Talk:People's Republic of China

For earlier material see Talk:China/old, Talk: China (Archive 1) and Talk: China (Archive 2) Talk: China (Archive 3) Talk: China (Archive 4)

---

Who moved People's Republic of China to China and why ? That's very inapropriate. Taw 21:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I forget his name, he was a sysop, since retired. My impression was that the purpose was to establish that there was one China and that the People's Republic was it. There was an extended debate, and this organization of the articles on China was established. I would rather we went back to the old origanization which permitted both an extensive article on the People's Republic and on China (with substantial sections on history, culture and geography and other areas independent of matters relevant to the current political regime). Fred Bauder 13:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

There is currently a section in China on "Politics" with a main article link to Politics of China - is this sufficient? Could it be expanded? Martin 16:23 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think that for the moment what we find in the politics section is adequate. Look, I have done no research (I mean, scholarly research, meaning with an eye towards publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) on China. ALl I do know from my "lay" research is that there have been changes and divisions among scholars on how to define and apply these terms. The current wording of the politics section recognizes this. I think as with all articles here, we need to edit them into the best shape we can -- and leave room for or even invite real scholars to expands and elaborate. Of course what we have can and should be expanded -- but it can wait, especially until a political scientist or sociologist currently conducting research on the Chinese state becomes a contributor.

In the meantime, though, the opening line, which once again defines China as a "communist state," has to go. All I have done is gotten involved in a silly revert war with JTDIRL and I am tired of it. As I said, I think Danny's suggestion is fine. I also saw on the listserve that Jimbo came up with an excellent proposal. Anything I do, JTDIRL will revert -- I'd like you, Roadrunner, Danny, Prat, Shino, and JeLuf to just pick one of these -- Jimpo's Danny's, or JeLuf's -- and stick with it. Slrubenstein

I'm not ignoring this controversy. Daunted at the length of the debate and the massive amounts of steam coming out of the ears of three contributors that I have developed a great deal of respect for—JTD, SLR & 172—I decided it would be better to print the talk page and its archive out and read it in a less eye-strain inducing form. Then I ... er ... put it to one side "just for a few minutes" and wrote a new entry on an obscure Australian mamal. And then ... er ... another one. And two more. And now it's bedtime.

Procrastination. It's a wonderful thing. Don't know how I'd survive without it. Tannin 15:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

PS: with a little luck, the controversy will be happily settled by the time I wake up, and I can do Spinifex Hopping Mouse instead. Whoever said procrastination wasn't an effective time management strategy? Tannin

Since 172 and Jtdirl both agree that China is a republic, I reccomend :China is a republic in east Asia, governed by the Chinese Communist Party since 1949; which some argue to be a communist state, while others (including China itself) argue it to be a socialist state. Shino Baku

Nobody has ever said it was otherwise. But it isn't a republic in the liberal democracy model, but in the Communist state model. ÉÍREman 22:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

I like the change by anonymous contributor 12.208.71.103 172

""Once China's leaders focus on problems and are determined to take action, they usually manage to resolve them — sometimes with brutal efficiency," a Goldman Sachs report concluded. "You may call that a virtue of authoritarian government." [1] (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/28/international/asia/28CHIN?pagewanted=2&th) Fred Bauder 09:49 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

Refactor warning - the long and tedious debate over whether China is or is not communist is shortly going to be refactored down to its bare essentials. If you feel that there are vast chunks of brilliant prose within it that should be saved for posterity, do so now. Martin 23:46 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

Tiananmen Square was a critical watershed in the history of Chinese politics, and requires a great deal of attention in the history of the PRC article and the article on Chinese politics. But in an introductory paragraph it should be scrapped (it occurred almost 14 years ago) in favor of more recent developments, like labor unrest, the WTO, or the recent party congress and the new generation of leadership.

This is historical revisionism at work. Reality is somehow dependant on the need to suppress on minimize uncomfortable facts. The silence about democracy in China is probably more dependent on the perceived willingness of the state to engage in terror than on lack of interest. It was the Tiananmin Square Massacre[?] which reinforced the credibility of the state's commitment to suppress dissent. For such purposes 14 years is a very brief period indeed. Fred Bauder 12:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The democracy movement had also been featured too prominently as well. It's not a threat to the PRC domestically, but internationally, especially to Sino-US relations and legislation like the PNTR. The article made it sound as if there were a burgeoning opposition within China. Labor unrest, not the largely Western-base opposition movement is the major source of opposition in China today. 172

If it is "not a threat", why the extreme and continuing measures to suppress it? Fred Bauder 12:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Although it would be an understatement to say that Fred and I would disagree on matters of communism, he makes a valid point in what he recently stuck in at the top of this talk page. Most of the recent debate belongs at People's Republic of China, as does most of the present article. The title China should be reserved for the nation of China. I use "nation" in the strict sense of a cultural entity which need not coincide with the boundaries of any state, either past or present. In this way the nation of China is basically the "Han" state with boundaries that varied over the millenia. It allows for the argument that Tibet and other territories in the west of the PRC continue to be a part of the PRC but not a part of China. A similar argument can arise over Taiwan which is not a part of the PRC, and only became Chinese occupied at the end of the Ming dynasty. The range of debates over the "communist" nature of China can then be limited to the PRC article. Let's start bringing some clarity and simplicity to the subject. ☮ Eclecticology 18:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I second it. Arguments of what kind of state China is should go to Politics of China. BTW what's exactly a socialist state[?]? Someone's got to clarify the types of states that their arguments are based on. kt2

Yes, the proposed move has my support. - prat

---

My edits mainly entailed rephrasing a few values-laden and loaded terms. I tried to NPOV the section of politics, which had already been getting more concrete. The content in that section is now relatively good; it could stand to briefly go through some explanations for the autocratic policies, but its failure to do so is acceptable in a brief introduction. Good job to many contributors, even Fred Bauder, for largely sticking with specifics rather than emotive rhetoric. 172

---

"Even though a lot of democratic countries consider that China is a one-party county, there are still some other parties existing. Chinese Communist Party cooperates with them by a special commission rather than election. But the effect of the other parties on the government remains unknown. "

Typo at county in this one, but I draw attention to it for because while a naive reader of the People's Daily might consider it describe something real almost anyone else is aware that the political partners (the parties cited) have no real life, being a formal hangover from coalition building during the revolution. As to their effect on the government, it is well known to be nil. (Athough meetings actually do take place between the government and these "parties".) The same situation existed in Poland, even in Russia after the revolution when other parties were merged into the Communist Party and ceased to have any freedom of action Fred Bauder 11:53 18 May 2003 (UTC)

I admit that I am a really naive reader of People's Daily. You can take it as a POV rather than a fact. But comparing to France, I think that US has only two parties ( only one more than China), and the effect of other parties (like Communist Party of America) on the government remains unknow. (only a POV). -- Samuel 09:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Some wikipedians have drawn up discussions on proper Wikipedia format of the Name of Emperors at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Readers of this article would also be interested to comment on the issue before a generally agreed format is decided by poll. thanx kt2 22:08 25 May 2003

---

The Chinese map in this page is not correctly right, because it doesn't show up the marginal sea of China. Samuel 09:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Samuel is referring to the South China Sea Islands. --Menchi 23:04 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Taw about moving the page to People's Republic, however he also needs to move the talk pages (all of them). Fred Bauder 22:42 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, NO, NO! Simply making this a disambiguation page is not at all the right thing to do. There are thousands of links (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=China) to this page that expect an article. We have already agreed here, in the talk archives and on the mailing list that this article should be about China, the thousand year old cultural and ethnic entity and that the stuff that is only about the ROC or the PRC should be in separate articles. However, the PRC article is a mess and weaves in a whole bunch of stuff that should be at just China. I'm reverting this article until a proper split can be done. --mav

I have reverted to the previous version by Fred Bauder. Please, this discussion has gone on for ages and the consensus was not to disambigulate this page. This page needs work, but disambigulation is the worst possible solution, given the complexity, the number of links, etc., as Mav had clearly stated above. FearÉIREANN 00:17 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Move complete. --mav

---

I've moved a lot of the press censorship information to Media in China. This topic is sufficiently complex to warrant its own article.

I have substituted a link to criminalization for the one to crime in the politics section. What we are talking about is a technique of political control rather than ordinary crime. Fred Bauder 10:27 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there are a number of rather basic facts about China on the two websites in the reference section which could be added to the article should someone chose that mission. Fred Bauder 02:24 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not sure why the Constitution of China needs to be mentioned with respect to Taiwan. Most ot the rest of it is so much chicken scratching as far as it being controlling law which binds or restricts the tiny group of men who control China, why focus on that one part? I think somehow we need to develop the status of the constitution as more a collection of political slogans rather than as a legal document which in anyway shapes government policy. Fred Bauder 02:24 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I am wondering if the map here is suitable ( according to NPOV). It's alright in page China, but it's not so good to make the "ROC" so notable in this page because it's obvious against NPOV, it only considers the viewpoint of ROC, but does it express the viewpoint of RPC? (I don't think people from RPC will hold this point) I don't want this page to cause edit war. It should be marked up the special position of Taiwan, but not in this explicit way. It's clearly the viewpoint of people who want to independent, but ignore the other viewpoint. I think it's better not to marked up either PRC or ROC here. Can someone make a smarter solution?? --Samuel 02:44 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think this is the best way around it. The old unedited map made it seem like Taiwan was a part of the PRC, with the star for capital only over Beijing. The official viewpoint of the ROC is that it controls all of China, including Mongolia. However, the map shows contemporary borders, not the old ROC ones. The caption specifically states "areas controlled by the ROC and PRC" and ignores acutal claims, which overlap. Changing it back expresses the viewpoint of the PRC. The Taiwan indepdnence supporters will label what is "PRC" China and what is "ROC" Taiwan, so this map doesn't cater to their cause either. Jiang

So I think there is no need to mark up either PRC or ROC, we can use different color to show up the special position of Taiwan. If ROC exists now in mainland is rather a POV rather than a fact. (this map is alright in page China). In order to show up who controls which area, I suggest using the ruling parties rather than PRC and ROC. This map misguides readers that There are two Chinas, PRC and ROC. --Samuel 09:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But that's the truth! There are two separate governments (and therefore literally two countries and "two Chinas")--the PRC and ROC governing the land colored in the map. Marking it is necessary as reference--to see who controls what. Why use the ruling parties instead of the government name itself? What difference does it make? The institutions of the two separate governments are imposed on their separate jursidictions and there's no use hiding that fact. Besides, what is the "ruling party" of the ROC when the pan-blue coalition controls the Legislative Yuan while the DPP controls the presidency? Yes, the two governments have overlapping claims, but the caption uses "controls" not "claims." What is "claimed" is left ignored. I still don't see how POV is seeping through this map... --Jiang 09:26 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I do agree with you that there are two separate governments, but not two countries (at least a lot of countries in the world don't admite Taiwan to be an independt country. No matter if it's because they benifit from PRC or something else. And we say Hong Kong government, but Hong Kong is not a country or a China.) But I don't think I will get involved in the endless arguement anymore, getting tired of it( I think a lot of Americans would be pleased to see Taiwan to be indenpent, then there would be less arguements). I think the Chinese version is doing better on it. Sometimes, using unclear definition can avoid arguement. My suggestion is adding a note like this " Only a few countries admit ROC government as an independent country" below the map to clearfy the situation. :D --Samuel 11:37 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason few countries officially recognize the ROC as a sovereign nation is because the PRC forbids them to. Either they admit that "Taiwan is part of the PRC" or they can't do business with mainland China--aside from fellow communist regimes, few countries are voluntarily taking the stand they do towards Taiwan and exercise defacto diplomatic relations ("American Embassy" is not "American Institute" but it functions like an embassy). As for the HK government, it is subordinate in many ways to the PRC government in official terms...Diplomatic recognition is irrelevant to sovereignty (especially if this recognition was a result of other influences). We are simply showing who controls what, not who has a right to what. No country in the world recognizes Taiwan as independent in the technical sense; it is the ROC that fits the description of a country--Taiwan is just (incorrectly) used interhchangeably with that. I just think the note is irrelevant. It doesnt matter that only 27 countries recognizes the ROC--it's there and it exists! Discussions of that go to Political status of Taiwan and Foreign relations of Taiwan. (sorry for barraging you with political material you didn't want to see....) --Jiang 22:24 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)