Talk:China/Archive 5

message: "The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949."
This is not strictly true, as a number of smaller parties also exist.217.44.182.27 10:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro - Single Party System

message: There should be an own section of human rights in china, and why isn't there any info about the area in the sidebar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.215.162 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there such a section in the United States article?--Huaiwei 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reliable, NPOV sources, go ahead add it. However, I must remind you that each nation on this world of our has their own definition of what "Human Rights" is and that it is often different to how "human rights" are defined in North America and Western Europe. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area, human rights... 

message: The traditional Chinese characters were de-facto writing systems of HK/MO, but not an official(de-jure) writing. Thus I suggest that Traditional Chinese characters should be removed. 
203.218.83.211 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove that traditional Chinese characters is not one of the de jure/official writing systems of HKSAR and MACAUSAR? Please provide reliable sources. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In the context of Hong Kong, 'Chinese' means Cantonese, and Chinese writing means traditional characters. This latter predates and did not change with the various stages of simplification in the PRC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.182.27 (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yue pinyin is not an official writing system in HKSAR, MACAUSAR and the PRC, and is not widely used in every day activities. From what I know, the HKSAR gov't only uses Chinese characters and english for its documents and not Yue pinyin. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 08:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the point I'm trying to make is that Yue pinyin has been used as defacto pinyin system of HK/MO, along as Traditional Chinese characters, in which the government just use it as defacto handwriting, and these two components are part of defacto writing systems of SARs, but not dejure component.203.218.233.162 13:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Traditional Chinese is not the official language of HK/MOSAR, it's just the defacto writing system, similar to the United States 218.102.67.224 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest to put "Traditional Chinese Characters(defacto of HK/MOSAR)" There's often Spanish to choose from in the USA government related sites and offical documents. It's like will you find an official Spanish name for USA in that article(United States)? 218.103.140.123 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Chinese characters 

message: Why is it called the "People's Republic of China" if Chinas not a Republic? —The preceding comment is by OsirisV (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2007: Please sign your posts!
:Actually it is a republic because: 
*a) it has a President as a head of state instead of a monarch or dictator (although Dictatorships often call themselves "Republics" as well)
*b) under its consitution the PRC's system of government is called a socialist republic
*c) it does have a legislature, athough it is not a "direct" or "western-type" democracy, it is a indirect democracy:
**i) elections are held at the municipal/village level, from there, the municipal/village council will elect members to the regional council, from there, the county, then the provincial, then the PRC's "National People's Congress" (although it might be more complex than that)
Nat Tang  ta | co | em 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Being a non-native English speaker myself, I know it's difficult but let's fix some of the grammar in this article. I have started to correct some run-on sentences and misplaced modifiers in the introduction.   Hopefully that does not offend anyone here..  Hzzz 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's fix the grammar here.. 

message: 72.75.63.66 has complained about aesthetics of the imagemap (template: PRC provinces imagemap) on this page, commenting that it's longer than the article's width. 72.75.63.66 has twice replaced the map with the thumbed version of the picture. However, as is, only parts of two letters (the "d" in "and" and "e" and "are") are blocked (to view these 2 letters, users must scroll approx 2 mm to the right). The imagemap provides convenient, visual links to the PRC regions, and scrolling 2 mm is not critical to viewing this article. So let's leave the imagemap up until someone decides to reduce its size at template: PRC provinces imagemap. To see the complete image while printing the article, one merely needs to set printing scale from 100% to 80%. 76.197.229.40 18:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have changed it to 500px, and of left/right/center, I thought center was the best. Any thoughts? --68.239.70.248 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Imagemap 

message: Since the flag icon is removed on this page per WP:FLAG, shouldn't we do the same on Republic of China and China for the sake of consistency? nattang 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been added again to the disambiguation link, so I will remove it; I think this should be noted in the header warning against using flags in disambiguation links at the top of an article. --71.166.146.103 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: In the religion section, it states Buddhism is the country's largest organized religion at around 100 million, then at the end of the paragraph it also states there's a Muslim population of 160 million. 
Now obviously that's incorrect as that would make Islam the country's largest organized religion. Can somebody put in the correct number of the Muslim population in?
Just.James 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting facts in Religion 

message: In Foreign Relations section Sino-Indian War's not a link but appears like: [[Sino-Indian War]. Currently don't have a registration or would've fixed it myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.209.207 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petty mistake in Foreign Relations. 

message: Hy, there is a proposal to move the article :China towards Chinese civilization (and then moving this article towards China). These moves would also affect this article, therefore we welcome your opinions in the :Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#I humbly propose a change of the "Political NPOV" section. Please give us your honest opinions about the proposals (an honest but rational debate please). Flamarande 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed if ROC would be merged with Taiwan (pre-1949 ROC to Nationalist China, post-1949 ROC to Taiwan).--Jerry 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you take a careful look at the "I humbly propose a change of the "Political NPOV" section" (especially all the moves I'm proposing, my reasons for it, and the evidence gathered thus far. You should also read the reasons of the opposing side which defends the status-quo. I cannot make you any promises (the propposed moves are still being debated and can be rejected) but yes, I also propose that the current ROC - article be transfered towards Taiwan; however the article has to be accurate (I would write: "de jure unrecogized, but de facto independent country searching for wider international recognition" - or something similar). Flamarande 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this article towards China 

message: Which is the appropriate title to refer to Hu Jintao's position in the infobox? I have seen both used, and both are linked Wikipedia articles referring to Hu Jintao, but is one preferable to the other? Thanks! ~Eliz81(C) 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paramount Leader or President? 

message: Hello. I'm an editor in the above article.
*It is known that the White Russians tried to "blame" the Chinese for the Revolution and Civil War. Trotsky made fun of that, for example.
*An editor presented the Reference below as the 1st authority on the matter.
*Can anyone please help explain this source? Is it reliable, or is it propaganda of the time? Does anyone know anything about the author?
*Is it true that the Chinese played a notable or significant role in the Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917-1920)?
     Пын Мин. История китайско-советской дружбы. М., 1959.
     (Peng Ming, "History of the Chinese-Russian Frienship",
     translation from Chinese, Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1959,
     original: "Zhong-su yu she", Pekin, 1957 (Russian)
Thank you.
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War]] 

message: I think the protection was unnecessary, just yet, disputed text:
There is a body of uncontested evidence that the Party has been using Falun Gong practitioners as a live organ bank since 2000; they are kept in jails or forced labor camps, blood and urine tested, and when an organ is needed for transplant they are killed, the organs removed, and the body incinerated.David Kilgour & David Matas, BLOODY HARVEST: Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China, accessed October 28, 2007
Please point out which parts of this are problematic. El C, you mentioned that the "uncontested" was a problem. If that were the case, perhaps the best response would have been to isolate that with a tag, like this: , and then make an entry on the talk page. This could be changed to "unrefuted according to Matas", according to David Matas’s address to the Legislative Assembly, Canberra. 
Are there any further problems? I request unprotection and the reinstatement of the above text with the word "uncontested" removed, and a final sentence which says "According to Matas this evidence has not been refuted." tacked on the end, with "address to the Legislative Assembly" source added to this. If there are any problems please let me know.--Asdfg12345 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment  Declined No unprotection until this has been thoroughly discussed and until editors reach consensus. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I want concision, in the article; it cannot sound like Falun Gong activism. I want more detail, here; about the extent of the alleged practice, how much/if it should be mentioned in the main country article. It may well be better suited for a subarticle. The point is that what's currently is suggested is not enough. And, for better or worse, Falun Gong activists have burned enough bridges on Wikipedia and now we (meaning, established editors and admins) are inherently suspicious of anything, and in this case, seemingly, a particular editor, that reads as Falun Gong advocacy (i.e. more work needs to be done before we accept anything Falun Gong-wise, certainly in an entry as important). El_C 07:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know whether the allegations made by Kilgour and Matas are true or not. However, verifiability and weight would seem to require that their allegations be published in at least one highly respected source. Magazines or newspapers of the caliber of the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, South China Morning Post, Le Monde, El País, and so forth. Even if that is confirmed, the fact probably doesn't belong in the lead; rather, it belongs in a human rights section. Organharvestinginvestigation.net does not make the cut be a long shot.Ngchen (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't know about how respected Kilgour and Matas are. Nor am I familiar with the field they're in, and how respect in the field is measured. My concern is that basing the claim that organ harvesting is going on based on their report alone runs into the issue with primary sources. How do we evaluate the completeness and truthfulness of a primary source? Also all such sources will claim that they are reliable, etc. etc. Professional historians are trained in evaluating such sources, but us editors (unless we have a profession historian here) are not. I looked at the media coverage page, and there are a bunch of links the two authors provide. Most of them are Canadian (nothing wrong with that). I have not had a chance to read all the linked articles. Tell you what, if you can pin down (name, issue, page number or URL) one quality, highly respected, secondary source that reports something along the lines of "Falun Gong practicioners are having their organs harvested" rather than repeating what is "reported, rumored, or something like that," I will be all for including the information.Ngchen (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: hi, Just to clarify something. A secretary of state in canada is a very very low key position in the Canadian Government and isn't even a Cabinet post. And the correct term is Parliamentary Secretary which has replaced the term Secertary of State under former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. </font> 12:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  organ harvesting of Falun Gong 

message: I think it is inaccurate to have the official language links "Chinese" to Standard Mandarin. Since it is followed by a "(Pǔtōnghuà, also known as Mandarin)," I think it'll be better to link Standard Mandarin using "Pǔtōnghuà" or "Mandarin" and delinking Standard Mandarin from "Chinese." Pojanji 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Is there a reason why there's no country coordinates for this country?

Hadoooookin (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: See Talk:Cyprus#Map / contradiction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map / contradiction 

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christianity_in_China#Christian_manipulations  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.90 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Christian users and Christianity in China 

message: The fact that China's economy is actually smaller than was thought is extremely relevant, which is why it was added. But I understand that more sources must be necessary. As far as being copied from BBC, please, like 100% of this article is not copied from somewhere else anyway. And it wasn't verbatim. Anyway, back to the fact that the Chinese economy has been overvalued by 40% is what it is. Erasing it from the article doesn't take that back, but once I find more sources, there should be no argument that this extremely relevant point must be added. I knew that it would be quickly be changed though. What was added is from an article published very recently by the BBC which stated that:
according to a report released in December 2007 by the World Bank on China's economy, it appears that the economy is not as big as was thought. According to the bank, previous calculations have overestimated the size of China's economy by about 40%. The revelation came after the bank updated the way it calculated the country's gross domestic product. The bank said the findings meant China would not become the world's biggest economy in 2012 as forecast, and it also meant that China was poorer than estimated. Based on the World Bank's new research, China's economy is now worth some $5.33 trillion. The method used for the calculations is called "purchasing power parity", and corrects for differences in prices, which are lower in China than in Western countries, for the same goods. Based on current exchange rates, or nominal GDP, China's economy is only half as big, at $2.24 trillion. Despite the drop in size however, the economy remains the worlds second largest based on purchasing power parity, and fourth largest based on current exchange rates . In previous years, economists have tried to adjust their figures to take into account local prices in developing nations because they were often significantly lower than those in more industrialised countries. However, the bank said that many of the prices which were being used were out of date and gave distorted GDP figures. This time it has used updated prices to create more accurate figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:37, December 19, 2007 (UTC)
: It's better if its referenced to the primary source i.e. the actual World Bank report rather than a news article. Also it should be reduced to around one or two sentences rather than being a huge block of unwikified text that takes up around 25% of the economy section which is way out of proportion. Lop.dong (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's Economy 

message: Isn't their currency now renminbi?80.235.68.121 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their currency is renminbi (literally, people's money). It is denominated in units of yuan. However, you'll find both terms in use in English (i.e. Chinese yuan, Chinese renminbi).Ngchen (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: renminbi is the official name.  yuan is more colloqial and predates PRC--Blckavnger (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency - renminbi or yuan?

message: (From: User talk:Nikkul)
Please don't delete China's export and import status just because the links are dead. Usually you should either report a dead link and ask for verification or you could very easily find a source to replace the old ones.
*List of countries by exports
*List of countries by imports
Very easy to do and it only takes a few seconds.
In fact my hunch is that you are in no way interested in the upkeep of this article, let alone making it FA class. Macop1 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you could've found it yourself or at the very least put a verify tag on the point. Utc-100 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted deletions 

message: Vlad Dracula (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's PPP GDP issue 

message: What is the necessity of the "Human rights" section. No country page have a separate section on the human rights situation in the country. The entire human rights section should be removed and will be dealt in appropriate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just rechecked the section and it seems to adhere to WP:NPOV and also links to the main article. Fine in my opinion. Poeloq (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "POV" to single out China on human rights when United States article does not have that section in it, and they have Guatanamo Bay and other violations that are worse than any alleged "violations" that take place in China.  RedChinaForever (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights 

message: I mentioned some months ago that this article had no info on the biota of China (sadly there doesn't even appear to be an article on the biota of China, or even more narrow articles on plants or animals. I can't see how an article on a country can be considered complete without this sort of information, so I think it should be promptly failed for GA status. Richard001 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can simply either remove this article from the GA list or take this article to GAR for reassessment.  However, for what you mentioned biota of China looks like a view from experts.  Are you talking about ecology?  Coloane (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Biota is just a word for living things in a given area. I refuse to use 'plants and animals', as almost all life forms are neither plants nor animals. Of course, if there is another article that wants to deal with this instead, fine. I have no problem with this article focussing on people and say East Asia or something having a broader perspective, but there doesn't seem to be much on this at all. Richard001 (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, wildlife of China is what I was looking for. We really need to standardize the naming of these articles... Richard001 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: At the end of 2005, the PRC became the fourth largest economy in the world by exchange rate, and the second largest in the world after the United States by purchasing power parity at US$8.158 trillion.
Isn't this figure supposed to be billion (or the comma a decimal place)? Richard001 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PPP

message: User:Nikkul has added an image of pollution in public health section. The image is not well-relevant to the subject. 
*The image shows smog, not public health.
*Second, this is an article, not image gallery. The article is already burdened with numerous images, adding image for every section will make it imege gallery. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's smog, it shows the visible air pollution in a Chinese city, therefore it does strengthen the point that "China has 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cites". nat.utoronto 06:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This image shows the conditions in which the public health is deteriorating. It is a known fact that widespread air pollution is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. This image shows the source clearly. Nikkul (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in Public health section 

message: Honestly nobody will dispute that their human rights and what not are laughable, absolutely horrendous. Why haven't we talked about it? Just Google 'China human rights' or whatever and you'll see what I mean. You have one week to add this in, or that's it, I will. Radiohumor (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an neutral encyclopedia, not a place to post opinions. You also can't make such demands like that; even if you did get to add it in, you talk as if no one will remove it.  ♣ Bishop Tutu  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 07:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A word of advice: making threats like "You have one week to add this in, or that's it, I will" will get you exactly nowhere on Wikipedia. Regarding the topic of human rights in China, well, we are talking about it, but in an NPOV way. We currently say, for example, that "censorship of political speech and information is openly and routinely used to protect what the government considers national security interests. In particular, press control is notoriously tight: Reporters Without Borders considers the PRC one of the least free countries in the world for the press" and "Certain foreign governments and NGOs routinely criticise the PRC, alleging widespread human rights violations including systematic use of lengthy detention without trial, forced confessions, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, restrictions of freedom of speech, assembly, association, religion, the press, and workers' rights". — Matt Crypto 09:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Radiohumor:
# Read our policies and guidelines before you continue to edit
# There is already an article with the relevant information and therefore, one sentence in a section will suffice.
# If you continue to make threats, and unconstructive, uncivil, and possibly disruptive comments, I will take sysop actions to deal with the situation. nat.utoronto 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In future, 1) try to make sure that what you want isn't already the case before you make a scene about it; 2) don't make demands. — Matt Crypto 09:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay why aren't we takling about how China's human rights situation is absolute garbage? 

message: The last sentence of the last paragraph of the Population policy section reads:
"The government is particularly concerned with the large imbalance in the sex ratio at birth, apparently the result of a combination of traditional preference for boys, and family planning pressure, which led to the ban of using ultrasound devices for the purpose of preventing sex-selective abortion."
This could be read as using ultrasound devices for the purpose of preventing sex-selective abortion was banned, instead of the actual intention which is to ban the use of ultrasound devices for the purpose of sex-selective abortion.
This need to be tidied.
84.70.238.8 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple ambiguity in Population policy section