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.

Project Countries main page

Talk

Participants

Templates

Articles

Pictures

To do

Article assessment

Countries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

• List of all subpages of this page.

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section.

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article.

Example: . Canada and Japan as below .

Y A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.

N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Y Japan is a highly developed country and a great power, with one of the largest economies by nominal GDP. Japan has renounced its right to declare war, though it maintains a self-defense force that ranks as one of the world's strongest militaries. A global leader in the automotive, robotics, and electronics industries, the country has made significant contributions to science and technology, and is one of the world's largest exporters and importers. It is part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions.

N Japan is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations (since 1956), the OECD, and the Group of Seven. Although it has renounced its right to declare war, the country maintains Self-Defense Forces that rank as 10th for military expenditure by country, After World War II, Japan experienced record growth in an economic miracle, becoming the second-largest economy in the world by 1990. As of 2021, the country's economy is the third-largest by nominal GDP, the fourth-largest by PPP and ranked "very high" on the Human Development Index.

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

• The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
• The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
• A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
• A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
• Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
• The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
• The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
• The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
• If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
• Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
• Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
• GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
• HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
• Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
• Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
• National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
• Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
• Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

• Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
• History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
• Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
• Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available. The CIA World Factbook Maps can be used as a basis for the map, but plenty of other sources are available.
• Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
• Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
• Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
• Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
• See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s)).
• References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
• External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links

Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

• Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
• Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
• Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,973 words) "readable prose size"
• Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
• Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
• East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8152 words) "readable prose size"
• Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9092 words) "readable prose size"
• New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9761 words) "readable prose size"
• Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9178 words) "readable prose size"

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

== Politics ==
{{main|Politics of the Netherlands}}

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images too small or fragmented image display for some readers. See WP:GALLERY for more information.

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

• Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors. (To help mitigate these, see Help:Cite errors)
• Excerpts break the link between article code and article output.
• Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page.
• Transcluded text may cause repeated links or have different varieties of English and date formats than the target page.
• Transclusions may not reflect protection levels, resulting in transcluded text perhaps having a different level of protection than the target page. See Cascading protection
• {{excerpt}} and related templates may require using <noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude> markup at the transcluded page to have selective content; that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained.
• Excerpts cause editors to monitor transcluded pages for "section heading" changes to ensure transclusion continues to work. (To help mitigate this, see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS)
• Excerpts can result in content discussions over multiple talk pages that may have different considerations or objectives for readers.

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

• Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
• Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

• WikiProject Former countries
• WikiProject Micronations
• WikiProject Limited recognition

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages

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:

“

Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China.

”

--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]

Nobody's talking about turning an article into a list of links. --Ideogram 22:30, 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]

Oh, well, in that case never mind, forget I said anything. --Daduzi ^talk 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China is a duplicate of this PRC article. Either merge this PRC article with the China article, or shorten the China article to include just the China/Taiwan conflict so that readers won't be incredibly confused. Most readers will assume when they go to China that it will be about the country of China, and they are surprised not to find a country infobox on the right side. This is because currently the English common name for the PRC is "China" and the English common name for the ROC is "Taiwan." There are no conflicts if we follow the common English name convention. The current layout is discriminatory (POV) against the PRC (as if suggesting PRC is not really China), and some form of NPOV solution should take place.

Wikipedia Policy: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." For more information, see: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions.

Linking to "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" for China is *not* easy nor second nature. Very few people use the terms People's Republic of China or PRC in the English language, the common English term "China" is sufficient. Let's not try to popularize something here (using terms like PRC) in Wikipedia that does not represent reality. --User:Intsokzen 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a duplicate post. Please respond to it at Talk:China#This_article_is_unnecessary.2C_request_for_merging_or_deletion. to keep the discussion in one place.--Jiang 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Bad idea The Green Fish 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Because since there are two Chinese republics currently in existence, PRC and ROC(Taiwan), merging two or three China related articles will cause confusion. Especially on the topic about government and military. Awongca 06:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you use the common English names of both entities. Then there will be no confusion in the article nor the title. This isn't brain science, other encylopedias manage this perfectly well, I don't see why Wikipedia should be held as the only exception. 128.135.60.89 22:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]