116.48.84.248 (talk) No edit summary |
TheodoresTomfooleries (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
||
{{ |
{{American English}} |
||
{{Article history |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1=FAC |
|action1=FAC |
||
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:59:59 |
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:59:59 |
||
Line 7: | 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 13: | 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 19: | Line 18: | ||
|action3result=removed |
|action3result=removed |
||
|action3oldid=114945583 |
|action3oldid=114945583 |
||
|action4=GAN |
|action4=GAN |
||
|action4date=2007-03-31 |
|action4date=2007-03-31 |
||
|action4link=bmw |
|||
|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= Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/China/1 |
|||
|action9result= delisted |
|||
|action9oldid= |
|||
|maindate=March 7, 2004 |
|maindate=March 7, 2004 |
||
|topic=Geography |
|||
|currentstatus=FFA |
|||
|dyk1date=3 January 2014|dyk1entry=... that '''[[China]]''', with over 34,687 species of animals and vascular plants, is the third-most biodiverse country in the world? |
|||
|otd1date=2004-10-01|otd1oldid=6297937 |
|||
|otd2date=2005-10-01|otd2oldid=24515704 |
|||
|otd3date=2006-10-01|otd3oldid=78615955 |
|||
|otd4date=2007-10-01|otd4oldid=161471416 |
|||
|otd5date=2008-10-01|otd5oldid=242016556 |
|||
|otd6date=2009-10-01|otd6oldid=317298627 |
|||
|otd7date=2010-10-01|otd7oldid=388034588 |
|||
|otd8date=2012-10-01|otd8oldid=515266661 |
|||
|otd9date=2014-10-01|otd9oldid=627827804 |
|||
|otd10date=2018-10-01|otd10oldid=862015777 |
|||
|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 |
|||
|topic=Geography |
|||
| from = People's Republic of China |
|||
|currentstatus=FFA}} |
|||
| destination = China |
|||
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=B}} |
|||
| date = 5 March 2010 |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1={{WikiProject China|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
| result = not moved |
|||
{{WikiProject Countries|class=B |
|||
| link = Talk:China/Archive 9#Requested move |
|||
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|||
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
|||
| from2 = People's Republic of China |
|||
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|||
| destination2 = China |
|||
| b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = yes |
|||
| date2 = 31 August 2011 |
|||
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|||
| result2 = moved |
|||
| b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes}} |
|||
| link2 = Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011 |
|||
{{WikiProject Asia|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|coresup=yes|importance=Top}}}} |
|||
{{Notice-nc-geo}} |
|||
{{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 |
|||
|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 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 256K |
|maxarchivesize = 256K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 19 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) |
||
|archive = Talk:China/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:China/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=7 |units=day }} |
|||
{{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 [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post|examine the findings]].}} |
|||
{{All time pageviews|93}} |
|||
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]], [[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]], and [[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]]}} |
|||
{{annual readership}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Authoritarian regime == |
|||
== Merge was not neutral == |
|||
Since china is no less authoritarian than russia and since it also a dictatorship, shouldn't we mention it as such in the info box? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A|2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A]] ([[User talk:2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A|talk]]) 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Third arbitrary break === |
|||
Eraserhead1, ChipmunkDavis, N-HH and the defenders of this move to equate PRC with China, you have and you will be defending this move incessantly for the foreseeable future from readers uncomfortable with this arrangement. The fact of the matter is -- the two Chinas question is more like that of Korea than the Fifth Republic is to France. With France, there are no two Frances currently coexisting and minimal room for confusion. With Korea, there is a North Korea and a South Korea, and a Korea page in Wikipedia that captures all that is Korea apart from the political division of Korea. That's how China was until this move. No amount of tinkering with the hatnote will overcome the readers' objections with the title of the article. What browsers of the Internet are likely looking for at any given moment in time when they search for "China" should not trump respect for the truth on Wikipedia. In this case, there is currently a live controversy over the political use of the name "China" and the article entitled China should reflect the controversy, not make this logical leap for the reader. [[User:ContinentalAve|ContinentalAve]] ([[User talk:ContinentalAve|talk]]) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Are you actually disputing our enormous list of sources which show that China is used exclusively to refer to the PRC in a modern context? [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[WP:POVTITLE]] are what counts, and it was basically undisputed that the People's Republic is the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] for China. A few IP's disputing something is irrelevant, basically everyone else seems to be pretty satisfied with the move - at least as far as they don't want to lose face by protesting it. |
|||
:The fundamental difference with Korea is that reliable sources don't use the term "Korea" to refer to either North or South Korea until context is established, and they certainly don't at the same ratio as sources use China to refer to the People's Republic. |
|||
:Additionally when I've gone and bought the move up as an example elsewhere on the site, basically everyone (who at that point clearly isn't a partisan about cross strait relations) has agreed that it was a good move. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:We've had this discussion numerous times, feel free to peruse the discussions in the archives. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Now that you've reminded me about that list, is it too late to add more entries to that list? (After all, the general unwritten rule is not to refactor archived talk pages). I've noticed that [[Microsoft]] does '''not''' refer to the PRC as the sole China. In [[Windows 7]], when selecting input languages (Control Panel>Region and Language>Keyboards and Languages>Change Keyboards), "PRC" and "Taiwan" are clearly distinguished, however there is no "China", meaning that Microsoft does not consider the primary topic of "China" to be "PRC". See http://i.imgur.com/5Z5g9.png for a screencap. Running Windows 7 Ultimate, Service Pack 1, Build 7601. --[[User:benlisquare|<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;color:#FFFF00;background:red;">''' 李博杰 '''</span>]] | <small>—[[User talk:benlisquare|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|contribs]] [[Special:EmailUser/User:Benlisquare|email]]</small> 04:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] I have just checked it, and I see it is you that object the word Authoritarian while other support such use. |
|||
:::If they do not use the word "China", it is not reasonable to make any inference of this kind. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 05:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::The fact that you don't like this word is not an argument against it and wikipedia in fact use this word in the case of Russia. So there is no reason not to use in the case of China as it is much more Authoritarian than Russia. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 07:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Microsoft [http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/contact.aspx?country=China seems] to use China to refer to the People's Republic/mainland China. With Hong Kong they use "Hong Kong SAR" on the drop down and [http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/contact.aspx?country=Hong%20Kong Hong Kong] on the page itself. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Which discussion is the most recent one? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We have many many sources,,,,can we get an explanation as to why its not here? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Apologies, the most recent discussion was in the most recent archive, and it was about another suggestion for this field. These conversations blur together. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[Talk:China/Archive 19#Government|Here's the only relevant one I've had about the infobox on this article.]] [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose.''' See prior discussions. I would add that the starting point is that in an infobox, there is little room for attribution, multiple characterizations, or nuance. It is someone analogous to the lead in that it is one of the first things people see in an article. We should avoid contentious labels in infoboxes as a result. When it comes to the government field, we should be matter of fact and concrete in describing how a government is set up, and avoid characterizations and labels. There are so many alternative labels and characterizations for governments we should stick to what is concrete. "Authoritarian" is fine for the body (like it is now) where it can be attributed to sources and explained. It should be avoided for the infobox for the reasons I discuss here also. |
|||
:"Dictatorship" is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Basically four political systems in the world and you don't think one of them should be mentioned? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::"Dictatorship is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE." is it? Whether China is authoritarian or autocratic (the two options here) Xi is still a dictator. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::China is one of the examples in every academic publication not seeing how it's undue. Authoritarian would be more appropriate than dictatorship.. as a dictatorship could be authoritarian or totalitarian. There is clearly a debate if it's authoritarian regime or totalitarian regime....but the vast majority of sources say authoritarian giving reasons why totalitarian. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It seems we need to clarify what {{para|government_type}} is actually meant to describe. As my preliminary take, I think it is generally most helpful when it describes the concrete structure of government institutions, as opposed to broad characterizations of the cultural or political effects of said structure. I realize this is the most uphill of battles, but I see no other way forward other than actually trying to define the scope of what we're disagreeing about. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::In my view.... as we do with other articles we should list one of the three main types of [[political system]]s today: [[democracy|democracies]], |
|||
:::[[totalitarian regime]]s and, sitting between these two, [[authoritarianism|authoritarian regimes]] (with [[hybrid regime]]s). I'm not seeing a debate within the sources they are pretty clear on this. Think it'd be hard process to find anything that calls them democracy outside of their own publications. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::But we aren't talking about hybrid regime, we're talking about authoritarian regime. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::We're talking about a tripartite scheme of democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian, which are apparently the three choices for {{para|government_type}}, a point which is still confusing me. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] China is not a Hybrid regime. It is a full authoritarian. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::two things need to be mentioned: |
|||
::1) there is a consensuses that China is an authoritarian dictatorship. This is NOT a minority view. and we have many reliable sources to support this: |
|||
::https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/18/chinas-authoritarian-regime-an-analysis-of-political-control/ |
|||
::https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/LimitsofAuthoritarianResilience.pdf |
|||
::https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/defending-the-authoritarian-regime-online-chinas-voluntary-fiftycent-army/1770B27AFA2FCD7AD5E773157A49B934 |
|||
::2) Wikipedia does use such information in the info box. Just looking at the info box of Russia shows that such information (authoritarian dictatorship) is mentioned. |
|||
::There is no reason not mention it in the case of China. To be honest, I don't get why all the objection of mentioning a well know fact that supported by the sources. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::IP, I intend for this to sound direct but not brusque -- if you don't realize that China-is-a-dictatorship is an extreme minority position among RS, you are better served by starting your Wikipedia contributions in other areas while you continue to learn about this topic. |
|||
:::Your first link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship. |
|||
:::Your second link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship. |
|||
:::Your third link is an abstract of subscription access journal article. The abstract doesn't call China a dictatorship. If you think it's there somewhere in the article, feel free to post a quote. |
|||
:::For accessible, recent, academic texts (or texts by academics) in English on China's system, I suggest Tsang & Cheung, ''The Political Thought of Xi Jinping'', Oxford University Press (2024), Keyu Jin, ''The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism,'' Viking (2023), David Daokai Li, ''China's World View'', W.W. Norton, (2024). Even more accessibly written and also good are Jeremy Garlick's ''Advantage China'' (2024) and Kerry Brown's ''China Incorporated'' (either 2023 or 2024). |
|||
:::If you have non-English language proficiencies there are even more opportunities to branch out in sourcing, consistent with [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|WP:GLOBAL]]. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::the links call China '''Authoritarian''' and I have put the link to support the authoritarian claim. |
|||
::::As for sources that say China is dictatorship: |
|||
::::https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/decoding-chinese-politics/introduction-black-box-chinese-policy |
|||
::::https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591295000300104 |
|||
::::https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256602 |
|||
::::In any case, if your problem is with the word dictatorship but you are ok with Authoritarian, then we can put the word Authoritarian and continue to discuss dictatorship. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Asia Society appears to be an advocacy organization. I think the answer is no; please review prior talk page discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The second source appears to be a bog-standard misunderstanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on the part of the IP. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Third source is another advocacy group. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, IP’s misunderstandings reflect one of the reasons I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field, and stick to what is more concrete (for example, unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? And so on). Concepts, labels, and political signifiers with less agreed upon meanings belong in the article body where they can be presented according to due weight, be sourced, and attributed as necessary. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This seems reasonable to me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::" I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field," - since we already doing it (haracterizations in the government field) there is no reason for having exception for China. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Those are in general sources which say that China is authoritarian, but you seem to be presenting them as if they don't? Or are you presenting sources which support authoritarian but not dictatorship? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I was responding to the claim of "dictatorship" with some recent high-quality sources that do not use that characterization. |
|||
:::::I don't recall whether these do or do not use the "authoritarian" characterization, with one exception - I am confident that Tsang & Cheung do use it. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{cite journal | last=Tsang | first=Steve | last2=Cheung | first2=Olivia | title=Has Xi Jinping made China’s political system more resilient and enduring? | journal=Third World Quarterly | volume=43 | issue=1 | date=2022-01-02 | issn=0143-6597 | doi=10.1080/01436597.2021.2000857 | pages=225–243|quote=}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Maybe there is a middle ground here, what about adding authoritarian to the lead but keeping the infobox the same? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't mind mentioning prominently that the government is characterized as authoritarian, that's obviously NPOV to me. My concern is having a concrete scope for what the {{para|government_type}} parameter is meant to describe. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Yeah the way I look at it we have the long version at [[Government of China]], the medium version in the body, the short version in the lead, and the short short version in the infobox. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Thumbsup! <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] but it is part of what |government_type= parameter is meant to describe [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for {{tlx|Infobox country}}. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, in the lead but not in the infobox makes sense from my perspective as well. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::it should be in the infobox as well. it is important information and there is a consensus that China is an authoritarian country. so no reason to ommit this information. [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::except what infoboxes are for and the information they are designed to communicate. where should it go? my entire point is that "authoritarian" is not a government type. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I agree, for a label as controversial as "authoritarian" to be put in the infobox, it would not only need to be almost ubiquitous in reliable sources but also directly related to the system of governance. For example, China cracking down on a protest might be labeled "authoritarian", but that doesn't make such a label applicable in the infobox. Such aspersions should be reserved for the lead or later in the article. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Not controversial at all...its the example used in all of society and is somthing China is proud about. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Whether you personally believe China is "proud" of being "authoritarian" or not isn't relevant to the government type infobox. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::@Remsense, you repeat the claim that authoritarian characterization doesn't belong the info box while '''ignoring of the fact that is part of the info box''' of other countries like Russia for example (but not only). |
|||
::::::::::I faild to see how can we progress in such discussion. can you address the fact that it is part of info box of other countries and as such it should be part of the info box of China? [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::No, I'm not ignoring that, I'm just aware that it doesn't matter: "[[WP:OTHERCONTENT|other stuff exists]]" is explicitly not a justification in itself for any content being or not being in any given article. I don't think it should be in [[Russia]]'s infobox either, but I haven't edited that article. But, if there's no overarching editorial policy, it doesn't matter that other editors have done things I disagree with to other articles. You have to make some case for why it's justified on its own merits, e.g. that "authoritarian" is describing a government type the same way "monarchy" or "federal state" is. You have not remotely attempted to do so. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::yes, it does matter that in other wikipedia articles it is included in the info box. This is because wikipedia should be consistent. |
|||
::::::::::::And if it is included in other articles, then it means that the de facto policy is to include such infomation. [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 10:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::No, it doesn't matter, and your understanding of basic site norms and policy like I've linked above is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. I could make the reverse argument that since it's not on this article, therefore that's policy and therefore it shouldn't be on [[Russia]] either, and it'd be exactly as inane of an argument. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], no! you are missing the point. I am not saying it shoulod be included in this article because it is included in the article about Russia. I am saying it should be included here because it is characterization of the china regime. |
|||
::::::::::::::You are saying that such info should not be included in the info box according to wikipedia guide line. I am saying that if there were such guide line that it would not have been included in the russian article. Therefor there are no such guideline. [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::And you have not made any argument that it is appropriate as a government type in the way that "monarchy", "unitary state" etc. are other than "[[Russia]] has it". [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], it is part of what characterize the russia goverment, this is enough to include this in the info box [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::Nope. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] you can say nope as much as you want. you have not shown any rule that say that and we can see in other article such information is included. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::Nah. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::No, such a label being included in Russia's infobox is NOT a reason to have it in China's! For one, we can easily reverse your idea and instead say that, since China doesn't have the word "authoritarian" in its government type, then NO article should have it. Secondly, Russia and China are different countries and their situations are different. Third, Wikipedia operates by community guidelines, not what random editors personally think should be mandated on all articles. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've started a [[WP:RfC|RfC]] below. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 11:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:CanonNi|CanonNi]], why is the vote mention in the specific article of China and not in general discussion about infobox? [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] has a great explanation in the RfC section. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The key consideration (from my perspective) is that Russia's constitution is designed to function as a multi-party electoral democracy, but instead, one individual has consolidated power and suppressed opposition. China doesn't have that, so mentioning the de jure form of government is enough. [[User:TheRichCapitalist|TheRichCapitalist]] ([[User talk:TheRichCapitalist|talk]]) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC on "authoritarian" == |
|||
::::: FIFA calls it China PR. [http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=chn/footballofficials/committee/committeemembers.html] [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc top |
|||
::::With regards to adding things to that list, why not? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
| status = |
|||
| result = The result of this discussion was that there appears to be a clear consensus '''against''' the inclusion of "Authoritarian" or similar terms in the infobox. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Edit in the archive? Or copy it here? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
:Well, no (edit conflict; also replying to previous post). If the situation was more akin to Korea, we would have two states, one commonly called "Northwest China" and another "Southeast China" together with a wider area, commonly referred to as "China" that encompasses both and possibly other bits besides. We simply do not have anything like that in 2012 with China. Of course the French Republic point (as well as the examples of [[Germany]], [[India]] etc) is not exactly the same - no comparison ever is - but it's closer than the Korea one, in so far as it deals with both the "this should be about a country not a political system" argument and the "but it doesn't cover the historical territory of X" argument; which are both misplaced anyway, as this article, like all other country articles, does deal with the country as a whole, its history, its shifting borders and how it came to be what it is today. There may indeed be some dispute over the use of the word China, but in the accepted terminology of geopolitics in the English language in 2011, it is hooked up to a life support machine with a priest hovering over it. |
|||
:As for what constitutes "truth", well that's another whole can of worms, and I always find it odd when editors here think we can all divine a better, fairer and more "correct" nomenclature and classification than 1001 existing, serious sources. Yes an article title will often inevitably simplify complex issues, or prefer one styling over another (and thereby avoiding giving undue equivalence to a marginal dispute), but we're stuck with that problem like everyone else and whatever article title we choose. Again, if you have a problem, take it up with those existing sources; when they change, we'll change. And, btw, the previous set-up here (effectively a verbose and esoteric disambiguation page randomly discussing the "concept" of China) was far more controversial and far more confusing and was as out of place as the same kind of thing would have been for India or Germany. The difference was that people did something practical to resolve it - and won support for that effort. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::India is actually probably ''more'' dubious than China as historically India included Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which have substantial populations as a percentage of the region as a whole - this forces you to use "South Asia" to clarify what you're talking about, which is a position you wouldn't find with China as the parts that were historically part of China and aren't anymore are much smaller in terms of population at least. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: India is indeed a problem. After a very brief glance at the incoming links into the [[India]] article, many are actually about events long before the 1947/48 partition. And even though the modern Dominion and later the Republic of India is generally and commonly known as India, the ROI, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (and perhaps in some instances Nepal) together are all sucessors to the pre-partition or pre-(Western) colonial India. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Eraserhead1, N-HH -- you guys seem pretty content to keep defending the move so I will leave you to it. But for the record, though, I think you should be aware that the "enormous list" is vulnerable to critique that was not presented at the time of the move. Namely, the term China carries a variety of meanings and the subtlties are not detected by the undiscerning reader. To use China precisely, it must defined. In the financial press, for example, the term China is always defined in some way -- as PRC including or excluding Hong Kong and Macau and sometimes including the ROC. (Some China region mutual funds include stocks of companies based in Taiwan). In scholarly works (books and journal articles) about contemporary China, China is generally defined at the outset as referring to the People's Republic of China. If the subject of the book concerns the PRC and ROC, then the book will use those two terms or will explicitly designate PRC or mainland China with China and ROC with Taiwan. Hence, China when used precisely is a defined term. |
|||
:In news articles, especially those cited in the enormous list drawn from predominantly Anglo-American sources -- New York Times, BBC, Associated Press -- China is generally not defined and instead is equated with the PRC while Taiwan is equated with the ROC. This shorthand arrangement is used for the sake of simplicity but creates problems when the various meanings of China start to conflict. For example, these news sources can never adequately explain why Taiwan is warned against declaring independence when Taiwan is already independent. That's because there is a distinction between the Republic of China on Taiwan, which one political faction on the island wants to retain, and the Republic of Taiwan, which another faction has professed a desire to declare. The PRC although refusing to recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan, is willing to tolerate the existence of an independent ROC on Taiwan. The threats are made against the declaration of the ROT. |
|||
:The Wikipedia entry for "China" should be the place where various common usages for China is discussed so that any reader who comes upon China, regardless which China they were looking for, will be apprised of the existence of other possibilities for China, so they too can use China precisely. With the move, however, China has been defined for them as the PRC. [[User:ContinentalAve|ContinentalAve]] ([[User talk:ContinentalAve|talk]]) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::All those points are fair up to a point, although I would dispute, for example, the assertion that the financial press are more specific - the [[Financial Times|FT]] for one pretty universally uses China for the PRC, at least in its general news reporting. As do plenty of academic, specialist books (and note, this page does precisely what you say many of those books do, ie define its terms at the outset, in the hatnote; which also offers readers a route to a disambiguation page, in the unlikely event they are looking for another use of the term China than the one here). In any event, WP is a general use encyclopedia. Yes we should avoid oversimplifying and definitely outright inaccuracy, but neither really applies here: it's perfectly reasonable - and no less "correct" than any other option - that we follow what virtually every other generalist, and huge numbers of specialist, publications do. As I say, what we have now seems far clearer overall than what we used to have in terms of how it defines and explains the use of the term "China", as well as, in terms of basic article title, following common usage. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ec}}The weird semantic situation of the independent Taiwan declaring Taiwanese independence is not due to the country having multiple names. This situation arose because of the unique situation of having a regime overthrown and having this recognised by others around the world, but having the previous regime continue on in a small way. This means that although the regime functions independently from the larger overshadowing state, it has never done something like declare independence, as it existed first. The difficulty to simply capture the situation is caused more by the intricacies of the word independence than by ROC/Taiwan usage. Taiwan is independent. The Republic of China is independent. To anyone who doesn't place great symbolic stock to a simple word, those statements are exactly the same. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::ContinentalAve if you have additional sources you would like to add to the list by all means do so - probably it would be good to add more sources from Asia. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: [[Image:Jeju_SK.png|thumb|Location of Jeju Island]] [[Image:Pusan_Perimeter.jpg|thumb|Pusan Perimeter]] Unlike Germany or perhaps the UK, Taiwan, Kinmen, the Matsu Islands, Wuchiou, and the Pratas aren't ceded, lost or seceded. It's in effect a rump state and the government there have until this moment carried on the same constitution, institutions, state organs, and many other things with them from Nanking. It isn't like East Prussia or (Southern) Ireland, which are no longer considered part of Germany or the United Kingdom, and aren't considered in any way as one of the successor entities to the original Germany or UK. These landmasses are still effectively carrying on a Chinese entity and is still in many ways considered part of China as a geographical area. |
|||
: Let's consider an analogy. The Korean War ended up with an armistice roughly along the 38th Parallel, which is around the middle of the peninsula. But what if there wasn't an armistice along the 38th Parallel, but instead a ceasefire with the island of Jeju, a few islands along the southwestern coast of the Korean peninsula, and along the Pusan Perimeter, and that the communist DPRK is having recognitions like the PRC does? Would the northern state be known simply as Korea, while the southern state be known as South Korea, or perhaps as Jeju and Busan, or by its full name Republic of Korea? Would the meaning of 'Korea' be redefined, as much as 'China' on Wikipedia months ago? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, assuming our sources did so. Except that of course Wikipedia didn't re-define China - our sources did. Sorry. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: In this case, Jeju or Cheju experienced the Cheju Uprising as traumatic to the inhabitants as the 228 Incident had been to the Taiwanese people. (Note: the term Taiwanese people in this case does not cover 'Mainlanders' who relocated to Taiwan with the Kuomintang.) Would this southern Korean state be considered ''not'' part of Korea, in the same manner as East Prussia or (Southern Ireland) are to Germany or the UK, even though this southern state carries on the constitution, state organs, laws, institutions, etc., from Seoul and is having recognition from the ruling dynasty of the Korean empire as its sucessor? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: And no I didn't say Wikipedia defined or redefined it. I said it in passive voice without specifying an actor. Wikipedia was mentioned as a venue or a medium. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::We can't really judge what that hypothetical Korean rump state would be called. You'd have to take it up with whatever English sources exist in that alternative history. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Most of the sources that are cited here follow the partisan position of the majority of national governments, which are having official ties with Beijing and recognise or acknowledge Beijing's position. Beijing claims themselves as the sole successor to the ROC, the ROC was already replaced and succeeded by the PRC in 1949, and Taiwan is their province. In the hypothetical scenario that I suggested, the DPRK would have secured recognition and official ties in the same way as Beijing now possess. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Saying that because a source calls the PRC China it is partisan is circular logic. If the DPRK has become so synonymous with the title Korea that it was referred to as such in sources ranging from newspapers to encyclopaedias to academic publications than I'm quite sure our DPRK article would be titled Korea. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: National governments can't be neutral since once they got into official relations with either Beijing or Taipei, they gotta stick with Beijing's or Taipei's position. And it has long been an established convention that the press do not 'decode' 'China' as the PRC when, e.g., the US President or British PM says 'China'. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
@ Benlisquare // 04:03, 3 January 2012 and Eraserhead1 // 08:22, 3 January 2012 - Regarding the definition of 'China', ''The China Quarterly'', a reputable academic journal on China published by the SOAS, explicitly defines 'China' as 'China including Taiwan',[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=CQY] (''The China Quarterly is the leading scholarly journal in its field, covering all aspects of contemporary China including Taiwan.'') and Taiwan topics appear from time to time in this journal: |
|||
*[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=CQY&volumeId=148&seriesId=0&issueId=-1]('Contemporary Taiwan, The Republic of China on Taiwan in Historical Perspective, etc) |
|||
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3555932] (Book Reviews: ''Building Democracy in the Republic of China'', and ''Taiwan's Elections: Political Development and Democratization in the Republic of China'') |
|||
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3563656] (Research article: Surviving the Rough-and-Tumble of Presidential Politics in an Emerging Democracy: The 1990 Elections in the Republic of China on Taiwan) |
|||
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3556460] (Book Review: ''Constitutional Reform and the Future of the Republic of China'') |
|||
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3539076] (The Economic Transformation of the Republic of China on Taiwan) |
|||
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3539052] (Taiwan's International Status Today) |
|||
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=CQY&volumeId=99&seriesId=0&issueId=-1] (Institutionalization and Participation on Taiwan: From Hard to Soft Authoritarianism?, Networks and their Nodes: Urban Society on Taiwan, etc.) |
|||
* [http://www.esaim-cocv.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8385816&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0305741011000725] (Is Taiwan Studies in Decline?) |
|||
* [http://www.rairo-ita.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8243607&fulltextType=BR&fileId=S0305741011000233] (Book Review: Planning in Taiwan: Spatial Planning in the Twenty-First Century) |
|||
This is also the case for ''The China Review'', an academic journal published in Hong Kong by the CUHK: |
|||
* [http://cup.cuhk.edu.hk/ojs/index.php/ChinaReview/article/view/3229] (Return Migration: The Case of the 1.5 Generation of Taiwanese in Canada and New Zealand) |
|||
* [http://cup.cuhk.edu.hk/ojs/index.php/ChinaReview/article/view/16] (Re-engineering the Developmental State in an Age of Globalization: Taiwan in Defiance of Neo-liberalism) |
|||
* [http://cup.cuhk.edu.hk/ojs/index.php/ChinaReview/article/view/10] (Why Do We Have to Abolish the Province?:An Assessment and Adjustment of Administrative Division in Taiwan) |
|||
In comparison, in general usage, the press uses the term 'China' quite often as excluding ROC's territories, Hong Kong and Macau: |
|||
* [http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/12/171_101508.html Korea Times: Impact of Taiwan's elections on China] (''In fact, a 35-year-old man, Guo Jiyong, paddled three kilometers from the mainland to the Taiwan-held offshore island of Kinmen, apparently to observe the elections at first hand. "I want to see your elections with campaign flags flying all over the place," he told reporters after he was detained for entering Taiwan illegally. “Taiwan and China are one country, how can you arrest me for illegal entry?”'') |
|||
* [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/awardwinning-baker-makes-short-work-of-export-deal-to-middle-east-16094290.html Belfast Telegraph: Award-winning baker makes short work of export deal to Middle East] (''"Ditty's has also used its proactive approach to develop opportunities in Hong Kong and China."'') |
|||
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/100_wag_hongkong/index.shtml BBC: World Agenda - A tale of two systems] (''Of course Uncle Thomas is not alone in his confusion. In both Hong Kong and China, defining quite who should be on each side of the border remains one of the biggest puzzles in post-handover Hong Kong.'') |
|||
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/new-zealand-accidental-millionaire-court The Guardian: New Zealand's 'accidental millionaire' in court after two years on the run] (''Two years after going on the run in Hong Kong, Macau and China a New Zealand woman described as an "accidental millionaire" has appeared in court accused of theft.'') |
|||
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8256067.stm BBC: China and Macau to develop island] (''Debate has been controversial due to the differing legal and political systems between China and Macau.'') |
|||
* [http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/chinas-apple-frenzy-triggers-wave-of-smuggling/article2108527/?service=mobile Reuters/The Globe and Mail: China’s Apple frenzy triggers wave of smuggling] (''Storeowners such as Xu take advantage of the price difference of Apple products in Hong Kong and China. For example, an iPad 2 costs $499 (U.S.) in an Apple retail store in Hong Kong, but its official price in China is $572.'') |
|||
* [http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/manufacturing/canadas-food-producers-relish-taste-of-success/article2102832/?service=mobile The Globe and Mail: Canada's food producers relish taste of success] (''Back at Honibe, John Rowe is busy promoting his products in the U.K., Japan, Hong Kong and China. It helps that most of the honey he uses comes from the island. His company is growing so quickly, he’s also now buying from Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. But he’s sticking with strictly Canadian honey.'') |
|||
* [http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2012/2011/12/top-economies-2012 The Economist: The top economies of 2012: From Macau to Laos, with China in between] - ''see table at [http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/Top%20growers.jpg]'' |
|||
Yet in many occassions 'China' is used to refer to a ''broader ''geographical region and Taiwan is included, as in the academic journals: |
|||
* [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-09-24/news/9509240086_1_west-indians-black-america-trust Chicago Tribune: Self-reliance Is All About Trust And Lending A Hand] (''Societies where trust is low, like Italy, France and China (including Taiwan), demand more contracts, regulations, oversight and centralized control, which exact higher costs for the conducting of business.'') |
|||
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5055528.stm BBC: Japan shrine seeks 'understanding'] (''"There is a noticeable increase in the number of worshippers and visitors from China, including Taiwan, and from South Korea. We created this pamphlet... to help them understand Yasukuni Shrine better," a statement from the shrine said.'') |
|||
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1910880.stm <!-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1910692.stm --> BBC: Rice: Food for the world] (''World rice production totals nearly 600 million tonnes. Asian farmers produced about 90% of the total, with two countries, China (including Taiwan) and India, producing more than 50% of the total crop.'') |
|||
* [http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/chinas-shares-are-finally-catching-up-the-economy-475063.html The Independent: China's shares are finally catching up the economy] (''Both Yearsley and Gavin Haynes of Whitechurch Securities like First State Asia Pacific Leaders. Managed by Angus Tulloch, this fund will provide greater diversification, although China (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) accounts for 35 per cent of the portfolio.'') |
|||
* [http://www.economist.com/blogs/theinbox/2008/01/the_power_of_calligraphy The Economist: Letters to the Editor: the inbox - The power of calligraphy] (''Until 1945, a uniform set of Chinese characters was used in China (including Taiwan), Japan and Korea, to name but the three most important "sinographic" countries.'') |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: That's my perception too. Most often for figures on trade volume, such as the trade volume between China and Japan, China and South Korea, China and Singapore, China and the US, or China and any country, China means the Chinese mainland (aka. mainland China, China's mainland). Census and statistical data of China, such as population growth rates, literacy rates, ethnic distributions, life expectancy, and so on and so forth, are all about the Chinese mainland. On cultural, customs and tradition matters, however, China is always understood to cover Taiwan, Kinmen and the Matsu Islands, as well as the former British and Portuguese colonies in the south. The sources right above are solid evidence. Entries on Wikipedia have to be properly titled to reflect this. [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.96|113.28.88.96]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.96|talk]]) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Surely the fact the sources have to clarify that Taiwan is included shows this is a usage not expected by readers? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::If it isn't clarified you guys would have said that it isn't clear and explicit enough to demonstrate that the word was meant to cover Taiwan. [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.94|113.28.88.94]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.94|talk]]) 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::That would depend on the context of the quote. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: But in many cases the contexts don't tell. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But in many they do, and we had a list which was open to discussion. {{unsigned}} |
|||
:::::: May I know which list are you referring to? Is it the one at [[Talk:China civilization/Archive 26]]? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: @Chipmunkdavis - The word 'China' is often ambiguous especially in modern contexts. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Evidence throughout this discussion suggests otherwise. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Evidence shows that the same word 'China', depending on contexts and qualifications, may refer to the Chinese mainland, the People's Republic, or the broader geographical region. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Actually, those using it for the Chinese mainland use that for the PRC, so those are one and the same. I have not at all seen evidence for this abstract idea of a geographical region. Almost every definition of China is determined by politics, not geography, and the few occasions that are different are usually about Culture. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: When you see 'China' and Hong Kong and/or Macau being listed side by side, it's probably referring specifically to the Chinese mainland. But, in some cases, it's referring specifically to the Chinese mainland too even if neither HK nor Macau is mentioned, e.g., the literacy rate of 'China', or the trade volume between 'China' and Iran. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes, but again, that is when mainland China and the PRC are considered synonymous. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{od|::::|link}} That's why I said 'China' may refer specifically to mainland China, or to the broader geographical/cultural region that in many cases covers Taiwan. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::All of which can also mean PRC. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Exactly. I would also add that this sort of page-bombing really illuminates far less than people who do it think. Given the issues at the margins here, as elsewhere, I'm sure you can find 100s of ''examples'' of usage that slighty rub against the norm, but I could - if I had the time - provides 100s of 1000s that by contrast rely on the standard terms and classification. Also, to prove your point, you'd really need to find some reliable and authoritative sources that take one step back and make the explicit analytical judgment eg that "in normal usage, China includes Taiwan". The second IP here has asserted this for culture etc - where are sources that confirm it? And I mean the one-word phrase "China" specifically, in common discourse, not vaguer references to "Chinese cultural area", "Greater China", "One China Policy" or "[[Sinosphere]]" or whatever; and analytical sources that make that assertion, not simply examples of apparent use. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 14:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::A lot of these seem to be sources who are simply confused about whether Hong Kong and Macau count as being part of China or not, which is something there seems to be some ambiguity about. But there isn't anything particularly good we can do about it. Its not as if if "People's Republic of China" was actually widely used that it wouldn't be used to refer to only "mainland china" anyway, so that title is hardly an improvement on that ground. |
|||
:::It sounds quite a lot like people using "England" to incorrectly refer to the UK, which we solve with a link on the disambiguation page - which is how we currently handle this case here as well. |
|||
:::With the journals "Greater China review" is a crap name, and there probably isn't enough coverage on Taiwan to justify its own journal, or they might believe Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China - which is hardly a [[WP:FRINGE]] viewpoint. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Have you ever actually heard of ''The China Quarterly''? Is it a 'fringe' academic journal? And no. Using China to refer to the PRC is like saying America for the United States, Micronesia for the Federated States of Micronesia, or Ulster for Northern Ireland. [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.94|113.28.88.94]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.94|talk]]) 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Exactly. I'm afraid ''The China Quarterly'' is not something fringe at all. It's a leading academic journal in China studies. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::: @Eraserhead1 - When the term 'China' is used with its broader meaning Hong Kong and Macau are normally covered. But then many of the sources that I quoted above didn't actually touch on the issue about whether HK and Macau are covered. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::N-HH: ''And I mean the one-word phrase "China" specifically, in common discourse, not vaguer references... and analytical sources that make that assertion, not simply examples of apparent use.'' - What do you want then? The apparent usage are adequately illustrative. Anyway, here you go: |
|||
:::*[http://www.ntac.hawaii.edu/downloads/products/briefs/culture/pdf/ACB-Vol2-Iss2-China.pdf] "In this paper, the word “China” refers to mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan for simplicity.", |
|||
:::*[http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cpi/china-analysis/china-policy-blog/2009-entries/03-02-2009.aspx] "In this context, “China” refers to the community of people who have for thousands of years lived in the areas that cover the Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. It is also the sum of these various geographic areas. Seen in this light, “China” is neither the ROC nor the PRC, although both governments claim to be the ruling body of these areas."''';''' compare with |
|||
:::*[http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/abstract/138/rr138ch01.pdf] "Throughout this document, China refers to mainland China. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau are not included because of unavailability of data and different economic systems.", |
|||
:::*[http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/ownership.html] "China refers to Mainland China and not Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan.". |
|||
:::(And consider the usage in the infoboxes in the [[Economy of Singapore]], [[Economy of South Korea]] and [[Economy of Japan]] articles too.) [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.94|113.28.88.94]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.94|talk]]) 10:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Er, and which of those affirm, as requested that "in normal usage, China includes Taiwan"? All of them talk are qualified by "in this context .." or some variation thereof; or are specifically discussing "One China" issues; or specifically acknowledge that they are having to explain exceptions to normal usage. For the 10,000th time - we all know there are hazy areas and complexities at the margins, in respect of both the SARs and Taiwan. This does not alter the fact that in most normal, unqualified usage "China" is used to refer to [the People's Republic of] China (and that the SAR issue would arise whatever term we used here); or that this page is currently where it is, and you need to open a requested move or appeal the last one, rather than indulge in pettifoggery here, in order to do anything about it. It's your time your wasting as well as everyone else's. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I don't think it's marginal at all. Quite the contrary, it demonstrates that the People's Republic falls short of being the sole primary topic. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Can there be more than one primary topic? <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: As in the case of Congo, Macedonia, and probably Washington and Georgia too: Either call it more than one primary topics or no primary topic. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::@N-HH - Wasn't [[Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26|the sources listed in the previous move request four months ago]] 'page-bombing'? If you genuinely want to discuss and get this solved, please refrain from having double standards again and again. The Chicago Tribune and The Economist links were both about China as a cultural region, or a Kulturraum as the [[:de:China (Kulturraum) |German article on Wikipedia]] is so named. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::What "double standards"? And when "again and again"? The point here was that people who bombard pages with what are primarily individual ''examples'' of usage that they prefer as a way to counter overwhelming evidence of primary, established usage prove nothing and generally, I have found, are people on a mission - the second list at least attempted to focus on alternative ''explanations'' of use, even if they were inadequate to prove the point intended. Anyway, this issue '''is''' solved, and has been ever since this page and its contents - which discuss all the complex aspects of what China "is" at a more esoteric or theoretical level - was moved to a title that reflects overwhelming common use of the simple one-word term itself in 2012 geopolitics, however "inaccurate" or "wrong" it appears to you and one or two others. So, we're done. Go and find something better to do with your time, and I will too. For the 11,000th time - open a page move request or shut up. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::ps: I assume you noticed that the Economist letter (not magazine article, as it happens) you cited was referring to pre-1945 China as well, since you quoted that very section; you may not have noticed that we do, like the German WP (not that we have to follow them anyway of course), have pages on [[Chinese culture]], [[One China]] and [[Greater China]], and also, perhaps a little more obscurely, [[Sinosphere]], that look at these broader issues, under more specific titles. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: That was a reference to the double standard shared by the PRC-camp with the discriminatory application of the commonname principle upon Britain, Ireland, Congo, Macedonia, Holland, Russia and China, and your double standard with the so-called 'page-bombing' now and [[Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26|then]]. And if you aren't already aware, I have started [[#Preliminary proposal|the effort to prepare for]] a move request (or an appeal, if that's more appropriate). To reiterate, Wikipedia isn't just about 2012, and the broader usage of the term isn't marginal or fringe at all no matter how you yourself perceive it differently. Last but not least, [[WP:CIVIL|please be courteous and civilised]]. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&offset=20120111160750&limit=20&action=history] In response to your clarifications, corrections and P.S., which weren't available when I type my previous response: Those sources that I cited aren't 'individual', non-'established' usage. I have no further point to add if you insist to dispute the standing of ''The China Quaterly''. Just a little bit of clarification: the current German setting is to have the namespace 'China' as a redirect to the PRC article, with a hatnote to the article on the Kulturraum. It's similar yet essentially different from the arrangement here at the English version before the move request four months ago. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Those arrangements were decided by totally different people, so it's nothing to do with "double standards"; I for one haven't commented on or been involved in any of them. This page is this page and has to be dealt with on its own merits. However, just to pick a couple - Holland is technically incorrect in a way that China isn't, even if it is common (much less so than it used to be, I think); the Ireland arrangement I personally think is unsatisfactory, but there is at least genuine and significant ambiguity there; Britain I think is fine as a disambiguation page, again because there is a tipping-point level of ambiguity. And the sources cited in favour of this move included overarching analysis/explanation as well as examples of use - eg the references to the country profile terminologies, style guides etc. Like I said, once that's been established, it takes more than flinging a list of counter-examples of use, however lengthy (these things are relative), to rebut the more definitive conclusions. Especially ones that anyway mostly had to explicitly note when they were including Taiwan under the term China, precisely because that is not the primary expected way of doing it. |
|||
::::::I have seen the preliminary proposal and commented in that section - however, since it has not led you to actually open a more formal process, one can only conclude that it is simply a way of clogging up this page with more and more moaning. And, on that point, civility works both ways (see "double standards" above). And, finally, no, WP is not just about 2012 - no one has ever said it was. But it does favour the use of the dominant contemporary terminology, for countries as for everything else, other than when anachronism is the point, given the context. And it will do that even when there are issues at, as I have said, the margins (I have never explicitly said the issues were outright fringe). <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: The preliminary proposal was meant to pave the way towards an actual and official move request or an appeal whichever more appropriate. The sources cited above already demonstrate that the term 'China' is itself noticeably ambiguous, just that it might not be as ambiguous as Ireland or Britain to you (and other editors on your side). You didn't say it's fringe, but other editors on your side (i.e. ''you'' in the plural sense) did, and you did consider it as margins. Since Wikipedia isn't only about 2012, applying the 2012 or so-called 'contemporary' usage retrospectively would create way too many confusions and troubles that you might not have anticipated. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Re your new additions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&diff=470814654&oldid=470812151] - If it isn't explicitly qualified it could be too ambiguous to get you understood and convinced. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It is at the margins in terms of terminology and what most people mean when they use the term China in 2012. As a theoretical issue, maybe less so (see One China etc), but we're not talking about that; or about "retrospective" usage. We're talking about an article title in Wikipedia in 2012, which has now been settled, per the rules on primary topic, common name and NPOV (to the extent that the latter applies anyway). Cheers. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: We all got different lives and topics of interests. Your understanding of the 2012 meaning of the term China may not be the same as the understanding of other people (say, the editors and contributors of the academic journals on China studies). The poll four months ago clearly demonstrates how divided it is among Wikipedia contributors. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Preliminary proposal == |
|||
I would like to propose the following moves and redirects, so as to prepare for a further and official move request for later submission. It is going to involve: |
|||
# [[China]] [[Wikipedia:Page move|→]] 'People's Republic of China', ''and'' |
|||
# [[Chinese civilisation]] (the pre-scrapped version) [[Wikipedia:Page move|→]] 'China (region)', ''and'' |
|||
# ''Either'' |
|||
#* Option A: [[China (disambiguation)]] [[Wikipedia:Page move|→]] 'China', ''or'' |
|||
#* Option B: [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirecting]] [[China]] to 'People's Republic of China', with a hatnote directing users to 'China (region)', [[China (disambiguation)]], and the [[Republic of China]]. |
|||
This is going to address common name issues, without compromising the principle of neutrality. 'China' will not immediately be equated with 'People's Republic of China', yet users will get to read the PRC article while looking for 'China' as a common name. It will also avoid the wikineologisim term 'Chinese civilisation'. Please comment on this package. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:That is a complicated mess that doesn't need to happen. The old article was a mess that didn't say anything - which was half the problem. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]]) |
|||
::This proposal is what the Spanish Wikipedia does over on their site. If it doesn't confuse Spanish speakers, I don't see why it would confuse English speakers. {{unsigned}} |
|||
:::Because they probably take their layout queues from en. Very few language interwikis make bold naming decisions that depart from en. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]]) |
|||
::::That doesn't surprise me. And it means we should be very careful to avoid doing what other wikis do so we don't go round and round in circles. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Cyrillic Wikipedia uses China = PRC. Should we change this article now so we don't do what other language Wiki's do? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.78.140|159.53.78.140]] ([[User talk:159.53.78.140|talk]]) 21:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::::What other language wikis do is irrelevant. Not only are they entirely independent with their own policies but this is a [[WP:COMMONNAME|language issue]]; what happens in Spanish or "Cyrillic" (?) has no bearing here.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 22:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: It isn't a determining factor, but it's good for reference. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Which Cyrillic version are you talking about? The Cyrillic alphabet is used by quite many languages. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: Do they redirect [[:es:China]] to [[:es:República Popular China]]? I think they do. And they got a [[:es:China (región)]] article, as do the Portuguese ([[:pt:China_(civilização)|r]], [[:pt:China_(desambiguação)|d]], [[:pt:China|rdr]], [[:pt:República Popular da China |prc]]), Lithuanian ([[:lt:Kinija_(regionas)|r]], [[:lt:Kinija_(reikšmės)|d]], [[:lt:Kinija|prc]], [[:lt:Kinijos Liaudies Respublika|prc]]) and German ([[:de:China (Kulturraum)|r]], [[:de:China (Begriffsklärung)|d]], [[:de:China|rdr]], [[:de:Volksrepublik China|prc]]) versions. And this wasn't the previous arrangement here at English Wikipedia. (The previous arrangement here was to locate the region article at 'China', like the existing arrangements of the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Dutch, Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk), Icelandic, Indonesian and Korean versions.) In comparison, the Latin and Gaelic versions got Sinae/Sìona as a disambiguation page ([[:la:Sinae_(regio)|r]], [[:la:Sinae|d]], [[:de:Res Publica Popularis Sinarum |prc]]; [[:gd:Sìona (roinn chultarach)|r]], [[:gd:Sìona|d]], [[:gd:Sluagh-Phoblachd na Sìne|prc]]). Let's call option B the German-Lithuanian-Spanish-Portuguese solution, and option A the Latin-Gaelic solution. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we are in [[WP:DEADHORSE]] territory. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 15:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Probably better than what we used to have, but not as good as what we seem, hopefully, to be heading towards, which is to have China at, er, "China" and Taiwan at, er, "Taiwan". There really isn't a neutrality issue there that needs to be addressed by this sort of complicated set up. [[WP:NPOV]] only comes into play when we look at how we write up the debate about China/Taiwan etc and the history of the division in article text; or if we were proposing to have Taiwan at "Definitely-not-China". <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: Would you mind explain why the article for Britain is located at United Kingdom, the article for Ireland is located at Republic of Ireland, the article for Macedonia is located at Republic of Macedonia, and the article for Holland is located at Netherlands? If your logic should apply, then I don't think there's any neutrality or ambiguity issue with these countries that needs to be addressed by this sort of complicated titles. The accurate and proper names or descriptions of this countries can be dealt with in the texts of the articles, not the titles. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::I suggest you go and do some research to answer your questions. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I bet all of us got the answer. The difference between us is that we stick with the same principle for essentially similar cases. You guys got the burden to explain why you don't apply your rule here to Britain, Holland, Ireland, etc. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We do. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: How, when and where? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Britain isn't as common as United Kingdom in various sources (it used to be, but has lost favour), Holland is rarely used in reliable sources, Ireland has two main meaning, of which the island is the primary topic, to the country is disambiguated. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Neither is the PRC the primary topic of 'China', e.g., the sources from the FCO, the World Bank and the Economist suggested [[#Time to stop arguing over the move and name change|above]]. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::No they didn't. A fuzziness over the SARs is irrelevant to whether the entity is China or not. The China they used was still the PRC. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: Yes and no. The data and information in those cases refer only to ''part'' of the PRC. Compare this with concepts like Metropolitan France (as opposed to the whole France with all overseas regions and territories), the Lower 48 (of the US, as opposed to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.), European Netherlands (as opposed to the whole Kingdom), (Mainland Portugal, as opposed to the whole Portugal with Madeira and Azores), or more appropriately, the United Kingdom as opposed the whole empire with Bermuda, Isle of Man, the Falklands, Guernsey, etc. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::The Metro France and lower 48 states etc. not appropriate comparisons. Many companies and the like treat HK/Macau separately from the Mainland (Hong Kong even has its own APEC membership) due to the extremely different laws they have under the two systems agreement. Due to legal oddities they've landed themselves in the position of often being treated as not part of China although they are (like Greenland and the Faroes with Denmark). Companies showing them as separate from China doesn't mean they don't refer to the PRC as China, as for their intents and purposes (business one would assume) they aren't part of it. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::: If you read a lot about China you can tell the narrow usage of the term 'China' is far more extensive. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::My experience, and that of a great many people here, is different. You, and any other user, is free to create their own list of sources, keeping in mind they need to show not only that other uses exist but that the other terms are used significantly enough that the current page is not the primary topic. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{od|:::::::|link}} Agree. But then the problem is that we cannot even agree on which meaning(s) the word 'China' is referring to in the same source, or on how to determine whether the sources are sufficient to suggest what is/isn't a primary topic. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm quite sure what China means in most if not all of the links provided before, and they quite clearly showed a primary topic. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:In other words, undo the consensus move because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|you don't like it]]. PoV-pushing, much? [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yes. But please bear in mind that the move request four months ago was also overturning the earlier consensus - the move debate four months ago was staged because the proposers [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|didn't like the earlier consensus]] and were pushing their POV. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Suffice to say, I don't support this proposal. The article should remain where it is, per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: Commonname isn't above all. In comparison, [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] is a [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|fundamental principle of Wikipedia]]. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::And COMMONNAME is part of NPOV. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
As a general response to this section so far: Is there any thing that we can learn from the German-Lithuanian-Spanish-Portuguese solution, or the Latin-Gaelic solution? Both are logical and sensible, and neither follows the arrangement here at the English version four months ago. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Either is better than the status quo. And the Latin solution seems better. [[Special:Contributions/1.65.157.215|1.65.157.215]] ([[User talk:1.65.157.215|talk]]) 12:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think so too. This will facilitate better patrol of incoming links, like [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Washington|Washington]], [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Congo|Congo]] and [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Georgia|Georgia]]. And it demonstrates that neither the geographical area (or Kulturraum, as it's known in [[:de:China (Kulturraum)|the German version]]) nor the People's Republic is the sole primary topic. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== [[China]] is also Common name of [[PRC]]+[[ROC]] == |
|||
I am a native Chinese in [[Mainland China]]. I know that [[China]] is one of common names of [[PRC]] in English world, but all people in PRC and [[ROC]] know ''China=PRC'' is '''politically wrong'''. On any English-Chinese dictionary, China is [[zh:中国]] or [[zh:中华]]. And in our POV, 中国 is the region of [[commons:File:China administrative.png]] or [[commons:File:ROC Administrative and Claims.svg]]. As you see, Both PRC and ROC claim each other. In short, [[China]]=[[PRC]]+[[ROC]]=[[Greater China]]-[[Singapore]], which is the community's conclusion in [[Chinese Wikipedia]]. |
|||
This POV is in our mind instead of on English web pages. Will Wikipedia recognize the common name for China other than the English world one? --[[User:Atry|Atry]] ([[User talk:Atry|talk]]) 11:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:see FAQ at the top of this talk page. [[User:MadGeographer|<font style="color:darkgreen">mge</font><font style="color:blue">'''o'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:MadGeographer|talk]]</small> 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't think the PRC is the primary topic of 'China' in the English-speaking world. I speak English as my first language. In most of the occassions that I encountered, the primary topic is either the Chinese mainland (as in the cases of the FCO and the Economist above), or the broader region in general. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::then open a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|move request]]. [[User:MadGeographer|<font style="color:darkgreen">mge</font><font style="color:blue">'''o'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:MadGeographer|talk]]</small> 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
If you are a native Chinese in mainland China, then Dalu is the official name of the PRC. That is the most '''politically correct'''. And this was brought up also in previous archives. A modern Chinese person just doesn't refer to him/herself as coming from "共和国". So PRC was never truly a common name to begin with. [[User:Benjwong|Benjwong]] ([[User talk:Benjwong|talk]]) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:But as an obvious relative expert and someone who relatively at least knows a lot about this I've never heard of this term before. For better or for worse it isn't common in English in the UK. And I doubt it's much different in the US or India or any other places with large English speaking populations. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: The press in the UK (such as The Guardian, The Scotsman, The Independent and BBC, to name a few) does use terms like 'Chinese mainland' and 'mainland China'. If you aren't familiar with the subject matter here, don't pretend you are, please. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, they use it to refer to "mainland China" because Hong Kong and Macau are also part of China, but not mainland China. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::: ''Dalu'' mentioned above is the word for 'mainland' in northern Mandarin as far as I understand. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:@Benjwong: To be fair, one could say that people from the mainland wouldn't claim that they come from "人民共和国", though they ''may'' say something like "I have a 中华人民共和国 passport" or "he is a 中华人民共和国 citizen". "共和国" itself only means "republic", so of course no one uses that term, since it's vague (it's no more than a synonym of 民国; both are alternate translations of ''[[res publica]] state'', the only difference is that "共和国" is a word of Japanese (''[[Sino-Japanese vocabulary#Words 'Made in Japan'|wasei kango]]'') origin). --[[User:benlisquare|<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;color:#FFFF00;background:red;">''' 李博杰 '''</span>]] | <small>—[[User talk:benlisquare|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|contribs]] [[Special:EmailUser/User:Benlisquare|email]]</small> 03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::If you want to be really fair, conversations regarding politics and passports might use terms like 共和国. But everyday conversations used by regular people just doesn't use those terms at all. [[User:Benjwong|Benjwong]] ([[User talk:Benjwong|talk]]) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: As a native speaker of English residing in Europe (and not an American, apparently), I'd say more than 90% of the time that I come across the name Georgia is about the independent state in Caucasia (instead of the US southern state), and more than 95% of the time with Washington about the US capital (instead of the US state in the Pacific Northwest). So what's the primary topic of Georgia and Washington? Why should we consider the communist republic as the primary topic of China just because the politicians in Washington and London equate them as such? Why don't we consider English sources from the Far East too? [[Special:Contributions/1.65.152.12|1.65.152.12]] ([[User talk:1.65.152.12|talk]]) 12:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Should the infobox contain "Authoritarian" in the government type parameter? <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 11:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::We considered all sources presented in the source list. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 12:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::As far as I've ever noticed, China is virtually never used in English to mean both the PRC and ROC combined (or indeed any wider area). Also, it's worth saying again that this page is not simply about "the communist republic" - it's about the nation known as China, including all its history, but predicated on the notion that, in 2012, the currently-kind-of-communist PRC is the modern iteration of that nation and is what most people mean when they say "China". This is pretty indisputable stuff; there's no ambiguity as there is with, say, Georgia. And, finally, on the Far East sources point, I just glanced at the Japan Times, Taipei Times and South China Morning Post websites. Yes, a) newspapers don't determine everything here, b) it's not a full or thorough sample, and b) of course they're examples of use rather than explanations of use; but it's a pretty representative and decent starting point. And they ''all'' - even the Taipei Times - seem to use "China" and "Taiwan" pretty much as they would use "France", "Japan" etc. Why are we scrabbling around for reasons to be different? <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::The Taipei Times is a Pan-Green, pro-Independence paper. It has a political motive for using "China" and "Taiwan" in the way that they use "France", "Japan", etc. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.46.140|159.53.46.140]] ([[User talk:159.53.46.140|talk]]) 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::That doesn't mean that is the actual reason why it does prefer "Taiwan/China"; and, in any event, those sources - if there are any - that regularly or primarily use ROC/PRC are as likely to do so from political motives as well. Citing NPOV doesn't really get anyone anywhere; it's a red herring. And I didn't find any that do anyway, from Taiwan itself or elsewhere in the region (and there are of course virtually none in the West that do). <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, it does; Taipei Times uses Taiwan versus China because they're pro-Independence. The sources that would support the ROC as China uses it because it's, you know, an actual reflection of reality: the Constitution of the ROC which calls itself China. That's reality, that's NPOV, it's in the ROC Constitution, it's recognized by people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits under teh 1992 Concensus. That the ROC is China. The POV here, is YOURS. Is it just me or are the people who most fervently defending this move from "China" to PRC are also the ones least informed about what is and what isn't? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.46.140|159.53.46.140]] ([[User talk:159.53.46.140|talk]]) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::::::Thanks for the lecture. No need to shout and be patronising by the way when you tell me things that I am actually perfectly well informed about. Anyway, sorry, but I cannot take seriously anyone who says explicitly and definitively that "the ROC is China" (as if it were a matter of some deep, objective truth anyway); or who suggests that what the government of a country says, or what terminology it happens to use, necessarily reflects "reality" or is by definition "neutral". And you know what? I don't have a POV, I just look at the terminology used by the overwhelming majority of sources - including the ROC/Taiwanese government itself half the time; or did you not know that? - and suggest following them. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It's something you should take very seriously. If the ROC itself were ever to declare itself as "not-China", hundreds upon hundreds of ballistic missiles will immediately fly over the Taiwan Strait at the sweet potato shaped island. The PRC recognizes the ROC as China. The ROC recognizes the ROC as China. Only a few of you here seem to have your own POV on this subject and sees the ROC as "not-China". |
|||
:::::::::The issue is about what one word we use as an article title and in much of our written text to describe something (and what that one word generally describes). Too many people want to overcomplicate it by suggesting we are talking about a definitive statement of something's fundamental nature, or what it is or is not recognised as. Anyway, as noted above, those who dislike the current title of the page can open a move request - even if we only have just gone through one. 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC) {{unsigned}} |
|||
::::::::::The issue is, it doesn't have to be one word. I can be multiple words. {{unsigned}} |
|||
:'''Oppose inclusion''' – in short, it's not a government type. It does not correspond to any concrete aspect of a government's structure in the way that {{xt|monarchy}}, {{xt|federal}}, {{xt|one-party}} etc. do—those being terms that are offered as examples on {{tlx|Infobox country}} and tend to be used for this parameter. There's a reason for that. Instead, "authoritarian" is a higher-level characterization of the political culture effected by a given government in practice, which is inherently steeped in historical context and not very correlated to the dry facts of structure. Not only could such a culture result from many different government types, the nature of what the term describes is simply less well defined. It's inappropriate to treat it like a data point as opposed to a higher-level analysis, which is outside the scope of the kind of parametrizable data that infoboxes are able to effectively communicate. If something requires further nuance or a history lesson to understand what it means beyond pastiche, it's probably not suited for an infobox. Such a characterization of a government deserves adequate description per [[WP:NPOV]]—and in this case, it {{em|requires}} a prominent description in the article's body, but it's simply not data for the infobox to list alongside a country's GDP or surface area. |
|||
Let's rebuild the world. We'll just declare that the PRC has no claim to Taiwan and that the RoC was never on the mainland and holds no claims there. We can inform the UN about our decision so they can write up the official paperwork. Do I have a second for this motion? [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose Inclusion''' - for the government field of the infobox, we should strive for concrete details. We should avoid characterizations and labels, especially contentious ones. Characterizations are more appropriate for the article body, where they can be explained, addressed according to their due weight, and attributed as necessary. The infobox should address the form of government in a concrete, non-controversial, and direct way --- is a country unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? "Fuzzy" labels should be avoided. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think such vore should be general and not specificly related to this article. We should have a general vote for the info box in general discussion. not in China article discussion. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Keep in mind that we use consensus, not voting. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::what do you mean by consensus? |
|||
:::That if one is obejct all other in favour it wiil be rejected? [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::See [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for explanation as to how editors make these kinds of decisions. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That would be a lot harder for the case for inclusion I reckon, because on top of demonstrating that "authoritarian" is a government type, one would likely be arguing that it's a type equally applicable to some rather distinct governments. That would seem to highlight the issues with its inclusion whatsoever. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I suggest to move the vore to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_country as it should be a general question and not something specific to China. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Again, this is not a vote. This is a discussion in order to reach [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The discussion should be general in order to remove bias. If it will be about china specific, people that love/hate China will be influnce by that feeling. |
|||
:::The discussion should be in general and for all countries. There is nothing special about China in this regard that demand special rule. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I would argue the opposite. Each country has a different type of government and discussions like this should only involve individual countries. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::they have different type of goverment. that is true. no argue about this. But the question whether to include specific charctaristic of a goverment should be a general and non bias question. not a different criteria for one country and a different criteria for anther. Unless of course there is a special case. and feel free to argue why China is a special case in that regard. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And it seems that most of us in opposition agree that the term "authoritarian" should have very strict conditions for inclusion at best or should be ignored entirely at worst. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::What bias? This talk page is the most likely page to find people who are familiar with details of this particular situation, as with any other country. No one else has expressed the same worry that this issue must be considered for every country at once, so I am curious if you mean anything else by "bias" here. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' - Authoritarian is not a valid label for a governmental system unless it is widely agreed upon by sources that such a label is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to the country's system of government. AKA: broad claims of China being authoritarian do not substantiate inclusion of that word in the infobox; instead, it should be in the lead or elsewhere in the article. |
|||
:Also, arguments along the lines of "Russia has that label so China should too" fail the [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] litmus test because the inclusion of that label in the Russia article wasn't based on any policy in the first place. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Also I concur with [[User:Remsense|Remsense's]] opinion. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' as far too simplistic to put in an infobox. Frankly all government is de-facto authoritarian in that it establishes governmentality as a seat of authority which it enforces. It's a useless word that only basically establishes that Wikipedia sees China as an enemy - not exactly neutral. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:that is not the meaning of authoritarian. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose'''. "Authoritarian" is a description of a style of governance, not a defined system of government. Furthermore, it implies at least some degree of political oppression without a proper discussion, and therefore violates [[WP:NPOV]]. "Unitary one-party state" is far better. Any accusations or evidence of authoritarianism/totalitarianism should be carefully treated in the text of the article itself. [[User:Ships%26Space|<span style="color: #848482">Ships</span>]] & [[User talk:Ships%26Space|<span style="color: MidnightBlue">Space</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Ships%26Space|Edits]])</sub> 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: No. According to the UN, the ROC ceased to exist on 1st January 1972. It's part of China, officially the People's Republic of China, which succeeded the Republic of China. UN's position is: It just doesn't exist. We don't know and we don't care what'd happened. The [[Flag of the People's Republic of China|flag of China]] would be used to illustrate UN's founding anyways, with the flags of the Soviet Union, the UK, France, and the Star-Spangled Banner with only 48 instead of 50 stars. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' - {{TQ|Authoritarian is not a valid label for a governmental system}} per others. And apart from the 'Russia' argument being an OTHERSTUFF one, Russia actually has ''"under an authoritarian dictatorship"'', not simply the adjective 'authoritarian'. Dictatorship ''is'' a system of government, not simply a disapproving adjective like 'authoritarian' - which is almost certainly true of PRC, but is not their type of government. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose'''. I concur with the reasoning of others. The current wording in the infobox is adequate and concrete. The description "authoritarian" is important to discuss in the article, but it is more of a characterization than a datapoint. I think inclusion of the term would be outside of the scope of the infobox. [[User:HenryMP02|HenryMP02]] ([[User talk:HenryMP02|talk]]) 20:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' and on the side, in regards to the Russia government infobox that clearly violates [[wp:npov]] it should be corrected to reflect the actual government of Russia, not state as fact the select opinions of a handful of political pundits. [[User:Jetsettokaiba|Jetsettokaiba]] ([[User talk:Jetsettokaiba|talk]]) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' the status quo is more than sufficient, authoritarian is too simplistic and isn’t a government type. I don’t think an expert on Chinese society and politics would use that term. In short, it seems like an exonym. [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 10:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Disappoint to see lots of guesswork in these replies. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Could you please elaborate? [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't think I've come across a topic that's more easily sourced than this..... In fact it seems to be the de facto example used {{Findsources|China authoritarianism}}. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh, well—yes. Just because I don't find the term enlightening doesn't mean it doesn't appear in every other book about 20th century China that I crack open. I see what you mean. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This is one of the downfalls of the Wikipedia system.....the vast majority of responses are based on opinions rather than actually searching for academic sourcing. Luckily we are only dealing with the info box here thus the usage of the term with accompanying sources throughout this article and every other article on this topic will be there to educate our readers. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Luckily, those in the habit of closing or effectuating RfCs et al. usually find it pretty easy to separate wheat from chaff. ...I almost think ChatGPT could get the answer right 70% of the time or so. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Lol your 100% right..... Chatbot even gives us a source {{cite book | last=Tang | first=Wenfang | title=Populist Authoritarianism | publisher=Oxford University Press | publication-place=New York, NY | date=2016 | isbn=0-19-020578-4 }}...{{green|authoritarianism in China is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), limited political freedom, censorship, and strict control over civil society. The CCP maintains its authority through a combination of political repression, surveillance, and propaganda. While economic reforms have brought about significant social changes, the political system remains tightly controlled by the party leadership</small>.}}..... Jesus would be easy to write articles with these things..... I see why there's a concern lately. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I'm veering off-topic but my assessment from everything I've seen is it's largely just a way to generate spam and anything else that doesn't require editorial or creative insight 60–90% faster than before. The issue seems one of increased volume, as opposed to a scary paradigm shift that will have to make us rethink the nature of writing or art or whatever. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::My comment was wrong, but you're confusing RfCs for votes, when they're about building consensus. My comment/reasoning was what should be focussed on, not my 'vote'. And my reasoning was bad so it should be ignored. |
|||
:::::::::Regardless of its veracity, authoritarian isn't a government type and shouldn't be included in this parameter. I think the reason people have sentiment against this RfC is because there's noticeably a lot of anti-China media atm and people don't want to be dragged into another hate filled cold war. [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 19:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Whether or not I agree with your sociopolitical sketch, I'm going to protest such a characterization of my potential reasoning for stalwart opposition. The Chinese government will be fine regardless of what this article says, important as I think these articles might be in some ways. It's meaningless to make editorial decisions based on notions like that, I think: it's not reflective of the way in which media and "real life" politics interact. I'm really beyond my remit now, so feel free to yell at me on my talk page or anywhere where I don't have to bother everyone else with my YESAFORUMing. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 19:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I was characterising other comments that didn't include decent reasoning such as mine [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Why would you say it's not a government type?.... Using the term gives us a government type and political ideology all in one word. {{cite web | title=Types of government systems | website=CIA | date=1959-12-01 | url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type/ | access-date=2024-04-30|quote=Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.}}.....{{cite web | title=Which Countries Have Authoritarian Governments in 2024? | website=World Population by Country 2024 (Live) | url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/what-countries-have-authoritarian-government | access-date=2024-04-30}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Good point, I thought this parameter was about systems of government, and not forms of government, although authoritarian falls under both. See [[List of forms of government]]. I do still think it's too simplistic to describe a system of government in a parameter, authoritarian is heavily implied in the status quo. If we could only use one word then yes, but for this parameter no imo. [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 19:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:There seems to be a pretty clear consensus. Close? <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 11:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Given that I went through all this trouble, I was legitimately hoping for at least one actual support or at least an incisive comment. There's a strong or novel form of this argument out there, and I was hoping to see it! [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 11:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
== main template refer Xi as "CCP General Secretary" instead of "President"? == |
|||
:From my point of view (= The Netherlands). China = PRC and Taiwan = ROC. Two seprate states, although each state claims that the other is part of their state. And my personal opinion: I think the USA will be angry and starts a diplomatic style roaring and cursing but are effectively powerless when China send its army out to seize Taiwan... [[User:Night of the Big Wind|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Night of the Big Wind</font></font>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<font color="maroon"><sub><i>talk</i></sub></font>]] 02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I know the former is the office that holds actual power but cmon this is GOVERNMENT section. [[User:Coddlebean|Coddlebean]] ([[User talk:Coddlebean|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The ROC's claims over mainland China don't have any bearing on the fact that the majority of the world, including the ROC's GIO office, uses Taiwan as a name for the country. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 23:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:The Communist Party is enshrined in the country's constitution as such. It's not even a de facto versus de jure distinction in my mind. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: That's because the term 'Taiwan' is used either as a euphemism of the ROC or as an alternative reference to the 'Free Area', by the ROC itself on its relations with the PRC excluding the special administrative regions (i.e. as defined as the 'Mainland Area' in ROC's legislations), and by governments of other countries. Most countries recognise or acknowledge Beijing's position regarding the ROC, and therefore have no choice but to use the term 'Taiwan'. The United States, in particular, is bounded by its legislation on the definition of the word 'Taiwan' (which doesn't cover Kinmin, Wuchiou and Matsu). |
|||
:::: ''But'', all these do not change the fact that 'Taiwan' is only a common name for the ''contemporary'' ROC, with no clear and objective cut off point from which onwards the ROC became Taiwanese and no longer Chinese, and Taiwan refers only to part of the geographical extent of the contemporary ROC. Taiwan isn't (or isn't yet) Austrianised and in many occassions the term 'China' is used to refer to a geographical/cutural region that probably covers Taiwan. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Agreed that Taiwan is a common name for the contemporary ROC, but isn't that standard Wikipedia naming behaviour? We tend to name articles based on what their subject is currently known as, and make mention of what they were previously known as in the article. If the subject's previous incarnation is significant enough it might even be broken out into its own article, such as the [[British Empire]] with [[United Kingdom]], or [[Yugoslavia]] with its various independent nations. This discussion really belongs on the ROC page, but I'll mention this here because the ROC discussion is related to the PRC->China move: an important 'first step' question is what the article on the modern state that occupies the island of Taiwan should be called. It's my view that calling it Taiwan is the appropriate answer. The historical details of the ROC can be worked out independently. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I agree with this. Between 1911-1949, there was a place called Great Britain. It's now called the United Kingdom. Between 1911-1949 there was a place called the Republic of China; it's more complicated for the ROC, but, it's now called Taiwan. All ROC articles need to be consolidated into a Taiwan articled. It's time to decide. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.40.147.78|96.40.147.78]] ([[User talk:96.40.147.78|talk]]) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024 == |
|||
::::::: The Kingdom of Great Britain no longer existed in 1801 when it was succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Republic of China did not become Taiwan in 1949. [[Special:Contributions/42.3.2.237|42.3.2.237]] ([[User talk:42.3.2.237|talk]]) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The comparison with the United Kingdom was to address concerns by some editors that you can't name an article X unless it was always and forever historically known as X, which is incorrect. You're referring instead to the common name issue. There's considerable evidence that has been provided that the common name of the country in control of the island of Taiwan is also called Taiwan. Wikipedia has a long and well-respected tradition of using common names, which is why you'll find the article on the USA at [[United States]] with a redirect from the more official [[United States of America]]. Similarly, the official name of Taiwan may well be [[Republic of China]] but the common name for the contemporary state is [[Taiwan]], including in use by the ROC government itself, and our policy strongly indicates it should exist at that location. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit extended-protected|China|answered=yes}} |
|||
::::::::: The Republic of China is still the same Republic of China apart from the change in its territorial existence. United States is the common name for the United States of America since its founding in 1776. United Kingdom is the common name for both the UKGBI and the UKGBNI, and in modern usage may cover its predecessors too. Taiwan isn't the common name for the Republic of China at least until the 1970s. [[Special:Contributions/42.3.2.237|42.3.2.237]] ([[User talk:42.3.2.237|talk]]) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC) {{spa}} |
|||
Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. [[Special:Contributions/158.223.166.44|158.223.166.44]] ([[User talk:158.223.166.44|talk]]) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::This is very circular arguing, 42.*. This circle consists of the following: 'but we can't call it X because it wasn't always X', 'Here's another example of a country at Y that wasn't always Y', 'but that country is commonly known as Y, X isn't commonly known as X', 'yeah it is, here's evidence', then back to step 1. I've demonstrated A) that ''Taiwan'' does not have to have been in use by the subject forever (eg. [[United Kingdom]]), and B) that it's widely regarded that ''Taiwan'' is the common name for the ROC. You seem to forget the answer to one of those points as soon as you shift focus to the latter, and I'm not convinced that your arguments aren't an attempt to filibuster discussion. As such I won't be replying to your concerns beyond this one. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist state" / "socialist republic" == |
|||
::::::::::: As far as I understand no one calls the period of the Republic of China between 1911/12 and 1972 as Taiwan in English (nor in Chinese), even in publications in the 2000s and 2010s. And even after 1978 in the US, Taiwan is only about 99% of the ROC. [[Special:Contributions/116.48.84.248|116.48.84.248]] ([[User talk:116.48.84.248|talk]]) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:In the infobox, the term "socialist republic" was changed to "socialist state" by, from what I can confirm, [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]]. This edit was not explained in any means. The edit was summarily reverted, before being re-reverted again by another user, who claimed that there had been extensive discussion and consensus on this issue. |
|||
== NC-TW straw poll == |
|||
While it is true that the topic was discussed recently in [[Talk:China/Archive 19#Government type/Form_of_government_in_infobox|January]], the topic did not go anywhere, there was no consensus reached, and I have due reason to believe that these edits were made without consensus or agreement from the rest of the community. The wording of "socialist state" and "socialist republic" imply very different things, which Wikipedia as an information source cannot simply change without consensus. |
|||
:Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea, all of which follow (or are inspired) by Marxist-Leninist organization and which organize themselves similarly to China, are all labeled as "socialist republics". In particular, North Korea, despite being a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, is still labeled as a socialist republic and not a socialist state. This edit was made thus not only without consensus, but against the customs established by other pages. |
|||
I will discard my own biases here, but I believe that it is not biased to say that with Wikipedia's current definition that considering that wikipedia currently labels North Korea, which is by consensus considered to be a totalitarian dictatorship, as a "socialist republic" rather than a "socialist state", it can be considered that China- while by consensus an authoritarian (or even totalitarian country), that China should not be labeled as a "socialist state" but as a "socialist republic". |
|||
:If we are to suggest that the labeling of China's government type should emphasize it being a "state" rather than a republic, then this should not apply solely to China, who is not unique in their form of organization based on Marxism-Leninism, but to Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba as well (as well as North Korea). This however requires a consensus: this requires a discussion, and a proper discussion with a vote and consensus was never reached. I believe that this issue should be solved with a discussion and a vote. I have given my own reasonings as to why I believe the edit should be reverted and China should be described as a "socialist republic" instead of a "socialist state" in the infobox. |
|||
[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: ''Support'' - The discussion in January turned into a debate on "communist state" vs "socialist republic", and no clear consensus was formed. To quote {{u|TucanHolmes}} in that discussion, {{tq|"Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" is decipherable and precise.}} I fully agree with that statement. Like many other socialist countries that exist today, China is a republic; sure, it might be authoritarian, but it's still a republic, not a vague term like 'state'. Similar countries, such as [[Laos]], [[Vietnam]], and [[Cuba]] already use the term "socialist republic" in their articles. Even North Korea, the textbook definition of a dictatorship, is a republic. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 03:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: I would additionally like to ask that, until a consensus has been made, that by default "socialist state" be reverted to "socialist republic" until a consensus has been made. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I personally find the efforts of a few editors to semantically distinguish between "socialist state" and "socialist republic" to be redundant and tiring. I understand the distinction between a "communist state" and a "socialist state" as communists and non-communists have differing understandings of the former (communists are more specific about the meaning of "communist state" as it is the end goal for them, not a current reality), but once you start dissecting the meaning of "republic" and "democracy" and referencing scholars of their time from the 18th century then you've lost me. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 00:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Might I add my comments as well. I believe that change was made by User:Amigao at 18:59 on 2024/04/12, rather than by me, although if further evidence suggests otherwise, I am indeed terribly sorry for such a change. I did not edit this page from Mar 6 (in the early days of my account) until April 22, and I cannot find when I could yage edited the above as is suggested. Nevertheless, Socialist states and Socialist republics are (according to the English Wikipedia) the same thing, as the latter redirects to the former. Regardless, I fully support the change be reverted back to a Socialist republic, until an updated consensus is formed and reached. Cheers. [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]] ([[User talk:Josethewikier|talk]]) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, I mean to add that they are the same thing as per the EN WP, and therefore there should be no reason to prefer one over the other in a Wikipediac sense. Since "republic" seems to be overall a more preferred term by most (including myself), I will indeed support that. I am editing on the iOS app due to having enforced my Wikibreak, and due to my inexperience using the app, I regret any inconveniences I cause. [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]] ([[User talk:Josethewikier|talk]]) 02:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I regret my stream of apologies, explains why I'm taking a wikibreak. 🍁 [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]] ([[User talk:Josethewikier|talk]]) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no preference one way or the other. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"Socialist republic" and "Socialist state" will not "imply very different things" to almost all readers, being functionally identical in any situation where they are not specifically defined for that situation as meaning something different. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I would disagree with this notion. If readers were to look at any other article currently labeled as "socialist republic" (again, such as the articles already mentioned in the starter) Wikipedia may come off as biased in their implication that China is not organized as a republic or that it is somehow organizationally "different" from countries like Vietnam, Laos, and other Marxist-Leninist states when that simply is not the case. It carries implications of bias that Wikipedia has to avoid as a neutral source. It only ceases to "imply very different things" if all countries currently labeled as socialist republics were to be labeled as socialist states, but because they are not; and thus hence there is a set in stone distinction in Wikipedia that Marxist-Leninist states are referred to as socialist republics rather than socialist states, it only seems conclusive to revert the edit made and reverse it to socialist republic. |
|||
::[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think anything in this article suggests China is not a republic. It seems clear from the text that it is. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Then there's no reason for the article to display China as a "socialist state" and it makes no sense for the article to label China as a "socialist state" in the infobox if it is established everywhere else throughout the article that it is a socialist republic or a republic. This again was an unnecessary change and should be reverted. |
|||
::::[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Unitary or federal? == |
|||
A straw poll has been opened on the question of whether [[WP:NC-TW]] represents current consensus and so should remain a current guideline. Opine at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#NC-TW straw poll]]. [[User:Shrigley|Shrigley]] ([[User talk:Shrigley|talk]]) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I think the government form described in the "Government" section of the infobox is absurd. While "Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist state" is true, the land area of PRC may not suitable for an unitary management, because there are some autonomous regions (e.g. [[Inner Mongolia]], [[Xinjiang]]...) and the normal land area of Chinese provinces are comparable (or even larger than) with the [[Federal_subjects_of_Russia|Russian counterparts]]. There also a gap of cultural differences between these provinces (like Xinjiang follows Central Asian culture, Tibet follows Buddhism and Guangdong uses some sorts of Vietnamese traditions...). I didn't even cited SARs. [[User:Kys5g|<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: bold;">Kys<span style="background-color: rgb(50, 0, 129); color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">5</span>g</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Kys5g|<small> talk!</small>]]</sup> 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Is that relevant here, given that you consider the primary topic of this article is the People's Republic of China? [[Special:Contributions/42.3.2.237|42.3.2.237]] ([[User talk:42.3.2.237|talk]]) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)]], of which [[WP:NC-TW]] is a subsection, is relevant to the articles of both countries, yes. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:The PRC is among the most unitary states possible. The devolved local governments are entirely the legal mandate of the national government to create, expand, or abolish. There is no constitutionally enshrined balance of both local and national governments, which is what federalism is.[[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: Why don't they propose to break it off from the Chinese conventions? They don't consider Taiwan to be part of China, no matter what China may mean. [[Special:Contributions/42.3.2.237|42.3.2.237]] ([[User talk:42.3.2.237|talk]]) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC) {{spa}} |
|||
:I think you misunderstand what is meant by "unitary state". Autonomy (which is, in reality, very nominal) of certain regions does not necessarily equate to a federal or devolved structure. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 18:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:50, 20 May 2024
![]() | China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners |
Authoritarian regime
Since china is no less authoritarian than russia and since it also a dictatorship, shouldn't we mention it as such in the info box? 2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion numerous times, feel free to peruse the discussions in the archives. Remsense诉 17:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense I have just checked it, and I see it is you that object the word Authoritarian while other support such use.
- The fact that you don't like this word is not an argument against it and wikipedia in fact use this word in the case of Russia. So there is no reason not to use in the case of China as it is much more Authoritarian than Russia. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. Remsense诉 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion is the most recent one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- We have many many sources,,,,can we get an explanation as to why its not here? Moxy🍁 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, the most recent discussion was in the most recent archive, and it was about another suggestion for this field. These conversations blur together. Remsense诉 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the only relevant one I've had about the infobox on this article. Remsense诉 16:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion is the most recent one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. Remsense诉 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. See prior discussions. I would add that the starting point is that in an infobox, there is little room for attribution, multiple characterizations, or nuance. It is someone analogous to the lead in that it is one of the first things people see in an article. We should avoid contentious labels in infoboxes as a result. When it comes to the government field, we should be matter of fact and concrete in describing how a government is set up, and avoid characterizations and labels. There are so many alternative labels and characterizations for governments we should stick to what is concrete. "Authoritarian" is fine for the body (like it is now) where it can be attributed to sources and explained. It should be avoided for the infobox for the reasons I discuss here also.
- "Dictatorship" is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Basically four political systems in the world and you don't think one of them should be mentioned? Moxy🍁 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Dictatorship is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE." is it? Whether China is authoritarian or autocratic (the two options here) Xi is still a dictator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- China is one of the examples in every academic publication not seeing how it's undue. Authoritarian would be more appropriate than dictatorship.. as a dictatorship could be authoritarian or totalitarian. There is clearly a debate if it's authoritarian regime or totalitarian regime....but the vast majority of sources say authoritarian giving reasons why totalitarian. Moxy🍁 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems we need to clarify what
|government_type=
is actually meant to describe. As my preliminary take, I think it is generally most helpful when it describes the concrete structure of government institutions, as opposed to broad characterizations of the cultural or political effects of said structure. I realize this is the most uphill of battles, but I see no other way forward other than actually trying to define the scope of what we're disagreeing about. Remsense诉 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)- In my view.... as we do with other articles we should list one of the three main types of political systems today: democracies,
- totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes (with hybrid regimes). I'm not seeing a debate within the sources they are pretty clear on this. Think it'd be hard process to find anything that calls them democracy outside of their own publications. Moxy🍁 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? Remsense诉 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. Remsense诉 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- But we aren't talking about hybrid regime, we're talking about authoritarian regime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense China is not a Hybrid regime. It is a full authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. Remsense诉 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? Remsense诉 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- two things need to be mentioned:
- 1) there is a consensuses that China is an authoritarian dictatorship. This is NOT a minority view. and we have many reliable sources to support this:
- https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/18/chinas-authoritarian-regime-an-analysis-of-political-control/
- https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/LimitsofAuthoritarianResilience.pdf
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/defending-the-authoritarian-regime-online-chinas-voluntary-fiftycent-army/1770B27AFA2FCD7AD5E773157A49B934
- 2) Wikipedia does use such information in the info box. Just looking at the info box of Russia shows that such information (authoritarian dictatorship) is mentioned.
- There is no reason not mention it in the case of China. To be honest, I don't get why all the objection of mentioning a well know fact that supported by the sources. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- IP, I intend for this to sound direct but not brusque -- if you don't realize that China-is-a-dictatorship is an extreme minority position among RS, you are better served by starting your Wikipedia contributions in other areas while you continue to learn about this topic.
- Your first link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship.
- Your second link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship.
- Your third link is an abstract of subscription access journal article. The abstract doesn't call China a dictatorship. If you think it's there somewhere in the article, feel free to post a quote.
- For accessible, recent, academic texts (or texts by academics) in English on China's system, I suggest Tsang & Cheung, The Political Thought of Xi Jinping, Oxford University Press (2024), Keyu Jin, The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism, Viking (2023), David Daokai Li, China's World View, W.W. Norton, (2024). Even more accessibly written and also good are Jeremy Garlick's Advantage China (2024) and Kerry Brown's China Incorporated (either 2023 or 2024).
- If you have non-English language proficiencies there are even more opportunities to branch out in sourcing, consistent with WP:GLOBAL. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- the links call China Authoritarian and I have put the link to support the authoritarian claim.
- As for sources that say China is dictatorship:
- https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/decoding-chinese-politics/introduction-black-box-chinese-policy
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591295000300104
- https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256602
- In any case, if your problem is with the word dictatorship but you are ok with Authoritarian, then we can put the word Authoritarian and continue to discuss dictatorship. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Asia Society appears to be an advocacy organization. I think the answer is no; please review prior talk page discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The second source appears to be a bog-standard misunderstanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on the part of the IP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Third source is another advocacy group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, IP’s misunderstandings reflect one of the reasons I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field, and stick to what is more concrete (for example, unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? And so on). Concepts, labels, and political signifiers with less agreed upon meanings belong in the article body where they can be presented according to due weight, be sourced, and attributed as necessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- " I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field," - since we already doing it (haracterizations in the government field) there is no reason for having exception for China. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The second source appears to be a bog-standard misunderstanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on the part of the IP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Asia Society appears to be an advocacy organization. I think the answer is no; please review prior talk page discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Those are in general sources which say that China is authoritarian, but you seem to be presenting them as if they don't? Or are you presenting sources which support authoritarian but not dictatorship? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was responding to the claim of "dictatorship" with some recent high-quality sources that do not use that characterization.
- I don't recall whether these do or do not use the "authoritarian" characterization, with one exception - I am confident that Tsang & Cheung do use it. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tsang, Steve; Cheung, Olivia (2022-01-02). "Has Xi Jinping made China's political system more resilient and enduring?". Third World Quarterly. 43 (1): 225–243. doi:10.1080/01436597.2021.2000857. ISSN 0143-6597. Moxy🍁 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe there is a middle ground here, what about adding authoritarian to the lead but keeping the infobox the same? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind mentioning prominently that the government is characterized as authoritarian, that's obviously NPOV to me. My concern is having a concrete scope for what the
|government_type=
parameter is meant to describe. Remsense诉 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. Remsense诉 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah the way I look at it we have the long version at Government of China, the medium version in the body, the short version in the lead, and the short short version in the infobox. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thumbsup! Moxy🍁 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. Remsense诉 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense but it is part of what |government_type= parameter is meant to describe ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for
{{Infobox country}}
. Remsense诉 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for
- Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, in the lead but not in the infobox makes sense from my perspective as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- it should be in the infobox as well. it is important information and there is a consensus that China is an authoritarian country. so no reason to ommit this information. ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- except what infoboxes are for and the information they are designed to communicate. where should it go? my entire point is that "authoritarian" is not a government type. Remsense诉 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, for a label as controversial as "authoritarian" to be put in the infobox, it would not only need to be almost ubiquitous in reliable sources but also directly related to the system of governance. For example, China cracking down on a protest might be labeled "authoritarian", but that doesn't make such a label applicable in the infobox. Such aspersions should be reserved for the lead or later in the article. 296cherry (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not controversial at all...its the example used in all of society and is somthing China is proud about. Moxy🍁 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, you repeat the claim that authoritarian characterization doesn't belong the info box while ignoring of the fact that is part of the info box of other countries like Russia for example (but not only).
- I faild to see how can we progress in such discussion. can you address the fact that it is part of info box of other countries and as such it should be part of the info box of China? ArmorredKnight (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm not ignoring that, I'm just aware that it doesn't matter: "other stuff exists" is explicitly not a justification in itself for any content being or not being in any given article. I don't think it should be in Russia's infobox either, but I haven't edited that article. But, if there's no overarching editorial policy, it doesn't matter that other editors have done things I disagree with to other articles. You have to make some case for why it's justified on its own merits, e.g. that "authoritarian" is describing a government type the same way "monarchy" or "federal state" is. You have not remotely attempted to do so. Remsense诉 09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- yes, it does matter that in other wikipedia articles it is included in the info box. This is because wikipedia should be consistent.
- And if it is included in other articles, then it means that the de facto policy is to include such infomation. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't matter, and your understanding of basic site norms and policy like I've linked above is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. I could make the reverse argument that since it's not on this article, therefore that's policy and therefore it shouldn't be on Russia either, and it'd be exactly as inane of an argument. Remsense诉 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, no! you are missing the point. I am not saying it shoulod be included in this article because it is included in the article about Russia. I am saying it should be included here because it is characterization of the china regime.
- You are saying that such info should not be included in the info box according to wikipedia guide line. I am saying that if there were such guide line that it would not have been included in the russian article. Therefor there are no such guideline. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- And you have not made any argument that it is appropriate as a government type in the way that "monarchy", "unitary state" etc. are other than "Russia has it". Remsense诉 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, such a label being included in Russia's infobox is NOT a reason to have it in China's! For one, we can easily reverse your idea and instead say that, since China doesn't have the word "authoritarian" in its government type, then NO article should have it. Secondly, Russia and China are different countries and their situations are different. Third, Wikipedia operates by community guidelines, not what random editors personally think should be mandated on all articles. 296cherry (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't matter, and your understanding of basic site norms and policy like I've linked above is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. I could make the reverse argument that since it's not on this article, therefore that's policy and therefore it shouldn't be on Russia either, and it'd be exactly as inane of an argument. Remsense诉 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm not ignoring that, I'm just aware that it doesn't matter: "other stuff exists" is explicitly not a justification in itself for any content being or not being in any given article. I don't think it should be in Russia's infobox either, but I haven't edited that article. But, if there's no overarching editorial policy, it doesn't matter that other editors have done things I disagree with to other articles. You have to make some case for why it's justified on its own merits, e.g. that "authoritarian" is describing a government type the same way "monarchy" or "federal state" is. You have not remotely attempted to do so. Remsense诉 09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, for a label as controversial as "authoritarian" to be put in the infobox, it would not only need to be almost ubiquitous in reliable sources but also directly related to the system of governance. For example, China cracking down on a protest might be labeled "authoritarian", but that doesn't make such a label applicable in the infobox. Such aspersions should be reserved for the lead or later in the article. 296cherry (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- except what infoboxes are for and the information they are designed to communicate. where should it go? my entire point is that "authoritarian" is not a government type. Remsense诉 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- it should be in the infobox as well. it is important information and there is a consensus that China is an authoritarian country. so no reason to ommit this information. ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind mentioning prominently that the government is characterized as authoritarian, that's obviously NPOV to me. My concern is having a concrete scope for what the
- I've started a RfC below.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 11:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- @CanonNi, why is the vote mention in the specific article of China and not in general discussion about infobox? 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense has a great explanation in the RfC section.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense has a great explanation in the RfC section.
- @CanonNi, why is the vote mention in the specific article of China and not in general discussion about infobox? 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The key consideration (from my perspective) is that Russia's constitution is designed to function as a multi-party electoral democracy, but instead, one individual has consolidated power and suppressed opposition. China doesn't have that, so mentioning the de jure form of government is enough. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC on "authoritarian"
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Should the infobox contain "Authoritarian" in the government type parameter? '''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 11:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion – in short, it's not a government type. It does not correspond to any concrete aspect of a government's structure in the way that monarchy, federal, one-party etc. do—those being terms that are offered as examples on
{{Infobox country}}
and tend to be used for this parameter. There's a reason for that. Instead, "authoritarian" is a higher-level characterization of the political culture effected by a given government in practice, which is inherently steeped in historical context and not very correlated to the dry facts of structure. Not only could such a culture result from many different government types, the nature of what the term describes is simply less well defined. It's inappropriate to treat it like a data point as opposed to a higher-level analysis, which is outside the scope of the kind of parametrizable data that infoboxes are able to effectively communicate. If something requires further nuance or a history lesson to understand what it means beyond pastiche, it's probably not suited for an infobox. Such a characterization of a government deserves adequate description per WP:NPOV—and in this case, it requires a prominent description in the article's body, but it's simply not data for the infobox to list alongside a country's GDP or surface area. - Remsense诉 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Inclusion - for the government field of the infobox, we should strive for concrete details. We should avoid characterizations and labels, especially contentious ones. Characterizations are more appropriate for the article body, where they can be explained, addressed according to their due weight, and attributed as necessary. The infobox should address the form of government in a concrete, non-controversial, and direct way --- is a country unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? "Fuzzy" labels should be avoided. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think such vore should be general and not specificly related to this article. We should have a general vote for the info box in general discussion. not in China article discussion. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that we use consensus, not voting.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- what do you mean by consensus?
- That if one is obejct all other in favour it wiil be rejected? 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:CONSENSUS for explanation as to how editors make these kinds of decisions. Remsense诉 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would be a lot harder for the case for inclusion I reckon, because on top of demonstrating that "authoritarian" is a government type, one would likely be arguing that it's a type equally applicable to some rather distinct governments. That would seem to highlight the issues with its inclusion whatsoever. Remsense诉 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that we use consensus, not voting.
- I suggest to move the vore to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_country as it should be a general question and not something specific to China. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a vote. This is a discussion in order to reach consensus.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 13:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- The discussion should be general in order to remove bias. If it will be about china specific, people that love/hate China will be influnce by that feeling.
- The discussion should be in general and for all countries. There is nothing special about China in this regard that demand special rule. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue the opposite. Each country has a different type of government and discussions like this should only involve individual countries.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- they have different type of goverment. that is true. no argue about this. But the question whether to include specific charctaristic of a goverment should be a general and non bias question. not a different criteria for one country and a different criteria for anther. Unless of course there is a special case. and feel free to argue why China is a special case in that regard. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- What bias? This talk page is the most likely page to find people who are familiar with details of this particular situation, as with any other country. No one else has expressed the same worry that this issue must be considered for every country at once, so I am curious if you mean anything else by "bias" here. Remsense诉 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue the opposite. Each country has a different type of government and discussions like this should only involve individual countries.
- Again, this is not a vote. This is a discussion in order to reach consensus.
- Oppose - Authoritarian is not a valid label for a governmental system unless it is widely agreed upon by sources that such a label is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to the country's system of government. AKA: broad claims of China being authoritarian do not substantiate inclusion of that word in the infobox; instead, it should be in the lead or elsewhere in the article.
- Also, arguments along the lines of "Russia has that label so China should too" fail the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS litmus test because the inclusion of that label in the Russia article wasn't based on any policy in the first place. 296cherry (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also I concur with Remsense's opinion. 296cherry (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as far too simplistic to put in an infobox. Frankly all government is de-facto authoritarian in that it establishes governmentality as a seat of authority which it enforces. It's a useless word that only basically establishes that Wikipedia sees China as an enemy - not exactly neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- that is not the meaning of authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Authoritarian" is a description of a style of governance, not a defined system of government. Furthermore, it implies at least some degree of political oppression without a proper discussion, and therefore violates WP:NPOV. "Unitary one-party state" is far better. Any accusations or evidence of authoritarianism/totalitarianism should be carefully treated in the text of the article itself. Ships & Space(Edits) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose -
Authoritarian is not a valid label for a governmental system
per others. And apart from the 'Russia' argument being an OTHERSTUFF one, Russia actually has "under an authoritarian dictatorship", not simply the adjective 'authoritarian'. Dictatorship is a system of government, not simply a disapproving adjective like 'authoritarian' - which is almost certainly true of PRC, but is not their type of government. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) - Oppose. I concur with the reasoning of others. The current wording in the infobox is adequate and concrete. The description "authoritarian" is important to discuss in the article, but it is more of a characterization than a datapoint. I think inclusion of the term would be outside of the scope of the infobox. HenryMP02 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and on the side, in regards to the Russia government infobox that clearly violates wp:npov it should be corrected to reflect the actual government of Russia, not state as fact the select opinions of a handful of political pundits. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the status quo is more than sufficient, authoritarian is too simplistic and isn’t a government type. I don’t think an expert on Chinese society and politics would use that term. In short, it seems like an exonym. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Disappoint to see lots of guesswork in these replies. Moxy🍁 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate? Remsense诉 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've come across a topic that's more easily sourced than this..... In fact it seems to be the de facto example used Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Moxy🍁 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, well—yes. Just because I don't find the term enlightening doesn't mean it doesn't appear in every other book about 20th century China that I crack open. I see what you mean. Remsense诉 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is one of the downfalls of the Wikipedia system.....the vast majority of responses are based on opinions rather than actually searching for academic sourcing. Luckily we are only dealing with the info box here thus the usage of the term with accompanying sources throughout this article and every other article on this topic will be there to educate our readers. Moxy🍁 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luckily, those in the habit of closing or effectuating RfCs et al. usually find it pretty easy to separate wheat from chaff. ...I almost think ChatGPT could get the answer right 70% of the time or so. Remsense诉 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lol your 100% right..... Chatbot even gives us a source Tang, Wenfang (2016). Populist Authoritarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-020578-4....authoritarianism in China is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), limited political freedom, censorship, and strict control over civil society. The CCP maintains its authority through a combination of political repression, surveillance, and propaganda. While economic reforms have brought about significant social changes, the political system remains tightly controlled by the party leadership...... Jesus would be easy to write articles with these things..... I see why there's a concern lately. Moxy🍁 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm veering off-topic but my assessment from everything I've seen is it's largely just a way to generate spam and anything else that doesn't require editorial or creative insight 60–90% faster than before. The issue seems one of increased volume, as opposed to a scary paradigm shift that will have to make us rethink the nature of writing or art or whatever. Remsense诉 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- My comment was wrong, but you're confusing RfCs for votes, when they're about building consensus. My comment/reasoning was what should be focussed on, not my 'vote'. And my reasoning was bad so it should be ignored.
- Regardless of its veracity, authoritarian isn't a government type and shouldn't be included in this parameter. I think the reason people have sentiment against this RfC is because there's noticeably a lot of anti-China media atm and people don't want to be dragged into another hate filled cold war. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whether or not I agree with your sociopolitical sketch, I'm going to protest such a characterization of my potential reasoning for stalwart opposition. The Chinese government will be fine regardless of what this article says, important as I think these articles might be in some ways. It's meaningless to make editorial decisions based on notions like that, I think: it's not reflective of the way in which media and "real life" politics interact. I'm really beyond my remit now, so feel free to yell at me on my talk page or anywhere where I don't have to bother everyone else with my YESAFORUMing. Remsense诉 19:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was characterising other comments that didn't include decent reasoning such as mine Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you say it's not a government type?.... Using the term gives us a government type and political ideology all in one word. "Types of government systems". CIA. 1959-12-01. Retrieved 2024-04-30.
Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.
....."Which Countries Have Authoritarian Governments in 2024?". World Population by Country 2024 (Live). Retrieved 2024-04-30. Moxy🍁 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- Good point, I thought this parameter was about systems of government, and not forms of government, although authoritarian falls under both. See List of forms of government. I do still think it's too simplistic to describe a system of government in a parameter, authoritarian is heavily implied in the status quo. If we could only use one word then yes, but for this parameter no imo. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whether or not I agree with your sociopolitical sketch, I'm going to protest such a characterization of my potential reasoning for stalwart opposition. The Chinese government will be fine regardless of what this article says, important as I think these articles might be in some ways. It's meaningless to make editorial decisions based on notions like that, I think: it's not reflective of the way in which media and "real life" politics interact. I'm really beyond my remit now, so feel free to yell at me on my talk page or anywhere where I don't have to bother everyone else with my YESAFORUMing. Remsense诉 19:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lol your 100% right..... Chatbot even gives us a source Tang, Wenfang (2016). Populist Authoritarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-020578-4....authoritarianism in China is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), limited political freedom, censorship, and strict control over civil society. The CCP maintains its authority through a combination of political repression, surveillance, and propaganda. While economic reforms have brought about significant social changes, the political system remains tightly controlled by the party leadership...... Jesus would be easy to write articles with these things..... I see why there's a concern lately. Moxy🍁 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luckily, those in the habit of closing or effectuating RfCs et al. usually find it pretty easy to separate wheat from chaff. ...I almost think ChatGPT could get the answer right 70% of the time or so. Remsense诉 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is one of the downfalls of the Wikipedia system.....the vast majority of responses are based on opinions rather than actually searching for academic sourcing. Luckily we are only dealing with the info box here thus the usage of the term with accompanying sources throughout this article and every other article on this topic will be there to educate our readers. Moxy🍁 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, well—yes. Just because I don't find the term enlightening doesn't mean it doesn't appear in every other book about 20th century China that I crack open. I see what you mean. Remsense诉 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've come across a topic that's more easily sourced than this..... In fact it seems to be the de facto example used Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Moxy🍁 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate? Remsense诉 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Disappoint to see lots of guesswork in these replies. Moxy🍁 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a pretty clear consensus. Close?
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
main template refer Xi as "CCP General Secretary" instead of "President"?
I know the former is the office that holds actual power but cmon this is GOVERNMENT section. Coddlebean (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Communist Party is enshrined in the country's constitution as such. It's not even a de facto versus de jure distinction in my mind. Remsense诉 10:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. 158.223.166.44 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist state" / "socialist republic"
- In the infobox, the term "socialist republic" was changed to "socialist state" by, from what I can confirm, Josethewikier. This edit was not explained in any means. The edit was summarily reverted, before being re-reverted again by another user, who claimed that there had been extensive discussion and consensus on this issue.
While it is true that the topic was discussed recently in January, the topic did not go anywhere, there was no consensus reached, and I have due reason to believe that these edits were made without consensus or agreement from the rest of the community. The wording of "socialist state" and "socialist republic" imply very different things, which Wikipedia as an information source cannot simply change without consensus.
- Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea, all of which follow (or are inspired) by Marxist-Leninist organization and which organize themselves similarly to China, are all labeled as "socialist republics". In particular, North Korea, despite being a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, is still labeled as a socialist republic and not a socialist state. This edit was made thus not only without consensus, but against the customs established by other pages.
I will discard my own biases here, but I believe that it is not biased to say that with Wikipedia's current definition that considering that wikipedia currently labels North Korea, which is by consensus considered to be a totalitarian dictatorship, as a "socialist republic" rather than a "socialist state", it can be considered that China- while by consensus an authoritarian (or even totalitarian country), that China should not be labeled as a "socialist state" but as a "socialist republic".
- If we are to suggest that the labeling of China's government type should emphasize it being a "state" rather than a republic, then this should not apply solely to China, who is not unique in their form of organization based on Marxism-Leninism, but to Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba as well (as well as North Korea). This however requires a consensus: this requires a discussion, and a proper discussion with a vote and consensus was never reached. I believe that this issue should be solved with a discussion and a vote. I have given my own reasonings as to why I believe the edit should be reverted and China should be described as a "socialist republic" instead of a "socialist state" in the infobox.
TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support - The discussion in January turned into a debate on "communist state" vs "socialist republic", and no clear consensus was formed. To quote TucanHolmes in that discussion,
"Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" is decipherable and precise.
I fully agree with that statement. Like many other socialist countries that exist today, China is a republic; sure, it might be authoritarian, but it's still a republic, not a vague term like 'state'. Similar countries, such as Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba already use the term "socialist republic" in their articles. Even North Korea, the textbook definition of a dictatorship, is a republic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)- I would additionally like to ask that, until a consensus has been made, that by default "socialist state" be reverted to "socialist republic" until a consensus has been made. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I personally find the efforts of a few editors to semantically distinguish between "socialist state" and "socialist republic" to be redundant and tiring. I understand the distinction between a "communist state" and a "socialist state" as communists and non-communists have differing understandings of the former (communists are more specific about the meaning of "communist state" as it is the end goal for them, not a current reality), but once you start dissecting the meaning of "republic" and "democracy" and referencing scholars of their time from the 18th century then you've lost me. Yue🌙 00:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Might I add my comments as well. I believe that change was made by User:Amigao at 18:59 on 2024/04/12, rather than by me, although if further evidence suggests otherwise, I am indeed terribly sorry for such a change. I did not edit this page from Mar 6 (in the early days of my account) until April 22, and I cannot find when I could yage edited the above as is suggested. Nevertheless, Socialist states and Socialist republics are (according to the English Wikipedia) the same thing, as the latter redirects to the former. Regardless, I fully support the change be reverted back to a Socialist republic, until an updated consensus is formed and reached. Cheers. Josethewikier (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean to add that they are the same thing as per the EN WP, and therefore there should be no reason to prefer one over the other in a Wikipediac sense. Since "republic" seems to be overall a more preferred term by most (including myself), I will indeed support that. I am editing on the iOS app due to having enforced my Wikibreak, and due to my inexperience using the app, I regret any inconveniences I cause. Josethewikier (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I regret my stream of apologies, explains why I'm taking a wikibreak. 🍁 Josethewikier (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no preference one way or the other. Remsense诉 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Socialist republic" and "Socialist state" will not "imply very different things" to almost all readers, being functionally identical in any situation where they are not specifically defined for that situation as meaning something different. CMD (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would disagree with this notion. If readers were to look at any other article currently labeled as "socialist republic" (again, such as the articles already mentioned in the starter) Wikipedia may come off as biased in their implication that China is not organized as a republic or that it is somehow organizationally "different" from countries like Vietnam, Laos, and other Marxist-Leninist states when that simply is not the case. It carries implications of bias that Wikipedia has to avoid as a neutral source. It only ceases to "imply very different things" if all countries currently labeled as socialist republics were to be labeled as socialist states, but because they are not; and thus hence there is a set in stone distinction in Wikipedia that Marxist-Leninist states are referred to as socialist republics rather than socialist states, it only seems conclusive to revert the edit made and reverse it to socialist republic.
- TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think anything in this article suggests China is not a republic. It seems clear from the text that it is. CMD (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then there's no reason for the article to display China as a "socialist state" and it makes no sense for the article to label China as a "socialist state" in the infobox if it is established everywhere else throughout the article that it is a socialist republic or a republic. This again was an unnecessary change and should be reverted.
- TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think anything in this article suggests China is not a republic. It seems clear from the text that it is. CMD (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Unitary or federal?
I think the government form described in the "Government" section of the infobox is absurd. While "Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist state" is true, the land area of PRC may not suitable for an unitary management, because there are some autonomous regions (e.g. Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang...) and the normal land area of Chinese provinces are comparable (or even larger than) with the Russian counterparts. There also a gap of cultural differences between these provinces (like Xinjiang follows Central Asian culture, Tibet follows Buddhism and Guangdong uses some sorts of Vietnamese traditions...). I didn't even cited SARs. Kys5g talk! 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The PRC is among the most unitary states possible. The devolved local governments are entirely the legal mandate of the national government to create, expand, or abolish. There is no constitutionally enshrined balance of both local and national governments, which is what federalism is.Remsense诉 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand what is meant by "unitary state". Autonomy (which is, in reality, very nominal) of certain regions does not necessarily equate to a federal or devolved structure. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)