This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CaradhrasAiguo (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 19 November 2018 (Reverted 1 edit by 203.218.76.58 (talk) to last revision by Bailmoney27. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:34, 19 November 2018 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by 203.218.76.58 (talk) to last revision by Bailmoney27. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is this article about the People's Republic of China?
A1: "China" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the People's
Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both the Chinese and English languages. For relevant policy details, see WP:COMMONNAME.
Q2: Why is the Chinese government not described as "authoritarian" (or by similar terms) in the infobox?
A2: A community consensus was reached which overwhelmingly opposed the inclusion of the term "authoritarian" and similar terms in the infobox (see archived discussion). However, this question may be revisited in the future.
|
 | China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | China has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent.", "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China", "and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001 (article contribs).
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Shaune91.
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 1, 2018. |
Proposal to rename back China to People's Republic of China, and Taiwan to Republic of China
Per the discussion here and the ROC Talk page.
I seen the related discussions about the naming the articles related to the both Chinas.
Since the use of the colloquial names, despite them are simpler, this caused confussion on the people who haven't read the articles and understanded the delicate situation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party (and caused absurd discussions, specially in other projects like the Spanish Misplaced Pages, see Bellow), and worse, caused a mess in both articles.
The rationale applied by the Spanish Misplaced Pages community to use the official names instead of the colloquial ones is strong, and this was demonstrated in a large discussion in ROC talk page at Spanish Misplaced Pages and also here. By contrast, the rationale applied here to use the colloquial names seems to be weaker for me, and specially by the mess caused in the ROC article.
Therefore, I'm finding concensus (or at least listening opinions) to change the title or keep them. I know what issues could cause this, but inverting redirections should not cause major problems I guess. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why not do a big fix up just like the article Korea for example and the Zhongguo article in the Chinese Misplaced Pages. Its a complex region but divided similar to how China is today. The ROC still has control of Fujian's small islands and whole Taiwan province. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, this is needed. Taiwan is a mess, a mix of the history of Taiwan with the history of the ROC, and I insist, this is caused due the use of Taiwan as synonym of Republic of China. This is why I proposed also there, and propose deep changes.
- Why not do a big fix up just like the article Korea for example and the Zhongguo article in the Chinese Misplaced Pages. Its a complex region but divided similar to how China is today. The ROC still has control of Fujian's small islands and whole Taiwan province. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- This will take some time and coordination. Once the mess is fixed (I don't have much time to edit rather than minor ones), the articles may be renamed, if the community agree. I thing the Village Pump is a better place to discusse this, due the large amount of articles related to "China". --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- To move a page you need a requested move. But it is very unlikely to succeed. We had one which examined this thoroughly and the consensus was to move the page to its current title, "China". See Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26. Nothing has changed since then, except we probably have even more evidence that the country is overwhelmingly known as "China". So I cannot see the outcome being any different, and a further requested move discussion would be pointless.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- This will take some time and coordination. Once the mess is fixed (I don't have much time to edit rather than minor ones), the articles may be renamed, if the community agree. I thing the Village Pump is a better place to discusse this, due the large amount of articles related to "China". --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am strongly opposed to this change. Keep the usual names, China & Taiwan. Pashley (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am strongly oppose to this change. This has long been debated for many many years and the general consensus is to keep China/Taiwan. Taiwan just lost 3 diplomatic allies since you proposed this (Burkina Faso, Dominica Republic, and El Salvador). Rwat128 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I support Amitie 10g's proposal. After the end of Chinese Communist Revolution between 1946 and 1950, China is divided by two Chinese regimes: "People's Republic of China" which only de facto controls Chinese mainland, and "Republic of China" which only de facto controls Taiwan area of China, but the two Chinese regimes claim the sovereignty of whole China. Thus, it is ridiculous to regard the regime "People's Republic of China" as the country "China" and regard the regime "Republic of China" as the area "Taiwan". MouseCatDog (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. Having the government officials running away and hiding on an island after their forces got their asses kicked in combat does not provide any sort of real state continuity. The people who set up the ROC on Taiwan may be the same as the ones who ruled the ROC as actual China, they may use the same constitutional framework, but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state. The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded. Anything else is simply delusional posturing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let me answer in parts:
- does not provide any sort of real state continuity: Have you any proof of your claiming? Or it is just pro-communist POV? The ROC still existed and never dissapeared. They just moved the capital from Beijing to Taipei, where the PRC established its capital there, then, both Chinas claimed the territories until today. Even, the United Nations still considered the ROC as the legitime "China" until 1971, where the countries dicided to consider the PRC as the legitime one.
- they may use the same constitutional framework: The constitution of the ROC has not been (substantially) changed until 2005. In other words, the used the same constitution since its foundation in 1912. The PRC, obviously, created a new constitution according to their interests (you know how are the communists actually).
- By mentioning actual what do you mean, actual or current?
- If you mean current, both are the "current" Chinas, and both claim the same territories. The effective control of territories is another story.
- If you mean actual, both are the actual Chinas, where most countries have formal relationships with the PRC but not the ROC, while few others (including the Vatican City and some countries of Latin America) have formal relationships with the ROC but not the PRC.
- but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state: The only ridiculous is your comment
- The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded: Is just the opposite, the PRC has been founded in 1949, while the ROC still existed.
- --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- 1) The only proof is the fact that the ROC, as a state controlling the territory that had been known as China for centuries, ceased functioning as a government of that territory.
- 2) You do realize that my statement shows agreement that the constitution of the ROC is the same? I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.
- 3) There was a little more going on than just relocating the capital. The effective state fell apart and reconstituted itself on Taiwan using the existing constitution.
- 4) By "actual" I mean the territorial accumulation that had developed over millennia as "China" before the island of Taiwan came under its for a time.
- 5) So, if a revolution tomorrow toppled the US government and Trump and company fled to Hawaii to set up administration there, you would consider both the mainland and Hawaii to be the United States?
- 6) see 4
- --Khajidha (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- commentAmitie 10g is now trying to re-open this discussion at the Taiwan talk page for anyone interested. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Unexplained major edit
I'm looking at this edit, and am concerned. Although it's difficult to see just by looking at the dif, this edit removes from the reader's sight the fact that China is one of the four largest countries in the world by area. Frankly, I consider that to be a pretty major fact that belongs early in the lead.
This edit also includes some changes the significance I'm not sure of; I wouldn't say they're as bad as the one just mentioned, but I don't see how they improve the article. One changes the verbiage regarding the role of the CPC, and the other changes the wording about the number of countries China borders. Not seeing any justification for these edits either here on the talk page, or in the edit summary (which just reads, rejig a bit), I'm going to revert it in toto, and suggest that the changes be made individually, to make discussion easier. Unschool 05:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the revert. I also don't understand the utility. Shenme (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Proposal for the country area statement.
Please change
"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area"
to
"Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the fifth-largest country by total area"
so it matches citation for the current claim , OR find a source that supports the existing claim, as the CIA factbook has it as #5 behind Russia, Canada, Antarctica and the US. There's argument that the text "fourth-largest country" would also be relevant because Antarctica is not really a sovereign nation.
Kuriosly (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Removed Change Request, because who knows how big China is? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area They certainly don't in the talk page for it.
I think that to get away from said controversy change it to second biggest country by total land area. No one's disputing that. And it's a higher placement. So win-win. Kuriosly (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.59 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the Manchu name from infobox
Please remove the Manchu name ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ
ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠᡳᡵᡤᡝᠨ
ᡤᡠᠨᡥᡝ
ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ (Dulimbai niyalmairgen gungheg' gurun) from the multilingual infobox.
Reason: Manchu has never been an official language of People's Republic of China (PRC), and PRC is never known to have published its official Manchu name, so I believe this 'Manchu name' listed in the infobox is an original research. --Pawmot (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. For all we know, it could be just gibberish anyway. FineStructure137 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: There is no designated "official language" of the PRC. It's a touchy subject in a country with so many "dialects," regional languages, ethnic languages, etc. etc.
- The 1982 COnstitution of the PRC here does not specify an "official" language, whether Putonghua, Manchu, or any other, but guarantees equal treatment. A Google image search finds Manchu used commonly on currency. Here, for instance, the (slightly) smiling face of the late Chairman adorns one side of a Five Yuan note, and in tiny font on the other are the five languages, including Manchu.
- In 2000, the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Order of the President No.37)" directed in Ch. ! Article 2 that "For purposes of this Law, the standard spoken and written Chinese language means Putonghua (a common speech with pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect) and the standardized Chinese characters" and Article 8 that "All the nationalities shall have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages," and that the "spoken and written languages of the ethnic peoples shall be used in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Law on Regional National Autonomy and other laws." See also Pan, Haiying (2016), "An Overview of Chinese Language Law and Regulation", Chinese Law & Government, 48 (4): 271–274, doi:10.1080/00094609.2016.1118306
- I assure my friend FineStructure137 that the writing is not "just gibberish."ch (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose you could justify doing all 56 of China'a national languages. But it seems to me we have to draw the line somewhere. The banknotes currently display five languages: Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang. FineStructure137 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Seeing as the current banknotes hold the official name of China in Mandarin, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang, there's no reason to keep a potentially unofficial name of the country in the infobox. Maybe it would belong better somewhere in the article, if it correlates anywhere. Bailmoney27 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- GA-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- GA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- GA-Class Asia articles
- Top-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- GA-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- Externally peer reviewed articles
- Externally peer reviewed articles by The Denver Post
- Selected anniversaries (October 2018)