| Revision as of 14:38, 19 April 2011 editXiaoyu of Yuxi (talk | contribs)14,641 edits →"China" redirect: this really should be discussed at WT:NC-ZH, NOT here← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:26, 6 January 2025 edit undoUltraodan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers1,265 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Talk:People's Republic of China/article guidelines}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:59:59 |
|
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:59:59 |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1oldid=2784471 |
|
|action1oldid=2784471 |
|
|
|
|
|action2=FARC |
|
|action2=FARC |
|
|action2date=2006-04-23, 02:55:31 |
|
|action2date=2006-04-23, 02:55:31 |
| Line 14: |
Line 13: |
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|action2oldid=49687712 |
|
|action2oldid=49687712 |
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
|action3=FAR |
|
|action3date=08:29, 15 March 2007 |
|
|action3date=08:29, 15 March 2007 |
| Line 20: |
Line 18: |
|
|action3result=removed |
|
|action3result=removed |
|
|action3oldid=114945583 |
|
|action3oldid=114945583 |
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
|action4=GAN |
|
|action4date=2007-03-31 |
|
|action4date=2007-03-31 |
|
|action4link= |
|
|
|action4result=listed |
|
|action4result=listed |
|
|action4oldid=119192127 |
|
|action4oldid=119192127 |
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAR |
|
|action5=GAR |
|
|action5date=21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|action5date=21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|action5result=kept |
|
|action5result=kept |
|
|action5oldid=245304743 |
|
|action5oldid=245304743 |
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAR |
|
|action6=GAR |
|
|action6date=15 August 2009 |
|
|action6date=15 August 2009 |
|
|action6link=Talk:People's Republic of China/GA1 |
|
|action6link=Talk:People's Republic of China/GA1 |
|
|action6result=delisted |
|
|action6result=delisted |
|
|action6oldid= |
|
|action6oldid=308205953 |
|
|
|action7= GAN |
|
|
|
|
|
|action7date= 21 October 2012 |
|
|
|action7link= Talk:China/GA2 |
|
|
|action7result= failed |
|
|
|action7oldid= 518550880 |
|
|
|action8= GAN |
|
|
|action8date= 16 December 2013 |
|
|
|action8link= Talk:China/GA3 |
|
|
|action8result= listed |
|
|
|action8oldid= 586320371 |
|
|
|action9= GAR |
|
|
|action9date= 17 December 2020 |
|
|
|action9link= Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/China/1 |
|
|
|action9result= delisted |
|
|
|action9oldid= |
|
|maindate=March 7, 2004 |
|
|maindate=March 7, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|topic=Geography |
|
|topic=Geography |
|
|currentstatus=FFA}} |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|
|dyk1date=3 January 2014|dyk1entry=... that ''']''', with over 34,687 species of animals and vascular plants, is the third-most biodiverse country in the world? |
|
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=C}} |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2004-10-01|otd1oldid=6297937 |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1={{WikiProject China|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|otd2date=2005-10-01|otd2oldid=24515704 |
|
{{WikiProject Countries|class=C |
|
|
|
|otd3date=2006-10-01|otd3oldid=78615955 |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no |
|
|
|
|otd4date=2007-10-01|otd4oldid=161471416 |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> |
|
|
|
|otd5date=2008-10-01|otd5oldid=242016556 |
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|
|otd6date=2009-10-01|otd6oldid=317298627 |
|
| b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = yes |
|
|
|
|otd7date=2010-10-01|otd7oldid=388034588 |
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|
|otd8date=2012-10-01|otd8oldid=515266661 |
|
| b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes}} |
|
|
|
|otd9date=2014-10-01|otd9oldid=627827804 |
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|otd10date=2018-10-01|otd10oldid=862015777 |
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|otd11date=2019-10-01|otd11oldid=919050385 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Gs/talk notice|uyghur}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move |
|
|
| from = People's Republic of China |
|
|
| destination = China |
|
|
| date = 5 March 2010 |
|
|
| result = not moved |
|
|
| link = Talk:China/Archive 9#Requested move |
|
|
|
|
|
| from2 = People's Republic of China |
|
|
| destination2 = China |
|
|
| date2 = 31 August 2011 |
|
|
| result2 = moved |
|
|
| link2 = Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=C|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|coresup=yes|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{China Portal Selected Article|January 2007}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-01|oldid1=6297937|date2=2005-10-01|oldid2=24515704|date3=2006-10-01|oldid3=78615955|date4=2007-10-01|oldid4=161471416|date5=2008-10-01|oldid5=242016556|date6=2009-10-01|oldid6=317298627|date7=2010-10-01|oldid7=388034588}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive index |
|
|mask=Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|
|counter = 20 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|algo = old(91d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:China/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{external peer review|date=April 30, 2007|org=The Denver Post|comment="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 ].}} |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|93}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], and ]}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 2nd Largest Economy? == |
|
== Lead == |
|
|
|
|
In the lede it states that China is the world's second largest economy by both nominal and PPP estimates, yet the list that is linked for nominal GDP has all 3 organizations ranking them 3rd. Is this just because the 2010 lists haven't come out yet? ] (]) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Exactly right. China passed Japan a , so official rankings, which are released anually, do not reflect this yet.--] ] 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Official numbers are out: Japan's economy shrank 2% while China's is growing at 9.8%... Remember, you only need to achieve 7% growth in order to +100% your economy in 1 decade...China, by any measure, is growing 4 times faster than the British Empire at her height... The fact she hasn't dissolved under the stress of intense reforms on all fronts is a testatment to the strenght fo the Chinese civilization. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Military Budget == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article states like so many others that china is under reporting its defence budget. My question is where is the evidence that China is under reporting its defence budget. Where is that extra money coming from and where is that money going to? It surtenly didn't go into there hardware because according to China's own omission and foreign military analysts 70% of China's weapons inventory is obsolete. |
|
|
How can China hide theze huge sums year after year? Wouldn't that destabillise there entire economy? I have been hearing alot about this claims for year's now and i haven't see scant evidence. The only thing we have are claims by the Pentagon and the US congress that is repeated by there media. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: the problem is they could easily be lieing. know one knows for sure but the most powerful nations in the world has inteligence saying there under reporting. the means teres claims there under reporting. dosnt say for sure if they are or arnt. ] (]) 03:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The same agency that lead the US to war in iraq??? How about nobody just mentions that china has a huge portion of low wage workers that can easily build equipment for lower wages. Or that a rising GDP can cause the percentage of spending to be unchanged(the yuan is worth six dollars). OR that countries not just the US , puts china as the next ussr threat to allow more military spending??? ] (]) 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Military Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
This section includes, "Some think-tanks such as the Asian European Council have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's abrupt decision to sell arms to Taipei...." I consider the use of the word "abrupt" to violate the neutrality standard. It is a biased and pro-Chinese/anti-US. Hyphenation of think-tank is incorrect. It should be think tank. Commas should be added also, as the current puntuation is wrong. For these reasons the above should read: "Some think tanks, such as the Asian European Council, have argued that the current tensions between the US and China over Washington's decision to sell arms to Taipei..." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
The use of 'abrupt' is not only biased but factually inaccurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/Taiwan_Relations_Act. America has supported Taiwan's military since 1979, and is indeed obliged by its own laws to do so. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== I think Bloomberg is trolling everyone... == |
|
|
|
|
|
*Jan 14, 2011, , Bloomberg |
|
|
I for one am quite reluctant to buy this, but that's just me. The claim by the person responsible seems too impressive to be true in my opinion. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Error in infobox, Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine == |
|
|
|
|
|
The infobox says the country is a one party republic. This is wrong information. Some may call it a one party dictatorship. We can be nice and sugar coat it to "one party state". That I favor. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is not like Chicago, which is a defacto one party democracy. So worse than Chicago. ] (]) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree, we had a ludicrously long discussion about this before (here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box ), and the compromise "consensus" was to place the following in the infobox: |
|
|
|
|
|
:*People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place) |
|
|
:*Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No one loved this compromise, but people rarely do.] (]) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Nope''' - the country is republic in its structure, and the type of the republic is single party one. This is very neutral, and very factual statement. --] (]) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is also important to keep the same system and categorization - all the countries' infoboxes here on wikipedia list countries as republics or monarchies, plus the type - single party, parliamentary, constitutional, etc. So if we called China something else than single party republic, anyone could say United States is "capitalist union" (instead of factual "Federal presidential constitutional republic") or something like that - which is nonsense. --] (]) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Novis, being the primary opponent to the changes I referenced above, do you recall those discussions? What changed from then to now to allow for the infobox to read as it now does?] (]) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am a strong proponent of what the infobox currently says. And the discussion that led to "single-party led republic" are featured very prominently at the top, under the section "GOV type". I was a participant in that discussion, too. --]], and ] 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Whoops...guess I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out to me.] (]) 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is political correctness gone wild. North Korea is also called a republic. If so, almost every country is a republic! |
|
|
:Yes, 99% of all countries are either republics or monarchies. --] (]) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If we don't want to offend countries, just leave this subject off the infobox. It is better than lying. My vote cannot overcome 1B potential WP editors so you win, I retreat. ] (]) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, one billion editors haven't weighed in on this. While I am surprised that past consensus to include both the official form of gov't and the actual one was so quickly overturned, it should not surprise you that it can be overturned again.] (]) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Before it was a "People's republic" which also contained republic, if you want to call it a "Communist dictatorship" or something that isn't actually true, as the leadership changes. -- ] <]> 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, leadership does change in dictatorships, so not sure what your point there was. However, the old compromise, before the one at the top of the page, was: |
|
|
:::*People's Republic (giving the Chinese view the pride of place) |
|
|
:::*Communist state (which was already agreed upon by consensus above and is included in our lede) |
|
|
:::Whis was supposed to reflect the self-image of the leadership as well as the accepted reality.] (]) 15:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::At least if we say "People's Republic", many readers will understand that anything described as "People's" is usually a euphemism.—] (]) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::As I mentioned above, there is no "people's republic" form of government. People's/Socialist republic or Communist state - this is all nonsense. The latest consensus was "Single party-led republic. And I'm glad we finally worked all the way to correctness. --] (]) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well, that consensus was reached in a very small window, and consensus can change. The current description is definitely not ideal.] (]) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I for one seem to distinctly remember 2 sources being cited in whatever the prior version was, whereas the current version only cites 1. --] ] 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Actually, the form of government in the infobox is different from the source. On Britannica, it's a "single-party people’s republic with one legislative house" and on Misplaced Pages it's a "single party led republic", that's not totally different but not the same either. A republic is different from a people's republic. ] (]) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Precisely. I recall the article previously cited the US State Dept or CIA World Factbook, one of which specifically used the "single party-led" phraseology. --] ] 21:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} |
|
|
I've reverted the change as the consensus isn't clear, and the new text is messy, I've added the state department as a source as "single party led republic" and "communist party led state" are very similar when you are talking about China. While the CIA world factbook does call it a communist state, we shouldn't just be taking what the US government thinks the government type in China is, as that is essentially just US government propaganda - and not necessarily what more neutral observers consider to be correct. -- ] <]> 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, now the infobox has two citations, neither of which supports the information in the infobox.] (]) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Communist state is a widely used term for China. We can debate it's accuracy, but we can't debate that it is widely used in RSs. The language I added was the result of a long discussion and represented an uneasy compromise. The current language was introduced after barely any time at all and was pioneered by the one person who forced a very wide group of people to move off of their collective position. Now we have language that is uncited and the result of a quick switcharoo by someone discontented with the long and reasonable discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Form_of_gov.27t_listed_in_info_box. ] (]) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::That it doesn't match completely is true, I've added the Rough Guide as a further (hopefully neutral) source and I've also been ] and changed it from single party-led republic to single party-led state, which fits all three sources. -- ] <]> 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, that language is better. And it has the benefit of being verifiable.] (]) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: communist state has to be best description. more accurate such as "single party state" or equvalent would be "too biased" so communist state has to be best. ] (]) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: oh come on. communism is an ''economic'' theory/system and you would have to be ''really revisionist'' to think that mainland China is communist. --]], and ] 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Protip: Don't assume that <s>]</s>, errr I mean, the majority of Misplaced Pages readers know the differences between economic systems and political systems, and the precise details on anything that isn't covered in ]. I guess it can't be helped, unfortunately. --<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;">]</span> | <small>—] ] ]</small> 06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== No longer encouraged to return to China == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this quote from last sentence of "Demographics" should be deleted: "The government, which imposes tight controls on immigration, no longer encourages ethnic Chinese to "return" to China." |
|
|
|
|
|
I have read the source, and it specifically refers to the Chinese ethnic group in Indonesia, and it doesn't talk about Chinese from anywhere else. Thus, we can't use this to generalize all overseas Chinese. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agreed...Fixed. If someone objects, revert and come discuss here. --] (]) 06:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 6 trillion $ economy == |
|
|
|
|
|
The gdp data coming out on 20 january 2011 with a growth rate of 10.3% puts the Chinese economy at about 39.8 trillion cny with an exchange rate to usd of 1 usd is 6.59 cny this puts the Chinese economy at 6 trillion $. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=71184815 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=18324&page=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=3070524 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/china-ends-2010-with-gdp-of-us598.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
== Government PR == |
|
|
|
|
|
While accompanying a rapid economic rise, the PRC since the 1990s seeks to maintain a policy of quiet diplomacy with its neighbors. Comes across as Government PR.] (]) 09:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Population Density == |
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, apologies for what is really only a minor change proposal. However, given that this is quite a major page within Misplaced Pages, I thought it best not to proceed without consultation.<br /> |
|
|
Given the stated area of PRC (9 641 000 sq.km) and the stated population (1.342 bn), the density would seem to have been correctly calculated as 139/sq.km.<br /> |
|
|
This has been ranked as 53rd densest, globally. This is incorrect, and I have referred to the List_of_countries_by_population_density page which clearly shows the UK as 53rd and China as 79th.<br /> |
|
|
a) Shall I proceed to change this?<br /> |
|
|
b) Is there no mechanism for automatically linking the ranking, and perhaps even the contributing popn and dens figures, to the appropriate page? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== inacuracy in economy section == |
|
|
|
|
|
the following paragraph should be corrected |
|
|
|
|
|
... data across more than 200 countries in mid-2010 stated China is expected to overtake Japan as the second wealthiest country in the world by 2015 ($35 trillion) on the back of rapid economic growth and strong domestic consumption. Ten years ago, China was the seventh largest country in global wealth and China currently holds $ 16.5trillion, 35 percent ahead of the wealthiest European country, France.... |
|
|
|
|
|
1- France is not the largest economy in Europe, it's Germany |
|
|
2- China is already the second largest economy, so there is not prediction about that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from 157.150.192.237, 11 March 2011 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tld|edit semi-protected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Please add to Studies |
|
|
* http://www.china-food-security.org/index_m.htm Can China Feed Itself? A System for Evaluation of Policy Options. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:''What'' exactly do you wish to change? --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Manufacturer No. 1 == |
|
|
|
|
|
China unseated the US as the world's top manufacturer. The first time in perhabs 110 year's that the US is no longer the world's biggest manufacturer. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42065544 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unverified and speculative statement == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just joined, so maybe I ought to have adressed this issue |
|
|
some other way. |
|
|
|
|
|
The page says: For more than 6,000 years, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies (also known as dynasties). The first of these dynasties was the Xia (approx. 2000 BC) but it was the later Qin Dynasty that first unified China in 221 BC. |
|
|
|
|
|
This means that the 6000 years mentioned are contradicted by the following sentence, |
|
|
reek of propaganda to me and it requires cleanup. Don´t know how, haven´t made enough contributions |
|
|
yet so can´t do it myself. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dab fixes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone fix the infobox dabs for flag and emblem (] and ])? Thanx. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Difference between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we put "single party state" as the form of government? Or is there a difference I'm missing between a "single party-led state" and a "single party state"? ] (]) 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
Is {{tq|The corresponding movement for increased democracy and liberalization stalled after the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre in 1989.}} ] for the lead? It only gets a passing mention in the body and seems a bit POV ] (]) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:A possible interpretation of "single party state" could mean that there is only one legal party in the mainland, when in fact, minor parties exist. Hence the "party-led" --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Those are parties approved by the CPC and they have no power at all. If that's the only difference, then there's no difference. ] (]) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:The contentious issue of terminology was discussed extensively at some point in the last year or two. Check the archives. --] ] 05:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's hard to say. I think it's plausible to characterize it (though I might not) as the most noteworthy single event from 1975 to present, but with a lead as broad as this one, who knows if that even suffices as a reason. Maybe I'm afraid of potential backlash from the class of readers that would be outraged at its removal (I can hear the dumb memes about "Misplaced Pages doesn't know what happened on 4 June 1989" already) but my impulse is to bulk up the representation in the body if the choice is between that and removal from the lead. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Limited Power Projection == |
|
|
|
::Maybe a note could explain the Chinese perspective on liberal democracy? Would solve NPOV and be quite educational. Quite wary of this sentence imposing western perspectives and values ] (]) 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think that's going to be difficult to write in a way that's fit to insert into the lead here. What springs to mind is to change {{xtn|for increased democracy and liberalization}} to {{xt|toward liberal democracy}}, since that makes it a bit more clear that the concepts are related and not quite as simple as the government position at the time being anti-democratic bar none. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah, that’s an improvement ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My one concern there is that there's quite a diversity of views within China regarding liberal democracy because, while the political compass of China is very different from the American equivalent, there's quite a diversity of political perspectives within China. ] are not likely to have much agreement with ] on the economy or labour relations, for instance. ] (]) 14:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The lead doesn't need to deal with that, it's really not the place for an explanation of Chinese or any other perspective on liberal democracy. ] (]) 14:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed the body could have a couple more sentences on this ] (]) 14:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 == |
|
Autochtony writes. |
|
|
Please allow a novice to comment. "China is the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities" - this may no longer be true after the recent cuts in the ] Defence Budget. Whether those cuts were handled supremely well is not a thread we need be involved with. A possible, and tentatively suggested, revision to the text of the article is "China has been the only member of the UN Security Council to have limited power projection capabilities, but now has better power projection capabilities than the U.K. - and possibly France." AUTOCHTHONY WROTE: 2135z 16 April 2011. ] (]) 21:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|China|answered=yes}} |
|
:Well, sir, where is your source? Once we find at least 1 (or 2) additional source, we can revise that sentence. --<small>HXL's</small>] <span style="color:red">and</span> ''']''' 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Population density: 84th and not 83rd as well as 149 and not 145 ppl/km2 ] (]) 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have a ] for the updated data we can cite? - ] (]) 22:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
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.
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
