From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Given how much content we have about China & the the Chinese (politically or culturally), I think this should be a lot better.

Taiwan should definitely be a separate article. It hasn't been part of the same political territory as mainland China for a long time, and isn't likely to be any time soon, if ever.

The question then is whether to have two articles -- one on Taiwan, and one on China which would includethe historical/cultural impact of Chinese civilisation as well as the modern PRC regime -- or three separate articles, one on Taiwan (ROC), one on the PRC, and one on "China" as a historical/cultural entity which would include relevant stuff about Chinese medicine, feng shui, Taoism, et al.

Any thoughts?

Oh, and all the "other kinds of China" stuff should be deleted, as inconsequential, banal, arbitrary, irrelevant, meaningless trivia. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

China, Taiwan, and Imperial China perhaps? Nowwhat? 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep it as one until the article expands. Btw, wouldn't the Chinese diaspora be more populated than Taiwan--maybe richer too? Civic Cat    Talk to Civic Cat   17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A spotter's guide to places inside China[edit]

Not sure this is quite appropriate for this wiki. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I reverted it without looking at the talk page first... Anyways, the reason I got rid of it was that it's more suited to somewhere outside of mainspace, if anywhere. Nullahnung (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I was in the midst of collapsing it when you edit-conflicted me. Count me with the "if anywhere" crowd. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I just presumed it's okay to follow the mood of RW describing U.S. states. The current page for China is no where near the quality of the RW page on the U.S., or even the detail volume of the Conservapedia page on China. I do apologize, but I'm doing what I am only capable of doing. --Teslashark (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of the articles on US states as well, personally. Nullahnung (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we capable of providing a rational and interesting page on China? We already have rational and interesting pages on a whole lot of issues and existences here. The page on China could have a low priority for editing, sure, but I believe that when people want to look up China and RW's understanding of China, they would like to see more than a few pieces of wit and rephrasing of stuff on TV.
Where did the microraptors and Chengjiang Cambrian fossils came from? Did China use coal or oil to feed its energy hunger? Who the hell did the National Endowment for Democracy pay? Is there a foreign equivalent of Texas? It's not like that RW gives less shit than Conservapedia to a country entangled in multiple undeniably global connections, right? I suggest that we can take content out of Conservapedia and RW-ify them over time. Apologies, again, I used the Conservapedia card despite I know I shouldn't.--Teslashark (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
These questions might be interesting enough to include, go ahead. However, don't put it in the "places inside China" format, put it in a format that emphasizes the interesting content. Nullahnung (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
They would sound a little bit like over-generalizations if I'm not using a list. Hard to really think of a way to put them in regular paragraphs - maybe we should get the provinces map used on wikipedia?--Teslashark (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh my ass a fresh China just appeared[edit] --Teslashark (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ban on time travel[edit]

There is no such thing as a ban on using time travel as a plot device. The so-called "ban" only affects soap opera of the "Chuanyue" genre. Which is a specific genre in China, about a character (usually young man or woman) from modern times travelling back to ancient times and changing history. The government's reasoning is that it teaches young people wrong facts about the history. Also, it wasn't even an actual ban, it was just regulations on the number of them. And no, it does not affect western media with time travel, at all. Looper is actually quite popular in China. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 11:45, 09 April 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Taiwan[edit]

"is a term used to refer to two countries" I don't know of anyone referring to Taiwan as China. Does this frequently happen? —Kazitor, pending 13:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


Why no words for immigration? For Baizuo immigration is number one important. But only in Baizuo country. — Unsigned, by: Wang / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Baizuo only care for social face. Not happiness of people. China not want African people. Fail country. Remove from Guangdong. China has much pity Baizuo West fool idea. Wang (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a language barrier here, but what exactly are you talking about? Post links. — Dysk (contribs) 15:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Wang / talk / contribs
Most Chinese people learn English better than this(it's a mandatory class in every grade), especially written English. This is almost certainly a white racist troll playing at being Chinese. I guess they could be middle aged from before that policy existed, but go grab a shaker of salt to take this whole spiel with. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Baizuo only worry white racist. China racist no worry. Laugh at Baizuo. Wang (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed So you spotted it too eh? I suspected the same for similar reasons, also the name "Wang"? Really? But I didn't want to tip my hand. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
And they just sealed it. If they failed to grasp English grammar enough to get using "to be" to formulate adjective phrases, because that's unnecessary in Chinese, it's totally alien to use a preposition to formulate a dative case. "Laugh at" is not something anyone not well versed in English would come up with. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Baizuo always talk smart guy. Make no sense. Not listen not answer. Just make clever face in crowd. Wang (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't speak Chinglish. Speak American ya damn foreigner!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


Anyone else here from mainland china? 刺杀习近平 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's @Police, but they're currently residing in Australia. Oxyaena Harass 06:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed recent edits from new user[edit]

Removed recent edits due to being blatant PRC apologism and using poor sources. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)