Talk:China/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Join Mainland China in the introduction section

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.

In this interesting, if fractious, discussion, editors consider whether to include a link to mainland China in the introduction to our article on China. The matter is fraught and politically charged, touching as it does on the existence and independence of an arguably separate, rival Chinese government based offshore, much to the disgust of the powers that be in the People's Republic of China. The RfC gives off more heat than light. It has attracted little participation from editors who aren't involved in the dispute, and I therefore offer its conclusions with a relatively low degree of confidence.

The rough consensus here is to give a link to mainland China somewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence and not necessarily in the first paragraph. I note that such a link already exists, so in practical terms, the outcome of this RfC is to confirm the current wording of the article.

I hope this helps. Queries, comments, criticism and complaints about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Mainland China is an important and common usage as an alternative to the PRC in WP:RS. I have given several sources to prove this. The previous version didn't fulfill WP:OR obviously.芄蘭 (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Lots of RS:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/09/is-south-korea-involved-in-taiwans-indigenous-submarine-project/

South Korea terminated its diplomatic relation with Taiwan in 1992 and asked the ROC embassy personnel to leave within 24 hours and the ROC properties to be transferred to PRC (mainland China).

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20200925-is-mainland-china-gearing-up-for-an-invasion-of-taiwan

According to Taiwan News, the exercises by the mainland’s People’s Liberation Army involved dozens of transgressions into Taiwanese territory.

https://jamestown.org/program/china-u-k-relations-grow-more-strained-over-huawei-and-hong-kong/

Hong Kong to be an “international gateway to mainland China and Chinese investment in the U.K.” (U.K. Government, October 15, 2015).

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/taiwan-and-chinas-relationship-with-the-west,politics,3305.html 芄蘭 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clearly WP:UNDUE in the lead sentence. The PRC has lots of other names (Red China, Communist China) that can't be included in the first sentence of this article. There's possibly something about Mainland China to be mentioned in the Etymology section, though it may be sufficient to discuss in Names of China. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Mainland China is important because China for PRC only is obviously a non-neutral name just in case of Chinese people's enforcement of Taiwan's independence or the relationship between the Holy See and the R.O.C.. Futher more, if you google "communist China", there are only 74,900 results. If you google "mainland China", there are 3,990,000 results. 13,500 for "communist China" "taiwan", 163,000 for "mainland China" "taiwan"芄蘭 (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If we go by your logic, we have to put "Chinese Taipei" and "Taiwan Province, China" on Taiwan's wikipedia page lead. Over a billion people do call Taiwan those names. But of course that is not appropriate. Wikipedia is a neutral website. China is the name of the country and its official longform name is PRC. We don't need to add supplementary non-neutral nomenclature. Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A link to Mainland China in a sentence would be of interest to many readers. Not sure about other terms listed above that don't have articles or sources here.--Moxy 🍁 19:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be some distiguishment.芄蘭 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

1. What Taiwan Province, China? Don’t you know that parts of Fujian, Guangdong, and Hainan province are also controlled by Taiwan(ROC)? Don’t you know that the Chinese mainland’s standard term for Taiwan is Taiwan Region? If you live in China, you will know that Taiwan Province isn't more widely used than that. Chinese Taipei is not better than "Taiwan Region", either. Neither Taiwan Region, China(basiclly used by PRC's MFA) or China Taiwan(basiclly used in Chinese and some international organizations, it's OK but not better than that.) 2. According to WP:NPOV, apparently you can not decide whether PRC or ROC is legal. Isn't it? Wikipedia is a neutral website, but the introduction only regards PRC as CHINA without any distiguishment.芄蘭 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

<< What Taiwan Province, China? Don’t you know that parts of Fujian, Guangdong, and Hainan province are also controlled by Taiwan(ROC)? >> Where did I imply that those places aren't controlled by Taiwan (ROC). Don't put things in my mouth.

Exactly! So in the wikipedia pages of Fujian, Guangdong, and Hainan province, we do not refer to Fujian Province, Guangdong Province, and Hainan province as ROC in the lead of those respective wikipedia pages even though components of those province are controlled by ROC because we go by universally colloquial terms. Just in the same fashion as we do not refer to the PRC as just "Mainland China". Just in the same fashion as we do not refer to Taiwan(ROC) as "Taiwan Region / Taiwan Province / Chinese Taipei etc" We go by univrsally colloquial terms. To avoid controversy with respect to disputed territorial claims, we only refer to the universal colloquial terms.

<< Don’t you know that the Chinese mainland’s standard term for Taiwan is Taiwan Region? >> According to the official Constitution of the People's Republic of China the correct formal longform term is: 中华人民共和国台湾省.whcih translates to Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China in English. Terms such as Taiwan Region are used as well. http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c505/201803/e87e5cd7c1ce46ef866f4ec8e2d709ea.shtml Even Wikipedia's very own page for the PRC's claim for the island of Taiwan refers to it as a province: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province,_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%E7%9C%81_(%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD Anyways, my point was that having "Taiwan Province/Region/Prefecture/whatever" would NOT be appropriate on the Taiwan Wikipedia page, you should agree with this.

<< Chinese Taipei is not better than "Taiwan Region", either. >> I wasn't saying that. Chinese Taipei is the Olympic and other international organizations (such as beauty pageants) terminology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Taipei Chinese Taipei is often used in international settings at the request of the PRC. It would not be appropriate to include that in Taiwan's lead as per WP:NPOV.

<< If you live in China, you will know that Taiwan Province isn't more widely used than that. >> I just used the correct constitutional term, I wasn't saying that other terms aren't used for the PRC's claim of Taiwan, I wasn't taking anything off the table respect to nomenclature. This doesn't take away from the fact that my point was that: regardless of what the PRC calls Taiwan, it should not be in the lead of Taiwan's article. Please recognize this.

<< According to WP:NPOV, apparently you can not decide whether PRC or ROC is legal. Isn't it? Wikipedia is a neutral website, but the introduction only regards PRC as CHINA without any distiguishment.>> You are correct here, according to WP:NPOV, apparently you can not decide whether PRC or ROC is legal. And the introduction does just that. The introduction regards PRC as the universally acclaimed colloquial term for the country, which is China. It doesn't need to distinguish between PRC's common-name term for the PRC (China) or ROC's common-name term for the cPRC (Mainland China). It doesn't need to distinguish because this would be showing a bias for the Taiwan (ROC) side. PRC is universally commonly called China, and ROC is universally commonly called Taiwan. Leave it as that. Let's not add in controversial things. WIkipedia is NEUTRAL. A distinguishment is inappropriate because what we don't want to be doing here is differentiating anything besides the universal common names of China and Taiwan. Having a distinction between ROC's " mainland China " or PRC's " Taiwan Region / Province / Chinese Taipei " would be controversial to those respective readers with different views. When people universally think of the word China they think of PRC. When people universally think of the word Taiwan they think of the ROC. The fact that we are even having this debate proves the controversy which I'm talking about.

<< Wikipedia is a neutral website, but the introduction only regards PRC as CHINA without any distiguishment. >> Because this Wikipedia article refers to the sovereign state of the People's Republic of China and not the continental landmass of mainland China. This sovereign state of China includes mainland China, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and various claimed islands in the South China Sea. Hong Kong, Macau, aren't considered part of mainland China. China is oftencolliquially called Mainland China, but that is not the appropriate term for the entire country of the People's Republic of China. The PRC jurisdictionally & nominally isn't just mainland China. The country we're talking about here includes much more than geographic mainland China, such as its special administrative regions and various islands (both legitimate and illegitimate claims). Although China is colloquially referred to as Mainland China by individuals, The special administrative regions and the islands are not geographically and geopolitically part of mainland China.

Referring to China as Mainland China / Dalu / Neidi / etc on China's wikipedia page would go against WP:NPOV as it takes the ROC side (PRC claims the island of Taiwan). Referring to Taiwan as Taiwan Region / Taiwan Province / Chinese Taipei / etc on Taiwan's wikipedia page would go against WP:NPOV as it takes the PRC side (ROC claims the mainland landmass of China).

In conclusion, TLDR; to avoid controversy with respect to disputed territorial claims, we only refer to the universal colloquial terms and their full official conventional longform names = China & People's Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan & Republic of China (ROC). Adding anything else besides the common names & longform names could generate controversy.

Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Taiwan province is Taiwan province. But Taiwan contains four provinces(all claimed by PRC). You should agree with this. Why "Taiwan Province/Region/Prefecture/whatever" would not be appropriate?? Just like you said, over a billion people do call Taiwan those names. Or are u saying that it isn't a common usage in English? But mainland China has no such a problem.
2. I don't want to talk the term Taiwan Province anymore. It has nothing to do with the subject discussed today.
3. I'm glad we have a consensus on the third point, so adding these words or Mainland China is very important. Or, the readers would believe the pro-PRC points only.
4. Like you said, we should not name the Taiwan article as Taiwan, because that Wikipedia article refers to the sovereign state of the Republic of China and not the islands. But the truth is they are just their informal names, we can use them according to Wikipedia:Article_titles. More importantly, according to your point, we should call the Republic of China China in accordance with the Constitution of the ROC. I noticed that this entry was previously named PRC, China is not its formal name just like Mainland China.
5. The special administrative regions Hk and Macao sometimes belong to mainland China(when means 大陸), sometimes not(when means 內地), you should read the Exit and Entry Administration Law carefully.
6. As we all know, the PRC and the ROC are contradictory in terms of sovereignty.If you have to say that go against WP:NPOV, well, referring to PRC as China on PRC's wikipedia page would go against WP:NPOV too, because Taiwan(ROC) doesn't admit Mainland China as a country. So, at least to balance the two, we should add Mainland China.芄蘭 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

<<referring to PRC as China on PRC's wikipedia page would go against WP:NPOV too, because Taiwan(ROC) doesn't admit Mainland China as a country. So, at least to balance the two, we should add Mainland China.>> No. Wikipedia must use the official self-proclaimed longform names for all sovereign states ex: Russian Federation, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland etc Countries have to be listed their official constitutionally self-proclaimed names, regardless of any external sovereignty disputes. You do realize that if we can't call China the PRC then we can't call Taiwan the ROC either right? You're going against your own point here. North Korea and South Korea don't constitutionally recognize each other, so do we remove South Korea's label of Republic of Korea and North Korea's label of Democratic Republic of Korea? Absolutely not. You seem to have a huge bias against PRC here. I'm not pro-China or against Taiwan in anyway so please, understand Wikipedia only uses the universally acclaimed common names and the official longform names. Example: South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea China, officially the People's Republic of China Taiwan, officially the Republic of China Russia, officially the Russian Federation Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain etc

<<Like you said, we should not name the Taiwan article as Taiwan, because that Wikipedia article refers to the sovereign state of the Republic of China and not the islands. But the truth is they are just their informal names, we can use them according to Wikipedia:Article_titles. More importantly, according to your point, we should call the Republic of China China in accordance with the Constitution of the ROC. I noticed that this entry was previously named PRC, China is not its formal name just like Mainland China>>

actually my stance is that the Taiwan article should be named Taiwan, and the China article should be named China. My position is aligns with wikipedia's policy: to use the most common universal name (the informal name) and the constitutionally self-proclaimed longform name. Yeungkahchun (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

<<Wikipedia must use the official self-proclaimed longform names for all sovereign states.>>First of all, you violated WP:NPOV. You seem to be saying that PRC is a sovereign state and ROC is not. Second, is this sentence your original or it comes from Wiki policy? WP:Article titles never mentioned it. Third, don’t you know that China is the abbreviation that complies with the Constitution of the ROC, and using Taiwan is just a helpless act?

<<You do realize that if we can't call China the PRC then we can't call Taiwan the ROC either right?>>No, I never said that the PRC cannot be called China.

<<You seem to have a huge bias against PRC here. >>No, you seem to have a huge bias against me here. I just added common abbreviations to help readers distinguish and maintain neutrality. Where does Wikipedia only uses the universally acclaimed common names and the official longform names come from?

<<actually my stance is that the Taiwan article should be named Taiwan, and the China article should be named China.>> That's very good, but this cannot prevent other editors from joining mainland China.芄蘭 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

<<Wikipedia must use the official self-proclaimed longform names for all sovereign states.>>First of all, you violated WP:NPOV. You seem to be saying that PRC is a sovereign state and ROC is not. Second, is this sentence your original or it comes from Wiki policy? WP:Article titles never mentioned it. Third, don’t you know that China is the abbreviation that complies with the Constitution of the ROC, and using Taiwan is just a helpless act? >>

Yes, Wikipedia must use the official self-proclaimed longform names for all sovereign states that have some sort of recognition and even states that have no recognition from countries will be provided with the longform names. For example, Republic of South Ossetia (South Ossetia) is claimed by Georgia and virtually no country recognizes it as an independent sovereign state, but it its full name is included in the lead of the article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, and also, don't take this too seriously. At the end of the day, we are all human beings. Let's both hope for the prosperity of both communist China and democratic Taiwan, and world peace for the whole planet.

<<Wikipedia only uses the universally acclaimed common names and the official longform names come from>> Take a look at every country 's wikipedia article. I don't hold any biases towards you. If you want really want to add what you want to add, you can try to gain consesus from the whole community, rather than acting unilaterally and engaging in edit wars with others. "China" is not an "abbreviation", an abbreviation is a group of letters that is shortform for a specific phrase or sentence. China is a proper noun because it is the name of a place. What phrase is China an abbreviation for? An abbreviation would be like "e.g." = for example. Anyways I will withdraw from this as I don't see this as productive. Have a nice day.

<<You seem to be saying that PRC is a sovereign state and ROC is not. >> No? My official personal stance is ROC is a sovereign state. I am saying it right and right now: ROC is a sovereign state. I repeat, I believe ROC is a sovereign state in my view. This is my personal stance and I don't allow it to effect my neutral editing. I won't not vandalize the PRC article even if I recognize ROC.

You are correct when you say: the special administrative regions Hk and Macao sometimes belong to mainland China(when means 大陸), sometimes not(when means 內地). Note: sometimes. Since the SARs aren't always categorized to mainland China, we cannot refer to the entire country of China as mainland China since it would exclude the SARs which are constitutionally under PRC jurisdiction. This is similar to the notion, we cannot exclude ROC's jurisdiction in places such as Fujian Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that we have a broad consensus this time. But you made a mistake:

China is not only a place name, but also an abbreviation (please refer to this source). This abbreviation has a special meaning for Chinese Mainlanders and Taiwanese. It means the competition between communism and liberalism (please refer to this source), and it also means the competition between separatism and national unity (I am a Chinese, this is a common sense).

Cross-strait relations are special, not ordinary. Since the restriction you mentioned earlier does not come from the Wiki policy, then we should add mainland China to deal with this special issue (note that I absolutely did not say to replace China, I just want to clearly distinguish the two issues and maintain neutrality, so that it will be more in line with Wiki policy：Foreign names and anglicization, too). Like User:Moxy said, adding the term Mainland China is in line with readers' interest, too.芄蘭 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include in lead section, not lead sentence. All names common in sources (including older ones) should appear in the lead section and boldfaced, per MOS:BOLDSYN. That includes "Mainland China", "Communist China", and "Red China". However, none of these are prevalent enough that they need to be shoehorned into the lead sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Still a problem

Still see edit war....perhaps best to link Two Chinas over convoluted sentence.--Moxy 🍁 14:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

{{subst:trim|1= China is a country in asia with natural beauty and magnificnt senery.China is a first world country with mega industries that manufacture clothing, beauty products,automobiles,hair products,electronics,phones,laptops,and its atourist destination.China is a tourist destination that is suitable for bussiness,relaxation and shopping.In Asia china is vital because of its trade connections.China trades with Africa.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese Communist Party" nonsense

Stop entering US propaganda by the name of "Chinese Communist Party." The official name is "Communist Party of China." There is no such thing as "Chinese Communist Party." 202.9.46.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the official name is 中国共产党. Both "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" are translations of that. And there is no difference in meaning between the two, it is purely stylistic. Just as "satin sheets" and "sheets of satin" mean the same thing, so do CCP and CPC. --Khajidha (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You are in no position to alter a big article "China" since you are biased in your edits. Maybe you are a US agent with purposeful edits. 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The name CPP and CPC states different political views. CCP is what anti-Chinese propaganda uses but the official translation from 中国共产党 itself is CPC - "Communist Party of China". ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Map near start of article

I find it a bit odd that one of the first pictures in the article is a Western map of China in 1570. I feel there's a few problems here.

Firstly, the placement is odd. This picture is in the history section, sure, but it is before the image of the 10,000-year-old pottery, and doesn't seem to correspond to the section to the left.

Secondly, why use a Western map of China? There are a number of Chinese maps that could be used instead during this time period. This is an article about China, after all, and in the interest of countering systemic bias and showing Chinese culture to the reader, I feel it would be more than acceptable to pick a Chinese example instead. Maybe this map from the commons could be used? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think that this can be seen as systemic bias, since the section in question is about the Western name of China, and hence, only Western material can be used to support the etymology. I agree that in the actual History section, i.e. History of China, Chinese maps should be preferred. intforce (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ohh. I see now. Being that I'm viewing the page on a 1920x1080 monitor, the picture of the map on my end doesn't appear in the etymology section, but rather in the history section. In light of this, your explanation makes sense. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I recommend using the new Vector skin (disable Legacy Vector) which limits the article's width – it takes getting used to, but it's easier to read :) intforce (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have shifted the map left to help with this accessibility issue. An alternative would be shrinking the quite large infobox. CMD (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Given how the name of this page would be unrecognizable to people in 9,800 or 9,900 of those years it kind of makes sense... The concept of “China” is a foreign one which was imported by early nationalists. The minds our conception of China existed in when that map was made in 1570 were exclusively “western” or “western” adjacent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Government form

The ideology of modern day China is disputed so maybe it should change into Unitary One-Party Socialist Republic, like once it used to be Maoist but then changed in Dengism but definetly not Marxist-Leninist.

Kommune12 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In my view the current ideology of China should be Unitary One-Party Socialism with Chinese characteristics Republic. —Byte (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ahh, @Kommune12, very good statement, but sadly i disagree on your statement, China was never been a maoists or all of this unclearity. Maoism is not existed in Party Ideological line, the Only correct and also legitimate ideological line of Chairman mao is Mao zedong thought. Also Degism or "Deng Xiaping theory" is driven from Socialist economics, of Marxism Leninism. Even Chairman mao Never decleared any Things called "Maoism" or things like this. Chairman mao Always said loud and clear that he was a Marxist-Leninist, and only promote Marxism-Leninism, MZT, not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Also It is clear that China was Unitary Marxist-Leninist One party Socialist republic with the 中共 as the ruling party. And Chinese communism, Marxism-Leninism-Mao zedong thought, Deng Xiaoping theory, Comrade Jiang Zemin's three represents. And Socialism with Chinese Characteristic in the new era As the ideological line. There are more things to discuss in this matter. 毛习圝 File:Terraria Wyvern flat.png 08:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary Info in Lead

"China has lifted more than 850 million people out of poverty,[24][25] the most of any country in world history,[26] and has the highest number of people in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest individuals.[p][27]" this entire sentence should be removed from the lead (I removed it, but since it was reinstated, I will seek consensus first and not revert, as I am banned from reverting without consensus). China has a higher population than any nation in the world, so clearly it "lifted more people our of poverty... the most of any country in world history." This is completely misleading, considering many nations have had much higher poverty percentages and lowed them, while China still continues to have much higher poverty rate than most developed nations, 2-3 times as high. Also, the mention of "in world history" should be irrelevant as well, as the US article doesn't mention it as the "wealthiest country in world history", it doesn't mention China's economy or population as the "largest in world history," so it shouldn't mention that it's lifted "more out of poverty than any country in world history." And the fact that it has the "highest number of people in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest individuals is never mentioned in other countries' article (the US only mentions the percentage of world wealth) and is too specific, because China does not have the most billionaires or millionaires (the US has 4x as many) [1]. That is why I believe this entire sentence should be removed, since it is an unnecessary factoid not meant for the lead. Bill Williams (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove. This reads much like cherry picking stats that put China in a favorable light. It reminds me of this tweet (no, that's no satire) intforce (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Too relied on Politically narrated agenda, sadly this could led to Article Neutrality loss

This article was full of badly narratized informations that was coming from highly sinophobic media outlet such as BBC aswell as CNN. And couple others of websites that was constantly attacking China and Do a blatant accusation. The narration in each Section of the Article was constantly seen as written in reefer to be a "Politically written in Favour of Western Cultural values, in order to Uphold Neutrality in article. Editors must know how to diffrentiate Politically Narrated articles and also Normal-Narrated Informative articles. In this article. Nutrality was somewhat as if A "Teeter board". Many editors are too focused on political agenda rather than Focusing on developing the Informative educational puropsed informations. Encyclopedia is a Educational informative media. Not some kind of platform to do a political activism to promote an idea of whatever the country is bad or not. As a chinese writter. I never Gotten myself into Writting a bad faith. Even on western Articles. Even though if i do write bad faith. In the end i myself is the one who will delete it before other editor can revert it. All i write is based on source. Not the biased One. Not the one that promote political agenda. Not the one who promote blatant accusation. But i will find the one that promote fact in accord of educational purposes. In accord of Neutrality. Neutrality is not just about writting a good information and also a contra on one section. But also how to make the contra section as good sounded and not sounded as a "Politicaly Narrated Agenda" of promoting whatever "a country is bad or not". As i said earlier. I have seen many editors edits in accord of their political Agenda, i have silent about this for long time. Before i move to english wikipedia. I have edited chinese section of wikipedia for almost 3 years then. I have met so many good Senior expereinced editors there giving me good advice on how to make a neutral articles and how to keep up a good faith editing. And sadly to say i did not see many of them here. Dwww File:Terraria Wyvern flat.png 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin with the above. But it would be best for you to propose any changes you would like to see here on this talk page. Your above statement is very generic in nature and does not advance the improvement of the article at this time. Perhaps best to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources then pls review Wikipedia:Advocacy.--Moxy 🍁 01:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologize, but even an Experienced editor like you still say "you're Not sure where to begin with the above". Well, for the benefits of readers. ofcourse it is better to start monitoring the "not neutral" sections that i talk about earlier" mostly i see something like "china is this", china is that. I mean it is a good part of neutrality to put contra in every pro part. All nation have it's own pros and contras in all sectors. Aswell as all ideology and all religious doctrines. All have contras and pros. But i see on this article mostly the contras were written aggressively. Or it is maybe from only my own prespective some people will say. But apologize to say this. Many readers reported to me that they feel slight discomfort when reading this China article. Well mostly from mainland china. But is it a judgemental ?, wikipedia is fair platform, we cannot chose who is the audience and readers yes ?, we must be uphold justice and not care from where people read it or what nationality they are. Aslong it is a reader and a people who use wikipedia as a crucial thing in their educational life. we must do everything we can to deliver them clean infromation of what the thing really is, and not from any political prespective but rather focusing it from the view of educational prespective. Also this article Not because it is not complete or not well cited. Not these. In fact this China article is very very Incrediblly well cited and sourced. With many Pros and contras in it. In the sense that well. It is already fullfiled "Neutrality" but sadly there is still these parts where the contras aren't written neutrally. The contras are written as if a condmening towards a nation. If possible i hope some experienced editor like yourself @Moxy can look up these parts i mentioned. I cannot do anything about it. That is why i please the editor with more authority to do it. Because if i edit it myself and even if i put a "good language" in a sense of making it sounded like not some sort of "condemning". In the end my edit will be reverted by someone-else. Possibly editors that are advocates of western cultural values that was focusing in politicizing an Article for Their own agenda or perhaps group agenda. On the otherhands, i see the way people edit the page of US positively. And i just want people do same thing to this China article. That is editing it positively like the way people edit the page of US. Also you said earlier that "my above statement is very generic in nature and does not advance the improvement of the article at this time". I disagree, i think by using a "less condemning" language in the contra section. This will helply improve the article. Thank You.  Half Dwww File:Terraria Wyvern flat.png 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Moxy. If you think that there is bias in the article, please give concrete examples and your own suggestions on how it should be improved. Otherwise you just making claims out of thin air, in my opinion. intforce (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

well @Moxy and @Intforce i agreed on both of you. Looks like i am reading it negatively all these times. I think as now. There is no problem with this article because the Neutrality of the Article is well preserved at this point, and does not goes against WP:NPOV at any way. And i think it is not an issue for this page. Because it is already good enough. Okay, think we have consensus here. That my claim above of the "bias" was all just because of my wrong way of reading it. And perhaps all those readers who claim of "biased" section was also "reading it wrong" and comprehense it negatively. And as always i am sincerely apologize for this inconvinience. And perhaps i can close our fine discussion and agreed on this once ? Dwww File:Terraria Wyvern flat.png 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Genocide Claims

I think there's enough sources for this that we should add several sentences about it. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Bogazicili (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It is pretty crazy this article has zero text mentions of Uighurs, internment camps or mass sterilization. If this is not added soon I will look into it. Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Added some info Bogazicili (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop the defamation of China and be neutral with a Wikipedia page. Western media news article is not a sufficient source of information for evidence, which you have used there. Quote a real peer-reviewed article and real figures before you edit. ––GrignardReagent007 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you could familiarise yourself with the contents of this article before you attempt to selectively raise the required standard of evidence. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There are now more and more voices suggesting that the "Uyghurs genocide" was nothing but the US government's fake propaganda strategy during Trump's term, mainly advocated by Pompeo. For example, this Youtuber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKvulTU8oU) had visited Xinjiang in 2020 and debunked many rumors, and another (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i915eArrego) had explained all the suspicious points of the US's Uyghurs genocide claim in details. I suggest maybe we can add a line about this.WakemanCK (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not forget to keep WP:WEIGHT in mind when mentioning such viewpoints. Some guy on YouTube is NOT a reliable source. If you have reliable sources to back up your claims, please provide examples of those instead. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest removing the line "The PRC is one of the world's only socialist states explicitly aiming to build communism. " in the Politics section

The line itself is already confusing in meaning. More importantly, it is generally agreed that China is not a communist country now. "Aiming to build communism" has not been mentioned by the CCP for many years. CCP's aim now is to build a socialist country with Chinese characteristics. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics) Of course, I know CCP stands for Chinese Communist Party but why they do not change their name is another story. WakemanCK (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@WakemanCK: The Communist Party of China's constitution states that the party is still committed to Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and building communism. The party hopes to achieve communism by transitioning from its current point at an early stage of socialism. Whether or not this is rubbish is up for debate, and both sides are mentioned in the article. However, in my opinion the sentence should be removed because it is not sourced and only serves to praise China from an ML-perspective. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

add "4.4.3 Diplomatic disputes" with the history and culture controversies with Korea. ex)hanbok and Hanfu, kimchi and pao cai 180.66.76.15 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bar chart under the 'China in the global economy' sub-heading is spoiling the alignment of the text

Something needs to be done about the bar chart under the 'China in the global economy' sub-heading as it is spoiling the alignment of the text, making the article look unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"China continues to pose a global threat to the human rights of people outside of China, including political refugees who have left China due to persecution."

Am I the only one who finds this sentence out of place in the lead? Whoever paraphrased the original content made no effort to make the wording neutral. Human Rights Watch themselves are careful with their wording: "China's government sees human rights as an existential threat. Its reaction could pose an existential threat to the rights of people worldwide."

It's like if someone cited this Human Rights Watch report on the United States and added the sentence "The United States is a backwards country when it comes to human rights" to the lead of the United States. No doubt the sentence is true, but that's not how things should be worded on Wikipedia. Sentences should sound neutral regardless of its content or source. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The Human Rights Watch report on the USA does not describe the USA as a backwards country when it comes to human rights. The Human Rights Watch report on China does describe China as a global threat to the human rights of people outside of China. There is a broad consensus among reliable sources that China is a threat to Chinese nationals who are living outside of China. This belongs in the lead. Sbelknap (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I read that annual report every year and I’ve never seen anything in it which would support the statement "The United States is a backwards country when it comes to human rights.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also just FYI we currently do include human rights in the lead for United States: "Despite receiving relatively high ratings for its human rights record, the country has received some criticism in regard to inequality related to race and income, the use of capital punishment, high incarceration rates and lack of universal health care among other issues.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This previous edit of mine (as well as the following edits by me), which was further paraphrased by someone else, probably speaks to my intentions and reasoning better than what I've written here. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources over media

@Moxy: Regarding this revert I made, the edit summary obviously doesn't make sense because I thought the edits were to Talk:China. Regardless, you should voice your concerns here before readding your maintenance tags, and avoid adding comments like "Lets try and find non media drap sources pls" into citations' URLs (and breaking them). CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Very odd the edit summary was in the article like that....did not notice. Did we find better sources?....got to start upgrading the type of sources used here.--Moxy- 02:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:RS, journalists may be considered reliable sources. This is a complex issue that has been extensively discussed by wikipedia editors, and those discussions continue. My understanding is that editors are to rely on and cite from reliable sources, emphasizing secondary sources. There is nothing inherently "better" about academic sources versus journalistic sources. To the contrary, in the case of a political article, academic sources may exhibit more bias than media sources. Instead, editors may cite secondary sources which digest and synthesize primary sources in a fair manner. Sbelknap (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed.--Moxy- 02:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Constitution

Please replace non-official AND outdated links to the Chinese Constitution and instead use this: http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/constitution2019/201911/1f65146fb6104dd3a2793875d19b5b29.shtml 190.219.182.200 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

The sentence "At least one million members of China's Muslim Uyghur minority have been detained in mass detention camps..." should read: "*According to The Guardian*, at least one million members of China's Muslim Uyghur minority have been detained in mass detention camps..." 77.58.145.196 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The citation is already referenced to the Guardian. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The very next sentence also says "According to the U.S. Department of State..." although there is also a reference. It is by no means a proven fact that "At least one million members of China's Muslim Uyghur minority have been detained in mass detention camps", since it is disputed be the Chinese government. For a sentence to be in Wikipedia without a preamble is unencyclopedic.

 Not done: This is the consensus of reliable sources, regardless of whatever the Chinese government says. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Surprisingly, you consider Chinese media as inreliable sources. Whatever you think, they should be at least significant minorities and be regarded in the passage though with words added in front like "Chinese media say".John Smith Ri (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please remove or amend the "preceded by" section in the description tab

Please remove or amend the "preceded by" section in the description tab.

This section is as follows:

| p1                          = Republic of China
| flag_p1                     = Flag of Taiwan.svg
| p2                          = Tibet (1912-1951)
| flag_p2                     = Flag of Tibet.svg

Reason: 1. Wikipedia usually only includes the preceding regimes on a page that describes a country that no longer exists.

See example: South Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam
            Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia
            Soviet Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Wikipedia does not include the preceding regimes on a page that describes a country that still stands, even if it incorporated various historical regimes.

See example: Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam (does not include the preceding South Vietnam)
            India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India (does not include the preceding Portugues Goa and the Kingdom of Sikkim)
            United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States (does not include the preceding British America, Spanish Florida, Republic of Texas, Mexican Alta California, Russian Alaska, Kingdom of Hawaii, etc.)

2. Even if this section is here to keep, it needs to be massively expanded. Various other preceding regimes of the PRC include:

See example: British Hong Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong
            Portuguese Macau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Macau
            The second East Turkistan Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_East_Turkestan_Republic

Overall, including the preceding regimes on a page about a current country seems odd to me.

Lichadehehehe (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Because whatever the actual legal predecessor is, that is surely covered in article prose; and also because listing a still existing country as a predecessor is dubious, at best. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring proposal

Split

My proposal is to split this article into two pages after discovering the China article on the Chinese Wikipedia. China is the name of the historical civilization/cultural region and the People’s Republic of China is the name of the political entity (see this article here). The purpose for the split is because China is a divided nation similar to Korea has because the names "China" and "Taiwan" are too confusing and treated as individual countries but they are the names of the geographical regions. I am suggesting we have to restructure the article into their official names rather than their common names.

Similarly, I also discovered the Taiwan article on the Chinese Wikipedia which is closely unrelated to ROC’s history as seen here on this link. —Silence of Lambs (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Move: Requested on 11 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Boldly giving a rather early close to this, because consensus appears to be firmly against the proposal; and because making this last 6 and something more days is unlikely to bring a change of that; so there's no need to run in through the whole process (WP:SNOW). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• China → People's Republic of China
• Taiwan → Republic of China
• Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan
• Politics of China → Politics of the People's Republic of China

– See above. I have discussed the situation. Silence of Lambs (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are two questions here:
  1. What should be the title of these articles? The linked RM and various discussions since have repeatedly demonstrated a consensus for the common name of the state, i.e. "Taiwan" for ROC & "China" for PRC. The current titles are long-standing consensus in English Wikipedia based on several discussions. You shall have read a series of extractly the same discussions among archive that brought up irregularly before infinitely starting a new one, please. Archive 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, and 31
  2. What should readers get if they search for "Republic of China"? The usual way to settle that is to ask whether there is a primary topic for the term. That depends on whether you're interested in current events or in history, and as I know there already exists three different articles describing historial chronicle for the whole or each periods of the state of the Republic of China (Republic of China (1912-1949)), History of Taiwan (1945–present), and History of the Republic of China... If there isn't a primary topic, that argues that "Republic of China" should be either a disambiguation page or a WP:CONCEPTDAB page. Previous discussions of this issue can be found here and at Talk:Republic of China (disambiguation). 123.195.130.73 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. I think it's a good idea to clarify the two different governments which both still claim "China". The PRC is still known as "China" by most media outlets, which the RoC is still known as "Taiwan" by most. Though, I have notice that the "People's Republic" is an emerging term that is gradually growing in popularity (similar to how the USA, being the most powerful nation, is often simply the "United States"). I think that we should wait for significant change in relations between the two jurisdictions (namely, a potential occupation of Taiwan by the PLA and/or relations between America and Asia), in the event that major political polarisation in English-language media's language leads them to call the PRC as the "People's Republic", its long-form name or perhaps stick with "China". JMonkey2006 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Continuing with previous statement. Reference to WP:COMMONNAME has been made already. We don't have to use a country's full or formal title. For example, I live in the United Kingdom. The article title is not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", because "United Kingdom" is the common name in English. Another classic case as the topic of Kingdom of Naples, historically it was the common name in regard to the kingdom located in Italian Peninsula but its offical name was called "Kingdom of Sicily", despite its offical name, we don't use such the name in order to avoid ambiguity that may confuse with another island kingdom of the same name; and that needs to be noted - COMMONNAME is about what is most commonly used in English-speaking world by native English speakers. The fact Taiwan's official title is "Republic of China" doesn't matter. The fact that the modern country/state (precise status perhaps to be defined) centred on Taiwan island is overwhelmingly known as "Taiwan" - and not Republic of China or any variation thereof -in every serious reference work, and in media and scholarship, is indisputable. In the absence of any significant reason in this case for us to ignore WP practice of placing countries at their common, short-form name, Taiwan or China it is. Even Taiwanese people very rarely refer to themselves as coming from the Republic of China and refer to coming from Taiwan. Please see Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names

Debating the political implications of one name or another is a red herring that will only stall the discussion instead of advancing it. The bottom line is that all names are controversial for this subject. "Republic of China" offends many mainland Chinese and some Taiwan independence advocators, because of the 'China' implications in its name and because of the ROC's prior history of mainland Chinese territorial claim. "Taiwan" offends some mainlandChinese and many KMT-followers, because it implies either that Taiwan isn't a Chinese province, or that it's an independent nation with no rightful claim over the mainland. There is no name that will satisfy the political inclinations of all of the editors here, let alone all of the readers.

123.195.130.73 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, because the current way the lead of the Taiwan article is worded seems to violate WP:NPOVNAME in my opinion. When readers search "Taiwan," they don't expect to hear right away that "Taiwan, officially the ROC, is a country..." because Taiwan is just the island. It seems The current government that controls it is the ROC (which is the remnant of the "previous" China), but it would still be inaccurate to call Taiwan a country. It would be more accurate to call the ROC the country and Taiwan the island. Calling the PRC by its full name does not violate WP:COMMONNAME, because all the maps I've seen sold in China, as well as Baidu Maps, Amap, etc. use the full name “中华人民共和国”. Félix An (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Large support, some maps have the "People's Republic of China" on them and of course, even news outlets like NBC News and Al Jazeera gradually using the nation's official name. Even ROC and PRC government websites use their official names. —Silence of Lambs (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Are you reading the sources you've provided? The first source does not include the phrase "People's Republic of China" or "Republic of China" in the article text at all, and the second includes "People's Republic of China" only in a quote, and uses the term China to refer to the state everywhere else in the article including the headline. Dylan (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose no new evidence shows better usage since last few RFC on the matter.... as per our MOS on common names ..as per the FAQ at top of this page ...as per Talk:China/Archive 9#Requested move ...as per Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011.--Moxy- 14:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and quick close. The 2011 RM included a long list of sources demonstrating usage. No sources have been presented for this RM. Further, contrary to the claim in the opening statement, there does not appear to have been any discussion prior to this RM being opened. CMD (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Objection I reject your above statement as evidenced by JMonkey2006 and Felix An's opinion, Taiwan is an island name not a sovereign country. I seen maps with the official name of the nation (Republic of China) such as this one on Flickr which shows claims to the mainland. -Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose current status quo overwhelming aligns with sources and media mentions regarding both parties effectively. Doesn't matter what other language Wikis do, there has been no change in affairs since the last consensus. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Objection Calling an island a country is confusing to the readers. It’s like calling Corsica a country despite being controlled by France. Even Chinese outlets are even using the name the "Republic of China" as evidenced by a Chinese language media outlet and ROC government websites such as this one. -Silence of Lambs (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I suspect that PROC-aligned sources might have a vested interest in not having Taiwan be seen as a completely separate entity. We instead need to use independent English sources. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Take the article from Foreign Policy, Taiwan News and Japan Times for example. These would be put into good use. —Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • It's unclear to me what you're trying to demonstrate with these sources. The first article linked here is explicitly about history and the second is about the Google search results for a specific phrase. Use of the full names in these contexts don't imply that "China" and "Taiwan" are not more common identifiers; both of these articles make use of general terms (China in the first, Taiwan in the second), and the title of the publication for the second source is even "Taiwan News". The third article seems to be a counterexample to your point; not only does it use the headline "China’s insistence that Taiwan isn’t a country starts backfiring" (both terms here are clearly referring to states, not geographical areas) but also the content of the article itself is about the lessening popularity of the phrase "Republic of China" to refer to the country and includes such sentences as "For many in Taiwan today, the Republic of China seems like a historical relic with diminishing relevance for the democracy of 24 million people" and "Tsai’s government has sought to assert more of a Taiwanese national identity, including by redesigning passports this year to highlight the word “Taiwan” while minimizing “Republic of China.”" Dylan (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

    Silence of Lambs, Your proposal would actually invite more confusion to English Wikipedia readers in my opinion as both Taiwan and China are by far the common names for their own respective political entities, not the physical island itself or any broader sense of the term "China". Similarly to Hawaii, just because there is an island with the name of Hawaii, we don't name the main article "State of Hawaii" to avoid confusion. The established common name is simply "Hawaii" and the island itself has a separate page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Think about it. There is already two Congos: Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (aka Zaire). So my proposal of renaming Taiwan is to avoid confusion between the name of the island and the name of the nation that governs it. —-Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

      Silence of Lambs, Congo is a not widely recognized term to refer to any specific country in Africa. China and Taiwan are. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe China should go to a DAB because of the pottery but the term appears to originate from the place and otherwise WP:DABCONCEPT would suggest not going to a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Full semi-Support Good thinking too. —-Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME (especially of China itself) and reducing confusion (NATDAB is clearer for Taiwan than having to know what specifically PRoC vs RoC is). DMacks (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Objection Its best to use the official names for historical purposes to avoid confusion of a country name between an island and polity name. Even the United States Department of State Historians used the PRC and ROC as seen here.[7] -Silence of Lambs (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That ref also uses Taiwan and China, and very often at that. It seems to use ROC/PROC only when specifically talking about the governing entities. That ref is a good precedent of not using those terms for our articles that instead have a broader scope. DMacks (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • True. Even scholarly sources used the official names as seen on this link. For example on this quote: "Although there was a certain sympathy for the new revolutionary government among the members of the United Nations, any likelihood that the PRC would replace the ROC as the representative of China disappeared with the advent of the Korean War in June 1950. Before the outbreak of hostilities, a number of members of the Security Council had already recognised the new regime. The USSR boycotted the Security Council from 13 January to 1 August, claiming that it was doing this in support of the PRC, which had notified the Security Council on 8 January 1950 that it considered the presence of the “Kuomintang delegation” illegal and that this delegation should be expelled from the Council. A draft resolution introduced by the Soviet Union proposed not to accept the credentials of the ROC representatives. Making good on a threat to do so, the USSR ceased its participation in the work of the Council when the draft resolution was rejected." — Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the existence of a clear primary topic by every measure that we use to determine primacy. BD2412 T 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Objection, as mentioned above by User:JMonkey2006, even the countries that have diplomatic relations with the ROC used the name "Republic of China" as the legal regime of "China". So using the name of the island as a country name is too confusing. —Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing new since last RfC. DrIdiot (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Objection Have you read User:JMonkey2006's proposal? The purpose of the change is because "China" is the name of the historical civilization. Taiwan is the name of the island, and PRC/ROC are political entities. —-Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as several others have stated. This is a contentious topic, and there *are* many good arguments for either case, but these were hashed out at length in the last proposed move discussion, a decision was reached, and no *new* reason to reopen this has been given. Dylan (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Objection It actually is. I heard there a lot of media outlets that begin to gradually use the name "People's Republic of China". —-Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW, it's normally considered a bit aggressive to bold your opinion multiple places in the same RFC; it's fine to respond to people, and I'm not sure if there's any formal guideline on this, but I don't think putting a bold "Objection" under everyone who disagrees with your proposal (or a bold "full support" under those who agree) adds much to the discussion besides making me wanna throw in some Ace Attorney references, and it makes it a bit harder to scan. At any rate, "I heard there is" doesn't count for much; as the proposer, I'd ask you to to bring cited evidence that the common usage of the term "China" in English has changed, which is the reason stated by the triumvirate on the previous RFC for the current naming. As evidence that it hasn't drifted dramatically, the current edition of the AP Stylebook states "When used alone, China refers to the nation that includes the mainland, Hong Kong and Macau. Use People's Republic of China, Communist China and mainland China only in direct quotations or to distinguish the mainland and its government from Taiwan." Dylan (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Assertion by Silence is easily, demonstrably, false. Just search any major news org: [8] [9] [10] [11] etc., look for an article with "China" in the title, open it. Have not found the words "People's Republic" yet. DrIdiot (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Check out the 2005 AP Stylebook, it defines: "When used alone, it refers to the mainland nation. Use it in datelines and other routine references. Use People’s Republic of China, Communist China, mainland China or Red China only in direct quotations or when needed to distinguish the mainland and its government from Taiwan. For datelines on stories from the island of Taiwan, use the name of a community and Taiwan. In the body of a story, use Nationalist China or Taiwan for references to the government based on the island. Use the for-lmal name of the government, the Republic of China, when required for legal precision." -Silence of Lambs (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The emphasis you've added does not change the fact that the guidence you've quoted literally says to use "China" alone to refer to the mainland nation, and to only use the full name in direct quotes or when it's otherwise needed to distinguish from the common, general-use term. Above I quoted the current edition of the AP stylebook, which retains this language (I'm afraid I don't have an online link as my access is through my employer, but you can grab a print edition from your nearest library to verify). Dylan (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - fine as it is, reflecting common usage and understanding. GiantSnowman 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose China did not appear out of the void in 1949 when the PRC gained control of the mainland. The article covers the country back to prehistory - setting the title to be the People's Republic of China would be misleading. Similarly, the article called Taiwan covers the geographical entity and not just the modern state.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose split and all moves pretty much per Nigel Ish, the current communist regime is just one of many in China’s long and rich history. Cavalryman (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC).
• Oppose through COMMONNAME and other related policies. China's formal name is not that which is the most likely or common search term. The full name can - and always is - used in the lede and infobox and that's enough for me. doktorb _words^deeds 21:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment no vote as this isn't going to pass. Some good ideas, but there should have been more than 10 minutes for feedback before the formal move request was made. A construction like Politics of the People's Republic of China is unwieldy even if the rationale for the move makes sense. Also, while I don't like how island article titles are handled in general, the common names for the polities are "China" and "Taiwan" and we use common names over official ones. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: per 2011 argument. I believe that both China and Taiwan are common names of their respective republic (PRC and ROC). It may likes a requested move from South Korea to ROK and North Korea to DPRK for similar reasons. In additions, Silence of Lambs is a new Wikipedia user joining from 2019, 8 years after the previous discussion about it, so maybe it doesn't know about common names. 36.77.73.119 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should split this article into "China" and "PRC"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In 78 language there are two independent article for "China" and "People's Republic of China" with rather different content. We should consider splitting this article. --John Smith Ri (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) BTW, administrators, add the template for I am limited by semi-protection, please. --John Smith Ri (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Jack Frost (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The page is at China as a result of a previous move. It was determined after a long discussion that "China" and "People's Republic of China" were two names for the same country, for which there should be one article. We should not be guided by other wikis, especially where naming is concerned as it often varies between countries and languages.2A00:23C8:4588:B01:E9A2:72D8:604D:9D7B (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support.Such two words do not really vary between countries and languages.--John Smith Ri (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I oppose. Hard to give a reason though as there is no actual proposal as to the split. What would the two articles on the country "China" and the country "People's Republic of China" contain? Without any such proposal there is nothing really to !vote on and this should probably be closed as moot.2A00:23C8:4588:B01:E9A2:72D8:604D:9D7B (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. -- Cisdine (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per previous 4 talks Two Chinas.--Moxy 🍁 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy:I have seen that the English Wikipedia uses "Two Chinas" when referring to both the ROC and the PRC. From my understanding, "Two Chinas", like "One China", is a political terminology that may be inappropriate, because this is a controversial policy between the ROC and the PRC and the other countries. Like there are different pages of Korea, South Korea and North Korea, I think that there should also be a page of "China" for the geographic and political situation and two other pages of "ROC" and "PRC" (or other names that are more appropriate) for each government. -- Cisdine (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that NK and SK each control roughly equal portions of the historical Korea. Taiwan controls a relatively small island that was only intermittently part of China for relatively brief periods. "China" the historical entity and "China" the modern political entity (PRC) are much more congruent.--Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Unnecessary fork. There is already an article, History of the People's Republic of China, a split is completely unneeded. This article structure currently fits very well as a summary style article. China >> History of the People's Republic of China >> History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976) > Great Leap Forward. Fragmenting content when it is not needed only creates opportunities for POV forks, dup content forks, contradictions between articles, etc. so this split should only be done if a very compelling reason to split exists.  // Timothy :: talk  19:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I do agree that "China" is a little awkward, maybe even ridiculous, since it seems to imply that the PRC started 2.25 million years ago, which is a matter for another discussion. But I oppose splitting this article because in addition to the articles mentioned above, we already have History of China, which covers the whole shebang. Probably we should do a better job of coordinating. ch (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

How does this article imply that any more than the United Kingdom article implies that that state dates back ~30,000 years? --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Read this previous point. In English, "China" overwhelmingly refers to the People's Republic of China. 23:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleCuteSuit (talk • contribs)

• Oppose In English, the word "China" has come to unequivocally refer to the modern People's Republic of China. By this logic, the India page should be split into "India" and "Republic of India" which seems absurd to me. We already have History of China and for anyone interested in "the other China" (i.e: Taiwan) they can read Republic of China. Akshaysmit (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "China" overwhelmingly refers to the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China is a longform name, China is the mostly universal common name for the PRC. Do an online search of "flag of China", it shows the flag of the People's Republic of China. If we split China and PRC, then we have to split South Korea and the Republic of Korea (ROC claims PRC as its territory; the DPRK claims the ROK as its territory). Yeungkahchun (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Splitting the article would be unhelpful and just create confusion. If we were to do this, there are at least 100 other similar articles that would need to be changed. LeBron4 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as no coherent reason has been given for the proposal. I don't see why we would have separate articles for the WP:COMMONNAME and official name of the country. I note that we don't seem to do that for other countries – Russian Federation redirects to Russia; Federal Republic of Germany redirects to Germany. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the reasons given in all the previous discussions. And what other languages do is irrelevant to what the English language Wikipedia does. --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is a significant difference between the idea of governments of the idea of countries. Governments are a political institution while countries are far wider in meaning than governments. They are fundamentally two different terms, a fact that people tend to forget. In the perfect situation, we should indeed make a difference between all Wikipedia pages of governments and countries. However, changing all these articles may be too gigantic, so we should only focus on points where the conflict between the word "government" and the word "country" happens most drastically. Due to the complex political situation of the ROC, this difference is exerted maximumly in the situation of China, which actually worth this modification. Since we often see English as the standard language in an international sense, it should also reflect the will of people who use English less frequently. Therefore, the fact that Chinese Wikipedia and Wikipedia in many other languages use separate pages for China and PRC should be reflected in English Wikipedia as well.--The193thdoctor (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"the fact that Chinese Wikipedia and Wikipedia in many other languages use separate pages for China and PRC should be reflected in English Wikipedia as well" This makes absolutely no sense and would deprive the native English speaking community of control over its own language. No one would countenance the idea that English speakers should be able to tell Chinese, Quechua, or Xhosa speakers how to speak those languages. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME In that case, Russia should also be renamed "Russian Federation". Danloud (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

China’s size

China is 4th largest by total area after Russia, Canada and USA. It’s not the third but fourth Nlivataye (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Size  ? Say in Moscow. Enough for 2 000 000 dead (worldwide). China government disagrees heavily. Put on Negotiatien. Gaz purchase.Oldi Marechal (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Notes#h says: "The area given is the official United Nations figure for the mainland and excludes Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.[4] It also excludes the Trans-Karakoram Tract (5,800 km2 or 2,200 sq mi), Aksai Chin (37,244 km2 or 14,380 sq mi) and other territories in dispute with India." The second statement could use some supporting sources or explanation of how that conclusion can be made--similar to Notes#k; although the source for the first statement from the UN does not actually explicitly state for its Surface Area column that the China figure does/doesn't include the others (Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan/ROC), it should be reasonably valid to conclude that it (most probably) doesn't considering the others are listed separately (except Taiwan/ROC for numerous reasons). Drixomanbeta (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at the Arbitration Committee if anyone can participate. —Silence of Lambs (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration deals with conduct issues. I think you might've been looking for some form of mediation like the WP:DRN? However, a consensus is recently established above and so there's not much you can do. WP:Consensus can change however, so you might be able to try again in the future. But I personally doubt your proposed change will achieve consensus in the foreseeable future, indeed due to WP:COMMONNAME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2021 (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)

Citation needed. Dustie (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Economic statistics from official Chinese government sources are unreliable..."

Regarding this edit that I reverted, the claim that "Economic statistics from official Chinese government sources are unreliable, and may exaggerate Gross Domestic Product by 65% or more" needs better verification before it is added again. As I wrote in the edit summary, only one source is cited, authored by senior heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. From the source, the basis of the 65 percent estimate is based on GDP estimates from "night-lights data". The original researchers cited in the piece estimated China's GDP based on satellite imagery of lights in China. The piece says the original researches argued and proved there was a correlation between GDP and light-use, but it doesn't go into detail because that's what the original researchers' work is for. This is quite an interesting methodology, so for the claim to be reinstated and stated as fact, it would need additional citations using this exact data. Doing so would demonstrate that there is some level of agreement within the rest of the academic community. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, we need stronger sourcing to make that statement or anything close to it. We can use some combination of these [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] to craft a more well rounded statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on my talk page. To clarify for other editors, I'm not arguing for or against the claim, I am saying that better citations are needed. There is considerable debate both inside and outside of China on the extent to which the statistics are exaggerated (as is the case with any set of statistics), so we shouldn't take one study and state its numbers as fact, especially when its methodology is unprecedented. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence based on the WaPo source that was given by Sbelknap. I don't have the time right now to do so myself, but that sentence can probably be expanded on and made more detailed. Another issue though is that the body paragraphs later in this article don't adequately address this point, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could do that. All the best, everyone. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there're multiple other RS, it should be included for reference and marked clearly where the data came from. Sometimes even less than ideal information and sources can provide clues to what's most likely happening and what might have been fudged. Mayboleen (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government itself has conceded that its economic statistics are unreliable. A RS was provided. This belongs in the lead. Sbelknap (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed Sbelknap. Dustie (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A source for China's rankings in terms of freedom.

So I found this source here that I would like to add, which shows China's ranking in terms of how free the country is. I want to check if its reliable before I could put it in the article.(https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021) Blue Jay (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have questions about the reliability of a source please check the RS Noticeboard, or make a post there if you can't find anything regarding your source. Additionally, it would be helpful if you specified what you would like to use that source for, rather than just "adding it". BSMRD (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, sure! Blue Jay (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Include the Nine-dash line in the picture of territory (and claims of territory) map of china.

While I am aware that it is generally the case that the maritime borders of a country or the claims thereto are not shown on a map of that country's territory, the importance which this specific claim has to global politics and the inclusion of the Nine-dash line in official maps made by the Chinese government warrants an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayaanIrani (talk • contribs)

The Nine-dash line is heavily disputed, and essentially pulled out of thin air. Any inclusion in any sort of map needs to focus on and emphasize this fact. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Name

@Intforce, then what is it? the official name of China in Mandarin is 'Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó' (directly translated as China People's Republic) the word 'China' isnt an endonym, Chinese people call their nation as zhōnghuá. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. 中华 is an extremely broad term more related to Chinese civilization and culture than to the country itself. The common name for the political entity that is Mainland China is 中国. If we were to include any IPA here, it would the IPA for either 中华人民共和国 or 中国. I kindly ask you to stop edit warring until a consensus is achieved here, on whether to include IPA at all, and for which term. intforce (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Intforce, so of 中国 or 中华人民共和国? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it as it is, without any IPA. But perhaps other editors might agree with you. intforce (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Intforce, what if someone doesnt know to read Hanzi or Pinyin? how is he going to read the name AleksiB 1945 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A person not knowing Hanzi or Pinyin is unlikely to be able to read Chinese IPA, e.g. [ʈ͡ʂo˥ŋxwa˧˥]. intforce (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In that case hopefully they can read english, if not the rest of the page isn’t going to be much use to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Following up on the discussion of "Name" (above). MOS:CHINESE#Chinese language says:

Any encyclopedia entry with a title that is a Chinese proper name should include both the Chinese characters and the Hanyu Pinyin representation for their names in either the first sentence or in an infobox clearly visible in the lead.

That is, Hanzi should be removed from the lead. "Middle Kingdom" should also go because it is neither a literal translation or an official name, and "Central state", which is irrelevant here (why not "middle nation" or "central country", which are also "literal" dictionary meanings?). Both are included with other nicknames in the "Etymology" section (I agree that calling the section "Etymology" is strange, but that's a question for another day).

Japan, Vietnam, Korea do not give literal translations of the official names.ch (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Government type

“One party” should be taken out of the government type section. Michael58137543 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

While there is a technical argument for "Dominant Party", the vast majority of RS refer to China as a One-Party state, and all of the minor parties are in coalition with the CPC, with none in opposition. BSMRD (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Affliated political parties such as so-called eight democratic parties does not form a valid political power for challenging the position of CCP dominance, they performed as "rubber stamp" or a "Communist front" directed by the CCP rather than an independent organisation under a phrase of United Front. That's obvious fact. For instance, in the former Soviet Union they had similar parties within its governmental structure but people still generally considered it was an one party state. LVTW2 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Update the Demographics section given the Census 2020 is out a month ago

I'm still surprised nobody has updated the Demographics section yet, given the Census 2020 was up a month ago (therefore adjusting all population to the 2020 instead of the 2010 census). Plus, the two child policy is now replaced with a three child policy which covered by many outlets like the BBC, which is pretty much big news, but no changes were yet made. - 祝好，Sinoam^(聊天) 23:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

I want to add text under the topic China with the name "Democracy" PMFAN (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. intforce (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

The most recent edit to this page, which added a new top level header about typhoons, is non-notable and filled with grammatical and other basic errors. It should likely be reverted. 2600:100F:B03B:2F1:324A:D20B:DCB7:9A78 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. Reverted. BSMRD (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

China article reorganization

With the Afghanistan situation ongoing, there is a major confusion in the English language Wikipedia that the Chinese Wikipedia has and the English language cannot. We know "China" is the name of the geopolitical region and "Taiwan" is the name of the island with the region in East Asia divided into two political entities: the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China on the mainland. Even the news media and government pages of the PRC used their official name while the media mostly prefers Taiwan over the name "Republic of China". Why is this way confusing for the reader that the ROC and PRC are divided regimes inside China? Can we do a major changes with the articles? —174.89.100.2 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no major confusion at all. The article is pretty solid and has been for awhile. No idea where this is coming from. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds more like the Chinese Wikipedia has it confused and needs to wake up to reality and change its presentation.--Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party

Combefere made this edit with the deceptive edit summary "abbreviations", changing links to Chinese Communist Party to a piped link Communist Party of China. It was decided in an RM on 16 July 2020 that "Chinese Communist Party" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This decision was affirmed in a move review and another RM on 21 Janaury 2021. Combefere has been edit warring to reinstate their change, disregarding the usual WP:BRD process and not even attempting to gain consensus here on the talk page. I kindly ask an uninvolved editor to undo the change, until a consensus has been reached here. intforce (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No consensus was reached in the RM on 21 Janaury 2021, with 6 supporting the move to the old article name of Communist Party of China and 9 opposing. I request maintaining the official name "Communist Party of China" until a consensus is reached.

I strongly propose the standardized use of the official name "Communist Party of China." Because both names CPC and CCP are used frequently enough in English media to claim WP:COMMONNAME, there should be no reason not to use the official name. WP:ON contains numerous valid reasons to deviate from an official name - obscurity, competing authorities, changes to name, and propaganda - and this does not fall under any of them. There's simply no valid reason to deviate.

Further, I'll argue that the use of the title "Chinese Communist Party" is unnecessarily pejorative and contentious. As an example, earlier this year PRC diplomat to Australia Wang Xining said in a panel discussion: "Once again, I want to say the correct wording in English is the Communist Party of China. It's CPC, not "Chinese Communist Party CCP." You make a different linguistical connotation. You make the name right; you make the understanding right." The frequent misnaming of the party occurs predominantly in western media outlets with a decidedly anti-China stance, and it is clear that this deliberate misnaming is interpreted by the CPC as a derogatory slander. While I don't believe that racial or political slander is the intent of any Wikipedians, I think we all need to understand that the overrepresentation of American and European perspectives on Wikipedia contributes to systemic WP:BIAS, and in this particular case gives many people a blind spot on why the deliberate misnaming of the CPC is so contentious.

"Communist Party of China" is a valid WP:COMMONNAME. It has been published by BBC, Reuters, The Independent, JSTOR, and more. It is by far the most frequent name in English-language publications made by Chinese media outlets including the CPC's website, CGTN, Xinhua, the Chinese Embassy in the US, People's Daily Online, and more.

The name "Chinese Communist Party" is only 'common' in western American and European media outlets that are aggressively anti-China and use it pejoratively. There is no reason for Wikipedians to prioritize these sources. The official name "Communist Party of China" is the common name. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The earlier RM and subsequent move review show a very clear consensus. You are also mistaken that the more recent RM concluded with no consensus: a RM is not a vote, and the discussion very clearly moved to a consensus to keep the status quo. Even more if you consider the fact that two of the support opinions were SPA IPs. It seems to me that you have decided for yourself that "Communist Party of China" is the common name, thinking that it gives you the right to arbitrarily override the community consensus. This is not how Wikipedia works. You could open a new RM to see if the consensus has changed, but I would suggest waiting until at least one year has passed since the last discussion. intforce (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The characterization of these discussions as a "very clear consensus" is incorrect. No consensus was reached in the January 2021 RM. No consensus to move is not the same as consensus not to move. These debates have gone on in Wikipedia back to 2006, and there are still spontaneous challenges to the pejorative western misnaming in virtually every Wikipedia article about China. Asserting a community consensus does not make one appear.

If you are genuinely interested in building a consensus around the naming convention, I suggest you start by adopting the official name. Propping up a derogatory false name isn't just bad practice because it's an instance of systemic bias, or it's unethical - it's also bad practice because it is never going to gain consensus. Editors have been objecting to it for 15 years and editors will continue to object to it in the future because it is objectionable. The very organization it describes explicitly objects to the title. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 03:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Derogatory false name"? You are making absolutely no sense. 1) There is no insulting term or slur in that phrase. "Chink Commies" would be a derogatory name. 2) It is obviously not false because they are a communist party and they are from China. Which is what "Chinese Communist Party" literally means. --Khajidha (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As determined in previous discussion, keep "Chinese Communist Party" until/unless there is a consensus to change it. I'd oppose that change. Pashley (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

Joelio Tri (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I want to add more information.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The reference "VOA" was added to the Environment section on the 4th of October in this edit, however it was never defined.
The refname <ref name=VOA /> should be deleted and replaced with {{CN|date=October 2021}}
Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

"chania is the second biggest country in the world" ...That title actually goes to Canada, by a small margin, yet, that statement is false. 2607:FEA8:4CE0:EF60:F55E:C829:D8FB:3319 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Already done As far as I can see the article does not make that claim. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The article does say "The People's Republic of China is the second-largest country in the world by land area" and that statement is referenced and the reference does say that China is second, but List of countries and dependencies by area indicates that the source is wrong and China is third by "land area". Any objection if I change the text from "second-largest" to "third-largest", add Canada in second, and remove that reference? SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly made the change. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

China's National Flower

When you search China's national flower it redirects you to Taiwan's national flower of plum blossoms. It should be updated that the peony is the unofficial flower of china as it won the popular vote in 2019 and in 1994 it was also chosen despite not falling through into fruition. i think it should be updated so people don't get confused with the people's republic of china and the republic of china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.149.22 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

103.218.133.243 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Democrat Republic of China}}

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

China vs People's Republic of China

People's Republic of China currently redirects here. This is not necessarily a good idea; as it can be argued that PRC is a smaller concept that China. It's strange to have an article about People's Republic of China (founded in 1949) lay claim to the entire history and culture of China. PRC needs a 'split-off' from this article. Compare: France vs French Fifth Republic; Poland versus Third Polish Republic... although I admit this is hardly ideal, many countries don't seem to differentiate those concepts much.

Anyway, 80 Wikipedias - but not English- have entry on wikidata:Q29520 "cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation in East Asia, divided politically into the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC; Taiwan)". We do not; our article on China is wikidatalinked to wikidata:Q148 (People's Republic of China (Q148)). (There is also China (region) that redirects to East Asian cultural sphere, shrug). For those interested, you can machine-translate (one click in Chrome...) de:China, and perhaps more crucially, zh:中國. If Chinese Wikipedia splits those concepts (PRC is under zh:中华人民共和国), we should take note. At the minimum we should have something to plug into the wikidata at Q29520.

If anyone is confused, here, here's a simple way to see the problem:

• wikidata:Q148 (People's Republic of China) - zh:中华人民共和国, de:Volksrepublik China, es:República Popular China (lit. People's Republic of China) - is our China.
• wikidata:Q29520 (cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation in East Asia, divided politically into the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC; Taiwan)) - zh:中國, de:China, es:China (región) (lit. China) - does not exist on English Wikipedia _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe this en.wiki actually that arrangement first, which emerged in 2003 when the China article was split up. The other wikis based their split this. However, following Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011, this split was undone. I don't understand the comparison examples you gave, as this page follows the same structure as France and Poland. There's already an exact match for the Third Polish Republic redirect at History of the People's Republic of China. The French Fifth Republic article is sui generis so far as I am aware; information on current regimes is generally located in Politics of X and Government of X articles. CMD (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is about the country known officially as "People's Republic of China" (including a history of times when it was not called PRC). The article title is the country's common name: "China". The term "China" has other meanings, including China (region) and China (porcelain), but we've decided that PRC is its primary topic. All of that is subject to change, but I think the current page organisation reflects the consensus last time it was debated. Certes (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• This has been discussed multiple times before; I think Talk:China/Archive 18#We should split this article into "China" and "PRC" may be the most recent discussion. Consensus has been that we should not have separate articles for "China" and "People's Republic of China", just as we don't have separate articles for "Russia" and "Russian Federation" or "Germany" and "Federal Republic of Germany". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger Good point. This problem likely needs a community RfC for all countries... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That is an option, and you're welcome to propose it. I doubt it would succeed, but I've been wrong before. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: @Piotrus: {Not the same case. Republic of China exist since 1912 and it is successor of Qing dynasty and since 1949 mainland - part of territory of Republic of China is occupied by Communist revolutionists called themselves as People's Republic of China. Borders chainged but Republic of China remains China. Eurohunter (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix, because there is no problem. --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. The fact is that the history should not get involved in the entry if the entry is titled with PRC. PRC just existed after 1949. A Chinese user (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A better comparison will be with the article Ireland, which still points to the island, rather than the Republic of Ireland. It contravenes common name as well, because of the political sensitivities of the Northern Irish issues. The same reason was given why we once had a China article focusing on the Chinese geographical region, its pre-civil war history, its traditional cultures, and so on, while the PRC and ROC articles focuses on the respective political entities which existed relatively recently in Chinese history. There are not many places on earth where there is an unsettled civil war with two governments claiming to be the succeeding state, hence Wikipedia:NPOV should have taken precedence over common name and not give either political entity preference.

Unfortunately, all of that was thrown out of the window by a majority of people in that move request of 31 August 2011. One of the reasons why I have since hardly contributed to this website, because I realise it is so easily undermined by people with vested interests despite the best efforts of a minority to follow the spirit of those Wikipedia policies which kept it together in the first place.Huaiwei (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The island of Taiwan isn't cut down the middle by two countries. It is in possession by one country and the entire world calls it Taiwan. Not close to the same thing. But you claiming this article is "undermined" shows your own POV. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Huaiwei: @Fyunck(click): Yes but China - officialy Republic of China exist since 1912 and it is called "Taiwan" for simplicity. Borders chainged but Republic of China remains China. Eurohunter (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And the fact that we do something wrong with Ireland, is no reason to mess things up here. --Khajidha (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly some misunderstanding about the title policy here. The Ireland articles do not contravene common name, and their titles were not chosen due to political sensitivities. If anything, political sensitivities would argue against the current setup. CMD (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is an RfC for splitting the article into PRC and China, I'd support splitting it. 142.157.247.204 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No criticism in lede?

I have nothing specific against China, but every single country where there is some conflict or controversy has its fair share of criticism in the introduction, at least a sentence or two summarizing the main issues with its different viewpoints (if there are), specially when elsewhere in the same article those issues are explained in detail, such as in this case (there is an entire section in text body dedicated to human rights violations). Maybe someone could add something in lede about China's treatment of minorities, its numerous border disputes (besides the obvious one with Taiwan), human rights record or alleged authoritarianism. I'm just throwing the idea out there. I'm not planning to add anything myself. You guys do whatever you want. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.154 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, it seems remiss to omit what is arguably the defining trait when talking about "China" as a country. VF01 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: after some cursory detective work it seems Sinwiki12 was guilty of removing the statement. I've reinstated it. VF01 (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. NavjotSR (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, somebody should have this article on their watchlist to stop the CCP trolls who are constantly trying to remove content they don't like. But it's not going to be me. I have too many things in life. Hopefully one of you can take care of preserving content related to criticism. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:502:2D59:0:0:48C9:AC45 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this page be protected so that it is not vandalized? (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Uncited claim in lead section

Second to last paragraph in lead section: > "Although the accuracy of claims has been questioned by some analysts."

I think this needs to have a source and should otherwise be removed. Mellowsilica (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Significant diffs from last 500 edits by User "Mr.Roku Fire" on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=prev&oldid=1061049300 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=prev&oldid=1061944056 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=prev&oldid=1062239500 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&diff=prev&oldid=1062585980

Other users, at least once, have removed Mr.Roku Fire's baseless claims which attempt to discredit sourced claims stating something 'bad' about China. Given that there are no sources, this is frequent and at least one other person has thought it right to remove similar edits of Mr.Roku Fire's, I am going to remove this text.

I'm new here so I don't know the protocol for it, but this user should receive some sort of warning or stern talking-to. Mellowsilica (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Remove "Although the accuracy of claims has been questioned by some analysts." in the 2nd-to-last paragraph in the lead section. Please, see the talk page for my reasoning. Mellowsilica (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done here --Hemantha (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

May I request changing 2A02:A020:91:3D69:1:0:D724:3A76 (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 March 2018 and 12 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Majd.Salman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 reverts

If anyone would like a longer explanation regarding my recent reverts from 17 to 19 January 2022, please see User talk:Acaunto#January 2022. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD: your "any country" argument to restore bad quality content is invalid handwave. See WP:OSE, also remember this is GA article so standard should be maintained. I don't find any of this on articles of United States, India, Russia and others. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find it on France, Spain, Brazil and others. Additionally, this kind of paragraph can be found at the end of the lead of each article you linked. I don't get how talking about China's economy or notable tourism and technology sectors in the lead is "puffery" or "bad content". Also this isn't a Good Article and it hasn't been in over a decade. BSMRD (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I can agree that France and Spain have issues, while Brazil also say "However, the country maintains high amounts of corruption, crime and social inequality." You should better fix those articles, but this article about China should not entertain such insignificant point of views. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

What insignificant point of view? That China has one of the world's largest economies? I am genuinely baffled as to what the objection is here. BSMRD (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with BSMRD. The article United States, for example, has a similar paragraph in the lead. Notice the similar language used to describe the country's economy and notability in certain fields:

"The United States is a highly developed country, accounts for approximately a quarter of global GDP, and is the world's largest economy by GDP at market exchange rates. By value, the United States is the world's largest importer and second-largest exporter of goods. Although its population is only 4.2% of the world's total, it holds 30% of the total wealth in the world, the largest share held by any country. Making up more than a third of global military spending, it is the foremost military power in the world and internationally a leading political, cultural, and scientific force."

WP:OSE is also not policy, it is an essay. The onus is on Aman Kumar Goel to further explain why they believe the paragraph is puffery. Although WP:PUFF is also an essay and not policy, they could gather support for a favourable consensus if they bring forth a compelling argument based on policy, as a similar argument could be made along the lines of WP:UNDUE. I do not think it is good practice to remove content without a proper explanation and shift the onus to the reverter(s) to explain why the original edits should have been reverted, especially when the edits are contested.

The new paragraph also repeats information in the paragraph directly above it, particularly about China's permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the only instance of possible puffery I could find in the original paragraph is the use of "well-known" to describe China's culture. A little redundant might I add, to say that "China is known for its well-known culture." The rest of the paragraph appears to be simply statistics that are discussed in detail later in the article, which fulfills MOS:LEAD. Like BSMRD, I personally do not see what the contention is. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Another note: This article is not listed as a Good Article and is rated B / C by relevant WikiProjects. If you check the version that was listed as a Good Article back in 2013, a paragraph similar to the one that was removed is written in the lead. The first two sentences are as follows:

"Since the introduction of economic reforms in 1978, China has become one of the world's fastest-growing major economies. As of 2013, it is the world's second-largest economy by both nominal total GDP and purchasing power parity (PPP), and is also the world's largest exporter and importer of goods."

Editors should also consult MOS:LEAD. A good argument for undue coverage would be if the lead mentioned all these statistics and well-known factors of China without giving a more detailed explanation in the article body. Going back to the previous example of the article United States, the article does go in-depth to explain why the United States is "a leading political, cultural, and scientific force". CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that in my recent edit,[22] I haven't removed the whole, but only the sentences that were totally recently added (just like economy-related ones) but unlike the economy-related ones they were never a part of article before as well.

If you want to reject WP:OSE, the common standard of Wikipedia, then see WP:UNDUE and yes MOS:LEAD too. What happens in the United States article is not any concern for this page. The world is more influenced by the American culture of Hollywood, music and the US military is indeed a dominant force in the world thus "it is the foremost military power in the world and internationally a leading political, cultural, and scientific force" is justified for the United States article but a similar sentence cannot be used for describing China. For China, we can't say it "is known internationally for its culture, cuisine, manufacturing, and scientific and technological innovations" because it is clear that we can say this about good dozens of other countries many of whom are in fact much more influential in terms of culture, cuisine, etc. than China. Also, the country having "the second largest number of UNESCO sites in the world and was the fourth-most visited country in 2019 with 65.7 million visitors" is irrelevant for the lead because it is a part of their economy which covers hundreds of other aspects and not just tourism. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any source saying these things are in fact irrelevant? Or is it just your opinion? China is one of if not the oldest continually defined countries in the world, and it's culture and economy has entirely defined the history of at least East Asia, and has affected the entire world over the past few thousand years. Any argument for including these things in the lead of United States applies equally well for including them in the lead here. As for Tourism, France, Spain, and Italy each give specific numbers regarding its ranking on amount of visitors and amount of World Heritage Sites. BSMRD (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And you need a source to understand that tourism is not the only economic factor for China? You need to talk about today where United States and Japan lead the world of technology. Spain and France are the most visited countries but China isn't, so I agree that mention of their 4th rank is totally WP:UNDUE. Wareon (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with BSMRD that Chinese culture has been influential internationally, particularly in East Asia, the obvious counter-point that arises is that the article does not discuss this fact in detail with reliable sources, which would be against MOS:LEAD. I think being in the top five most-visited countries is a significant fact and not undue, but I do not think it is too specific of a fact to include in the lead, which is a summary of the article's content. However, I do think it is worth mentioning in the lead that China is known for its tourism, given the statistics at hand.

I think the article France is a good example of how the contested paragraph could be included. The lead of that article includes a paragraph which begins with the sentence:

"France retains its centuries-long status as a global centre of art, science and philosophy."

But why is this sentence warranted? Because the article has an enormous, well-written, and adequately sourced section discussing in detail why France has been viewed as such.

The problem is not "puffery" or the sentence being undue weight. The problem is that statistical rankings tend to be too specific for leads, and claims should not be made in the lead paragraphs without details backing it up in the article body. The thesis must be argued in the essay. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless it tops or is at least placed 2nd on tourism rankings, I don't see why it would be worthy of mention. It will only confuse readers as if we are giving more importance to tourism. The article on the US, which is 3rd most visited, does not have these details either. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I am not sure why you asked me to note your most recent edit when my entire response was to this edit of yours where you did remove a whole paragraph which included information about China's economy. In fact, I was the one who broke off that paragraph because the second part (which discusses culture, cuisine, tourism, etc.), which you removed in your most recent edit, was unrelated to the first (which discusses the economy). My understanding now is that you had grievances with the second part but not the first part, but you removed the whole paragraph anyways instead of just the parts you wanted to contest. Like I acknowledged in this edit of mine, I can see why you or anyone else may have found that paragraph to be puffery. Statistics which were unrelated to each other were listed out in the lead like some kind of resumé for the country. However, you could have just reworded the paragraph like I did instead of removing the entire paragraph and only having "undiscussed puffery" as your initial explanation.

Also WP:OSE is again, an essay and not policy. It is not a standard by definition, but rather something another editor thought people should keep in mind while discussing issues on talk pages. Regardless, "It is in another article so why not here?" is not the point of my argument. The point of my argument is that it is in another article and should be here because of MOS:LEAD. The article United States has the two sentences I highlighted in the quotation because it talks about those things in the article body. The MOS:LEAD argument for your removal of the content would then be that this article does not actually go in-depth, with reliable sources, as to why China's culture, cuisine, tourism, innovations, etc. are significant. That would be a policy-based argument, but that is not the argument you are making because you keep deferring back to WP:OSE, which is not policy, and citing policies (which you did not initially mention until I brought them up) without going into detail as to how you believe they apply to your point. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

When someone cites 'puffery' to be the concern, it means that they are typically talking about WP:NPOV and find the sentence to be either non-neutral, misleading or just too much of a one-sided opinion. WP:OSE say that we should not use other articles when it comes to argue about the article in hand. Throughout these years I haven't seen anyone objecting to that. As for my 'most recent edit' I was merely providing an update about it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume we are on the same page and you agree that "This is in that article so it should also be in this article" is a bad argument on its own (the thesis of WP:OSE), but the argument that "This is in that article because it adheres to a specific policy so it should also be in this article as well if we follow the same policy" is slightly different and makes sense. My only point to this end is not that the thesis of WP:OSE ought to be rejected, but that WP:OSE is not policy and should not be the basis of anyone's argument(s) as to why something should or should not be in an article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

China's involvement in Russo-Ukrainian war

Is China involved or no? Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not particularly, they are just tangentially relevant to discussions of diplomacy and sanctions. Nothing that should be included in this article, though. Endwise (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Third or Fourth largest country?

It says it's the third OR fourth largest country. But this is because of the disputed territories in Kashimir, and the pacific territories If I recall correctly. So should we say it's the fourth largest country since it's too disputed or third largest country instead of Third or Fourth largest, or should we keep it the way it is now? Jishiboka1 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Disputed territories should be excluded unless there are strong de jure and de facto cases for including them. (If Luxembourg staked a frivolous claim to Russia, Luxembourg wouldn't become the world's largest country.) However, China seems to be slightly larger than the U.S. on a like-for-like basis, even without those territories, making it third. See List of countries and dependencies by area#Countries and dependencies by area, especially note 4. Neither ranking is clearly wrong, so "third or fourth" seems a reasonable compromise. Certes (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thanks! Since people all around the world read this article, I think neutrality should work, I recently learned about NPOV. Jishiboka1 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Both traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese characters are in use in mainland China

Hey guys, I have added the names in traditional Chinese as well. Even though simplified Chinese is used on formal occasions, traditional Chinese remains in daily use throughout mainland China. In addition, traditional Chinese characters are also present in all Chinese dictionaries along with simplified Chinese characters, and are also taught in schools (mainly in university disciplines associated with linguistics and history).Hhm001 (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No longer the Most popuplated

China is now ranked 2nd, India is #1 now BlueberryPi8307 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Every source that I am seeing still reports China as having a higher population, even if not by much. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

About aksai chin

How you can shown a aksai chin part of China in showing map? It's occupied part of china RUDRAKSH2 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The caption of the map is: "Land controlled by the People's Republic of China shown in dark green; land claimed but uncontrolled shown in light green." I think the language used is ambiguous enough to avoid making definitive statements about sovereignty. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Superpower Status Question

Can we include a sentence in the lead section that states China is academics recognize China as a potential superpower with some claiming China possesses enough influence to be categorized as a superpower? FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I support this addition to the article lead and body (but the latter should come first). The statement by intforce that "... you may find just as many sources that contend that China is not a superpower," is actually an argument in favour of its inclusion rather than against it.

WP:DUE states that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Therefore, arguments that China is and is not a superpower or rising power should be included in the article lead, because the topic itself is incredibly prominent in discussions of international relations, and both viewpoints are supported by reliable sources.

Also I do not see how the original addition's wording is "extremely problematic" as the sentence could not be more watered down (although it could use a little tweaking, in my opinion). Compare

"China's combined economic growth and military strength lead many political scientists to consider it to be a potential superpower or superpower."

with this sentence from the United States' lead:

"The Spanish–American War and World War I established the U.S. as a world power, and the aftermath of World War II left the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers. ... The Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991 ended the Cold War, leaving the United States as the world's sole superpower."

The description of the U.S. as a superpower is definitive because this fact is undisputable. However, the same cannot be said about China because this is still hotly debated. Thus the addition by FictiousLibrarian offers a justification from the authors of the sources and the sentence is not a definitive statement ("many political scientists consider it to be a potential superpower").

However, if a sentence regarding this topic is added to the lead, might I suggest: "China's combined economic growth and military strength has lead a number of scholars to consider it to be a rising power or potential superpower. However, others argue to the contrary, citing China's decline in economic growth in recent years and its inability to establish stable relations with its neighbours." (example source for the latter addition) CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It is obvious China is a superpower, yes. Peking Tom (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A reminder to other editors that they should include policy-based reasons (or at least a brief explanation) as to why they agree or disagree with the suggestion in their responses. Consensuses are not reached solely by vote counts or agreement without explanation(s). CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

China–Laos border dispute?

I clicked several links starting from the citation provided and arrived at the original source, an Economic Times article (list) from 2013. The only sentence given regarding Laos is: "China claims large areas of Laos on historical precedent (China's Yuan Dynasty, 1271–1368)", but this is contradicted by the official positions of the Chinese (PRC) and Laotian governments, and another article by the Economic Times, which references a 1991 border treaty. I looked up the treaty and found this article from the LA Times, written right after the treaty and titled "China-Laos Treaty Ends Longstanding Rift Over Border". From the article:

"Officials from China and Laos have initialed a border treaty, ending a dispute that has lasted more than a decade, an official report said Friday. The treaty was concluded Thursday, three months after Chinese-Laotian mapping units finished a joint survey of the border area."

The (first) Economic Times article, which was the original source that asserted China still lays claim to much of Laos, does not give a further source for this claim. The entire list itself gives few sources and seems to be bloated with outdated information. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Reference 467 to https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/030216/worlds-top-10-telecommunications-companies.asp doesn't mention any Chinese telecom company. The reference mentions the data being "as of 2018" but the referenced article was updated 2021 and might have excluded information regarding any Chinese companies with the update.

Please remove reference 467 (Parietti, Melissa. "The World's Top 10 Telecommunications Companies". Investopedia. Retrieved 22 February 2019.) Hasslarp (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence in paragraph of pre-20th century history

Fyunck(click) HERE feels that “the writing was better prior”, but did not address the substance. I'll try again in hopes of pleasing them!

Couple of points:

1. "China emerged as one of the world's first civilzations..." is not logical. "China" would have to have existed before it emerged. What “emerged” was not “China”. If you say “China” emerged from the ooze fully formed, you miss the story of how specific people and actions created China, which is an inspiring story. The “Pre-history” and “Early dynastic rule” sections describe this process. The issue is too complex to discuss in the lede, but archeological evidence cited below makes clear that there was a complex of civilizations or local systems, only some of which were Han.
2. “Third century BCE” is certainly correct, but 221 BCE is more specific and an almost iconic year, as hinted in the number of hits in a Google search 221 BCE].
3. It is also not true that Qin “re-united” core China, as shown in the map Map of Qin unification.

Hope this helps. ch (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with the entire first part. The 221 originally read as "In 221 century BCE" and that is not correct. Since it took years I would still use 3rd century BC as a much better fit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Good. I'll edit to incorporate your points, then on to the rest of the paragraph.ch (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph in lead on pre-20th century

Here are some thoughts:

1. The article is based on present day "China," not History of China.
2. The paragraph is strong on technology and inventions, but not all of them are as significant as political and economic topics, more of which could be inserted and linked.
3. Horn of Africa, Mesopotamia, are not as important as Hundred Schools of Thought, Buddhism.
4. Big gap from “new Silk Road.... Horn of Africa” to “the Qing...” This is the period when the basis of today’s China was laid. Also mention basic economic changes.
5. “Tang culture spread widely in Asia” is vague
6. Non-Han governments ruled for more than half the thousand years before the 20th century, so should mention the Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing.

Cheers ch (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh, if you're only talking about the Yuan and Qing, they ruled for a combined 357 years (if we're counting Yuan (1279-1368) and Qing (1644-1912)). Give or take a few years depending on when you say each dynasty started/ended. Definitely not "more than half the thousand years." Ratata6789 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Китай" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Китай and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Китай until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

Please change the first sentence in the demographics section from

The national census of 2010 recorded the population of the People's Republic of China as approximately 1,370,536,875.

to

The national census of 2020 recorded the population of the People's Republic of China as approximately 1,411,778,724.

CraigP459 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yue🌙 18:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Western propaganda?

@Hypersonic man 11:, Could you please explain why you added a citation needed tag next to China's widespread human rights abuses because of "Western propaganda"? X-Editor (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet visit to Xinjiang haven't produce results yet so... Unless you want to follow US' baseless accusations, you might have to wait. Even tough some western propaganda pages like BBC says that the visit is strictly controlled and biased Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP considers the BBC to be a reliable source. If you want to dispute that categorization, head over to WP:RSN. Maybe that one visit hasn't produced results, but Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch definitely have. And if you're going to claim that's western propaganda, then you might as well claim that The Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda. X-Editor (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11 you should also read China#Sociopolitical issues and human rights. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Esoteric sicret GOV . - Program's.

PIN - character selection. After the same birthday / year of birth (via China Horoscope), etc. On the psychological influences (such as - migraine, suppressed mood, nervousness, insomnia, etc.) on the state leadership of the People's Republic of China. can this also be referred to as Western propaganda?PIN Figur2 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

Replace China spans five geographical time zones with

China spans one geographical time zone China only has 1 time zone 71.169.178.254 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The existing statement is correct as it is a statement about China's geography ("China spans five geographical time zones"), not what the people of the country use. In other words, the sentence is not claiming that China uses five time zones, but that geographically, five time zones fit in it. Yue🌙 19:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Largest City

I don’t know if this has been discussed but can someone please add the largest city in the Info Box? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this has been resolved. Thank you. 2600:1005:A010:FE6E:A0AD:5DCF:C502:A388 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It was added as Shanghai, shouldn't it be Chongqing? BhamBoi (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed since at least 2007; if you check the archives of Talk:China and Talk:Shanghai, there is general agreement that Shanghai is the largest city because the figure given at Chongqing includes the population of the entire municipality and not just the city (urban area) of Chongqing. Yue🌙 03:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! BhamBoi (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

How is mentioning Chinese culture and cuisine "POV"?

I would like to bring up this edit made about 2 weeks ago by the user "Aman.kumar.goel", who made a significant change by stating that various edits from the previous week were "unexplained POV". I had thought it would mostly be about contemporary politics related to the CCP which may justify that. But I noticed that the user also removed non-political and non-controversial elements within their edit. They include removing Shanghai as the country's largest city, which is weird considering that's a mundane fact, (seems like it was restored by a different user eventually) as well as all mentions about China's cultural aspects, including its cuisine, its heritage sites, visitors, etc.

I'm not one to cast aspersions here but this user seems to be a really proud Indian citizen, just look at their userpage, but it seems incredibly hypocritical to remove all aspects of Chinese culture and cuisine in the introduction while not justifying the same reasons on India, which mentions much more about India's history prior to the modern establishment of the country and its culture. From an outsiders' perspective, it can't be denied that both China and India has incredible amounts of soft power both regionally and globally, known for their cuisine and media, and should be reflected as such. Not everything has to be political, Wikipedia should be above that. SaintsBradley (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Relevant discussion from a few months ago. I have similar disagreements about the removal, but I do not want to rehash my arguments again. If anyone is interested in some previous responses from other users, check the archived thread that I linked. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A summary of the section on culture (cuisine, tourism, etc.) and the science/technology/manufacturing stuff are things which should have a place in the lead. Even on that archived talk page section, the only person arguing that it should not be summarised in the lead is Aman Kumar Goel. If it's just the one person, I don't see why it shouldn't be restored. Endwise (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

At least 3 editors had disagreed with the puffery in question. So don't misrepresent the discussion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not going to waste people's time again, so if anyone thinks an RfC is in order, please consider starting it. While checking this article's edit history, I noticed that the addition/removal of this particular detail is usually accompanied by an edit summary asking for a consensus or discussion. However, neither the editor nor the person being reverted ever makes any comments on the matter on the talk page. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It is puffery because every single country has their own set of cuisines (List of cuisines), dozens of countries get millions of visitors every year (World Tourism rankings), technological innovations and so on. There is no need to mention any of those details on lead. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to start an RfC, but a much more experienced editor could probably do that (I have read up on how that works) which could then help gauge a much wider response. Personally, I don't think mentioning aspects of the country's cuisine and culture in its introduction constitutes as "puffery" or "POV", especially when the article is talking about the country itself. Wikipedia is founded with the idea of being an online encyclopedia. Leaving such fundamental information doesn't really make much sense. Chinese cuisine, culture and traditions is a scope that goes beyond the political nature of the PRC/CCP and shouldn't be disregarded or dismissed just because of politics. SaintsBradley (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't engage in strawman. No one is opposed to addition of puffery because of "the political nature of the PRC/CCP", but because of puffery itself. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's not start bringing in buzzwords to make counterarguments, shall we? I'm still not understanding what exactly makes mentioning a country's culture or its cuisine as "puffery". From what I can gather, China seems to be weirdly singled out here. This kind of information doesn't seem controversial in articles of other countries. SaintsBradley (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead already notes that: The invention of gunpowder and movable type in the Tang dynasty (618–907) and Northern Song Dynasty (960–1127) completed the Four Great Inventions. Tang culture spread widely in Asia, as the new Silk Road brought traders to as far as Mesopotamia and the Horn of Africa.

There is no need to repeat it anywhere else on lead.

I would say your argument is completely misleading and China isn't being "singled out". Russia for a name does not have the mention of any of this as last paragraph on lead. Ultimately, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia *does* have an inclusion that it is "home to 30 UNESCO World Heritage Sites". When there was a text mentioning that "China has the second largest number of UNESCO sites in the world", you removed it. So it's not exactly inaccurate to assume with my initial comment. SaintsBradley (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You never mentioned the word "UNESCO" ever before, this means you are now moving the goalposts. Consider resolving it on Talk:Russia if you have issues with that. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You literally brought up Russia, and so I made the comparisons made over the introductions of China and Russia. You claim that my argument was misleading, but removed the inclusion of UNESCO on China while bringing up Russia, which *had* the same thing. SaintsBradley (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Addition of culinary, cultural and scientific aspects of China in the introduction

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.

There is no consensus to include a sentence mentioning the culinary, cultural, and scientific aspects of China in the lead. Some of those opposed have pointed out that there is already some coverage of the scientific/manufacturing aspects in the lead as-is, and the partial supports are split between more coverage of archeology and manufacturing or more coverage of culture, philosophy, and literature. A copyedited version of the sentence was put forward, as were a few alternate sentences, none of which gained any traction in this RFC, although separate discussions may lead to a compromise which could garner more support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should there be a mention of culinary, cultural and scientific aspects of China in the introduction to further reflect the coverage of the country? This was the initial sentence that has led to back-and-forth reverts between multiple users. Note that this sentence may not necessarily be the one added and may be subject to change after the RFC has concluded. SaintsBradley (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

China is known for its well-known culture, cuisine, manufacturing, scientific and technological innovations with the second largest number of UNESCO sites in the world and the fourth-most visited country with 65.7 million visitors.

• I do not find this to be a clear RfC question, as it's hard to assess in isolation. With regards to the specific sentence proposed, I oppose, as it's just a random list of things. With regards to the wider point of the lead, it would generally be positive to cut down the History and to better reflect other aspects of the article. CMD (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • You're right, I've added that the sentence is not concrete and may be subject to change to satisfy all viewpoints. SaintsBradley (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Partial support for manufacturing and archaeologically related aspects of culture, such as UNESCO sites. Other articles have a similar sentence or two, depending on the country, in the inroduction as well. China is also one of the relatively few countries with very old artifacts. Innovation and cuisine, however, are not that special in my opinion. Senorangel (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It is puffery and already mentioned on lead with the sentence about Four Great Inventions as discussed above. Unless you want to get rid of that then it would need another discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose(Summoned by bot) As presented the text is vague to the point of puffery. Italy and India both have similar positions in world history and similarly famous cuisines in the West, but neither include this kind of vagueness. The UNESCO sites might warrant inclusion, but given its geographic size, the ranking is not very surprising. Given China's immense size and long history, more substantive facts exist which warrant inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the list of World Heritage Sites by country and the list of countries and dependencies by area are not all that related. For instance, Italy is 1st by heritage sites, and 71st by area. Russia, despite being about twice the size of China, is 10th. Additionally, the USA, Canada, Brazil, and Australia all have a comparable size to China, but none of those countries make the top 10. So "given its geographic size, the ranking is not very surprising" is incorrect; it is demonstrative of its history and culture rather than its size. Endwise (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support — So long as there is additional context added to the article body per MOS:LEAD. I am unconvinced by the arguments that this is puffery because similar sentences can be found in the leads of other countries with major cultural and technological achievements/contributions/notability. From the leads of ...

  France: "France retains its centuries-long status as a global centre of art, science and philosophy. It hosts the fifth-largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites and is the world's leading tourist destination, receiving over 89 million foreign visitors in 2018."

  Italy: "As a reflection of its cultural wealth, Italy has the world's largest number of World Heritage Sites (58), and is the fifth-most visited country."

  Japan: "A global leader in the automotive, robotics and electronics industries, Japan has made significant contributions to science and technology. The culture of Japan is well known around the world, including its art, cuisine, music, and popular culture, which encompasses prominent comic, animation and video game industries."

  Spain: "Spanish art, music, literature and cuisine have been influential worldwide, particularly in Western Europe and the Americas. As a reflection of its large cultural wealth, Spain has the world's fourth-largest number of World Heritage Sites (49) and is the world's second-most visited country."

So either all of these sentences are puffery and should be removed or the addition of the suggested paragraph is fine so long as MOS:LEAD is fulfilled (i.e. relevant details are added to the article body). Otherwise, somebody has to explain to me what the difference is. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OTHERCONTENT type arguments are not valid. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am aware that I did not make a policy-based argument, but I am not trying to make one, the same way WP:PUFF and WP:OTHERCONTENT are not strict guidelines but reminders to editors to use common sense in discussions. My argument is not, "This should be added to the article because it exists elsewhere," it is "Why do people want this removed in the first place?" No editors have ever had an issue with similar passages in other articles, so why are people suddenly just saying "Puffery!" "NPOV!" now that somebody added it to the article for China in particular? Are we seriously arguing here whether "China is known for its culture, cuisine, manufacturing, scientific and technological innovations"?

  Let's say I or someone else adds context to the article body and citations of sinologists, historians, and other academics and scholars that discuss these elements of China. Would that warrant their inclusion, or is it still "puffery"? I do not understand at all why people were/are so up-and-arms whenever this is added to the article. This sentence is a widely argued description of China in academic and non-academic circles. It's akin to denying that the U.S. is a superpower or that French cuisine has had considerable influence worldwide.

  Regarding the sentence being too vague, is the lead not supposed to be less detailed? Is that not why similar sentences are found in other countries' articles?

  The only policy issue I can see is MOS:LEAD; the article cannot say "China is known for its culture, cuisine, manufacturing, scientific and technological innovations," in the lead and have nearly no context in the article body. I strongly disagree that this is an WP:NPOV issue, because the argument that this sentence does not represent a significant viewpoint and is giving undue weight is preposterous. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I will add such context and citations to the article body in the coming days, but I really hope other editors will ask themselves why they feel that the sentence is puffery/POV in this article in particular but not in others. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have had similar issues with many articles. Reducing this to imagined feelings about this article in particular is one reason that OTHERCONTENT arguments are not helpful. CMD (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I find it very odd to not include a sentence mentioning what China is known for outside the spheres of politics, economics, and history, if and only if said well-known elements are expanded upon in the article body in the future. At present this is not the case, so this point does not yet have legs to stand on.

  Putting the "imagined feelings" aside, I still do not understand what the policy issue (or non-policy issue) is with this excerpt.

  • "... it's just a random list of things."
  • "It is puffery and already mentioned on lead with the sentence about Four Great Inventions as discussed above."
  • "As presented the text is vague to the point of puffery."

  I suppose the general consensus so far is that it may not have a place in the lead because of the composition of the article body and/or because it seems out of place and borderline promotional? Regardless, I have said all that I wanted to say regarding this RfC's topic as I have already done in the past. I am not going to press further, so other editors can consider or ignore what I have said. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering you're making a vast and convoluted argument to prove your point, I'll be frank with you. China sucks. In fact, I think the article in its current state is not even critical enough about the regime. There's nothing to redeem of this imperialistic CCP regime and its colonies of Inner Mongolia, East Turkestan, Manchuria, Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong, Shanghai, etc.

Until the regime falls and a free and liberal democratic country within China proper is established with its colonies liberated, as well as Taiwan being properly recognized as a sovereign country, I wouldn't be inclined to add whatever culinary, cultural and scientific aspects that China has, as it only helps and serves to acknowledge and justify the Chinese regime. It will also become a "stain" in Chinese history. China should be treated as a pariah state, as it has no regards for what constitutes the fundamental rights of humanity. 121.86.251.239 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support, because Wikipedia needs to cover both the good and the bad.Peking Tom (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment 1) Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, with no policy based commentory 2) Wikipedia needs to give only as much importance as necessary, not equal importance - WP:FALSEBALANCE. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Added signature late, had forgotten Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  False balance between what and what though? The text in the RfC and the opinion that China isn't well-known for it's culture and cuisine, or the opinion that they don't experience a lot of tourism? These are uncontroversially true statements. I don't see the relevance of a policy which states Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity to this discussion. Endwise (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

False balance policy is simply to point out that his "include good and bad" argument is incorrect. His logic is dismissed in point 1 itself, no policy based arguments. This isnt a vote, the editors need to make arguments based on Wikipedia policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it would only be relevant if such aspects of china are fringe or minority views. The false balance section in WP:NPOV means not presenting fringe/minority views on the same footing as mainstream views, as if they were of equal validity. So you don't say something like "some say the Earth is flat and some say it is round". I would hope you would agree that the views expressed in the text are mainstream ones, not minority ones.

Peking Tom's comment is a roundabout advocacy for WP:NPOV, assuming you don't believe that aspects of China that could be perceived as positives (like "they are well known for the cuisine") are fringe views. Of course the lead mustn't be scrubbed of aspects of the article that could be perceived as positives for China. Endwise (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:LEAD. There are huge sections on culture and science and technology in this article, so they need to be summarised in the lead. I think the sentence can be workshopped a bit (for instance "known for its well-known culture" is a strange thing to say, should probably just be "known for it's culture"), but that is better done after/outside the bureaucracy of an RfC. Endwise (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Of course content discussed in the body should be covered in the lead, excluding it on the basis of "puffery" is nonsensical. All country articles cover cultural and economic aspects, including this one, and saying that its "puffery" to put in the lead has no basis, unless the very idea of China having a culture and economy with global impact is somehow too positive for you. On a technical level I would put forward my copyedited version of the proposed text rather than what is given at the top of the RfC. BSMRD (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per CMD. Also agree that the entire lead actually talks about it apart from UNESCO sites which would be just a trivia for the lead. The articles of other countries mentioned here should be fixed if they are setting a bad precedent. Shankargb (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above that "The invention of gunpowder and movable type" in terms of innovation has been already covered on lead. No need to repeat it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Partial Support I agree with other users that the parts about technological innovations and manufacturing are redundant, because the article already mentions the Four Great Inventions and China being the world's largest manufacturer. I also think the statement "China is known for its well-known culture" is poorly worded. I am neutral/ambivalent about mentioning the UNESCO World Heritage Sites and tourism. However, I do think Chinese culture, philosophy, literature, and cuisine are worth noting due to the historical impact they've had on China and surrounding countries like Vietnam and Korea. Perhaps a better sentence would be:

China is known for its culture, philosophy, literature, and cuisine, which have had long-lasting impacts on surrounding countries. Ratata6789 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:LEAD. I do concede that there are better things to mention than the number of tourists so I suggest a change of wording as Ratata6789 proposed. However to strike all mention of China's economy and culture from the lead because ”puffery“ just screams WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Large countries such as the United States, France, Russia, Germany or Japan all exert outsized influence on the world and mentioning their culture, as is the case with France or Japan, or their economic might (US) is standard practice. That is a reflection of the world we live in and, more than anything, a proper lead section to an article that dwells on these topics. Andro611 (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support There is no denying China's rich cultural and culinary history and its profound impact on humanity, just as with the countries above as mentioned by Andro611. Brianishezrt (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Yue and Ratata6789 The Account 2 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, Chinese culture and cuisine are wider than the PRC which is what this page is for. If we're going to mention things we should mention things that are special to China and not the shared heritage of more than a dozen countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Literally all countries in the world have their culture and cuisine influenced by their neighbors or from immigration. India with other South Asian countries (Indosphere, Brahmic scripts, etc). China with other East Asian countries (Sinosphere, Chinese characters, etc). Southeast Asian countries from both China and India. If we're going to go by your logic of only including parts "special to that specific country" then like 75% of every country's article about their culture, cuisine and main article don't belong there either. For example, American culture is a mixture of centuries of immigration from many other cultures from other parts of the world. Does that negate the culture's origins? Should Australia and the United States only discuss the cultures and cuisines of Indigenous Australians and Native Americans then? Why should China be singled out here for "exclusivity" of what's only special to them? Yes, Chinese culture and cuisine are widespread in Asia and around the world thanks to immigration from China. Do you think they just spontaneously appeared into existence in other countries? SznycerVI (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support this is spoken about in the article so should be reflected in the lede and similar statements are used in other countries' ledes. I'm not persuaded by oppose arguments above but do agree this could probably be better worded and integrated into other parts of the lede. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Already explained on lead as described above. I also agree with Horse Eye Back that this is not even specific to China but East Asian cultural sphere. Wareon (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

• Mao proclaiming the establishment of the PRC in 1949.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2400:AC40:C6D:9EC7:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What coordinates? Please clarify what you are requesting; e.g. "I want A to be changed to B." Yue🌙 05:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph is a bit cluttered.

It seems that the first paragraph is a bit cluttered and includes some information, especially on its impressive size, that could be moved and is not necessary for the lede. 168.8.125.20 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

History section in need of reworking

The history section right now trashes the Qing dynasty. It talks about how its conquest of the Ming dynasty killed lots of people and shrank the economy, but it doesn't say a single word about the High Qing era, or literally anything good about the Qing dynasty, for that matter. Mucube (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Map of China

The present map doesn't consider Aksai Chin as a disputed Location. This needs to be corrected since Aksai Chin has been a subject of dispute between Republic of India and People's Republic of China. 2406:7400:73:700D:E03C:1889:23AF:1A48 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The light green represents territory claimed but not controlled by China, not disputed territory in general. Aksai Chin is controlled by China. Yue🌙 00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is China a part of Central Asia?

Xinjiang and Tibet Autonomous Regions have been consistently included in Central Asia according to these sources (see this one, this one, and this one. Given the sources I have just listed, is it OK to mention that China is also a part of Central Asia? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Those sources do not say China is part of Central Asia. They are also mostly discussing centuries-old definitions. Source 2 is about Afghanistan. Nice sources for the Definitions section of the Central Asia article though. CMD (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, but at least only Xinjiang and Tibet would be included within Central Asia, wouldn't they? If they were used in the Central and East Asia articles, then wouldn't that be fine? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They need to be used appropriately, which in this case appears to be discussing 19th century definitions. CMD (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well then why are those sources used on the East Asia article after the sentence “Xinjiang (East Turkestan) and Tibet are sometimes seen as part of Central Asia”? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because that text could be improved by being more specific about what "sometimes" means. CMD (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe by saying "but not always" after "sometimes"? Sounds good to me. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No, "but not always" is inherent in "sometimes", there is no need to write it out. CMD (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If the lead paragraph of Xinjiang says "at the crossroads of Central Asia and East Asia", then it would be a link between Central and East Asia. Wouldn't it? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Tibet and Xinjiang being included as part of Central Asia is a dated definition. I have never seen such a definition applied to contemporary scholarly discourse, only in the context of historical descriptions. Yue🌙 00:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Should noteworthy things be compared to other noteworthy things?

I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's own internal pages, please keep that in mind.

I understand that we are supposed to adhere to WP:NPOV, but is there a similar policy for making comparisons, where relevant?

I'm asking because in this article, there are e.g. examples of China's accomplishments in e.g. space exploration and technology. There is, however, no mention of how this compares to other countries' efforts.

For other Wikipedia articles, I don't think it is uncommon to find comparisons to other relevant systems, technologies, or products, where it is appropriate to do so.

The reason this is relevant here, is that if a certain piece of technology is put on the list of achievements, how can a casual reader understand the significance without anything to compare it to? Take the current statements about China's space station. Should this be compared to other space stations? To give the reader somewhat an impression of how important and noteworthy is this? Or should it just be mentioned, and leave it to the reader to find information?

I'm just asking what the policy is, and to be pointed towards it. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy would be WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is an article about China, and one that is intended to be an hour-long summary at most. Comparing specific technologies etc. is undue, and likely not too helpful to readers. Conversely, there shouldn't be a "list of achievements" here, so if something is worded like that it should be adjusted. CMD (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Good read Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure and guidelines. Moxy- 21:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No mention of tea?

It seems a large omission for this article not to mention or link to either Chinese tea or Chinese tea culture. Or did I miss it? I did a ctrl-f search of the article for "tea" and there's no mention of it. JasonMacker (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Chinese New Year also isn't in this article, because this is an article about the People's Republic of China, not everything about Chinese history and culture. Yue🌙 05:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Chinese New Year is mentioned in the article. It's in the Transportation section. Next time, you can be more helpful on an article's talk page by first familiarizing yourself with the article. JasonMacker (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Positivity bias, WP:NPOV violations

I'm mostly interested in technology and computers especially, so this section is geared towards commenting on these aspects of the China article. I don't claim the rest of the article has the same problems, but I would suspect it does.

Reading this article, especially the Modern Era part makes it seem like a resume or list of achievements. It doesn't inspire confidence towards neutrality and describing things from multiple point of view. It seems written specifically to put China in the best light possible.

As such, I feel the article fails at [| WP:NPOV].

Examples are cherry-picked and the overall tone is highly positive. Struggles and issues faced with technology are completely left out.

I'm making contributions in good faith, and I welcome any discussion to sort out what the actual style and tone should be for an article like this. If I am incorrect in assuming that an article of this nature shouldn't simply be a list of achievements and spun in a positive way, while neglecting to mention anything negative, then please point me towards the appropriate Wikipedia article that describes this being the policy enforced by Wikipedia. IndyCar1020 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm making some changes. We do want broad strokes for this article, not items specifically picked to illustrate certain views. Notifying User:Yue and User:IndyCar1020. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I see the part about non-domestic CPUs was removed. I do not agree with this and I'm now going to explain why. It is very important to stress that Chinese supercomputers, are in fact built using non-Chinese technology. A modern supercomputer is essentially a collection of off-the-shelf "server/enterprise" grade CPUs (here, is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhe-2#Specifications ). When Chinese supercomputers are built using Intel's technology, i.e. Intel's CPUs, by putting together a collection of Intel CPUs, then saying "Chinese supercomputers" with no further explanation, is very misleading. Yes, supercomputers is a complicated topic, and there is more to it than this. However, this is not the place to go into a technical discussion about what exactly is, a supercomputer. What is important, is to describe China's achievements in broad strokes, in a neutral way — therefore, mentioning that the parts used are not Chinese parts, is crucial. Otherwise, a typical reader not familiar with what a supercomputer nor a CPU is, might take away from this, that China is at times world-leading in "supercomputers". Yes, a supercomputer costs money, but without the technology, which is designed and produced by someone else, then the statement is completely misleading. Based on this reasoning, I'm putting it back in, to stress, that "China's supercomputers" are built using non-domestic parts.

I'm also curious why the example with the pen was removed. I have a suspicion it might be considered "too offensive". However, if this is actually a fact, which everything indicates it is, then why shouldn't it be there? Isn't it noteworthy, that China didn't make their own high-end, ball point pen tips until 2017? I'm not an expert on ball point pen tips, so I'm not stressing this as strongly as my point about supercomputers. However, at the same time I see no reason to remove it. I was a referenced, well-known example, documented by numerous newspapers and sources. Instead of just removing it, requesting more sources or at least explaining why it must be removed, seems more productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndyCar1020 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

China's initial setback of not able to launch its first satellite within a year of establishing its space program is not that relevant to this article now. I agree with The Account 2 regarding the removal of ballpoint pen tip, because that was in pre-2017. The source article also did not use the pen example as a general statement about China's technology overall but only as its own story. I agree with CMD that at the country-level, the origin of supercomputer components could be undue. If Toyota were to produce the world's safest car, we wouldn't pick the Japan article apart by saying certain components may be designed or manufactured by non-Japanese countries. Your source is written by a graduate student, and the claims that Intel designed the CPUs and only those ones were critical are technically still claims at this point. It may be a relevant discussion about TH-2 but not China's tech in general. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Satellite: I think it would be productive if you could please explain why you think it is irrelevant. I believe I've explained why I think it is relevant. I'll explain it again though: Because, when writing a list of achievements, it shouldn't be exaggerated. Why isn't it noteworthy that launching the satellite took ten times longer than scheduled? Doesn't that undermine the command of engineering and technology in general, shouldn't this be at least mentioned to give a neutral view?

Ballpoint pen tip: Your view is that because it is five years old, it is no longer "modern era"? The Wikipedia article about Chinese inventions, I believe define modern era as the past 110 years, for comparison. Here's the thing though: I think, most people that perceive China to be on some level an amazing powerhouse of technology, would probably be highly surprised that this much time and effort, had to be spent on something as seemingly simple as ball point pen tips. And that, is the whole point of having this example included. It is a somewhat shocking example, and this is why it is important to include.

Supercomputers: I'm sorry, but I think this is highly flawed. There's no "may be" produced by a different country. Are there other components that can be considered critical, in a computer? Of course. But no one that understands how a computer works, would claim that the CPU isn't absolutely essential to a supercomputer's performance. Full stop. The analogy with the car is flawed, you're using a different example that waters out the non-domestic parts. A better analogy would be, if Toyota made a car, that set a top speed record for the fastest production car, ever. What do you think would be written at Wikipedia about said car, if Toyota used an engine and aerodynamics designed and manufactured by BMW, then slapped a "Toyota" logo on it? Do you think that would be mentioned? And if your answer is "no", then you might be wrong. Look up the latest "Toyota Supra" on Wikipedia. You're trivializing the fact that the very CPUs used in the supercomputer aren't Chinese. This is not a trivial matter. The CPUs basically do all the work that a supercomputer does and calling them a "critical component" is if anything, barely sufficient to justify their importance in this context. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is meant to be an overview, not about specifics of China's first satellite. Does the United States article mention the early setbacks of its space program? No. Making high-quality pen tips is not as simple as most people assume, which is discussed in the ballpoint pen article. You also didn't finish reading my critique before deciding to drag this out further. "Your source is written by a graduate student, and the claims that Intel designed the CPUs and only those ones were critical are technically still claims at this point." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I usually do not respond to resolved issues with other editors (including those resolved by their own accord), but I highly dislike accusations of "emotional" editing. I am not contesting the fact that the Chinese government has stolen intellectual property and technology from the U.S.; I am a Canadian, it was a whole national story for us for several years when it happened within our own borders. Just don't cite The Heritage Foundation; it isn't a newspaper, it's a conservative thinktank that echoes the right-wing to far-right voices in the U.S. That's where my comparison to the People's Daily comes from. The source you provided also isn't a news article by a journalist, it's an opinion piece by a right-wing pundit, which adds to its inappropriateness as a citation for a factual statement (i.e. fails WP:RS). Why heritage.org isn't already blacklisted on Wikipedia is beyond me, considering how the community has already voted against other sources from each extreme of the political spectrum. Yue🌙 21:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Other editors should not have to explain why adding an exorbitant amount of solely negative information to an article, cited primarily by opinion pieces is a failure of WP:RS because it is such an obvious issue. Yue🌙 21:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please accept my apologies for calling this "emotional", that was uncalled for. However, even if uncalled for, I hope it isn't unclear why it would seem like that though from an external point of view. If we both agree that this sort of thing is a reality, then shouldn't we work together to find reliable sources? When the whole paragraph gets deleted instead, the same paragraph which included a link to Wikipedia's own, internal pages to substantiate the claim, then I feel it was unreasonable to just delete the whole thing. I believe it would have been more constructive to find additional sources, or add information to specify the nature of the only existing source, to point out that this is a biased view, if that is a fair evaluation.

As for adding solely negative information, that is exactly the point. The article (this particular part of it, modern era, technology, etc.) contains solely positive information. Hence, I'm making contributions towards making it more neutral overall. Surely, there are negative things about China, and when they are all left out, the article is not neutral. I find this to be especially important when phrasing is apparently intentionally used to "sell" or "advertise" Chinese achievements by exaggeration. IndyCar1020 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As a user who has reverted the edits once, I'll make a contribution to the talk page as well. First of all, I agree with Yue that The Heritage Foundation is a very partisan and unreliable source, not to mention that they have very questionable moral values. I removed the ballpoint pen tips example because China has been able to manufacture that technology domestically since 2017 (and things can change a lot in 6 years, especially in the field of technology in a country that had an average of nearly 6 percent growth during that time), but the wording made it look like it was struggling right now. Finally, I removed the point about supercomputers being mostly made by foreign components not because I didn't believe it but because that wasn't what's written in the source, and I would support its addition if it was sourced. I agree that it looked kind of too positive on how China's technological development looked, but isn't this an issue in Wikipedia country articles in general? For example, in Japan's (Featured Article) page, it doesn't mention how the country's technological progress has slowed since the Lost Decades, with only a small mention of the decline of the consumer industry. Russia, with an even greater decline since the collapse of the USSR and now under heavy international sections, only has positive aspects on its science and technology section. The Account 2 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The ballpoint pen tip issue should stay, because it is a remarkable example that illustrates a more generalized concern. As for things changing, it doesn't look like that does it, concerning CPUs?

I can probably find some source that states Chinese supercomputers use non-Chinese CPUs, would that be better than The Heritage? Quite frankly, this is borderline something that needs to be sourced, just go to the links on Wikipedia's own pages about Chinese supercomputers, and you'll see non-Chinese CPUs as the guts of these machines. Many things that could be questioned, that aren't possible to look up at Wikipedia, are without references, no questions asked. However, I don't want to touch on "original research", nor do I want to use whataboutism as an argument. I can find sources.

The criticism about other articles is a whataboutism type of argument. While I would agree that these articles also should have criticism, that is not the topic of conversation here. IndyCar1020 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See the following paper https://escholarship.org/content/qt1839q9q8/qt1839q9q8_noSplash_655683ee7607fac63ee7c103c25f45a8.pdf?t=pqcw02

Please see p.1:

"Like China’s previous supercomputers, the TH-2 continues to rely on foreign sources for critical components—namely the processors—and the development of Chinese software applications for supercomputers continues to lag behind the notable advances in hardware, limiting the practical uses for supercomputers in China."

I've now added this as the source for the claim I initially wrote, that China's supercomputers are not built using domestic parts. Since there are no new supercomputers from China to retake the crown, it is sufficient to address TH-2 in this matter.

Is this part of the dispute settled now? IndyCar1020 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The origin of Chinese supercomputer components is not remotely WP:DUE at this level of article. That said, I think the addition is to try and correct the original issue of having a resume list of achievements, which is not ideal. The best way to solve that is not to add various caveats, especially unsourced or poorly sources ones, but to trim the fluff. CMD (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So your point of view is that the statement "having produced the world's fastest supercomputer on several occasions", is "fluff", due to WP:DUE?

Having the world's fastest supercomputer is a big deal. A lot of newspaper articles get produced every time this is up for contention. And if that or the technology doesn't meet the criteria to be noteworthy, then I'm not sure what achievements do, if any.

It is not the fact that the "origin of the components" is so interesting, it is the fact that China uses foreign components and pretends to have made a world class achievement. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

And, you consider this paper https://escholarship.org/content/qt1839q9q8/qt1839q9q8_noSplash_655683ee7607fac63ee7c103c25f45a8.pdf?t=pqcw02

to be a poor source? Please, give me an example of what a "good" source is then. So I can find one. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Whataboutism is not always wrong. Your own source says at least some CPUs were designed by China. There is no overwhelming reason to specifically mention that the hardware might not have been manufactured in China. Its struggles with high-end semiconductors is already mentioned, and many countries also outsource fab work entirely. Same things can be said about the ballpoint pen tips. Is China unable to reinvent them or simply opts to buy them on the cheap from other countries? I don't see the Taiwan article mentioning its locally-made vaccine could not pass approval as "offset" for its list of technological achievements. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Many people consider China a superpower, and they are probably curious to what extent, is China world leading. What areas does China dominate in? Isn't it our job then, to make sure they get a neutral picture of this? Isn't it wrong, to say that "China has had the fastest supercomputers in the world many times", when this is a lie? What will people think, that read this, and don't bother or don't have the time, to look up the details?

Whataboutism is wrong, if the intent of Wikipedia is to adhere to WP:NPOV and then point out that the article about Taiwan or some other country also makes the same mistakes the China article does.

Do you appreciate that the whole significance of this statement about supercomputers is about having the world's fastest supercomputer? Many countries and companies are capable of producing something that qualifies as a supercomputer, or just buy one. There is a very large number of them in total. It is, however, very hard, to have the world's fastest.

Yes, there are some domestic produced CPUs in the Chinese supercomputers, but this is a small number, and there is no way the TH-2 or TH-1 would have made it to the top of TOP500 if it was solely using these. That, is the point. Furthermore, even if domestically produced, the Chinese FT-1500 in question is just a SPARC derivative, which is not, a Chinese design either.

You cannot compare this to Taiwan. Taiwan is a relatively small country that doesn't aspire to be the leading world superpower, that yet, is world leading with TSMC.

Ballpoint pen tips. The whole reason this is so interesting, is that China portrays itself through this article, as a powerhouse of innovation, a powerhouse of technology, graduating ten thousand PhDs every year. Yet, it isn't noteworthy to maintain WP:NPOV to mention, that while it might be true that they graduate ten thousand PhDs every year, the country still spent five years to make a high-end ball point pen tip?

I'm doing this in good faith, but I react strongly to the unspoken problem about this being "too offensive". That we should perhaps, use "less offensive" examples. Isn't that, what this is really about? And if it is, then surely that isn't a valid reason to remove it. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You have created two strawmen, first by claiming China is portraying itself through this article when in fact only individual editors have been adding what mostly English language sources say about the country. Second by claiming we find your edits "offensive" even though no one has implied or even used that term except, ironically, by you more than once. Taiwan is fair game because it is wealthier than China, has enjoyed a much earlier lead, and also regarded as a technology powerhouse. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

First alleged straw man: Through individual editors contributing, the aggregated result, is "China portraying itself". It is a figure of speech. How is this a straw man? Are you arguing that the main China article, doesn't paint a certain picture of a country as a whole? Isn't that the whole point of the article?

The second alleged straw man: This might have been a straw man argument, if the opposition had actually made a valid statement as to why this should be removed. When there is no such argument, I start asking questions. Perhaps I overlooked a valid argument, but I'm sorry, the argument that "it is five years old and hence not modern era", is not valid. The modern era didn't start in 2017. Since I see no valid arguments from the opposition, I don't have any bad feelings about asking if the real reason, is that some might find this offensive. Give me a valid argument, and I will no longer need to ask what the real reason is for finding this particular example to be such a bad one. Again: The very fact that this example is so noteworthy, is why I think it should be included. And no, I'm not making a straw man argument again. I find this to be a very surprising piece of tech news, and I imagine others would have a similar reaction. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not important whether you (or any other Wikipedia editors) find this news "notable". What is important is what WP:RS think. I've looked at many sources and they generally say (1) Premier Li Keqiang lamented in 2016 that China didn't have ballpoint pen tip manufacturing devices, (2) China didn't have the specific type of steel needed to manufacture ballpoint pen tips, (3) it was simply not a priority. On the contrary, many sources actually mention this saga as how China is quickly catching up with the world 1, 2, 3. Almost none of them mention this news as "China is struggling with technology", and putting it that way on Wikipedia would be WP:OR. Finally, it just isn't that notable: the news was picked up for a few days (with some late articles in the following months) in early 2017 and then was almost never mentioned again. Ballpoint pen technology is nowhere near as important as semiconductors or jet technology, which should be kept. Is there a reliable source that proves this piece of news is important in the long-term, and is important to understand China's technological development? If not so, it just isn't notable. The Account 2 (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually read these three sources you're quoting in full?

Your claim, that this is framed in a positive light by [1][2] and [3], is not what I see when I actually read these three articles you quote.

There is a mix of some positive aspects at some points, such as growth in general. Some neutral stuff, and definitely enough negative stuff that doesn't frame China in a good way in your sources.

I quote [1]:

"This story involves something as simple as the ballpoint pen — yes, that humble device you may well have lying around your desk or collecting dust at the bottom of your bag — and China's long and frustrating quest to manufacture it domestically."

"Consider this: The ballpoint pen innovation only took place after concerted government intervention."

If anything, this appears almost like mockery to me "something as simple as the ballpoint pen — yes, that humble device", and the article stresses and asks the reader to consider how this challenge required considerable effort from the Chinese government to overcome.

[2]:

While the article starts by sort of "praising" China, in general about growing, it also says this:

"The feat shows how the Chinese government remains insecure about the country’s continued reliance on foreign technology, and the lengths it’s willing to go to overcome it."

[3]:

Has a whole section about how China has a "Different culture", where, I quote:

""Historically, China has never been able to do precision engineering very well and the ballpoint pen is an example of that," says Professor George Huang"

And:

"Prof Huang says that China lacks a culture of excellence in precision engineering."

And:

""The culture is different from the Japanese and Germans," he says, who are known for innovation in engineering.

"We Chinese are supposed to be craftsmen, but somehow the spirit is not as good."" IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, none of these talk about or demonstrate long-term notability or why it should be added to the article. I didn't say these articles all positive or don't have negative content on it; I don't know where you're getting that from. I just meant that these articles also highlighted China is catching up, meaning that this can be showed in both ways. One can also easily write that "The country has made rapid strides to catching up to foreign technology, including ballpoint pen tips..." and so on. Again, we go by what WP:RS think, not what our personal opinions are, and WP:RS's have basically given up on this story completely just after a few months after best. Including a short-lived and minor tech fact, which actually also in part talks about China catching up with the technology, in an article of this size and prominence is clearly WP:UNDUE. The Account 2 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@IndyCar1020: The source articles are actually divided in terms of what the pen tips saga meant for China's tech overall. By the way, it actually had domestic tips, just lesser in quality. Here are some quotes that you have conveniently left out. "becoming a world leader in sectors like robotics-based manufacturing and consumer software." "it’s not that China was incapable of developing the technology," "This type of steel part requires a special type of steel [to make]. The market for it is not big." "whether China can make a great pen is not hugely important in the scheme of things." "Relatively low-value items, like ballpoint pens, have not been a priority." Like any country's article, many things are not mentioned. I don't see your reason for listing relatively unimportant items that China is not strong in as a way to offset general trends in its tech. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed some of the fluff, outdated information (from before 2010), and contrived changes that IndyCar1020 had tried to push. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

PRC is not a "Marxist–Leninist socialist republic"

Excuse me, but I have been to PRC many times, and with its mega-corporations, billionaires, Ferraris and Lamborghinis, skyscrapers and luxury stores, it is not a "Marxist–Leninist socialist republic". Please fix that. Britoca (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a "Marxist-Leninist socialist republic" de facto. However, it is a "Marxist-Leninist socialist republic" de jure. And I live in China. The government also regards China as a "Marxist-Leninist socialist republic" as well. Chcp235 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

China is actually defacto federal not unitary nation

Despite the large size of this country china is unitary state which make no sense. Ironically china is the worlds largest population state but yet still unitary in nature.2404:8000:1027:85F6:C8F5:5BB4:1728:F5A3 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ranking by land area

The united states of america and china are both ranked 3rd for largest countries by land area on their respective pages. One of these pages therefore needs to be changed. 198.2.106.4 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It now reads that China is #2-- completely skipping Canada! 2600:1700:1444:1A0:E1F1:A23:6FFB:B27F (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Change its most populous country to second most populous country. DweepP (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Sociopolitical issues and human rights" section is biased

Especially the part about Xinjiang. For example, "In Xinjiang, At least one million Uyghurs and other ethnic and religion minorities have been detained in mass detention camps, ..." is just a baseless claim, but it is presented like a fact. The Guardian is considered as biased or opinionated for politics by wiki. Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang are not mentioned, and neither is Chinese government's response to them. Chin2021 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to return to a dormant dummy account to attack Western coverage of Xinjiang, at least don't make a claim as stupid as "The Guardian is considered as biased or opinionated for politics by [W]iki[pedia]." Not to state the obvious to anyone else who is reading, but The Guardian is not blacklisted by Wikipedia and is considered a reliable source. Maybe try doing an ad hominem against their sources, like most defenders of the Chinese government do? Yue🌙 05:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RSP. "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." I'm sorry that I missed out "some editors".

The Guardian doesn't provide any evidence supporting the claim. It shouldn't be written like a fact. Chin2021 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You're definitely just trolling now. What do you think the check mark and green highlight over The Guardian means? Yue🌙 07:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean what media with check mark and green highlight say should be considered as facts? Then I shouldn't waste time discussing with you. At least "The Guardian claimed ........." should be added, and let readers decide its reliability. Chin2021 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You make up a decent dummy protector of western bias yourself, and you sound not so smart.

Should we include how the party has lifted 800 million out of poverty in the last 20 years? Such facts are as relevant as the western biased accusations of human rights abuses.

Thanks~ Podfarming (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

China's tremendous successes in poverty reduction are covered elsewhere in the article. If you think those successes should be in human rights, it's a fair point, but my suggestion is to bring forward a source that ties these poverty reduction successes into questions of human rights specifically. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides, I don't find such section in the articles United States/United kingdom. Genocides of native Americans, slave trade, racial discrimination, gun violence and police brutality are parts of their history, but not included. Such section should also be removed here and discussed in other articles, otherwise it's a double standard. Chin2021 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

But these contents still exist in the article, and I try to add information about some reports pointed out that Xinjiang-related "databases" and the  "witness testimonies" are fraudulent.（http://toronto.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/news/202105/t20210508_8990231.htm ）And it was reverted. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

read me!!!! Moxy- 15:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The report is from America.Its purpose is to stigmatize China.As a Chinese,also a rational patriot,I totally disagree with the opinions in it.There is no racial murder in Xinjiang.There is no racial murder in Xinjiang.There is no racial murder in Xinjiang.Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, gave a good evaluation after visiting Xinjiang.(结束中国之行 联合国人权高专巴切莱特谈新疆、西藏、香港等问题  | | 1联合国新闻 (un.org)) 梦随飞絮 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/08/1125932

Here is the update to that. CreativeNightPainter (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The United Nations Human Rights Council also refused to hold a special meeting about discussing the status of Muslims and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. Of the 47 members of the Council, only 17 supported, 19 opposed and 11 abstained.Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in Asia, opposes the resolution. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Country	Freedom in the World 2022	2022 Index of Economic Freedom	2022 Press Freedom Index	2021 Democracy Index
China	5 not free	5 repressed	5 very serious situation	5 authoritarian regime

Moxy- 14:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

...I am in China now.No matter what you think of human rights in China,I think the description of Xinjiang is not neutral,maybe we can add some responses from the Chinese government and the opposite views of other media. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 15:55 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

China is not the most populous country in the world anymore

Can someone update China's intro? thanks! Christianarash (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until the next Indian census, or at least until numbers are being widely reported by reliable third party sources. India is projected to surpass China in population size this year, but the exact figures are not yet known. Projections != actual numbers. Yue🌙 03:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

China is not anymore the most populous country

It ranks second behind India based on several independent data such as from UN 211.223.171.237 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the United Nations only makes estimates and projections. They do not gather census data and do not have accurate up-to-date numbers. Yue🌙 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

India is yet to come up with its officially updated census. Capitals00 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Use Official Name

Based on the following facts: No country named Taiwan. But there's a regime called it self The Republic of China. Taiwan is only the area under the actual control of ROC. "China" is not only the People's Republic of China, ROC is also China, but China now has ROC and PRC regimes. If Taiwan is an independent country, why not call it the "Republic of Taiwan"? I suggest to rename "Taiwan" as "Republic of China", rename China as People's Republic of China. Kevin Cheung12 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:OFFICIALNAMES. CMD (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the scope of the article?

The article currently uses contradictory definitions of "China" and conflates the PRC with a geographic region and collection of cultures and states. For example, the first line says, "China (Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó), officially the People's Republic of China" and then goes on to describe facts about the country currently controlled by the PRC. However, the next paragraph says (referring to the 21st century BCE), "Chinese writing... emerged during this period and influenced China and its neighbors for centuries to come". The PRC did not exist at that time. If "China" (for the purposes of this article) is "the People's Republic of China", then the statement in the second paragraph is impossible. The 2nd paragraph seems to use weasel words to sort of get around this ("Modern Chinese trace their origins to..."). For a similar case, see the "History of Iraq" article, which does not conflate the modern state with Mesopotamia.

Because much of the article is about cultures and states that are in no way the PRC, I propose changing the first paragraph to not be primarily about the PRC. The PRC is one of the most important points of discussion and so should be mentioned in the first paragraph (e.g. "the region is currently within the People's Republic of China"), but it is incorrect to suggest that the Xia (for example) were somehow the same state as the PRC. Rscragun (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Population

Is there a citation for the statement that china has a larger population than india? Csquared460 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There are sources for the population numbers in the articles, if that's what you mean. India's article has the population at 1,375,586,000, per this source. China's article has its population at 1,411,750,000, per this source. 1,411,750,000 (China) is indeed larger than 1,375,586,000 (India). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove India from the lead section the way it was written

It states in the paragraph pertaining to population “slightly ahead of India” I strongly advise against drawing that kind of comparisons in the lead sections. We gave those ranks because it’s helpful for a reader to learn about those countries in a short paragraph. Mentioning India does nothing to contribute to it and it seems we might already have started a dick measuring contests from the editors who felt they were attached to those nations, these are the least of what we want for our site and is not really helpful for our readers. People interested in the rankings could simply click into it. MarvelousPeach (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course you would, Aman. 218.146.23.76 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Include Uygur genocide in the lead, it is notable as being the largest genocide since the Holocaust

Considering that the Chinese is currently committing the largest genocide in the world since the Holocaust, it warrants an inclusion in the lead section as with Nazi Germany. At the end of the third paragraph, it should also include: In addition, genocide, mass murder, and forced labour are hallmarks of the Chinese regime, with its non-Chinese minorities being particularly affected. Since 2014, millions of Uygurs have been interned and murdered in concentration camps in Xinjiang, known as the Uyghur genocide. Thank you. 171.97.42.86 (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Some of this is unencyclopedic verbiage going beyond what RS would support. The focus on Uyghur issues is an example of recentism not appropriate for the lead given the broad scope of this article. Wikipedia’s discussion of the maltreatment of Uyghur people by the PRC is already extensive. Moreover, the labels for that mistreatment are greatly contentious. Such a discussion is better suited for relevant articles not the article “China”. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Too much detail in an already bloated lead. Why not also include the plight of Tibetans and Hongkongers? Yue🌙 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Population ranking footnote?

Since the question of population ranking is repeatedly being raised at both this and Talk:India], I have proposed addressing it through a footnote. See discussion at Talk:India#Did India overtake China?? and add your thoughts there (to keep the discussion consolidated). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that this topic continues to be raised at Talk:China and Talk:India, I have gone ahead and added the above-mentioned footnote to both the articles. Feel free to tweak it as desired. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Population

As per UN, India has Overtaken China in population. Their website lists India above China (https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/47,49/locations/156,356/start/2023/end/2023/table/pivotbylocation shows China at 1426 and India at 1429. See also discussion at Talk:India#India may have overtaken China.) BhamBoi (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: I read that as a projection, not a fact. Bazza (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

OMG. Are you sure about this? India was supposed to overtake China after a few years. This is not good for the planet. 49.178.142.1 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

China is no longer the World's most populous country. India is now the most populous country by both the UN and world bank. This has been for months now. Correct this information as soon as possible. 117.227.106.194 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

See the corresponding answer to your related question at Talk:India#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2023. Bazza (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"Nation of China" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nation of China has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Nation of China until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:09, 26 April 2023 (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:

• China Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole world knows! People's Republic of China - blocked Wikipedia pages.

In this matter. All sane user wikis. Hurry to help.

To the common people, citizens, workers and peasants, men, women and children of China.

::::  To anyone who wants to get involved...National Communist2 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we merge the subsections about recent Chinese history?

When looking at the history section of China, there are extensive subheadings about the recent centuries: Fall of the Qing dynasty, Establishment of the Republic and World War II, Civil War and the People's Republic, Reforms and contemporary history.

Is it possible to merge the headings "Establishment of the Republic and World War II", "Civil War and the People's Republic", "Reforms and contemporary history" into a single heading "Modern China" or "Historical Overview: Establishment of the Republic, World War II, Civil War, People's Republic, Reforms, and Contemporary History"? Inlin (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be some merging done. We have main article templates for a reason, and splits exist. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Government / Form of government

The infobox states that China is a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" which just a combination of words to describe it from a liberal perspective.

China's official self-stated form of government is the "system of people's congresses" and the official class nature of the state is the people's democratic dictatorship. While people are generally against the term "system of people's congresses" it literally explains why the CPC can govern the country through the National People's Congress.

China's form of government, similar to all other communist states, is "unitary power" (the opposite of the separation of powers).

What about just "Unitary socialist republic" or "People's congressional socialist republic"? We don't write in the infobox of the United States "Federal presidential Liberal constitutional republic" or "Unitary semi-presidential liberal republic" for France.. My point? Marxism–Leninism is not a state system but an ideology. Again, some users and people hate the term "People's congressional" since they say the NPC does not govern China. But that is wrong; the CPC completely dominates the NPC and rules through it (they have a clear majority in the NPC and the NPC Standing Committee).

As it currently stands, it is just a confused mumbo-jumbo of words that don't mean anything... --TheUzbek (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer "Unitary socialist republic" to the current language or the other language you raise.

I advocate de jure descriptions for government in the infobox to avoid synth or characterizations that can be the subject to contending views. Overall, I find the lack of nuance available for the infoboxes results in recurring disagreements, or bloated combinations of words as editors attempt to accommodate different views. Better to keep things direct, non-controversial, and different characterizations and more specific information should be dealt with in article bodies.

I especially dislike "One-party" in the current infobox. It contributes to the frequent factual misunderstanding that China only has one political party. Of course, we recognize that China has a number of other parties although the CPC is the only one which will be permitted to wield state power. Addressing these sorts of characterizations in the article body gives us the opportunity to be more clear. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen's image

In the "Establishment of the Republic and World War II" section File:Sun Yat Sen portrait 2 (9to12).jpg is used and it struck me as an heavily edited/restored image even at a slight glance. Can a better image be used here? Gotitbro (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with the one used in the actual Sun Yat-sen article. I think it works as a replacement even if temporary. Eithersummer (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That is better than what we had. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Modern state or historical region?

The article seems to conflate the modern state called “China” and the regions it governs with historical cultures and states in or near the region. The first paragraph of the intro implies that the article is about the modern state and its territory.

Examples of contradictions of that focus elsewhere in the article:

• Info box under "Formation": mentions "First pre-imperial dynasty"
• 2nd paragraph of intro: "In 221 BCE, China was unified under an emperor, ushering in more than two millennia in which China was governed by one or more imperial dynasties..."

If "China" in this article refers to the modern state and its territory, then "China" was not unified in 221 BCE.

Why this matters: the idea that the modern state is a continuation of thousands of years of a well-defined "China" is a political tool. Examples:

• It is a source of perceived legitimacy for the state.

• It helps support claims of the state to territory it does not control but that may have been controlled by some past state in the region.
• It helps to defend policies that aim to homogenize the peoples and cultures under the rule of the modern state.

Rscragun (talk) Rscragun (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Too much information on history in the lead?

If this article is to be about the modern Chinese state, I think that we should place a little bit more of it in the lead as opposed to three massive paragraphs on history of all the dynasties and the Republican era. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You may have a point that some information can be positioned under different sections, but the whole point of this article is not to only include information on the modern Chinese state, it’s also about noteworthy events/information that led to what China is today. If you’d like to make a proposal on what information you’d like to add or reposition, post it in the talk page and ask others if they agree. Keep in mind that the sources you use must be WP:RS if you plan on adding any.

WikiAmerican1 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that really the point of the article? The first paragraph imples that the article is about the modern state. The history in subsequent paragraphs is not described as explaining where this modern China came from but as if historical and modern China are the same thing. For example, the second paragraphs says that "some of China's most notable achievements" include "gunpowder and paper".

I suggest that all discussion of history be explicit about the distinction. The first sentence of the second paragraph is a good example of how to do this: "The region that is now China..." Rscragun (talk) Rscragun (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The three paragraphs on the less recent history should be cut down to a few sentences similar to the lead for United States, doesn't have to be as short but anything longer than a single paragraph is undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs max, per MOS:LEAD#Length. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've cut down the lead's history parts to a bit over a half of what it was before. Hopefully it is not too short. Eithersummer (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)