Talk:Property law in China

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved for conciseness, consistency, and article scope. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Property law in the People's Republic of China → Chinese property law – In line with Canadian property law and South African property law, it's a much more concise name. CMD (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment personally I think the naming convention should be flipped, to Property law of X, in this case Property law of China. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is a translation of the title of a 2007 law, but the article discusses other aspects of Chinese property law as well. An article on Chinese property in general is a necessary encyclopedia component, while the specific law is a less pressing concern. Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposers rationale is flawed, as there is only one 'Canada' and only one 'South Africa'. 'Chinese' is ambiguous as it applies to "two" Chinas as well as the ethnicity. The article is clearly focussed on property law in the PRC. Moving to the less precise namespace creates ambiguity, particularly as to whether we should then widen the scope to include Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and how and whether there is a general concept that can be so called that transcends the geographic boundaries into the ethno-cultural dimension. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It would not widen the scope to Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Kong and Macau face exactly the same inclusion issue under the title "People's Republic of China" as they do under "China", that is the wrangling over exactly how to treat them (dependent, integral, etc.).
  • It would not widen it to Taiwan. Taiwan is simply not called China. That is what the recent move requests showed. In the modern world, there is only one entity known as China.
  • There is an ethnicity, but ethnicities don't have laws, so that's not at all an issue.
  • The proposed name is just as precise, and is more concise, and fits in with the other articles on the topic. CMD (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose China Airlines doesn't belong to People's Republic of China. 梁棚元 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — 梁棚元 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Completely irrelevant. Note how your second wiklink redirects to China, the move request which caused this dealt with arguments like this. CMD (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: the current article defines the scope as a specific law enacted in 2007. Are you proposing to rewrite the lead section and to redefine the overall scope of the article?--Jiang (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead says that, but it isn't representative of the actual article, which discusses quite a few other bits of law as well as history. The lead needs to be rewritten if it is to represent the article as it currently stands. There is another article for the specific law, Property Law of the People's Republic of China, although someone else has proposed merging it. CMD (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ohconfucius. Further it appears to be a proper noun. Jeremy (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Move instead to Property Law of the People's Republic of China. Jeremy (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a proper noun, note how "law" is currently in small caps. The proper noun is Property Law of the People's Republic of China. You're looking at the wrong article. CMD (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Did you see the lede of this article and the merge notice in the article that you quoted? Jeremy (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. I've also actually read through this article. CMD (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Any specific law is of no concern to the title of the article, that's not the primary subject. This article should be named like similar articles. China is not ambiguous, which we have shown. Further, it does not bother me if the scope includes mentions of Hong Kong and Macau (those are probably better as summary sections) as all real property in the SARS belongs to the state. It was the issue of long-term land leases (property) that crossed the treaty return date of the New Territories in HK that triggered initial talks in the 1980s between the UK and China. HK common law also maintains some historical Qing dynasty era property laws, which would be historical in a mainland only article (and evolution of law is in scope). These subjects may not be in the article now, but they certainly aren't out of scope. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose. The focus of this article is clearly 1949 to the present. China has a rich history of property law. I will change this to a support if the lead section and section headers are proactively changed so that the content no longer matches the title. My experience with similar recent page moves has shown that article re-titling has seldom been followed up with content changes to alter the scope of the article to match the new title.--Jiang (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Perhaps Chinese property law (1949-present) could be a shorter alternative, but as the article stands, "Chinese property law" represents a scope and content that is not reflected in the current article.--Jiang (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting idea with scope; it's not why the article was originally titled this, and no other countries have this sort of objection. The title, in the current form or proposed form, is present tense, and that is likely what readers would want to read. Even if we want a lot of history, surely leaving the article open to expansion is a much better idea? There's no problem with articles having a wider scope than the content covers. That's part of building an online encyclopaedia. (With that said, the lead doesn't even reflect current content, so it has to change anyway.) CMD (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Imperial China in Lead

How can we summarise Imperial China's property laws? The article currently notes that Imperial China had a period of stagnation for property laws, which is not the impression gained from "has existed in various forms for centuries" (which is in addition a statement that gives very little information). If "property was rented out by feudal landlords" is an inaccurate statement, what would be an accurate one? CMD (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chinese property law. 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/20120324055453/http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?lib=law&id=6353 to http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?lib=law&id=6353
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324055453/http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?lib=law&id=6353 to http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?lib=law&id=6353

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) 08:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)