Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:27, 20 July 2006

This article is specifically about the culture of mainland China which develops separately from the culture of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan (and Pescodores, Quemoy, Matsu) after 1949. The culture of China article is about Chinese culture in general, and have a much much longer time frame.

If this article has to merged, the same should be done with the article Culture of Hong Kong.

We must include a communist section in the main culture of China article for completeness since China is so much defined by mainland China. I dont see how your last sentence follows. Hong Kong is comparatively small and unique and has been separated from China for so long. On the other hand, mainland China has been the same as China for a very long time. --Jiang 10:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As this article has suggested the development of Chinese culture in mainland China after 1949 has been heavily influenced by the ruling communist party, and the original Chinese culture has in fact been better preserved in Hong Kong, Taiwan and even Korea, than in mainland China.

I would prefer having this article as the main article of the relevent section(s) under the article Culture of China.

Similarly the article Culture of Hong Kong should be the main article of a section (probably a short one will be alright) under the article Culture of China. The same applies to Macao and Taiwan. — Instantnood 11:30, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

(to the anonymous contributor) Generally agree. But Quemoy and Matsu has not been ruled by Japan. The culture on the two groups of islands is probably not the same as Taiwan and the Pescodores. — Instantnood 11:37, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

This would more aptly named "Culture in Communist China". But for a more detailed article to exist, we need a summary in the more general article. That should be written before this one.--Jiang 11:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't use the word "we". It is your opinion and your point of view. — Instantnood 12:30, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

"We" is ambiguous. It's a rhetorical device. You are also free to use it. --Jiang 04:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making this disambiguation statement. :-) — Instantnood 18:36, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)

Page mvs.

Per request on my talk page I've mv'd this thing back to what I hope was its original name. IN seems to have doe some very curious multiple mvs William M. Connolley 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Communist China

"Communist China" is a POV, because many communists, in particular left communists do not regard the PRC as communist at all, not even since 1958, or 1949. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Leninists aren't communists according to Marxists. — Instantnood 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Reference:

According to WP:CONTEXT, there is no mention to "keep it out of the iterated statement". Rather, we see a line that says "the opening of an article is typically more densely linked than the rest, because many items will appear there for the first time."

It is thus clear, that the tendency is still to link the first occurance of the word, as has been done in many articles across wikipedia.--Huaiwei 14:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was just reprimanded for linking in the reiterated title once. I think this came from "As a general rule, do not put links in the title; however, this may be acceptable with complex titles or verbose leads, such as those concerning multiple concepts." (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)). Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No one ever told me not to link the title before... I think that requirement arises due to some people's persistance in adding a link to the title which is exactly the same as the title itself, ie, adding a link to Title in the Title page, or linking Chinese language romanisation in Singapore as Chinese language romanisation in Singapore. If you refer to the later article, I instead linked romanisation, Chinese language, and Singapore, thus fulfilling the later condition of "complex titles or verbose leads" I suppose? This article dosent have a very long title, but it does have two main concepts/entities embedded in the title?--Huaiwei 17:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Leading paragraph

Re - This article specifically discusses culture in mainland China under communist influence. " which came with increased interaction with the capitalist world and the opening up of trade and exchanges with its two Special administrative regions particularly since their reversion to Beijing rule. " - Trade and exchanges were already significant before 1997/1999. — Instantnood 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• But trade and exchanges significantly increased post 1997, with the gradual relaxation of trade and tourism guidelines, for example. It was only in post 1997 where Chinese nationals make up a majority of annual tourism figures in HK, and the trend is expected to increase substaintially.--Huaiwei 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Influences from Hong Kong and Macao were already significant to the cultural aspects in mainland China before 1997/1999. Cultural inputs from Hong Kong and Macao to mainland China after 1997/1999 is comparatively not as notable. You did not explain why the scope of this article has to be changed. — Instantnood 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And that, of coz, is merely a matter of personal impressions if no supporting information or source is provided. I argue, that the sharp increase in trade and human traffic, and the euphoria of the handover helped kindle much interest in the two SARS, along with their accompanying culture and values. What are the "trends" which claim otherwise? I have no comments on the scope of this article, simply because I do not think I need to explain it when I am not the instigator of the move.--Huaiwei 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In what way would extent of cultural influences be correlated to volume of trade and human traffic? Any cite for euphoria? What are the differences between SARs and SARS? " I am not the instigator of the move. " - Neither am I. — Instantnood 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural influence is very often accelerated by interaction. China has always attempted to shield its people from the outside world, but the return of the SARS to China left it with a dilemma..it wants to evoke nationalist sentiments due to the historic return, yet doing so allows many more mainlanders to opportunity to see and experience for themselves capitalist societies at their doorstep. This has clearly happened when the flood gates into the SARS opens up since 1997 and 1999. Even the impact of Macau is substaintial, for how else could the idea of legalised gambling in casinos swaying so many mainlanders be allowed to occur under strict communist ideals? Increased trade of goods via greater business linkages generates greater dependency, people-to-people exchanges, and requires an even higher level of understanding in each other's societal cultures and expectations. You dont walk into another location and just setup business and trade without doing any homework, do you?

All the text I give above is basic as far as geographers, economists, historians, political scientists, sociologists, and basically most of the social sciences are concerned. I challenge you to show otherwise, which you hadent been able to do so.

Neither am I. No one is talking about "article scopes" except yourself, isnt it, so why do you sound like you are expected to make an explaination for it? :D--Huaiwei 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask anybody who's familiar with the situation and has first-hand experience, she/he can tell the inputs to the mainland from the two special administrative regions after the transfers of sovereignty is comparatively not as notable as before the transfers of sovereignty. But yes, influences from the mainland to the special administrative regions have become substantial after the transfers of sovereignty, though such influences were insignificant before that. — Instantnood 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If your first statement is true, I have yet to hear anyone talking about it, nor any substaintial inputs from yourself despite calls for you to support your claims three times (this is the fourth). I suppose you arent familiar with the situation, nor have first-hand experience to comment? No wonder, for not many non-Chinese are able to fully understand the Chinese psyche in the first place anyway. Meanwhile, I did not really venture into discussions on cultural influence into the SARS, but its good to see some acceptance of reality there.--Huaiwei 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Move by user:RevolverOcelotX

Re - Why should the title be changed? This article specifically discusses the cultural aspects in mainland China under as a result of communist rule. — Instantnood 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are so interested, you are most free to create another article talking specifically about "cultural aspects in mainland China under as a result of communist rule", whatever that means. I fail to understand the need to contain this article within that scope unless you have substaintial content to add and turn this into an FA.--Huaiwei 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This article still discusses communist influences, despite the title and the leading paragraph has been changed. The change has never been discussed. The status quo ante should be restored until disagreements are settled. If there's a consensus, feel free to create an article for culture of the People's Republic of China, with the summary of this article as one of the sections. (And good luck dealing with the special administrative regions after 1997/1999.) — Instantnood 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Communist China" is an informal term. If you want, perhaps you could talk about culture ranging all the way back to the early 1900s, when communist anarchism was the predominant strain of communist thought. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)