Talk:History of the People's Republic of China/Archive 1

Untitled
This was moved from a talk page linked at the bottom of the article olivier 13:33 Nov 14, 2002 (UTC)

From "People's Republic of China/History Talk:"

I removed this:

The Next 5 Years The next 5 years represent a critical period in China's existence as China makes a bid to join the WTO. To investors and firms, China represents a vast market that is still yet to be fully tapped. This point is best illustrated by the rapid growth of cellphone users in China. Educationally, China is forging ahead as partnerships and exchanges with foreign Universities have helped to bring about new research opportunities for it's students. However, there is still much that needs to take place in China. Human rights issues continue to raise concern among members of the world community. The positive response of the Chinese Government to these concerns will help to better cooperation between other countries.

I did so for the following reasons:


 * 1) China *is* now a member of the WTO.
 * 2) The commentary on human rights reads like the kind of spin you get in the Hong Kong English-language broadsheets.
 * 3) The rest of the paragraph doesn't really add much, and it's not history yet anyway.

--User:Robert Merkel

No, China won't be a member until December 11 or thereabouts. Membership doesn't commence until thirty days after the deposit of the instruments of ratification :-) -- User:sJK -- Shouldn't we move all of the pre-1949 stuff the the History of China? -- User:Chenyu


 * Simon, if/when you come down to Melbourne, bring me down some humble pie :) --User:Robert Merkel

- Reworded description of Deng's trip to the south in 1992. Although Chinese economic reforms might seem capitalistic, I doubt anyone in the government (including Deng) would argue that they are.

---User:Roadrunner


 * See also : Peoples Republic of China

Zoe,

why are you deleting the second photo, caption?

Paektu


 * We strive for an NPOV stance here in Wikipedia. Calling people "martyrs" is hardly NPOV, especially when others would consider them monsters.  I changed the first caption, and will continue to do so.  In addition, the headers you keep reverting are in violation of Wikipedia's standards, and I will continue to revert those, as well.  It would help if you would please let us know what changes you're making instead of just making them without comment.  As for the second picture -- one, we don't need two pictures on a page, especially when the second one doesn't add anything new.  Two, you don't tell us where you're getting these pages, and I wonder about copyright issues.  Three, optimism pervades today’s increasingly prosperous, People's Republic is also hardly NPOV, and I will revert that, as well.  Make your captions less POV, be sure that your pictures are copyright-free, and let's not have too many pictures per page.  -- Zoe


 * I agree with Zoe, unless the caption is a direct quote (in which case, it should be in quotation marks with an attribution) Slrubenstein

--- I disagree. Zoe’s hiding her zealous rightwing views behind the guise of NPOV once again. I don’t see what was so biased about those captions anyway. If a non-Communist country were sustaining 8% GDP growth annually, I doubt that she would contest any reference to ‘pervading optimism’. The reference to “revolutionary martyrs” was also fine, being that it was in reference to the official government line.

Paektu, restore your old version!

172


 * 172, you promised us that you were going away. I will continue to revert Paektu's version. Once again, you only want to cause trouble and not deal with anything reasonable. -- Zoe

--- Zoe:

Once again you attack me and not respond to my charges.

172


 * 172, I have to disagree with you here, at least in part -- if "revolutionary martyrs" is a reference to the official government line, I think the article must state that clearly. Also, I do not think all would agree that 8% growth is good.  In my country (the US) many argue that economic growth (measured by an increase in GDP) is often a result of social breakdown (e.g. divorce, hospitalization); is structured in a way that benefits people unequally and exacerbates class stratification; and is linked to environmental degredation.  I am not saying this position is right, or that these things are occuring in China -- only that some people really do view economic growth as a cause for pessimism and that to judge it as either good or bad either way really does express a clear point of view. Slrubenstein

172, read my paragraph above. That explains why I'm doing what I'm doing. -- Zoe

---

I'll accept Slrubenstein's explanation. Zoe’s name-calling is less convincing though.

172

My comments to Paketu were not name calling. We were having a reasoned discussion until you decided to butt in. -- Zoe

I had to defend the defenseless new user. We don’t want this potentially valuable contributor scared off by your venom, do we?

172

It seems to me that the two cases are, in fact, different. The "revolutionary martyrs" caption is perfectly reasonable. It refers to people who undoubtedly gave their lives for the cause they believed in (whether that cause was a "good" cause or a "bad" cause is not for us to say). According to Webster, a "martyr" is "one who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle". This clearly fits the case. The three alternative meanings listed fit also. The people illustrated are "China's third generation leaders", they are "paying homage", and the "revolutionary martyrs" undoubetedly did "help to establish the People’s Republic". The fact that we Westerners feel taken aback at the caption, being unused to thinking of martyrdom in the context of a communist revolution, points out our own limitations, not any fault with the caption - indeed, the caption helps encourage the reader to expand his mental horizons and is on those grounds to be applauded.

The second caption, however, is difficult to justify. Where the existence of and veneration for revolutionary martyrs is clearly established, the assertion that "optimism pervades" is questionable (though, on the whole, I am inclined to guess that it is probably true), and the assertion that China is "increasingly prosperous" is perhaps also questionable: SLR points out that economic growth numbers do not always equate to increased prosperity for individual citizens, and I would add that if we take a broader, more useful and not narrowly economic definition of "prosperity" then is is very easy indeed to cite examples where unquestioned on-paper "economic growth" has been an unmitigated disaster - consider the Congo Free State for an extreme example. In any case, the second picture (at least to my mind) has little aesthetic value and seems superflouous, with or without caption.

I suggest keeping the first picture as-is, and removing the second one. Tannin 07:11 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

How about saying "paying homage" to those who died for the cause of the Chinese revolution, or words to that effect? Let's please not use the word "martyrs". -- Zoe

I am a little uncomfortable with that, on account of blandness and not giving quite the same amount of information, but only a little. "Martyrs", "heros" and "those who died for the cause" have different shades of meaning. I rather liked "martyrs" because it gives a hint of quasi-religious veneration that seems to me to communicate something useful. But your suggestion is a sensible compromise, I think Zoe, and will save us getting into the angels and head of a pin class of time-wasting. Tannin


 * Consider "economically prosperous". It limits to economic and excludes spiritual.  Assume the economic indicators are accurate, "economically prosperous" should be an adequate claim.


 * "optimism pervades (People's Republic)" is a generalization of the nation's feeling. This could be measured with polls.  Although, I do not think it is possible to find such result on the Internet.


 * I think "martyr" has a religious connotation.


 * Yes. That religious connotation is why I thought it was the most appropriate and meaningful of the several captions suggested. No matter, it's a small thing. I just edited the article to use the phrase Zoe suggested. Tannin 09:34 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Status of Falun Gong
On the political agenda, China was once again put on the spotlight for the banning of Falun Gong in 1999. Silent protesters of the spiritual movement sat outside of Zhongnanhai, asking for dialogue with China's leaders. Jiang saw it as threatening to the political monopoly of the Communist Party, and outlawed the group altogether, while using the mass media to denounce it as an evil cult.

Ok, I know there is already a no reference up on this article, but this block of text must be written by a Falun Gong practitioner. It is bluntly biased against the PRC while putting the Falun Gong in a very favorable light. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1949
I think this article is biased. The circumstances of 1949 are not penetrated in depth here. I miss the (huge) role of the USA/CIA, e.g. the fact that the gold reserves of china were stolen and brought to Taiwan, no doubt with CIA direction and criminal complicity (don't call it help). It is one thing to describe Mao as brutal, but this didn't come from nowhere. Please! 87.78.141.210 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles should be written from a non-biased perspective
Just a quick follow up from the previous suggestions. This article is a perfect example of why people are having less and less respect to Wikipedia these days. Misleading and biased articles are destroying Wiki's reputation.

Just a quick point to add. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of putting Republic of China (Taiwan) next to China in the History of China chart. There are intense debates on whether or not Taiwan should be treated as an independent country, and from the majority of the world's, including UN's, perspective, Taiwan belongs to China (People's Republic of China). I'm not trying to bring that argument to this discussion, but putting Republic of China besides People's Republic of China is basically saying Taiwan isn't part of China, which is a false and misleading information. I suggest that before the debate of the independence of Taiwan has settled, put Republic of China (Taiwan) under China in the chart and make a short note on what does it implies.

We have put our suggestions up (for arguments, or agreements), and if the suggestions keep being ignored, we should just go ahead and edit the passages. Someone needs to put a stop on this abusing usage of Wiki, this is becoming ridiculous and shameful.

TensaZ (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

More Bias
The following quote was from the 1976-1989 section of the article "After the government imposed martial law and sent in military tanks and soldiers to suppress the demonstrations, student protesters were killed and innocent bystanders were run over and crushed to death by tanks while Chinese soldiers fired bullets into crowds of onlookers without provocation in and around the center of Beijing."

It lists no sources or references and the tone of the sentence is extremely biased. Until I see a reliable source for this, I am deleting it.

Dragoneye776 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed
From the 1980s on, there are no references.Kdammers (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New leader
Don't the Chinese elect a new leader tomorrow (Friday November 9 2012)? This should go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead of this article mention the COVID-19 pandemic?
Interesting how the lead of History of Japan mentions the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the leads of History of Russia and History of Ukraine mention the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but neither the lead of this article nor that of History of China mentions COVID.

I mean, I would add it in myself, but I'd like to ask for feedback here since this might be a controversial article. Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)