Talk:China/Archive 2

message: I was wondering if anyone had a source for the part about the Russian aircraft carrier that China bought but "was destroyed before they received it".  It's the first I've heard of this and I did a brief search and couldn't find anything else.  China did buy 3 decomissioned Russian aircraft carriers after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but apparently these were converted into floating hotels and casinos.  Also, I think there should be some mention of China's push to modernize it's forces.  TastyCakes 15:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.  Even if it is partly true (which at the moment I doubt) it's probably too detailed for this overview.  TastyCakes 03:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's Military 

message: On Adminstered vs. controlled
Yes in terms of administrative hierachy it is part of Okinawa prefecture. But the Japanese authorities do not exercise normal administration over the islands.  They are patrol by the navy.  In reality the authorities aren't able to treat them as ordinary islands like many other those in the Southwest Islands or in the Pacific.
:Okay, is there any difference between how Japan controls the Diaoyu Islands, and how Japan (or any other country) controls other uninhabited islands or regions? (Such islands probably don't need departments for education or healthcare. ;) ) -- ran (talk) 22:30, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
What if a Japanese want to visit the island, say for research purpose, does she/he have to apply with the Japanese Defense Agency? Or is it the same like going to the Iwo Jima? Bear in mind designating an island as natural reserve or national park is also an act of administration. -- 17:56, January 27, 2005, UTC
: there's no population there. the whole debate is about economic zones and therefore oil and gas.--Sumple 00:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diaoyu Islands

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:
====X in People's Republic of China → X in China====
* Also X of People's Republic of China → X of China
* Also People's Republic of China's X → China's X
* etc.
There are a number of articles and categories with titles that use "People's Republic of China" in the title where just "China" would be more suitable, on grounds of "using common names".  For instance People's Republic of China's trademark law and many other examples.
The use of "China" (in reference to current events and situations) in modern news media and everyday usage always refers to the territory, population, and society that is the People's Republic of China... the only political controversy is over whether China includes Taiwan or not.  The term "Republic of China" is always used in full (or abbreviated to "ROC") — that is, the term "China" alone (in reference to current events and situations) never refers to the Republic of China.
For instance, when the news media refer to "China's economy" (a major topic these days), it is always the People's Republic of China's economy that is being referred to.
Exceptions: there are currently separate full articles on China and People's Republic of China, and History of China and History of the People's Republic of China.  These are therefore not simple page moves, and are outside the scope of this "requested moves" page.
Note: the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) would be edited in accordance with the outcome of this vote and the votes below on ROC/Taiwan issues.  However, the votes are not linked: voting for one does not imply voting for the other. -- Curps 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be neutral on the Politics of China as well since it is clearly dedicated to the PRC (and no ROC involved), even this usage was not complying with the convention. As to the province of China and political divisions of China, they included ROC together with PRC under a political entity called "China" which is against the convention and makes a political statement endorsing the PRC's position :"There is only one China in the world.  Both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China." This is clearly not neutral and should get fixed in a way that either making the article purely dedicated to PRC (just like the politics of China) or having the NPOV convention enforced, so that not a single political entity would be called "China."Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of province to the ROC and to the PRC is more or less the same (except for the autonomous regions under PRC's system (or to be exact, mainland China's system), which are either titled provinces or regions/areas). Splitting the article on "province of China" into two is probably redundant. — Instantnood 17:59, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
*Oppose (unconditionally). The treatment of the title of these articles depends on the scope of the content. If it is about China in general, without dealing with any government (such as calligraphy, history, etc.) or both governments are addressed (such as province of China), the title "X of China" or "Chinese X" should be used. If it involves the two governments, "X of the People's Republic of China" and "X of Republic of China" should be used. If Hong Kong and Macao are not covered, such as economy, trade, culture, customs, cinema, etc., "X of mainland China", "X of Hong Kong", "X of Macao" should be used, instead of "X of the People's Republic of China". The same should apply to templates and categories.I also oppose editing the naming conventions according to the votes on this page. It should be done at the discussion page of that article. — Instantnood 08:41, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
***Comment: province of China involves a political power (a goverment called China in this case) exterting a state's sovereignty over territories. It is not something goegraphical. It is political and not neutral of the current article and your proposal in that talk page. Please understand that your political POV is not neutral.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves of "X in People's Republic of China " articles

message: * Also X of People's Republic of China → X of China
* Also People's Republic of China's X → China's X
* etc.
There are a number of articles and categories with titles that use "People's Republic of China" in the title where just "China" would be more suitable, on grounds of "using common names".  For instance People's Republic of China's trademark law and many other examples.
The use of "China" (in reference to current events and situations) in modern news media and everyday usage always refers to the territory, population, and society that is the People's Republic of China... the only political controversy is over whether China includes Taiwan or not.  The term "Republic of China" is always used in full (or abbreviated to "ROC") — that is, the term "China" alone (in reference to current events and situations) never refers to the Republic of China.
For instance, when the news media refer to "China's economy" (a major topic these days), it is always the People's Republic of China's economy that is being referred to.
Exceptions: there are currently separate full articles on China and People's Republic of China, and History of China and History of the People's Republic of China.  These are therefore not simple page moves, and are outside the scope of this "requested moves" page.
Note: the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) would be edited in accordance with the outcome of this vote and the votes below on ROC/Taiwan issues.  However, the votes are not linked: voting for one does not imply voting for the other. -- Curps 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be neutral on the Politics of China as well since it is clearly dedicated to the PRC (and no ROC involved), even this usage was not complying with the convention. As to the province of China and political divisions of China, they included ROC together with PRC under a political entity called "China" which is against the convention and makes a political statement endorsing the PRC's position :"There is only one China in the world.  Both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China." This is clearly not neutral and should get fixed in a way that either making the article purely dedicated to PRC (just like the politics of China) or having the NPOV convention enforced, so that not a single political entity would be called "China."Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of province to the ROC and to the PRC is more or less the same (except for the autonomous regions under PRC's system (or to be exact, mainland China's system), which are either titled provinces or regions/areas). Splitting the article on "province of China" into two is probably redundant. — Instantnood 17:59, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
*Oppose (unconditionally). The treatment of the title of these articles depends on the scope of the content. If it is about China in general, without dealing with any government (such as calligraphy, history, etc.) or both governments are addressed (such as province of China), the title "X of China" or "Chinese X" should be used. If it involves the two governments, "X of the People's Republic of China" and "X of Republic of China" should be used. If Hong Kong and Macao are not covered, such as economy, trade, culture, customs, cinema, etc., "X of mainland China", "X of Hong Kong", "X of Macao" should be used, instead of "X of the People's Republic of China". The same should apply to templates and categories.I also oppose editing the naming conventions according to the votes on this page. It should be done at the discussion page of that article. — Instantnood 08:41, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
***Comment: province of China involves a political power (a goverment called China in this case) exterting a state's sovereignty over territories. It is not something goegraphical. It is political and not neutral of the current article and your proposal in that talk page. Please understand that your political POV is not neutral.Mababa 22:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: X in People's Republic of China &rarr; X in China

message: The State Emblem is giant; far larger than with other nations and than before. Why is this? 81.153.145.6 17:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
:it's not that big... its a round shield with an image and surrounded by appropriate decoration - comare the US coat of arms which is also a round shield --Sumple 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant emblem 

message: ... is a POV statement. According to the PRC, the PRC comprises all of China. According to Taiwan independence advocates, the PRC also comprises all of China. "The PRC comprises most of China" is the POV of the Blue Camp and hence should not be presented as NPOV fact. -- ran (talk) 00:23, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
:: What i don't get is why the opinions of political parties in taiwan always take centre stage whenever a discussion about china arises. I mean, you don't see anything about the Cornish Independence Movement in the lead section of the United Kingdom... --Sumple 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The PRC comprises most of China" 

message: The CIA map of china are POV map, because the South Tibet are claimed by china, and the map are not show.--icywind 15:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to include the map with the comment "There are border disputes in every region of the world. If every map showed every side of every dispute, they'd be incomprehensible."  Now that I look at it again, this map does show both sides of this dispute, and in a readable way.  Nothing POV about that. --Mr. Billion 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the CIA map only show the indian claims which is china actrual control (Aksai Chin), but not show the South Tibet (indian name is "arunachal") that china claimed and actrual control by india. you can see the map :Image:China administrative.png the area painted in blue. so the CIA map of china is not NPOV.--icywind 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The CIA map of china are POV 

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

message: In the "Military" section, we describe the Chinese military from an overly-US perspective. This could do with being revised by someone who knows more about the subject than myself. For example:
: ...the air force (which is large but has many planes that are considered obsolete by US standards).
: The PRC has been intensively rearming its military forces in preparation for a showdown with the U.S. over Taiwan...A comprehensive effort is also been undertaken to modernise the Air defense after the effects of Air superiority in Iraq were observed by the PRC military...The PLA and other branches of the Chinese military represent a significant conventional threat to the United States and its interests throughout East Asia
The last sentence is particularly non-neutral; the US military might equally be said to represent a significant threat to the PRC and its interests. — Matt Crypto 12:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the part of the planes should be "considered obsolete in comparison to more modern airforces" and the bit about a showdown over Taiwan should be removed, since it's opinion and probably only part of their reasoning.  I'm unaware that observing the effects of air superiority in Iraq caused them to start modernising their air defense, but if so, which Iraq war?  I think the last line should be rewritten as something like "the PLA is regarded as the biggest US military's biggest conventional competition in the region" or something like that, since that gives an idea of the scale of the PLA.  TastyCakes 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLA described from the US point of view 

message: Can anyone confirm whether or not the two Special Administrative Regions off the south coast are considered to be an integral part of the state's territory and population, or whether they are external territories under Chinese sovereignty? Apparently, UN statistical publications list them both as separate geo-political entities rather than internal administrative divisions. --Big Adamsky 14:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is complicated. Hong Kong and Macau are both Special Administrative Regions of the PRC, which has ultimate sovereignty. However, in many (but not all) respects they have a large degree of autonomy, different legal, economic, educational systems, etc. The official formula is "one country, two (or more) sytems". Depending on what you're looking at (e.g. international trade), it makes sense to concentrate on the aspects of the two (or more) systems, leaving aside issues of "one country", and to separate the SARs from the rest of the PRC for practical and historical reasons. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In practical (but *not* legal terms) the status of the two SARs is a bit like autonomous territories in other countries - think Scotland in the UK - they have their own parliament, church, legal system, etc, and compete in international sporting events on their own. But ultimately they are part of the UK as a sovereign nation.--Sumple 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Hong Kong and Macau technically inside or outside of China?

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: I am bewilidered by the notion that anyone considers China "communist." Sure, you can say it's quasi-socialist, but I don't think any self-respecting political scientist would regard China as communist. Remember, under communism, there is no natural state structure, no dictatorship of the prol, etc.
:the communist state article defines a communist state as one where the sole ruling party declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism. The People's Republic of Chian definitely fits that definition... -- ran (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  that seems a weak definition imo... e.g. Hitler's party was called the national socialists, but they're not referred to as a socialist regime. i'm thinking maybe a state that declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism but does not carry this out in practice could be described as a "professed communist state", or something.--Sumple 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism v. socialism 

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

message: I really miss paragraphs on
* Concurrent culture, and culture in general
** Urbanization and caused changes in culture
** Growing middle-class
** Sports, Music, Movies, Literature
* Education
* Transport
* Rapid development in cities, temporary jobs
* More view on the nation's planned future development
* More about general economics in PROC
* Possibly immigration&growth of foreign population
* Possibly tourism
* List of 20 biggest cities
Including these would give a much, much more comprehensive and balanced introduction to PROC. I wonder how a country article doesn't introduce these aspects at all?
Instead, I noticed that..
* I counted that about half of the article consists of descriping problems of some kind, some parts written in clearly negative tone.
* Perhaps a little too much history, I'm not sure.
* A single section on military?
* A single section on public health? (or well, describing it's problems)
* A single section on space flight? Too much for a small issue (and almost half about US view?). "Science&Technology" section would be a better title and could possibly include also other scientifical achievements.
Generally, I found the article very unbalanced and provided information clearly inadequate. These kinds of articles are far from the Wikipedia standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.4.246 (talk • contribs) 
Addition: I believe quality photo thumbnails would be nice too: city? countryside? perhaps an internet cafe for the censorship section? I'll look if I find something.  80.186.4.246 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contributions!  You're right, the article could use some tweaking.  And remember, you can sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --Mr. Billion 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. 80.186.4.246 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Although I don't agree with some of the tweaks you've made. --Mr. Billion 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify or revert the tweaks? I tried to summarize paragraphs free from non-essential details (full articles are for those, this should focus on providing realistic large view). 80.186.4.246 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Um, it already is a featured article. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts (how can this ever have achieved featured title?) 

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

message: The anonymous user '218.111.63.4' recently changed the second paragraph, which read
"The exact meaning of PRC and China varies. In an ongoing dispute, the PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan and some neighboring islands, whose control was never relinquished by the Republic of China, which also claims to the the legitimate government of all of China. The PRC asserts the Republic of China to be an illegitimate and supplanted entity and administratively categorizes Taiwan as the 23rd province of the PRC. (See China and Political status of Taiwan for more information.) The term "mainland China" is sometimes used to denote the area under the PRC's rule, usually excluding the two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau. The PRC refers to the period of its rule as New China (T: 新中國 / S: 新中国) whenever it contrasts itself with China before 1949. In some contexts, particularly in economics, trade and sports events, China and People's Republic of China is often used to refer to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macau excluded."
to 
"By law, the PRC has to protect the rights and interests of Taiwan "compatriots" and of neighboring islands. The PRC also considers that the political status of the Republic of China is unclear, while recognising it as the taiwan authority. This is consistent with the view adopted by the United Nations, the USA and most countries in the world. Also, the ROC has never declared itself independant. There is however secessionist forces in Taiwan."
I reverted it back to the first form, which I feel is more correct and also more explanatory. As well, that user has only made changes to this page (changed 'economy ranked 6th' to 'ranked 4th in 2005', etc). Does anyone have any objection to me reverting that? I just want to make sure there are no misunderstandings. AustinZ 05:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted a paragraph 

message: This article states that The People's Republic of China has the second largest military (in number) in the world, yet the PLA article states that china's armed forces is the largest in the world. Most other sources put china's military's size as the highest ranking in the world, which sheds some doubt on the validity of the military portion of the article. 
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/default.asp
The PRC does have the largest army in terms of active troops. But in terms of armed forces, I think the US military has slightly more, 2.6 million as opposed to China's 2.5 million. --Ryz05 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's Military ranking 

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

message: * Forced abortions? china claiming mongolia and large portions of india?!? sounds like BS, but just making sure. Pure inuyasha 22:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  err year indeed bullshit. if you look at the small writing its written by Xinjiang (East Turkestan) independence movements. For those who are confused between the various independence movements, these are the ones who train in Afghanistan and blow up busses, and are outlawed in the United States. --Sumple (Talk) 22:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any truth in this site? 

message: Hi guys, I think the PRC government has lifted the ban on Wikipedia, because the recent vandalism looks like it came from someone who knows Chinese but not English.
These things need to be reverted:
1. The reference to "Glorious United People;s Central Authority" or similar. Dunno where that comes from - could be some kind of literaly word-by-word translation of "People's Republic".
2. The "based on Chinese civilisation" which has been deleted before.
3. Changes to overview.
--Sumple (Talk) 11:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism