Talk:China/Archive 8

Following Statement Misleading

"The uncertainty over size is related to (a) the validity of claims by China on territories such as Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract (both territories also claimed by India), and (b) how the total size of the United States is calculated: The World Factbook gives 9,826,630 km²,[59] and the Encyclopedia Britannica gives 9,522,055 km².[60] A recent change in the method used by the United States to calculate its surface area adds to the confusion as to the actual size of the United States.[61][not in citation given]"

What this says is that China instigated this dispute. It didn't. China's total area have not changed since its founding. People controlling this page knows that the sole reason is due to the fact that US changed its way of calculating total area, basically by including coastal and territorial waters, when similar waters are not included for China.

So basically: "A recent change in the method used by the United States to calculate its surface area" doesn't add to the confusion, it is the SOLE SOURCE of confusion.

I think this should be corrected to reflect the truth, which in this case is in favor of our enemy, China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.23 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus request for the inclusion of section 5 star banner

Objection to the removal of the section:

1. Please read Flag of the People's Republic of China#Symbolism, this flag has a very special place in the heart of many Chinese.
2. The previous Maoist government was all into Class struggles and World revolution, and occasionally some Chinese leader would still talk about China is not into exporting revolution to the world(See Xi Jinping#Latin American Tour and Controversy, so it is only appropriate to talk about the blood-stained red color of the revolutionary flag
3. From Flag of the People's Republic of China#Symbolism
4. The government of PRC is a clone of the soviet system, detailed even to the color of it's flag: QuotedThe golden colour mainly symbolizes the glorious history and culture of the Chinese people and was partly inherited from the colours of the flag of Soviet Union, which was also a combination of red and gold, in which case the gold symbolizes the brightness of the communist future. The flag is a symbol of Chinese communist, has got nothing to do with the traditional Chinese culture. In traditional Chinese culture, 星, star is always associate with natural disaster or calamity, as in ancient times Chinese emperors would employ officials to 觀星(to observe the stars), in order to predict the fate of it's empire. The worst kind of star would be comets(Chinese:掃把星), which was usually associate with social unrest, great famines, and massive amount of deaths. 災星 is another Chinese term for comets.
5. My opinion is this 5 star section should stay. Arilang ^talk 05:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Info removed until dispute is resolved. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the flag deserves an entire section and paragraph in what is supposed to be an overview summary of the entire history of the PRC, and your comments do not convince me otherwise. The content would probably be welcome on the PRC History or PRC Flag articles though. I did an admittedly cursory survey of several country articles and Soviet Union does not discuss the flag, nor do any of the others except Nazi Germany, and even there it's just referenced in the context of the takeover, so I see no precedent for an entire subsection on the flag. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps a link in the caption of the flag in the infobox to redirect to the Flag of the People's Republic of China page? TastyCakes (talk)

Consensus request for the inclusion of section Famous Chinese dissidents

Exactly what is the reasons behind the removal of this section? The job of a Wiki editor is to record verifiable history for other readers, and for future generations, and should not be impeded by so called bigoted political correctness, whatever it's implication bring. The inquisition of Chinese dissidents and Falun Gong are very well documented by many international media, and these illegal procedures are repeated again and again in the daily basis inside mainland China, editors should not just pretend to be blind, or simply look other ways. Arilang ^talk 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

You added the section, correct? The edit was reverted, reasons cited here [1]. You re-added the edit, it was removed again. We don't want to start an edit war, correct? It was removed because one or more of the following is in dispute:

• The validity of your edits. One or more editors believe that your edit is in some way biased or untrue. see Wikipedia:Verifiability
• The reason behind adding your edit. One or more editors believe that you have an ulterior motive for adding what you did. see here [2]
• The neutrality of your edit. One or more editors believe that your edits were biased or not neutral in some way. See Wikipedia:Neutrality.

Until the problems with your edits are resolved, it is better to leave the page as it was directly before you added the disputed content. Thanks, Ono (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While I did not add that section, here is my take on your points:

• WP:Verifiability: That these people are famous Chinese dissidents is quite verifiable.
• POV-pushing: Reading WP:NPOV#POV_pushing, I see it described as "the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." How is that the case with this section? Are we promoting a controversial point of view by describing famous dissidents? What, are they not famous, are they not dissidents? As for undue, you do not seriously contend that it is a "fringe view" that PRC dissidents and Falun Gong? This issue is well-known and heavily covered by press and other media. It is particularly germane to a section about civil rights and politics. So, it is not clear where the POV-pushing is, or the undue weight. It is not like the wording says, "PRC was very bad to do this."
• Neutrality: Neutrality means representing all notable/non-fringe points of view, which is why we include both the statements of the activists and those of the PRC in the civil rights section. If we excised any side, the article would become biased. How does neutrality apply to the dissidents section? Not at all (unless you dispute that they are famous or that they are dissidents, which is absurd). The brief summaries of the dissidents do not take sides, but rather are descriptive. If you do think some part of the text is not neutral, just fix it instead of deleting it.

So, I don't think the grounds for objection to this section are very strong at this time. Wikipedia is not censored, and the material appears to comply with the requirements in addition to being quite relevant, so it should be restored. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to it being in there. I simply posted to his question why editors are disputing his putting that information in the article. I personally believe that the dissidents are an important part of Chinese history, and should be included. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think typically dissidents are only mentioned on a country article if they were successful at making majour changes in their respective countries. For example, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella or the founding fathers of the US. I don't think this is the case here, Chinese "dissidents" this editor seems to have in mind have not played a large enough role in China's history to justify inclusion in an article this broad. TastyCakes (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, a similar section could be added to those other country articles. We need to discuss whether or not this section at this article complies with the content criteria. Perhaps, in the line of compromise, we could reduce it to a sentence along the lines of "Famous Chinese dissidents include ..." Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Except who decides they're "famous"? Mouth pieces of the state, mouth pieces of Falun Gong? "Famous" in this context seems an intrinsically subjective word, how would we as wikipedia editors decide where to start or begin the list? Who makes the cutoff for being famous enough? I'm sorry but I think such a line would lower the overall quality of the article. TastyCakes (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note I'm not saying these names have no place in wikedia. The human rights in the People's Republic of China article comes to mind. I just don't think it's appropriate for a country page. TastyCakes (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean "famous" as in they meet our notability criteria and received much press coverage. We could use some different wording if you would like. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't it appropriate? I've made a case above but I am not sure what your case. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I have made my reasoning quite clear: these dissidents have had minimal impact on China as a whole. Their mention in the article, then, serves only to demonstrate the heavy hand of the Chinese government concerning dissent. I believe this can be adequately done in the "Civil Rights" section describing the arrest and treatment of dissidents as a whole rather than the individual cases. I also believe your pushing to include this list is inherently biased, and adding it would move the article away from neutrality. I suggest you read through some other country articles that are rated as good or featured articles to get a feel for what is appropriate for such pages. TastyCakes (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to verity the relationship, is there more than two article independent from the country's official media devote a section for the persons in question in an article that introduce the country?--Skyfiler (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewording or renaming would solve the problem

I suggest, instead of famous, we could rename it like ...Imprisoned and/or exiled Chinese dissidents.... Everybody agreed? Arilang ^talk 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. By having articles about the dissidents, we implicitly attest to their notability. Did you introduce the section? If so, thank you; I learned about dissidents who I had not known about. Chedorlaomer (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK,since there is no objection, I shall begin to add the section and its content. In future if any other editors try to delete this new and renamed section(Imprisoned and/or exiled Chinese dissidents), we should invite the admin intervention. Arilang ^talk 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I may as well log my objection, for reasons I describe above. Troubling as their individual cases may be, they are not (in my opinion) notable enough to deserve mention in a country article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that this is rated a Good Article. Your recent edits (the dissidents section) was riddled with grammatical errors and choppy sentencing. I would suggest rewriting the sentences instead of copying directly from other articles. Thanks, Ono (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gao Yaojie

Been cleaning up the new dissidents section. Currently it doesn't say whether/when Gao Yaojie was exiled/imprisoned. Are we referring to her house arrest (glancing at her article), or what? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. I suppose that since the section is named exiled and imprisoned dissidents, and not just dissidents, she really shouldnt be on there. I looked on the internet, and couldn't find anything about her ever being in jail; she wasn't exiled, as they won't let her leave the country. Take her off? Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The section is named that because there were objections to "famous dissidents" as a title. Perhaps "notable" dissidents? Again, maybe this is too subjective for various naysayers, but they are notable by Wikipedia standards. In theory, we wouldn't be saying much more than we already say by keeping a Wikipedia article about them. Chedorlaomer (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done it for the time being. Please let me know if you have any objections. Chedorlaomer (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

Just want to discuss the relevance of these "famous dissidents" to the topic "People's Republic of China" before digging further into details of the section.

1. Importance: We've already got "Civil rights", if these people are famous, they are only famous when you talk about the human rights record of China, not when you talk about the whole topic. They would be better suited in Human rights in the People's Republic of China or List of Chinese dissidents.
2. NPOV and neutrality: Inclusion of this section is like having the article United States of America replaced by only four sections: one on Guantanamo Bay, one on America's intervention of other countries' politics, one on Racism in the US, and one on Fred Phelps. Well, they are all verifiable, but emphasising them in particular would be promoting a certain POV. The same rule applies here. We've never had such sections in articles of other countries, and looking over this article in other wikis, I can't find one that is as extensive as enwp to include "a list of famous dissidents". The more relevant topics here are demographics (ethnic groups, languages, religion), economy, education, sports, media, history, science & tech and environment. If someone expands the article by stressing the seriousness of the current environmental problems, food safety problems, prevalence of fraud, problems caused by massive internal migration and rural workers, disparity between people, injustice, flaws of the education system and so on, I wouldn't object because these are more directly related to the nation, they are the real sufferings of ordinary people, however they are often the factors that western media have deliberately ignored because of their irrelevance to communism.

As above, we've got "Civil rights", so adding an extra section on famous dissidents but not mentioning other human rights problems caused by massive population would create an underlying tone that says "See despotism is the greatest evil and it poses the greatest harm to the Chinese people. The government is suppressing everyone, and these are the heroic people that dare protest against it", which is incomprehensive and POV. It would be simply prejudice and bias towards the political system disguised in the form of "notability". Therefore before mentioning other problems, the notable dissidents section is better removed, it is over-emphatic; it could be made into a link to List of Chinese dissidents instead. --Choij (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you just go ahead and add material about the "other human rights problems caused by massive population" if you truly think that coverage is lacking? Chedorlaomer (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They have all been summarised here(zh) and here(zh) and I don't have the desire to add/translate and incorporate them into this article. We've already had four paragraphs on civil rights (political freedom) and you still don't think that's enough and want to add another section which occupies even more space? It's way too much. And you think "Blanking everything maintains a positive image" of PRC? I can't see the eulogy from the "Civil rights" section though. --Choij (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Choij entirely. A list of people that some wikipedians consider "notable dissidents" has no place in a country article. Unless they play or have played a majour role in the country, I don't see how it can be justified to add them to an already long article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We should be alright to include a link to the list at the beginning of the civil rights section. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a link to Human rights in the People's Republic of China. Doesn't it make more sense to get the list added there? TastyCakes (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

stressing the seriousness of the current environmental problems

I agree with user Choij, another section is really needed. There are many media reports and published papers on

1. Huge dams impact on local life
2. Huge petrol-chemical complex that spill out tons of toxins
3. Industrial toxic waste untreated and dumped into rivers and lakes. E-waste village Arilang ^talk 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoping that this section not get deleted

Section Industrial pollution caused by the rapid economic growth in China added, please discuss on talk page before anyone trying to delete it. Arilang ^talk 01:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why no Law and Order section?

What is the Law of the PRC? How are it's citizens being protected or being abused by the authority? How does it's legal system work? Any body care about? Arilang ^talk 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're zooming in too far again; this is an article meant to summarize an entire country. The issue is already addressed by the civil rights section, which I agree should be retained. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is a summary topic and should be written as such. --Skyfiler (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That said, I think the infamously weak justice system in mainland china should be mentioned in the civil rights section. Lack of respect for intellectual property laws may also bear mention somewhere in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Try find two articles about China as a country that exists for more than 50 years from reliable sources, and then try to find any discussion about intellectual property.--Skyfiler (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

50 years? I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean articles that recognize the PRC as a country before it was let into the UN? Or do you mean sources from 50 years ago? here is an article from the US-China Business Council from 2005 and Here is an Economist article from last year regarding copyright/patent infringement in China and how it is (hopefully) changing. I'm sorry if you bristle at this subject, I thought it was fairly well accepted that China's lack of respect for intellectual property is a serious concern to foreign investors and is widely thought to stifle innovation within China. TastyCakes (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note this article's scope is not the country (just check this article's content to see how large the scope is) but its intellectual property situation in the after 2003, you can not use it to prove the notability of intellectual property in the context of the country in a historic perspective (nearly 60 years). You need to find articles with large scopes like this one does, not just some articles that only covers tiny aspects of an industry and a few years in history. There are reasons why side articles like 2004 U.S. election voting controversies exists. Read Wikipedia:Relevance of content and Wikipedia:What claims of relevance are false for more details.--Skyfiler (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating the guidelines to keep content you don't personally consider important enough. A huge part of the article is about subjects that are not the same or were not relevant 60 years ago, as is information in most country articles. I think, and I think it can be demonstrated, that intellectual property rights, or lack thereof, have had a majour role in China's economic picture over the past several decades, enough to mention at least a one sentence summary in the economic section. TastyCakes (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Had PRC government respect any kind of Law and Order in it's 60 years history?

This current article, in it's current form, is an extreme case of violation of WP POV, because it give a false image of the PRC, because:

1. No mention of why, and how PRC maintains it's One party rule over 1/5, or 1/4 of the entire human race.
2. No mention of PRC constitution, which clearly stated that PRC is a Marxist communist totalitarian regime.

1. No mention of past natural disasters such as 2008 Sichuan earthquake
2. No mention of how PRC choose and pick it's owner leader, such as Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, how exactly did they become PRC top CEO? And the speculation of Xi Jinping as the next generation PRC "core", or CEO, as oppose to western society's general election system.
3. No mention of rampant and big-money communist official corruption cases.
4. No mention of widening gap between the have and the have not.

In fact, the whole article look like something coming out of the Ministry of propaganda, such as Xinhuanet. Arilang ^talk 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating the situation. I believe "why and how" the PRC maintains one party rule is far to involved and subjective a subject to be tackled in an article such as this. I think the constitution might bear mentioning under politics. I think talking about the Sichuan earthquake might be bordering on recentism. Ditto with the corruption cases. And I think the "widening gap" should be mentioned somewhere, but only as the observation that the coastal cities have seen rapid rises in per capita income while the interior has been left behind. TastyCakes (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The past, the present, and the future

I strongly suggest editors should read and consult historical China related articles such as Tang Dynasty, Han Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty so that they have a broader understanding of the current modern China Empire on the rise. Arilang ^talk 01:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gao Rongrong photo

File:GaoRongRong.jpg

Gao Rongrong, tortured to death by Chinese authorities for practising Falun Gong. Amnesty notes that officials had reportedly beaten her using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, causing severe blistering and eyesight problems.

We are supposed to use images related to the text. The persecution of the Falun Gong is mentioned under the religion section. We have pictures for other parts of the religion section. Aside from a desire to censor the article and strip it of any text or images that do not serve PRC interests (as would be done were the PRC in control of Wikipedia), why should the picture be removed? Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not censored and is not supposed to be pro-PRC, that pic does seem like it could possibly be unnecessarily graphic/shocking and overly anti-PRC, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Also, the subject of the picture is not mentioned in Falun Gong and does not appear to have a Wikipedia article about them, so they seem, at least prima facie, not notable and thus a somewhat arbitrary choice to include here. Is there not a picture from a protest (like one of those already in Falun Gong) that would serve the same purpose? It does seem that this article is currently lacking a description of the violent repression of Falun Gong followers, so that certainly does need to be added. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that I found the picture at Persecution of Falun Gong. The picture is supposed to illustrate the discussion about the persecution of Falun Gong, which includes torture with electric batons. I don't see why you'd object to the picture because the girl they tortured was not famous in her own right. It is like saying, "Oh, well, she is just a peasant, so it is not worth noting that she was tortured and murdered for her religion." The point was not to show a famous dissident but rather to illustrate what is meant by "persecution" in the case of Falun Gong in PRC. As such, it is not only minor (such as denial of jobs or education) but also major (violent repression, torture). I assumed that mention in the article of the persecution would be enough foothold for a picture, but if necessary I can elaborate on the nature of this torture further by plain text in addition to pictures. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are pushing your own point here. It is like adding an unknown actor who portrayed the US President to the US president article. The actor may be famous by playing the the US president role in a show, but the actor does not have any impact on US Presidency. Thus the US president article should not include such an actor. --Skyfiler (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The point of the picture is not to highlight the significance of that particular individual, but to illustrate the issue in a clear and simple way for the reader. That isn't related to pro or anti communist sentiments; it should be regarded as a simple explanation of a state of affairs, like pictures of farming crops, or whatever. In any case, explanation of the campaign against Falun Gong--easily one of the most high-profile and significant political campaigns the communist Party has launched over the last decade--should be in the article. The case of Gao Rongrong is rather famous, too, and received a lot of attention from Amnesty International and media at the time. The scorched-face photo was taken in hospital before she died. Is there a more appropriate and representative picture available? If this is already here and it illustrates the issue well, I'm not sure what the problem is..--Asdfg12345 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it uses shocking imagery to simplify a complex topic and to sway readers to the Falun Gong position by emotion rather than reason. It would be exactly analogous to putting the famous Abu Ghraib prison photographs in the United States article. Just as that would be inappropriate there, this image would be inappropriate here. But again, putting it on the human rights in the People's Republic of China article would be quite suitable, in my view. TastyCakes (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User TastyCakes using example of famous Abu Ghraib prison photographs to compare with persecution of Falun Gong is plain wrong, to say the least:

1. The scale of these two events makes it un-comparable, when famous Abu Ghraib prison photographs was an isolate and singular case, it was terminated quickly, wrongdoers got prosecuted and end up in jail. And the Chinese authority that imprison and torture Falun Gong followers still go on everyday, as if the Falun Gong followersare non-human.
2. The continuous and persistent mistreatments of Chinese citizens, be they (1) Falun Gong followers (2) Political dissidents (3) Weiquan movement (4) anyone protesting against the authority, make me wonder, is China still remain in the pre-modern time, when Hua-Yi distinction was used to tell the different between Barbarians and civilised people? Arilang ^talk 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your comments are not convincing me that you're interested in bringing a neutral point of view to the article. TastyCakes (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of conversation, though, perhaps by your criteria pictures of lynchings should be included in the US article? Slavery and consequent persecution is a very significant element of America's history, with ramifications felt to this day, and are mentioned several time in the article. But do you see images of lynchings or anything related to race relations in the history section of the US article? No, because such shock imagery is unfair to the subject and is not appropriate for country articles. TastyCakes (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think either are a bad idea (putting the lynch pictures in the US article, the persecution picture in this one). It's not that the intent is to rouse the reader's emotions, but simply to illustrate the topic--that is, without regard to how it makes the leaders of the country look. But anyway, if there is this standard to keep country articles fairly chummy, then maybe not a big deal. Let's see what we can do about some useful text though, which establishes the significance of what has been happening.--Asdfg12345 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to add pictures of Abu Ghraib to military section of United States , United States armed forces, and picture of the My Lai massacre to history section of United States. It was all well-sourced, relevant, and for these events the pictures themselves were particularly famous, but of course it was censored out because some users want pictures to be a trophy case that make the country look good, so "negative" images must be suppressed, no matter how significant. I completely disagree with this censorship. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not censorship. Your information wasn't relevant to the article as a whole, it was drawing attention to a particlar part, without contributing to the rest of the piece. There are seperate pages where the My Lai massacre is well covered, and it doesnt need to be added to the main page.

You put [3] that as the main picture of the US armed forces page, giving the impression that that is how the US army treats its prisoners. I'm not suprised that it got reverted. The act of a few soldiers is not an adequate representation of the United States armed forces as a whole, nor is that picture an accurate representation of how all other POWs/civilians are treated by American soldiers.

The explanation above is also why your picture was taken off the US main page. It doesnt contribute to the article as a whole. There is a page over the Abu Ghraib incident, thus it didnt need to be mentioned.

You added those pictures in a blatant attempt to play off pathos. Your edits were obviously slanted at trying to trigger the readers emotions, thus not keeping the article neutral. You weren't censored there, and this person isn't being censored now. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. [is not censored]. But here people are focused on improving article quality, and removing off-topic content is encouraged. Read Wikipedia:Writing better articles for guildlines. --Skyfiler (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for other examples, the Imperialism in Asia article has a gruesome picture of Philippino resistance fighters who were killed by American soldiers. It's been there a while. Sadly it does represent what was happening in the Philippines as a result of US imperialism there. While it wouldn't be a good picture for the U.S.Military page, or for the U.S. page in general, as it represents the exception rather than the rule of U.S. actions, it does fit where it is.

In my opinion, the picture discussion here fits the topic of the persecution of Falun Gong. I think the gruesomeness or emotion is not the right question. The right question is whether it represents recurring events, or whether it is an exceptional case. Readin (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

His picture replaced the picture of a soldier fighting with a picture of a soldier not in uniform holding a naked man on a leash. It was implying that that is how the soldiers treat all POWs, or that is what American soldiers do on a regular basis; His picture was out of place. Said picture is used in the following articles: Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse, Iraq War, Women in warfare (2000–present). It kind of works in those articles, no? The United States Armed Forces, where he added the picture, is the article about the unified armed forces of the United States; The navy and the airforce were both involved in that incident? No. It didnt fit there. Thanks, Ono (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is a page over the Abu Ghraib incident, thus it didnt need to be mentioned" - This article summarizes a country. Many characteristics of the country have their own article, but in order to adequately describe the country, we must at least summarize the country's characteristics. One well-noted characteristic of religion in PRC is the persecution of the Falun Gong, which includes, among other things, torture and murder with electric batons. To describe Religion accurately, we need to discuss the status of Falun Gong, and to describe PRC accurately, we need to describe Religion. Hence the persecution is "relevant to the article as a whole." Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to your claims that you were being censored in the US articles. There are articles over the Abu Ghraib incident, and it while it may need to be mentioned in any summary of human rights of the United States on the main article of the United States, it isn't significant enough to be put as a large picture on the Armed Forces section; It didn't happen repeatedly over the 270+ years that the armed forces of the US have existed. See what I mean?. It isn't an unimportant topic by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesnt add to the US article as a whole.

This article summarizes a country. That it does. Hence our not needing to point out what happened to one person, making them more significant than any other. We are trying to provide a comprehensive overview of the People's Republic of China, giving an adequate overview of its human rights record and persecution of religions. That doesnt mean adding pictures of a single person that was tortured, as, again, it isnt contributing to the article as a whole.

we must at least summarize the country's characteristics. We have more than adequately summarized the PRC's characteristics.

to describe PRC accurately, we need to describe Religion. There is a rather large section over religion in the PRC.

One well-noted characteristic of religion in PRC is the persecution of the Falun Gong, which includes, among other things, torture and murder with electric batons. To describe Religion accurately, we need to discuss the status of Falun Gong Falun Gong is discussed enough to tell that it is banned, and that people have been persecuted. If the reader wants to know more, they can click on the Falun Gong link.

Hence the persecution is "relevant to the article as a whole." I never said that it wasn't. I said that your picture of the Abu Ghraib incident didnt contribute to the article as a whole, and it didnt.

This discussion isn't even over the Abu Gharib picture that you are so eager to have on major pages relating to the US. You've already argued over having that picture added. I am suggesting adding a "see also" at the top of the religion section, that redirects to the Persecution of Falun Gong page, if even that. This picture isn't doing anything but drawing sympathy from the reader. Thanks, Ono (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"It didn't happen repeatedly over the 270+ years that the armed forces of the US have existed" - Right, the US military was completely benevolent until this last war. No torture of prisoners, whatsoever.

Anyway, I don't want to carry the Abu Ghraib discussion over here too. I brought it up simply because the comparison was made (that Rongrong picture is like adding Abu Ghraib) as if none of us would be willing to add negative pictures to the US article. I meant to clarify that there is no double standard (at least not on my part).

As for your remarks about the torture picture, again I emphasize that this picture is not about the particular person pictured but rather the torture she (and other Falun Gong) endured. This goes to illustrate that the severe nature of the PRC persecution; this very severity contributes greatly to the amount of coverage the persecution has received in the press and other articles. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

USA and PRC are two completely different concepts

Editors are wrong to pick on USA's wrong-doing in the past, to use it to justify PRC's wrong-doing in the present, because USA may have annihilate Red Indians in the past, may have detonate nuclear devices on Japanese soil in the past, these acts cannot be used to justify whatever PRC government's wrong-doing to it's own citizens. Arilang ^talk 21:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't justify how the PRC treats its citizens. But it gives you an idea of what is acceptable in a Wikipedia article without violating the non-neutrality goals. The article would not be neutral if we allowed people to insert images of tortured citizens on the country's main page. As I've tried to say above, using shock images like the one above is not fair to the subject of the article, because it is being inserted only to stir emotion and irrationality rather than to objectively present the facts. TastyCakes (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Everybody in the West know that Falun Gong followers are being unfairly persecuted, and Epoach Times seems to be the only media that dare to remind the world of the problem. Editors should take in the fact that under the pressure from the China Ministry of Propaganda, the voice of Falun Gong followers can hardly be heard anywhere. So my conclustion is that one or two such images is OK, if more than that, then any extra images should then be deleted. Arilang ^talk 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not suggest that Epoch Times is an unbiased observer. Their reporting is subjective to the point that it puts in doubt the credibility of even their non-opinion articles. TastyCakes (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article On Topic

Too many triviathat have little or no impact to the the main subject.--Skyfiler (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Relevance of content Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article.--Skyfiler (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Connective_trivia Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Some trivia that is especially tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion at all. Trivia that cannot be integrated at all should be removed. Some entries may be speculative, or factually incorrect, and should be removed; others, such as "how-to" material, may fall outside Wikipedia's content scope policies.

I am not entirely sure why you have put tags on all of those sections. The United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Mexico and several others have sections over politics, foreign relations & education. Several articles over nations has information about their largest cities, so why haven't you went to those, putting tags on their sections? On Civil Rights: they are of particular interest for articles about nations such as China, who have a history of human rights abuse. The list of dissidents is a recent change and is still under dispute, but isnt a list of trivia, but a list of something pertaining to the topic that it is a subtopic of. Thank you for bringing your problems to the talk page instead of removing a huge chunk of the article without any sort of consensus (as you tried to do.) I believe that the content that you want removed is of relevence to the article as a whole. Thanks, Ono (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Population policy (by virtue of the one-child policy), foreign relations (by virtue of the one-china policy and controversy regarding Taiwan), and civil rights (by virtue of China being an authoritarian nation compared to Western countries) are all of particular interest when discussing China and so deserve special elaboration and explanation in a summary article such as this. The sections have long since been spun off into their own articles, but summaries of them in thios article are perfectly in keeping with policy. Like Ono, I don't see how these sections are irrelevant looking at the precedents of other country articles. I do grant that the "Notable dissidents" list that was recently added is more questionable and indeed consensus about it is still being forged (as in "created", not as in "faked"). --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter whatever quality other articles are. It matters when the article is not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines (and English writing guidelines in general). This article is overemphasizing the importance of polices and have way too much trivia. To balance out either they need to be cut or other sections need to be emphasized to the same degree. I don't think bloating the article is the solution as it is against Wikipedia:Relevance of content.--Skyfiler (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While there may be a possibility of bloat, it seems that any bloat is a bloat of relevant material, so I'm not sure where you are coming from by calling it trivia. Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia means the content is little or no impact on the main topic. What kind of impact Hu Jia has to the country in the historic perspective? Is it greater than Lin Biao? I guess not. And Lin is not even mentioned in the Politics of the People's Republic of China article as the article is in a proper summarization style. Another example is the list of largest cities. The list may be accurate for the last few years, but it can not possibly be accurate for the lifetime of PRC, which this article describes. And what is the list 's significance in the context of PRC? Does the PRC goverment, or anyone, make decisions based on the list? --Skyfiler (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This article describes the PRC in the present in addition to its "lifetime" (History). While I don't care about the city list that much, I hope you'll understand that article content should not be removed because the "PRC goverment" does not deem the material is useful. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make a list. Lists equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. The standard of the list looks original research to me. Who define a city to be large enough to be one of the largest? By population? By size? By GDP? Wikipedia is not a directory.--Skyfiler (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Population is the obvious statistic and is the standard for country articles. Honestly, every country article has this list to give some cursory demographics; it's not controversial. And I'm sure the Chinese government makes use of such statistics to boot. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

：Who decides the not-so-obvious (at least to me) standard? The list's items are sourced but the list's STANDARD is not sourced. I know it does not hurt to include such a list, but how important is the list (not what's included in the list, but the list itself) in the context of the country? That's why I said "is there anyone make decisions based on the list?" Besides, arguing "it is important" is not enough to assert something is relevant. To prove it is relevant there must exists sources whose scope is the country in a history perspective (not just the country's current state) that has such a list. If the list is that important to the country, sources should not be hard to find.--Skyfiler (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't really care about this list, I must point out that "there must exists sources whose scope is the country in a history perspective (not just the country's current state) that has such a list" is not an actual requirement of Wikipedia. To cover the present, we can use sources about the present; to cover the past, we can use sources about the past. We do not need sources about the past to include information about the present. Such a requirement would be counterintuitive, to say the least. Chedorlaomer (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not only doubting its relevance to this article (a section-long list that does not provide much information), I am doubting its place in Wikipedia (notability). The only way I see to define a list against Wikiepdia's notability requirement is to demonstrate that the list is cited in a reliable secondary source that contains the list. Lists compiled by Wikipedia editors from primary sources is a type of original research. --Skyfiler (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(DEDENT) No, you're misapplying that policy section; in particular, the list in question is not advancing a position, it's merely listing factual statistics without further interpretation. My understanding is that mere aggregation of statistical/factual data from multiple sources into a single table is not considered original research (though I'm unable to find the definitive policy on this, but seems like common sense; a majority of Wikipedia lists appear to have been created this way). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To all the comrades-in-arm from the glorious China ministry of propaganda

@Skyfiler, the name of this wiki is People's Republic of China, by that my understanding is:

1. This Republic belongs to the People, so People is the BOSS. When the government of this Republic is putting it's People into jail without any appropriate explanation, it is only natural that these People's name, who are the actual Boss of the republic, should be discussed within this wiki, otherwise this wiki should be renamed, into something like Dissident Jailing Republic of China, or You talk bad about me I will jail you Republic of China
2. When eventually the almighty PRC propaganda department actually bought the Wikipedia Foundation, we will create more wiki articles saluting everything and anything the PRC dish out, we will create articles such as Long live Chairman Hu, I love Premier Wen more than I love my Papa Mama, something alongthis line. Until that day come(You will never know, may be tomorrow, may be next week), please leave normal wiki editors alone. Arilang ^talk 02:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Arilang1234, please remember to stay WP:CIVIL; even though we may disagree with Skyfiler, that's no reason to go off on a tirade. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cybercobra for your comment, but my comment is quite straight to the point, just look at the name of the article, People's Republic, this republic belongs to it's people, which is what the name imply, no less, and no more.

When the people(who are supposed to be the boss) are being put into jail without trial or explaination then there is something very wrong with the Republic. The only explaination I can think of is: the People is no longer the Boss, and the rulers, or the authority, who somehow had became Boss through some means, are giving the People a hard time. In this case, the name of the title: People's Republic of China should be changed, because it is misleading. Please treat my argument as a serious academic discussion, not a joke. Arilang ^talk 03:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your thought is, you can not push them in the article as it is your original research. Go find some PRC introduction articles in reliable sources and add their point here.--Skyfiler (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The politics section

It is utterly disgusting. A section on civil rights would definitely suffice in this article, but a whole section on population policy, and another whole section on "famous dissidents" is just way too excessive. It is ugly, both the wording of the content, and the effort behind it. It seems that a bunch of dissidents are in control of this place, who are at all times eager to preach their ideologies and instill their resentment towards the government into the minds of the innocent readers. But while they are celebrating their victory over attempts of brainwashing and asking for more ridiculous moves, Wikipedia should really be shamed. --Choij (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive suggestions? Or would you prefer that we just blank everything you don't think maintains a positive image for the PRC? Chedorlaomer (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is incapable of shame ;) TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original poster, the article seems to be mostly an essay about everything that's wrong with the PRC. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries can give it a look over and get it back into line with other country articles. --Joowwww (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What specifically do you find issue with? TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Industrial pollution

Maybe the industrial pollution should be moved to Environment of China. The section is too big and too much info. Also these pollution was a recent trend after the 1978 opening reform. It isn't something that has always been associated with the PRC until now. Benjwong (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Section is too long. Perhaps move to one of the spin-off articles and summarize a bit more briefly here? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make the move, please do. The pollution issue is so recent, even when they started opening factories it didn't pollute overnight. Benjwong (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjwong, but if the authority refuse to come up with effective laws, these pollution will get worse before it gets any better. Though the fine details can go to another article, the summary needs to be kept, if a balanced article is to be achieved. Arilang ^talk 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Environment of China. Needs summarization. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could use a summary in this article, and a link to the main article at the top of the Public Health section. Chedorlaomer (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Added sentence of summary. Expansion to several sentences welcome. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinkish and rosy tints for PRC?

We definitely need a full section in this article to deal with the grim situation the Chinese environment is now in, which is caused by (1) non-action of government, or worst, collaboration with offending factories (2) super greed 暴利 translation:Extreme profit. Editors should stop from keeping on painting a pinkish picture for the current government, knowing that the current Chinese government's policy of anything goes in order to make a fast buck is the real cause of this threat to the welfare of the Hua Xia race. Arilang ^talk 02:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We talk about it already in the Geography and Public health sections, and I'm certain it's elaborated upon in the Environment of China and Public health in China articles. Feel free to expand those articles or improve the summaries of them that are in this article. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is (meant to be) an encyclopaedia, not a political expose. If you would like to make the world more aware of problems faced by the PRC, write an article and get it published in a journal, your local newspaper, or even on your own website. This is not the right forum. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The good, the bad, and the ugly

@PalaceGuard008
Wikipedia is here to inform people, that is exactly what a encyclopedia for. To achieve a well balanced article, good news as well as bad news should enjoy the same coverage, otherwise the article will be biased, and mis-inform. Arilang ^talk 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Population policy, by 2020 there will be 30 millions more men in China, this a ticking time bomb, shouldn't anybody care about it? Certainly that will cause social unrest, and all kinds of problem. Arilang ^talk 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article discussion pages are generally to be used only to discuss the content of the articles with which they are associated, not as a general forum for discussing the topic of each article. Thanks South Bay (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The lopsided sex ratio is a social issue of immense important for the future of PRC, when millions of healthy young men can never find a partner, if we cannot discuss this issue here, then what is the meaning of the name PRC? Arilang ^talk 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The "lopsided sex ratio" section belongs to articles devoted to China's demography such as the One-child policy article. I have removed that section with the exception of the sentence, "It has been estimated that if current trends continue, the country will have roughly 30 million more men than women by 2020.", and placed the rest into the article One-child policy, which has then been removed from that article as it seemed to constitute plagiarism. --Shibo77 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd further add that, while it seems a serious issue, it is unclear how much is based on under reporting of female children. Also, societies have existed before with such imbalances without (serious) disruption. Further, you are essentially speculating when you say it is a huge issue for the future, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TastyCakes (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with this statement? Quote:Zhai Zhenwu, professor of demography at the People's University of China, tells ABC News that the future Chinese society could face a unexpected problem: "(millions of) men won't be able to find wives, especially those with low income or little education. That will create social instability and increase discrimination against women." Unquoted. Why user Shibo77 keep on remove this sentence?

If this information were to be incorporated into the article, where would you put it? Perhaps demographics? I would still have concerns as listed above, also it seems a little much to talk include the somewhat vague opinion of a single professor on a problem that hasn't even occurred yet (and may never occur). Also, as I understand it gender imbalance is an issue in other countries, notably India, but is not discussed there...

For the record though, I wouldn't mind seeing a sentence in the demographic section saying: Chinese statistics show a gender imbalance of X% amounting to X million people. The amount this is due to under-reporting of female children to avoid the one child policy is unclear. Some experts believe the imbalance could have majour societal consequences for China." Or something like that. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As you've put it in now, you have skipped all the quantitative information and skipped straight to the alarmist outcry of this Dr Zhai. Please could you revise your edit to place the relevant data above the doomsayers? TastyCakes (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have insert Zhai's statement into the demographic section, and hope that user shibo77 would talk first before action. Arilang ^talk 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this paragraph: China's State Population and Family Planning Commission reported that in 2005, there were 118.6 boys born for every 100 girls, and this trend of gender imbalance is on the increase, with some reports saying that in the rural areas it could be as high as 130 males against 100 females. Experts warn of increased prostitution, AIDS cases and violence if this trend is not reversed to some degree. (Except for the bit on AIDS which I haven't heard before.) Could we just leave it as that and then cite the Zhai article (and hopefully a couple others) for that information? TastyCakes (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are copying and pasting that information directly from the ABC article, you should paraphrase it in your own words to avoid plagiarism. Also Professor Zhai's statement is from a single source (seems to be an ABC interview), I think at most it would only belong on articles devoted specifically to China's demography or problems related to it. I also think that it does not belong to the Demographics section but instead in the Population policy section, as under-reporting of females or not, the gender-imbalance problem seems more to be the consequences of that policy.--Shibo77 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I hadn't noticed the population policy section, shouldn't that be under the demographics section as well? TastyCakes (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! That section currently has an "off-topic" tag, I have moved it to the Demographics section.--Shibo77 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon annual military report on China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tank man picture

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

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

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

Possible POV problem i Culture section

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

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

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

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

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

and then from the article Simplified_Chinese_character:

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

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

Map (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist dictatorship?

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

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

Dictatorship of the proletariat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRC ALSO commonly known as Mainland China

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

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

QUESTION AND SUGGESTION

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

Help would be appreciated

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

Mainland China is yet another poorly translated term

The correct Chinese term is 大陸, literary means Big continent

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

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

神州大地

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

天朝大國

天朝大國 Tianchao Daguo.

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

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

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

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

Clean Up

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

Living in Poverty

__________________________________________________\

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

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

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

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

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

socialist in name only

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

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

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

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

6.1 Corporatization in Economy Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many big companies are already mentioned in economy section:

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

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