Talk:China/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I deleted the reference to the Chinese government as an authoritarian government, because of the words that are used to describe what "authoritarianism" is in its wiki entry.

For example, "maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures" or "use of considerable force and sometimes in blatant violation of human rights", etc etc, is debatable and at best a matter of opinion, whether or not that applies to the Chinese government. Hong Qi Gong 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

err excuse me but have you heard of a place called Tiananmen Square? "oppressive measures", "considerable force", "violation of human rights"?

furthermore, the things you mentioned are attributes not definitions of an authoritarian regime.

To quote the same wikipedia article, "Dictatorships are always authoritarian."

I'm sorry but the PRC is authoritarian by its very nature, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

See Authoritarianism#Economic arguments for authoritarianism.

--Sumple (Talk) 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's a matter of opinion whether or not the Chinese government can be defined as, or as you may say, attributed to, being oppressive or in violation of human rights, etc etc. You cannot present these as factual attributes of the Chinese government without violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Regarding "Dictatorships are always authoritarian" - according to the wiki entry on Dictatorship, it is an "absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." However, you yourself have mentioned that 1) China has a constitution, and 2) that it is a democratic dictatorship, not a dictatorship. Furthermore, the Chinese leadership is far from being unrestricted by law, or "other social and political factors within the state" - you would have an extremely difficult time to present a source that can present this as fact, without there being counter-points or counter-arguments from other sources. This, again, violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as NPOV is defined as "absolute and non-negotiable".

The CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA is linked on the entry. Just that in itself contradicts your reference to the Chinese government as authoritarian, according to Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. And this disagreement in and of itself would put your "authoritarian" reference, presented as if it was fact, in violation of NPOV because it is not absolute and non-negotiable. Hong Qi Gong 04:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

first of all, NPOV does not equal absolute and non-negotiable.

You're saying that China is a "democratic dictatorship", therefore it isn't a "dictatorship".

I am not saying that the PRC government enjoys "absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." But it is a dictatorship nonetheless.

A democratic dictatorship, so called, is a form of a dictatorship. According to Communist political theory, a socialist state ruled by the Communist Party enjoys a form of class dictatorship, whereby the rule of the proletariat cannot be challenged, by law or otherwise.

China has a Constitution, but the constitution is not entrenched and it does not derive its authority from popular sovereignty. The Chinese Constitution was written by the PRC government (nominally by the National People's Congress), and was not approved by a referendum of the people. Given that the National People's Congress is not elected by free and meaningful elections (in the sense of an election participated in by all those who are entitled to participate in it), the situation is markedly different to democracies.

The PRC Governemtn, of which the National People's Congress is the paramount organ, is free to amend, annul, or interpret the Constitution. A Constitution which is not entrenched cannot be said to bind the body which can freely abolish it. The same goes for all other laws made by the PRC government, which derive their authority from the Constitution. By contrast, the US Constitution, for example, *cannot* be changed by the US Congress alone, but *can* be changed by the people of the USA. It is in this sense that the PRC government, no matter how "democratic", is a dictatorship.

Dictatorships are authoritarian by definition, because they require obedience to state organs, rather than state organs obeying electoral mandates.

The simplest criterion of whether a government is authoritraian or not is whether it requires obedience to the judgement of the state, more than the state is subjected to the judgement of the electorate or the people. Thus, the United States is not authoritarian because all government officials are chosen by meaningful popular elections. Thus also, the United Kingdom is not authoritarian because its cabinet is answerable to the parliament, who are chosen by the people. In both cases, the actions of each branch of government is checked and balanced by the authority of another branch.

In China, however, a citizen must obey the rulings of the government. This is a fact. The government, on the other hand, is not chosen by the people in the real sense of the word, that is, through an expression of popular preference for one party or candidate over another. In addition, dissent is silenced - again, a fact.

Based on these facts, it is reasonable to then make a conclusion that the government is authoritarian. --Sumple (Talk) 04:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"I am not saying that the PRC government enjoys "absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." But it is a dictatorship nonetheless." - I don't understand. You've just contradicted yourself, because the quoted text is what the wiki entry on Dictatorship says. If the PRC government DOES NOT enjoy "absolute rule by a leadership (so on and so forth)... ", then it would not be a dictatorship.

I do not want to reply to what you've written point-by-point. That just elicits a long and convoluted disagreement . The fact remains, how does anything you've written here qualify the Chinese government as an authoritarian government, as a matter of fact, and not of opinion, under its definition here in wiki? You've jumped through huge holes of logic from that there is no elections in China (which, by the way, does not necessarily mean that the opinions of the people are not represented, and secondly, not even the US Constitution was approved by referendum of the people, only by ratification of representatives of the nine states), to that the Chinese government is authoritarian. How have you shown that it is fact and without argument that the Chinese government, for example, "maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures"? or that it has "has little regard for building consensus"? etc etc? Nothing you've written here can qualify the PRC as authoritarian as a matter of fact. I am completely OK if this view is presented as an opinion - that does not violate NPOV. But to present it as a fact is in violation of NPOV.

Look, I am not saying we should present texts on the entry that disagrees with your views. I'm not saying we should write something like, "China is the land of freedom and democracy". I am only saying that writing that the Chinese government is authoritarian is bias and NOT neutral. Whereas omitting the "authoritarian" reference would keep the entry neutral. The "authoritarian" reference smacks of political bias - which is in violation of NPOV. Hong Qi Gong 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that every statement has to be a fact. For example, the article also says the PRC govt has succeeded in "lifting much of the populace from poverty and leading to a growing Chinese global influence". I wonder why you don't have a problem with that? Afterall, "growing Chinese global influence" is also a conclusion based on facts - there is no "index of global influence" that can be measured scientifically. In the same way, whether a regime is "authoritarian", a "democracy" or a "dictatorship" will always be a conclusion drawn from facts. By your argument, it would be POV to describe the UK as a "constitutional monarchy" (there are certainly people who disagree with this designation), or the Sydney Opera House as an "architectural masterpiece".

What I'm trying to say is that the PRC govt being authoritarian is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that does not make the conclusion POV.

Here are some evidence of this conclusion:

1. Arbitrary amendments to the Constitution. Looking at the legislative history of the Constitution, it has been changed numerous times to suit the political needs of the ruling Communist party. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. All I'm saying is that this is the hallmark of an authoritarian or dictatorial regime. Again, I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with an authoritarian or dictatorial regime.
2. Lack of dissent. Political arrests and crackdowns are rife. Is there an opposition party in China? Is there a newspaper that dares directly challenge the government? No, as a matter of fact, no. The last time someone tried to say "no", a bunch of tanks rolled in and rolled over them. You say that the people's voices are heard despite the lack of elections. How so? They certainly can't speak plainly through the media.
3. Lack of legal redress for illegal administrative decisions. People whose property is compulsarily acquired by the government cannot always receive adequate compensation. When they are denied this compensation, they are in general denied a recourse. The most drastic example was the compulsory handing-over of land and property in the early 1950's. The most recent example is the taking of land from city residents for re-development or urban renewal. These are well-documented facts.

There are more examples, but I'll just put these three to you now. These are all facts. Now tell me why these facts are either insufficient to lead to a conclusion that the regime is authoritarian.

By the way, I did not say the US Constitution was approved by referendum. I said that the Chinese constitution is neither entrenched nor approved by referendum. By contrast the US Constitution is entrenched.

Ok I know what you're saying. The Constitution does not say it is "authoritarian". So I'm making a compromise edit. See what you think. Also, PRC is also not officially a "one-party" state, so I've put one-party with authoritarian, and a full quote from the Constitution to reflect the alternative POV. --Sumple (Talk) 06:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, you can't link "democratic dictatorship" to the PRC Constitution, but right in front of the comment, saying that it is authoritarian when the PRC Constitution basically contradicts the "authoritarian" reference. Anyway, I am OK with the compromise that you wrote up, but I made one minor edit to it. See what you think. The only other minor problem I have with it is that it says the PRC is "commonly" regarded as authoritarian. "Commonly" regarded as such by whom??? But unless others also have a problem with it, I am OK with leaving that wordage in there. Hong Qi Gong 16:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A point on which a lot of people get confused - NPOV does not mean you can't say bad things about something. You just need to ensure that the article as a whole is balanced and presents a broad range of views, so do quote from different sources, one that says that it is authoritarian and another that says that it isn't. enochlau (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep your edit is fine. Perhaps "often" instead of "commonly" then? --Sumple (Talk) 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool, we're in agreement then. Regarding the minor problem that I have with it - it's not so much the usage of "commonly" in that sentence that is problematic. With the current text, the opposing view is clearly referenced to the PRC Constitution, so the problem is, who regard the PRC as authoritarian in the first place? Sure, a lot of western politicians and media would probably say the PRC is authoritarian, but do they really represent the views of the average westerner? And what about Russia, the rest of Asia, and African countries? Do they also view the PRC as an authoritarian government? What about the views of Chinese citizens themselves?

But again, I do not feel it is such a big deal that unless others also see it as an issue, I am OK with leaving it as is. Hong Qi Gong 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that word "commonly" is highly questionable. Replaced with "sometimes". Klaam 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what HongqiGong is saying. But I don't think "sometimes" is a good solution, because it doesn't address the issue at hand, only reduces, perhaps, the magnitude of the statement.

As to who would consider it authoritarian, good question. I'd say most ppl in the West would say it is authoritarian, as would a large proportion of ppl in China - but perhaps not the majority? But that's hard to tell as well. --Sumple (Talk) 08:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote any prominent authority on the PRC that calls it "authoritarian"? enochlau (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why my original compromise edit merely said that some think it's authoritarian, and some others think it's representative, without specifying whom. The current version specifies and limits the scope of the opposing view to just the PRC Constitution, while saying that the PRC is "commonly" or "often" regarded as authoritarian, without specifying who exactly holds this view, does not limit the scope at all and implies that the world all over holds this regard. I mean, I personally don't know much about the general feelings toward the PRC outside of what both western and Chinese media says. What do, for example, Middle Eastern countries think? South America? etc etc. The "authoritarian" reference needs to be limited in scope if the opposing view is to be presented in a limited scope like it currently is. Either that or do not limit the scope of the opposing view and merely say that there are people out there who do not hold this view. Hong Qi Gong 15:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor addition to the current version. See if you are OK with it. Basically, the last revision implies that it is only the Constitution of the PRC that disagrees with the

reference, and that's plainly not true.

Anyway, I still think it's best to leave out the authoritarian reference altogether. It is not a question of the political process in the PRC government, but more a question of whether or not the PRC fits the description of "authoritarian" as it is written in the

wiki entry. And clearly:

1. People disagree with whether or not it describes the PRC, so an opposing view must be presented.
2. We know the opposing views exist, but we don't know exactly who holds which view, and how many people hold each view. So we're basically down to that some people think it's authoritarian, and some do not. Depending on who you ask, any country, from the PRC to the US, can be considered "authoritarian" as it is described here in wiki. So overall, we simply don't have enough information to make a point on the "authoritarian" issue. Leaving it out would be NPOV. Hong Qi Gong 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I made two minor edits to that section:

1. I changed "many" to "some" because this parallels "sometimes" used in the first part of the paragraph.
2. I removed the section which says (the PRC constitution) "contradicts this view" because of two reasons: (a) this is already implied in the first part of that sentence (many disagree), and (b) the PRC Constitution does not necessarily contradict this view. Look up the meaning of "democratic dictatorship" and "authoritarian" in a dictionary and you will find the two words have similar (overlapping but not identical) meaning. Since we are dealing with the PRC, it may also be instructive to note their Chinese translations (专政 vs 专制) are similar (overlapping but not identical) meaning.

Hope these are okay with you.

On whether "authoritarian" should be left out altogether, I don't think it's NPOV to discount something just because there is a dispute, when such an omission would imply something to the contrary.

For example, leaving out the (alleged) authoritarian status of the PRC govt yet leaving in the "democratic dictatorship" part would imply that the PRC is a democratic dictatorship like ancient Athens, which it plainly is not.

Similarly, leaving out the political nature of the PRC govt altogether would omit an important piece of information concerning the nature of this state.

Thus I think the paragraph as it stands (stating the common (in the west) view that the PRC govt is authoritarian, as well as alternative views that it is not authoritarian) is quite NPOV and informative. What would be POV would be to imply either (a) the PRC govt as a sweet font of democratic justice, or (b) a totalitarian reign of terror. --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that many consider the PRC government non authoritarian. Does a one party state = authoritarian? I do not think so. Also, I suppose I was wrong on the grammer. Thought it sounded better. My appologies on that one. (Majin Takeru 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

The notion of the

05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement is posed as an opposing view. As I've asked before, who exactly thinks China is authoritarian? I know that many in western media does, and I have no problem with the authoritarian reference if it specifies this so. Do we really know what other parts of the world think? Chinese citizens? The rest of Asia? South America? Africa? Or do they not matter as long as we take a western bias in what we write?

And there are disagreements as to whether or not China is authoritarian, especially as how the word is described here in the word's wiki entry. In my opinion, most people in China probably have pro-China opinions that do not label the PRC is authoritarian. Of course this is not to say that they think the PRC government is perfect. But "authoritarian"? Arguable. And here is a paper arguing about how "authoritarian" China is [1].

So as long as there is disagreement on the "authoritarian" reference, there needs to be an opposing view for it to be NPOV. If the opposing view must cite exactly who disagrees, then naturally, the "authoritarian" view also must cite who exactly holds this view. And honestly, I have no problem saying that "the west" or "western nations" think that the PRC is authoritarian, while the PRC and its citizens do not. Hong Qi Gong 08:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

. You cant present opposing views by attributing them to vague references and speculating that people in Asia, South America, and Africa hold these opposing views. The term "authoritarianism" can be a precisely defined term in political science. If the problem is with the definition, then change the definition, dont insert weasel words.

Sure, there is dispute and debate over the democratic vs. authoritarian nature of China, but who the hell still defends the system by calling it a "people's democratic dictatorship"? Even the Chinese media doesn't. The term is absurd and has no place here. There is simply no evidence here that it is used by anyone, anywhere to defend the current political system in China. (Just compare this with this. The first link makes plenty of claims that China is authoritarian. The second link has no claims that China is a people's democratic dictatorship.) Here, the system is defended as allowing participation by the masses, but it makes no mention of the people's democratic dictatorship. In the past, the government has defended the system is promoting social stability in light of economic developments.

Again, the issue is not with the word authoritarian, which can be emirically applied to China, but the differing views on the justification of authoritarianism. I ask you to provide references that 1) explicitly refute China is "authoritarian", using the term and 2) explicitly defends the Chinese political system as a "people's democratic dictatorship".

I changed "the government has succeeded in creating jobs" to the more specific "economic reforms have succeeded in creating jobs". why was this reverted?--Jiang 09:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use any weasel words. If you want to say that China is authoritarian, then cite reference on the article as to who holds this view! When you make a claim, the burden of proof or evidence is on you, not on the opposing view to proof you wrong! You've only said here in Talk that China is most definitely authoritarian - well then post in the article why it is authoritarian or who thinks it is authoritarian. Sneaking in "authoritarian" like that without allowing for an opposing point of view is completely bias and not NPOV. You're basically just asking the reader to accept that China is authoritarian just on the fact that you're written it so.

And I don't care if we erase the "people's democratic dictatorship" part. I was not the one that put that in in the first place. Hong Qi Gong 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

One easy way to see that the "authoritarian" reference is debatable is the fact that on the Chinese version of the PRC article, there's no reference to it being "authoritarian". And if you want to say that the Chinese version is bias, while the English one is not, you're starting down a dangerous path of western bias. Hong Qi Gong 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, from what my elementary French abilities can tell, the French version says that it's been described as authoritarian (very different from simply saying that it is authoritarian), and that the preferred description is communist and capitalist. Hong Qi Gong 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, deleting the reference to "authoritarian" is not the solution. If ppl have objections to China being described as "authoritarian", I think the best solution is just to say that it is "described" as authoritarian.

Finally, describing China as "authoritarian" is not necessarily POV - just because you don't like the tag, that doesn't make it POV.

Elaborating on what I've said before, authoritarian (look it up in a dictionary) is just a description of a government!!!!

HQG seems to think that its like soe kind of insult or derogatory tag. It's not! If you do think authoritarian is necessarily bad, *then* that's being POV!

Authoritarian is the opposite of libertarian. It means favouring the principle of subjection to authority, as opposed to that of individual freedom.

Socialist countries insist on individual freedom being subject to, and deriving from, collective freedom. As such, socialist philosophies are *by their nature* authoritarian.

Socialism is not the only philosophy that favours authoritarian principles over libertarian principles. Likewise, laiessez faire capitalism is not the only philosophy that favours libertarian over authoritarian principles. It would be POV to judge which principle is the more important or the best.

Soooo... HQG seems to be implying that there is something wrong with a (nominally) Socialist country being authoritarian. To that I can only say that he's been brainwashed by too much American propaganda. --Sumple (Talk) 05:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, how childish can you really be? When did this discussion become one about me and what I believe? I disagree with implying that the PRC is authoritarian as a matter of fact, and therefore I'm "brainwashed by too much American propaganda"? How much more can you fabricate and twist things around, all because we don't agree with whether or not that's NPOV? Do you see me accusing you of being brainwashed by Australian propaganda?

It's not even about whether or not I think the PRC is authoritarian - my opinion on that does not matter! The fact is that people disagree as to whether or not the PRC is "authoritarian". As such, the solution to making it NPOV would be either to 1) eliminate the "authoritarian" reference, OR 2) provide opposing views with the same scope - and by that, I mean if we must cite who holds the opposing view, then we must also cite who holds the "authoritarian" view. Doing otherwise smacks of bias. Like I've mentioned, both the Chinese version and the French version of the PRC article don't go so far (so who is brainwashed by American propaganda here...?). And I'm absolutely willing to compromise! I actually didn't mind the revision we had before Jiang came in and reverted it. Hong Qi Gong 07:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Who thinks China is authoritarian? Can you please show who is disputing that the PRC has an authoritarian political system?--Jiang 07:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that paper that I linked earlier posed a disagreement. And like I've said also, the Chinese version of the PRC article doesn't say it's authoritarian. The French version says that "it is difficult" to say what the political system is like and that it is "described as" authoritarian, and that it is preferably called communist or capitalistic. Neither of them just plain out say that it is authoritarian like it is an undisputed fact.

And since you would like to put back the "authoritarian" reference, I think the better question would be who thinks it is authoritarian, and not who disputes it. When you make a statement like that, the burden of proof or evidence is on you, not on the opposing voice to prove you wrong. I would have no problem at all if you were to say on the article that western media thinks it is authoritarian because there is really no dispute that western media regularly writes that the PRC is authoritarian. But Chinese media doesn't write that the PRC is authoritarian, and it is disputable that the average Chinese citizen thinks it is authoritarian. And how about the rest of the world outside of China and western nations? Hong Qi Gong 08:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The paper you linked to earlier discusses the extent of China's authoritarianism. It does not refute that China is authoritarian. Just because there is an absence of claim that China is authoritarian does not prove that China is not authoritarian. Just because this article does not say "Hu Jintao is gay" does not mean Hu Jintao is indeed homosexual. Therefore, the absence of the word "authoritarian" in the French and Chinese versions of wikipedia is irrelevant. It could have just been a fact left out, and to make the connection that the absence of something is the denial of something is to commit a non sequitur. Although the Chinese media does not label China authoritarian, it does not refute it. If they dont deny it, then we cannot conclude that they disagree. They have to say they disagree for us to say they disagree.

Who thinks China is authoritarian? Political scientists who are interested in classifying political systems using standard definitive terms. here are a list of books.

You said, "The fact is that people disagree as to whether or not the PRC is 'authoritarian'." Please prove this statement. --Jiang 08:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that nothing has definitively refuted China as authoritarian. I'm not saying the PRC is not authoritarian. I'm only saying that people disagree with that view, and so you cannot present it as if it was fact. I'm not saying the Chinese and French versions of the article makes the claim that the PRC is not authoritarian. I'm saying they take the NPOV because the Chinese version does not say it is authoritarian, thereby not making a claim for or against, and the French version presents opposing views. I absolutely agree that just because there is an absense of a claim that China is authoritarian, it does not prove that China is not authoritarian. I have never said that I want to write "China is not authoritarian" on the intro. That would be non-NPOV, too. I wanted to either leave out the "authoritarian" reference, OR provide both points of view - that would be the NPOV thing to do.

And like I said, I'm perfectly willing to compromise. My problem was with how the "authoritarian" reference was presented. If you want to write, "Political scientists often classify the PRC as an authoritarian political system", I would be OK with that as long as you also let me cite an opposing view. I mean, for one, the PRC Constitution states that the PRC is representative, that is at least one opposing view. Hong Qi Gong 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have used a less stringent term than "prove." If people disagree with that view, then they will try to refute that view. Do you have evidence of people trying to refute that view? What is the opposing view?

The government presents the view that it is respresentative of and responsible to the masses. But this in and by itself does not refute or attempt to refute the notion of authoritarianism. You can have an authoritarian government that is respresentative of and responsible to the masses. The opposite of authoritarianism is not democracy, (as Sumple said) it is libertarianism. Keep in mind that democracy does not have to be synonymous with western liberal democracy. A large part of the defense for the current system is that it is needed for economic growth. A government responsive to the needs of the people can certainly also be authortarian.

The ommission in the Chinese and French versions is not indicative of anything unless there was an intent to leave out the word. Was there a talk page discussion to suggest this?

You would like to provide "both points of view". But can you cite evidence here of someone professing the "opposing view". Who holds the opposing view and what do they argue? --Jiang 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that an authoritarian government can be representative of the people because "authoritarian" is characterised by obedience of the people to the government, while respresentative means that the government derives its authority from the people. But OK, we can argue about semantics of this forever. I suggest we come up text that we can both be satisfied with. And I want to reiterate that - I am not trying to inject my own personal opinion about whether or not the PRC is authoritarian. I only feel there is dispute as to whether or not the PRC is authoritarian, and so it would not be NPOV to imply it was fact.

How about this:

• Political scientists often categorise the PRC as an authoritarian political system, but the Constitution of the PRC, and so presumably the CPC, regards it as a representative system.

Or if you are OK with the French version:

• Il est difficile de caractériser la nature de la structure politique de la RPC. Le régime a été décrit comme autoritaire, communiste, socialiste. Cependant, beaucoup préfèrent associer les termes communiste et capitaliste pour décrire la RPC.

Which basically translates to, "It is difficult to characterise the nature of the political structure of the PRC. It has been described as authoritarian, communist, and socialist. However, many prefer the terms communist and capitalist to describe the PRC."

Hong Qi Gong 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

An outside opinion, I think both of the additions Hong has put forth would fit rather well. (Majin Takeru 17:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Again, I don't see the basis of a dispute here. Who disagrees that the PRC is authoritarian? Can you answer this simple question? I see you keep ignoring it. I tried to search for the answer myself and come up with nothing. If there is no evidence that anyone anywhere is disputing whether the PRC is authoritarian, then the whole argument presented here is a red herring.

Your proposal is inadequate because "authoritarian political system" and "representative system" are not opposites. It like saying "Political scientists often categorise the PRC as communist, but the Constitution of the PRC, and so presumably the CPC, regards it as a socialist democracy" which is entirely senseless is you look up the definition of the terms. Authoritarianism is simply having government impose certain controls in society that are opposed to the European concept of liberty and individual rights. The notion of "liberty" is foreign to China. If you read the writings of Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Sun Yat-sen, and almost every 20th century Chinese political thinker attempting to promote some sort of representative system, you will see that none of them are promoting such a system for the sake of individual rights or liberty. The very justification of democracy in China, up to the present, has been as a means to connect the masses to the the leadership to aid the leadership in better serving their interests, as a means to build a stronger state. As demonstrated by the China Daily article I linked to earlier, the whole emphasis is on the participation of various segments of society in government. The article states that the system is meant to "achieve national independence, people's liberation, national prosperity and a happy life for the people", not the protection of their rights and liberties. In the Chinese notion of government, the leaders must always represent the interests of the people, but for millenia their interests were represented through an absolute monarch. The Chinese political orthodoxy really called for both authoritarian and representative system to be in the embodiment of the ruler, like how the socialist system calls for both to be in the embodiment of the party. We can also take the example of Singapore, where every citizen is by law required to vote, but when given several choices of candidates, they repeatedly vote back into office the People's Action Party which has imposed some very anti-libertarian policies. And it is the people who gave the government this power, and it is the government that is deriving consent from the people.--Jiang 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot find any views that says China is not authoritarian from a search? I ran a quick search on google and the first thing that came up was an opposing view (here). Also, I have said before that the PRC doesn't think it is authoritarian, and I have said that most people in China probably do not think the PRC is authoritarian.

I am not interested in a long and drawn-out argument with you. Obviously, we're not going to agree. Fine, you think that an authoritarian system does not contradict what the PRC Constitution says. I disagree. Like I've said, I'm more than willing to compromise. If you do not like the text I've suggested, feel free to suggest modifications or come up with new text and post it up here in the Talk page. But I simply can't agree with presenting the PRC as authoritarian without opposing or different views and presenting that as if it was fact - especially since the Chinese version does not say the PRC is authoritarian, and the French version offers opposing or different views. It would be blatantly bias of the English version to simply say the PRC is authoritarian without question.

We can word the text such that "authoritarian" does not contradict with "representative", if you like:

• Political scientists often describe the PRC as an authoritarian political system, while the PRC Constitution, and by extension, the CPC, considers the PRC a representative system.

If you do not like this, please do suggest an alternative that we can work towards an agreement on. Hong Qi Gong 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ok sorry about the american propaganda comment :S

your version sounds okay. but i don't like how authoritarian is set up as being opposite to representative. authoritarian does not have to be unrepresentative. it just has to be un-liberal. --Sumple (Talk) 06:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. We don't have to present "authoritarian" as opposite to "representative". We can re-word to allow for both views to be presented without saying that they are opposite. Any suggestion? I like the French version even though it doesn't include the view that it may be representative. It basically translates to, "It is difficult to characterise the nature of the political structure of the PRC. It has been described as authoritarian, communist, and socialist. However, many prefer the terms communist and capitalist to describe the PRC." But I can see how this could be considered usage of weasel words. Hong Qi Gong 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My Chinese is not good enough for reading news articles, so you'll have to pinpoint the sentence and translate it. The Fr version confuses economic systems with political systems. "Authoritarian" describes a political structure. "Communist" and "socialist" describe an economic structure. If we are to use "communist state" (describing a political structure), then we will have to attribute the term to western political scientists because according to Marxism, there is no state under communist and their preferred term would be "socialist state". Moreover, the last sentence (which I unconveniently take to imply that the first term refers to the government and the second term refers to the economy) does not make sense if you take the Marxist definition of communism and really study the economy to find out that the government still holds a whole lot of reserve control (technical ownership of land, rules on foreign investment, etc.) over the economy.--Jiang 11:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so basically you don't have any Chinese sources? Well, no wonder you can't find any opinions that thinks that the PRC is not authoritarian.  :-) That is not meant to offend or anything, but it's noticeable, at least to me, that western media is bias against China. And like I've said before, I would have no disagreement if you were to write in the article that it is western media that thinks the PRC is authoritarian. Anyway, the article I linked basically said that when Donald Tsang was asked whether or not he thinks the PRC is authoritarian, he said no, that he doesn't think the PRC is authoritarian.

Regarding the French version of the article - the point is not whether or not you agree with any one of the terms that are used to describe the PRC. The point is that all those views are presented, and while most political scientists may not have described a political system as "communist", probably many laymen, journalists, and politicians have. The French version does not say the PRC is any of the terms that were used. It simply says that it has been described using those terms. Big difference.

But like I've said, I would like to compromise. Can you suggest a modified version of what I've suggested or suggest completely new sentences that we can work towards a compromise on? --Hong Qi Gong 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the sentence:

• "The PRC is home to over 1.3 billion people, which makes it the largest country on earth in terms of population."

was changed to:

• "The PRC is home to over 1.3 billion people, which makes it the largest economy on Earth in terms of population."

Hong Qi Gong 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The changed version doesn't make sense to me. Also, it's very awkward to say "largest country by population". "most populous country" or similar is better. --Vector4F 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited it. See what you think. --Hong Qi Gong 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably is no big deal, but "earth" should be capitalised to "Earth", shouldn't it? Or is it standard wiki practice to not capitalise it? Hong Qi Gong 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the line that says the PRC claims Taiwan as the "23rd province of the PRC" to "a province of the PRC". The reason I did this was:

• the PRC does not rank its provinces. Taiwan is not alphabetically or phonetically the last province according to the administrative divisions of the PRC.
• It was not the last province to be claimed or established, even though it may be the only province which has never been administered by the PRC
• labelling Taiwan as "23rd" may be POV because it passes judgment on the validity or otherwise of the PRC's claim of the territory.
• the information as to the number of provinces of the PRC is contained elsewhere.

Thus "a" province is more accurate and NPOV, albeit less poetic. --Sumple (Talk) 09:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the PRC flag pink? The red in the emblem and the red in the flag is different in the article. They should be the same color. There's something wrong with the color parameters used for the PRC flag. 128.135.224.149 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

resolved Nishishei 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a massive overhaul to maintain its featured status. Reduce images, summarise content, add more references, reduce lists and unnecessary sections. See India, Australia, Bhutan and Nepal for reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You are from India and obviously biased. The

PRC article in both use of images and its summarization. Nishishei

05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks against any user in wikipedia: (See

Economy of the People's Republic of China. There is no food photo in the sports section, it must be an issue with very high resolution screens. =Nichalp «Talk»=

12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No one has made personal attacks toward you, please review what constitutes a personal attack. It is your opinion that the India article is better than the PRC article. You have provided no concrete points, but arguable generalizations, and hence you were told by Nishishei that your comments are biased and without basis. The PRC geography section has SMALL pictures that complement the section of the article very well, and emphasizes the diversity of China's terrain; small images also have shorter load times. And I agree with Nishishei, on my computer too, the Indian food on leaf photo in the India article is indeed in the sports section. Very disorganized. Many computers in the US run on high resolutions. Naus 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are from India and obviously biased smacks of a personal attack. We in wikipedia always ensure that the article is viewable at the standard web resolution: 800x600. I've made my comments on the FARC. No need of duplication. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is everybody so centered around the images? As images are not prerequisites for FA status, then I don't see why all of this discussion should just focus on images. In addition, this discussion isn't here to say why the article India is bad. There are several additional suggestions given by Nichalp for the FARC. AndyZ _t 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The focus on images is because it was the first point Nichalp made. Likewise the focus on India was brought about by Nichalp himself. 67.175.245.110 06:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nishishei. The PRC article definitely deserves its featured status. --141.213.196.250 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've listed this article under

15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this listing, please discuss here first before making wanton moves. The article is maintained on a daily basis by many users as revealed in the history. You have blatantly ignored the comments made by others toward your suggestion and unilaterally made your own listing. Naus 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted and added the {{

farc}} - it is not up to the decision of a single individual whether or not an article deserves featured status. AndyZ _t

21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sports section improve suggestion

• I noticed that the "summary" in the sports section of this article is more like the whole sports article itself, therefore, I suggest that there be only a link to the sports article in the section. --Ryz05 04:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

update: I changed the Sports section according to my suggestion.--Ryz05 04:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• We might also want to add some stuff about
  Weiqi (go) in the sports section, as they are very popular games in mainland China today. You walk around apartment complexes and parks during summer, you see people of all ages playing them. There are also competitions. Nishishei
  21:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Those games can go in the sports section, especially in the second paragraph on traditional chinese sports. They also deserve to be mentioned in the

Sports in China article.--Ryz05

01:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

External links and references

• I'm wondering if some of the external links that were in the article before being indiscriminantly "wiped-out" should actually be in the "References" section.--Ryz05 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've moved them into the references section in favour of the american sources (why is it that everyone cites the CIA factbook? It's like the worst researched, worst prepared piece of reference ever. SEriously, national geographic is tonnes better.)

Not all of these links are relevant - interested parties can go through and cull as appropriate. --Sumple (Talk) 06:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05, I made some modifications to the images again, the reason is that at high screen resolutions, having images all on the right side will lead to them landing in other sections. Hence, having some images on the right and some on the left is wise for compatibility reasons. For example, in the India article that Nichalp is so fond of, the Indian food picture is in the sports section on my resolution (every computer in my school has the same high resolution). Nishishei 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also fond of the Australia, Bhutan, Nepal, Belgium and the Pakistan articles. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nishishei, thank you for the corrections. The image formats of this article look a lot better now. I tried to fix it before by moving them to the right and deleting some, but I agree with what you said. Thanks again.--Ryz05 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External links. The revert is a gross abuse of the policy of using random links to mask the fact that the article lacks credible sources. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There seemed to be some surprise when I commented that I found reading this article depressing. There was argument and debate. It was asserted that the article had been improved. We were invited to reread. I think it would be inappropriate to comment at length on the FARC page so here is my very preliminary view on second reading. I regret that I did not get past the first introductory paragraphs:

"Since its founding in 1949," /so this would be the de facto stabilisation after the cessation of hostilities. What is the process of "founding" a state? Has it not been normative for the "founding" act in public international law terms to be de jure recognition by other states? It is arguable that the state was not founded as such, but acquired a form of international legitimacy through the passage of time from 1949 onwards. But the phrase clearly needs considerable explanation/"the PRC has been led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) under a one-party system. Though constitutionally a socialist state/sorry to be dim but what does that mean? You say that a communist state has a socialist constitution? I think you should explain your terminology so that we can all understand what the implications are./"the PRC privatized"/so the state privatised rather than the Party? and what was this privatisation? Who owned what in this communist or socialist state and therefore had the right to sell? And who had the money (in a communist state, would private capital not be illegal?) to buy and what happened to the money?/"nearly half of its economy"/can you sell an economy or half of it? I thought you could only sell property, whether movable or immovable./"in the past three decades"/starting in the 1970s, somebody has sold half of the economy, but at which value? There would have been a valuation of the economy when the first sales were made in 1970. Thereafter, both the public and private economies would have grown. . . This needs serious explanation/"under "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." /is this a quote we can attribute? Is this how the Chinese themselves described their own system or is this an external value judgment, whether free-standing or perhaps as a translation of the Chinese but selecting Western words? It presupposes that there is something objectively identifiable as "socialism" and that this set of political norms was given a particular interpretation or application by the Chinese. Is this the result of the PRC being a communist state with a socialist constitution that you referred to earlier?/"Nonetheless, it"/this it is the Party?/"retains significant political control over the remaining state-owned enterprises and the banking sector."/so the banking sector was never state-owned, presumably because banking would be a capitalist venture? But the Party controlled it by regulation and informal mechanisms?

My deepest apologies, but this is all really depressing. David91 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Communist Party of China (CPC) leads (has led) the country under a one-party system since the PRC's establishment in 1949 (you have failed to explain this— it is highly pertinent to advert to the de facto status of the government and so the equivocal status of the state). Though founded by a communist party, nearly half of its economy has been privatized in the past three decades under "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." (You have failed to deal with this.) During the 1980s, these economic reforms (sorry, did you list economic reforms somewhere?) helped lift hundreds of millions of peasants out of abject (abject is judgmental) poverty -- an achievement unmatched in human history (a bold and completely unsupported assertion that needs very careful justification and explanation). However, due to this mixing of capitalism with socialism (we are back to this communism/socialism/captialism problem which you have yet to explain), the PRC (the PRC is not faced by anything. It is the government that has a mind and it is highly judgmental to personalise the state and its peeople rather than consider the role of the group of people who have led it) is faced with a multitude of problems associated with each, (sorry, each what?) including unemployment and increasing rural/urban income gap (these are terms associated with developed economies and not necessarily relevant to China which has always has a majority of people falling into a peasant class). Despite shortcomings, (what shortcomings: I am completely lost in this explanation) the greater prosperity (among what percentage of the population? We need very careful justification for this statement) led (is leading) to growing Chinese global influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological, and cultural affairs. (Right — Chinese people are highly industrious and, no matter where they have lived, they have always contributed to local economies. . .)

You do realise that there is something wrong with the majority of sentences in this article? Further, simply excising those elements that anyone analyses is extremely unhelpful because you are then failing to explain highly relevant issues. How and when the de jure state came into being is of major significance and if you want to leave 1949 untouched, then you have to explain it very clearly otherwise it is completely misleading to a naive reader. Similarly, you seem to be attributing political characteristics to the government and its activities as if there is an objective definition of communism/socialism/capitalism which every naive reader will understand in this context. Some people (hahahahaha) might have claimed that the government was a military dictatorship that wrapped itself in the flag of communism but that its politics actually had nothing to do with Marxism or Leninism (unless you do not associate Marx and Lenin with communism. Perhaps you see the PRC as more Stalinist in its behaviour?). You have to explain in neutral language what happened, and what social and political motives drove the process. So far, I see absolutely no improvement at all. I understand that you are highly motivated and upset that this page is "under attack". But you should take time to sit back and reflect calmly. We are not acting destructively here. This is an opportunity for a constructive rewriting of the entire piece. Unfortunately, the last few days frenetic activity have produced piecemeal amendments that fail to make any substantive rectification to the article's underlying faults. David91 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

David91, I think if one were to follow through with your suggestions in explaining every sentence about the PRC and its current status in the intro, the introduction would be far too long. Besides, anything that is still unclear can be read from the links that are provided in the intro under each world, such as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (read that for clarification), or click the link economic reforms for further details. Hope that satisfies you. --Ryz05 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the link to "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is worse than useless because, in part that is even more POV than this page. But we are talking details here. The issue is not with individual words or phrases. My view is that the whole article needs to be completely rewritten and that, until a reasonable standard has been achieved, the page should no longer be considered FA. David91 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So the intro is fine? Or should there be more details? To me, it has the right length and any other details can be read from the provided links by clicking the highlighted words. Also, I don't think the whole article needs to be rewritten, but maybe some parts can be cut down for clarification. If you seek perfection in an article, you won't find it anywhere. --Ryz05 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is distracting me from other matters which have a higher priority for me at this time. But I will say this. No. The intro is not fine. The whole piece needs to be completely rewritten (which requires inter alia that it be restructured). I do not think the introduction needs to be more than two or three sentences at most and they should be completely uncontroversial. You then need to decide in what order to take the topics so that the whole piece has a logical flow to it. As it stands, it is incoherent without any sense of structure. Once you have decided upon the structure, you can see the order in which you need to introduce and explain the concepts. Thus, if you decide to begin with the issue of when the PRC actually came into being, you can explain the concept of de facto as opposed to de jure recognition in a proper context without muddying the sectional element with constitutional issues. And so on. I said above that you and all the other dedicated people working on this page should take time to reflect calmly. As it is, you are making ad hoc changes without any sense of where you are going and what you are trying to achieve. I acknowledge that this is difficult for all, so I will leave you to make whatever changes you deem appropriate without further more detailed input from me. My health is beginning to fail and I have other things I wish to complete before I am unable to write any more. David91 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not an academic paper determined to be objective and nuanced on the most minute level. Concepts such as varying perspectives of socialism or capitalism are introduced in the PRC article in a manner identical to every other featured country article (like say the India or Hong Kong articles). Targetting specifically this article as if it is somehow an exception to other Wikipedia articles is quite unfair. The very nature of Wikipedia guarantees that ad hoc changes dominate complete structural rewrites. This is not a specific problem unique to the PRC article. If there is a flaw, it is a systematic flaw of Wikipedia. 69.213.138.57 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is an FA. It has been suggested that it is not good enough. I have made comments intended as constructive advice on how to improve the quality so that it can remain an FA. I am not interested in a comparison with any other page for this purpose. For all I know, those pages may not be FAs tomorrow. But, to answer your specific point: if someone writes that a state is "communist" but it has a "socialist" constitution, I have problems in understanding why it was initially described as "communist", etc. Finally, whether one is writing for Wiki or writing the copy to go on the back of a pack of breakfast cereal, people judge the quality by whether it has a flow, i.e. by whether it is structured and coherent. David91 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It should also be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. But explaining how a state is founded... not exactly Wikipedia:Summary style. AndyZ _t 15:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A few editors seem to be working hard on the article. Here are my suggestions on how to go about in touching this article up:

1. Start by reducing the page size. The history and economy section are large and can do with some précis writing. Ideal size of a country article 35-40 kb. (I've done many country and city article in the past and they can be comprehensive with such a page size)
2. Follow the headings and suggestions as per
   wikipedia:wikiProject countries
3. Cite sources as its being rewritten. Where have you sourced the content from? All facts and figures quoted should have inline references.
4. Obtain free images and remove the non-free ones from here.

---

1. Copyediting and NPOV check comes much later

Best of luck! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with:

1. The history and economy sections can be reduced a bit.

I tried to reduce the economy section, which resulted in some edits for the better.--Ryz05 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1. • I reduced the history section, saving some 5kb, and plan on working on the economy section. AndyZ _t 22:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Order of the topics can be changed as per
   wikipedia:wikiProject countries
   , but subsections like the military, human rights, etc could be kept under "Politics" section.# Sources could be cited as things are added or rewritten.
3. Added citations, and adding more still. AndyZ _t 22:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Some images with shady copyright status could be changed to something more benign.
   • Done! AndyZ _t 22:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I have other buisness to take care of, it might take me awhile to fix some of these issues. In the mean time, others can jump in to help.--Ryz05 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AndyZ and others for all your help in improving this article!--Ryz05 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited all the sections of this article for clarification and fixed some grammar. So I have pretty much completed my job.--Ryz05 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see Nichalp has revised his opinions. --Sumple (Talk) 23:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Article states that "but India has not included it in any discussion about a settlement to the Kashmir dispute, effectively ceding it to China." Some good references are required before making such statements. --Blacksun 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of pressure to be a Featured Article... the current PRC article has been castrated. I would much rather prefer a constantly UPDATED and INFORMATIVE country article than a two-line summary article linking to specific articles that are pieces of crap and rarely if ever updated. The article two weeks ago was great, the history section (especially on the extent of reform, and possible backlashes) was nuanced and accurate.

See the Germany and United States articles for detailed, good quality stuff. I am particularly impressed with the United States article. Look at their economy, geography, politics, culture sections. Like a REAL ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY.

The Wikipedia country template is a sham, only like 4-5 country articles in the world have actually followed it so far. I don't see why country FA articles have to follow this piece of crap template. - JakeLM 22:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please... Note Wikipedia:Summary style. The article is still encyclopediac, but information is simply shifted to more detailed subpages (the Main articles). The history section in particular is stuffed with POVs, which I move some to History of the People's Republic of China. That way, the main article stays on topic tersely. AndyZ _t 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Science and technology section is currently focused too much on space and Shenzhou.... We need a summary of other aspects, including the government's recent emphasis on science and technology (see Jiang Zemin's "Three Represents"). There are other things we must summarize such as stem cell research, pebble-bed nuclear reactors and alternative energy exploration (biogas, fusion, etc). The photo of the model of Shenzhou I appears to be a hobbyist's creation, not the official model, I would prefer another more general sectional photo (like the brand new and awesome Shanghai Museum of Science and Technology) in its place. Thanks. JakeLM 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2006/gb20060331_921612.htm This recent article on China's science and tech drive is a good place to start on adding more diverse content in the science/tech section. 69.213.138.57 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Changes have been made. There is now more summarizing context. 67.175.245.110 07:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to all those who contributed in this article by offering help and suggestions! Now, it reads and looks so much better than before. A special thanks to AndyZ for many important citations, JakeLM for the discriptive images, and 67.175.245.110 for suggesting and expanding on the Science and technology section while providing much needed reference information. Now that editing is pretty much done, I'm ready for a wiki-break. --Ryz05 13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My extended thanks also! AndyZ _t 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Deng never became Party Secretary or State Chairman himself" to the more accurate "Deng was never head of the Party or State himself". Deng was briefly Party Secretary under Mao, but back then Party Secretary was not the highest leader in the Party. --Sumple (Talk) 23:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted non-specific web links (as in, links to a general site and not to specific country information) from the references section. But I have left in the People's Daily and the China Daily links because they provide a Chinese perspective balancing the more Western references - Please replace these with specific links or references as they are found. Thanks. --Sumple (Talk) 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've recently added a sub-section on Public Health under Demographics. I've also did quite a bit of research to include references. It is a sub-section on an older version of this article, which I had made substantial edits to and now looks very different from the original. I have copied a closer version of the original to the main article regarding the topic. As of now, there are two articles that could be made better:

Ministry of Health (China) and

Patriotic Health Campaign.

I will improve these articles in the future if noone helps. Some useful websites with information are provided in each stub.--Ryz05 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some serious disease outbreaks have occurred in recent times, such as the 2002 SARS outbreak, a pneumonia-like disease, which has since been contained and new cases failed to emerge.[49] Other examples include the spread of avian flu, which is mainly animal-human transmissible (with only two well documented cases of human-human transmission),[50] and the 2005 outbreak of the Streptococcus suis bacteria in Sichuan province transmitted between pigs and humans.[51]"

too much detail on the epidemics... SARS is enough for one example. bird flu is not limited to China, this section of article makes it sound like bird flu is already at epidemic levels in China. And too much information on the disease itself ("which is mainly animal-human transmissible with only two well documented cases of human-human transmission"), which isn't suitable for a country article. 67.175.245.110 05:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

i've made some edits, SARS example is enough. I've also added sentence on living close to animal poultry leading to these kinds of outbreaks. 67.175.245.110 06:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, "increase in obesity" is clearly out of context. The Chinese obesity level is lower than other industrialized nations. Article makes it sound like China is approaching American levels of obsesity, which is absurd. Second, there is no AIDS epidemic yet, it's a "fear" of epidemic, and this fear has been greatly alleviated in the last 2 years with new data suggesting that China may not have an AIDS epidemic afterall (I can dig up sources if you want). The number one public health issue in China is lung cancer related to smoking and pollution, it is definitely not AIDS nor obesity. To rank AIDS and obesity along with lung cancer and diabetes is extremely Western-centric and not NPOV. AIDS and obesity are not issues that concern the average Chinese, lung cancer and diabetes are. 67.175.245.110 05:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "increase in obesity" to "increase in obesity among urban youths." Also added "potential future" to "AIDS epidemic." It's not progressing, there is no AIDS epidemic right now, you can't progress an epidemic when you don't have it. 67.175.245.110 06:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Less focus on specific diseases/epidemics should be made in this article (especially Western-centric diseases like obesity), more focus should be on how the nation is coping and dealing with them, and how the government is providing healthcare, such as the recent cooperative health insurance plan for poor provinces. 67.175.245.110 06:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your suggestions and changes regarding the Public health section. Thank you for making the edits. --Ryz05 06:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with AndyZ's decision to combine the short human rights section with an otherwise fairly short Politics section, I suppose it be better to add a paragraph about the structure of the PRC government under Politics, while moving all that's about censorship to a new human rights section.--Ryz05 20:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the censorship into a new subheading. Censorship is an issue with human rights, so its inclusion was natural. I have seen other pages with similar formats, and it seems appropriate. More info on political structure would be good. --banta 22:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that this article cites the CIA factbook for population figures when the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics has published its own census figures. (Here's a link to the information in Chinese.) I would assume that the NBS's figures would more reliable than the CIA's, & using them would strengthen this article. -- llywrch 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I never knew you could read Chinese. Anyways, it's hard for me to read and understand, so perhaps someone else could do that job of replacing the CIA's data with that of the Chinese website.--Ryz05 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

the 2005 figures are a 1% sample analysis, not a census. --Sumple (Talk) 11:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

China is unique in that the city (or municipality) administration is the most important and cited administration, not the region, province or county. Chinese dialects are also commonly referred to by the city name, not by the regional nor provinical terms. Much of China's economic growth is coming from the key cities.

03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a very long list. But we definitely need a list that includes cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Wuhan, Hong Kong (Kowloon), Nanjing, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Shenyang, Harbin. Naus 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I know largest city lists is not required under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries guidelines, but I will point out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries also says "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." Naus 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. I only removed it earlier to the

List of cities in the People's Republic of China because someone suggested that the article would be better without them. However, they are important to the Chinese economy and serve an important role in Chinese culture.--Ryz05

03:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think such a section will improve the article. One quibble: In the table included below the non-municipal cities have their provinces indicated in brackets. The meaning of this may not be immediately obvious to someone not familiar with Chinese provinces. Perhaps a separate column or some other indicator of the nature of these names? --Sumple (Talk) 10:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. How does it look now? 68.252.233.187 14:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! --Sumple (Talk) 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks awesome! Thank you! Hope you can sign up for an account (which I did when someone accused me of being an "anonymous coward").--Ryz05 04:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We can include this (a shortened version) into this article

Largest cities

The People's Republic of China has dozens of major cities, including 3

. Major cities in China play key roles in national and regional heritage, culture, economics and politics.

File:Puxi.jpg

The figures ranked below are the 2001 estimates for urban populations within administrative city limits ^[1]; a different ranking exists when considering the total municipal populations (which includes suburban and rural populations)^[2].

Rank	City urban area	Population (2001 est) millions	Municipality limits (2000 census)		Region
			millions	density (per sq km)
1	Shanghai municipality	9.838	16.74	2,640	Eastern
2	Beijing municipality	7.441	13.82	822	Northern
3	Hong Kong SAR	6.112	7.01	6,294	South Central
4	Tianjin municipality	5.095	10.01	803	Northern
5	Wuhan, Hubei province	4.489	8.31	947	South Central
6	Guangdong province	4.155	10.15	1,337	South Central
7	Liaoning province	3.981	7.20	557	Northeastern
8	Chongqing municipality	3.934	30.90	378	Southwestern
9	Nanjing, Jiangsu province	2.822	6.40	970	Eastern
10	Harbin, Heilongjiang province	2.672	9.35	174	Northeastern

• above Municipality population and density source: Zhongguo 2000 nian renkou pucha ziliao (2000 China population census resources, 中国2000年人口普查资料), published Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe, 2002
• Sources for population density:

1. Shanghai
2. Beijing
3. Tianjin
4. Guangzhou
5. Chongqing

http://www.chinatoday.com/city/a.htm --Ryz05 11:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But I'm still waiting for more votes as one problem that I sees is it lengthens the article quite a bit.--Ryz05 03:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've recalibrated the pixels of the pictures, now they look a lot better. --Ryz05 04:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Given that almost all the references are used in the notes section, can they be combined?

2. The notes section (a very long section) frequently cites the same source multiple times. Is there a way of reducing this list by combining such references into one line? --Sumple (Talk) 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The References section can just be a list of websites one could go to for references, while the notes section is the support for what we wrote in the article, but the two can be combined, though it's not a big issue at the moment. There's a way to shorten the notes list by typing "ref name=refName" on one, then the same thing <| ref name=refName > on multiple other ones that have the same link as the first one. For a different link, one can do "ref name=refName2" and so on. --Ryz05 11:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want instructions on how to do it, see meta:Cite/Cite.php. enochlau (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at footnote number 19- that is an example of how such a doubled source would probably look like. In addition, I don't think (at least I hope, considering I added many of the footnotes!) any of the citations in the notes sections are doubled. As for combining the two sections, I've seen combinations like

footnotes. Thanks, AndyZ _t

20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations section

Foreign relations section can definitely be cleaned up a little. Too much detail and kind of chaotic. In fact the main article Foreign relations of China is more concise and to the point than the PRC main article's section.

Removed details on the territorial disputes (that list was originally very disorderly...), and added a link that lists all the territorial disputes in detail. Also added

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Naus

00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to all editors!

Congratulations for all those that made a contribution to this article and kept its featured status! I see this article as simply excellent; an example of what a country article should look like. It's just so fun to read and look at. Cheers!--Ryz05 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! and thanks especially for Ryz05 for his tireless efforts. --Sumple (Talk) 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think that a small change could greatly improve the flow of the article. The see also currently at the end of sections would be less invasive if they were put in a topics box at the end of the article, see

06:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I don't think the "see also" at the end of certain sections is invasive in any sense. If people want to learn more, they can just click them or if they don't, they can just move on. A topic box unnecessarily lengthens the article and is not as clean as just list a few links under the "see also" section at the end.--Ryz05 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just saying Chinese is the official language in the country box is good enough, otherwise it'll create an unnecessary mess. I have included your more specific categorizations in the footnotes, which is a more fitting place, as people can just look down to see what Chinese in PRC consists of. Please do not change again until we have discussed it in discussion. Thank you.--Ryz05 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Chinese is just a gerneral word for all of its variant sub-languages or dialects, so you may see that all the OFFICIAL statements actually use MANDARIN even Standard Mandarin instead of just Chinese. Here are some related official URLs:

中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法 http://www.moe.edu.cn/edoas/website18/info5895.htm "本法所称的国家通用语言文字是普通话和规范汉字"

China Factfile: Languages http://english.gov.cn/2005-08/16/content_23691.htm "Standard Chinese or Mandarin (Putonghua, based on the Beijing dialect)"

中华人民共和国宪法 http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2004-03/15/content_1367387_1.htm "国家推广全国通用的普通话。"

In fact, article Standard_Mandarin at Wikipedia has explained this very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Mandarin

So I suppose the right word should be "Standard Mandarin (Putonghua)", in stead of "Chinese" or "Standard Chinese", and in comparison with Taiwan's mandarin.

-- bbao

Hi, thank you for pointing that out. I noticed that the Singapore article lists Mandarin as co-official instead of Chinese, so I thought to make Mandarin the official language of PRC in the country box instead of just Chinese. Afterall, Mandarin is the official anyways. I gave further details about it being a dialect of Chinese in the notes section at the bottom of the box.--Ryz05 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some modifications, because: 1) Standard Mandarin (Putonghua) is NOT a dialect in Chinese and NOT ONLY the official spoken standard; it is BASED on Beijing dialect and it also actually specifies the official written standard (the Simplified Chinese), see 中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法 mentioned above. 2) There is no need to explain what is Standard Mandarin here, just add the link to its Wikipedia article. 3) Cantonese is just a dialect, NOT an official/co-official language, even in Hong Kong and Macau, so there is NO need to mention it here. 4) The word Co-official is not a regular word in most dictionaries (Co- may mean Associate or Together) and is NOT an exact word. The expression "may also be used as an official language" is from Article 9, Chapter 1 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, which should be very exact. Please see the Basic Law at http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0201.htm and 中华人民共和国民族区域自治法 at http://www.china.org.cn/chinese/2001/Mar/22466.htm) for more information. 5) There are actually more than 5 langauges officially allowed in Xinjiang's different sub-areas, see Xinjiang's official website at http://www.xinjiang.gov.cn/1$001/1$001$001/12.jsp?articleid=2004-3-31-0006/ --Bbao

Hi, do you know how to remove the S from Official Language(S)? BTW, another solution is just to add an additional superscript 2 at the end of word Standard Mandarin, no need to introduce the official languages in HK and Macau. Any idea? Anyway, the most minority languages should be mentioned in the footnote.--Bbao

Thank you for providing all this information. The (S) seems to be pre-programmed into the template, so I do not know how to change it. There's no need anyways, as it signifies either a singular word or plural, depending on how many official languages the country has. There's nothing to fuss about that. I will change the other official languages to just co-official, as that's what they really are.--Ryz05 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The official written language is

18:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

Anybody got the balls to say something about the millions of people murdered by this government?

Anyone?

Sources? Or would you rather Wikipedia be written by emotional tirade? TastyCakes 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not right to have a single sub-section by itself, and Sports is pretty short. Therefore, it should be combined into Culture section. There's nothing wrong with that.--Ryz05 _t 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

the communism privacy forced to stop the blog tibet to force take the steel to help to kill government us as a chinese.

Uh, maybe it is just me, but I am not even going to attempt to decipher this. (Majin Takeru 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

A disgruntled Tibetan watchmaker?? --Sumple (Talk) 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did not have chinese person brilliance assembely to adopt Tibet to watch.