China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

An event mentioned in this article is an October 1 selected anniversary.

Archives
Old	China/Archive 1
China/Archive 2	China/Archive 3
China/Archive 4	China/Archive 5
China/Archive 6	PRC/Archive 1
PRC/Archive 2	PRC/Archive 3

The vote has been moved to Talk:China page Here because the discussion is not related to the People's Republic of China - Heilme 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

141.153.114.88 keeps repeatedly adding Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 to the "See also" section even though the link is already clearly mentioned in the article. I suspect he is also using his sockpuppet User:Chairman LMAO, to evade the 3RR. User:72.65.75.237 is believed to be the same user editing under a dynamic IP address [1]. Are 141.153.114.88's appropriate? --RevolverOcelotX

"Chairman LMAO" is not me. Other "see also" links appear elsewhere in the article. This is a selective, POV-pushing deletion. 141.153.114.88 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that "Chairman LMAO" is not you? Chairman LMAO (talk · contribs) have been helping you revert war in this article and the Manchukuo article. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is clearly inappropriate in the "See also" section. The other "see also" links are broad categories which is clearly China-related. The protests links are already mentioned and it is POV-pushing to redundantly add them multiple times. RevolverOcelotX

I can not provide proof that a user is not me as it is impossible to prove a negative; it is also impossible to disprove your positive assertion as you did not provide any evidence for it.

As for the dispute, you previously asserted as a reason for its removal that it is mentioned in the article already. This is not a sufficient reason, as other "see also" links appear elsewhere in it as well. The link details an event and period which is notable, important, and commonly cited and discussed in the context of the PRC and its recent history. Deletion of it is selective and betrays a sense of removing critical information. 141.153.114.88 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you using constantly changing IP address to evade the 3RR? 141.153.114.88, if you are editing in good faith, why don't you stick to one username or one IP address. Using constantly changing IP addresses counterproductive to consensus and allows you to escape accountability.

The protest link is way too specific to be in the "See also" section and has little to do with the PRC broadly. Look at the other links in the section. Except for the China link, the other links do not clearly appear in the article at all. The protest link is already clearly in the article and re-adding redundant link is POV-pushing. Broadly speaking, the protests have little to do with the PRC as a whole, its one single incident in history, if we allow that, it will allow other people to add many other single incidents into the section. RevolverOcelotX

The above is a lie put forward repeatedly by a user who refuses to acknowledge the meaning of dynamic IPs. 141.153.114.88 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could not the Boston Tea Party be considered one single incident in history? Is it not true that one brief incident can have a profound effect on history? I believe that such an incident is clearly China-related, and would argue that it is a broad issue, for such protests will tend to influence and instigate future protests(or in some cases the lack of future protests).--Tmchk 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the protest link is already clearly mentioned in the article. It is redundant and POV-pushing to add it in another section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly states that links should only be linked once. You could also argue that the protest are not broad as the other links in the "See also" section.

Another anonymous IP address, 83.149.72.211 (talk · contribs) has just reverted once again and re-added the redundant protest link into the article again. Are 83.149.72.211's edits appropriate? RevolverOcelotX

This user continues to add the same POV diatribe involving Chinese governmental agents to the Human Rights section of the article. Access article history to see what I'm talking about.

I'm trying to keep the user at bay. I've left notes on both user talk pages in an attempt to resolve this, and will proceed through WP:DR if necessary. However, as far as this article goes, I'm up against the 3RR and not currently sure if this falls under one of the exceptions.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Joinalex left this message at my talk page:

I would view the ideals that you have constantly ovwritten mine with as being equally, if not more POV. That you don't realise this, I'd conjecture it to be blunt evidence of a lack of research on your part - something which is just a lil unbecoming of encyclopedic entries. If you wish to discuss the issue of what is appropriate to put in this section, given the proven horrific human rights abuses in China, I am willing to do so. Until then I am more than willing to continue to attempt to gather full academic references to prove this 'point of view', and to fight to keep it within the realm of reason as opposed to a vehicle of Chinese state propoganda (can countries be guilty of points of view, or are they exempt from bias?). Or at least I would be, but I got an exam tomorrow and have 2 sleep *yawn* goodnight General/Comrade chairman.

Let us please not pretend that the direct appeal for the user to refresh the page "over the next 30 seconds," so he/she can see how the Chinese government has removed Joinalex's paragraph from Wikipedia, is neither POV nor unencyclopedic. That particular element of your edit is totally over the line.

But even if we remove that part entirely, what we have left is nothing more than you totally eliminating a legitimate paragraph about recent developments and the PRC allowance of localized demonstrations. At that point, we have your one sentence (with one cited source about executions), leading right into another, far more detailed paragraph. As a showing of good faith and construction, I've added the execution factoid into the article, with the right percentage and a more comprehensive reference.

I've done all I can now to help include your contributions. However, again, the specified paragraph should not be removed, and the personal appeal is unencyclopedic.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty I the request to refresh the page is based on anecdotal beliefs I held, which were the basis for the way I dealt with editing the page, which I felt would not remain in place for more than 30 seconds. That may have been a misguided belief, and I apologise. Nonetheless I am not certain that the attention paid to this page and in particular, this topic is completely free of partisanship, however I have to concede that it would be utterly unencycolpedic and unacademic to have the page left in the state in which I edited it (please remember that I never believed it would remain in this state). I would like, however to deal now with what the page should represent.

It does not reflect reality at all to simply gloss over facticity regarding human rights abuses with purpoted developments. The scope of human rights abuses in China is gargantuan, and the fact that this is denied by the authorities there does not materially change the facts. The PRC government's viewpoint certainly does, again in an encyclopedic sense, deserve to be part of the page, as their stated opinions are a fact in that they exist. However, to summarise - cultural genocide (seriously, I don't just use the term to be melodramatic) has been practiced upon regions that have come into PRC control in recent years. Dissidents are repressed brutally, as are demonstarations by dissidentss, or, as is now happening schoolchildren. There are few limitations to the methods that are used in this repression of political, social, economic or religious freedoms, this is well documented. A dissident who had been jailed for a number of years for reporting on a widening of a river to a relative in the US was released after pressure from Amnesty international a few weeks ago. As he was walking down the street he ws attacked by an 'unknown assailant' who severed his spinal column expertly, leaving him unable to do more than move his eyelids. The shock value of this is not sufficient to justify condemning the PRC government's human right srecord, however thsi kind of behaviour has been reported again and again and again, by the media and by human rights groups, it is not part of popular knowledge, nor is it something many people care about. However it is easily verifiable fact. I would hope that this encyclipoedia cannot be blinded by the simple virtue of repeating a lie often and loudly, and will attempt to steer it towards an accurate representation of fact, at all stages discussing this with the people who have an (independant) interest in this matter.

All the best. Alex.

I understand your concerns, and do not, by any means, feel that you are outright wrong. If you feel that changes to the article are required, you are always welcome to make them in a strictly encyclopedic way. When making changes, however, please note that the two-paragraph Human Rights section is not intended to cover all available information on the subject. Due to the length of the article, it has been split into multiple subpages. As such, the article you will likely take interest in is located here: Human rights in the People's Republic of China. (Please note that it is currently protected until an edit dispute is resolved. Discussion is present on talk page.)

So once again, if you would like to edit either article's content, you are welcome to. Please simply ensure that the final product is fact-neutral (well-cited) and encyclopedic.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask those who might be interested in the subject of ethnic groups in China to weigh in on the current discussion in another article. I proposed that we split the article to a listing of the minority groups and an article discussing ethnic minorities in China. Hong Qi Gong 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the name "China" like usually referred to as China in the description. It's more correct and easier to understand. What do you guys think? I think this is necessity since not a lot of people know the official name. 168.253.23.214 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, user, don't you ever threaten me again. I will bring this matter the higher it can on the Wikipedia chain to the founders and have your priveleges revoked and proper people notified. Don't you ever threaten positve and constructive edits. I warn this to you and this is your last warning withour proper explanation of your reverts. I'll notify the proper people. The privelege you have doesn't mean you have it forever. It will be revoked. This is your warning from vandalism 168.253.23.214 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who revert-warred, buddy. Take it up with whoever you want, you won't get far. --Ideogram 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't buddy me, this is constructive edit, explain your position why are you reverting stuff. This doesn't give you the privelege to threaten and revert edits whenever you feel like it. I'll make it go far. There is no such thing as "revert-warred." You are threatening opinions and constructive edits. I will bring this up if you ever threaten edits again. 168.253.23.214 07:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. --Ideogram 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just explain why are you reverting my change? Is there a problem with it? of so just say it and I'll understand. What is the problem with my change? I know the three revert rule. What is the problem with my change, you are not giving any explanation and threatening people with 3 revert rule. I'm trying to reason with you. I respect the 3 edit rule. Explain your revert in the first place. 168.253.23.214 07:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Miborovsky. Why don't you discuss it with him? --Ideogram 07:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then say it, make it clear. Without you telling me what's going on I don't know why you are doing it. Thank you and I don't vandalize Wikipedia just to let you know. I brought this up in the discussion after you threatened me with blocking. No hard feelings. 168.253.23.214 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miborovsky's edit summaries made it quite clear. It is redundant. --Ideogram 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not intuitive. Actual typing and description would be much better and understandable. I would suggest you give explanation before you actually do 3 revert edit warning for all articles, so that you don't have to go through this again. 168.253.23.214 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the same to you. --Ideogram 07:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user Ideogram who deleted the entire Culture section of this article should explain himself here in the talk pages for his decision. He should also explain his decision in rearranging the remaining article. These drastic and wanton changes were not discussed at all here; and they were completely inappropriate and disservicing to the editors of this article who have worked very hard to keep the PRC article as a Featured Article in the past year. I consider your act vandalism (blanking) and have completely reverted you. I will not hesitate to go into a reverting war with you unless you explain yourself here, and reach a general consensus with the other editors of the PRC article. --Naus 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of my deletions was to put information about people, history, culture and geography in China and politics, government and economy in PRC. This split makes sense because both the PRC and the ROC claim to be rightful rulers of all of China. This is also supported by Wikipedia policy:

--Ideogram 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You should've volunteered to discuss here the changes you made first. I skimmed through some of your previous comments on PRC and China talk pages, and you have consistently lectured others about the need to discuss changes made. IMO, the split you made does not make sense because the Culture section in the PRC article is mostly about PRC culture (i.e., cultural development and trend since Communist rule). Albeit there is some projection into the past, but this is mainly context, and explains a lot of things about PRC culture as well (meritocracy, exam culture, intellectual discussion in the mainland, cultural continuation/separation from the old dynastic system, and the PRC's current re-emphasis on the traditional aspects of Chinese culture). The Culture section in the China (not PRC) article right now is a verbatim copy of the Culture of China header, and makes no mention on PRC cultural developments. Thus your "split" was simply a removal. It is naive to think that a political state cannot have its own specific culture and cultural influence. By "splitting" (removing) Culture away from Politics, Government and Economy of the PRC, that is exactly what you are doing. There are cultural aspects only specific and relevant to the PRC even though PRC culture and Chinese culture aren't mutually exclusive. --Naus 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture section in China was reverted after I made my changes, and I am trying to discuss instead of revert-warring.

I don't think a political state has a culture, a group of people has a culture. The Chinese people clearly are governed by more than one political state.

Properly speaking, the main article should be China, and politics, government, and economy would normally be covered there. The current political situation means we have two articles covering these topics; we cannot simply merge both of them into China because that would be too long.

The current Culture section of this article is laughably short. The main section contains two paragraphs one of which is historical. The only subsection is "Sports and recreation" and contains nothing PRC specific.

You seem to be arguing that cultural developments during the PRC era belong in the PRC article. I believe that they belong under the Culture section of China where they can be viewed in the context of the historical development of Chinese culture. The fact that you need to include a historical paragraph in the PRC article to establish some context proves this.

Remember that my point of view is that China should be the main article. That means anything not directly related to the PRC should go in China. --Ideogram 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PRC Culture section "laughably short"? Let me remind you that the Culture section in the China article didn't even exist until someone copied it by verbatim from the Culture of China header and from the PRC Culture section. The Republic of China legally still claims Outer Mongolia, would Outer Mongolian culture be part of the Culture section of China as well? How is saying that Inner Mongolian and Tibetan horseracing are still popular in the PRC today not related to the PRC article? People actually live in the state called PRC, it is not a fictional state like the Republic of China over Outer Mongolia; the state obviously influences the development of its subjects' cultures. Hell, democratic or authoritarian values ARE PART OF CULTURE in itself. People want to know whether Chinese cultural traditions have continued or not in the PRC, the intellectual debates that go on in the PRC, the sports played in the PRC. Taiwanese (ROC citizens) like to play baseball, PRC citizens like to play basketball. You want to combine them all under one sports section? No thanks. --Naus 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how long the Culture section in China was, the Culture section in this article was still way too short. The PRC has only existed since 1949, the Chinese Culture is a lot older than that. You don't address my statement that the main article should be China and this article should be about the current government. Essentially you make no clear distinction between China and People's Republic of China. The political situation is more complicated than that, and it's not all going to fit in the same article anyway. --Ideogram 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase my comment left on Talk:China: "This page is a naming conventions guideline for Wikipedia". Nothing on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things on the other hand, is. --Daduzi ^talk 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your position disagrees with User:Naus. He wants this article to remain in the state it was before I made my edits. You want to merge it into China. --Ideogram 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, I think it might be a good idea to retain the Culture section of the PRC article. The Culture of the PRC is not necessarily the same as the culture of China, if we maintain the usual assumption that PRC does not equal China. --Sumple (Talk) 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the topic PRC is a subset of the topic China. I don't think the PRC has a culture, but if it did, it would be a subset of the culture of China. --Ideogram 23:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to at least have a summary of the culture here. I mean, for the reader's sake, it makes it a complete article. If you want to go into more detail on the China page, that's fine. But I think a summary (of the mailand-related material, for example), would be useful in this article. --Sumple (Talk) 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming the reader will find this page first, and then go to China. I am assuming that the reader will start wiht China and then come here. --Ideogram 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. You are assuming that a user will find China first, and keep reading it. I am not asusming that they will find either page first, or in fact will keep reading it.

Suppose a first-time user is looking up information on China the country, types in China, and get redirected to People's Republic of China via the dab, and expect to find all the information here. Say now she wants to find out a littel about the culture on the mainland. Where does she go? She scrolls down to where normally the Culture section would be, and, in your version, would find nothing there. Would she know to turn back to the China page? Maybe not. She may not even remember that there were two different articles. (I didn't the first time I looked up this page).

The disambiguation text I proposed is right there at the top of the article. "This article is about the geography, culture, history, and people of China. For the politics, government, and economy of the state with jurisdiction over Mainland China, please see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation)." --Ideogram 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy logic! Redundancies! This is an encyclopedia. It needs to be user friendly. It's not the insect section at the natural history museum (where everything needs to be categorised). --Sumple (Talk) 01:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why whe should have redundant text when we can link to it. We can't put everything in one article (or both articles) because that would be too long. If there is something specific you want to put under "Culture" here you should probably write a draft. As it is, the section is unbalanced (what, culture is all about Sports and recreation?). --Ideogram 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument, all the "military", "culture", "history" sections of country articles, where main articles exist, should be removed and replaced with a link because they are redundant? --Sumple (Talk) 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) That's exactly what we do. What in a paper encyclopedia would be included in the body of the article, we put in another article and link to with the Main template. Of course we have brief summaries in the hub article, but that's not what we have here. That's why I suggest you write a draft section if there's something you think should be included here. In any case, my main argument is that China is the hub article here, not People's Republic of China. --Ideogram 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my position does not disagree with User:Daduzi. Daduzi feels that China is the common name of the PRC, which I agree as well. My position is that the current China article as a "civilizational" compromise is ridiculous. The current PRC article should be renamed China, and its history section expanded to include pre-1949. China in common English usage refers to the nation-state we now know as the PRC, not some abstract, impossible to succintly define civilization. Please look at every single published English language encyclopedia on their conventions in treating China and Taiwan. You will see that using the common name is the standard. The current Wikipedia status quo in treating China is unprofessional, confusing and not necessarily NPOV. If you want to do a Chinese civilization article, start up a new China (civilization) or Ancient China article. --Naus 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China refers both to the ancient civilization and the modern state, which has political complexities due to the "One China principle". We don't have the luxury print encyclopedias do of devoting tens of pages to such a vast subject. At the same time we don't have to because we have links.

The fact is we have two articles. I have outlined a principle for dividing content between these two articles. If you want to merge the two articles, that is an entirely different debate, and contrary to your previous assertion that, as a FA, this article should be left alone. What exactly are you arguing for? --Ideogram 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Greece refers to an ancient group of kingdoms as well as a modern state. Egypt refers to an ancient civilisation as well as a modern state. Yet both Greece and Egypt point to the modern countries. The print encyclopaedias comparison is irrelevant because other online encyclopaedias also follow the same policy of having the PRC listed under "China". The fact that we have these two articles is unfortunate, but political complexities should never trump common usage (and Wikipedia policy is very clear on this fact). Has there ever been a wide consensus formally developed for the current division? --Daduzi ^talk 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course China talks about the modern country, it just doesn't talk about the Government of the modern country, because the Chinese situation is different from Greece and Egypt. --Ideogram 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt a true consensus has ever been formed. Wikipedia policy has been hijacked by a few users with various political agendas (mostly KMT-sympathizers living in America). The common name usage convention is by far the most NPOV solution. I just checked the China article, and saw that much of the content there has recently been copied verbatim from the PRC article. That is ridiculous; why not just rename the PRC article into China then? We can easily incorporate and link the Taiwan political situation into a PRC-renamed-China article. It would still be less confusing than the current unjustified mess. What the current situation is doing, is making a false reality of requiring the English language Wikipedia to use "PRC" in referring to the modern nation-state, when the English language actually calls it "China." --Naus 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to shout. It is not productive to accuse your opponents of political agendas.

It seems to me we agree that the moved material belongs in an article called "China". In fact there is no difference between renaming this article to "China" and moving the material to the current article called "China".

The current PRC article says nothing about history and culture before the PRC. This is not acceptable in an article called "China". If we merge the two articles we have an article that is too long. In that case we would probably have to move most of the current PRC article contents to an article called something like "Government of China". But there are two governments that claim to rule China, and we already have articles for them.

Again, there are two parts to my argument. The first is that there are two governments that claim to rule China. The second, and just as important, is that we can't put everything into one article. How would you split the current material we have? --Ideogram 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reindenting)Regarding the first argument, who claims to rule China is irrelevant, all that's relevant is which country is commonly referred to as "China". See also Cyprus. Regarding splitting current material, there's a guideline at Wikipedia:Summary style that offers a lot of useful advice; developing a whole new, arbitrary naming criteria that applies to only one article seems to me to not be the best solution. --Daduzi ^talk 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Ireland and Korea. And since you're the one proposing we change the status quo, you should be the one to write new versions following the guidelines for us to comment on. --Ideogram 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korea is a more likely candidate for the sort of split we see here, given that there's two entities of roughly equal size that split Korea down the middle, neither of which (as far as I'm aware) is particularly commonly known as "Korea". Ireland is more problematic, as Ireland in contemporary usage is commonly used to refer to both the island and the country, and may well change in the near future (see: Talk:Republic of Ireland). Still, I should have known better than to drag precedent into this (the practice of other Wikipedia articles can be very quirky) so mea culpa, and feel free to ignore the Cyprus reference. As regards the new versions, I'll probably do just that; indeed the main reason I asked if there had been a developed consensus is because I'm thinking of putting forward an RfC on the issue so the community as a whole can comment, and drafting a provisional article would be part of that. --Daduzi ^talk 07:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you "split" articles or not! You can't turn an article into a list of links just on "redundancy" grounds. --Sumple (Talk) 09:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was proposing any such thing. --Daduzi ^talk 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't talking to you. Was talking to ideogram: see my convo with him/her in the section above. --Sumple (Talk) 10:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]