Talk:China/Archive 4

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

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

message: The vote has been moved to Talk:China page Here because the discussion is not related to the People's Republic of China - Heilme 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Make [[China (disambiguation)]] page as the main page for "China" 

message: I plan to rename this page to China. Any objections? +-+ Latouu 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think htere will be lots!  There is already a China article. --Siobhan Hansa 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, the other document currently talks about the Chinese civilization and should be removed to the appropriate page. I think some data on this page can be moved to the China page. +-+ Latouu 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first, you'll find that you can't do that now. Because there's already an article called China, you won't be able to make the page move. Secondly, the notion that the People's Republic of China is China is still contentious, whatever some may say. There are countries that still recognize the ROC as the legitimate government of China. Perhaps more importantly, having this article, which excludes Taiwan, as China implies that Taiwan is not part of China, which is an even more contentious point. Heimstern Läufer 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some on the other page, we have been discussing it there.  However they appear to be mostly political, which means they can not really be taken into account.  Really all we are doing here is alingning this page with the naming conventions.  I know there is going to be oposition to it but I think with any luck and some severe explaination of the reasons for moving this page to China we should get some form of agreement. --Meanie 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise you keep it as the People's Republic of China, maybe have china redirect hereSteviebengiefan 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: Can we get it in IPA?Cameron Nedland 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of the local name of China 

message: I don't see any mention of the territory disputed with Russia (or SU). Can somebody add?  Trekphiler 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're already mentioned under the "territorial disputes" section. -- ran (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feeling territorial

message: The People's Republic of China article is very well written, concise yet informative.  Unfortunately, the China article is currently a huge mess (half the China article is about names like "Seres" and debate between "Middle Kingdom" and "Central Kingdom"). I believe most uninitated readers will never realize that there is a difference between the PRC article and the China article. I see many articles that are specifically talking about the PRC government being instead linked to the China article.  This is a problem that I think needs to be better addressed. Mamin27 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your compliments.  I have just moved the Names section out of China.  As for the links in other articles, we would be very grateful if you would fix them.  --Ideogram 07:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to Congratulate the editors of the PRC article! 

message: I just ran into this article, and cannot believe that it is FA. Seriously folks, this article wouldn't even pass GA at its current state. There are whole sections without references, the structure of the article is not correct etc. Regular contributors of this article should take a look at Canada for example. I am seriously considering asking for a review, there are articles with as many references that barely make the GA. I know that the FA was passed in 2004, and that the standards have risen since then, but some keep-up work must have been done to improve it constantly. Again: a)it needs to be restructured b)must be referenced much much more. If not there should be FA re-review. Baristarim 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So anybody out there? :) I hope that this article can be cleaned up soon, otherwise this article cannot stay as FA… Baristarim 09:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * Um, hello?  This article is one of the most well-cited country article in all of Wikipedia with about 90 references. Nearly every paragraph is referenced, some paragraphs are referenced for every sentence. The Canada article (your example) has 1/3 LESS references than the PRC article. Also, the PRC article has been FA reviewed as recently as Summer 2006 (not 2004).  Your proposal to remove FA status for this article will be denied by other editors just so you know.  This article is not edit protected (unlike the Canada article), so new edits are made all the time, and at any particular point there might be some edits without proper sourcing, but this does not merit an FA review every 6 months, as references are actually quickly added and updated by other editors (maybe not quick enough for you, but certainly within weeks). Hyperbolic charges that this article doesn't even merit GA make you uncreditable as a critic. Well-referenced GA articles that barely make GA usually have highly controversial and narrow topics, the PRC is a country article, not a specific controversial topic. --Mamin27 09:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The structure can be still improved. I am sorry, but I could only count four references in the history section, only three in the foreign relations section, zero in the population policy section, and only one in the culture section. There shouldn't be many subsections to begin with, preferably public health and transport sections combined, and religion and education sections merged to demographics + sports directly combined to culture. Take a look at Turkey for example. The difference is, that article and Canada have a seperate references section. The notes cited are also not in the correct format and present citation problems, (see WP:CITE). That can be corrected I suppose, however I can't say the same for references. The whole article can use more solid citations all around. Preferably CIA Factbook shouldn't be used either. There shouldn't be see alsos either (see WP:GTL and *). I still stand behind what I said, however if the regular contributors are willing to improve the article, there might not be a need for a listing in FAR. Nobody is asking for the article to be delisted, however it should conform to FA standards. If it does, then it can stay. That's all. Cheers! Baristarim 09:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And please watch for civility, "maybe not quick enough for you" or other personal comments are not appropriate. I have experience with GA and FA, so pls don't do ad hominims by saying "make you uncredible as a critic". Thanks. Baristarim 09:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter whether you have experience or not regarding GA and FA articles, I was not commenting on your experience, I was calling out your hyperbolic yet vague language used in your first comments.  The "maybe not quick enough for you" statement was addressing your second paragraph "So anybody out there?" that you wrote one day after your first paragraph. Yes, we are out there, but it's holiday season, a lot of the PRC articles editors are unavailable and busy. Thank you now for clarifying and delineating what needs to be worked on for this article, which is what you should have written in your earlier comments, instead of first threatening to delist this article from FA status.  I apologize if I hurt your sensitivities, but your earlier comments weren't exactly restrained or to the point either. --Mamin27 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, no worries. I am sorry to if I hadn't explained myself earlier, I apologize. I am also sorry about my poor attempt at humor with my second post :) I was not trying to be sarcastic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this article delisted or anything, in any case FA delistings are extreme cases, and generally don't happen. Anyways, maybe I am getting to stressed since I haven't been sleeping too much lately. No rush for the cleanup, as you said, it is the holidays! Baristarim 12:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm

message: An editor has recently removed the traditional Chinese from the infobox. I reverted this, and then the editor reverted with this invisicomment: . Historically, I believe we have preferred to use both versions, even when referring to the PRC, which doesn't use traditional. Could someone confirm if I am right? I don't want any revert wars, so I'd rather have some discussion. Heimstern Läufer 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically not true.  Both Hong Kong and Macau are undisputedly part of the PRC, and both places use Traditional.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It must stay, then. Heimstern Läufer 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that we already have name in Traditional Chinese inside the article. And can you, please, provide an example of the article, where alternative scripts are used in the infobox? Romanizations are not counted, because pinyin is already used in this infobox. In republics of the USSR a language of a republic was officially used along with Russian language in that republic, e.g. on Soviet ruble banknotes nominal is written in languages of all republics. So, why don't we use all languages in the Soviet Union infobox? Cmapm 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know if you really want to put all the languages of the Soviet Union in the infobox, but the consensus on this page is that the traditional character should be included and it is one of the official scripts of PRC. I'm reverting your edits because you did not ask for consenses before you unilaterally removed the traditional characters. Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, let's make this page exceptional :) If I shouldn't know the difference between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese characters, (many readers don't know, I suppose), I'd find infobox confusing. Even because of this taken alone your version will frequently be reverted in the future, as it was previously. Happy explanations on top of the article :) Cmapm 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the info box should ony use simplified characters for the following reasons: the use of two sets of characters without indicating what they are can be confusing, and it looks messy, traditional characters are given in the very first sentence of the article and more importantly it indicates that they are traditional characters. LDHan 03:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, you can make the same arguements about the infoboxes of other nations who have romanization of the official name. To you it might look messy, doesn't mean that other editors have to agree with you. Traditional characters should remain as it is currently used by the PRC Government. The arguement that "traditional characters are given in the very first sentence of the article" doesn't work as the ROC article also includes simplified characters in the intro paragraph and the ROC doesn't even use simplified in their official documents. Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 03:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments don't even have anything to the points I was making. My arguments are only about this infobox, I did not say they apply to other infoboxes, and it's not romanization either. Of course I don't expect other editors to have to agree with me, that's why I made the comments to put forward my reasons for the edit. Your comment about the ROC article as an argument against my point that "traditional characters are given in the very first sentence of this article" is not valid because my edits only relate to this article and not whether another article uses simplified characters or not. LDHan 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Chinese or no? 

message: User 202.129.0.182 (of Bangkok, Thailand) has continuously tried to add a list of POV "international rankings" for this article.  Not only is the list extremely POV, it is also against the country template.  This list should at best be put in a separate article (relating to Human Rights or Economy of China) and need to be greatly expanded to cover POV issues. I and other editors will continue to remove such POV and unnecessary lists from the main PRC article. --Mamin27 09:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although the rankings table contains valuable information, it is biased in its selection of rankings. In particular, it focuses on the adverse aspects of China. There is nothing wrong with revealing the inadequacies of a country; however, WP:NPOV dictates that there should not be deliberate bias in the treatment of any subject. An adequate of NPOV table should include other relevant rankings, e.g. GDP growth, balance of payemtns, import/export volume etc. --Sumple (Talk) 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Canada, South Africa, and Libya do not have the population of PRC, but are Featured Articles with International Rankings sections.
I need help on International rankings of the People's Republic of China. Heroeswithmetaphors 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Rankings 

message: === Chinse military spending ===
… is disputed, but the higher end figure is presented as a fact here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.245.6 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military

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

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

message: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
GDP (purchasing power parity):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$10 trillion (2006 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
Definition Field Listing
$2.512 trillion (2006 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
10.5% (official data) (2006 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$7,600 (2006 est.)
Matilda Sharks 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP Update is needed

message: Someone made the alternate text of the images flag and emblem of jerktown (roll over mouse)
--Quaestor 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the flag and emblem on the side 

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

message: China is 9.6 million km square. Say 9.5 implies you don't know how to round numbers. Also it is third largest as US is expanding every year by incorporating sea areas it see fit. In fact book 2007 US is 9.82 million sq km already. Go figure.
"At over 9.5 million km² (3.7 million square miles), it is roughly the size of the United States, co-ranking with the latter as the world's third and fourth largest countries in terms of geographical size."
Is it just me or does this seem like a rather weird way of making the point?  To start with "co-ranking with" is an unfamiliar expression to me.  It has only 5 Google matches, which doesn't seem to imply it is a generally accepted English expression.  Secondly, the meaning used doesn't seem to be what one would naturally assume it to be.  As "co-ranking" isn't in the dictionary, I looked up the prefix "co-" and found stuff like "together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually … indicating partnership or equality".  So co-ranking would seem to imply that the two countries have the same ranking (equal 3rd perhaps?), but the sentence then goes on to say that they are third and fourth.  It doesn't say which is 3rd and which is 4th, but adding "respectively" in to disambiguate that would render a rather confusing sentence even more complex!
Anyway, there are three reasons why I'm just talking about this rather than making an edit…
1) I'm not really sure whether this is just a matter of style that I subjectively disagree with or whether this is actually as starngely worded as I think it is.
2) I can't immediately think how best to reword it.
3) Part of rewording it would be to disambiguate the point of whether it is the 3rd or 4th largest country and I wouldn't like to do that without actually knowing for sure which is correct to avoid going from ambiguity to error.
80.229.220.14 04:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first, the reason it doesn't say which is third and which is fourth is that it depends how you count. If you include certain disputed territories of the PRC, it's the 3rd largest, if you don't, the USA is the 3rd largest. I agree that "co-ranking" is an odd term, though, and that this sentence is not too well worded. Heimstern Läufer 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this, in attempting to salvaged parts hacked off and considered controversial.  Heimstern Läufer is right - to clarify, a link should be there - unfortunately I fail to find the right one. The wording is awkward but is the best I could managed under 1 sentence. Mandel 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-ranking with the latter&hellip;? 

message: Since removing edit semi-protection two days ago, vandalism and many arrogant, disruptive and POV edits have been made by anonymous users, including excessive use of irrelevant images and complete disregard for former Talkpage consensus.  For examples of incivility, please read the disrespectful and profane comments by users 168.253.18.39 and 83.19.173.202 in the history. Also the issue of Taiwan is creating unnecessary edit wars on this article and is occupying valuable time of the veteran editors here to clean things up and maintain prior NPOV.  This article should be permanently semi-protected from anonymous users, like the China article. --Naus 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection is for preventing vandalism, not preventing good-faith edits that you happen to disagree with.  I thought that particular editor was doing good work, in particular the images he selected were generally more relevant than the ones you have now, although I agree there were too many of them.  --Ideogram 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good faith edits don't sign their edits with comments such as "stupid" and "pathetic" as that user 168.253.18.39 was repeatedly doing. Basic civility is an official Wikipedia policy. Secondly, more relevant?  How is a copyrighted photo of an elite J-10 fighter in place of a public photo of China's military recruits more relevant?  How are the photos of Wen Jiabao and Li Zhaoxing relevant?  Should he also put in a photo of the Chinese Finance Minister in the Economics section, along with one of each of the Cultural and Health Ministers?  How is an official copyrighted photo of the Chinese paper currency and coin relevant to the Economics section?  This article is about the PRC, people in Hong Kong don't even use the RMB yuan by the way.  And the 2008 Summer Olympics logo is copyrighted too.  Good work?  I think not.  It is generally agreed upon that copyrighted photos have no business in an FA-class article. I and others will continue to remove copyrighted images from this article without hesitation. --Naus 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in arguing with you.  In fact I have pretty much abandoned editing this article primarily because I don't like arguing with you.  --Ideogram 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. --Naus 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to think that it is a good idea to discourage other people from editing this article.  Have fun fighting the vandals while trying to hold on to FA status all by yourself.  Of course it won't bother you that other people think the article is a pile of crap, because your opinion is the only one that matters.  --Ideogram 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comments above are particularly bewildering as I don't even remember when was the last time I had an argument with you. Perhaps with one of your sockpuppets then. So I'm glad you won't be contributing much here. Your outright hostility goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. No one is preventing you from making necessary changes to make this article not "a pile of crap" (which is your opinion and not that of the consensus). I will not respond to your further replies here, because you have clearly proven that you are incapable of having a healthy and contributive discussion. --Naus 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, accusations of sockpuppetry are really in the spirit of Wikipedia.  I suggest you try to think clearly about who is being hostile here.  --Ideogram 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent semi-protection from anonymous users needed 

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

message: why is Taiwan also red on the map? BlueShirts 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be. I've returned to the previously used map, which uses green but omits Taiwan. Heimstern Läufer 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now someone has returned it again. The argument given is that the UN and almost all countries recognize the Taiwan as part of the PRC. There are two problems with this: (1) It is recognized as part of China per the one-China policy. Not necessarily as part of the PRC, just of China. (2) Our article is not a reflection of what the UN or other countries think; it is a reflection of the actual condition. Taiwan is not currently controlled by the PRC. To have it listed here is part of the PRC and then to say at Republic of China that the ROC conrtols Taiwan is not logical. We should return to the map excluding Taiwan. Heimstern Läufer 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)  The One-China policy traditionally states that the PRC is the sole government of all of China.  2)  Why should the article be a reflection of what is controlled and not what is officially recognised?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we follow your logic, then the Republic of China page should have a picture claiming all of China and Mongolia. John Smith's 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that picture does appear in the Republic of China page, with two to boot.--Huaiwei 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: that's confusing for a simple national profile section and best served in political status of taiwan article. BlueShirts 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be, but I don't see any other way to resolve this dispute. Xiner (talk, email) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My purple idea comes from the Communist red and Nationalist blue, but grey works too. Just anything other than the back and forth, all or nothing approach that's proven unproductive. Xiner (talk, email) 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet before doing so we have to first make sure that this is going to be accepted by the WikiProject Country community, and would be a good example for other similar country articles to follow suit. — Instantnood 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a notice there. I'm not familiar with it so not sure what else I should do. Xiner (talk, email) 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a bad idea. If you want just include the shaded map in the political divisions section of the prsent PRC article. No need to make the main country box more complicated than it needs to be. BlueShirts 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RoC is not a fully independent state, as can be seen in its lack of full international recognition, so there's grey area there that shouldn't be airbrushed. Xiner (talk, email) 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a "de facto" independent state. BlueShirts 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I agree the island of Taiwan is under the defacto rule of the Republic of China, but we must also consider the fact that the official policy of the United Nations is that there is only one China, that China includes the island of Taiwan, and is ruled by the People's Republic of China (even if it is only by name). This is also the official policy of major nations around the world, such as the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Russia, etc (i can go on and on, but that would be a waste of time). If you look at a National Geographic Society map of the world (although I can't seem to find one online), the Society recognizes Taiwan as part of the PRC, although being administered by the ROC. --Nat.tang 20:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a possible compromise, if someone's able to do this, is to make a similar map that shows Taiwan shaded rather than solid, which recognizes its disputed status. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map includes Taiwan

message: I disagree with this revert. The native name of the PRC is in Simplified Chinese, with pinyin as the second choice. That was actually a great catch by the user, whatever his/her history. The Traditional Chinese name may be included in the article, but not in that location. I hope you can reconsider the revert. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just realized that Hong Kong (and Macao?) uses Traditional Chinese. Xiner (talk, email) 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest revert 

message: Remove the 1989 incident photo. I checked multiple wiki articles about countries, no any single photo on any single incident.Lets start a debate if ppl want to introduce such photo into this page (User:Nilei.net)
This image illustrates an extraordinarily notable event in China's modern history and is entirely relevant and appropriate for the article.  Many other images might be used in its place, but quite a few of those would make a rather gory alternative.  Frankly, I don't know why the editor would consider this image crap.  If anything, the image is rather POV in favor of the PRC in that someone viewing the image could easily fail to comprehend the degree of carnage resulting from this so-called "incident".  At any rate, I recommend restoring this well-recognized image or replacing it with another image that suitably illustrates the student uprising.  Rklawton 14:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nilei.net, no one is proud of the shameful episode in Chinese history, but please talk this over instead of edit warring. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very important the image is displayed as it is historically as important as September 11th. I think most people would agree. Usergreatpower 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but that's not true. Except for Hong Kong, whose people are known for their generosity to the mainland, no one in China really remembers June 4 anymore. Money trumps everything, even in the largest socialist country in the world. To compare it to September 11 cheapens the latter. Xiner (talk, email) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable.  Rklawton 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: In the caption of the image in the Foreign Relations section, George W. Bush is the "sole superpower"?? That sounds pretty bad but perhaps I'm interpretting it the wrong way? DJ Craig 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was talking about "United States", but yeah, it was awkward. Please take a look at my edits and let me know what you think. Xiner (talk, email) 15:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a bit better, but what I was thinking more was that the US isn't the sole superpower; aren't China, Japan, Russia, UK, and some others considered superpowers?  To me, it sounds very arrogant to call the US the sole superpower.  I would just take out the word "sole," but I'm still not sure if I'm just interpreting it the wrong way. DJ Craig 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even at the height of the Cold War, there were only two superpowers. One disintegrated, so we are now left with a hyperpower. That does not mean that the U.S. can do anything it wants, as you know. Xiner (talk, email) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largest military spending, controls nearly all market activity, endless wars… yeah, the U.S. can do ANYTHING it wants.
-G
I disagree with the wording here. Why not just state that you have the two presidents in a meeting. Why do you have to call them "leaders of sole superpowers" or leaders "of the gloriously industrializing and growing China". Keep it simple and to the point. I changed it to read:
[Image:Hu_Jintao_Bush.jpg|thumb|right|Hu Jintao with George W. Bush. Sino-American relations are closely monitored by international observers.]
132.170.54.41 16:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush is the Sole Superpower? 

message: Can anyone that knows more about IPA fix the IPA notation because it uses obsolete symbols and i have doubts that the pronunciation is also incorrect. Also, the "˧˥"s make it an eyesore.  -- Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński |talk to me||what i've done||e| 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the pronunciation was definitely correct, and the tone markers only looked like that because they weren't rendering correctly on your system. What was it you thought was wrong about it?   BovineBeast 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

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

message: According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), although the majority of the world recognize PRC instead of ROC, wikipedia treats them as equal. "One subtle yet important point: Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations." Therefore, since ROC is classified as a state, then the same should apply to PRC. An alternative is label both of them as  country.--Certified.Gangsta 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That document is not policy, was never accepted by consensus, and right now has a big POV tag and a dispute tag on it.  --Ideogram 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Nothing you said is going to help you get your way.  --Ideogram 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  country vs. state 

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

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

message: For the province section, would Taiwan be considered as "main land China" as well?
It did not seem to exclude Taiwan from Main land China, which seems a bit odd.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSign (talk • contribs) 
No, Taiwan is not a part of Mainland China.
That's why Taiwan is in parentheses, and there's a footnote to explain the situation. -- ran (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provinces 

message: The Tank Man image is copyrighted and fits as Fair Use in the Tiananmen Square protests page, but not necessarily in the PRC page. It should be removed from the PRC page if deemed not of Fair Use for the PRC page.  This photo is not essential for describing the PRC; other non-copyrighted photos can be used to depict oppositional forces in PRC history. --128.135.96.228 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The description page for the image already indicates that permission has been granted to use the image on Wikipedia.  This permission has no restrictions on where in Wikipedia it may be displayed.  Note that the fair use tags come after the statement: "Permission notwithstanding, we still assert fair use", meaning that even if we didn't have permission, we could use the image in a limited fashion (like on the Tiananmen Square protests page) under fair use.  However, since we already do have permission, this doesn't apply.  The secondary fair use tags are just to cover ourselves.  —Umofomia 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.. Wikipedia's upload policy states that a free image needs to be free not just on Wikipedia but potentially all its non-Wikipedia or non-commercial derivatives.  If you read further on the tags on the Tank Man image summary, there is a clause stating that "This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag." If the image is not fair-use for the PRC article, then it doesn't matter that there is permission granted for specific use on Wikipedia.  --128.135.96.228 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread Wikipedia's copyright policies and it looks like you are correct in your assessment that the image does need to abide by fair use policy.  I guess now the only question is whether it is fair use to use the image in the PRC article.  Your opinion is that it does not, however I don't know what to think about this matter yet.  The image does seem to satisfy all 10 points listed in the fair use policy, however for some of the points, it satisfies it just barely.  In particular, I believe your main issue would be with point 8 (The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)…).  The image does serve to illustrate the paragraph concerning the 1989 protest, though opinions may differ on whether it specifically illustrates it.  Concerning what you said in your original comment about using other images, I don't think we have any other images that show the subject better than this one.  All the relavent images in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 page are under the same copyright and fair use obligations as the tank image, and none of them really captures what happened there better than this one.  Again, this is a subjective judgement and opinions may differ.  —Umofomia 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank Man image

message: Can someone please put the traditional chinese version "中華人民共和國" back to the info box?
China doesn't only use Simplified Chinese but also Traditional Chinese, look at Hong Kong and Macau, they are part of China right? so please someone put it back…i dunno how to do it… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.6.21.231 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Intsokzen 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Traditional Chinese version of "People's Republic of China" 

message: The map isn't accurate, Taiwan isn't part of the PRC.--Jerrypp772000 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the image back. This was discussed briefly in the past and the rough consensus was not to show Taiwan as part of the PRC (even though the PRC certainly does claim Taiwan). This may remain controversial, though. Heimstern Läufer 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 1. Guangzhou doesn't has anything that can be called unique, it is just one of the large cities in China. 
2. There are three photos there on the page, Peiking, Shanghai and Hong Kong, all of them are the most important cities there in China. If we need that photo of Guangzhou, then how about other cities? For example, ShenZhen has much better city view, 6 million people, China's largest R&D companies, the second largest share market in China and it is built from the small village in only 30 years. How about Nanjing? That is one of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China, 8 million people living there, dozens of universities including one of the best in China, modern city skyline, so many famours culture sites. Maybe we can even use Chongqing's photo, the largest Chinese city with more than 30 Million people, very nice modern skyscrapers in the city, and the city itself is located in the central part of China not easy coast, which is so different from Shanghai/Hong Kong/Beijing. 
I just can't understand why Guangzhou's photo should appear on China's wikipedia page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.38.174 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we need that Guangzhou photo?  

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

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

message: It has been put up and removed and put up and removed for a few times already
I dunno who removed it but I would think it's resonalble to stay there
As Hong Kong and Macau use traditional character and they are inidisputable of China, so the Traditional version of the name PRC would have to stay, please don't try to remove it again, Thank you
* I agree. Even without HK and Macau, Tradition Chinese IS STILL USED by some Mainland people, though not officially. Thus, it's reasonable to include the name in Traditional Chinese. (Friend above, pls sign your name next time.) --supernorton 10:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Chinese Name for the PRC 

message: Desperate last move? Chronic disease? I took out this paragraph because it is biased and wrong. Its bias is easily seen, but it is wrong in how it implies all the characters were simplified, which is not correct. Only some, not even a majority, of characters are simplified. The characters are also not simplified without reason. Many times they are set to conform to an earlier variation that was made more complex over time, so some simplifications are still considered "traditional." Also, traditional characters are still used on classical works like stone engravings and wooden signs in historic parks, caligraphy, and others. Simplified characters are only used in everyday writing, government texts, and such. Character simplification might appear controversial elsewhere, but it's not so in mainland China. --24.62.238.122 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, this is clearly referenced.  In fact, the actual wording is practically identical.  Benjwong 16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still biased and wrong and unencyclopedic.--24.62.238.122 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are censoring.  This is taken from sources literally as it is.  You cannot claim something as biased and wrong based on personal opinions with no facts.  I am shocked that the most important cultural info is not even on the frontpage.  I am reverting it back, if you like you are welcome to reword.  But don't revert again or someone may ban you for 3 revert.  Benjwong 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it some.  It is not right to hide the single most important cultural change.  Benjwong 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds a lot better now.--24.62.238.122 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave it. I think people are more interested in what happened overall than the historical context behind it on the frontpage. Benjwong 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it is published in a book, so this is not some random website source.  Usually historical facts are presented first, then the controversy after.  This is a very unusual case, in which everybody wants it presented as a controversy right away.  Benjwong 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are very naive to assume anything published in a book will be neutral or objective.  Your original quote was clearly opinionated and had no business here on Wikipedia. --JakeLM 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember I was here first with facts.  You are here with an opinion. Calling me naive is pretty weak btw.  Anyhow there are soooo many sources all saying the same thing.  Benjwong 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are also many sources saying the opposite, that simplified characters were first planned by the ROC government and would have been implemented anyway by the ROC government had they not been kicked off the mainland by the Communists. It wasn't just a "PRC assumption." And my comment on your naivety is based on your own argument above. LDHan accused your quote as biased and not NPOV, your counterargument was that the assertion was published in a book.  Sorry, that's not a valid argument against a charge of bias, unless you take the belief that anything published in a book is the epitome of objectivity, which in that case is naive. --JakeLM 05:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that the ROC "would have" implemented something, but didn't.... is hardly a valid argument.  They had half a century to change, and never did.  This is really not an argument for this page.  I was interested in presenting facts.  It just so happens this piece of fact is downright ugly, and now I am being called Naive cause it doesn't sound pleasant. As usual, I expect such comments when challenging the status quo. Benjwong 04:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and wrong info on Chinese character reform

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

message: The People's Republic of China is now the largest economy in the world (not the 4th, as the article lead says) - it overtook the US earlier this year:
:" in the first three months of this year China accounted for a greater proportion of the global economy than the US."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6748803.stm
Since the PRC is growing at approximately 4x the rate of the US this position is unlikely to be reversed anytime soon.
--Michael C. Price talk 08:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China largest economy in the world as of 2007

message: Hey folks, sometime in the past day or two, an edit was made that makes the page link to Russian.  It's probably in a template, but I don't know which one, and can't see which ones were change in the last few days. Anyone who could point me in the right direction would be a great help. Thanks --Milton 00:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation template, but I fixed that, and the link still shows up. --Milton 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Problem 

message: Commons has another image (see right or ). Which one is more correct? --Eleassar my talk 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the first one is more correct, although the second one is clearer. See the official gov't site: http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/16/content_23488.htm for the accurate version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Nat.tang (talk • contribs).
I suggest we use the more correct one. Perhaps someone would even be ready to vectorise it. --Eleassar my talk 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National emblem

message: Note 1: Before you edit this article to remove "中華人民共和國" from this article, please realize that traditional Chinese characters are official in the "Special Administrative Regions" of HONG KONG and MACAU, which are part of the PRC. Please also realize that the simplified and traditional characters indications in brackets are provided to avoid confusion and to provide an understanding of the difference between TC and SC characters. 
Note 2: Arguments that the ROC does not include simplified Chinese characters, in their official writing system, are not relevant to this article.
Note 3: Arguments that other nations do not have their languages labeled in the infobox are not relevant as the scripts on the PRC's infobox are not individual languages but all part of one language, Chinese.
--Nat Tang  ta | co | em 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Text on the article "[[People's Republic of China]]" as of 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) 

message: Dear fellow editors, I bring before y'all two paragraphs that are basically the same paragraph, however one has additional words. Here they are:
The "Old" Text (Revision as of 03:06, 8 July 2007}
The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949. The PRC is involved in a long-running dispute over the political status of Taiwan. The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT), retreated to Taiwan and surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949, and traditionally has claimed legitimacy over China and Mongolia while it is the ruling power of the Republic of China (ROC). The PRC regards the ROC claims as illegitimate. The term "Mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the areas under PRC rule, but usually excludes its two Special Administrative Regions: Hong Kong and Macau.
AND
The "New" Text (Revision as of 03:17, 8 July 2007)
The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949. The PRC is involved in a long-running political and military dispute over the political status of Taiwan. The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT) which at the time led the Republic of China (ROC) and retreated to the island of Taiwan and it's surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949. While the Kuomingtang were in power they traditionally claimed the territories over all of mainland China and Mongolia, although this claim was opposed by the PRC which considered it to be illegitamate. But now, these territorial claims have been ignored and put aside by the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian's current administration in the Republic of China (Taiwan). The People's Republic of China (PRC) does not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as an independent country, and claims it to be a "renegade province" of the PRC. The People's Republic of China maintains no diplomatic relations or official contacts with the Republic of China (Taiwan)'s government or president. In addition, no peace treaty was ever signed between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan), resulting in the current political and military stalemate where they are still both technically in state of preparedness for war with each other. The term "Mainland China" is usually used to denote the areas under PRC rule, but sometimes excludes its two Special Administrative Regions: Hong Kong and Macau.
The newer and second text was introduced into the article by anon/IP user 212.51.199.173. We as a Community and as editors must reach consensus to prevent a full blown edit war. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Need Consensus for a paragraph (Re: Paragraph 2 of the article People's Republic of China)