Talk:Demographics of the People's Republic of China

Untitled
The statement that China's population could be 1.5 to 2b is not very believable. I looked at the cited sources and they are not credible and seem more related to speculation rather than having taken a count of the population itself. Only a census will be accurate. I trust CIA factbook and China's population count website more than those listed sources above. I will remove the 1.5 to 2b estimate from the main page, it seems way to far fetched and it affects the credibility of wikipedia for reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.235.95 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion
Deleted the section on religion until we can get sources. 7.1% of the population is NOT Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.62.146 (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is some information here wich doesn't match: the text says "59% is non-religious, 33% is 'Traditional Beliefs' and 40.6% is Buddhists". Without taking account of the other beliefs, this numbers sums more than 100%. Is it really wrong or i misunderstood the text? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnibur (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The only source that indicates anything that high is Vipassana Foundation - a Buddhist website based in the US. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The constitution affirms religious toleration subject to several important restrictions. The government places limits on religious practice outside officially recognized organizations. Only two Christian organizations, a Catholic church without ties to the Holy See in Rome and the "Three-Self-Patriotic" Protestant church, are sanctioned by the PRC Government. Unauthorized churches have sprung up in many parts of the country, and unofficial religious practice is flourishing. In some regions authorities have tried to control activities of these unregistered churches. In other regions registered and unregistered groups are treated similarly by authorities, and congregates worship in both types of churches. I think we need references or citations cause the descriptions here are not specific. joinone (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources?
What's the source of the figures on this page?

The main source of this page is from Chinese government webpages and from other English version website which are listed on the search result of Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.214 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Censuses?
An article similar ro United States Census is missing. `'mikka (t) 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Move Request

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus, not moved. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. -  AjaxSmack   05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. PRC includes Hong Kong and Macao.  But this article is about demographics specifically of mainland China, which does not include Hong Kong and Macao.  --- Hong Qi Gong 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The current article's scope can always be expanded to include the entirety of the PRC. The distinctiveness of the two SARs can still be maintained by keeping their respective articles, as is the case in many other topics.--Huaiwei 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's little reason to put three constituent parts in one article. This article is on the part of the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded, i.e. mainland China. &mdash; Instantnood 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely. And there are not 3 constituent parts, there are 33. Mr Noodles happens to forget that. SchmuckyTheCat 05:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With due respect, please kindly refer to the 1982 Constitution. Article 30 provides for administrative divisions. Article 31 provides for the establishment of special administrative regions. Articles 18 in both basic laws each provides that national laws do not apply in the corresponding special administrative region, except for those listed in the annexes III in both basic laws. In other words for most purposes most of the constitution, including Article 30, as well as most PRC laws, are applied only in mainland China. Mainland China is divided into provinces, autonomous regions and "municipalities directly under the Central Government", and the PRC can establish special administrative region(s). &mdash; Instantnood 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah. You've said this same thing at least half a dozen times already everytime it's a dispute. It's old meme.  I'm not going to get into it again just because the dispute is on a different subject. SchmuckyTheCat 04:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The two names are different. Passer-by 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.




 * (responding to user:SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 04:00, September 10) It's a fact, an actual fact that wouldn't be changed despite how many times somebody declines to accept. (But somebody does happen to be declining every time, without referring to any reputable and reliable source.) &mdash; Instantnood 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And ditto to somebody else with regards to the opposing view. Duh.--Huaiwei 02:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Peking vs. Beijing
Please note that "Peking" is rather Cantonese (Po King) than Mandarin. Another example would be "Hong Kong" (In Cantonese : Heung Gang) is also rather Cantonese than Mandarin (Xiang Gang).

Therefore, the replacement of Peking into Beijing should not be the matter of confusion with an adopted romanization system (pin yin), but just a different language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) on which the name of the city was chosen for international use. Yoann --202.155.251.162 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
I am starting a debate on standardizing names of articles like this one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. --Ideogram 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Demographics of the People's Republic of China. 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Request 2
I re-wrote the sections to include summary style paragraphs and links to HK/MO for each section, and did some basic statistics in the numbers section. . At this point the article is about the PRC, and not the mainland, which was the objection above. SchmuckyTheCat 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Demographics of China was already written following the summary style. This article has always been focused only on mainland China since its creation. It is confusing to have some information and figures only for the mainland, while some others covers the PRC in general, within the same sections; and at the same time information and figures for the PRC in general are missing. The three parts of the PRC are  different jurisdiction sand have different administration and standards in compiling these information. Meanwhile, please propose your controversial changes in a temp page, instead of editing in the main namespace. Regards. &mdash; Instantnood 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Demographics of China is a dab page, not a summary style. That you can revert it to a very very old (two years ago) article where it was written in summary style does not reflect any community consensus or make for a good article.  SchmuckyTheCat 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An article writtern with a certain focus in mind in the beginning need not mean its scope can never be changed somewhere down the line. Are there any policies or guidelines forbidding this change? And as STC said, that is clearly a disamg page, not an article in summary style as your own link shows!--Huaiwei 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per request. —  AjaxSmack     10:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support As per my comment above. The PRC is the name of a country, while Mainland China is a geopolitical and POV-laden terminology which should not be used liberally in place of the country name, particularly on article names.--Huaiwei 11:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Suppport my change. SchmuckyTheCat 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename from demographics to demography
Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012 and comment. I also suggest going back to China instaed of PRoC - this is the convention for 'demography' series of article (see category).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

growth
--124.43.88.211 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) hows the population growin if birth rate,fertility rate and emigration are negative.doesnt make sense to m e guys ?

124.43.88.211 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 124.43.88.211 (talk)

Population density map request
A population density map would be helpful, if this information is available. If not, a nighttime satellite image would be a start. -- Beland (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I included a pie chart. It's not the same, but it helps. For some reason, though, my caption won't appear... Brutannica (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Literacy rates
Hi guys, the literacy rate on the page appears to be incorrect (way too low). Judging by sources such as the CIA factbook and UNICEF figures. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ch.html http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/china_statistics.html Rbd523 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Updated using the CIA factbook. Can't see any reason for putting the literacy rates 30% less. Remember, the methods which Chinese government use to measure the figures are the same as the United States,   and accepted by the UN.
 * joinone (joinone) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (GMT)

Future Demographics
I found this website http://www.euromonitor.com/Future_Demographic_China  quite good for showing the demographic structure of china, and how bulges in population in the 1960's and c.1990 have and will affect the current and future age structure of the current and future age structure of china. Note, very good graphic, if it is available to use. Note, doesn't show possible future bulge of births that looks quite feasible around now, as the previous population bulges become parents and create another population bulge. --Minotaur500 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Real ?
''However, according to some estimates, it could be much higher (1,5 to 2 billion). '' 2 billion seems enormous! What do you think ? Polylepsis (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Others" = just one man?
The first paragraph of this article says, "Others believe this figure is greatly exaggerated and that the true impact is closer to 50–60 million." Only one reference is given, which seems to give undue prominence to the views of just one man, Pascal Rocha da Silva. Who is he, whose perspective does he represent, why should the reader accept him as an authority? Also, is support for this position published only in French? Are there no similar opinions in English that could be cited? &mdash; IslandGyrl (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreigners?
Are there any statistics on the number of foreign residents from each country in the PRC?219.73.48.124 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 population in the info-box
I am pretty sure it is wrong.128.122.52.204 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is wrong; the numbers have been reverted to an earlier version. Quigley (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Demographics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China Where are data for tujia? What year this data?--Kaiyr (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

census results 2010
Where can I get census results 2010 year of People's Republic of China with ethnic population?--Kaiyr (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)