Talk:Economy of China (disambiguation)

Untitled

Now a dab — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 April 2005

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 14:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat

Huaiwei's and SchmuckyTheCat's edits were reverted. Proposals on disputed entries should not be presented in this way, but at sandbox or at personal namespace instead. — Instantnood 16:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Take it to RfAr. SchmuckyTheCat 01:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ran's concerns is the primary motivator in re-writing this page, and hence it was edited. It was not meant to be a "demonstration" in this case. And as I said, I totally ignore the existance of some "voting process" on this page, simply because I do not recognise votes which are not properly conducted. I will edit this accordingly hence, if there is a need to.--Huaiwei 06:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

There are over 100 pages linking here, so having a disambiguation page is really destructive. I will be moving things back if those links havent been fixed a month from now. It can be done using bots. --Jiang 07:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend the one who moved the page to put up a bot request. — Instantnood 08:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• There were a dozen or so pages and one template linking here. That template (WTO) is the cause of all remaining links, the database is stuck with a stale link history on that template, I think. Otherwise, go ahead and move it back. It wasn't agreeing with my opinion to move it. SchmuckyTheCat 14:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed: Should Taiwan's economy be included?

160.39.250.203 removed ROC/Taiwan from the page, with the edit summary "removed POV". If ROC's/Taiwan's economy has to be included in this page, the leading sentence can perhaps be changed to "You may be looking for:" to avoid POV. — Instantnood 20:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Jiang's edit was modified by SchmuckyTheCat. — Instantnood 07:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing references to taiwan claiming it is not part of China. As long as some people believe Taiwan is part of China, then we must include it here. The term "may include" is used to satisfy those who think it is not part of China. --Jiang 20:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are doing nothing to improve the situation. May include is a hypothetical that has no place on a reference concerned with reality. There "may" be green men on the moon that we have yet to be discovered. So? Why should that be written in? Territorial claims do not directly have to do with the economy either. Fact is Taiwan's economy is never claimed to be part of China's. They claim Taiwan's territory belongs to China but that's not what it is like now. Cite something. Chinese laws, interest rates, money don't appy in Taiwan. There is absolutely no reason to include Taiwan.--160.39.195.88 05:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're interpreting "China" to mean the PRC exclusively. That's contrary to the naming conventions, which treat "China" as an encompassing term without a political meaning as far as recent history is concerned. In fact, whenever you're about to phrase an argument in terms of "China vs. Taiwan", you're probably ignoring the naming conventions. The economy of the ROC is clearly relevant and should be linked from here. The phrase "may include" or "may refer to" is pretty standard for disambiguation pages. It does not mean "can refer to X but we're not sure"; rather, it means "can, in some contexts, refer to". There is nothing underhanded about that. --MarkSweep 07:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's your reason to include Taiwan: The naming conventions explicitly said not to equate China with the PRC. Refer to the China details for the definition used here. The de facto situation can be interpreted either way to mean that Taiwan is or is not part of China. The way you do this is to follow the naming conventions and say that China is not synonymous with the PRC. It is a cultural/geographic entity divided by an unresolved civil war between the PRC and ROC. Under this argument, Taiwan is part of China. A more outdated argument is that the Republic of China is the legitimate China. Under the argument, Taiwan is also part of China. I can find plenty of people believing the former so it would be POV to ignore that viewpoint. Even if you want to represent the de facto situation, you need to label it as such--Jiang 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but to interrupt this dated discussion. Even though I have no opinion leaving Taiwan in this article since some people believes Taiwan as part of China, I have to point out that the civil war analysis is only one's POV and not necessarily and that Taiwan vs China issue could be treated in another angle so that Taiwan is not part of China at all. In the article Legal status of Taiwan, one would find many Taiwanese independence activitists suggests the legitimacy of ROC occupying Taiwan is only based on General Order No.1 and thus ROC has no sovereignty over Taiwan. In this angle, Taiwan would have nothing to do with the Chinese civil war. POVs are POVs. This is not to endorse or rejecting either but to buffer the Chinese civil war POV.--Mababa 05:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Avoid excessive commentary

"Due to historical colonization by European powers, the economies of Hong Kong and Macau remained separate from that of mainland China, and under the agreements for their return, they continue to remain so."

In short: They are Special Administrative Regions

"From the point of view of Chinese nationalists who view Taiwan as a part of China, they may consider Taiwan's economy to be a part of China's, despite no actual unity between the economy of Taiwan (Republic of China) and the economy of mainland China. In fact, trade and investment is limited between the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic by ROC law."

In short: Taiwan has a separate economy from the mainland, but some people consider Taiwan to be part of China, along with HK and MO. Thus, "China" would be synonymous with "Greater China" and "economy of China" would be synonymous with "economy of Greater China". Saying that Taiwan is economically part of Greater China, as noted, is not POV. --Jiang 08:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case, why don't we merge this article with the article Greater China, since they seemed to be synonymous as you suggested?--Mababa 21:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

you ELIMINTATED commentary not shortened it. Greater China means more than China. You can't backport it to mean China. Greater China is never a synonym for China you should read George Orwell because you're good at that crap. But I feel sorry for you because it seems like you believe your own slippages too.--160.39.195.88 16:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. This is a disambiguation page, not an article or essay. It's not supposed to contain complete sentences. What I left behind were ample explanations, labelling HK and MO as SARs of the PRC and TW as part of the Greater China economic region.

Please cut the personal attacks. Greater China is commonly a synonym for China, but due to the controversy over whether Taiwan is part of China, equating the two is not politically neutral. If you cannot accept the reality that many people consider Taiwan to be part of China (and thus consider Greater China to be synonymous with China), then I really don't know what to say to you. The term "Greater China" is used to satisfy those with political POVs that claim Taiwan is not part of China. --Jiang 22:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Pol status of Taiwan

the clause "Depending on one's position over the question of the political status of Taiwan" used to modify "the economy of China may include" is not accurate since people often use "China" to mean mainland China, excluding HK and MO. The news media does this when speaking in economic terms.

i'm not sure how the change of "considered part of the Greater China economy with the PRC" to "many considered it part of the Greater China economy with the PRC" is necessary. who disputes that the term "Greater China" includes TW? --Jiang 04:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China pre-PRC?

The following content is from an article that was nominated for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dates of Chinese Economy in Wartimes(1937-44)). The concensus of that discussion was that the content could be kept but the article title was completely wrong. The best recommendation at the time was to merge the content here. This is, however, a disambiguation page. None of the currently-listed articles appear to apply. The mainland China article appears to be closest but starts well after the content discussed here. Could someone with more content knowledge than I please move this into the appropriate article? Rossami (talk) 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Before the Second Sino-Japanese War, in 1930, Chinese per capita income was US$ 11. Subsequently, the Chinese dollar fell in value to 7% of its gold valuation. By the end of 1942, having lost more than 95% of its value, the money supply in circulation had risen 50 times, and inflation continued.

In the part of China occupied by Japanese forces, the prices of basic goods rose much over their real value; in Shanghai during 1941, the nominal monetary values were at 11 times of the real ones. In Manchukuo there occurred a similar disparity, despite Japanese centralized economic control.

The Japanese occupation caused severe damage to the Chinese economy, adding to previous troubles before the all-out conflict. Before the Japanese invasion in 1937, Chinese bonds selling overseas had a return of some 16% to compensate for risk; now Chinese credit had to be reorganized and reinforced with international support. Around 200 millions of Chinese citizens were in occupied territories. Smuggling and participation in the black market to cover minimum needs became common.

If that's all there is, then one of the history pages would be a good place to put it. Or add a history section to Economy of the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 6 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I guess we can have a new article on economic history of China, with the content (hist) from the article mentioned above as one of the sections. There are already some articles on the economic history of certain countries. Economic history of Britain and economic history of Canada would be good examples to follow. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 07:56 (UTC)

POV pushing and More Ordinary Dumbness

NPOV does not mean giving respectability to bad ideas. It is not true that just because one person in the world thinks that the world is one way, that it must make its way into Wikipedia. First, how the hell is economic history an economy? Second, when is PRC's economy ever NOT included in economy of China?

Third--I regret that I'm even considering that there exists some "economy of China" that includes HK, Macau, and Taiwan. Hello folks? The fact is that the economies are separate regardless of political questions. What in the world does this have to do with whether ROC or Taiwan or whatever is "legitimate"? It empirically exists as a separate economy. I don't care if you think it. It does not give such a "POV" legitimacy. Explain what grounds (they better be economic ones...) Taiwan should be included in some so-called "economy of China". I hope you can define an economy and then show everyone why economy of China should include that of the PRC and that of Taiwan. This is not a POV question.

I'm really frustrated. You won't have an effect on the real world by trying to define an independent Taiwan away on, of all places a disambiguation page of Wikipedia!! Again, NPOV does not mean giving any nonsense idea consideration. Anyone want to revise Earth based on the fact that there is at least one society that believes in a flat earth out there? Come on. Tell them that they are not being NPOV. Do it. No really. It's the exact same ridiculous logic.--DownUnder555 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree when talking about economy China almost always refers to mainland China. The trouble partly lies with the Wikipedia conventions that China should not be used in place of People's Republic of China or mainland China. To help people to look for information this page can either be set up as a redirect to the mainland China article, with a notice in the header linking readers to the other articles, or, like what is done, as a disambiguation. The current setup does not imply China in the present-day is (or is not) one economy. It does help readers to look for economy information of the geographical area known as China. The carefully phrased leading sentence also reminds readers that this page does not imply anything is included or excluded. As for economic history, I have changed it as something to see also. — Instantnood 16:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's why the naming convention is wrong and in conflict with current guidelines. SchmuckyTheCat 16:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The naming conventions tell how to be NPOV, or at least, less POV-loaded. What current guidelines is it in conflict with? — Instantnood 16:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict SchmuckyTheCat 17:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm. It becomes a guideline three days ago. Mind elaborating a bit why is it relevant here? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

File:BrickWall.jpg

what?SchmuckyTheCat 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Jiang writes in an edit summary: the article is solely on mainland China, excluding HK and MO, so this info must be presented as such

• Entirely incorrect.

1. This the economy of a political entity. The entity is called the People's Republic of China. That's what the country is called and that's what the world calls them. Wikipedia can't prescribe the name "mainland China" onto this country.
2. Imagine this is 1995 not 2005. HK and MO are still colonies. Then the argument about excluding HK and MO is irrelevant. The resumption of control over HK and MO are irrelevant, they are component parts of the larger country. We do not rename the country based on exclusion or inclusion of component parts.
3. The Chinese Naming Conventions state we should use official names in political contexts. The economy of a political entity is clearly political. That's why they appoint secretaries and ministers and have massive bureaucracies full of politicians to manage the economy.
4. The Naming Conflicts guidelines state that we describe, not prescribe, names. The PRC itself does not describe itself as "mainland China" except in isolated cases. Neither does the rest of the world use that as a primary term.

SchmuckyTheCat 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

1. This is not on the economy of a political entity because the article is only on the economy of a region under the jurisdiction of the political entity and not the political entity in its entirety. The People's Republic of China's effective jurisdiction comprises the separately governed areas of mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. The article does not cover Hong Kong and Macau. Wikipedia cannot define the People's Republic of China as mainland China and exclude Hong Kong and Macau.
2. If this were 1995 I would be arguing what you are arguing in (1). Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on POV), this is 2005. The People's Republic of China has changed in the past ten years. We must reflect this change. Under the logic that additions of territory over time should not take effect as "component parts of the larger country", shouldnt economy of the United States be only on the original 13 states? The term "People's Republic of China" is now often used to refer to all of the PRC, including HK and MO and excluding HK. I see no point in having to bury the term "mainland China", which is a lot less ambiguous and confusing than "People's Republic of China" to refer to the areas of the PRC exclusing HK, MO, and TW.
3. This is not a political context. The political entity is clearly political. Its economy is not. The administration and regulation of the economy is political. The economy itself is not. I do not oppose the current location of the article, but I do oppose trying to bury attempts to clarify what exactly we mean by "People's Republic of China" on this disambiguation page.
4. The PRC describes the region covered by the article as "mainland China" or "the Chinese mainland". Evidence: "Chinese Mainland, Macao Discuss on Closer Economic Ties", "Tung stressed that if the House fails to pass the PNTR legislation in May, the damage to Hong Kong's economy will be "devastating" because the region's economy is strongly linked to mainland China." They even use "Chinese mainland" in a political context to discuss relations with Taiwan: "Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman, commenting on the U.S. Defense Department's so-called "the Security Situation in the Taiwan Straits", pointed out that the report was spreading word of the so-called Chinese mainland's missile threats to Taiwan...", "Chinese mainland urges Taiwan to take more concrete action against SARS".

--Jiang 07:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jiang. I don't think presentation of such evidence would help convince them. What should be presented has been presented.. Take a look at those presented in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (Chinese) [1] and talk:mainland China [2] [3]. User:Huaiwei has accused people for using a non-official name - mainland China - in place of People's Republic of China to refer to the country [4], and explicitly " opposed towards any attempts .. in 'formalising' the words in question " [5]. Don't think there's any possible solution to the stalemate in the near future. — Instantnood 07:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

The above appears to quote my viewpoint without bothering to state my reasoning behind it. While my reasons for favouring official terms over a much less official one like "Mainland China" may defer slightly from SchmuckyTheCat's, some of the key concerns remains the same. I do not favour the term Mainland China, not just because it is not appriopritate to use it in place of the term PRC when other similar articles on other countries are using their country name, but also because I consider the term being promoted to fuel the agendas of autonomy/independence-minded individuals of the PRC by their attempts to create seperate articles for every conceivable subject matter on their respective territories.--Huaiwei 12:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

First, your reasoning behind are provided by the links, both the talk pages and the specific diffs. Second, nobody is using mainland China in place of People's Republic of China. Mainland China is only used to refer to the territories of the PRC minus Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 13:13, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

"The links provides the answers". So why not quote the important stuff instead of only the viewpoint? You appear to place my reasoning on the backburner. And if "nobody is using mainland China in place of People's Republic of China", then we wont have revert wars, content disputes, a RFC, and two arbcoms. If we are serious of dispute reslution, then it requires, in the barest minimum, that all involved parties recognise the fact that a dispute is in existance.--Huaiwei 13:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Examination of incoming links

I just opened every incoming link for this article, found this article, and figured out where it was supposed to come from.

1. The majority of links are from templates. The templates clearly refer to the PRC.
2. Every other mainspace link intended to link to PRC.
3. Meta pages/talk/wikipedia/etc were ignored as they aren't content.

It's clear those linking to this article intend to link to Economy of the PRC. Not a single link meant to link to a dab page, or meant to link to any other entity on the dab page. SchmuckyTheCat 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The template {(Asia topic}}, from which most links come from, points at both economy of China and economy of the People's Republic of China,
2. Those mainspace links intended to link to the PRC are fixed,
3. Portal is also fixed.
4. The remaining links are intended to link to China, or are ambiguous.

Michael G. Davis 22:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Economy of China"

See talk:Economy of the People's Republic of China, where the usage of "Economy of China" is up for discussion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM

This disambiguation page is suffering from WP:RECENTISM per Emmette Hernandez Coleman comments that anything that is not today is not "economy of China" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I suppose Economy of India is also suffering from RECENTISM for not being a disambig that lists Economic history of India. When I said ""Economy of China" does not refer to the economy of China prior to 1949 or the Economic history of China", I worded that porly. What I meant to say is that "Economy of China" is not a term that means "economy of China prior to 1949" or "Economic history of China". Those are sub-topics of the Economy of China, but they are not valid meanings of the term "Economy of China". Per WP:Disambiguation "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The article Economy of India already covers the economic history of India. The economies of Chinas prior to 1949 are also "economy" topics, and can be called "economy of". Indeed, these are just descriptive titles chosen by Wikipedia, and not set terms, so any topic that can be called "economy of China" would be viable topics to list, since they are not set terms. This page could be called "China's economy" or many other variants, because it is not a set term. If you use the phrase "Economy of Tang Dynasty China" it would be something that Wikipedia would by Wikipedia convention called "Economic history of the Tang Dynasty", but that would also be called "Economy of Tang Dynasty China" in the world at large which would be forumlated as "Economy of China (Tang Dynasty)" by Wikipedia convention, so would be appropriate. Descriptively named articles have many other descriptions they can use. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)