Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Contents

[edit] Intro - Single Party System

"The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949." This is not strictly true, as a number of smaller parties also exist.217.44.182.27 10:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area, human rights...

There should be an own section of human rights in china, and why isn't there any info about the area in the sidebar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.215.162 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a section in the United States article?--Huaiwei 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have reliable, NPOV sources, go ahead add it. However, I must remind you that each nation on this world of our has their own definition of what "Human Rights" is and that it is often different to how "human rights" are defined in North America and Western Europe. Nat Tang ta | co | em 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Chinese characters

The traditional Chinese characters were de-facto writing systems of HK/MO, but not an official(de-jure) writing. Thus I suggest that Traditional Chinese characters should be removed. 203.218.83.211 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that traditional Chinese characters is not one of the de jure/official writing systems of HKSAR and MACAUSAR? Please provide reliable sources. Nat Tang ta | co | em 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_kong#_note-2 states that Chinese and English are official writing/speaking languages, but the Traiditional Chinese characters remained defacto, not dejure. Just like Cantonese isn't an official language in HK, but just de-facto. 203.218.134.30 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context of Hong Kong, 'Chinese' means Cantonese, and Chinese writing means traditional characters. This latter predates and did not change with the various stages of simplification in the PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.182.27 (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

However, if Cantonese is an official language in HK/MO, and HK/MO is part of PRC, then this article(PRC) should add Cantonese pinyin to the offical name of the nation. 203.218.134.30 12:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yue pinyin is not an official writing system in HKSAR, MACAUSAR and the PRC, and is not widely used in every day activities. From what I know, the HKSAR gov't only uses Chinese characters and english for its documents and not Yue pinyin. Nat Tang ta | co | em 08:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What the point I'm trying to make is that Yue pinyin has been used as defacto pinyin system of HK/MO, along as Traditional Chinese characters, in which the government just use it as defacto handwriting, and these two components are part of defacto writing systems of SARs, but not dejure component.203.218.233.162 13:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, what I am trying to say is that the Yue Pinyin is NOT used by the HKSAR and MACAUSAR in their official documents. Nat Tang ta | co | em 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Traditional Chinese is not the official language of HK/MOSAR, it's just the defacto writing system, similar to the United States 218.102.67.224 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

However it is in official use by both the HKSAR and MACAUSAR gov't along with English (HKSAR) and Portuguese (MACAUSAR). Nat Tang ta | co | em 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to put "Traditional Chinese Characters(defacto of HK/MOSAR)" There's often Spanish to choose from in the USA government related sites and offical documents. It's like will you find an official Spanish name for USA in that article(United States)? 218.103.140.123 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why is it called the "People's Republic of China" if Chinas not a Republic? —The preceding comment is by OsirisV (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2007: Please sign your posts!

Actually it is a republic because:
  • a) it has a President as a head of state instead of a monarch or dictator (although Dictatorships often call themselves "Republics" as well)
  • b) under its consitution the PRC's system of government is called a socialist republic
  • c) it does have a legislature, athough it is not a "direct" or "western-type" democracy, it is a indirect democracy:
    • i) elections are held at the municipal/village level, from there, the municipal/village council will elect members to the regional council, from there, the county, then the provincial, then the PRC's "National People's Congress" (although it might be more complex than that)

Nat Tang ta | co | em 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lies, you guys are a dictatorship. The name is like the USSR, it is only called a republic because it sounds good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.31.38 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's fix the grammar here..

Being a non-native English speaker myself, I know it's difficult but let's fix some of the grammar in this article. I have started to correct some run-on sentences and misplaced modifiers in the introduction. Hopefully that does not offend anyone here.. Hzzz 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large Imagemap

72.75.63.66 has complained about aesthetics of the imagemap (template: PRC provinces imagemap) on this page, commenting that it's longer than the article's width. 72.75.63.66 has twice replaced the map with the thumbed version of the picture. However, as is, only parts of two letters (the "d" in "and" and "e" and "are") are blocked (to view these 2 letters, users must scroll approx 2 mm to the right). The imagemap provides convenient, visual links to the PRC regions, and scrolling 2 mm is not critical to viewing this article. So let's leave the imagemap up until someone decides to reduce its size at template: PRC provinces imagemap. To see the complete image while printing the article, one merely needs to set printing scale from 100% to 80%. 76.197.229.40 18:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have changed it to 500px, and of left/right/center, I thought center was the best. Any thoughts? --68.239.70.248 08:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

A similar discussion has been held on Talk:Republic of China#Flag and Talk:China#Flag

Since the flag icon is removed on this page per WP:FLAG, shouldn't we do the same on Republic of China and China for the sake of consistency? nattang 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been added again to the disambiguation link, so I will remove it; I think this should be noted in the header warning against using flags in disambiguation links at the top of an article. --71.166.146.103 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biota

Does the country not have any flora and fauna? This is a very notable exception, so I thought it might be in China instead. Is this discussed elsewhere? I can't find the word biota, biodiversity or flora/fauna anywhere in either article. This is a vital aspect of any country's article, and without it the article should never be given GA, let alone FA status. Richard001 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add it here. Because China is about the civilization, not about the countries. Chris! my talk 05:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting facts in Religion

In the religion section, it states Buddhism is the country's largest organized religion at around 100 million, then at the end of the paragraph it also states there's a Muslim population of 160 million.

Now obviously that's incorrect as that would make Islam the country's largest organized religion. Can somebody put in the correct number of the Muslim population in? Just.James 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petty mistake in Foreign Relations.

In Foreign Relations section Sino-Indian War's not a link but appears like: [[Sino-Indian War]. Currently don't have a registration or would've fixed it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.209.207 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move this article towards China

Hy, there is a proposal to move the article China towards Chinese civilization (and then moving this article towards China). These moves would also affect this article, therefore we welcome your opinions in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#I humbly propose a change of the "Political NPOV" section. Please give us your honest opinions about the proposals (an honest but rational debate please). Flamarande 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed if ROC would be merged with Taiwan (pre-1949 ROC to Nationalist China, post-1949 ROC to Taiwan).--Jerry 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you take a careful look at the "I humbly propose a change of the "Political NPOV" section" (especially all the moves I'm proposing, my reasons for it, and the evidence gathered thus far. You should also read the reasons of the opposing side which defends the status-quo. I cannot make you any promises (the propposed moves are still being debated and can be rejected) but yes, I also propose that the current ROC - article be transfered towards Taiwan; however the article has to be accurate (I would write: "de jure unrecogized, but de facto independent country searching for wider international recognition" - or something similar). Flamarande 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paramount Leader or President?

Which is the appropriate title to refer to Hu Jintao's position in the infobox? I have seen both used, and both are linked Wikipedia articles referring to Hu Jintao, but is one preferable to the other? Thanks! ~Eliz81(C) 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imagemap size discussion

There is currently a discussion going on here concerning the size of the PRC province imagemap which appears on this page. An outside view on this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you. shoeofdeath 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the clickable provinces imagemap being used here is 857 pixels wide. Please leave it at this size for a few days so people can see the image in context, and decide if they need one of the 2 smaller templates. Please see the discussion at Template talk:PRC provinces imagemap. --Timeshifter 22:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I was one of the original editors for the PRC article, back in the day when the article was still under 30kb and FA. The huge size of the map is ghastly. Not only does it violate Wikipedia image conventions, it also breaks the article arbitrarily into two parts. There is a noticeable delay/jump when trying to scroll past this image on my one-year-old computer with broadband, leading me to skip a lot of other more useful content. I can't imagine what the experience would be on a much older computer, running dial-up. I say we go back to the GIF image, but also have a link for the full-size vector image as compromise. The full-sized vector map in the middle of the PRC article has to go though. --Nishishei 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made the changes. The original GIF thumbnail map had been happily without controversy for more than 3 years on Wikipedia. This bickering over 500px vs 800px vs 857px just seems silly. All three are oversized and unnecessary, when a simple link would do. Editors should concentrate their efforts on making the text content better, and returning this article to FA status. Images on Wikipedia have always been secondary concerns. --Nishishei 16:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The 500px version of the clickable map is not oversized. At home, I have a 15.4 screen, and At work, I have a 12.5, and in both cases, even when i reduce the size of of the browsers window to about 3/5 to 2/3 of the screen, the clickable image does not "overflow". Please do not revert back to the non-clickable image without a full discussion and consensus, unless you wish to get into an edit war with other editors. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The size of YOUR screen is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. You are not the only one using Wikipedia, nor does everyone use their maximum screen resolutions. I am warning you NOT to revert back my edit, and I will report you if you violate 3RR. Wikipedia convention traditionally has images SECONDARY to the text. It is better to remove a controversial image in its entirety than have one there. The original 200px-250px thumbnail has been on this article for at least two years without controversy. Now with the 500px, 550px, 700px, 857px versions, I see reverts happening every week. This is unnecessary. I just checked two dozen FA-class country articles, NONE of them use a full-size map. Also, centered images are to be avoided if possible. The other concern is loading time: the thumbnail is only 22kb, while the 500px is 75kb. I have included a link for the full-sized imagemap in the thumbnail caption, anyone who cares to see the full-sized map can do so with one extra click. The text in the 500px is still a blur on high-resolutions anyway. --Nishishei 23:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you have not edited actively since April 2006 and only started to edit yesterday at 00:39, October 17, 2007 (UTC). A lot has changed since then. Secondly, other may not have maps like this however, what other articles have or not have is not what determines what we do here, consensus is how we decide what gets added or what gets removed. You do not have consensus to remove the clickable map. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree with nishishei above. Screen size doesn't matter, what matters is resolution settings. Not everyone uses a 1084x768 or above resolution. I think you are the one unilaterally trying to start this edit war. May I ask you, what is wrong with the thumb? Does Japan (a featured article) have a large imagemap? Does the United States have a large imagemap? Your insistance on the big map puzzles me. I have been anonymously reverting you several times over the last two months, but each time you revert me back, and I have not bothered calling you out (I'm a busy guy). But now that shoeofdeath and nishishei both have objected to the large imagemap, I'll come out to support their positions. --Naus 03:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Screen size does matter. Everyone uses a different screen size to suit their own need. To disregard everyone else in favor of your own size is irresponsible. What other articles have is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please avoid edit warring until a consensus is formed. Remember that both parties (the one that changes the size and the one that reverts) are at fault in a revert war. Chris! ct 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I created the 73-kilobyte, 550-pixel-wide gif for the imagemap version that some people have currently chosen for this PRC article.
The old imagemap template a couple weeks ago was using a 189-kilobyte, 500-pixel-wide png map.
Before August 2007 there was just a very small thumbnail image of the plain map used here. It was not an imagemap with links for each region. See this PRC article version from August 9. 2007 to see the very small thumbnail map that was in the "Political divisions" section of the article: [1]
Here are the 3 current gif imagemap templates to choose from, and their current width settings:
Template:PRC provinces small imagemap - 550 pixels. 73 kilobytes.
Template:PRC provinces imagemap - 700 pixels. 107 kilobytes.
Template:PRC provinces big imagemap - 857 pixels. 95 kilobytes. --Timeshifter 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The map thumbnail is only 22kb. Having any images over 30kb in an article that is already bigger than 90kb and contains more than 10 images is excessive. --Nishishei 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


There is no reason to have the large imagemap. The large imagemap is already found in the Political divisions of China article, where it belongs. Problems with the large imagemap in the People's Republic of China article:

  • too big
  • centered images and text
  • breaks Wikipedia country template
  • too slow to load (73kb~189kb) at 500px
  • redundant information (large size already found in Political divisions of China article)

--Naus 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please list the benefits of the large imagemap on the People's Republic of China article. Please support your assertions with precedence. --Naus 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is already small enough at 550px. If we keep the current version, then people can hardly see the map. And the image is definitively not redundant. Some editors might not even go to the Political divisions of China article. And with a map here, it provides easy access to editors. Chris! ct 00:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The large imagemap looks like it just took over the entire article, and everyone has a different way of viewing the article. Some might use lynx, others on graphical browsers but not necessarily on a large screen or window resolution. If this large imagemap is kept, people who don't use a large browsing window or something similar to 800 x 600 will see the article like something terribly messed up. I'd actually like to see something like the United States or Japan articles, both of which do not have a large imagemap like this one. O2 (息 • 吹) 02:38, 19 October 2007 (GMT)
Well, I don't regular contributors on Germany and Australia , which by the way are both FAs, complain about having imagemaps in those articles. What is your point? Just because some articles don't have them give us a reason not to have one? Naus, You say it loads too slowly, well I can just say that you're wrong about that. I have a few computers and i tried loading the article and the imagemap on the oldest computer I have (a no name clone with a Pentium II processer, Windows 98 1st edition OS, and a 6GB hard drive thats 98% full with a monitor that has 800 by 600 resolution and was meant for a computer that runs Win 1995 and the computer gives me the blue screen of death every time i try to play a movie...), and it loaded just a tad bit slower than my newest computer. I say, keep the imagemap. (btw...I would have been much more inclined to have the imagemap removed if Nishishei had discussed first and attemted to gain consensus first before attempting to remove it from the article.) nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The format currently on the article should be fine. About the computers issue, others might have computers worse than that. I used to run a Windows 2000 on a PII with only a 4 GB hard drive. The bottom line is, we should keep Wikipedia as accessible as possible for everyone, old and new computers. O2 (息 • 吹) 21:23, 19 October 2007 (GMT)
Agreed. I think the new navbox template works quite well. At 89 kilobytes this article is still much too large, though, and nowhere near FA status. To start, several sections need to be trimmed down and redundancies in the referencing should be reduced. shoeofdeath 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break

Perth Adelaide Melbourne Canberra Sydney Brisbane Darwin Hobart Tasmania Australian Capital Territory Australian Capital Territory Western Australia Northern Territory South Australia Queensland New South Wales Victoria Tasmania Great Australian Bight Tasman Sea Indian Ocean Coral Sea Indonesia Papua New Guinea Gulf of Carpentaria Arafura Sea East Timor Timor Sea Great Barrier Reef
Australian States and Territories
Australian States and Territories
Schleswig-Holstein Baden-Württemberg Bavaria Berlin Brandenburg Bremen Hamburg Hesse Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Lower Saxony Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Thuringia
States and cities in Germany.
States and cities in Germany.

(unindent) Maybe a better image editor than me can create a smaller PRC imagemap without all the explanatory text. That would lower the kilobytes greatly. Run your cursor over the clickable imagemaps to the right that were found at Australia#States and territories and Germany#States. The Australian one is 20 kilobytes, and the German one is 95 kilobytes. They are both PNG images. Here is their template code, along with links to their template pages:

The core images are at:

PNG images do not scale well in Wikimedia. The Australian image was not scaled for use. In the template it was used at its full size of 328 pixels wide, and it only uses 20 kilobytes. So the original PNG map for Australia must have been tweaked to use a limited palette, and it was created at the size it was intended to be used at in wikipedia. Thus no scaling was necessary.

The Germany image looks like it was not tweaked well to lower the kilobytes. It has too many kilobytes at both full size and at the scaled size used in the template.

GIF maps are easier to create, and keep small in kilobytes. --Timeshifter 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think that the small imagemap is not as good as the one we have now.Chris! ct 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you prefer this imagemap: Template:PRC provinces small imagemap. It is 73 kilobytes.
I just found a 36 kilobyte map that might work in a PRC imagemap:
Image:China provinces.png


Image:China provinces.png

The above map is only 36 kilobytes. I will try to see if it might work in a new template. Others can try creating an imagemap template too. I have never created an imagemap. I have only resized them.
No luck. I tried a simple image substitution in the template code in my sandbox. It didn't work. The maps are different in various ways, and in their placement in the image frame. Someone with experience with imagemaps may be able to help.
I left a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, and pointed them here. --Timeshifter 22:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This image might also work:

Image:China political division.gif

--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That 36 kilobyte image might work. It may be better in that it is only 559 pixels wide at full size. The one above it is 600 pixels wide. So your map is better in my opinion. Neither map should be scaled, or the text will become slightly blurry. --Timeshifter 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to create a whole new imagemap using a low quality map? I mean, can't we just scale down the current imagemap?Chris! ct 23:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried removing all the text outside the map itself, and then reducing it to 550 pixels wide. I couldn't get it less than around 50 kilobytes, and it was not as legible as the 36 kilobyte maps at that width. --Timeshifter 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the image Nat posted is good. Chris! ct 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

Hello. I'm an editor in the above article.

  • It is known that the White Russians tried to "blame" the Chinese for the Revolution and Civil War. Trotsky made fun of that, for example.
  • An editor presented the Reference below as the 1st authority on the matter.
  • Can anyone please help explain this source? Is it reliable, or is it propaganda of the time? Does anyone know anything about the author?
  • Is it true that the Chinese played a notable or significant role in the Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917-1920)?
    Пын Мин. История китайско-советской дружбы. М., 1959.
    (Peng Ming, "History of the Chinese-Russian Frienship",
    translation from Chinese, Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1959,
    original: "Zhong-su yu she", Pekin, 1957 (Russian)

Thank you.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)



[edit] organ harvesting of Falun Gong

I think the protection was unnecessary, just yet, disputed text:

There is a body of uncontested evidence that the Party has been using Falun Gong practitioners as a live organ bank since 2000; they are kept in jails or forced labor camps, blood and urine tested, and when an organ is needed for transplant they are killed, the organs removed, and the body incinerated.[1]

Please point out which parts of this are problematic. El C, you mentioned that the "uncontested" was a problem. If that were the case, perhaps the best response would have been to isolate that with a tag, like this: [citation needed], and then make an entry on the talk page. This could be changed to "unrefuted according to Matas", according to David Matas’s address to the Legislative Assembly, Canberra.

Are there any further problems? I request unprotection and the reinstatement of the above text with the word "uncontested" removed, and a final sentence which says "According to Matas this evidence has not been refuted." tacked on the end, with "address to the Legislative Assembly" source added to this. If there are any problems please let me know.--Asdfg12345 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Declined No unprotection until this has been thoroughly discussed and until editors reach consensus. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course, sorry, I didn't mean to preempt anything. Let's discuss it. I propose the final construction is:

There is a body of evidence that the Party has been using Falun Gong practitioners as a live organ bank since 2000; they are kept in jails or forced labor camps, blood and urine tested, and when an organ is needed for transplant they are killed, the organs removed, and the body incinerated. According to Matas this has not been refuted.[2][1]

Open to ways this can be improved and made even better!--Asdfg12345 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I want concision, in the article; it cannot sound like Falun Gong activism. I want more detail, here; about the extent of the alleged practice, how much/if it should be mentioned in the main country article. It may well be better suited for a subarticle. The point is that what's currently is suggested is not enough. And, for better or worse, Falun Gong activists have burned enough bridges on Wikipedia and now we (meaning, established editors and admins) are inherently suspicious of anything, and in this case, seemingly, a particular editor, that reads as Falun Gong advocacy (i.e. more work needs to be done before we accept anything Falun Gong-wise, certainly in an entry as important). El_C 07:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not at all a response to the substance of this issue. This is an extremely topical, extremely relevant body of evidence. Please read the report here: http://organharvestinvestigation.net/. This is current. Kilgour and Matas are travelling around the world giving talks, meeting people, raising awareness about this. The CCP hasn't responded substantively to this, they've only dismissed it. The evidence is sitting there. The formulation above is the most concise I can manage. If, after reading the report, you have a even more concise way of stating what is claimed to be going on, that would be most welcome. Of all the human rights abuses being talked about, organ harvesting from living prisoners of conscience is indeed the gravest. I don't know any grounds for excluding this info, and the formulation above is extremely concise.--Asdfg12345 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas are two individual Canadian lobbyists linked with the FLG organization CIPFG, and certainly do not count as a neutral source. The US Department of State already proved the allegations to be false [2], and to quote Kilgour/Matas here is giving them undue weight, and blackwashing the article, especially since this article has nothing to do with Falun Gong.--PCPP 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They are highly esteemed individuals who have conducted an independent investigation into claims brought to them by CIPFG, which is NOT made up of Falun Gong practitioners. This is an extremely relevant piece of information. That link you said does nothing to prove their evidence false, and nothing of the sort has been forthcoming. Kilgour and Matas repeat this point. The CCP could prove this wrong, if it were false. Instead they only spread misinformation. This is a highly relevant piece of information, by any account.--Asdfg12345 08:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Google up the names of the founders, and it's clear that those people has involvement with FLG, masquarading as a NGO. China critic Harry Wu, who himself investigated organ harvesting from executed prisoners, doubts the claims, and Dr Thomas Lum already made a congressional report questioning Kilgour/Matas's motivations and outlined their flawed research methods. These allegations has not been proven or disprove, and does not belong here.--PCPP (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a false and misleading characterisation. None of those things you say are true. I can demonstrate them one by one if that becomes necessary.--Asdfg12345 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the allegations made by Kilgour and Matas are true or not. However, verifiability and weight would seem to require that their allegations be published in at least one highly respected source. Magazines or newspapers of the caliber of the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, South China Morning Post, Le Monde, El País, and so forth. Even if that is confirmed, the fact probably doesn't belong in the lead; rather, it belongs in a human rights section. Organharvestinginvestigation.net does not make the cut be a long shot.Ngchen (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in question was in the human rights section, not in the lead. Their report is hosted on that website; there has been extensive media coverage over this. You can check the media section on their website. Their report itself counts as a reliable source. They would both qualify as "highly respected" individuals and experts in their fields. I'll just repeat here that it's unjustifiable to exclude this information. Nat has locked the page and the original person who had a problem with the paragraph has not continued the discussion. Are there any further issues with having the few sentences above about the Kilgour/Matas organ harvesting report, as above, added to the human rights section? If not, I request the page be unlocked and the information added. No argument is available which explains why this information should be excluded.--Asdfg12345 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know about how respected Kilgour and Matas are. Nor am I familiar with the field they're in, and how respect in the field is measured. My concern is that basing the claim that organ harvesting is going on based on their report alone runs into the issue with primary sources. How do we evaluate the completeness and truthfulness of a primary source? Also all such sources will claim that they are reliable, etc. etc. Professional historians are trained in evaluating such sources, but us editors (unless we have a profession historian here) are not. I looked at the media coverage page, and there are a bunch of links the two authors provide. Most of them are Canadian (nothing wrong with that). I have not had a chance to read all the linked articles. Tell you what, if you can pin down (name, issue, page number or URL) one quality, highly respected, secondary source that reports something along the lines of "Falun Gong practicioners are having their organs harvested" rather than repeating what is "reported, rumored, or something like that," I will be all for including the information.Ngchen (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. The report itself is a secondary source. Primary sources are what the report analyses and looks at: phone recordings, statistics published by the CCP, interviews, websites, eye-witness accounts, etc. etc.. Kilgour is a former secretary of state and crown prosecutor of Canada, and Matas is a human rights lawyer. He's won several awards; he recently won the Tarnopolsky award from the Canadian Bar Association. The report itself makes reference to two other studies which come to the same conclusion, but neither of these are as exhaustive as the kilgour/matas report. All of those are secondary sources. I would probably just say that it's best to read the report straight through. If you did it in one sitting it might take an hour and a half. There have been some newspaper reports and other commentary on the report, but I mean.. the report speaks for itself, and no one can do anything else to prove it wrong or right. It is just basically a collection and analysis of the available evidence, independently verifiable. I'm not aware of anything which looks at all the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion. I hope I have responded adequately.--Asdfg12345 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

hi, Just to clarify something. A secretary of state in canada is a very very low key position in the Canadian Government and isn't even a Cabinet post. And the correct term is Parliamentary Secretary which has replaced the term Secertary of State under former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  12:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note--the issue isn't dead. I'll find some time soon to include these extremely notable remarks about organ harvesting in the appropriate section of this page.--Asdfg12345 01:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I think it is inaccurate to have the official language links "Chinese" to Standard Mandarin. Since it is followed by a "(Pǔtōnghuà, also known as Mandarin)," I think it'll be better to link Standard Mandarin using "Pǔtōnghuà" or "Mandarin" and delinking Standard Mandarin from "Chinese." Pojanji 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

Is there a reason why there's no country coordinates for this country?

{{coor title dm|35|00|N|105|00|E|type:country}}

Hadoooookin (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b David Kilgour & David Matas, BLOODY HARVEST: Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China, accessed October 28, 2007
  2. ^ David Matas’s address to the Legislative Assembly, Canberra, accessed October 31, 2007

[edit] Map / contradiction

See Talk:Cyprus#Map / contradiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Christian users and Christianity in China

[edit] China's Economy

The fact that China's economy is actually smaller than was thought is extremely relevant, which is why it was added. But I understand that more sources must be necessary. As far as being copied from BBC, please, like 100% of this article is not copied from somewhere else anyway. And it wasn't verbatim. Anyway, back to the fact that the Chinese economy has been overvalued by 40% is what it is. Erasing it from the article doesn't take that back, but once I find more sources, there should be no argument that this extremely relevant point must be added. I knew that it would be quickly be changed though. What was added is from an article published very recently by the BBC which stated that: according to a report released in December 2007 by the World Bank on China's economy, it appears that the economy is not as big as was thought. According to the bank, previous calculations have overestimated the size of China's economy by about 40%. The revelation came after the bank updated the way it calculated the country's gross domestic product. The bank said the findings meant China would not become the world's biggest economy in 2012 as forecast, and it also meant that China was poorer than estimated. Based on the World Bank's new research, China's economy is now worth some $5.33 trillion. The method used for the calculations is called "purchasing power parity", and corrects for differences in prices, which are lower in China than in Western countries, for the same goods. Based on current exchange rates, or nominal GDP, China's economy is only half as big, at $2.24 trillion. Despite the drop in size however, the economy remains the worlds second largest based on purchasing power parity, and fourth largest based on current exchange rates . In previous years, economists have tried to adjust their figures to take into account local prices in developing nations because they were often significantly lower than those in more industrialised countries. However, the bank said that many of the prices which were being used were out of date and gave distorted GDP figures. This time it has used updated prices to create more accurate figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:37, December 19, 2007 (UTC)

It's better if its referenced to the primary source i.e. the actual World Bank report rather than a news article. Also it should be reduced to around one or two sentences rather than being a huge block of unwikified text that takes up around 25% of the economy section which is way out of proportion. Lop.dong (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as China's GDP is concerned, I don't understand why a concensus on the talk page is needed when that above states facts are all known to be so, and are all around the internet. That information is not hard to find. What is a bit trickier however is finding the World Bank link to such a report, which is as I understand necessary as proof to make such a change. Anyway, the facts are there, and if there is not yet a concensus we should talk about this on the talk page to come to such a concensus. I personally do not know why there would be an option of keeping the inflated Chinese GDP figures on this page when all current information shows otherwise./ Doug Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.251.239.3 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to replace the Nominal GDP plot in the Economy section with a plot of Real GDP; Nominal GDP is completely meaningless if the intent is to show China's economic growth. Nominal GDP is a function of both inflation and economic growth, it is impossible to know how much each of these factors contributes to year-to-year changes in GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.99.88 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emerging Superpower in Intro

This user on 20:57, 24 December 2007 removed the following text:

Because of its vast population, rapidly growing economy, large research and development investments, and status as a declared nuclear weapons state, China is often considered as an emerging superpower.

calling it speculation or crystal ball or whatever. It's been there for almost two years from what I can gather and is probably one of the most defining, if not the most defining, far-reaching global perspective on the country as a whole. All one has to do is click on emerging superpower, scroll down to People's Republic of China and read to your heart's content.

This user also added Tank Man image to the history which I think is a tad disproportionate taking into consideration almost 60 years of history. I mean, par exemple, look at the India article - not one pic or sentence mentioning the 2002 Gujarat violence. Cheers. Lop.dong (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at Superpower article, it's referenced there, hence the wikilink. If you had to remove every sentence in Wikipedia that doesn't have a footnote then you could theoretically remove more than 90% of text from the encyclopedia.Lop.dong (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How is saying it is considered to be an emerging superpower "speculation"? See superpower article. What is speculation is saying it will become a superpower for sure. Lop.dong (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Please do not revert the sentence about China as an emerging power.

  • Saying that China is considered an emerging superpower brings an un-neutral perspective. Some consider China as a poor, polluted country while other consider China an emerging superpower. This is an encyclopedia, who considers China what is not up to us to decide.

Thanks. Cheers Nikkul (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's relatively poor according to its HDI and per capita GDP, it has serious pollution problems, and it is widely considered to be an emerging superpower. Guess what? All are already mentioned. Lop.dong (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


We can go on adding what different people consider China to be, but that will not get us anywhere.
  • Some people consider China to be an evil country because it supports rogue governments like Iran and Sudan and has provided weapons to the Sudanese government which has been involved in the Genocide.
  • Some consider China to be a human-rights violating country since it is one of the only countries whose censorship has grown.
  • Some consider China to be a disgusting place where toxic waste is dumped into lakes.

Are we going to include ALL the opinions people have about China in the intro? Nikkul (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've certainly shown your true colors now. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between a macrotrend of a nation and what some of its governmental system has been responsible for. Probably nearly every academic has seen China (i.e. the whole country) as an emerging superpower. Now now this doesn't mean India won't be one too, so keep your pants on. With respect to those views above, there's a very big difference between an macro view of the socioeconomic and political trend of a country and what some people think what its government should or should not be doing. Lop.dong (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
India is also an "emerging superpower" but this is not listed on the article page. It is a featured article, China is not. This page must look at the India article and learn how to write a good article.
Also, The United States and many other nations consider China to be a human-rights violating country. Why is there no mention of that in the intro? Nikkul (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Errr maybe because as an encyclopedia article it's talking about the whole country in general not just what it's government has been responsible for. Lop.dong (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed it temporarily. It is just as easy to find a source suggesting PRC is barely enough of a country, let alone any kind of power. Benjwong (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I put it back as it is well referenced. Utc-100 (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To resolve this issue, we must look at a featured article of a country similar to China. India is a featured article, a nuclear power, and an emerging superpower. Yet, the India page DOES NOT have anything suggesting this emerging superpower status. We must reciprocate this on the PRC Page since PRC is NOT A FEATURED Article and India IS. Also, NONE of the other emerging superpowers Russia, India, EU have anything regarding this in their intro. Nikkul (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is also a violation of WP:Undue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the removal of this emerging superpower thing is the violation of WP:Undue. It reads "articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Since it is widely accepted that PRC is an emerging superpower, it should be mentioned in the article. However, we don't mention views like China is a disgusting place because these are the views of minorities.Chris! ct 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chrishomingtang. The removal of the statement that "the People's Republic of China is an emerging superpower" is a violation of WP:Undue, as clearly that view is a majority view, as well as being sourced. nat.utoronto 20:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Even Britannica has a 1999 Year Review article by Dali L. Yang called China: Asia's Emerging Superpower. Calling China an emerging superpower is not somehow a boast or some unfounded speculation which therefore negates all other countries to make China "look good". It's an established term used by academics, analysts, journalists, politicians worldwide to describe the country and its development. Those who keep on lecturing people on "guidelines" should read in the WP:COUNTRIES page: "This structure is advisory only, ..." Macop1 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I really think Nikkul has a point since no other country has this same kind of comment. Benjwong (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think Nikkul's point is completely illogical. His editing summary actually reads: "India is a FEATURED ARTICLE and it does not mention it. Hence it is breaking wiki policy for this sentence to be here." However, the fact that India doesn't has this sentence doesn't mean it is breaking policies to mention such thing here. In my opinion, what other articles have is irrelevant to this discussion. As long as the sentence is well sourced and adheres to NPOV, it should be mentioned. That is the bottom line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not doubting the source, but please read the statement one more time. "and status as a declared nuclear weapons state, China is often considered as an emerging superpower". If we add this same statement in the India article, people may have some doubts. Benjwong (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul's argument is that no FA country article has anything like it, therefore this cannot. That this is against "Wikipedia policy". That argument is wrong. Utc-100 (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You should add the same sentence in the India article and see if anyone challenges it? Benjwong (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this has been tried on the india page and it has been reverted. India has the same vast population, huge research base, nuclear status, and growing economy as China, and is an emerging superpower but the sentence is not allowed on the India page. India is a WP:FA. If India doesn't have it, then the PRC page shouldn't either. Nikkul (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I matched whatever India has. Benjwong (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currency - renminbi or yuan?

Isn't their currency now renminbi?80.235.68.121 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Their currency is renminbi (literally, people's money). It is denominated in units of yuan. However, you'll find both terms in use in English (i.e. Chinese yuan, Chinese renminbi).Ngchen (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is using Yuan, which could confuse foreign readers. I think that renminbi should be mention at the currency section to avoid confusion. I want to go ahead and change that myself, but I want to see what people think. Chris! ct 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

renminbi is the official name. yuan is more colloqial and predates PRC--Blckavnger (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP: Dollars?

I looked at the first GDP entry in the infobox, and cannot distinguish which dollar it is referring to. I'd guess the United States dollar, but I want to make sure. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Unwarranted deletions

(From: User talk:Nikkul)

Please don't delete China's export and import status just because the links are dead. Usually you should either report a dead link and ask for verification or you could very easily find a source to replace the old ones.

Very easy to do and it only takes a few seconds.

In fact my hunch is that you are in no way interested in the upkeep of this article, let alone making it FA class. Macop1 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the information can be proven, i of course will not delete it. I would like to make this article FA. There are many challenges for us to make this article to FA. One of them is dead links. Now that you have corrected the link, there is no problem. Nikkul (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But you could've found it yourself or at the very least put a verify tag on the point. Utc-100 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China's PPP GDP issue

Vlad Dracula (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The massive discrepancy between values of china's ppp gdp, according to the 3 sources is detrimental to the article as a whole. World bank says this, International monetary fund says that, cia factbook says this etc. They have all updated, which to believe?

I suggest that all developing economies that have had their ppp gdp's massively downgraded in accordance with this one source of three, rely simply on nominal gdp. The ppp figures are dubious at this time and are subseqeuntly useless, when such discrepancies in source materials exist. Until all major economic monitoring agencies come to a consensus, wikipedia is simply displaying dubious, unverified information in this section of the country's profile.

Having to choose between 5.33 trillion and 11.6 trillion, I choose N/A.

I hope someone can keep an eye on this one because if the World Bank's findings turn out right they could have serious implications. Anawrahta (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vlad Dracula (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) the only implications would be that china would need another 25 years to become the largest economy in the world.

Also it would be good for china regarding kyoto for example since they could be classified as a developing nation for longer and spit out as much CO2 as they like.

[edit] Human rights

What is the necessity of the "Human rights" section. No country page have a separate section on the human rights situation in the country. The entire human rights section should be removed and will be dealt in appropriate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Every country article is different, so you can't say this section is entirely unnecessary because other article have no such information. I will restore it. Chris! ct 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus, please don't remove the section again without discussing it here. Poeloq (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just rechecked the section and it seems to adhere to WP:NPOV and also links to the main article. Fine in my opinion. Poeloq (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It is "POV" to single out China on human rights when United States article does not have that section in it, and they have Guatanamo Bay and other violations that are worse than any alleged "violations" that take place in China. RedChinaForever (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] GA status

I mentioned some months ago that this article had no info on the biota of China (sadly there doesn't even appear to be an article on the biota of China, or even more narrow articles on plants or animals. I can't see how an article on a country can be considered complete without this sort of information, so I think it should be promptly failed for GA status. Richard001 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You can simply either remove this article from the GA list or take this article to GAR for reassessment. However, for what you mentioned biota of China looks like a view from experts. Are you talking about ecology? Coloane (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Biota is just a word for living things in a given area. I refuse to use 'plants and animals', as almost all life forms are neither plants nor animals. Of course, if there is another article that wants to deal with this instead, fine. I have no problem with this article focussing on people and say East Asia or something having a broader perspective, but there doesn't seem to be much on this at all. Richard001 (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, wildlife of China is what I was looking for. We really need to standardize the naming of these articles... Richard001 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PPP

At the end of 2005, the PRC became the fourth largest economy in the world by exchange rate, and the second largest in the world after the United States by purchasing power parity at US$8.158 trillion.

Isn't this figure supposed to be billion (or the comma a decimal place)? Richard001 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image in Public health section

China has 20 of the world's 30 most polluted cites. Respiratory problems have increased in recent years because of widespread air pollution
China has 20 of the world's 30 most polluted cites.[1] Respiratory problems have increased in recent years because of widespread air pollution

User:Nikkul has added an image of pollution in public health section. The image is not well-relevant to the subject.

  • The image shows smog, not public health.
  • Second, this is an article, not image gallery. The article is already burdened with numerous images, adding image for every section will make it imege gallery. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also this image shows pollution in Beijing. This image do not calrify the statement "China has 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cites". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's smog, it shows the visible air pollution in a Chinese city, therefore it does strengthen the point that "China has 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cites". nat.utoronto 06:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This image shows the conditions in which the public health is deteriorating. It is a known fact that widespread air pollution is causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. This image shows the source clearly. Nikkul (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okay why aren't we takling about how China's human rights situation is absolute garbage?

Honestly nobody will dispute that their human rights and what not are laughable, absolutely horrendous. Why haven't we talked about it? Just Google 'China human rights' or whatever and you'll see what I mean. You have one week to add this in, or that's it, I will. Radiohumor (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an neutral encyclopedia, not a place to post opinions. You also can't make such demands like that; even if you did get to add it in, you talk as if no one will remove it. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 07:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A word of advice: making threats like "You have one week to add this in, or that's it, I will" will get you exactly nowhere on Wikipedia. Regarding the topic of human rights in China, well, we are talking about it, but in an NPOV way. We currently say, for example, that "censorship of political speech and information is openly and routinely used to protect what the government considers national security interests. In particular, press control is notoriously tight: Reporters Without Borders considers the PRC one of the least free countries in the world for the press" and "Certain foreign governments and NGOs routinely criticise the PRC, alleging widespread human rights violations including systematic use of lengthy detention without trial, forced confessions, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, restrictions of freedom of speech, assembly, association, religion, the press, and workers' rights". — Matt Crypto 09:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Ya sorry, that's not good enough. Adding little one liners in this huge article does not have enough merit to say that it's good enough, in terms of discussing how horrible their human rights are. We need a seperate article about this, no, we WILL have a seperate article about this, or section, whatever it's called. Radiohumor (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Radiohumor:
  1. Read our policies and guidelines before you continue to edit
  2. There is already an article with the relevant information and therefore, one sentence in a section will suffice.
  3. If you continue to make threats, and unconstructive, uncivil, and possibly disruptive comments, I will take sysop actions to deal with the situation. nat.utoronto 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Actually no, a sentence here and there won't justify their horrible human rights. IN world war 2 you can't just say "Oh yeah, we dropped 2 nukes on japan" ya sorry buddy but CHina's human rights are absolutely horrendous, and widely accepted as so. Now we WILL discuss about their human rights further, is that understood? Radiohumor (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


NEVEMIND IT SEEMS THERE IS A BIG ARTICLE ABOUT IT ALREADY - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

sorry Radiohumor (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In future, 1) try to make sure that what you want isn't already the case before you make a scene about it; 2) don't make demands. — Matt Crypto 09:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on the pollution references

Hi wiki editors. User: Nikkul and I have a disagreement over the information we should use for the pollution image that was recently placed. I think we should go with the Scientific American's [3] article reporting Blacksmith Institute's research on the top ten most polluted cities in the World, which includes cities from China, Russia, India... While Nikkul insist on using the World Bank's [4] fact sheet about China having 20 of the 30 most polluted cities in the world.

Nikku points out that the World Bank having more credibility than Scientific American, while I feel since the information World Bank listed was fairly brief (they did not display details or the list of top 30 most polluted cities), we should go with the Scientific American article on Blacksmith Institute's research which likewise has also been covered by BBC, MSNBC, Time magazine.

We hope to reach a consensus on how the image's caption should be presented and what references should be featured.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The World Bank has released a report saying that 20 of the 30 most polluted cities are in China. [2]
I think the source from the World Bank, which is a globally recognized institution whose report has been backed by BBC, CNN, and Time, is more credible and broader than the Scientic American source that User:TheLeopard has suggested which only pertains to a few of the most polluted cities in China, the World Bank report includes many more cities in China than the Scientific American report. Nikkul (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] simple ambiguity in Population policy section

The last sentence of the last paragraph of the Population policy section reads:

"The government is particularly concerned with the large imbalance in the sex ratio at birth, apparently the result of a combination of traditional preference for boys, and family planning pressure, which led to the ban of using ultrasound devices for the purpose of preventing sex-selective abortion."

This could be read as using ultrasound devices for the purpose of preventing sex-selective abortion was banned, instead of the actual intention which is to ban the use of ultrasound devices for the purpose of sex-selective abortion.

This need to be tidied.

84.70.238.8 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.