Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 3

For earlier material see Talk:China/old

Hi, I've edited the China/Temp page:


 * restored the table per the WikiProject Countries page
 * put in a "disclaimer"
 * move the brief history of China into the section for history

Although I have rewritten some of the text, I think I have not really touched it's contents. Roadrunner, Fred, what do you think? Jeronimo 00:52 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

- It's less objectionable, but I still have a small problem with it. The basic problem is that is seems to imply the the PRC "owns" say the history of Tang Dynasty. Also, it doesn't really take into account current events. One of the things that the PRC government has been doing in the past year has been to "delink" the concept of the PRC from the concept of China. You can see this in the response to Chen Shuibian that was issued today where the PRC was went out of its way to avoid identifying the PRC with China.

I'll probably drop out of the discussion for a few days and let other people comment (as well as try to articulate better what still bothers me about the page).

-- User:Roadrunner


 * Ok, we're moving towards a solution, so that's good. As for the Tang dynasty (though I think you mean it more genral), I think that Taiwan did not form part of the Tang empire. Anyway, there's nothing against mentioning the Tang dynasty at Taiwan as well.


 * We may indeed specifically include (in the history? header? "disclaimer"?) that the PRC avoids linking its name to China. Then again, it may de-link it formally, but all those people around the world will continue to associate the two.


 * I'll await your remaining problems with the contents, confident we'll end up with an article that satisfies the both of us (and, hopefully, "everybody else"). Jeronimo 13:07 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)

- Guys, after reading this tedious list of conversation, my sugguestion of the best way out of the naming convention of China is using those by native speakers of Chinese. As a native speaker of several dialects of Chinese, I make the following table which should help:

Most Chinese, regardless of where they are from, care less about the naming convention but some Taiwanese (like my buddy who is gonna marry next month) DO NOT WANT Mainland China to annex Taiwan and had bad impression on Chen Shuibian.

KT2


 * Knowing what the Chinese call it is certainly interesting, but what is important is what the English-language people call it. Jeronimo

I'm with Jeronimo. I also thought all of this already had been resolved -- China should be the main article of the PRoC. It doesn't matter what they officially call it or want it to be called. English speakers call it China in overwhelming numbers. This is also the conventional short form used by the CIA and the UN and we have decided that that is what we will use for country names here. If we don't stick to that then we are expressly taking sides in political naming issues. The fact that the PRoC is currently trying to dissociate their government from "China" (which seems counter intuitive for a totalitarian regime..) is an interesting thing to mention in the article on the PRoC at China. If we change the name of the article to follow political correctness of the PRoC that is an express act of support for their policy. I for one say we defer such naming matters to higher authorities such as the CIA Factbook, the UN and especially what is most commonly used by English speakers. True they are POV institutions but transcribing what they use is a passive and not express act of POV. Wikipedia is not in the business to decide what the names of nations are -- other institutions are far better suited at this highly charged topic. I also think the disclaimer is way too long and bold should be replaced by italics. Any article on the PRoC should include any historical events that have occured within the PRoC's borders (real, not imagined or wanted borders). Any mention of Taiwan should be in relation to one or another government that has rulled the mainland. Any Taiwan specific history should be in that *gasp* nation's article and much of the current strife between the nations can be in the foreign relations sub-articles of both or in its own special article. When there are overwhelming numbers of people who use terms in one way and this is also what is used by the CIA factbook and the UN, we do not have to dance around any naming or content issues. No war will be fought over our reporting of the facts. --mav

Mav sez: "English speakers call it China in overwhelming numbers." Your pronoun contains the whole problem: English speakers call what China in overwhelming numbers? They certainly use the word "China" in overwhelming numbers, and it's safe to say that they use the word "China" to mean "China" in overwhelming numbers. Even the following must also be conceded: when referring to the vast modern state that rules over the ancient land known as China, people still use the word "China" (rather than People's Republic of China). But it seems that no one has noticed that glib pronouncements such as "English speakers call it China" simply do not entail that that is all that the word "China" means. The following two statements are converses, and as they are universal affirmative statements and as I just got done teaching intro logic, I'd like to point out that they are not logically equivalent:


 * Every time someone wants to refer to the PRC is a time they use the word "China." (Not actually true, of course.)
 * Every time someone uses the word "China" is a time they want to refer to the PRC. (Outrageously false.)

--Larry Sanger

Okay, I read some of the discussion and thought the issue still not yet resolved. Thus I wrote that table to help. IMO the discussion is more or less irrelevent since China, not Mainland China or else, is undisputably the right name. Period. Knowing how the other guys think about the naming convention was certainly interesting, however. -- KT2

Question for all: What is the standard here for choosing between Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in contributing? Contributor preference? -- voidvector

Most of us can't tell which is which even if our browsers read them. This is going to have to be established by someone like yourself who presumably does know. What is used on contemporary Chinese Websites? Fredbauder 13:27 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Most Chinese websites choose their local standard (TW & HK: Traditional; Mainland: Simplified) to display text. Popular websites has their pages in both standards. Most adult Chinese that I know can read commonly used Chinese character in both forms.

-- voidvector

Even highly educated young mainland Chinese people tend to have some difficulties with traditional (i.e. not simplified) characters for "everyday" words. Nevertheless, traditional characters are commonly used for names. Traditional characters are also widely used in Chinese communities outside of Greater China, for instance in Singapore. Therefore, my suggestion would be to use traditional characters for all names in the 'pedia. olivier 06:44 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

I take it back. Actually, in mainland China, traditional characters are common for persons' names, but not for places names. Maybe we should use both, just as we tend to indicate several transliterations. olivier 13:35 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

This thread is interesting but shouldn't be here and needs to be moved. There is already some talk on similar issues over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese). The people who have already contributed to that page are probably still watching it. --mav

Could somebody correct this page so that the table doesn't slip over into the right margin? I've never been able to figure out how to do that. -- Zoe


 * I don't see anything wrong with the table itself, but the map halfway down the article is so wide that it's probably stretching the page beyond your browser window. I'll scale it down... --Brion 01:23 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

My opinion: this article should be about China, not about the People's Republic of China. China is what "China" means--not some political entity. If we want an article about the PRC, then of course let's have one located at People's Republic of China. China, like Ireland, has a long unified history, a relatively unified culture and language, etc., etc.

The cases of China and Ireland are identical and should be solved the same way, viz.:


 * There should be huge articles covering every aspect of Chinese and Irish civilization (in summary, of course), at China and Ireland respectively.
 * There should be relatively specialized articles covering the modern states of People's Republic of China, Taiwan (or whatever we want to call it), Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. These might contain the respective histories of these states since they were created, information about modern political organization, demographics, and so forth--that is, precisely the sort of information that does not sit easily in the more general articles China and Ireland given that we do have articles about the modern states.

This seems pretty obvious to me. I'm not sure how we arrived at a different decision. It just seems ridiculous to me that we have articles only about the Republic of Ireland sitting on Ireland and only about the PRC at China. --Larry Sanger

I brought this issue up on Wikien-l. See http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-December/000235.html --Larry Sanger
 * I replied to Larry's comments on Wikien-l, and very much agree to his approach on this subject. The present situation is simplistic, and tries to put the whole subject into a neat little box where it doesn't fit.  There is some merit to using short names for countries, but not at the risk of creating situations that are misleading and confusing.  The person who equates China with the PRC might as well participate in a revisionism that says "In the 7th century the Tang Dynasty ruled the People's Republic of China."  The views of the majority (whether on Google or anywhere else) are only one consideration in arriving at a solution.  It all comes down to whether we are promoting accurate assessments of the circumstances, or interpretations to suit the convenience of a majority. Eclecticology 00:01 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

large portions of the Chinese population.
 * Despite this, the Chinese Communist Party has, through a series of subtle shifts in ideology, maintained support among

This statement in the article cannot be supported. The degree of support among the population of China for the dictatorship is simply not known even to the government. Information they do have are state secrets. Fred Bauder 16:26 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

As no one has come up with an objection backed by a verifiable source I have removed the language regarding the degree of support and done some editing on the rest of the paragraph. I started using a netscape browser and found the page too long too, so split it. Fred Bauder 18:28 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Someone had added &#22823;&#28450;&#26063;&#26031;&#22374;  and many non-NPOV statements in the article. It is a pity to see that Wikipedia is used as a place for political declaration.

I think Taiwan has abandoned any claim to be the legitimate government of China. Fred Bauder 01:10 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, unofficially. But they have not yet changed the constitution of Republic of China.

-- Encyclopedias refer to China as a "communist republic" in the intro. Ploemics refer to it as an "authoritarian regime". Please follow NPOV guidelines. 172

China is neither communist or is it a republic. It is a dictatorship. If one views the situation sympathetically, one might justify the role the Communist party plays, but viewed objectively and neutrally both nationally and locally the country is fairly described as authoritarian. Fred Bauder 15:41 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually China is a republic (i.e. it doesn't have a monarchical head of state). Also describing the system of government as authoritarian isn't terribly polemical, as the Chinese government itself would probably not strongly dispute the term.  User:Roadrunner

Moved authoritarian to politics. Also removed section on Chinese democracy movement. The Chinese democracy movement right now isn't a significant challenger to the CCP. The main threat to its rule right now is general labor unrest. User:Roadrunner

Look, even putting aside NPOV issues, it's simply not natural to include phrases like 'Communist Party-led republic' in an introductory sentence. As for NPOV, China is not a special case. There are no special cases. prat

-- The World Almanac and Book of Facts refers to China as a Communist-Party led state under government type. I don't understand the uproar over hidden points of view. This is the structure of the government for a single-party state. 172

The article pertaining to Cuba has a similar intro: "The Republic of Cuba is a Communist state located on the island of the same name in the northern Caribbean Sea. Its capital is Havana." 172

Besides the following arguments, what is being proposed is unnatural English. It's like introducing Australia as 'Australia is a Liberal-party led democracy', when in fact the 'liberal party' is a complex entity that exists within a unique governmental system requiring substantial elaboration. Except in specialist literature, the convention in English is to explain complex concepts as they are introduced. Matter-of-fact namedropping most frequently used with words such as 'communist', 'authoritarian', etc. only to transfer the hidden meanings of these value-laden words on to different subjects. (See: propaganda) There is no problem talking about the structure of Chinese government, or making NPOV statements on the concrete policies thereof, but it's inappropriate to say 'communist party led state' without discussing the 'communist party' (which now recruits capitalists as senior members!). 'Communist state' would have been fair enough a few years ago, but anyone that has been to China recently would agree that it's largely communist in name only, and in fact for all intents and purposes arguably more capitalist than America. Labelling vastly different and complex nations (Cuba, China) and their governmental structures as simply 'communist' strikes me as uninformative and perhaps even misleading. (see transferring value comment above). IMHO, Discussions of governmental structure should be in depth, NPOV and not as a single word or phrase in the introductory sentence for a country article. Particularly in this, one of the most complex cases. -- prat

You're way off. First, Australia is not a single party state. Second, it's common to introduce China as a Communist state with an official Marxist-Leninist state ideology. The Communist state is a definitive government-type with similar overlapping party and state institutions, a government type existing today in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea. Yes, the structure of the Laotian government, for instance, is closer to that of Cuba than that of its neighbors aside from Vietnam. Do you people understand what a Leninist state structure is? 172

Oh please, Prat. This argument is silly. Comparing a simple clearly understandable phrase about China being a communist state to 'Australia is a Liberal-party led democracy' is just plain nonsense. The term Communist state does not simply mean the political allegiance of the current governing elite, as is the case in somewhere like Australia. It means a system whereby government and party in a one party state are intertwined and interlinked in a way that is particularly unique to a communist party system. Everyone with an even elementary knowledge of political and governmental systems understands that. In liberal democracies, you can and must draw a distinction between the state and the politial elites that govern them. But in communist states, a fundamentally different concept of government-party relations applies. Using the word 'communist' in such a context is not simply a statement of the politics of the governmental elite; it is a description of the system of government and is used in encylopædias and sourcebooks worldwide and understandable by readers the world over. That does not mean that the political meaning of communism and the policies of the political elite are not changing, but they still operate within a narrow political governmental-political system called communism. It is not POV or propaganda to say that. But not to say it would be blatently propagandistic POV. Where terms are unclear or need clarification, that can be done through links. But to removed internationally accepted language for describing this particular party-governmental system and describe it as POV and propagandistic is way wide of the mark. ÉÍREman 03:52 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Great, now there's some discussion happening instead of silent changes! Firstly, I just want to point out that at no time did I mean to suggest that Australia is a single party state. Now with that off my chest:
 * 172...


 * 1) given the significant variation in communist governmental systems that you point out
 * 2) given that China, which is the first communist state to have openly accepted capitalists in to the fold, is the largest remaining 'communist' state, and ...
 * 3) given that the term communist is fairly loaded due to the significant information campaigns waged just a few decades ago,
 * can you not see the value in introducing the governmental structure of China in a detailed and informative manner, vs. simple name-dropping (which is probably misleading or 'suggestive' to an average reader?)
 * ÉÍREman...

In summary, I wholeheartedly agree that this article should have some pithy info on China's unique system of governance, but merely reject the proposed grammar (on the basis of it's oddity!) and the position/method of introducing the concept of 'communist', due to the word's historical meaning / current meaning with reference to china being a unique but very important dichotomy. Hopefully this clears things up. I was heading out the door when I wrote the above comment, and probably should have restructured it before posting. -- prat
 * 1) I was comparing the two statements on their grammatical points, not their semantics. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
 * 2) I did not argue that we shouldn't mention that China's official government allegiance is 'communist', but rather that : Discussions of governmental structure should be in depth, NPOV and not as a single word or phrase in the introductory sentence for a country article.

Prat, it seems to me that the use of the word "communist state" is similar to referring to the U.S. as a "democratic state". It's not talking about the party in power, it's talking about the current government structure is set up. Sure, a political party called the "Despots of America" could set up an totalitarian government in the United States, but they'd be seriously revamping the government. If China switched to democracy, it would not be like a Democrat following up George Bush. It would be like installing the American Fascist Party. At the very least, you'd have to scrap the Constitution. --cprompt

I agree with most of the above (CPrompt, JTD, 172) that the first sentence should introduce the character of the state constitutionally, and not based on which party runs the government (the distinction between state and government is useful and important in poli. sci.). BUT I disagree that it is proper to identify the PRC as a communist state. I disagree for three reasons.

1) Self definition of China: the constitution of Chine describes the Chinese state as a socialist state under the people&#8217;s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The Chinese are clear that they expect the "socialist" phase to last a long time.

2) self definition of communism: many communists would argue that the claim that China is communist is a sham; that even the so-called communist party of China is relying on Marx and Lenin to legitimate themselves, but that in substance and in practce the Chinese state long ago departed from communism in theory or practice

3) the people who typically characterize China as communist are partisan opponents of China, e.g. the CIA or the US State Department

This is both an accuracy and an NPOV issue. The article should certain state that "some characterize China as a communist state" -- that is an accurate and NPOV statement. But to claim that China therefor is a communist state is POV and misleading.

I would begin the article by designating China as a socialist state, and later in the article discuss the differences between socialist state and CP domination, etc. Slrubenstein

PS 172 seems to be suggesting that the PRC is a one-party state (sorry if I am misunderstanding him/her) -- it is not; there are 8 non-communist parties. Of course, the one CP does dominate -- but just as it is wrong to call the US a "two-party state," is is wrong to call China a "one-party state." Slrubenstein

-

I know about the 8 non-Communist parties. Members of these parties hold some state posts, overseen by overlapping party posts.


 * My apologies. I think I was refering to JTDIRL's mistaken or confused claim that a "communist state" "means a system whereby government and party in a one party state are intertwined and interlinked in a way that is particularly unique to a communist party system."  I am sorry I named you by mistake.

You people are turning a non-issue into a heated partisan debate. We do not need to get into discussions over whether or not China has a socialist economy or whether or not communism is the opposite of democracy or a form of democracy. Am I being anti-China? No. I admit to being an admirer of the Chinese Communist Party since Deng Xiaoping.


 * Please stop taking everything so personally. It does notmatter whether you admire China or hate china.  The POV/NPOV issue is with the text.

China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba share a common government-type in which state and party institutions are intertwined. Party and state institutions, organs, committees, organizations are all based on Soviet-style structures. Sourcebooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias list the PRC as a Communist state, the United States as a federal republic, and the UK as a constitutional monarchy. 172

-- I removed references to the Chinese democracy movement in the introduction to Chinese politics. Although it has its place in the main article, having this in the intro exaggerates its influence in China. These movements are not significant threats domestically. China is far more concerned with the treat that these groups pose to Sino-US relations, and legislation like PNTR.

Also, Tiananmen Square was nearly 14 years ago. It's time to relegate that to the main articles on politics and history in favor of more current events, like the WTO, the recent party congress, or economic growth. The insistence on putting Tiananmen Square in the article is a sign of the Amero-centric bias that has been the center of so much debate on this site lately. For instance, the Russia article doesn't introduce Russian politics by going over Yeltsin's unconstitutional assult on the duma a decade ago, which was just as much of a political watershed in Russia, if not more, and perhaps just as deadly. Could this be due to the United States&#8217; muted encouragement of that attack to derail political opponents of rapid economic reform?

The discussion of Taiwan's status also lacked the fact that the UN adheres to one-China and recognizes the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China and Taiwan as a province of China. 172

Why, Fred, are you trying to POV this article by taking out factual information and slotting in POV stuff? Every sourcebook in existence talks about China being a communist state. The very term has specific meanings as regards a one-party state where the state and party are so interlinked that they are almost impossible to separate. Communist state means something totally different to non-communist state. A non-communist state usually operates a multi-party system in which the political elite is different from a governmental system. This is not the case in a communist state.


 * As 172 points out above, PRC is a multi-party state

That term has a particular meaning that is 100% correct in this case. Authoritarian state is something different. That degree of structural link does not exist constitutionally in an authoritarian state even if in practice they work close together. To some degree at least there is a difference. There is none in a communist state, hence the use of that term. Pinochet's Chile was an authoritarian state. Are you saying Pinochet's Chile had an identical form of government to China?


 * I would argue that 2003-China is a *lot* more similiar to Pinochet's Chile than it was to the Soviet Union.

That is an absurd suggestion. That isn't to say that it cannot be argued that China's system of government isn't authoritarian. But the system of government was and is 'Communist state'. That is the formal definitionary term used; used by encyclopædias, used by reference books, used even by the CIA. And why do you keep removing the factually accurate statement that the PROC is the recognised Chinese state by the UN. (also BTW by the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, South Africa, Australia, Chile, Zimbabwe, Israel etc etc etc.)

You may not agree with 172, but he is recognised on wiki as a competent capable historian. Debate factual issues by all means but don't continue with such blantently wrong distortions of contents. We had a similar row here before over how one formally describes a particular form of government. In the end their factually wrong doctorings were simply reverted on sight. If factually accurate encyclopædic material keeps being removed from this article and replaced by POV inaccuracies, the same thing will happen here, with all such changes simply being reverted. Every time. And if it continues, the page will have to be protected to stop POV additions and editing from taking place. ÉÍREman 04:32 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

The fact that the CIA sourcebooks or other Western encyclopedias call China a "communist state" is not sufficient reason for Wikipedia to call China a communist state. There are two issues: NPOV, and accuracy. On NPOV grounds, the sourcebooks and encyclopedias are not necessarily -- and in this case, simply not -- neutral. Historians should look at sources and documents in their historical context: virtually all Western scholarship on countries such as the USSR and PRC were heavily biased during the Cold War. PRC never identified itself as a communist state, but since during the Cold War (and even before) the US was at war with communism, all sorts of enemies were classed as "communist" regardless of distinct ideologies or structures. One cannot take those sourcebooks and encyclopedias at face-value (no historian shoult take any historical source at face-value). Indeed, it is not accurate to call China a communist state when the constitution describes itself as a socialist state, and when 30% or more of the country's economy is in private hands. Even Western scholars, some still operating under Cold War assumptions or within Cold War models, are beginning to realize this and the most current literature on China (by sociologists and political scientists, at least) is moving away from describing China as a "communist state." Wikipedia should reflect current, accurate, NPOV scholarship -- not outdated, inaccurate, Cold War scholarship. Slrubenstein

-

One very important thing to point out is that the Chinese government would not describe itself as a communist state. In Marxist ideology, world communism is the final phase of history which no nation has ever achieved. In Marxist ideology, China is currently a *socialist* state and not a *communist* one as a communist state will only exist in the far off future. The definitional issues are made even more hairy by the fact that the Chinese definitions of socialism (and for that matter democracy) are *very* different from Western definitions.

Personally, I think that the definitional issues are so messy that I don't think that one should start an article with them.

-- User:Roadrunner


 * Roadrunner, you may be right that the article shouldn't lead with a definition. This is of course an issue facing many more controversial articles (where the very definition is something people disagree about).  It is true that there are different kinds of socialisms (as there are different kinds of democracies, different kinds of communisms, etc.)  If an article must begin with a definition, I just think it ought to begin with self-definition and later in the article discuss conflicts over definition.  That Western democracies typically understand "socialism" differently from people in communist movements or parties, however, does not mean that the Western definition is "right" or NPOV and the communist definition is "wrong." Slrubenstein