For earlier material see Talk:China/old, Talk: China (Archive 1) and Talk: China (Archive 2) Talk: China (Archive 3) Talk: China (Archive 4)

Who moved People's Republic of China to China and why ? That's very inapropriate. Taw 21:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I forget his name, he was a sysop, since retired. My impression was that the purpose was to establish that there was one China and that the People's Republic was it. There was an extended debate, and this organization of the articles on China was established. I would rather we went back to the old origanization which permitted both an extensive article on the People's Republic and on China (with substantial sections on history, culture and geography and other areas independent of matters relevant to the current political regime). Fred Bauder 13:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

There is currently a section in China on "Politics" with a main article link to Politics of China - is this sufficient? Could it be expanded? Martin 16:23 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think that for the moment what we find in the politics section is adequate. Look, I have done no research (I mean, scholarly research, meaning with an eye towards publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) on China. ALl I do know from my "lay" research is that there have been changes and divisions among scholars on how to define and apply these terms. The current wording of the politics section recognizes this. I think as with all articles here, we need to edit them into the best shape we can -- and leave room for or even invite real scholars to expands and elaborate. Of course what we have can and should be expanded -- but it can wait, especially until a political scientist or sociologist currently conducting research on the Chinese state becomes a contributor.

In the meantime, though, the opening line, which once again defines China as a "communist state," has to go. All I have done is gotten involved in a silly revert war with JTDIRL and I am tired of it. As I said, I think Danny's suggestion is fine. I also saw on the listserve that Jimbo came up with an excellent proposal. Anything I do, JTDIRL will revert -- I'd like you, Roadrunner, Danny, Prat, Shino, and JeLuf to just pick one of these -- Jimpo's Danny's, or JeLuf's -- and stick with it. Slrubenstein

I'm not ignoring this controversy. Daunted at the length of the debate and the massive amounts of steam coming out of the ears of three contributors that I have developed a great deal of respect for—JTD, SLR & 172—I decided it would be better to print the talk page and its archive out and read it in a less eye-strain inducing form. Then I ... er ... put it to one side "just for a few minutes" and wrote a new entry on an obscure Australian mamal. And then ... er ... another one. And two more. And now it's bedtime.

Procrastination. It's a wonderful thing. Don't know how I'd survive without it. Tannin 15:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

PS: with a little luck, the controversy will be happily settled by the time I wake up, and I can do Spinifex Hopping Mouse instead. Whoever said procrastination wasn't an effective time management strategy? Tannin

Since 172 and Jtdirl both agree that China is a republic, I reccomend :China is a republic in east Asia, governed by the Chinese Communist Party since 1949; which some argue to be a communist state, while others (including China itself) argue it to be a socialist state. Shino Baku

Nobody has ever said it was otherwise. But it isn't a republic in the liberal democracy model, but in the Communist state model. ÉÍREman 22:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I like the change by anonymous contributor 12.208.71.103 172

""Once China's leaders focus on problems and are determined to take action, they usually manage to resolve them — sometimes with brutal efficiency," a Goldman Sachs report concluded. "You may call that a virtue of authoritarian government." [1] Fred Bauder 09:49 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Refactor warning - the long and tedious debate over whether China is or is not communist is shortly going to be refactored down to its bare essentials. If you feel that there are vast chunks of brilliant prose within it that should be saved for posterity, do so now. Martin 23:46 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square was a critical watershed in the history of Chinese politics, and requires a great deal of attention in the history of the PRC article and the article on Chinese politics. But in an introductory paragraph it should be scrapped (it occurred almost 14 years ago) in favor of more recent developments, like labor unrest, the WTO, or the recent party congress and the new generation of leadership.

This is historical revisionism at work. Reality is somehow dependant on the need to suppress on minimize uncomfortable facts. The silence about democracy in China is probably more dependent on the perceived willingness of the state to engage in terror than on lack of interest. It was the Tiananmin Square Massacre which reinforced the credibility of the state's commitment to suppress dissent. For such purposes 14 years is a very brief period indeed. Fred Bauder 12:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The democracy movement had also been featured too prominently as well. It's not a threat to the PRC domestically, but internationally, especially to Sino-US relations and legislation like the PNTR. The article made it sound as if there were a burgeoning opposition within China. Labor unrest, not the largely Western-base opposition movement is the major source of opposition in China today. 172

If it is "not a threat", why the extreme and continuing measures to suppress it? Fred Bauder 12:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Although it would be an understatement to say that Fred and I would disagree on matters of communism, he makes a valid point in what he recently stuck in at the top of this talk page. Most of the recent debate belongs at People's Republic of China, as does most of the present article. The title China should be reserved for the nation of China. I use "nation" in the strict sense of a cultural entity which need not coincide with the boundaries of any state, either past or present. In this way the nation of China is basically the "Han" state with boundaries that varied over the millenia. It allows for the argument that Tibet and other territories in the west of the PRC continue to be a part of the PRC but not a part of China. A similar argument can arise over Taiwan which is not a part of the PRC, and only became Chinese occupied at the end of the Ming dynasty. The range of debates over the "communist" nature of China can then be limited to the PRC article. Let's start bringing some clarity and simplicity to the subject. ☮ Eclecticology 18:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I second it. Arguments of what kind of state China is should go to Politics of China. BTW what's exactly a socialist state? Someone's got to clarify the types of states that their arguments are based on. kt2

Yes, the proposed move has my support. - prat

My edits mainly entailed rephrasing a few values-laden and loaded terms. I tried to NPOV the section of politics, which had already been getting more concrete. The content in that section is now relatively good; it could stand to briefly go through some explanations for the autocratic policies, but its failure to do so is acceptable in a brief introduction. Good job to many contributors, even Fred Bauder, for largely sticking with specifics rather than emotive rhetoric. 172

"Even though a lot of democratic countries consider that China is a one-party county, there are still some other parties existing. Chinese Communist Party cooperates with them by a special commission rather than election. But the effect of the other parties on the government remains unknown. "

Typo at county in this one, but I draw attention to it for because while a naive reader of the People's Daily might consider it describe something real almost anyone else is aware that the political partners (the parties cited) have no real life, being a formal hangover from coalition building during the revolution. As to their effect on the government, it is well known to be nil. (Athough meetings actually do take place between the government and these "parties".) The same situation existed in Poland, even in Russia after the revolution when other parties were merged into the Communist Party and ceased to have any freedom of action Fred Bauder 11:53 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Some wikipedians have drawn up discussions on proper Wikipedia format of the Name of Emperors at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Readers of this article would also be interested to comment on the issue before a generally agreed format is decided by poll. thanx kt2 22:08 25 May 2003