Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleChina is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
March 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2006Featured article reviewKept
March 15, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
March 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 21, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
December 16, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 17, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that China, with over 34,687 species of animals and vascular plants, is the third-most biodiverse country in the world?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2004, October 1, 2005, October 1, 2006, October 1, 2007, October 1, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 1, 2010, October 1, 2012, October 1, 2014, October 1, 2018, and October 1, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article

"Sociopolitical issues and human rights" section is biased[edit]

Especially the part about Xinjiang. For example, "In Xinjiang, At least one million Uyghurs and other ethnic and religion minorities have been detained in mass detention camps, ..." is just a baseless claim, but it is presented like a fact. The Guardian is considered as biased or opinionated for politics by wiki. Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang are not mentioned, and neither is Chinese government's response to them. Chin2021 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're going to return to a dormant dummy account to attack Western coverage of Xinjiang, at least don't make a claim as stupid as "The Guardian is considered as biased or opinionated for politics by [W]iki[pedia]." Not to state the obvious to anyone else who is reading, but The Guardian is not blacklisted by Wikipedia and is considered a reliable source. Maybe try doing an ad hominem against their sources, like most defenders of the Chinese government do? Yue🌙 05:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refer to WP:RSP. "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." I'm sorry that I missed out "some editors".
The Guardian doesn't provide any evidence supporting the claim. It shouldn't be written like a fact. Chin2021 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're definitely just trolling now. What do you think the check mark and green highlight over The Guardian means? Yue🌙 07:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean what media with check mark and green highlight say should be considered as facts? Then I shouldn't waste time discussing with you. At least "The Guardian claimed ........." should be added, and let readers decide its reliability. Chin2021 (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make up a decent dummy protector of western bias yourself, and you sound not so smart.
Should we include how the party has lifted 800 million out of poverty in the last 20 years? Such facts are as relevant as the western biased accusations of human rights abuses.
Thanks~ Podfarming (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
China's tremendous successes in poverty reduction are covered elsewhere in the article. If you think those successes should be in human rights, it's a fair point, but my suggestion is to bring forward a source that ties these poverty reduction successes into questions of human rights specifically. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides, I don't find such section in the articles United States/United kingdom. Genocides of native Americans, slave trade, racial discrimination, gun violence and police brutality are parts of their history, but not included. Such section should also be removed here and discussed in other articles, otherwise it's a double standard. Chin2021 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But these contents still exist in the article, and I try to add information about some reports pointed out that Xinjiang-related "databases" and the  "witness testimonies" are fraudulent.( )And it was reverted. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
read me!!!! Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The report is from America.Its purpose is to stigmatize China.As a Chinese,also a rational patriot,I totally disagree with the opinions in it.There is no racial murder in Xinjiang.There is no racial murder in Xinjiang.There is no racial murder in Xinjiang.Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, gave a good evaluation after visiting Xinjiang.(结束中国之行 联合国人权高专巴切莱特谈新疆、西藏、香港等问题  | | 1联合国新闻 ( 梦随飞絮 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the update to that. CreativeNightPainter (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The United Nations Human Rights Council also refused to hold a special meeting about discussing the status of Muslims and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. Of the 47 members of the Council, only 17 supported, 19 opposed and 11 abstained.Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in Asia, opposes the resolution. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Country Freedom in the World 2022[1] 2022 Index of Economic Freedom[2] 2022 Press Freedom Index[3] 2021 Democracy Index[4]
 China 5 not free 5 repressed 5 very serious situation 5 authoritarian regime

Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...I am in China now.No matter what you think of human rights in China,I think the description of Xinjiang is not neutral,maybe we can add some responses from the Chinese government and the opposite views of other media. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 15:55 21 February 2023 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Countries and Territories", Freedom in the World, retrieved 2022-08-19
  2. ^ Heritage Foundation (2021). "Country Rankings". 2021 Index of Economic Freedom. Archived from the original on 2017-09-16. Retrieved 2014-08-07.
  3. ^ "Index", Reporters Without Borders, retrieved 2022-08-19
  4. ^ "Democracy Index 2021: the China challenge". Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved 2022-08-19.

Positivity bias, WP:NPOV violations[edit]

I'm mostly interested in technology and computers especially, so this section is geared towards commenting on these aspects of the China article. I don't claim the rest of the article has the same problems, but I would suspect it does.

Reading this article, especially the Modern Era part makes it seem like a resume or list of achievements. It doesn't inspire confidence towards neutrality and describing things from multiple point of view. It seems written specifically to put China in the best light possible.

As such, I feel the article fails at [| WP:NPOV].

Examples are cherry-picked and the overall tone is highly positive. Struggles and issues faced with technology are completely left out.

I'm making contributions in good faith, and I welcome any discussion to sort out what the actual style and tone should be for an article like this. If I am incorrect in assuming that an article of this nature shouldn't simply be a list of achievements and spun in a positive way, while neglecting to mention anything negative, then please point me towards the appropriate Wikipedia article that describes this being the policy enforced by Wikipedia. IndyCar1020 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm making some changes. We do want broad strokes for this article, not items specifically picked to illustrate certain views. Notifying User:Yue and User:IndyCar1020. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the part about non-domestic CPUs was removed. I do not agree with this and I'm now going to explain why. It is very important to stress that Chinese supercomputers, are in fact built using non-Chinese technology. A modern supercomputer is essentially a collection of off-the-shelf "server/enterprise" grade CPUs (here, is an example: ). When Chinese supercomputers are built using Intel's technology, i.e. Intel's CPUs, by putting together a collection of Intel CPUs, then saying "Chinese supercomputers" with no further explanation, is very misleading. Yes, supercomputers is a complicated topic, and there is more to it than this. However, this is not the place to go into a technical discussion about what exactly is, a supercomputer. What is important, is to describe China's achievements in broad strokes, in a neutral way — therefore, mentioning that the parts used are not Chinese parts, is crucial. Otherwise, a typical reader not familiar with what a supercomputer nor a CPU is, might take away from this, that China is at times world-leading in "supercomputers". Yes, a supercomputer costs money, but without the technology, which is designed and produced by someone else, then the statement is completely misleading. Based on this reasoning, I'm putting it back in, to stress, that "China's supercomputers" are built using non-domestic parts.
I'm also curious why the example with the pen was removed. I have a suspicion it might be considered "too offensive". However, if this is actually a fact, which everything indicates it is, then why shouldn't it be there? Isn't it noteworthy, that China didn't make their own high-end, ball point pen tips until 2017? I'm not an expert on ball point pen tips, so I'm not stressing this as strongly as my point about supercomputers. However, at the same time I see no reason to remove it. I was a referenced, well-known example, documented by numerous newspapers and sources. Instead of just removing it, requesting more sources or at least explaining why it must be removed, seems more productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndyCar1020 (talkcontribs) 11:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
China's initial setback of not able to launch its first satellite within a year of establishing its space program is not that relevant to this article now. I agree with The Account 2 regarding the removal of ballpoint pen tip, because that was in pre-2017. The source article also did not use the pen example as a general statement about China's technology overall but only as its own story. I agree with CMD that at the country-level, the origin of supercomputer components could be undue. If Toyota were to produce the world's safest car, we wouldn't pick the Japan article apart by saying certain components may be designed or manufactured by non-Japanese countries. Your source is written by a graduate student, and the claims that Intel designed the CPUs and only those ones were critical are technically still claims at this point. It may be a relevant discussion about TH-2 but not China's tech in general. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Satellite: I think it would be productive if you could please explain why you think it is irrelevant. I believe I've explained why I think it is relevant. I'll explain it again though: Because, when writing a list of achievements, it shouldn't be exaggerated. Why isn't it noteworthy that launching the satellite took ten times longer than scheduled? Doesn't that undermine the command of engineering and technology in general, shouldn't this be at least mentioned to give a neutral view?
Ballpoint pen tip: Your view is that because it is five years old, it is no longer "modern era"? The Wikipedia article about Chinese inventions, I believe define modern era as the past 110 years, for comparison. Here's the thing though: I think, most people that perceive China to be on some level an amazing powerhouse of technology, would probably be highly surprised that this much time and effort, had to be spent on something as seemingly simple as ball point pen tips. And that, is the whole point of having this example included. It is a somewhat shocking example, and this is why it is important to include.
Supercomputers: I'm sorry, but I think this is highly flawed. There's no "may be" produced by a different country. Are there other components that can be considered critical, in a computer? Of course. But no one that understands how a computer works, would claim that the CPU isn't absolutely essential to a supercomputer's performance. Full stop. The analogy with the car is flawed, you're using a different example that waters out the non-domestic parts. A better analogy would be, if Toyota made a car, that set a top speed record for the fastest production car, ever. What do you think would be written at Wikipedia about said car, if Toyota used an engine and aerodynamics designed and manufactured by BMW, then slapped a "Toyota" logo on it? Do you think that would be mentioned? And if your answer is "no", then you might be wrong. Look up the latest "Toyota Supra" on Wikipedia. You're trivializing the fact that the very CPUs used in the supercomputer aren't Chinese. This is not a trivial matter. The CPUs basically do all the work that a supercomputer does and calling them a "critical component" is if anything, barely sufficient to justify their importance in this context. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is meant to be an overview, not about specifics of China's first satellite. Does the United States article mention the early setbacks of its space program? No. Making high-quality pen tips is not as simple as most people assume, which is discussed in the ballpoint pen article. You also didn't finish reading my critique before deciding to drag this out further. "Your source is written by a graduate student, and the claims that Intel designed the CPUs and only those ones were critical are technically still claims at this point." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually do not respond to resolved issues with other editors (including those resolved by their own accord), but I highly dislike accusations of "emotional" editing. I am not contesting the fact that the Chinese government has stolen intellectual property and technology from the U.S.; I am a Canadian, it was a whole national story for us for several years when it happened within our own borders. Just don't cite The Heritage Foundation; it isn't a newspaper, it's a conservative thinktank that echoes the right-wing to far-right voices in the U.S. That's where my comparison to the People's Daily comes from. The source you provided also isn't a news article by a journalist, it's an opinion piece by a right-wing pundit, which adds to its inappropriateness as a citation for a factual statement (i.e. fails WP:RS). Why isn't already blacklisted on Wikipedia is beyond me, considering how the community has already voted against other sources from each extreme of the political spectrum. Yue🌙 21:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other editors should not have to explain why adding an exorbitant amount of solely negative information to an article, cited primarily by opinion pieces is a failure of WP:RS because it is such an obvious issue. Yue🌙 21:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Please accept my apologies for calling this "emotional", that was uncalled for. However, even if uncalled for, I hope it isn't unclear why it would seem like that though from an external point of view. If we both agree that this sort of thing is a reality, then shouldn't we work together to find reliable sources? When the whole paragraph gets deleted instead, the same paragraph which included a link to Wikipedia's own, internal pages to substantiate the claim, then I feel it was unreasonable to just delete the whole thing. I believe it would have been more constructive to find additional sources, or add information to specify the nature of the only existing source, to point out that this is a biased view, if that is a fair evaluation.
As for adding solely negative information, that is exactly the point. The article (this particular part of it, modern era, technology, etc.) contains solely positive information. Hence, I'm making contributions towards making it more neutral overall. Surely, there are negative things about China, and when they are all left out, the article is not neutral. I find this to be especially important when phrasing is apparently intentionally used to "sell" or "advertise" Chinese achievements by exaggeration. IndyCar1020 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a user who has reverted the edits once, I'll make a contribution to the talk page as well. First of all, I agree with Yue that The Heritage Foundation is a very partisan and unreliable source, not to mention that they have very questionable moral values. I removed the ballpoint pen tips example because China has been able to manufacture that technology domestically since 2017 (and things can change a lot in 6 years, especially in the field of technology in a country that had an average of nearly 6 percent growth during that time), but the wording made it look like it was struggling right now. Finally, I removed the point about supercomputers being mostly made by foreign components not because I didn't believe it but because that wasn't what's written in the source, and I would support its addition if it was sourced. I agree that it looked kind of too positive on how China's technological development looked, but isn't this an issue in Wikipedia country articles in general? For example, in Japan's (Featured Article) page, it doesn't mention how the country's technological progress has slowed since the Lost Decades, with only a small mention of the decline of the consumer industry. Russia, with an even greater decline since the collapse of the USSR and now under heavy international sections, only has positive aspects on its science and technology section. The Account 2 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ballpoint pen tip issue should stay, because it is a remarkable example that illustrates a more generalized concern. As for things changing, it doesn't look like that does it, concerning CPUs?
I can probably find some source that states Chinese supercomputers use non-Chinese CPUs, would that be better than The Heritage? Quite frankly, this is borderline something that needs to be sourced, just go to the links on Wikipedia's own pages about Chinese supercomputers, and you'll see non-Chinese CPUs as the guts of these machines. Many things that could be questioned, that aren't possible to look up at Wikipedia, are without references, no questions asked. However, I don't want to touch on "original research", nor do I want to use whataboutism as an argument. I can find sources.
The criticism about other articles is a whataboutism type of argument. While I would agree that these articles also should have criticism, that is not the topic of conversation here. IndyCar1020 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the following paper
Please see p.1:
"Like China’s previous supercomputers, the TH-2 continues to rely on foreign sources for critical components—namely the processors—and the development of Chinese software applications for supercomputers continues to lag behind the notable advances in hardware, limiting the practical uses for supercomputers in China."
I've now added this as the source for the claim I initially wrote, that China's supercomputers are not built using domestic parts. Since there are no new supercomputers from China to retake the crown, it is sufficient to address TH-2 in this matter.
Is this part of the dispute settled now? IndyCar1020 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The origin of Chinese supercomputer components is not remotely WP:DUE at this level of article. That said, I think the addition is to try and correct the original issue of having a resume list of achievements, which is not ideal. The best way to solve that is not to add various caveats, especially unsourced or poorly sources ones, but to trim the fluff. CMD (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your point of view is that the statement "having produced the world's fastest supercomputer on several occasions", is "fluff", due to WP:DUE?
Having the world's fastest supercomputer is a big deal. A lot of newspaper articles get produced every time this is up for contention. And if that or the technology doesn't meet the criteria to be noteworthy, then I'm not sure what achievements do, if any.
It is not the fact that the "origin of the components" is so interesting, it is the fact that China uses foreign components and pretends to have made a world class achievement. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, you consider this paper
to be a poor source? Please, give me an example of what a "good" source is then. So I can find one. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whataboutism is not always wrong. Your own source says at least some CPUs were designed by China. There is no overwhelming reason to specifically mention that the hardware might not have been manufactured in China. Its struggles with high-end semiconductors is already mentioned, and many countries also outsource fab work entirely. Same things can be said about the ballpoint pen tips. Is China unable to reinvent them or simply opts to buy them on the cheap from other countries? I don't see the Taiwan article mentioning its locally-made vaccine could not pass approval as "offset" for its list of technological achievements. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many people consider China a superpower, and they are probably curious to what extent, is China world leading. What areas does China dominate in? Isn't it our job then, to make sure they get a neutral picture of this? Isn't it wrong, to say that "China has had the fastest supercomputers in the world many times", when this is a lie? What will people think, that read this, and don't bother or don't have the time, to look up the details?
Whataboutism is wrong, if the intent of Wikipedia is to adhere to WP:NPOV and then point out that the article about Taiwan or some other country also makes the same mistakes the China article does.
Do you appreciate that the whole significance of this statement about supercomputers is about having the world's fastest supercomputer? Many countries and companies are capable of producing something that qualifies as a supercomputer, or just buy one. There is a very large number of them in total. It is, however, very hard, to have the world's fastest.
Yes, there are some domestic produced CPUs in the Chinese supercomputers, but this is a small number, and there is no way the TH-2 or TH-1 would have made it to the top of TOP500 if it was solely using these. That, is the point. Furthermore, even if domestically produced, the Chinese FT-1500 in question is just a SPARC derivative, which is not, a Chinese design either.
You cannot compare this to Taiwan. Taiwan is a relatively small country that doesn't aspire to be the leading world superpower, that yet, is world leading with TSMC.
Ballpoint pen tips. The whole reason this is so interesting, is that China portrays itself through this article, as a powerhouse of innovation, a powerhouse of technology, graduating ten thousand PhDs every year. Yet, it isn't noteworthy to maintain WP:NPOV to mention, that while it might be true that they graduate ten thousand PhDs every year, the country still spent five years to make a high-end ball point pen tip?
I'm doing this in good faith, but I react strongly to the unspoken problem about this being "too offensive". That we should perhaps, use "less offensive" examples. Isn't that, what this is really about? And if it is, then surely that isn't a valid reason to remove it. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have created two strawmen, first by claiming China is portraying itself through this article when in fact only individual editors have been adding what mostly English language sources say about the country. Second by claiming we find your edits "offensive" even though no one has implied or even used that term except, ironically, by you more than once. Taiwan is fair game because it is wealthier than China, has enjoyed a much earlier lead, and also regarded as a technology powerhouse. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First alleged straw man: Through individual editors contributing, the aggregated result, is "China portraying itself". It is a figure of speech. How is this a straw man? Are you arguing that the main China article, doesn't paint a certain picture of a country as a whole? Isn't that the whole point of the article?
The second alleged straw man: This might have been a straw man argument, if the opposition had actually made a valid statement as to why this should be removed. When there is no such argument, I start asking questions. Perhaps I overlooked a valid argument, but I'm sorry, the argument that "it is five years old and hence not modern era", is not valid. The modern era didn't start in 2017. Since I see no valid arguments from the opposition, I don't have any bad feelings about asking if the real reason, is that some might find this offensive. Give me a valid argument, and I will no longer need to ask what the real reason is for finding this particular example to be such a bad one. Again: The very fact that this example is so noteworthy, is why I think it should be included. And no, I'm not making a straw man argument again. I find this to be a very surprising piece of tech news, and I imagine others would have a similar reaction. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not important whether you (or any other Wikipedia editors) find this news "notable". What is important is what WP:RS think. I've looked at many sources and they generally say (1) Premier Li Keqiang lamented in 2016 that China didn't have ballpoint pen tip manufacturing devices, (2) China didn't have the specific type of steel needed to manufacture ballpoint pen tips, (3) it was simply not a priority. On the contrary, many sources actually mention this saga as how China is quickly catching up with the world 1, 2, 3. Almost none of them mention this news as "China is struggling with technology", and putting it that way on Wikipedia would be WP:OR. Finally, it just isn't that notable: the news was picked up for a few days (with some late articles in the following months) in early 2017 and then was almost never mentioned again. Ballpoint pen technology is nowhere near as important as semiconductors or jet technology, which should be kept. Is there a reliable source that proves this piece of news is important in the long-term, and is important to understand China's technological development? If not so, it just isn't notable. The Account 2 (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you actually read these three sources you're quoting in full?
Your claim, that this is framed in a positive light by [1][2] and [3], is not what I see when I actually read these three articles you quote.
There is a mix of some positive aspects at some points, such as growth in general. Some neutral stuff, and definitely enough negative stuff that doesn't frame China in a good way in your sources.
I quote [1]:
"This story involves something as simple as the ballpoint pen — yes, that humble device you may well have lying around your desk or collecting dust at the bottom of your bag — and China's long and frustrating quest to manufacture it domestically."
"Consider this: The ballpoint pen innovation only took place after concerted government intervention."
If anything, this appears almost like mockery to me "something as simple as the ballpoint pen — yes, that humble device", and the article stresses and asks the reader to consider how this challenge required considerable effort from the Chinese government to overcome.
While the article starts by sort of "praising" China, in general about growing, it also says this:
"The feat shows how the Chinese government remains insecure about the country’s continued reliance on foreign technology, and the lengths it’s willing to go to overcome it."
Has a whole section about how China has a "Different culture", where, I quote:
""Historically, China has never been able to do precision engineering very well and the ballpoint pen is an example of that," says Professor George Huang"
"Prof Huang says that China lacks a culture of excellence in precision engineering."
""The culture is different from the Japanese and Germans," he says, who are known for innovation in engineering.
"We Chinese are supposed to be craftsmen, but somehow the spirit is not as good."" IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, none of these talk about or demonstrate long-term notability or why it should be added to the article. I didn't say these articles all positive or don't have negative content on it; I don't know where you're getting that from. I just meant that these articles also highlighted China is catching up, meaning that this can be showed in both ways. One can also easily write that "The country has made rapid strides to catching up to foreign technology, including ballpoint pen tips..." and so on. Again, we go by what WP:RS think, not what our personal opinions are, and WP:RS's have basically given up on this story completely just after a few months after best. Including a short-lived and minor tech fact, which actually also in part talks about China catching up with the technology, in an article of this size and prominence is clearly WP:UNDUE. The Account 2 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IndyCar1020: The source articles are actually divided in terms of what the pen tips saga meant for China's tech overall. By the way, it actually had domestic tips, just lesser in quality. Here are some quotes that you have conveniently left out. "becoming a world leader in sectors like robotics-based manufacturing and consumer software." "it’s not that China was incapable of developing the technology," "This type of steel part requires a special type of steel [to make]. The market for it is not big." "whether China can make a great pen is not hugely important in the scheme of things." "Relatively low-value items, like ballpoint pens, have not been a priority." Like any country's article, many things are not mentioned. I don't see your reason for listing relatively unimportant items that China is not strong in as a way to offset general trends in its tech. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed some of the fluff, outdated information (from before 2010), and contrived changes that IndyCar1020 had tried to push. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should noteworthy things be compared to other noteworthy things?[edit]

I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's own internal pages, please keep that in mind.

I understand that we are supposed to adhere to WP:NPOV, but is there a similar policy for making comparisons, where relevant?

I'm asking because in this article, there are e.g. examples of China's accomplishments in e.g. space exploration and technology. There is, however, no mention of how this compares to other countries' efforts.

For other Wikipedia articles, I don't think it is uncommon to find comparisons to other relevant systems, technologies, or products, where it is appropriate to do so.

The reason this is relevant here, is that if a certain piece of technology is put on the list of achievements, how can a casual reader understand the significance without anything to compare it to? Take the current statements about China's space station. Should this be compared to other space stations? To give the reader somewhat an impression of how important and noteworthy is this? Or should it just be mentioned, and leave it to the reader to find information?

I'm just asking what the policy is, and to be pointed towards it. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant policy would be WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is an article about China, and one that is intended to be an hour-long summary at most. Comparing specific technologies etc. is undue, and likely not too helpful to readers. Conversely, there shouldn't be a "list of achievements" here, so if something is worded like that it should be adjusted. CMD (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good read Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure and guidelines. Moxy-Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No mention of tea?[edit]

It seems a large omission for this article not to mention or link to either Chinese tea or Chinese tea culture. Or did I miss it? I did a ctrl-f search of the article for "tea" and there's no mention of it. JasonMacker (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese New Year also isn't in this article, because this is an article about the People's Republic of China, not everything about Chinese history and culture. Yue🌙 05:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, Chinese New Year is mentioned in the article. It's in the Transportation section. Next time, you can be more helpful on an article's talk page by first familiarizing yourself with the article. JasonMacker (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ranking by land area[edit]

The united states of america and china are both ranked 3rd for largest countries by land area on their respective pages. One of these pages therefore needs to be changed. (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It now reads that China is #2-- completely skipping Canada! 2600:1700:1444:1A0:E1F1:A23:6FFB:B27F (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PRC is not a "Marxist–Leninist socialist republic"[edit]

Excuse me, but I have been to PRC many times, and with its mega-corporations, billionaires, Ferraris and Lamborghinis, skyscrapers and luxury stores, it is not a "Marxist–Leninist socialist republic". Please fix that. Britoca (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't a "Marxist-Leninist socialist republic" de facto. However, it is a "Marxist-Leninist socialist republic" de jure. And I live in China. The government also regards China as a "Marxist-Leninist socialist republic" as well. Chcp235 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China is actually defacto federal not unitary nation[edit]

Despite the large size of this country china is unitary state which make no sense. Ironically china is the worlds largest population state but yet still unitary in nature.2404:8000:1027:85F6:C8F5:5BB4:1728:F5A3 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China is federation not unitary state.[edit]

Despite its large size and largest population in the world, why china is said to be unitary state rather than federation? Anyone who can find the answer about it? The wikipedia says it is unitary state when in eeal life it is federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1027:85F6:71F4:4162:9854:8BB6 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China is not a federal state. Yue🌙 03:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding to Yue's comment, a chapter in Stanford University Press's The New Great Game: China and South and Central Asia in the Era of Reform observes that China is unique among modern large states for not practicing federalism. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On paper China is a federal state, IRL its a unitary dictatorship. Those autonomous regions etc aren't autonomous at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
China is not a federal state on paper either. It is constitutionally a unitary state. Having autonomous regions doesn't make you a federal state, especially if the only special privilege you are afforded as an autonomous government is the ability to introduce meaningless legislation to protect local culture (meaningless because, on paper, the ethnic minorities are protected constitutionally anyways). Federal states have regional / state governments which can meaningfully challenge the national government per their constitutions (again, at least on paper; looking at Russia), which is obviously not the case in China, de facto or de jure. Yue🌙 19:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At a minimum its a unitary multi-national state. The current Chinese constitution is not exactly a coherent document, its full of contradictory concepts like democratic dictatorship. Which makes sense for a state based on a party not a constitution, the whole thing is meaningless not just the parts you mentioned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding to this, Chinese state-media explicitly states that China is a unitary state. Wu Bangguo, one of China's top leaders under Hu Jintao, has also explicitly ruled out federalism. However, China's sheer size forces the central government to give a certain degree of autonomy to local governments. The Account 2 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end of the day, of course, it doesn't matter what we personally think or how we perceive (correctly or otherwise) the system in practice. What matters is what is verify through reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, agreed. The Account 2 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wrong talk, supposedly i want to talk about: Why provinces of china aren't like in federalism like russia, canada, and usa? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:879:9C18:5AF9:7FE0 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the provinces of china doesnt act like those in canada's province, right? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:879:9C18:5AF9:7FE0 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
China's entire system of government, including how its provinces are governed, doesn't act like that of Canada, just as that of the United States or Germany also differ from that of Canada. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bravely you speak about autonomous region of china doesnt make it a federation. My topic different as well: why provinces of china arent like an autonomous province like soviet union? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:E409:3769:7AAC:D8A (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a general WP:FORUM for discussions about China. I suggest asking on a site intended for these sorts of questions. CMD (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page is not a discussion forum, you take the wrong place to question about it. The communist government has been suppressing any Localism since its establishment, except for special administrative regions (SAR) of Hong Kong and Macau which were both former European colonies maintaining limited autonomy with their own organic law and Chief Executive, but those authorities are considered a devolution that granted by the central government of Beijing and can be repealed by the central government anytime. Since the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 following the mass protest in Hong Kong, the autonomy to the SARs is also eroded. The PRC is without doubt a unitary state in both de jure or de facto aspects. (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023[edit]

Change its most populous country to second most populous country. DweepP (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China is not the most populous country in the world anymore[edit]

Can someone update China's intro? thanks! Christianarash (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably best to wait until the next Indian census, or at least until numbers are being widely reported by reliable third party sources. India is projected to surpass China in population size this year, but the exact figures are not yet known. Projections != actual numbers. Yue🌙 03:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China is not anymore the most populous country[edit]

It ranks second behind India based on several independent data such as from UN (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To my knowledge, the United Nations only makes estimates and projections. They do not gather census data and do not have accurate up-to-date numbers. Yue🌙 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
India is yet to come up with its officially updated census. Capitals00 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use Official Name[edit]

Based on the following facts: No country named Taiwan. But there's a regime called it self The Republic of China. Taiwan is only the area under the actual control of ROC. "China" is not only the People's Republic of China, ROC is also China, but China now has ROC and PRC regimes. If Taiwan is an independent country, why not call it the "Republic of Taiwan"? I suggest to rename "Taiwan" as "Republic of China", rename China as People's Republic of China. Kevin Cheung12 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:OFFICIALNAMES. CMD (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the scope of the article?[edit]

The article currently uses contradictory definitions of "China" and conflates the PRC with a geographic region and collection of cultures and states. For example, the first line says, "China (Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó), officially the People's Republic of China" and then goes on to describe facts about the country currently controlled by the PRC. However, the next paragraph says (referring to the 21st century BCE), "Chinese writing... emerged during this period and influenced China and its neighbors for centuries to come". The PRC did not exist at that time. If "China" (for the purposes of this article) is "the People's Republic of China", then the statement in the second paragraph is impossible. The 2nd paragraph seems to use weasel words to sort of get around this ("Modern Chinese trace their origins to..."). For a similar case, see the "History of Iraq" article, which does not conflate the modern state with Mesopotamia.

Because much of the article is about cultures and states that are in no way the PRC, I propose changing the first paragraph to not be primarily about the PRC. The PRC is one of the most important points of discussion and so should be mentioned in the first paragraph (e.g. "the region is currently within the People's Republic of China"), but it is incorrect to suggest that the Xia (for example) were somehow the same state as the PRC. Rscragun (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there a citation for the statement that china has a larger population than india? Csquared460 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are sources for the population numbers in the articles, if that's what you mean. India's article has the population at 1,375,586,000, per this source. China's article has its population at 1,411,750,000, per this source. 1,411,750,000 (China) is indeed larger than 1,375,586,000 (India). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]