidence otherwise, which feel free to provide--New China encompasses imperial (feudal) Chinese history as well as the 1912-1949 ROC. --Dpr 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of the ROC stance, there was a time that the ROC called itself "New China", as opposed to old feudal/imperial china. Although they've stopped doing that now for fear of confusion with PRC.--Sumple 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, we might need to find some way to point it out, here and/or on the ROC page. --Dpr 06:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To Laomei

Please stop reverting the numbers for country size. The numbers are taken as the total area (water and land) of China, as it is for all other countries. If you go by land area alone, China is the 2nd largest after Russia, and the US is larger than Canada. Here are the numbers from the CIA factbook:

China: Total Area: 9596960

• Land Area: 9326410
• Water Area: 270550

USA (Excluding dependencies (eg Virgin islands)): Total Area: 9631418

• Land Area: 9161923
• Water Area: 469495

Canada: Total Area: 9984670

• Land Area: 9093507
• Water Area: 891163

Also, what exactly did you find "poorly written" about the human rights section when you deleted it? It came mostly from an older, more concise, version of the main human rights in china page and I thought the grammer etc was fine. TastyCakes

wrong total: 9,631,418 sq km land: 9,161,923 sq km water: 469,495 sq km note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Alaska and Hawaii are most definitely included in the statistics cited, and pretending that they are not is foolish. The simple fact that they divide up China is disturbing and childish however. The mainland is 9596960, add in Hong Kong (1,092), Macau (25), and the province of Taiwan (35,980) and you arrive at the real size, which is indeed larger than the US on both counts.

You're right, I totally misread the CIA factbook. My apologies. As for China's total, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were one of those "Taiwan is part of the PRC" nuts. If you're going to compare on those grounds I'd ask that you add Puerto Rico, Guam and other dependencies. TastyCakes 18:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it also seems you made a mistake in your statement "China is 3rd largest, even if American statistics like to exclude parts of China simply to try to make the US seem larger." Although on reading it again I guess you might mean "Despite what American statistics say" rather than "Even using American statistics"... TastyCakes 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Laomei is not a nut simply because he/she thinks that Taiwan is a part of China. The reason why we exclude Taiwan from the figure is because we generally don't include *claimed* areas as part of the total area of a country for NPOV reasons, *not* because the idea of Chinese reunification is particularly "nutty". -- ran (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I use it in the same way you'd say a "gun nut". That is, someone who is very dedicated to a subject or stance which others may find hard to understand. Chinese reunification isn't nutty, but this is an article about the PRC, which as far as I understand means the area controlled by the PRC government. That doesn't include the ROC. Now I agree you could say the ROC is part of "China". But China has two factions and the fact that this article is called the PRC spells out which faction they're talking about. A better argument can be made for including Macao and Hong Kong, but those alone don't validate Laomei's claims. Does anyone include ROC economic data in PRC statistics? Then why include its geographic data? TastyCakes 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)\

I agree with you, it's just that sometimes it's hard to let go of borders that one feels very emotional about for the sake of NPOV. For example, Moldova is described as including Transnistria, and Cyprus (the Greek state) as including Northern Cyprus, and Serbia includes Kosovo, even though strictly speaking this probably isn't correct by Wikipedia's NPOV standards. Now if you go in there and removed those areas, you'd be sure to make Moldovans, Greek Cypriots, and Serbs very angry -- even though you'd be in the right by NPOV standards. Does this make them "nutty"?

As I said before, I agree with you on this issue, it's just that I ask you to be slightly more sensitive to the viewpoints of others which may be different from yours. -- ran (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ok you win. I won't call people nuts anymore. ;) TastyCakes 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The human rights section was biased, misspelled and not needed. How about a nice section in the US page about free-speech zones, waco, secret cia camps, kent state, etc...

If you think human rights issues are a bigger problem in the US than in China you are out of your mind. Compare kent state to tianenmen square, waco to falun gong, secret cia camps to not so secret forced labour camps? Go ahead, if you think that'll make China look better. Hell you forgot some, how about the McCarthy commie hunt compared to the cultural revolution? Internment of Japanese americans compared to mass party purges? Every time you'll see a totally different scale to the injustices in china. TastyCakes 18:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

All of what you said is debatable, and has been debated and continue to be debated on the Chinese Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is why NPOV is most important. And it is true that the human rights section you added was not remotely NPOV, but it's more balanced now.

I hardly think that either the Cultural Revolution or the McCarthy witchhunt is illustrative of the contemporary human rights situation in either country, btw.-- ran (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I appologize if it wasn't NPOV. Sometimes I have trouble telling. I find it particularly hard with a non-transparent issue, which is the case with most things to do with the PRC. Also, you're right about the cultural revolution and purges are not illustrative of the present and that's why I never had them in the section. On further thought Tianenmen square was similarly non-current and I'm glad it was removed. But in mentioning those I was trying to make a point with Laomei, not suggesting they should go in this article. TastyCakes 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, we have articles on human rights in the United States and on China's Human Rights Record of the United States. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya we knew that, there's some discussion above somewhere were I asked if there should be a seperate section for the main PRC article as well. There seemed to be general agreement that it was ok.. 03:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PLA described from the US point of view

In the "Military" section, we describe the Chinese military from an overly-US perspective. This could do with being revised by someone who knows more about the subject than myself. For example:

...the air force (which is large but has many planes that are considered obsolete by US standards).

The PRC has been intensively rearming its military forces in preparation for a showdown with the U.S. over Taiwan...A comprehensive effort is also been undertaken to modernise the Air defense after the effects of Air superiority in Iraq were observed by the PRC military...The PLA and other branches of the Chinese military represent a significant conventional threat to the United States and its interests throughout East Asia

The last sentence is particularly non-neutral; the US military might equally be said to represent a significant threat to the PRC and its interests. — Matt Crypto 12:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the part of the planes should be "considered obsolete in comparison to more modern airforces" and the bit about a showdown over Taiwan should be removed, since it's opinion and probably only part of their reasoning. I'm unaware that observing the effects of air superiority in Iraq caused them to start modernising their air defense, but if so, which Iraq war? I think the last line should be rewritten as something like "the PLA is regarded as the biggest US military's biggest conventional competition in the region" or something like that, since that gives an idea of the scale of the PLA. TastyCakes 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Are Hong Kong and Macau technically inside or outside of China?

Can anyone confirm whether or not the two Special Administrative Regions off the south coast are considered to be an integral part of the state's territory and population, or whether they are external territories under Chinese sovereignty? Apparently, UN statistical publications list them both as separate geo-political entities rather than internal administrative divisions. --Big Adamsky 14:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The situation is complicated. Hong Kong and Macau are both Special Administrative Regions of the PRC, which has ultimate sovereignty. However, in many (but not all) respects they have a large degree of autonomy, different legal, economic, educational systems, etc. The official formula is "one country, two (or more) sytems". Depending on what you're looking at (e.g. international trade), it makes sense to concentrate on the aspects of the two (or more) systems, leaving aside issues of "one country", and to separate the SARs from the rest of the PRC for practical and historical reasons. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

In practical (but *not* legal terms) the status of the two SARs is a bit like autonomous territories in other countries - think Scotland in the UK - they have their own parliament, church, legal system, etc, and compete in international sporting events on their own. But ultimately they are part of the UK as a sovereign nation.--Sumple 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism v. socialism

I am bewilidered by the notion that anyone considers China "communist." Sure, you can say it's quasi-socialist, but I don't think any self-respecting political scientist would regard China as communist. Remember, under communism, there is no natural state structure, no dictatorship of the prol, etc.

the communist state article defines a communist state as one where the sole ruling party declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism. The People's Republic of Chian definitely fits that definition... -- ran (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

that seems a weak definition imo... e.g. Hitler's party was called the national socialists, but they're not referred to as a socialist regime. i'm thinking maybe a state that declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism but does not carry this out in practice could be described as a "professed communist state", or something.--Sumple 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pop density

The population density shows up as 120^2/km^2. Although I understand it's a footnote, we should move the footnote "2" somewhere else to avoid being misintepreted as 120^2. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts (how can this ever have achieved featured title?)

I really miss paragraphs on

• Concurrent culture, and culture in general
  • Urbanization and caused changes in culture
  • Growing middle-class
  • Sports, Music, Movies, Literature
• Education
• Transport
• Rapid development in cities, temporary jobs
• More view on the nation's planned future development
• More about general economics in PROC
• Possibly immigration&growth of foreign population
• Possibly tourism
• List of 20 biggest cities

Including these would give a much, much more comprehensive and balanced introduction to PROC. I wonder how a country article doesn't introduce these aspects at all?

Instead, I noticed that..

• I counted that about half of the article consists of descriping problems of some kind, some parts written in clearly negative tone.
• Perhaps a little too much history, I'm not sure.
• A single section on military?
• A single section on public health? (or well, describing it's problems)
• A single section on space flight? Too much for a small issue (and almost half about US view?). "Science&Technology" section would be a better title and could possibly include also other scientifical achievements.

Generally, I found the article very unbalanced and provided information clearly inadequate. These kinds of articles are far from the Wikipedia standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.4.246 (talk • contribs)

Addition: I believe quality photo thumbnails would be nice too: city? countryside? perhaps an internet cafe for the censorship section? I'll look if I find something. 80.186.4.246 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! You're right, the article could use some tweaking. And remember, you can sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --Mr. Billion 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. 80.186.4.246 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with some of the tweaks you've made. --Mr. Billion 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please specify or revert the tweaks? I tried to summarize paragraphs free from non-essential details (full articles are for those, this should focus on providing realistic large view). 80.186.4.246 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, it already is a featured article. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"The PRC is sometimes also referred to, more commonly in the Cold War era and rarely in the present, as "Red China" (or Communist China, in contrast with the ROC being referred to as "Free China") for a similar distinction, especially by its political opponents and critics, in reference to the association between the color red and communism."

Does this really belong to the head? Cathymer 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies

I accidentally blanked part of the page. I was actually trying to revert this edit. I think there was some concurrent editing issues. Once again, my apologies. - Akamad 08:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted a paragraph

The anonymous user '218.111.63.4' recently changed the second paragraph, which read

"The exact meaning of PRC and China varies. In an ongoing dispute, the PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan and some neighboring islands, whose control was never relinquished by the Republic of China, which also claims to the the legitimate government of all of China. The PRC asserts the Republic of China to be an illegitimate and supplanted entity and administratively categorizes Taiwan as the 23rd province of the PRC. (See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.) The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC refers to the period of its rule as New China (T: 新中國 / S: 新中国) whenever it contrasts itself with China before 1949. In some contexts, particularly in economics, trade and sports events, China and People's Republic of China is often used to refer to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macau excluded."

to

"By law, the PRC has to protect the rights and interests of Taiwan "compatriots" and of neighboring islands. The PRC also considers that the political status of the Republic of China is unclear, while recognising it as the taiwan authority. This is consistent with the view adopted by the United Nations, the USA and most countries in the world. Also, the ROC has never declared itself independant. There is however secessionist forces in Taiwan."

I reverted it back to the first form, which I feel is more correct and also more explanatory. As well, that user has only made changes to this page (changed 'economy ranked 6th' to 'ranked 4th in 2005', etc). Does anyone have any objection to me reverting that? I just want to make sure there are no misunderstandings. AustinZ 05:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Second largest? Fourth largest?

Can anyone explain the meaning of this sentence? "The PRC is the largest country in area in East Asia, the fourth largest in the world and the second largest by land area."

Bathrobe 3 January 2006

From what I've read in the discussions above, it seems that "fourth largest" is counting "land and water" areas, which sounds bullshit to me, because then the federated republic of micronesia would be bigger than the philipines despite being just a bunch of tiny dots on the map.

I have 3 objections against this sentence: 1. Russia is the biggest country in the world, and it occupies most of east asia. therefore it seems questionable to say the least, to say that china is the largest country in area in east asia. 2. Just be land area, I would have thought, the second largest country in the world is Canada. IF you look on a map, you can see that Canada is a lot bigger. Unless, that is, you don't count all the frozen bits... 3. The method of counting countries via "land and water" area, as i said, is bullshit, and appears to me like American propaganda to pull themselves up into 3rd place.

Also I forgot to mention that the CIA count omits some of the territorial sea areas in the South China Sea as claimed by PRC and ROC, counterclaimed by vietnam, the philipines, malaysia, etc.

--Sumple 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of total area, the order is 1)Russia 2)Canada 3)USA 4)China. However, Canada is 8.92% water area, USA is 4.87% water area, and China is only 2.8% water area. This means that in terms of land area the order is actually 1)Russia 2)China 3)USA 4)Canada. Canada is at a higher latitude than USA or China which makes it look a lot bigger on some maps, but the three countries are actually very similar in size.--Todd Kloos 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the China.org.cn portal, and official Chinese government information, it is 3rd behind Russia and Canada: [7]. Most sources in the West, however, seem to use the figures given by the CIA factbook. I am guessing it is because the CIA count does not include Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and the South China Sea islands, whereas the Chinese figure does. --Sumple 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright kiddies, I've actually put in the effort and looked up country rankings by area in several different sources! So here's the gist of it:

1. US sources, including the CIA factbook, and National Geographic Society, rank it (1) Russia (2) Canda (3) USA (4) China.

2. Chinese sources, including China Geographic and the China Cartography and Geography Bureau (or however you translate it), rank it (1) Russia (2) Canda (3) China (4) USA.

3. As you can see by now, the USA thinks they are bigger than China and China thinks they are bigger than the USA. So we need a third opinion, or independent source.

4. The Royal Geographical Society, of the UK, ranks it (1) Russia (2) Canada (3) China (4) USA. So I think that settles it. An independent arbiter places it in those ranks, therefore that is what we should have on in the article. --Sumple 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Settling something based on what "2 out of 3" sources say is lazy at best. Did you not wonder why something as seemingly tangible as area sizes differed depending on who was asked? You seem to imply that it's politics and that one of the countries must be lying. The truth is that "country size" depends on what gets counted. The U.S. has a larger overall area coverage, but if you exclude fresh water areas (lakes, rivers, etc) then China has slightly more "dry land" coverage. The question then becomes what area count should a list of "country sizes" use to order by. Neither way seems better than the other. Spookfish 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a simple question of what (as in water or land or mountains or lakes) get counted. Most of the other countries have the same areas in all three lists. Therefore, I would venture to suggest that the discrepancy *is* political. Most likely, the US version does not count some territories which everyone else does.

By the way, I didn't just check 3 sources. I checked 2 sources from each of 3 different countries - the US, China, and the UK. Both the Roayl Geographical Society and the F&CO in the UK has it as (1) Russia, (2) Canada (3) China (4) USA.

I do agree with you that it is problematic of which standard to follow when there is this disagreement. I'll try to find a UN (and therefore, relatively neutral) sources on this. --Sumple 10:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are the numbers from a number of sources in order from largest to smallest: (all units in sq km)

1. The United Nations [8] Russia 17 075 400 Canada 9 970 610 China 9 596 961 USA 9 363 520

2. The CIA handbook (See main article for link) Russia 17 075 200 Canada 9 984 670 USA 9 631 418 China 9 596 960

3. The National Geographic Society (from the National Geographic Atlas of the World, 8th Ed. 2005) Russia 17 075 400 Canada 9 984 670 USA 9 826 630 China 9 596 960

4. The Royal Geographic Society (from the Philips World Atls, 8th Ed. 2000) Russia 17 075 000 Canada 9 976 000 China 9 597 000 USA 9 373 000

5. National Surveying Bureau, China (from World Atlas, Sinomap Press, 1996) Russia 17 100 000 Canada 9 976 139 China 9 600 000 USA 9 372 614

6. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (See main article for link) Russia 17 075 400 Canada 9 984 670 China 9 956 960 USA "More than 9.6 million". Note: the China data is presumably mistyped and should be 9 596 960. --Sumple 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

China's Military ranking

This article states that The People's Republic of China has the second largest military (in number) in the world, yet the PLA article states that china's armed forces is the largest in the world. Most other sources put china's military's size as the highest ranking in the world, which sheds some doubt on the validity of the military portion of the article.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/default.asp

The PRC does have the largest army in terms of active troops. But in terms of armed forces, I think the US military has slightly more, 2.6 million as opposed to China's 2.5 million. --Ryz05 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To JIang:

please stop reverting changes without reading the discussion pages first. Here are some things which were changed for a reason:

1. the reference to "Red China" is not particularly relevant and seriously, who still says "Red China?"

2. the ranking of country sizes is under debate on the talk page. if you have an argument, please put it forward

i'm reverting these edits.

--Sumple 10:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

who still says Red China? People who don't like Red China. Right wing people who don't like communism. here are 383,000 references on google alone. It's a significant term.

i have removed the disputed references to area. --Jiang 10:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Red China back up. Cheers --Sumple 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed something but it seems that "Red China" has disappeared from the article...Apologies if I missed something. --Dpr 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

wasn't me. --Sumple 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Communist China is used much more frequently nowadays... "Red China" is just quaint. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Human rights debates" section

"The PRC is often under criticism from Western governments and NGOs concerning lengthy detention without trial, forced confessions, torture, and mistreatment of prisoners as well as severe restrictions on freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, and workers' rights, as being violations of their definition of human rights. They argue these violations stem from the PRC government's intolerance of dissent and the inadequacy of legal safeguards for individual political rights.

The PRC government argues that the notion of human rights should include economic standards of living and measures of health and economic prosperity. It views the rise in the standard of living of the Chinese people as an indicator of improvement of the human rights situation."

• Although factually 100% true, including the section appears blatantly politically biased.
  • A small comparison to the United States article:
    • Human rights in the United States is internationally and domestically as widely debated topic as is Human rights in China.
    • These issues touch average Chinese as much as government agencies jailing terrorists suspects in U.S. touches average American. In other words, the issues aren't close to average people's lives.
    • Anything about human rights debates is constantly removed in the United States article.
  • Double standards are dangerous to wikipedia, especially in issues which have potential to demonize the subject. Should there be a country-articles-wide policy on whether to cover "human rights debates"? I'm all for covering them, but then there should be a clear policy that equal debates are covered in other equal articles as well.
• Even the existence of human rights is debated, so using the word "human rights" is questionable. How about "political debates", "discussed issues", etc.?
• It might be good to avoid reserving space for debates about controversial political views, more than simply linking to separate articles, because wikipedia shouldn't be a political battlefield.

I'm removing the article and putting a link to separate human rights in China article. Please, some discussion on how to cover these political topics generally within wikipedia. Klaam 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that section shouldn't be removed because:

• Human rights in China are widely discussed.
• That section is factually true, so there's no bias in including it.
• "Restrictions on freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, and workers' rights" are close to average people's lives.
• The definition of human rights is not questionable, they are clearly defined in international law.
• If the United States article hasn't got a correspondent section, that's not a good reason to remove this one.

Other edits I don't like:

• "However, the reality is that the modern-day PRC offers few personal freedoms when compared to the West, similar to, but perhaps less severe than, the former USSR." changed to "The personal freedoms have been stedily growing, although still behind Western world." Please provide a source for this, I don't see personal freedoms growing steadily.
• "Censorship of political speech and information is openly and routinely used to protect national security interests." Censorship is used to protect the Communist Party's and government's interests, not the national interest. (obviously this is my POV, it's possibly wrong, and it's not what I think should be in the article).
• "Political concerns in China include the growing gap between rich and poor in the PRC, and the growing discontent with widespread corruption within the leadership and officials." Why have you removed this?
• Regarding HIV/AIDS, see Public health in mainland China: "Projections are for about 10 million cases by 2010 if nothing is done." This seems a significant thing.

And please explain why you're using a sockpuppet (User:Klaam = User:Marymer), this is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Mushroom 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

• I agree with Mushroom that it is a problem with the US article that they don't have a human rights section, rather than a problem with the Chinese one that they do have one.
• I agree with Klaam that the issues mentioned in the human rights section are not really close to people's daily lives. This is not because these issues are not important. It is because the level of restriction on such freedoms in China today is not so oppressive as to affect people's daily lives (as was, for example, in China in the 1970's, or Soviet Union in the Stalin era).
• On the edits that Mushroom objected to: personal freedoms have definitely been growing, or have grown since the Mao era. However, I don't agree with the word "steadily" either, because on one view the development of human rights have stagnated since 1989. I propose that the sentence be changed to "Personal freedoms have grown considerably since the early days of Communist rule. However, heavy restrictions remain in some areas."
• On "Communist Party interest" versus "national interest", I think it is POV to judge that it is one and not the other. I believe it should say "to protect what the government claims to be national security interests".
• The bit about growing gap between rich and poor, and corruption, should be restored.
• I'm too lazy to do all those edits myself right now. --Sumple 00:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your proposals. Mushroom 01:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made some of the edits I proposed. I couldn't find where "Political concerns in China include the growing gap between rich and poor in the PRC, and the growing discontent with widespread corruption within the leadership and officials" goes, and I didn't restore the human rights section. Care to do the honours, Mushroom? --Sumple 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Mushroom 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Political concerns in China include the growing gap between rich and poor in the PRC, and the growing discontent with widespread corruption within the leadership and officials"

Do we know that these are really the primary political concerns that we should mention here? How about environmental problems, educational problems (shortage of international-level managers and teachers), various economical problems (poorly performing loans, bank collapses), aggression from the United States, war with Taiwan, halting of the general development, independence movements in some provinces, revolution by groups such as Falung Gong causing non-satisfying development, etc.? There are a lot of important concerns, so I'm not sure if we can know that the currently listed concerns are the ones we should exclusively mention. Corruption can be mentioned (if it's not mentioned) as a widespread phenomenon, though I believe it's probable that most people agree on it and therefore can well be mentioned. However, I think "gap between rich and poor" is not something that should be mentioned exclusively because it's too commonly understood as natural development, I believe some of the other concerns mentioned above are much more commonly shared. I suggest that "the growing gap between rich and poor" is removed.Klaam 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

About using word "human rights" at one section header... Mushroom wrote: The definition of human rights is not questionable, they are clearly defined in international law.

There are countless declarations of human rights, and yes, some which are considered "international law". For example, there is International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both signed by many UN members including China. Within the terms of covenants, China can well jail and kill people without violating anything which belongs to 'human rights' as long as they are understood as special cases defined in the covenants (and yes, that's Beijing's view). Or on the other hand, we could interpret, that failing to provide affordable healthcare or jailing bank robbers violate human rights. Covenants are all about interpretation - there are some basis on international definitions, but in essence, human rights are arbitrary. If we say that the set of issues are human rights issues, that's a pov interpretation of human rights. I suggest that we use more general name, such as "political debates" (then we the section could potentially also include things nobody considers human rights, such as animal rights, etc.).Klaam 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mushroom wrote: "Restrictions on freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, and workers' rights" are close to average people's lives.

No, I think they aren't. There are no restrictions in daily life, just restrictions on specific political issues, which is, far from daily life. Average Joe doesn't care about politics, particularly when politics is doing fine from Joe's point of view (more and better jobs, more affordable commodities, etc.). Some might argue that the ban on hate speech in US, increased governmental control of media and forced confessions are considered close issues by Americans, but I disagree, only small minority has expressed interest in them even though politics is traditionally considered much more "close issue" in US culture than in Chinese post-Communism culture. Sure some think the political restriction are negatively or positively close to their lives, but generally, people just know that they exist if one happaned to be interested in politics, and just continue happily their lives without much contact on the issues. Klaam 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And last "That section is factually true, so there's no bias in including it." and "If the United States article hasn't got a correspondent section, that's not a good reason to remove this one."

Yes. You're right that if such debates are not covered in equal situation in other articles, it's not a good reason to not cover it here article.

Instead, I was thinking, if we could discuss here (I'm not sure if this talk page is the right one for this discussion, do you know some more general talk page?) and create a Wikipedia guideline page "discussing politics and human rights in country articles" or similar, where Wikipedia could characterize what kind of aspects are generally important to cover in country articles (and what are not), and possibly what is proper weight distribution, naming of the sections, and other disputed issues, in addition to general guidelines within Wikipedia (especially NPOV guidelines). There are various opinions held by various contributors and consequently different articles are highly varying. High variance at how country articles cover political aspects is bad for an enclylopedia - the reader falls too easily into getting unnecessarily incorrect overall pictures of different countries. What do you think? Klaam 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. On political concerns, the thing to note is that we are talking about *political* concerns. environmental concerns are not political concerns, except in the context of Greens preferences. Since the Communist Party doesn't need preferences from anybody, that's not an issue. I think the growing gap between rich and poor, and corruption, are relevant issues and are probly what people would say if you asked them what political issues they are concerned with.

2. On definition of human rights, I don't know what you are on about. Jailing a bank robber is not a violation of human rights, but imprisonment without trial is. Just because law is interpreted by courts and tribunals doesn't mean it is arbitrary. The definition of "murder" is (in common law countries) interpreted by the court, even if it is contained in statute. Are you going to tell me that therefore murder is an elusive concept and to define murder is to be POV?

3. On close to average person's lives, I agree with you that they are not close to the average person's life, and I don't think that part of the statement should be there.

4. On human rights in country articles, I don't think we can change how Americans think. Just go to the talk page and look at the issue of "United States of America". They think "United States" = their nation, (and therefore Mexico can't possibly be United States of Mexico), and no matter what others say they won't budge. So I think it's a hopeless case. --Sumple 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Sumple, except on point 3. But that's never stated in the article, it was just my (probably wrong) point of view. Mushroom 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok I'll concede that it's close to some people's lives, i.e. the ones who are getting locked up for it lol. --Sumple 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sports

The entire sports section is utterly mangled. It looks as though someone translated litterally from chinese, was a foreign speaker, or is simply very bad at english. The part about soccer makes it seem that football (american) was invented 2000 years ago. The part about golf might be the worst non-sequitir i have ever seen in a paragraph. Its also missing several articles, particularly "the." I'm going to try an edit here and see what people think. --Cptbuck 00:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok i think my changes clarify the section quite a bit, i'd really like someone to find more info about the golf being played there for 700 years bit. From what i've seen at the golf wiki article it appears to have been invented there 1100 years ago, but theres no real indication as to whether it was played continuously (i doubt it was.) --Cptbuck 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The extensive name&meaning paragraph in the lead into a separate section?

I feel that the name paragraph is a way too long for lead section. I suggest that we put it into a separate section in the beginning.

As I see, we would achieve several advantages:

• The lead section wouldn't be so long/filled with one topic.
• We could improve the lead summarization about PROC to cover more topics of importance.
• Separate section would able to cover the name&meanings in a more detailed fashion.

The section could be named e.g. "PRC Disambiguation". Any objections?Klaam 19:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a good move. Query: is "Xxx Disambiguation" the standard term used in these contexts? --Sumple (Talk) 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

see the guidelines at wikipedia:lead section. The lead section with info on Taiwan is not long at all. "PRC disambiguation" is a poorly worded heading - it's not just about the name, it's about a complex political dispute. --Jiang 08:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the heading is poorly worded. Maybe "PRC concepts/conceptions/notions/perceptions" or "PRC in language" would be better? If anyone has a better suggestion, please change it.

Taiwan issue is included in the sections "political divisions" (political claim) and "foreign relations" (territorial claim, tensions). It would be good to note in the concept section that in some uses (by PRCians?), the concept "PRC" or "China" includes Taiwan. Klaam 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Taiwan and scope of the PRC is so central to the definition that it belongs in the lead section. Otherwise, people still wonder after seeing the lead why we have separated this page from China. And besides, the lead section is too short. --Jiang 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

the way it stands now is perfect, imo. --Sumple (Talk) 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Any truth in this site?

[9]

• Forced abortions? china claiming mongolia and large portions of india?!? sounds like BS, but just making sure. Pure inuyasha 22:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

err year indeed bullshit. if you look at the small writing its written by Xinjiang (East Turkestan) independence movements. For those who are confused between the various independence movements, these are the ones who train in Afghanistan and blow up busses, and are outlawed in the United States. --Sumple (Talk) 22:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Hi guys, I think the PRC government has lifted the ban on Wikipedia, because the recent vandalism looks like it came from someone who knows Chinese but not English.

These things need to be reverted:

1. The reference to "Glorious United People;s Central Authority" or similar. Dunno where that comes from - could be some kind of literaly word-by-word translation of "People's Republic".

2. The "based on Chinese civilisation" which has been deleted before.

3. Changes to overview.

--Sumple (Talk) 11:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

China only had that ban for a week or something.... Pure inuyasha 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)