Talk:Civil service of the People's Republic of China

Mainland China category

This article is clearly a mainland China-specific topic, but User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat has continuously removing it from category:Mainland China. [1] [2] [3] — Instantnood June 30, 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Your attempts to populate a disputed category is certainly a cayse for concern. Fresh out of an arbitration too. I suppose it bores you when people dont argue with you in wikipedia?--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating why this article should not be categorised to category:Mainland China, apart from your opinion that this category is disputed? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Because the category of Mainland China is clearly disputed. Enough said.--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Apart from your opinion that it is "clearly disputed", is there any other reason? — Instantnood July 6, 2005 10:29 (UTC)

The page title says the PRC. You want more reasons?--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

It is the civil service of the PRC, but it is only related to mainland China except the top ranks. Yes I'd love to know your rationale. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Note to other readers: Please note that I categorised the article because it is clearly mainland China-related. I did not do it intentionally to populate any category. It has nothing to do with any agenda, nor is there any agenda. — Instantnood June 30, 2005 15:02 (UTC)

This is a difficult sentence to read. How is it possible for someone to "populate a category" without "intentionally" doing so? You cant be in a state of unconsciousness, could you?--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

That was not done for the sake of populate any category. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 11:13 (UTC)

This article is outdated, China is now using 27 ranks, see corresponding article Chinese wiki. Shenhemu (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Civil Service of the People's Republic of China → Civil service of China – The main article and common name is China. The category is Category:Government of China. Also more appropriate capitalisation per MOS:HEADCAPS. AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per China and per WP:COMMONNAME. Articles should match the country name if that's a problem it should be settled at the country article rather than having a confusing mix all over the place. Timrollpickering 09:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. No need for confusing titles. 121.218.59.88 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

How is this confusing? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Rename to Civil Service (China). Its name appears to be simply the Civil Service.[4] We don't add "of Foo" unless that's actually its name. If not we add the country in parentheses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose When I search for Civil Service in China, most results I get seem to refer to the classical Chinese civil service. Historically China seems to have had a well developed civil service and this was different from the present day civil service. The WP:COMMONNAME argument isn't exactly valid as the primary topic for "Civil service of China" isn't the present day civil service of the PRC, but rather the classical civil service. From what I see, the currently title is already WP:PRECISE and provides a WP:NATURALDIS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 What do you mean? China has always been China in some format. There was no separate country called China. What is the "classical civil service" and where is our article? AusLondonder (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This article specifically about the present civil service of the PRC. The historical civil is usually referred to as the Chinese civil service in most academic literature, and it is confusing to use the same term for the present day service. Even Britannica uses that name only for the older civil service.

As for China, there are actually Two Chinas. The concept of China is also not well understood in the English wikipedia due to a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and dearth of editors from East Asia. China is considered to be a region which is politically divided between the PRC and the ROC. As such, per WP:NEUTRAL ministries of the PRC/ROC are usually disambiguated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the article which should include any historical information about the Chinese civil service, as it already is - see Civil Service of the People's Republic of China#History. I respect your personal opinion regarding China, however, it is not an opinion widely shared, least of all in East Asia. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 declared that the PRC is the "only legitimate representative of China". Absolutely every single state in East Asia recognises the concept of One China. This is well understood in East Asia. I fail to see what you mean about systemic bias unfortunately. It is largely contrary to fact and to WP:NPOV to state that "China is considered to be a region which is politically divided". AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea that China is politically divided is not a fringe idea or my personal opinion. And at least in East Asia, ROC and PRC are looked upon as the 2 claimants of China. You can have a look at the Chinese Wikipedia which makes it a point to distinguish between China / PRC /ROC /Taiwan. (And this is regardless of what the UN says. For instance, the UN also says Taiwan is a province of China, but we don't label Taiwan in China on Wikipedia.) Btw, the One China policy that you are linking only says that there is one successor to China - it doesn't say whether it is the PRC or the ROC. The WP:SYSTEMICBIAS exists here because editors are not familiar with this situation on the English Wikipedia.

As for the point that the current article has a history section, I see only one sentence and even that is unsourced. However, there is enough information available (such as [5], [6], [7], to write an entire article about the classical civil service in China. The history section of this article should focus on the history of Civil Service in the PRC - such as the reforms which have since taken place.

Note that this very similar to how we have Chinese law/ (or Law of China which redirects there) as the articles about the classical laws while Law of the Republic of China and Law of the People's Republic of China are for the present day entities. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"At least in East Asia, ROC and PRC are looked upon as the 2 claimants of China" - zero countries in East Asia recognise the Republic of China/Taiwan as a legitimate entity. AusLondonder (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how we work on Wikipedia. We don't rely solely on the statements of countries/governments. Sources show that the ROC (not Taiwan) is one of the claimants for the legitimate government of China. How do you explain the fact that the Chinese Wikipedia has separate articles for these concepts? It has East Asian editors who presumably understand the concepts better.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

BBC says China when referring to the PRC. As do most outlets globally. AusLondonder (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is all covered by a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia: WP:COMMONNAME. The PRC is commonly referred to in the English-speaking world as China. The ROC is referred to as Taiwan. Therefore that's what we use. Very simple. The legal niceties of the situation are irrelevant to our naming policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because our PRC article is at China (and ROC is at Taiwan) doesn't mean every article (foo of x) has to be moved into China/Taiwan. See Talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_3_December_2016 for an example where a move would not be appropriate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as the proposed title wouldn't match the scope of the article. This article specifically deals with the civil service system of the current regime and it would be wise to clarify that in the full article title. I'd also like to propose the alternative title Civil service (Mainland China) to show that the subject of this article doesn't deal with Hong Kong and Macau either. Deryck C. 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not. See Civil Service of the People's Republic of China#History. AusLondonder (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a one line background info. The scope of the article is clearly about the current system in Mainland China not including Hong Kong and Macau. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• oppose as Deryck above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunq (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lemongirl and Deryck. BTW, there are Civil service#In China and Civil service#China; both sections discuss the history of civil service in ancient and modern China. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support move. Our Civil Service articles seem to use "Demonym Civil Service" or "Civil Service of Foo", and this title would fit that. All of these articles focus on the current service, rather than on history, much like this one does (and should). WP:NATURALDIS does not currently apply given the redirect already points here. Our historical coverage of the civil service seems contained within the subsections pointed out above as well as in the history section of Imperial examination. The structure of those articles could change (and history in this article should be expanded), but even then this article's focus on the present-day situation under the new title makes sense. The proposed title is descriptive in the present tense, and academic sources use "China" by itself to discuss the modern system too[8][9][10]. All mentions I could find in the news media of the modern civil service are happy to use "China" or "Chinese"[11][12][13]. The move also fits WP:CONCISE. CMD (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is a difference between "Imperial examination" and "Chinese civil service" though. Britannica uses Chinese examination system and Chinese civil service respectively for the articles. When I search for civil service in China, most results seem to be about the classical civil service though - which makes me doubt if the PRC is the primary topic. Another factor is that I see the term PRC is used nearly as often as China and in many scenarios is used to unambigously establish the scope first [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• As I noted, there may be a case to add to the coverage of the Imperial information. That doesn't change what would be expected on a present-tense descriptive article though. You and I are seeing different search results then. I'm definitely seeing more on the modern situation. Not a great deal more, but >50%. It is not surprising that the PRC is frequent, given the uses of formal names. Nonetheless the article titling policies of academic journals are different to our own. (And often for such papers noting PRC doesn't establish the scope either, it can be much more specific.) CMD (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support The country article is at China and this is its civil service. Really don't see how anyone would think this would cover Macao/Hong Kong. Disappointing to see the China/Taiwan dispute appearing here again; it's an argument to be made at RMs on the China and Taiwan articles; elsewhere we go with what the main articles are called and any pedantry around that should be ignored by the closing admin. Number 57 13:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really get your argument

• The country article is at China and this is its civil service. Really don't see how anyone would think this would cover Macao/Hong Kong. - I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that Hong Kong and Macau is NOT a part of China?
• we go with what the main articles are called That is not always true. See Talk:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_3_December_2016 for an example. Such consistency doesn't naturally exist in all cases. And consistency for the sake of uniformity doesn't help the encyclopaedia, which is supposed to explain the nuances and differences.

Every topic needs to be assessed individually. Saying that "pedantry around that should be ignored by the closing admin" doesn't exactly help. In fact, this attitude is exactly what is responsible for the problems of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really buy your WP:SYSTEMICBIAS claim, particularly when you state above that "East Asian editors... presumably understand the concepts better." This is a very poor argument to use – you have no idea what other editors know or don't know and you really shouldn't be claiming to have superior knowledge to other editors based on your own background. I've read the flag move debate and I think it's fundamentally flawed as several editors (including the closer) seem to be under the impression that "Taiwan" refers to the island when in fact it is primarily used to refer to the country. Number 57 16:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you are refusing to understand to even acknowledge the nuances in this topic. For example, you said "Really don't see how anyone would think this would cover Macao/Hong Kong." What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that China doesn't include Hong Kong and Macau? In that case, what is the definition of "China" here? This is exactly the problem which occurs if an overly formulaic approach is followed. (And for reference, I am opposed to the current arrangement of the China Taiwan articles as well. It creates more problems that is evident as Deryck Chan said above, one of which is that "Taiwan" is apparently a 1912 establishment in China. The least we can do is not to create more problems).

Britannica uses Chinese civil service for the classical civil service and not the one about the current regime. The primary topic here seems to be the classical civil service, not the current one in the PRC.

The problem about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is a practical problem which affects consensus. Ireland is somehow about the island because there are more editors who are able to explain the nuances. (My own personal impression prior to reading the debates was that Ireland only referred to the country and not to the island.) And there is no consistency on Wikipedia. The country article is at Republic of Ireland but the government article uses Government of Ireland and the constitution is at Constitution of Ireland. Similar we have Palestine as a broad concept article even though today Palestine is mostly used for the State of Palestine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not refusing to understand or acknowledge the nuances in this topic at all, I just have a different take on them to you. Enough with the 'I understand this topic better than you' attitude please. Secondly, the Ireland issue is completely different scenario – Ireland is an island that is split into two countries and there is therefore some ambiguity around the name. "Taiwan" on the other hand is not ambiguous. Lastly, it's obvious that you're opposed to the current arrangement of China and Taiwan articles and is this is the main reason I made the point that the admin should largely ignore your comments as this seems to be more of a proxy war about the main article titling. Number 57 09:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose WP:POV and WP:RECENTISM. --Prisencolin (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support and expand scope. No need to complicate things when we don't have articles for Civil service of the Republic of China, Civil service of Taiwan, Civil service of Hong Kong, Civil service of Qing dynasty etc. Timmyshin (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that we do have Hong Kong Civil Service and my impression is that civil service is dependent on the government. So the Civil Service in mainland China is separate from the ones in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. (which do have a potential of fully developed articles). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with your argument, but the problem can be solved by a section titled "Hong Kong" with a hatnote
  See also: Hong Kong Civil Service
  . Timmyshin (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support rename, and make current name a redirect. L3X1 Distant Write 13:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

oppose The civil service is always about a specific era and government and we have seperate pages. The text in this page is only about the service in the communist governed mainland while Hong Kong Civil Service is a different page. Title must make this clear which one it is. If communist and nationalist government both claim to be the real China and each is recognized by certain countries, wiki should not be taking sides. There is a List of Presidents of China which includes heads of both governments evan as List of Presidents of the Republic of China and List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China exist. Same can be done for this page, can it not? In India we have a seperate page Indian Civil Service (British India) for the civil service which also served Pakistan and Bangladesh before partition.Kiwigravity (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• OpposeTo the Han nationality of the historical point of view to elaborate China, can be used as the Qing Empire, the Ming Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Tang Empire. If moved to China, is not appropriate, although the view of other ethnic groups do not think that the empire of the Mongol Empire is China.--Tr56tr (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per the main article on the sovereign state being at China. There is no systematic bias in applying WP:COMMONNAME, merely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude from some editors who disagree with the current location of the China and Taiwan articles— Ayomoy (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• The COMMONNAME argument isn't exactly applicable here because the entity referred to by "Chinese civil service" is actually the historical civil service. For example, the Britannica article titled "Chinese civil service" is about the ancient service, not the current one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil Service of the People's Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210181703/http://www.dangjian.cn/syjj/mtjj/201202/t20120223_518141_4.shtml to http://www.dangjian.cn/syjj/mtjj/201202/t20120223_518141_4.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Levels and ranks

I have a question: In the table under "Levels and ranking system", it states that "Provincial-Ministerial level (省部级)" includes ranks 7-8. This seems to be based on a table inside the reference "China's Attempt to Professionalize Its Civil Service [19]" (PDF). However in zh.wikipedia, and in "公务员职务与级别管理规定[20]", it says this level includes rank 8-4. I think the latter is correct.36.227.111.44 (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Level names

Please provide romanizations of level names, so that the terms be searchable in English-language sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Civil service v. cadre system

Hi all--I've been working on Draft:Cadre System of the Communist Party of China for a little while now, but I'm still struggling with how it relates to this article, and even if it should be a separate one at all. The civil service and cadre system overlap heavily, but clearly civil servant 公务员 and cadre 干部 are considered distinct in China. Broadly, the civil service positions are those usually filled by cadres, but cadres as an institution have existed since before the establishment of the PRC (being immensely important in revolutionary work and guerrilla command). Any insight or thoughts on whether or not I should just try to work the cadre stuff into the existing civil service article would be greatly appreciated. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)