Talk:China

Other archives
China 1, China 2, China 3, China 4, China 5, China 6

Red China

China was for many years known to many people in the west as Red China, it is therefore legitimate to put this appelation in a list of names by which the country is known. If you do not like the name, that simple fact does not give you sufficient cause to remove the name from the article, as Wikipedia is about cataloguing information, not advcancing political interests. If it is removed, I will continue replacing it until such time that it no longer is subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 (talk • contribs)

"Red China" is not used anymore so I think it's giving it undue weight to put it in the first sentence of the lead (especially when we don't mention more common names such as "Communist China"). Note that the name "Red China" is mentioned in the History section though so no information has been lost. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that constant and repeated replacement of a reverted edit can be considered as a WP:POINT, and may warrant a block. There is no consensus among the larger group of editors to have "Red China" emplaced towards the front, as if it were an official name or neutrally used name. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you undue weight *shakes fist* GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think both of you have a point, China was called that name at one time, but it has fallen out of favor. To come to a compromise position, you might want to add "Red China" to a list of names that the PRC was historically known as in the West, but than make note that since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms, the PRC is now more commonly called "Mainland China" or simply "China".--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You will see that I have juxtaposed my idea in the current revision. Feel free to respond and or edit if you feel this is a misrepresentation.--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic names? There's already an article entirely dedicated to that: Names of China. Many many years ago, in Wikipedia infancy, it was decided that since China had too many names, associated terms and synonyms that listing them all in a China or PRC article was too messy, but excluding them would have been out of the question, something must be done. So they came up with the ingenious idea of giving the names and etymology their own article. As you can see, the term Red China has already been listed under Names of China#People's Republic of China as an informal name used by "many in the West during the Cold War". Since the Names of China article is linked from the PRC article in the infobox, there is no need to add additional information here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for my ignorance of there being a seperate article on names of China-that works even better--Gniniv (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that relevant anymore, so question its inclusion. Out of interest, was the term used outside the U.S.? How about in languages other than English? This seems like a very US-centric term.Ndriley97 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

China

I read on other pages on Wikpedia that "The PRC is the successor to the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China on the mainland." Is this NPOV? Republic of China claims itself to be the successor to the Qing and ruler of the Mainland but... caveat is that "successor" directly implies exercising sovereignty over the piece of land. So is this NPOV?Phead128 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not neutral because indeed the ROC still officially claims the mainland and, more importantly, it still exists. If we write that the PRC is the successor of the ROC, we are taking the PRC's POV that the ROC is not a legitimate government and doesn't officially exist. I think it's better to simply describe the facts (the Qing were overthrown, the ROC lost the war, the PRC took over the mainland, etc.) rather than including oversimplified descriptions. Laurent (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to better clarify: It's actually the ROC and PRC that are both successor to the Qing dynasty. More specifically, PRC then succeeded ROC on the mainland, though ROC still exists in the self-administrative state of Taiwan. Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, PRC has succeeded ROC on the mainland, but it gives undue weight to PRC's position, while relegating ROC's position to a lower status, which is not neutral. Phead128 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

However, is it not true that the PRC is the successor of Qing/ROC on the Mainland? ROC may have territorial claims, but indeed, PRC is administrating the mainland. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error

The statement "Other factors include ... that some areas unofficially allow a second child if the first is not a male but not otherwise." in the population analysis is false, or at least unclear in context. Allowing a second child if the first is not male will not impact the ratio of males to females in a population This is an unintuitive bit of basic probability. Observe:

- Assume that boys are born at a rate B%, and girls at a rate G% if only natural causes for selection of sex are taken into account. - B% of all first children will be male, and G% female, thus, if the one child policy were strictly enforced, the ratio of males to females will be B/G.

- Now, keeping the probabilities the same (i.e. that a particular given child will have B% chance of being born male, and G% of being born female), assume that any family whose first child is female may have one more child. - B% of all second children are male, and G% of all second children are female. - Assume there are F first children born. Then there are B*F boys, and G*F girls who are first children. - Assume every family who had a girl has a second child. Then there are G*F second children. B*G*F of them are boys, and G*G*F are girls. - There are thus B*F + B*G*F boys, and G*F + G*G*F girls in the population all told. - The total proportion of males to females in the population will be: (B*F + B*G*F)/(G*F + G*G*F)

- (B*F + B*G*F)/(G*F + G*G*F) = (F*(B + B*G))/(F*(G + G*G)) //factor out the F from both the numerator and denominator

                              = (F/F) * (B + B*G)/(G + G*G)               // Pull the F's out into a separate ratio
                              = (B + B*G) / (G + G*G)                     // F/F = 1, F's cancel out                  
                              = (B*(1 + G))/(G * (1 + G))                 // Factor out B from the numerator and G from the denominator
                              = B/G * ( (1 + G)/(1 + G) )                 // Pull the B and G out into a separate ratio
                              = B/G * 1                                   // (1 + G)/(1 + G) = 1
                              = B/G                                       

which is that same ratio found under a strict enforcement of the one child policy.

- Thus, allowing an additional child if the first child is female will not change the ratios of males to females in the population at all, independent of what rates males and females are born at.

I suggest either rephrasing the population section to note that the bending of the one child policy will _not_ change the population ratio, although it is commonly though to have an effect, or omitting mention of it entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.122.8 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm how about providing some factual numbers together with credible sources instead? Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understood the basics correctly

• On average circumstances the natural ratio is more or less 1 girl to 1 boy.
• China has a one child policy.
• Because of cultural values boys are considered more valuable (they are expected to take care of their parents eventually while girls will take care of their husbands' parents).
• Some provinces are closing their eyes to the one child policy provided the couple already had a girl (the provincial authorities allow a second child IF the first is a girl).
• This does not solve the imbalance, because almost all the girls get a little brother (while most first-born boys don't get any sister at all).
• 1: In easy numbers: 100 couples have a child: 50 will be girls and 50 will be boys (assuming that they don't cheat through selective abortions).
• 2: The 50 couples which got a girl go the eyes-closing provinces to have a second child.
• 3: In theory half of these 50 couples get a boy and half get yet another girl.
• 4: In theory the grand total would be 75 girls against 75 boys. However what truly happens is that the majority of the "50 couples which got a girl" are simply going to cheat (i.e.: are going to abort the girls because they really want boys).
• 5: The final result is 50 girls and 100 boys (just an example, nothing more).
• Even then it is somewhat better than the 100 couples killing most girls in step 1 (which would in theory lead to something like 30 girls to 70 boys - just an example, nothing more). At least this way the survival of the 50 first-born girls is more or less assured. Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we would need a good source to mention these calculations in the article. Most reliable sources agree that the one-child policy "worked" in the sense that it indeed reduced the number of children but at the cost of an aging population and a major gender imbalance. Laurent (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Original poster person here again. To clarify, I agree that the 1 child policy _did_ cause a gender imbalance to occur. The issue is that the article seems to imply it occurred as a result of a second child being allowed only if a girl was born first in some states, as though that would make any difference on its own. In fact, that makes no difference at all, as shown in detail in a mathematical proof above, or more concisely in the fact that the genders' of siblings are uncorrelated. A source for this should not be necessary, since it's sub-high school mathematics, and thus common knowledge.

That said, it's fairly well established that there _are_ more boys than girls in China. The reason isn't that people are sometimes allowed a second child if the first is female. The reason is that parents game the system, and may preferentially game it if they've already tried and failed to produce a boy once by obtaining gender identification and abortions. The article should reflect this, rather than suggesting (incorrectly or ambiguously ) that the cause of the difference is the bending of the rules itself, instead of the actions of parents preferentially aborting female fetuses, especially on their second try.76.11.122.8 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Metadata?

Do we really need to say that the article is about the People's Republic of China? The People's Republic of China is a fairly large country - more than one out of five people on the planet live there. You'd think the rest of us could figure out that the article is about their country. Do people on the street talk about "the People's Republic of China" - no, they talk about China. Has anyone considered merging the China and People's Republic of China articles together? Seems obvious to do so. Synesthetic (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem being that there are Two Chinas. To honor NPOV under these circumstances, the solution devised was to have separate articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there just China and Taiwan, by their common names? 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Synesthetic (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Two Chinas page has Taiwan before China. Seems like most people would mean China, and not Taiwan, when they say China. If anything, China has many more people than Taiwan. It seems that would give it preference. Heck, it's not even alphabetical on the Two Chinas page. I'm not pro-China or anything, but it looks like there is some subtle stuff going on here on Wikipedia. Divide and conquer?  :-) Synesthetic (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommended reading: Talk:People's_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Merger_proposal and prior similar proposals in the talkpage archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The people opposing may have won back in September. Most of the people who voted were probably from America. I bet China would get the "China" article on the Chinese "Wikipedia", wherever that may be. Synesthetic (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be here, and in point of fact, no; said article parallels the current English setup and is not about the PRC. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cybercobra, that there is the Chinese-language Wikipedia, not the the Chinese "Wikipedia". Saying that site is the Chinese equivalent of "Wikipedia" is like saying Baidu and Google China are pretty much the same thing. Of course Google got kicked out of China. Baidu is still there for some reason. Strangely, I'm starting to see why China may want to filter some internet content. Synesthetic (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... the closest thing to a "Chinese Wikipedia" would be Baidu Baike: 中华人民共和国 - 百度百科 notice how the scenario you have predicted is not the case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Chinese but it appears that the first link on that site when searching for China is to the PRC - there's also one to the porcelain "China". I don't see one to Taiwan nearby - porcelain beats Taiwan for second place. As predicted, no?  :-)

[| China refers to PRC first here and porcelain second] Synesthetic (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that even Baidu Baike, a mainland China encyclopedia, separates PRC from ROC. It lists PRC as the country, and it lists ROC (naturally, due to POV, being a mainland website) as a historic state as well as a "disputed regime that is not internationally recognised"; additionally, there is no page regarding any "Taiwan" political state. PRC and ROC are both listed, as opposed to a China/Taiwan type system. Hence, your claim of PRC=China and ROC=Taiwan on a "Chinese Wikipedia" isn't really that supported in concrete, so to speak. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Your prior statement was vague, hence my misinterpretation. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. I still think China should get the China article. I guess we can agree to disagree. When will it be up for re-vote? I've got 1.3 billion people who might be interested.  :-) Synesthetic (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people here have missed the point. The PRC supports 2 Chinas because that implies that Taiwan will eventually be "reunited" with China. It is the Taiwanese nationalist position that there is one China plus an independent Taiwan. Why the PRC supports the 2 China position is clear. Why Wikipedia feels bound to endorse it (given that since 1895 Taiwan has been part of China for only about 3 years) is a mystery to me.Dejvid (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The PRC explicitly has the One-China Policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes. That was careless of me. You are right. However, PRC insists that Taiwan continues to claim to be the government of all China - hence that currently there exists de-facto two states that are China even if they are part of one "true" China. For Taiwan to renounce its claim to the mainland would be deemed a hostile act by the PRC as it would be in effect a Declaration of Independence. Respecting the PRC position leads to the current wiki split. While the PRC would probably be happy with a single China article so long as it treated Taiwan as a province of that China that would be so POV to be off the scale.Dejvid (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unclear statistic

I yanked this from the article:

According to a survey titled "Top 10 political figures in Mainland China and Taiwan" conducted in Hong Kong, approximately 1000 participants were given a list of 10 well-known political leaders in Mainland China and Taiwan. Mainland leaders (such as Zhu Rongji, Wen Jiabao and Hu Jintao) have received higher rating than leaders in Taiwan (such as Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeou and Lien Chan).

The article is about the PRC, not about Taiwan. Statistics that mix the two can be misleading particularly if it is not clear how the sample was collected. Was it proportional (50 Chinese for every 1 Taiwanese), split equally between the two countries (500 Chinese and 500 Taiwanese). The source provided doesn't say. As such it is entirely unclear what we are to make of the results of the survey. Readin (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are other questionable errors, it says under the economy section the yuan is de-pegged from the dollar, this did happen in 2005 but it was re pegged in late 2008 following the global financial crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.74.238 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of 1961-1966 history

This section is to complain not only about the lack of 1961-1966 history on this article, but many other, including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, related articles as well (even at the Deng Xiaoping. at most Wikipedia says that the two embarked on reformist practices without elaborating further. --华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you happen to be knowledgeable about that period of history, you are highly encouraged to be bold and improve the sections/pages yourself. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article on Liu Shaoqi happens to have more information on his actions as president. I haven't read it in detail, but what I will translate what I do find useful and add it to at least the English Wikipedia's equivalent article. My complaint is not specifically to the lack of 1961-1966 (between end of Great Leap Forward and the beginning of the Cultural Revolution) history here, but on all of English Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will add one sentence to this article to explain this brief epoch. Anything more here, I believe, will be out of proportion to the rest of what is covered in that section. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There's a discussion on the Frigate article which users here might be interested in. 88.106.100.225 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

...because...? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

China redirect target

I searched China and it doesn't redirect here! This is wrong. People who search for China are going to be looking for the current Chinese state. Relistically speaking, few people are going to mean Republic of China if they search China. Even if someone does search for Republic of China, it is most likely they are going to be looking for the historical Chinese state from 1912 to 1949 not Taiwan. I don't think this is NPOV.174.91.49.165 (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

However consensus does not state that this is "wrong". Have a quick browse through the talk archives; this has been brought up many times, and has been rejected many times. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Relistically (sic) speaking, few people are going to mean Republic of China if they search China" - implying they won't. I for one know of many Chinese who know the difference between the two Chinas, and might want to search for one or the other. "most likely they are going to be looking for the historical Chinese state from 1912 to 1949 not Taiwan" - true in 99% of cases, however that is also implying that the Republic of China article is all about Taiwan and has nothing to do with the historical state. Have a good read through the article, especially the "History" section. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.252.254.1, 31 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Just letting you know that the article on the People's Republic of China has an error pertaining to its GDP. The article states numbers in trillions, where it should be billions of dollars. Used the same source to verify this as the article currently provides:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=71&pr.y=8

AKA

|GDP_nominal = $5,296 trillion |GDP_PPP = $9,711 trillion

SHOULD BE:

|GDP_nominal = $5,296 billion |GDP_PPP = $9,711 billion

128.252.254.1 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Someone fscked up the punctuation apparently. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Change from china.org.cn to cntv.cn on the government website

Please change china.org.cn to cntv.cn as CNTV has videos and it also links to china.org.cn and other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B694kp8d (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

nominal GDP

According to Bloomberg, China's nominal GDP has surpassed that of Japan.

• 16 August 2010, China Overtakes Japan as World's Second-Biggest Economy, Bloomberg

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Blumberg says China did last quarter. However, it also says "Japan remained bigger in the first half of 2010". No one denies that China will surpass Japan in the full year 2010. It is a bit hasty to change the order. Please wait for the full year 2010 result comes out. I reverted the change to the article of Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is orientating its nominal GDP ranking on an annual basis issued by the IMF. The 2010 GDP figures for the PRC will be published in April 2011. Before that, China is regarded the 3rd largest economy, no matter what. If this article wants to behave in an unreliable premature state, fine, otherwise it should correct the facts as soon as possible.

This article

requires moar pictures of modern-day China with all its magnificent skyscrapers, plazas and airports and less of that human rights/free tibet/eastern beauty stereotypical Western bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

btw, USA is the prison country #1 in the world https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate, yet I don't see any human rights section in it's article, a major hypocrisy. Also, the order of sections is really fucked-up. So either fix it or lift editing restrictions.

Other archives
China 1, China 2, China 3, China 4, China 5, China 6

Red China

China was for many years known to many people in the west as Red China, it is therefore legitimate to put this appelation in a list of names by which the country is known. If you do not like the name, that simple fact does not give you sufficient cause to remove the name from the article, as Wikipedia is about cataloguing information, not advcancing political interests. If it is removed, I will continue replacing it until such time that it no longer is subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 (talk • contribs)

"Red China" is not used anymore so I think it's giving it undue weight to put it in the first sentence of the lead (especially when we don't mention more common names such as "Communist China"). Note that the name "Red China" is mentioned in the History section though so no information has been lost. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that constant and repeated replacement of a reverted edit can be considered as a WP:POINT, and may warrant a block. There is no consensus among the larger group of editors to have "Red China" emplaced towards the front, as if it were an official name or neutrally used name. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you undue weight *shakes fist* GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think both of you have a point, China was called that name at one time, but it has fallen out of favor. To come to a compromise position, you might want to add "Red China" to a list of names that the PRC was historically known as in the West, but than make note that since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms, the PRC is now more commonly called "Mainland China" or simply "China".--Gniniv (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You will see that I have juxtaposed my idea in the current revision. Feel free to respond and or edit if you feel this is a misrepresentation.--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic names? There's already an article entirely dedicated to that: Names of China. Many many years ago, in Wikipedia infancy, it was decided that since China had too many names, associated terms and synonyms that listing them all in a China or PRC article was too messy, but excluding them would have been out of the question, something must be done. So they came up with the ingenious idea of giving the names and etymology their own article. As you can see, the term Red China has already been listed under Names of China#People's Republic of China as an informal name used by "many in the West during the Cold War". Since the Names of China article is linked from the PRC article in the infobox, there is no need to add additional information here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for my ignorance of there being a seperate article on names of China-that works even better--Gniniv (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is that relevant anymore, so question its inclusion. Out of interest, was the term used outside the U.S.? How about in languages other than English? This seems like a very US-centric term.Ndriley97 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

China

I read on other pages on Wikpedia that "The PRC is the successor to the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China on the mainland." Is this NPOV? Republic of China claims itself to be the successor to the Qing and ruler of the Mainland but... caveat is that "successor" directly implies exercising sovereignty over the piece of land. So is this NPOV?Phead128 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not neutral because indeed the ROC still officially claims the mainland and, more importantly, it still exists. If we write that the PRC is the successor of the ROC, we are taking the PRC's POV that the ROC is not a legitimate government and doesn't officially exist. I think it's better to simply describe the facts (the Qing were overthrown, the ROC lost the war, the PRC took over the mainland, etc.) rather than including oversimplified descriptions. Laurent (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to better clarify: It's actually the ROC and PRC that are both successor to the Qing dynasty. More specifically, PRC then succeeded ROC on the mainland, though ROC still exists in the self-administrative state of Taiwan. Thank you for the clarification. Indeed, PRC has succeeded ROC on the mainland, but it gives undue weight to PRC's position, while relegating ROC's position to a lower status, which is not neutral. Phead128 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

However, is it not true that the PRC is the successor of Qing/ROC on the Mainland? ROC may have territorial claims, but indeed, PRC is administrating the mainland. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error

The statement "Other factors include ... that some areas unofficially allow a second child if the first is not a male but not otherwise." in the population analysis is false, or at least unclear in context. Allowing a second child if the first is not male will not impact the ratio of males to females in a population This is an unintuitive bit of basic probability. Observe:

- Assume that boys are born at a rate B%, and girls at a rate G% if only natural causes for selection of sex are taken into account. - B% of all first children will be male, and G% female, thus, if the one child policy were strictly enforced, the ratio of males to females will be B/G.

- Now, keeping the probabilities the same (i.e. that a particular given child will have B% chance of being born male, and G% of being born female), assume that any family whose first child is female may have one more child. - B% of all second children are male, and G% of all second children are female. - Assume there are F first children born. Then there are B*F boys, and G*F girls who are first children. - Assume every family who had a girl has a second child. Then there are G*F second children. B*G*F of them are boys, and G*G*F are girls. - There are thus B*F + B*G*F boys, and G*F + G*G*F girls in the population all told. - The total proportion of males to females in the population will be: (B*F + B*G*F)/(G*F + G*G*F)

- (B*F + B*G*F)/(G*F + G*G*F) = (F*(B + B*G))/(F*(G + G*G)) //factor out the F from both the numerator and denominator

                              = (F/F) * (B + B*G)/(G + G*G)               // Pull the F's out into a separate ratio
                              = (B + B*G) / (G + G*G)                     // F/F = 1, F's cancel out                  
                              = (B*(1 + G))/(G * (1 + G))                 // Factor out B from the numerator and G from the denominator
                              = B/G * ( (1 + G)/(1 + G) )                 // Pull the B and G out into a separate ratio
                              = B/G * 1                                   // (1 + G)/(1 + G) = 1
                              = B/G                                       

which is that same ratio found under a strict enforcement of the one child policy.

- Thus, allowing an additional child if the first child is female will not change the ratios of males to females in the population at all, independent of what rates males and females are born at.

I suggest either rephrasing the population section to note that the bending of the one child policy will _not_ change the population ratio, although it is commonly though to have an effect, or omitting mention of it entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.122.8 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm how about providing some factual numbers together with credible sources instead? Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understood the basics correctly

• On average circumstances the natural ratio is more or less 1 girl to 1 boy.
• China has a one child policy.
• Because of cultural values boys are considered more valuable (they are expected to take care of their parents eventually while girls will take care of their husbands' parents).
• Some provinces are closing their eyes to the one child policy provided the couple already had a girl (the provincial authorities allow a second child IF the first is a girl).
• This does not solve the imbalance, because almost all the girls get a little brother (while most first-born boys don't get any sister at all).
• 1: In easy numbers: 100 couples have a child: 50 will be girls and 50 will be boys (assuming that they don't cheat through selective abortions).
• 2: The 50 couples which got a girl go the eyes-closing provinces to have a second child.
• 3: In theory half of these 50 couples get a boy and half get yet another girl.
• 4: In theory the grand total would be 75 girls against 75 boys. However what truly happens is that the majority of the "50 couples which got a girl" are simply going to cheat (i.e.: are going to abort the girls because they really want boys).
• 5: The final result is 50 girls and 100 boys (just an example, nothing more).
• Even then it is somewhat better than the 100 couples killing most girls in step 1 (which would in theory lead to something like 30 girls to 70 boys - just an example, nothing more). At least this way the survival of the 50 first-born girls is more or less assured. Flamarande (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we would need a good source to mention these calculations in the article. Most reliable sources agree that the one-child policy "worked" in the sense that it indeed reduced the number of children but at the cost of an aging population and a major gender imbalance. Laurent (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Original poster person here again. To clarify, I agree that the 1 child policy _did_ cause a gender imbalance to occur. The issue is that the article seems to imply it occurred as a result of a second child being allowed only if a girl was born first in some states, as though that would make any difference on its own. In fact, that makes no difference at all, as shown in detail in a mathematical proof above, or more concisely in the fact that the genders' of siblings are uncorrelated. A source for this should not be necessary, since it's sub-high school mathematics, and thus common knowledge.

That said, it's fairly well established that there _are_ more boys than girls in China. The reason isn't that people are sometimes allowed a second child if the first is female. The reason is that parents game the system, and may preferentially game it if they've already tried and failed to produce a boy once by obtaining gender identification and abortions. The article should reflect this, rather than suggesting (incorrectly or ambiguously ) that the cause of the difference is the bending of the rules itself, instead of the actions of parents preferentially aborting female fetuses, especially on their second try.76.11.122.8 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Metadata?

Do we really need to say that the article is about the People's Republic of China? The People's Republic of China is a fairly large country - more than one out of five people on the planet live there. You'd think the rest of us could figure out that the article is about their country. Do people on the street talk about "the People's Republic of China" - no, they talk about China. Has anyone considered merging the China and People's Republic of China articles together? Seems obvious to do so. Synesthetic (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem being that there are Two Chinas. To honor NPOV under these circumstances, the solution devised was to have separate articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there just China and Taiwan, by their common names? 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Synesthetic (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Two Chinas page has Taiwan before China. Seems like most people would mean China, and not Taiwan, when they say China. If anything, China has many more people than Taiwan. It seems that would give it preference. Heck, it's not even alphabetical on the Two Chinas page. I'm not pro-China or anything, but it looks like there is some subtle stuff going on here on Wikipedia. Divide and conquer?  :-) Synesthetic (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommended reading: Talk:People's_Republic_of_China/Archive_9#Merger_proposal and prior similar proposals in the talkpage archives. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The people opposing may have won back in September. Most of the people who voted were probably from America. I bet China would get the "China" article on the Chinese "Wikipedia", wherever that may be. Synesthetic (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be here, and in point of fact, no; said article parallels the current English setup and is not about the PRC. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cybercobra, that there is the Chinese-language Wikipedia, not the the Chinese "Wikipedia". Saying that site is the Chinese equivalent of "Wikipedia" is like saying Baidu and Google China are pretty much the same thing. Of course Google got kicked out of China. Baidu is still there for some reason. Strangely, I'm starting to see why China may want to filter some internet content. Synesthetic (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... the closest thing to a "Chinese Wikipedia" would be Baidu Baike: 中华人民共和国 - 百度百科 notice how the scenario you have predicted is not the case. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Chinese but it appears that the first link on that site when searching for China is to the PRC - there's also one to the porcelain "China". I don't see one to Taiwan nearby - porcelain beats Taiwan for second place. As predicted, no?  :-)

[| China refers to PRC first here and porcelain second] Synesthetic (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that even Baidu Baike, a mainland China encyclopedia, separates PRC from ROC. It lists PRC as the country, and it lists ROC (naturally, due to POV, being a mainland website) as a historic state as well as a "disputed regime that is not internationally recognised"; additionally, there is no page regarding any "Taiwan" political state. PRC and ROC are both listed, as opposed to a China/Taiwan type system. Hence, your claim of PRC=China and ROC=Taiwan on a "Chinese Wikipedia" isn't really that supported in concrete, so to speak. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Your prior statement was vague, hence my misinterpretation. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. I still think China should get the China article. I guess we can agree to disagree. When will it be up for re-vote? I've got 1.3 billion people who might be interested.  :-) Synesthetic (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people here have missed the point. The PRC supports 2 Chinas because that implies that Taiwan will eventually be "reunited" with China. It is the Taiwanese nationalist position that there is one China plus an independent Taiwan. Why the PRC supports the 2 China position is clear. Why Wikipedia feels bound to endorse it (given that since 1895 Taiwan has been part of China for only about 3 years) is a mystery to me.Dejvid (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The PRC explicitly has the One-China Policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes. That was careless of me. You are right. However, PRC insists that Taiwan continues to claim to be the government of all China - hence that currently there exists de-facto two states that are China even if they are part of one "true" China. For Taiwan to renounce its claim to the mainland would be deemed a hostile act by the PRC as it would be in effect a Declaration of Independence. Respecting the PRC position leads to the current wiki split. While the PRC would probably be happy with a single China article so long as it treated Taiwan as a province of that China that would be so POV to be off the scale.Dejvid (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unclear statistic

I yanked this from the article:

According to a survey titled "Top 10 political figures in Mainland China and Taiwan" conducted in Hong Kong, approximately 1000 participants were given a list of 10 well-known political leaders in Mainland China and Taiwan. Mainland leaders (such as Zhu Rongji, Wen Jiabao and Hu Jintao) have received higher rating than leaders in Taiwan (such as Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeou and Lien Chan).

The article is about the PRC, not about Taiwan. Statistics that mix the two can be misleading particularly if it is not clear how the sample was collected. Was it proportional (50 Chinese for every 1 Taiwanese), split equally between the two countries (500 Chinese and 500 Taiwanese). The source provided doesn't say. As such it is entirely unclear what we are to make of the results of the survey. Readin (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are other questionable errors, it says under the economy section the yuan is de-pegged from the dollar, this did happen in 2005 but it was re pegged in late 2008 following the global financial crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.74.238 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of 1961-1966 history

This section is to complain not only about the lack of 1961-1966 history on this article, but many other, including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, related articles as well (even at the Deng Xiaoping. at most Wikipedia says that the two embarked on reformist practices without elaborating further. --华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you happen to be knowledgeable about that period of history, you are highly encouraged to be bold and improve the sections/pages yourself. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article on Liu Shaoqi happens to have more information on his actions as president. I haven't read it in detail, but what I will translate what I do find useful and add it to at least the English Wikipedia's equivalent article. My complaint is not specifically to the lack of 1961-1966 (between end of Great Leap Forward and the beginning of the Cultural Revolution) history here, but on all of English Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will add one sentence to this article to explain this brief epoch. Anything more here, I believe, will be out of proportion to the rest of what is covered in that section. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There's a discussion on the Frigate article which users here might be interested in. 88.106.100.225 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

...because...? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

China redirect target

I searched China and it doesn't redirect here! This is wrong. People who search for China are going to be looking for the current Chinese state. Relistically speaking, few people are going to mean Republic of China if they search China. Even if someone does search for Republic of China, it is most likely they are going to be looking for the historical Chinese state from 1912 to 1949 not Taiwan. I don't think this is NPOV.174.91.49.165 (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

However consensus does not state that this is "wrong". Have a quick browse through the talk archives; this has been brought up many times, and has been rejected many times. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Relistically (sic) speaking, few people are going to mean Republic of China if they search China" - implying they won't. I for one know of many Chinese who know the difference between the two Chinas, and might want to search for one or the other. "most likely they are going to be looking for the historical Chinese state from 1912 to 1949 not Taiwan" - true in 99% of cases, however that is also implying that the Republic of China article is all about Taiwan and has nothing to do with the historical state. Have a good read through the article, especially the "History" section. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.252.254.1, 31 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Just letting you know that the article on the People's Republic of China has an error pertaining to its GDP. The article states numbers in trillions, where it should be billions of dollars. Used the same source to verify this as the article currently provides:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=71&pr.y=8

AKA

|GDP_nominal = $5,296 trillion |GDP_PPP = $9,711 trillion

SHOULD BE:

|GDP_nominal = $5,296 billion |GDP_PPP = $9,711 billion

128.252.254.1 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Someone fscked up the punctuation apparently. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Change from china.org.cn to cntv.cn on the government website

Please change china.org.cn to cntv.cn as CNTV has videos and it also links to china.org.cn and other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B694kp8d (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

nominal GDP

According to Bloomberg, China's nominal GDP has surpassed that of Japan.

• 16 August 2010, China Overtakes Japan as World's Second-Biggest Economy, Bloomberg

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Blumberg says China did last quarter. However, it also says "Japan remained bigger in the first half of 2010". No one denies that China will surpass Japan in the full year 2010. It is a bit hasty to change the order. Please wait for the full year 2010 result comes out. I reverted the change to the article of Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is orientating its nominal GDP ranking on an annual basis issued by the IMF. The 2010 GDP figures for the PRC will be published in April 2011. Before that, China is regarded the 3rd largest economy, no matter what. If this article wants to behave in an unreliable premature state, fine, otherwise it should correct the facts as soon as possible.

This article

requires moar pictures of modern-day China with all its magnificent skyscrapers, plazas and airports and less of that human rights/free tibet/eastern beauty stereotypical Western bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

btw, USA is the prison country #1 in the world https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate, yet I don't see any human rights section in it's article, a major hypocrisy. Also, the order of sections is really fucked-up. So either fix it or lift editing restrictions.