Talk:China

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001 (article contribs).

How should China's government be described?

Should its government be described as 'Unitary one-party socialist republic' or 'Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship' ? RllyD1D2M3 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Unitary one-party socialist republic under an authoritarian dictatorship Wandavianempire (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with just "Red China" that way there is a differentiation between free China aka: Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.10.30 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a socially responsible one-party republic. It is not very socialist, or communist for that matter, considering how the party encourages the creation of private enterprises and allows previously unknown people to become (very!) rich. It is also not a dictatorship despite the "president" being in there for life. The communist party has around 8 million members (from memory) and regions have a fair amount of autonomy. It is simplistic and misleading calling China socialist, communistic, or a dictatorship. It is a socially responsible one-party republic. Socially responsible in the same sense Democracies in Europe see it with universal healthcare, shelters and food for the poorest and an expectation for all to contribute to the society - or pay for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be described as 'Unitary one party socialist republic authoritarian communist dictatorship' Kushal2024 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of dictatorship, China (The PRC) has never not claimed it is not a dictatorship, it is called a people's dictatorship. Also the number of members of the CCP is probably closer to 80 million and not 8 million. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It would depend on which period you are talking about. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Totalitarian state capitalist republic" would be most accurate. It cannot be called communist since it doesn't follow communism for 40 years now. Andro611 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would go with 'Unitary one-party semi-presidential socialist republic,' or something similar. --Lord ding dong (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of China?

Gathering opinions on the proposed section. The criticism of the US Gov't has several pages, but only one section for country with the highest population. Apart from this one critical portion, the entirety of the article gives a glowing review, almost like an advertisement. What think ye? IDeagle94 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about the China article? A seperate "criticism" section in this article is not necessary, this article is not meant to persuade people as to whether or not China/the Chinese government is good or bad. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Articles and sections devoted to criticism are not preferred. WP:CRITS I'd rather make the argument the Criticism of the United States government article should be merged into the History of the United States article. The US criticism article has multiple issue tags and does not read well as a single subject. Just because the US criticism article slipped past Wikipedia's best practices doesn't mean we should do the same for China. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes , we prefer a page on the criticism of Communist China as China have violated international law, human rights law also threaten other countries sovereignty. Kushal2024 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And which major country (and even lesser country) has not been accused of at least one item of your diatribe? For example india violates human rights all the time through its caste system, and its failure to feed its population. The USA beats and kills its Black citizens. The USA also threatens the sovereignty of many other countries, including China. india physically threatens the sovereignty of several countries. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You will also find that the USA consider itself outside of International Law, as well as The Geneva Convention. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

The name in chinese means "middle country" sometimes interpreted more historically as "middle kingdom" not "middle" per reference 15. I think this is just a basic typo type error. You can find the interpretation in any chinese->english dictionary, such as https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=guo. 108.51.103.157 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current information in the article is cited to academic books on the matter. An online dictionary is not appropriate to challenge this information. Also, please establish consensus for this change before asking again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No. The endonym actual mean "The Central States" in the plural, and not "Middle Country" or even "The Middle Kingdom". These states existed simultaneously. This was not any different from many other countries as we know them today such as England, Germany, Italy for example. Similarly, a modern example is The United States (in the plural). 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Intentionally misleading information in demographics section

The demographics section of the China Wikipedia page includes the statement “China's rapid growth has pulled hundreds of millions—800 million, to be more precise—of its people out of poverty since 1978. By 2013, less than 2% of the Chinese population lived below the international poverty line of US$1.9 per day, down from 88% in 1981. China's own standards for poverty are higher and still the country is on its way to eradicate national poverty completely by 2019.” This statement cites misleading reports from the Chinese government itself and directly lies about China having higher standards for poverty, when the poverty line set by the Chinese government is actually much lower than the line set elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:b103:ed5e:e521:312e:9f4f:bacf (talk) 31 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

Should the recent coronavirus outbreak and its consequences on the Chinese population, economy, and political standing be mentioned in this article. SamsonKriger (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It should NOT be mentioned. How is an illness descriptive of a country's political and economical evolution relevant? The line currently in the article is just to satisfy the US stance on COVID-19 as "The China virus". Also there are indications that this sickness goes back further than December both in France and the US. Please remove the line. It only "appears" factually correct, but is Sinophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank N Fahrendorf (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Considering the political bias from western media towards China, a large amount of sources could have questionable credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Windwillow (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The bias is not simply political bias against China. The bias is also racial, and is directed against all Chinese people as a race. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2CF8:9ED7:44C5:77F5 (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest replace it? And what racial bias? 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:A9AD:71FF:114:B0F (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

Now I understand that Wikipedia has a pro-US bias, but isn't it a bit ridiculous that criticisms of China, Russia, Iran, etc are included in their lead sections while this is not the case with say the US or the UK's wikipedia page?

Should criticisms be removed out of the China, Russia, Iran, etc headers or should they be allowed on the lead section of all other countries as well? Which would be more encyclopedic? Otherwise I think criticisms should only be added in sections below, and not in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadesTheEldest (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• That would be consistent with a NPOV. It should be included in sections below for all countries. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The name Zhongguo is also translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English.

This should be "The name Zhongguo is also mistakenly/ wrongly translated as "Middle Kingdom" in English. The original translator probably did not know enough English or Chinese. The correct translation of Zhongguo is "Central State". Originally it was in the plural and referred to the "Central States". 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Middle Kingdom" was a poetic way of saying it though I don't know who came up with it. It may be good to have published sources about this. @2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:B92F:1AD2:BD6B:EBE4: WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost in translation and history. Maybe someone in the Church. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:2014:F101:7F42:6DB0 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"China (People's Rep.)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect China (People's Rep.). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#China (People's Rep.) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"ChinA" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ChinA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#ChinA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extensive Inaccurate Content in this article

There is extensive inaccurate content in this article. Most notably, well-documented and indisputable facts are stated as being opinions or accusations. This is not to be tolerated in an encyclopedia. Upon reviewing the edit comments and archives of talk pages, it appears that there has been a general concession that in the interest of WP:POV, description of human rights abuses and atrocities is to be couched in measured terms. This is not the policy of wikipedia. Facts are to be stated as facts when they are so well documented as to be indisputable. Sbelknap (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: I see such items discussed throughout the article, and featuring prominently in the lead. And neither do they appear to be couched in weasel words, nor described as “alleged” or anything of the sort. It’s all described rather matter-of-fact, and in encyclopedic writing style, as far as I can tell. Can you provide some examples of what you’re talking about? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is one that I corrected. [1]

Here is one in the current China article: Several Chinese telecommunications companies, most notably Huawei and ZTE, have been accused of spying for the Chinese military.[370] (Not just accused, strong evidence supporting).

Here is one that is false (social controls are more restrictive now than just a few years ago): While economic and social controls have been significantly relaxed in China since the 1970s, political freedom is still tightly restricted.

Sbelknap (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

March of the Volunteers

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Why do you use an inaccurate summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=China&type=revision&diff=970963117&oldid=970931498 when you changed the music? Why do you think the audio should be changed?Manabimasu (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, that's not an inaccurate summary, I actually made punctuation edits (please tell me you didn't revert those)... Forgot to mention the change in audio. Given that this rendition was performed by the Chinese PLA (and subsequently used by the China Central Television for its sign-ons) - it's a much more pleasing rendition of the March. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Where is the consensus to change the music?Manabimasu (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Well, there was no consensus to establish the US Navy Band's version of the March as the file used in the article in the first place. I reckoned, based on WP:BOLD, that the Chinese rendition of the March would be a better fit. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Editors did revert changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:China/Archive_15#Sound_file . But even then consensus was not established. So how about I or you start an rfc on which rendition should be used? I’m fine if there is consensus.Manabimasu (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Sure - would you like to do the honours and notify me? Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat: Yes, I will.Manabimasu (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC music

Currently the article uses anthem rendition File:China_-_CCTV_Sign-on_Rendition.ogg in the infobox.

Question: What is the best rendition for the anthem?

1. (a) File:China - CCTV Sign-on Rendition.ogg
2. (b)
3. (c) No music
4. (d) Other. Please identify.

Manabimasu (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 (a) is more suitable, considering it is used on Chinese state television sign-ons and sign-offs. Idealigic (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• C. The infobox isn't designed for such a file, and already somehow extends down past the very long table on contents and forces the Infobox Chinese into the History section. Different variations can be included with context on the main article. CMD (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  CMD I'm not sure what problem you're seeing, but I checked seven arbitrary articles for nations across the world both large and small. The infobox in every article does include an audio file for the national anthem. It is supposed to work, and it would be abnormal to exclude it from the China article. If you're seeing a problem then you probably get the same result at every other articles as well, and that should be investigated as an independent issue. Maybe the formatting needs to be tweaked or something. Alsee (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

At some point someone added one to one article and then people saw this and copied (a common trend for a variety of items that have been scattered throughout country articles for better or worse). However, it is not "supposed to work"; there is no provision for it in the template and it is simply appended to the text field. For this article there is actually less of a problem than normal, as "March of the Volunteers" contains no letters with a descender, but quite often the file actually obscures the anthem name. Whether the text is obscured may also be dependent on specific device and browser considerations, which bring up WP:ACCESS concerns. CMD (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1(a), which as I understand it is the version used by Chinese state television. That makes it more authentic / more authoritative / better representation. While I'm no music expert, the 2(b) version did sound slightly 'cleaner' to me - however unless there is a gross quality problem I have no business passing judgement on what China's national anthem is supposed to sound like. Chinese state television can, and have, passed judgement on a good representation of the anthem. We should defer to their judgement. Furthermore 2(b) was apparently preformed by the United States Navy Band, which needlessly and unwisely invites nationalized conflicts or complaints. Alsee (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Hi - I'm advocating in favour of (a), which is a rendition by the People's Liberation Army's music band and used on Chinese state television sign-ons and sign-offs. The music flows much better than the US Navy Band's rendition, which is (b), which is an added bonus. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Recently there was a change made by @Matthewberns expand the third paragraph in this article to include more explanation on Xinjiang which I think is unnecessary. The sentences read:

"In Xinjiang, the Chinese Government has detained Uyghurs in Vocational Education and Training Centers, which critics call internment camps.[12][13][14] According to the U.S. Department of State, actions including political indoctrination, torture, physical and psychological abuse, forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor are common in these facilities.[15] The Chinese government denies these statements and says its response helps combat terrorism in the province.[16][17]"

The topic of Xinjiang is currently a highly debated political topic, and many of the sources linked (Radio Free Asia, Human Rights Watch, NED) have been proven to be US-sponsored bias laundered through western media outlets. This is not to say that the current situation in Xinjiang isn't happening or that it should not be mentioned at all in this article, but the first couple paragraphs should be a very brief, general overview of China. This paragraph already addresses human rights abuses in China in the first couple sentences, but to devote the entire rest of the paragraph to all of the alleged details in Xinjiang seems excessive and seems like it's politically motivated. I think it makes more sense to move these sentences to a different article. Right now the topic of Xinjiang takes up nearly a fourth of the first section on China, which is ridiculous when you juxtapose it with China's entire history, culture and existence.

For comparison, we don't spend an entire paragraph talking about police brutality or children dying in ICE concentration camps in the beginning of the United States article. Nor do we talk about the forced sterilization of indigenous peoples in the first four paragraphs of the Canada article. I shouldn't be reading a brief overview on China and already feel like China's own overview on Wikipedia has a heavy anti-China slant. Mangomystery (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the 2nd sentence (DoS) to the "Sociopolitical issues and human rights" section below, as it is too specific for a general overview of the country. I'll leave the request open for another editor to decide if the first and third sentences are repetitive of the sentence immediately before. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This does not seem to be biased. I'm not sure how the ICE camps relate to China. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Claims by Albertaont

@Albertaont: You said that the findings of the Tribunal were "not reported in BBC, CNN" and I asked you whether you really believe that, you called it sarcasm but it wasnt. I'm asking whether you really believe that the findings havent been "not reported in BBC, CNN" As far as I can find they've been reported by every mainstream WP:RS. The further reporting by those WP:RS also supports the findings of the Tribunal, see this story published the other day by The Diplomat about the conditions in the camps [2]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: the tribunal itself has the list of sources which has reported on its "judgement": CNN and BBC are not one of them. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait... So you dont think they're reliable source for information but you trust them absolutely about who has covered their report? You didnt read the Diplomat article did you? The Tribunal was wide ranging and definitely FG backed... We probally shouldnt be using them as a source for anything other than their own opinion, but thats what we were using them for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the tribunal is not a reliable source. You mention a citing of Diplomat, which could be considered a reliable source, but that is different from citing of the tribunal. There would be no reason for the tribunal to not include CNN or BBC had they covered them, the tribunal would want to show that as many sources covered them to give them legitimacy. Like I said, you are free to include citations from reliable sources from whats happening in Xinjiang, (which I believe are already included), but the sourcing of opinion, verbatim, in its entirety, is not appropriate. It is both not NPOV, as well as undue weight. Please do not assume that I have not read the diplomat article however, that is unprofessional. Albertaont (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

China as a geographical region governed by two sovereign states - the PRC and ROC

Here are the facts:

• The ROC inherited the lands of the Qing empire, but the KMT party got pushed all the way back to the island of Taiwan by the CCP. To this day, the KMT party is mostly supported by Kinmen, Matsu and some Pan-Blue regions of Taiwan, and the party still claims to represent all of China.
• Throughout China's history, it was common to have multiple sovereignties simultaneously occur, and we recognize those sovereign states as representing "China".
• The PRC - like the KMT of the ROC - also claims all of China.
• Korea is not actually a country. It is geographical region governed by two sovereign states - the DPRK and the ROK. Why not China? We might as well just say that China is a geographical region governed by two sovereign states - the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. Officially, the Republic of China is 中華民國, and the people are 中國人 (especially so under the rule of the KMT); only the Pan-Green supporters - especially the ones that favor Taiwanese Independence - claim that they are only 台灣人 and their overseas counterparts 台裔 (which is quite interesting in a way, given that nationality is given higher preference over ancestry or ethnicity, while Singaporean Chinese or Malaysian Chinese are still 華人/華裔). SSS (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)