text:
Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 5

For earlier material see Talk:China/old, Talk: China (Archive 1) and Talk: China (Archive 2)

Hi again! Thought it looked like an opportune moment to reiterate the suggestion I made yesterday .. let's just drop the attempt at a one or two-word classification in the introductory setence, create a section or wiki on Chinese government, and state the facts there. Ie: How China views itself (constitution), how others view China (various public classifications), relevant events (recent congress and introduction of capitalists in to the party), etc. It'd be quicker to do that than keep arguing. -- prat --- Is the introductory paragraph really in need of the sentence "The United Nations, however, recognizes the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China and Taiwan as province of China"? The significance of this fact is debatable, particularly within the context of a subject clarification... IMHO it's not really NPOV, because we don't state that some states recognise Taiwan. All in all, I don't think it's relevant enough to stay there. Opinions? -- prat

--

The problem that I have with either the terms Communist or socialist in the header less POV then the fact that they are misleading. They cause the average reader to assume things about the Chinese government that are not the case. Jtdrl presents a good definition of what a Communist government is, and I object to including the term in the definition because it implies that the Chinese government works in a way that it does not.

The Party and State are two distinct entities that interact in very complex and sometimes bizzarre ways. For example, I know of people who explicitly do not join the Communist Party because it hurts their chances for advancement in the government. By convention all governmental committees and groups have at least one non-party member, and if you join the party you are competing with other party members for the other seats, while if you don't join the party, you are more likely to get the non-party seat where the competition is less.

It is true that at the top level, the party and state share leadership, but it is also true that this is not always the cause (it wasn't in the 1980's). Also at lower levels, you frequently have the situation where the Party General Secretary for an area is at odds with the Governor or local administrator. In a classic Communist state, this would not be an issue since the Party General Secretary would order the Governor to do something. Precisely because China is *not* a classic Communist state is it that you get this sort of conflict. You've also had situations (Zhejiang in the late 1990's) in which the People's Congress overruled the Party's recommendation for governor which doesn't make the general secretary happy which leads to the Party and State hating each other. My sense is that the Central government likes this situation because with the General Secretary and Governor hating each other, Beijing has to resolve the conflict.

I've tried to capture the complexity of the relationship in the article politics of China.

Now as far as Constitutional theory. Under Chinese Constitutional theory, the Chinese Communist Party is an organization and as such it is subordinate to the state. This was written into the 1982 Constitution, but the doctrine of state supremacy over the party wasn't fully accepted until the early 1990's (ironically as an unintended consequence of Tiananmen). The doctrine that the state is superior to the party and the party is subject to the law is something that no Chinese legal scholar or politician questions today, and again this is different from the classic Communist state. Also as a result of economic changes that were formalized with Constitutional amendments in the late-1990's, the economic role of the party was sharply reduced.

Again there are self-interested reasons for this theory. The central government can effectively control the membership of the People's Congresses and as such, if they don't like the law, they can change it. By contrast local party officials can't change the law, so this emphasis on state supremacy actually increases the Beijing's power.

The Chinese system of government is not a liberal democracy and it is a one-party authoritarian state, but it is different enough from the classic Communist state (say USSR-1960) that it would be highly misleading to label it a Communist state without qualification.

One other reason that I hesitate using Communist to describe China. In the classic Communist state the important orders went down the party chain of command. In China, the important orders go down the state chain of command.

Now about socialist. The problem I have with the term socialist is that in a Chinese context it *means* something completely different than in a Western context. In a Chinese context it means a Marxist stage and says *NOTHING* about the relationship between the government and the economy. Using the Chinese definition, the governments of all developed Western nations would be socialist.

-- Roadrunner

I understand your point. And yes Communist State does not do justice to the full complexities of the PROC. But the trouble is, every other potential standard definition is much more inaccurate. It isn't a constitutional monarchy, a popular monarchy, an absolute monarchy. Calling it a republic is a gross simplification. Authoritarian falls on three points. It doesn't have a clear universal meaning, there are two many types of authoritarian states, and it is a heavily loaded judgmental POV term. I may well agree that the state operates as an authoritian regime, but it is a term that is seen as having to many judgmental implications to be workable. Socialist, as you rightly said in the context of China means nothing and has a different western meaning. The reason why Communist State is widely used (contrary to the rather dubious claim someone made above) is that among definitions of what category a state belongs to, it is by far the closest fit. In terms of fitting the criteria, it is in the region 80-90%. Leaving aside authoritarian because of POV and ambiguity problems, all the other alternatives come in the region of 0-30% accuracy.

Regarding Mav's 'loaded' and 'ambiguous' claim: almost every term on wiki is loaded and ambiguous; saying Catholic rather than Roman Catholic or vice versa has loaded and/or ambiguous meanings, Britain versus the United Kingdom, America versus US. We use words like terrorist, appeasement etc and they are 100% loaded and ambiguous. You could fill an entire page with a list of just about every term on wiki that has such terms. If Communist State (written like that) is good enough for other encyclopædias, source book, text books, briefing notes, docu-sheets from embassies, diplomatic reference books, etc etc etc why is it unacceptable to wiki? Is wiki in a class of its own? Or is it the word 'communist' has particular resonances in the US, as it has had back since McCarthy and beyond? If that is the case, then American concerns aren't good enough when the rest of the world is OK with the term 'Communist State' and use it. It remains the definitionary term for a system of state that is comes by far the closest to describing what the PROC is. Maybe what we could do is create a linked page explaining in strict constitutional/governmental terms what the term means, so all those who might read into it a POV or a loaded meaning can read exactly what the term means and so know what it does and perhaps more importantly does not imply, hint, suggest or promote. BTW thanks Roadrunner for what you had to say. It was thought-provoking, useful and analytical. Too much of the debate (but not by everyone I hasten to add) here has been superficial and drifted off on pointless tangents. Please guys, lets stick to the point here. Or maybe we should just say 'China is. . . em. . . China. Make your own mind up what you think it is!!!' ÉÍREman 01:23 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

'''BTW could someone else do the archiving this time? I am stuck doing something else and it is already at 31K again (the last time I archived the page it was 43K. This page needs archiving almost as often as Mav's! *grin*. Mav, as an expert in archiving, maybe you could do it this time! BTW no 3: great to see you back, Mav me man! Hope you and your partner had a good break.'''ÉÍREman 01:23 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)~

BLOODY HELL. IT IS NOW at 34K annd rising.

Why not simply state that it is a nation and discuss what sort of nation elsewhere? Shino Baku

To paraphrase Humphrey Bogart, Of all the terms in all the world, you had to pick that one.

 * Have you any idea how many rows there are over the word 'nation', what it means, who is one and who isn't? It probably is the worst possible choice.

 * And what do you do everywhere else? Ireland is a nation? France is a nation? The US is a nation? The whole point is to use an accurate definition that says what a state is. Nation tells you nothing. You might as well say China is a big place, China has borders, China has people in it with arms and legs. China has cars and houses and trees and things. We aren't looking for words to fill up space, we are looking for a useful, relevant, comprehendable definition. Nation is useless as a definition. For a start, is Tibet part of the Chinese nation or a separate nation? ÉÍREman 03:29 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Are you trying to say that you don't think China is a nation? Shino Baku

If Communist State'' (written like that) is good enough for other encyclopædias, source book, text books, briefing notes, docu-sheets from embassies, diplomatic reference books, etc etc etc why is it unacceptable to wiki? Is wiki in a class of its own?"

Yes, Wikipedia is in a class of its own. A false characterization of the nature of the regime can be removed by anyone who knows it is false. That said, perhaps an article on the nature of the regime is warrnented (in addition to politics of China Fred Bauder 12:29 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * So in other words, all sourcebooks, encyclopædias, docu-sheets, briefing notes, UN documents, CIA reports, Council of Europe records, etc etc are all FALSE??? That is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever come across on wiki. 'We know better than the world'.

Re Shino's attempt to stir up the nation nonsense, using that term is the equivalent of throwing petrol on a fire. Do you have any idea of the conflicting views on whether China is one nation or many nations? That is one topic to be avoided like the plague. ÉÍREman 18:50 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article and replaced the controversial language with "nation" and moved the characterization of the regime to the Politics section. Also 2 new sections Public Health and International Relations which is where the info on the United Nations is. Restore info on SARS and on the democracy movement. Expect reverts without comment if you try to keep the hell agoing. Fred Bauder 13:28 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Fred, JTDIRL is right -- "nation" is a much stickier/mushier term than "state" or :society" or any way of characterizing states or societies; I think the article ought to avoid the term, unless the article goes into current debates over Shinese "nationality" and "nationalism" (certainly important in the early 20th century history of China!) Slrubenstein

Well, no need for the particular term "nation", just don't set up the revert dynamic again. Fred Bauder 16:50 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Fred, I completely agree with you about the revert war. I am frankly feeling pretty frustrated.  Wikipedia ought to reflect bodies of knowledge in an NPOV way.  We could just describe China as a "state," but if we are going to label it we ought to follow the convention, or, if there is a debate, recognize the debate over the convention.  I checked the makjore academic journals -- Modern China, Modern CHina Quarterly -- as well as some books, and the trend is for political scientists and others to label China a "socialist" state (although one political scientist colleague of mine said many refer to it, half-jokingly, as "market-leninist."  One standard recent work is Chinese village, Socialist State, by Edward Friedman (a political scientist at Wisconisn), Paul G. Pickowicz (an historian at UC San Diego), and Mark Selden (a sociologist at Cornell University and Binghanton University); the book is published by Yale University Press in 1991 -- these are three top scholars in China studies from major universities publishing in a major university press and they classify China as a "socialist state."

 * The thing that bothers me most about JTDIRL and 172 is that they keepo making blanket claims that are patently false (like, NO political scientist calls China a socialist state), and when I cite real evidence -- e.g. the journal Modern China, they just ignore the evidence.

 * I am not a China scholar. But I talked to colleagues -- in sociology, anthropology, and political science -- and they all tell me that most scholars reject identifying China as a "communist state" and most either don't try to identify it at all, or label it "communist ruled" because the communist party is the dominant party, or a "socialist state."  I have also checked the recent scholarly literature and have given you some examples, above.  JTDIRL and 172, however, argue from a position of authority.  They took some courses in European history, so they are authorities on all history.  They insist that all political scientists identify China as a socialist state, and give no proof.  I offer evidence that at least some do not, and they ignore that evidence.  It really is tiresome. Slrubenstein

THEY DO NOT, Sirubstein, because 'socialist state' has utterly ambiguous meanings, being understood differently in Europe, in Africa and in the Americas. Socialist state has no one meaning and so is NOT, repeat NOT, used in encyclpoædias because of its fundamentally conflicting means. I checked with the
 * Chinese embassy in Dublin - Communist state is OK, other alternatives NOT.
 * My Professor of Politics (who teaches a course on Chinese government and politics: Socialist state is NOT a universally recognised term but it is used in region-specific books because within a region, a particular meaning would be understood. However most political scientists frown on the term because of its ambiguity and DO NOT USE IT, in fact edit it out of texts. The correct term is Communist state.
 * The encyclopædia I work for as a copywriter and consultant: 'We do not use any term but 'Communist state'. Socialist state is always removed because it has four regional meanings, depending on from what political regional culture the reader is from'. The ALWAYS remove it, if the term is used by a commissioned writer. China they too define as a communist state, nothing else.

I have made two changes to the opening paragraphs.
 * It is important to explain the difference between the PROC and the ROC. I have included the explanation that the UN, US, EC and most states recognise the former as the legitimate govt of China. A minority recognise the ROC. That is 100% factually accurate and is a crucial bit of information that a reader needs to know in terms of understanding why wiki and China has two states using the words 'republic of China. Indeed that phrase is usually featured up front in most articles on either the PROC or the ROC in encyclopædias, sourcebooks, etc. It doesn't express a POV, merely states the current nature of who recognises what.

 * I have removed 'nation' (which as Sirubstein has mentioned is both much stickier and much mushier than almost any other alternative description available) and reinserted Communist state, WITH A LINK which 172 and whomever else wants to call fill in to describe what the term means. Every article on every state in wiki and elsewhere categorises a state. It is an automatic requirement. No other category comes remotely as close as Communist state to describing what the PROC is, though I agree it is not 100% accurate (but still ten times closer than any alternative). Allowing a link page should close off any confusion as a clear short definition can be given allowing the reader to know what the term means, and perhaps more importantly does not mean. We already as definitions of Constitutional Monarchy, Popular Monarchy, Republic, Federal Republic etc so that people can know what the term means. Doing this is the obvious clearcut solution that avoids unintentional meanings. If people do not know what the term means, all they have to do is hit the link to have it explained. ÉÍREman 19:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree that a link to someplace else is a nice idea for disambiguation, though I'd be leaning to a link to say China/System_of_Government or something specific to China. It's not entirely solving the problem of misrepresentation though, as you're still using a highly approximate one or two word phrase to describe a unique system. -- prat

Slr is bringing some pretty solid sources for his argument, including some of the leading scholars of China today. As for "false use of undefined inaccurate terms that are frowned on as POV and ambiguous by political scientists", how do these anonymous political scientists respond to any of sources that Slr has brought? Danny

 * Thanks Danny. For what it is worth, I am glad that JTDIRL is finally doing some minimal research, which one would think is a sine qua non in working on an encyclopedia.  And I do take his poli-sci professor's comment seriously (maybe a professor who does research on China should be working on this article, rather than JTDIRL or me!).  Nevertheless, I think you are right, Danny -- one professor's claims should not have the same weight as articles published in peer-reviewed journals.  Moreover, I wholeheartedly reject JTDIRL's use of another encyclopedia's practice, as reasons for our practices.  As Fred pointed out, Wikipedia is not a typical encyclopedia.  Look, if people want to know how a conventional encyclopedia looks at things, I think they should just go to Encyclopedia Brittanica.  By conventional standards won't that encyclopedia always be better, more authoritative, than Wikipedia?  Nevertheless, I think Wikipedia holds the promise of being better than EB.  Why?  Because we all know about the ways that encyclopedia conventions, as well as marketing needs, limit and bias conventional encyclopedias.  In short, JTFIRL's boos at his encyclopedia in Ireland is not and ought not to be our boss. Slrubenstein

Firstly, Sirub, I do research all the time for a living!!! And I have researched this topic and talked to plenty of people about it. I am thoroughly fed up spending time when I should be doing my own research having to race around chasing academics to double check wacky wiki ideas, to be greated with the usual academic reaction of "for fuck sake. Wikipedia says WHAT???" followed by a groan and and a statement that, yes, it is absolute bollocks, yes you were right to check it out, yes you are correct, etc. Secondly, I would love wiki to be better than many encyclopædias who do make monumental errors on occasion. But we do need to follow elementary encyclopædic standards on definitions, accuracy, etc. I am fed up cleaning up absolute garbage on wiki; rubbish like the 'article' on John Redmond that in its first draft had all the intellectual depth of a four year old's doodle. (Go look at the first draft on the system and cringe.) And I want this article to be factual, accurate and reliable, not something that professional knowledge searchers would take a look at, cringe and conclude that wiki is a third rate joke of an encyclopædia. There are some absolutely first class articles in wiki, and Sirub has been a considerable contributor to some of the them. But there is also fifth rate bullshit and a lot in between. I am doing my damnest to weed out the crap and make each article I contribute to the best I can.

re the article - I have put a basic stub on the definition of Communist state. Please contribute to it if you know more about the topic. ÉÍREman 19:59 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * JTDIRL, Although I admit that my feelings of frustration and anger were provoked as much by 172 as by you, I cannot apologize for my remarks, although I had no doubt that you resent them. But let us be clear – I was not suggesting that you have no commitment to research or Wikipedia in general.  I was criticizing your continuous inability to engage in a respectful and meaningful dialogue with other Wikipedians – a good many of whom are at least as dedicated to Wikipedia, and research, as you.  Believe it or not, I and others also do research, and it is personally insulting and professionally unconstructive when someone (in this case you) is utterly dismissive of other people’s work.  When this whole exchange began, you wrote:

 * A socialist state is meaningless and not used by political scientists as a definition of the state. It may define the politics of the state, but that is a different thing entirely.

 * And I explained that there are political scientists who do call China a socialist state; I also cited a journal. At one point, you responded with this – and if you want to, please explain to me in what universe you could possibly believe someone such as myself would not “resent” the tone and content of this patronizing and dismissive remark:

 * It is like groundhog day here. The facts regarding definitions are explained. Then people misunderstand or misrepresent them, go off on irrelevant tangents, so the facts are explained again, people come back, misunderstand them, misrepresent them, go off on tangents so the facts are explained again, people come back misrepresent them . . . . oh God, will someone please wake me up from this nightmare!!!''  ÉÉÍÍREman 23:21 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (Monty Python should make a film of this page. It is surreal enough!)

 * Let’s be very clear: I did not accuse you of “never” doing research – as you know from the past I have (and continue to have) a high regard for your knowledge of Irish history and politics.  I did, however, accuse you for not doing research on Chinese politics, and I certainly will go so far as to qualify that now by saying that you did not seem willing to demonstrate to me or others that you had done any research, or share that research with the community.  You simply made a bald assertion and refused to consider any alternative.  You made a claim that no one identifies China as a socialist state, and gave no evidence.  I did give evidence of people who identify China as a socialist state, and you ignored my evidence only to reassert the bald claim.  I resent that.

 * I have checked some books published by university presses, and refereed journals, and have given examples of scholars using the term “socialist state.” I have talked with tenured professors of sociology, anthropology, and political scientists, and have been told the following: virtually all anthropologists and sociologists classify China as a socialist state.  In the past most political scientists classified it as a communist state, but most are abandoning that position.  Some categorize China as an authoritarian state (contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians); some categorize it as a post-socialist state, although my own friends who are China scholars reject that; they prefer “late-socialist state”.

 * Let me continue to be clear -- I am not motivated by marxist ideology nor interested in marxist ideology, market reforms, or anything else. My only question is, how doe Western scholars describe the Chinese state -- I have done some research, and found than many if not most describe it as "socialist."  How they go about classifying states, or what thye mean by socialist, is -- in this particular matter -- not of interest to me.  All I want to know is how they classify China.

 * So you see, I do research too. But given your pompous and disrespectful attitude towards your colleagues, I am sure you will ignore this and simply respond by asserting once again, “No one calls China a socialist state” and accuse me of going off on tangents and misrepresenting or misunderstanding you.  Believe it or not, at this point I can live with that. Slrubenstein

-

Slrubenstein: These academics are not describing the simple government-type. Terms like "monarchy", "federal republic", "republic", "constitutional monarchy", "military rule", "Islamic Republic", "confederation" and "Communist state" denote governemnt types, despite variation from state to state. The structures in theory and practice of the North Korean, Chinese, Cuba, Vietnamese, and Laotian governments vary, but so do constiutional monarchies like Denmark and Kuiwait.

This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the market reforms, Marxist theory, and the government's dedication to Marxist-Leninist principles. These academics whom you've cited have their own interpretations concerning economic reform in China and modernization that they are advancing with terms like "late socialist" or "post-socialist", which are sociological in the context that you'd mentioned them.

It doesn't matter if every single China expert in the world concluded that China is the most capitalistic nation on earth, China would still be a Communist state (in reference to the government-type) so long as Marxism-Leninism is the state philosophy and the structures of the Communist Party-led state don't significantly change.

172

172, I appreciate your comment (and the tone), but I still do not agree with you. You are correct to be sure that different academics have their own interpretations of what is going on in China. My point to you is a complementary point -- different academics have different ways of classifying states. I simply reject the assertion that any state that is dominated by a communist party or whose structure or functioning is informed by people with an ideology they call marxist leninist is necessarily a "communist state." You seem to think of this definition of a communist state as objective and universal. I believe it is not; I believe that all analytical concepts (including such definitions) are formed in specific historical contexts, and often contested. I think that is the case here. Specifically, I believe that those scholars who used the term "communist state" were politically partisan, or working within politically partisan institutions. Moreover, I reject the assertion that the term "communist state" is somehow more meaningful than "socialist state."

I will also repeart something I stated above. I am not at all interested in ideology (you are, as your definition of "communist state" hinges on ideology, specifically marxist-leninist), nor am I interested in market reforms or anything going on in China today. My only question is in how scholars identify the CHinese "state." My method is to look at books published by university presses, and to look at articles published in peer-reviewed journals. My conclusion is, "socialist state." Slrubenstein

--- Tiananmen Square was removed and reverted by Fred Bauer (a user whose POV has diluted him into thinking that China isn’t a republic; it’s on one of these talk pages), who has been periodically coming back to this site to make POV insertions. Tiananmen Square was a critical watershed in the history of Chinese politics, and requires a great deal of attention in the history of the PRC article and the article on Chinese politics. But in an introductory paragraph it should be scrapped (it occurred almost 14 years ago) in favor of more recent developments, like labor unrest, the WTO, or the recent party congress and the new generation of leadership.

The democracy movement had also been featured too prominently as well. It's not a threat to the PRC domestically, but internationally, especially to Sino-US relations and legislation like the PNTR. The article made it sound as if there were a burgeoning opposition within China.

Also, let's not get into epistemology here. We don't need to philosophize on the difficulties of commenting on contemporary Chinese politics. These a lot of concrete information that we could present instead that would be relevant to an introductory paragraph.

Let's present facts rather than stating the difficulties of commentary.

172

title: Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 5


text:
Talk:Numberology

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. There's already a huge article about this subject over at Numerology. Take a look at it and see if you can add some of your knowledge there. Thank you for your contribution. Preisler 02:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Numberology


text:
Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 6

For earlier material see Talk:China/old, Talk: China (Archive 1) and Talk: China (Archive 2) Talk: China (Archive 3)

- Who moved People's Republic of China to China ani why ? That's very inapropriate. Taw 21:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I forget his name, he was a sysop, since retired. My impression was that the purpose was to establish that there was one China and that the People's Republic was it. There was an extended debate, and this organization of the articles on China was established. I would rather we went back to the old origanization which permitted both an extensive article on the People's Republic and on China (with substantial sections on history, culture and geography and other areas independent of matters relevant to the current political regime). Fred Bauder 13:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC) -- I'll settle on Communist Party-led state to stifle this excruciatingly dull debate, but never on classifying China as a government-type which does not exist.

If the China article remains calling China a "socialist state", I’m going to insist that the Sweden article refer to a government-type known as the "socialist monarchy."

172

Im somewhat bothered by the Jtdirls response to my suggestion that we refer to China merely as a nation, without defining what sort of nation (socialist, republican, communist, totalitarian, democratic) China is. I think it is inappropriate to respond in the manner which he did. That said, I am still wondering why we do not just refer to China as a nation. Does China claim to not be a nation? Obviously there is dispute over whether China is communist, and thus we cannot authoritatively say whether China is truly communist, or not. Shino Baku

 * Shino, the issue of nations is much more complicated than you realise. Some states are nations (ie, nation states). A state is not always a nation. A nation (eg, the Kurds) does not always have a state. Some states are made up of many nations (eg the United Kingdom, involving the English nation, Scottish nation, Welsh nation, Irish nationalists, unionists, some see Cornwall as a nation). A lot of states are a nighthmare to categorise because people differ over whether the state is one or many nations; eg Spain. Are the Basques a nation or part of the Spanish nation? In Italy, some say Sardinia and Sicily are nations, others think that claim nonsense. In France, some think Brittany and Corsica as well as other regions are nations. Others say there is only one French nation. And there are three linguistic groups in Belgium, two of whom at least think of themselves as nations within a state, with some desiring to become a nation-state (ie, break away from Belgium altogether and become a new state. Similarly, Canada has two nations. China is a state but there are differing arguments as to whether China is one nation or a state made up of a couple of nations. So 'nation' is a proverbial hornet's nest that could provoke the mother of all edit wars.

 * In addition, the definition we are arguing about is in terms of how to categorise a state and its system of government. Nation is never used as part of a category. We don't say the Netherlands is a nation, we say it is a constitutional monarchy. We don't say the United States is a nation, we say it is a federal republic, etc. It is into which of those types of categories China belongs that we are arguing about. Communist state is one such category in that encyclopædic list. Nation isn't. It is a category, but on a different type of list that does not deal with systems of governments And again, we are not arguing whether China is truly communist; that is a debate about political culture. We are dealing with governmental system. Communist state does not mean 100% communist, it means a specific system of government centred on a one party state (or one in which one party is overwhelmingly dominant) in which a party which proclaims itself communist produces a governmental system in which the state and the party are embedded in each other. ÉÍREman 00:29 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Yet again Sirub, you continue to misunderstand the point I and 172 have been making over and over and over and over again. We are talking about a formal encyclopædic definition, not an analysis of the nature of the political system. There is no such thing as a FEC called 'socialist state'. China's political system may be classed by some as a socialist state, but that is a generalised assessment of the nature of Chinese politics. But we are talking are talking simply about the formal category, repeat formal category, nothing more. 'Socialist' is an alward title because it means something different to US-based political scientists (who view it as far left), to northern Europeans (who view it as a form of social democracy), to southern Europeans (whose understanding of the term differs in Spain, Portugal and Italy), to Eastern Europe (where it is seen as everything from social democrat to moderate communist) to different parts of Africa (where it veers between hard left to middle of the road). Some see Tony Blair as a socialist, others call him a social democrat and call Tony Benn a socialist. Some called Francois Mitterand a socialist, others a number of different terms. Some think Gorbachev a socialist, others don't. So 'socialist state' means almost anything or nothing depending on whether the wiki reader comes from a British political culture background, a US political culture background, a French political culture background, a South African political culture background, an Australian political culture background, an Eastern European political culture background, an Asian political culture background etc. THAT is why no such universal term exists and why as a formal encyclopædic definition it is not used.

In addition it tells us nothing about the system of government, which is what a formal encyclopædic definition is supposed to do. Communist state does. It tells us that it is a left wing one party system in which the state and the party are embedded in each other, in which power resides not in the state institutions (the norm in liberal democracies) but in the party, with party officials who in reality may not hold state office holding power in a manner that would be restricted to a state office holder in a liberal democracy. 'That is what is meant by communist state; nothing more, nothing less, and 'socialist state' doesn't clarify whether it is a one-party or multiparty system let alone the relationship between party and state institutions. There is a narrow range of formal encyclopædic definitions for states; from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy/popular monarchy, federation, confederation, federal republic, etc. Communist state features on that list as a formal type of state. Socialist state does not.

By all means debate the nature of the political system and how communistic or socialistic or any other -istic Chinese politics is. But that is not what we are discussing. We are talking simply about a formal encyclopædic definition (also called a formal governmental categorisation, slotting in the description of the constitutional system into a known category. It is pain having to constantly repeat this. Everytime it is repeated you come back, completely miss the point and start arguing about classifications of the politics of China. Then it is repeated again that we are discussing the formal encycloædic definition or classification, and you come back, go off on another tangent again about classifications of the politics of China. Please please please understand the issue being discussed and stop going off into debates to do with an analysis of the system of politics when all we are discussing is the system of government. ÉÍREman 00:04 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

It has been noted that communism is a connotated word with a degree of POV and controversy surrounding it, and that there are academic disputes as to whether or not China is communist. Shino Baku

That is a fair poing of debate and certainly belongs in the article when discussing the political system. But until it changes to another recognisable definition, it still fits the Communist state definition for governmental system closest. None of the other come remotely close, as I have described. Note I am not using the word communist but communist state which is a different thing and refers to the system of governing, not the politics of governing. ÉÍREman 00:57 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed all the arguments made here, but here's a quick suggestion. Brush it aside if it isn't applicable or if there are reasons why it isn't feasible. Why not just cite who calls China what? IF the CIA Fact Book calls it communist, say "The CIA fact book calls it communist". If the Chinese constitution calls it socialist, say "The Chinese constitution calls it socialist". That eliminates the burden of trying to find out what government CHina really is, which apparently seems to be debated outside of the Wikipedia as well. We can mention whatever POVs there are on the subject, instead of asserting a single one. --cprompt

An interesting suggestion. There some problems. You mentioned the word socialist, which the PROC constitution uses. But that is interpreted differently worldwide. So that would require a definition, ie is it socialist in the British sense, the Swedish sense, the US sense, the Italian sense, the European Parliament sense? Which definition closely matches the meaning in China and do we deal with readers whose political culture gives them a different meaning. "but not in the sense you are thinking if you are American/British/French/Spanish . . . " :-) Problem 2: I have long been uneasy about using the CIA fact book. Not simply because it has some monstrous errors but also because it adds to the image of wiki americocentrism. Problem 3, (which relates to 1) many states have unique ways of describing themselves (or not describing themselves) which are unique to their culture. That is why sourcebooks stick to a rather rigid sense of definitions which are generally internationally understood, from constitutional monarchy to federal republic to Communist state (and others). Each has a set meaning which means local nuances don't cause confusion. That is why we have the problem: 172 and I want to stick to the formal categories and go by the one generally used and which closest describes the Chinese governmental system, Sirub wants to use a category used colloqually in political science but not in state definitions and one which has multiple meanings and nuances depending on the political culture of the reader. But it is an interesting suggestion, CP ÉÍREman 01:48 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

"Communist," even in the context "communist state," is also debated and not NPOV by any means. I do not know what you mean by "formal encyclopedic definition," I doubt that there is some handbook of "formal encyclopedic definitions" that is universally accepted and considered NPOV; in fact, I suspect that "formal encyclopedic definition" = "JTDIRL's will." You misrepresent me when you say I want to use a definition that is used "used colloqually in political science" (although I thiank you for finally recognizing that political scientists do indeed use the term). If you took the time to read my comments, you would see that I cite a book published by a university press and edited by threee eminent scholars; it is NOT a colloquial but a formal usage. I think Cprompt's suggestions is a good one, eminently sensible, and I suppor it. Slrubenstein

You aren't understanding, Jtdirl, that I am not talking about political system but about governmental system. I am challenging the accuracy of referring to the Chinese governmental system as being a "communist state". The term "communist state" is POV and, at least from my POV, the term is actually "informal." I agree with cprompt and suggest something akin to:

 * China is a nation (or government), in east Asia, which (via it's constitution) proclaims itself to be a "socialist state"; however, some Western political scientists refer to China as a "communist state".

Shino Baku

The term "communist" has more meanings than a dog has fleas. If we are going to use it at all (as sometimes we must, alas), then we have to carefully pin down the particular meaning that we intend by it in this particular case. Tannin 02:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Nation is unworkable, unusable and not used for ANY state on wiki, on World Book, on E. Brittanica or any other encyxlopædia. And regarding Tannin's reasonable query, that is why there is a link to explain what the term Communist state means. Or there would be if one or two people would stop trying to hide the fact. It is now restored yet again.

Am I reading correctly? nation (or government) Do you know what nation and government are? THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!! What next? A dog is a horse with three wheels? ÉÍREman 03:11 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't believe it is necessary to act in such a disparaging fashion. Although under certain definitions, governments and nations refer to difference concepts, under certain definitions they refer to the same concept. I personally do not care if you refer to China as a nation-state, nation, state, government, country, political body, or what; I do care if you refer to it as being absolutely, and without question, communist. And I don't think dogs are altogether different from horses. Shino Baku

 * As the article on Communist state manifests, the term itself is an artefact of the Cold War and hardly NPOV. It is an accurate statement that some political scientists use the term, and many have used the term in the past.  What is needed -- for NPOV -- is a consideration of the way political science in Western (well, let's be blunt: NATO) states has informed (or biased) their scholarship.  To be fair to political scientists, many have come to terms with this, which is why many no longer identify China as a "communist state."

 * By the way, I do agree with JTDIRL that we must keep the distinction between nation and state clear. Since China's 1911 revolution was a nationalist revolution, and Mao claimed to be an heir to the nationalists (and Schurmann refers to China as a nation-state), of course, the article ought to discuss China as a nation.  Still, this is different from "state." Slrubenstein

I agree with Sirub on nation and state. However Communist state is not a western/NATO-invented term. It is used by among others, all neutral and non-aligned states. And China's governing party does call itself the communist party. During the cold war, the POV terms used were communist dictatorship, left wing dictatorship, communist regime run by communists, authoritarian regime, communist authoritarianism. All of these are blatently POV and utterly unacceptable. The term communist state is used widely as seen by non-aligned countries, by left wing political scientists, by right wing political scientists, etc. It is given one very narrow definitionary meaning, a system of government in which the state and party's structures become utterly entwined, with power resting not on the basis of constitutional theory in state offices but in practice among party leaders who may or may not hold executive office in state positions. Where the party is left wing and defines itself as a communist party, that system is known as a communist state. Whether the party is or is not communist, whether it is socialist or anything else is a matter for debate about the politics of the state. The issue we are discussing is simply is simply the definition given to the governmental system. We define every other state on wiki's governmental system, accepting standard political science governmental definitions. What is the problem here?

And no, Shino, state, nation, government, country and political body are not the same and if you think that they are, consult a political science dictionary and learn the differences. ÉÍREman 04:05 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

It all depends on your POV Jtdirl...Shino Baku

Oh go and read a dictionary, Shino. Only people who don't know elementary political science think that. ÉÍREman

 * The problem, as I have said repeatedly over the past few days, is that I contest your claim that this is a standard political science definition that is applied to PRC, and I have given evidence to support my claim.

 * On a note that is related but which I would like to treat as completely separate, only to facilitate real communication, my question about this definition of "communist state stands:
 * a system of government in which the state and party's structures become utterly entwined, with power resting not on the basis of constitutional theory in state offices but in practice among party leaders who may or may not hold executive office in state positions.
 * applies to Mexico under PRI too. As far as this definition goes, the only reason Mexico would not be called a "communist state" is because the party in question was not a communist party.  This seems like a superficial distinction -- it is not structural, it is based on a contingent difference.  types of states should not be defined based on the party in power (if this were the case we'd call the US a "Democrat/Republican state), but on the structure in which the occupant of a particular position (whether a person or a party) is interchangable.  This leads me to conclude that EITHER
 * 1) there is no such thing as a "communist state" as such, but there is an "authoritarian state" dominated by a "fill in the blank, in this case communist) party, OR
 * 2) as a definition of "communist state" this definition is inadequate. For it to be a structural definition, it must define the structure without appealing to contingent factors.  Can you define a communist state in some terms that does not appeal to ideology or to the name of the party in power, but solely to the structural features -- but in a way that would still clearly distinguish it from other one-party states? Slrubenstein

types of states should not be defined based on the party in power Shino Baku
 * exactly! Slrubenstein

 * sigh* They are if there is a one party system based on ideology that 'takes over' and in effect sees itself, the state and the government as one and the same. ÉÍREman 05:11 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

--- Tiananmen Square was removed and reverted by Fred Bauer (a user whose POV has diluted him into thinking that China isn’t a republic; it’s on one of these talk pages), who has been periodically coming back to this site to make POV insertions. Tiananmen Square was a critical watershed in the history of Chinese politics, and requires a great deal of attention in the history of the PRC article and the article on Chinese politics. But in an introductory paragraph it should be scrapped (it occurred almost 14 years ago) in favor of more recent developments, like labor unrest, the WTO, or the recent party congress and the new generation of leadership. The democracy movement had also been featured too prominently as well. It's not a threat to the PRC domestically, but internationally, especially to Sino-US relations and legislation like the PNTR. The article made it sound as if there were a burgeoning opposition within China.

Also, let's not get into epistemology here. We don't need to philosophize on the difficulties of commenting on contemporary Chinese politics. These a lot of concrete information that we could present instead that would be relevant to an introductory paragraph.

Let's present facts rather than stating the difficulties of commentary.

172

Is 172 agreeing that China is a republic? Shino Baku

The entire world agrees that China is a republic. ÉÍREman 07:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

If the entire world agrees that China is a republic, then would you object to

China is a republic in east Asia; which some argue to be a communist state and others argue to be a socialist state? Shino Baku

Note: issue raised on mailing list. If I may try to summarise things: the key disagreement seems to be between the views that:
 * China is 100% definately a Communist state, for any reasonable definition of "Communist state"
 * China is not universally agreed to be a Communist state, has unique elements, and to describe it as Communist is misleading.

So, let's try to find consensus - an introductory statement that everyone can agree is fair and accurate. Could any of the following sentences work? Or some combination of them?

 * China is a non-standard Communist state
 * China is a Communist-style state
 * China is a Communistic state
 * China is a one-party socialist republic
 * China is governed by the unelected Chinese Communist Party
 * China is a country
 * (Shino Baku's suggestion above)

Note that introductions are inherently summaries of ideas and thus it is natural and to be expected that they are somewhat misleading. It is my personal opinion that neutral point of view should be sparingly applied to such summaries. They should attempt to be as neutral as possible, but no more neutral. Martin

 * China is a socialist republic governed by the Chinese Communist Party -- JeLuF 10:15 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * This one has my vote. Socialist or communist republic.  Whatever.  At least it's real grammar and was contributed by a 'neutral 3rd party'. ;) -- prat

 * Except that, as historians and political scientists here keep having to repeat and repeat and repeat, there is no such thing in dictionary definition terms as a 'socialist republic' because socialism as a word has a large number of conflicting meanings around the world. How many more times does this have to be pointed out??? Do you mean 'socialist' as understood by French users of wiki, by British users of wiki, by American users of wiki, South African users of wiki, Australian users of wiki, east european users of wiki, Scandanavian users of wiki, ? Please tell us which definition of socialist you intend to use, because Sirub has failed completely to state which definition he means and seems not to understand that there is no one definition, with it meaning everything from extreme left to moderate middle of the road, communist to social democrat and even some nationalists following neo-Thatcherite policies have called themselves socialist!!! Socialist is an unworkable, grossly ambiguous term which is why it is NOT used in state definitions. Ever. But then Sirub seems not too concerned with elementary facts like using state definitions, even though this is what the whole debate is about, not political system and political culture. ÉÍREman 23:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Given the controversy it evokes, the political definition of China should probably be kept in the Politics section of the article, where it can be dealt with adequately. Is it absolutely necessary to keep it as an opening sentence for the entire article? I go back to an earlier suggestion of mine (see one of the archives): "China is a state in Asia ... Since 1949 it has been controlled by the Communist Party." Danny

 * I prefer Danny's suggestion, although JeLuF is acceptable to me as well -- as long as (either way) there is some discussion in the article itself about the meaning of these terms and their application to China. Slrubenstein

 * There is currently a section in China on "Politics" with a main article link to Politics of China - is this sufficient? Could it be expanded? Martin 16:23 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * I think that for the moment what we find in the politics section is adequate. Look, I have done no research (I mean, scholarly research, meaning with an eye towards publishing in a peer-reviewed journal) on China.  ALl I do know from my "lay" research is that there have been changes and divisions among scholars on how to define and apply these terms.  The current wording of the politics section recognizes this.  I think as with all articles here, we need to edit them into the best shape we can -- and leave room for or even invite real scholars to expands and elaborate.  Of course what we have can and should be expanded -- but it can wait, especially until a political scientist or sociologist currently conducting research on the Chinese state becomes a contributor.
 * In the meantime, though, the opening line, which once again defines China as a "communist state," has to go. All I have done is gotten involved in a silly revert war with JTDIRL and I am tired of it.  As I said, I think Danny's suggestion is fine.  I also saw on the listserve that Jimbo came up with an excellent proposal.  Anything I do, JTDIRL will revert -- I'd like you, Roadrunner, Danny, Prat, Shino, and JeLuf to just pick one of these -- Jimpo's Danny's, or JeLuf's -- and stick with it. Slrubenstein

I'm not ignoring this controversy. Daunted at the length of the debate and the massive amounts of steam coming out of the ears of three contributors that I have developed a great deal of respect for—JTD, SLR & 172—I decided it would be better to print the talk page and its archive out and read it in a less eye-strain inducing form. Then I ... er ... put it to one side "just for a few minutes" and wrote a new entry on an obscure Australian mamal. And then ... er ... another one. And two more. And now it's bedtime.

Procrastination. It's a wonderful thing. Don't know how I'd survive without it. Tannin 15:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

PS: with a little luck, the controversy will be happily settled by the time I wake up, and I can do Spinifex Hopping Mouse instead. Whoever said procrastination wasn't an effective time management strategy? Tannin

Since 172 and Jtdirl both agree that China is a republic, I reccomend :China is a republic in east Asia, governed by the Chinese Communist Party since 1949; which some argue to be a communist state, while others (including China itself) argue it to be a socialist state. Shino Baku

Nobody has ever said it was otherwise. But it isn't a republic in the liberal democracy model, but in the Communist state model. ÉÍREman 22:42 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 6


text:
Chubu Centrair International Airport

Chubu Centrair International Airport (中部国際空港) is an international airport on an artificial island (which also houses the Aichi International Exhibition Center) in Ise Bay, Tokoname City in Aichi Prefecture, 35 km south of Nagoya in central Japan. The airport covers about 470 hectares (1,161 acres) of land and has one 3500 m runway.

Centrair is classified as a first class airport and is the main international gateway for the Chubu ("central") region of Japan. The name "Centrair" (セントレア) is an abbreviation of Central Japan International Airport, an alternate translation used in the English name of the airport's operating company, Central Japan International Airport Co., Ltd. (中部国際空港株式会社).

12.35 million people used the airport in 2018, ranking 8th busiest in the nation, and 212,797 tons of cargo was moved in 2018.

In 2019, the airport was ranked the fifth-best airport in the world by Skytrax’s World’s Top Airports 100, and received the World’s Best Regional Airport and the Best Regional Airport in Asia.

History

Chubu Centrair serves the third largest metropolitan area in Japan, centered around the city of Nagoya. The region is a major manufacturing centre, with the headquarters and production facilities of Toyota Motor Corporation and production facilities for Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation. The cargo handling capacity of the existing Nagoya Airport was not enough to satisfy the demands from the regional economy, and the airport was hampered by its location in a residential area of Aichi Prefecture, limiting the number of flights that can use the airport, as well as the hours in which they could operate.

With much lobbying by local business groups such as Toyota, especially for 24-hour cargo flights, construction started August 2000, with a budget of JPY¥768 billion (€5.5 billion, US$7.3 billion), but through efficient management nearly ¥100 billion was saved. Penta-Ocean Construction was a major contractor.

According to Japanese media sources, Kodo-kai, a yakuza faction in the Yamaguchi-gumi group, earned an immense amount of money by being the sole supplier, via a front company called Samix, of dirt, rock, sand, and gravel for the airport construction project. Although several Samix executives were criminally indicted for racketeering, the prosecutions were later dropped. According to the sources, Kodo-kai had informants working within the Nagoya police who fed the organization inside information which allowed them to stay a step ahead of investigating authorities.

When Chubu Centrair opened on 17 February 2005, it took over almost all of the existing Nagoya Airport's commercial flights, and relieved Tokyo and Kansai areas of cargo shipments. As a replacement for Nagoya Airport, it also inherited its IATA airport code NGO. The airport opened in time to service the influx of visitors for Expo 2005, located near Nagoya.

Route withdrawals
There were several withdrawals from Chubu Centrair after the airport commenced its operation. American Airlines operated a route to Chicago for less than seven months in 2005, but said the service was "not as profitable as we had hoped". In 2008, after a few years of service from Chubu Centrair, several airlines cancelled certain flights and put others on hiatus, including Malaysia Airlines' suspension of flight to Kuala Lumpur, Jetstar ending its airport operation, Continental Airlines stopping its Honolulu flight and United Airlines' suspension of flights to San Francisco, citing low premium cabin demand. This flight also continued to Chicago until 2007. Emirates and HK Express left the airport in 2009, although HK Express resumed service from September 2014. Japan Airlines also ended its flights to Paris in 2009, Bangkok in 2020 and Dallas/Fort Worth in 2022. Garuda Indonesia ended service from Denpasar in March 2012, returned to Nagoya with the opening of direct flights from Jakarta in March 2019, then suspended services once again in March 2020. EVA Air left the airport in June 2012. TransAsia Airways subsidiary V Air withdrew from Centrair and ended operations in October 2016.

Northwest Airlines operated routes from Nagoya to Detroit, Guam, Manila, Saipan, and Tokyo–Narita prior to its 2009 merger with Delta Air Lines. Delta took over this operation and added a Honolulu route in 2010, growing to nine daily flights at Nagoya, but cancelled most of these services over the next decade. Delta's last two routes at Nagoya, Detroit and Honolulu, were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The Detroit route resumed on a weekly basis in April 2021, but Delta announced its permanent cancellation in 2023.

Aichi Sky Expo
An exposition center on the airport's island was opened on August 30, 2019. The exposition center has six exhibition halls each being 10000 m2. Events held at the venue include the 2019 edition of the Wired Music Festival on September 7 and 8.

2nd runway
Aichi Governor Hideaki Omura announced in December 2021 that two new runways were planned at the airport: a 3290 m parallel runway to the east of the existing runway, to be completed in 2027, and after the landfill expansion work on the west side of the airport, a 3500 m runway there, which would replace the existing runway.

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan has begun preparations for construction of Chubu Centrair Airport's second runway in 2024. The new 3290 m runway will be built 210 m east of the current runway. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2025 and be completed in 2027.

Terminal 1
Terminal 1 is the main terminal of the airport. The northern side of the terminal holds domestic flights, while the southern side holds international flights, each with dedicated ticket counters, security checkpoints and baggage carousels, and for international flights, immigration and customs facilities. Arrivals are processed on the second floor, and departures on the third. The lower level is used for maintenance, catering, and other ground operations, as well as for passenger buses to hardstands in the middle of the airport ramp. There are thirteen gates for domestic flights (including three bus gates), and fourteen for international flights (including three bus gates).

Sky Town Shopping Center is on the fourth floor, accessible to the general public, with 61 shops and restaurants, organized into two "streets", Renga-dori and Chochin-yokocho. The Chochin-yokocho shops are individually themed to have an authentic Japanese look.

Terminal 2
Terminal 2 caters to both domestic and international flights for budget airlines, with 11 gates for international flights and 9 gates for domestic flights. There is a shuttle bus connecting Terminals 1 and 2.

It opened on September 20, 2019.

Flight of Dreams
A Seattle-themed retail complex called "Flight of Dreams" opened in 2018, with the first-ever prototype Boeing 787 Dreamliner as a display centerpiece. Boeing started in Seattle and many of its planes are still built in the area. Some components of the Boeing 787 are manufactured in Japan and are flown out of the airport to Seattle for final assembly.

Access Plaza
An access plaza contains the Central Japan International Airport Station as well as other services. It is located in front of and connected to Terminal 1 and provides access through the P1 parking lot passage to the Flight of Dreams and Terminal 2.

Boeing facilities
The Boeing Dreamlifter Operations Center is located on the airport's apron, to the south of the main terminal. This facility is used to store Japanese components of the Boeing 787 aircraft, including wings, while awaiting airlift to the assembly facility in the US. Dreamlifter aircraft have operated from Centrair since 2007 and make several trips a week to Boeing's 787 assembly plant at Charleston International Airport.

Train
Central Japan International Airport Station, the train station for Centrair is located on the Meitetsu Airport Line operated by Nagoya Railroad (Meitetsu). The fastest "μSky Limited Express" service connects the airport to Meitetsu Nagoya Station in 28 minutes. All μSky Limited Express are operating at a max speed of 120 km/h by 2000 series trains, which have all seats designated and it is required to purchase an extra 360 yen "special limited express ticket". Meitetsu Nagoya Station is adjacent to JR Nagoya Station, allowing transfers to Shinkansen bullet trains bound for not only Tokyo and Osaka but also many major cities, as well as JR, Meitetsu, and Kintetsu local trains, and the Nagoya Municipal Subway.

There is a proposal for a JR line linking Centrair to Nagoya Station and the JR network through Taketoyo Line's Okkawa Station. However, no actual construction works have been implemented at the moment.

There's also a proposal for Aonami line linking Centrair to Nagoya Station by constructing a tunnel or bridge. Nagoya municipal government has acted the assessment of feasibility in 2019.

Bus
Centrair Limousine provides direct bus service to and from central Nagoya, Sakae, and major hotels. It is operated by a private bus company in Mie Prefecture. High-speed buses to the neighboring prefectures for 3,000 yen to Kyoto via Mie Prefecture have been operating.

Ferry
A ferry connects to the passenger terminal in Tsu – a 40-minute trip.

Car
A toll road, the Chitaōdan Road, links Centrair and the mainland.

Bicycle
Bicycles are not allowed on the Centrair Bridge toll road to the mainland. Cyclists departing the airport must either take a Meitetsu local train one stop to Rinkū Tokoname Station or a taxi across the bridge to the Rinkū Interchange north of Aeon Mall Tokoname.

title: Chubu Centrair International Airport


text:
User:Xiong

 * User:Xiong/Sandbox
 * User:Xiong/Background
 * strategy:User:Xiong
 * en:q:

title: User:Xiong


text:
Talk:Dr. Steven Hatfill

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution! There is already a article about Steven Hatfill. Why don't you take a look a see if you can add something to it? Thank you. Preisler 02:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dr. Steven Hatfill


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Arbitration report

The Arbitration Committee issued rulings in two cases last week where longstanding disputes have slowed the progress of entire sections of articles dealing with a particular topic. Having disposed of these, however, the arbitrators still ended up having to deal with a number of new requests, as well as unusual developments in existing cases.

Herschelkrustofsky not banned outright, but leaves anyway
In their second case involving Lyndon LaRouche and related articles, the Arbitration Committee found Herschelkrustofsky aligned against a new group of editors, as his previous opponent, Adam Carr, had stopped working in that subject area. This time the request also involved another account, Weed Harper, which had a similar editing focus.

The arbitrators concluded that Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper are in fact the same person, although an argument was raised that they were two separate people using the same computer. (The technical evidence with respect to a third account, C Colden, was not as conclusive but the arbitrators also incorporated it into the ruling due to a similarity in editing patterns.) Their ruling ordered that he limit himself to using only one account, as well as not editing anonymously. They also banned him from editing all articles relating to LaRouche for one year, and placed him on a one-year parole for edits that violate the Neutral point of view policy.

Saying he would rather not be associated with Wikipedia if it allowed "the demonization of LaRouche and his movement" by his opponents, Herschelkrustofsky indicated last Tuesday, before the ruling was finalized, that he would stop editing entirely. On the other side, the participants seemed satisfied that his departure would solve the problem and allow normal Wikipedia editing to resume. Cberlet, who in his professional career has been highly critical of LaRouche, said, "I have no doubt that Willmcw and SlimVirgin and even I will do our best to treat LaRouche fairly".

Circumcision editors criticized
In an attempt to restore civility to the long-running debate over articles related to circumcision, the Arbitration Committee banned one of the offenders, Robert the Bruce, for a period of one year, and further prohibited him from editing "any articles which relate to sex or gender" for an additional year. The arbitrators determined that Robert the Bruce was responsible not only for "a large number of personal attacks", but also that he had removed information from articles even though it had supporting references.

Noting that the dispute over circumcision involved a failure on both sides to follow the Neutral point of view policy, the arbitrators also warned several of Robert the Bruce's opponents about their editing. Walabio, DanP, and Robert Blair, were told as part of the ruling that they were "expected to improve their editing habits and reminded that any future cases will consider seriously any failure to heed this warning." The same instruction was also applied to Jakew, who generally sided with Robert the Bruce in these disputes.

Password leak
The CheeseDreams case took an unusual turn when it was discovered that CheeseDreams had revealed her account password on the talk page of one of her opponents (the currently-banned Rienzo). This also proved to be the password for a number of CheeseDreams' sockpuppet accounts. Using this password, Jguk went in and changed it, then reported the incident on the admin noticeboard by making an edit to prove he had access to the account.

Once the information became known, the arbitrators quickly issued an injunction banning all of the sockpuppet accounts, whether they were being used by CheeseDreams or merely impersonating her. CheeseDreams herself was restricted to editing only her own user and user talk pages, along with the relevant arbitration pages. Of course, she wouldn't be able to do even that after her password had been changed, so the injunction provided that CheeseDreams could email Sannse with any evidence she wished to present, and the new password for her account would be released to her if she could satisfactorily prove her identity.

New (and old) cases opened
Several new requests for arbitration were accepted last week as the caseload began to rise again. Snowspinner's request for a case involving Xed, alleging various disruptive and inflammatory behavior, including personal attacks, after an exchange with Slrubenstein led to Xed being blocked briefly. Another request, brought by Xtra against PSYCH also involved personal attacks. On Sunday, the arbitrators also accepted a case involving JonGwynne, regarding failure to abide by NPOV on articles related to global warming.

The arbitrators were also called upon to revisit an old case when RK returned after a four-month ban. In that case, he had also been given a one-year ban from editing articles related to Judaism, but due to errors in providing notice, RK was not informed on his talk page about this part of the ruling until after he had already been blocked. When he returned expecting to have full editing privileges, some confusion resulted, and RK appealed the previous ruling to the current Arbitration Committee once he was informed of the restriction. As a temporary injunction, the arbitrators voted to stay the subject-matter ban while they considered the issue.


text:
Yael Dayan

Yael Dayan (יעל דיין, 12 February 1939 – 18 May 2024), also known as Yaël Dayan, was an Israeli politician and author. She served as a member of the Knesset between 1992 and 2003, and from 2008 to 2013 was the chair of Tel Aviv city council. Her service on the city council ended with the 2013 election. She was the daughter of Moshe Dayan and the sister of Assi and Udi Dayan.

Biography
Dayan was born in Nahalal during the British Mandate, the daughter of Moshe Dayan and Ruth Schwartz, granddaughter of Shmuel Dayan. After serving in the IDF as a captain in the Spokesperson's Unit, Dayan studied international relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and biology at the Open University of Israel.

Between 1959 and 1967, Dayan was in a relationship with Greek Cypriot theatre and film director, writer, producer, and actor Michael Cacoyannis and lived in Greece. She later married Dov Sion, with whom she had two children. Dayan died from lung disease on 18 May 2024, at the age of 85.

Literary career
Dayan first made a name for herself as an author and newspaper columnist, writing columns for Yedioth Ahronoth, Ma'ariv, Al HaMishmar, and Davar. She published five novels as well as a memoir of the Six-Day War called Israel Journal: June 1967 and a biography of her father titled My Father, His Daughter.

Political career
Dayan became a peace activist, joining the leadership of Peace Now, and was also involved in Bat Shalom, the International Center for Peace and the Council for Peace and Security, giving lectures around the world on the topics of peace and security. In Israel, she campaigned for human rights, women's rights, and LGBT rights.

In 1992, Dayan was elected to the Knesset on the Labor Party list and served as chairwoman of the Committee on the Status of Women. She was instrumental in pushing forward Israel's sexual harassment law in the 1990s. Re-elected in 1996 and 1999 (as a member of One Israel, an alliance of Labor, Meimad and Gesher), Dayan became chairwoman of the Committee on the Status of Women for a second time in 1999. She lost her seat in the 2003 elections, and left Labor to join Meretz with Yossi Beilin. Dayan headed the Meretz list in the Tel Aviv municipal elections in 2004, with the party winning 5 out of 31 Seats on council and joining Ron Huldai's coalition. Until 2008 she served as Deputy Mayor and until 2013 she was responsible for social services. Huldai chose not to include Dayan on his list of candidates for the 2013 election, effectively ending her political career.

Fiction

 * New Face in the Mirror – 1959
 * Envy The Frightened – 1961
 * Dust – 1963
 * Death Had Two Sons – 1967
 * Three Weeks in the Fall – 1979

Non-fiction

 * The Promised Land: Memoirs of Shmuel Dayan (editor) – 1961
 * Israel Journal: June 1967 (also known as A Soldier's Diary) – 1967
 * My Father, His Daughter – 1985

title: Yael Dayan


text:
Glenn Brooks

Robert "Glenn" Brooks is a Canadian politician who was mayor of Rideau Township and later Ottawa City Councillor representing the rural Rideau-Goulbourn Ward. He grew up on a dairy farm outside of Oshawa and became a science teacher, he and his wife Gail operated a small beef cattle farm.

He was first elected to the Rideau Township council in 1977. A teacher by profession he ran for mayor of the township in 1978 but lost to David Bartlett. Brooks remained a councillor and defeated Bartlett in a 1985 rematch. In 1991 Brooks was defeated by local businessman James Stewart, whom Brooks had defeated in his 1988 reelection. Brooks was nominated as the Reform Party candidate for the riding of Nepean—Carleton, but in March 1997 he resigned due to conflicts with the riding association before the election. Later that year he defeated Stewart to regain the mayoralty.

Brooks was a strong opponent of the amalgamation of Rideau Township into the city of Ottawa, but once the new city was created he chose to run for the role of Rideau's representative to the city. The race again pitted Brooks against Stewart. Brooks won by a substantial margin and was reelected by approximately the same margin in the 2003 Ottawa election against Paul Paton. In the 2006 election Brooks was challenged by Scott Moffatt, but was reelected. In the 2010 election Moffat again challenged Brooks, and this time won by a substantial margin.

title: Glenn Brooks


text:
Surreal Software

Surreal Software was an American video game developer based in Kirkland, Washington, and a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, known for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Suffering and Drakan series. Surreal Software employed over 130 designers, artists, and programmers. Surreal was acquired by Warner Bros. Games during the bankruptcy of Midway Games in July 2009. After a significant layoff in January 2011, the remaining employees were integrated into WBG's Kirkland offices, along with developers Monolith and Snowblind.

The studio last worked on This Is Vegas, a title which was scheduled to be released on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Windows. The first screenshots, video and game information for This Is Vegas were unveiled the week of February 4, 2008, at IGN.

History
Surreal Software was founded in 1995 as an independent video game development studio by Stuart Denman, Mike Nichols, Alan Patmore and Nick Radovich. Patmore, Nichols and Radovich attended Eastside Catholic High School in Bellevue, Washington together. They found Stuart Denman, a University of Washington grad, through an online message board. The group began operating in 1995 in an office in Seattle's Queen Anne neighborhood. Previously, Radovich sold real estate, Patmore worked at a wireless company, Nichols was working at local game company Boss Studios, and Denman had just interned at Microsoft on the Excel team.

Their first contract was with Bothell-based children's game developer Humongous, which found Denman's website and called to recruit programmers for Humongous. Surreal instead offered to do contract work. Surreal developed the Riot Engine for its games in 1996. First receiving critical acclaim with the 1999 release of Drakan: Order of the Flame, Surreal Software continued its success with Drakan: The Ancients' Gates in early 2002, both games selling in excess of 250,000 units. Having grown to two development teams, Surreal released The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring later that same year, selling over 1.8 million units.

In March 2004, Surreal Software released  The Suffering, an original concept action-packed horror game set in a secluded island prison, with monster designs by Stan Winston. Gamers and critics alike enjoyed this bold new contribution to the horror genre and in 2005, The Suffering: Ties That Bind followed. In April 2004, Midway Games acquired Surreal Software as an in-house game studio. In 2006, the Surreal Software staff moved from Fremont to their new waterfront studio on Elliott Avenue next to the Olympic Sculpture Park. In 2009, Surreal Software was among the Midway Games assets purchased by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. In 2010, the company was merged into the nearby studio Monolith Productions.

Founders
All of the founders had left the company prior to its merging with Monolith.

 * Stuart Denman – CTO
 * Alan Patmore – CEO and Creative Director
 * Nick Radovich – CFO
 * Mike Nichols – Art Director

Canceled

 * Gunslinger
 * The Lord of the Rings: The Treason of Isengard
 * This Is Vegas

title: Surreal Software


text:
User talk:JasonWatson

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Policies and guidelines

You've made some edits before you got an account, so you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Cheers, Fire Star 03:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:JasonWatson


text:
Talk:Yael Dayan

Untitled
This is my first Wikipedia contribution, any comments are gladly welcomed.

-Fernando Rizo 03:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Look67.jpg
Image:Look67.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yael Dayan


text:
Koko

Koko or KOKO may refer to:

Animals

 * Koko (gorilla) (1971–2018), a gorilla trained to communicate in American Sign Language
 * Koko (dog) (2005–2012), the Australian kelpie in the 2011 film Red Dog
 * Koko (horse), an Irish racehorse that won the 1926 Cheltenham Gold Cup
 * Ko'ko' or Guam rail, a flightless bird

Plants

 * Central African name for Gnetum africanum, an edible vegetable

Places

 * Koko, Benin, a town and arrondissement in Benin
 * Koko, Bouaké, a neighbourhood of Bouaké, Ivory Coast
 * Koko, Savanes, a village in Ivory Coast
 * Koko, Delta, a town in Delta State, Nigeria
 * Koko, a town in Koko/Besse Local Government Area in Kebbi State, Nigeria
 * Koko Head, the headland that defines the eastern side of Maunalua Bay along the southeastern side of the Island of Oʻahu in Hawaiʻi
 * Koko River, Rusizi District, a river in southwestern Rwanda that is a tributary of the Ruhwa River
 * Koko River, Rutsiro District, a river in the Rutsiro District of western Rwanda that flows into Lake Kivu

People with the name
Mononyms
 * Emperor Kōkō (830–887), 58th emperor of Japan
 * King Koko or Frederick William Koko Mingi VIII of Nembe (1853–1898), African ruler of the Nembe Kingdom

Given name
 * Koko Archibong (born 1981), Nigerian-American basketball player
 * Koko Prasetyo Darkuncoro (born 1981), Indonesian beach volleyball player
 * Koko Jones (born 1989), American jazz percussionist
 * Koko Komégné (born 1950), Cameroonian visual artist
 * Koko Kondo (born 1944), birth name Koko Tanimoto, a prominent Japanese atomic bomb survivor
 * Koko Pimentel (born 1964), Filipino politician
 * Koko Sakibo (born 1987), Nigerian footballer
 * Koko Stambuk (born 1977), Chilean singer-songwriter and producer
 * Julio "Koko" Sosa (born 1926), Argentine guitarist
 * Koko Taylor (1928–2009), R&B singer
 * Kōko Tsurumi (born 1992), Japanese artistic gymnast
 * Koko B. Ware (born 1957), American professional wrestler

Middle name
 * James Koko Lomell (born 1985), Liberian footballer

Surname
 * Demeter Koko (1891–1929), Austrian graphic artist
 * Georgette Koko (born 1953), Gabonese politician
 * Lolani Koko (born 1963), Samoan rugby football player

Stage name / ring name
 * Koko B. Ware (born 1957), American professional wrestler real name James Ware, Koko B. being his ring name

Music

 * Koko (music venue), a music venue in London
 * "Ko-Ko", a 1945 jazz composition by Charlie Parker
 * "Ko-Ko", a 1940 jazz composition by Duke Ellington
 * "Koko", a 2005 song by Goldfrapp from Supernature

Radio stations

 * KOKO (AM), a radio station (1450 AM) licensed to serve Warrensburg, Missouri, United States
 * KOKO-FM, a radio station (94.3 FM) licensed to serve Kerman, California, United States
 * KOKO-LP, a radio station (96.3 FM) licensed to serve Hana, Hawaii, United States

Characters

 * Koko the Clown, a 1919 cartoon character
 * Koko/Kao K’o Kung, a character in the Cat Who... series by Lilian Jackson Braun
 * Ko-Ko, a character from The Mikado
 * Koko, a character in Chuggington
 * Koko, a character from Zatch Bell!
 * Koko Hekmatyar, a character from Jormungand
 * Koko, a character from The Lego Ninjago Movie

Other uses

 * Koko (novel), a 1988 novel by Peter Straub
 * KoKo (computer virus), a memory resident computer virus
 * Koko: A Red Dog Story, a documentary based on the dog Koko
 * Kommerzielle Koordinierung, a secret commercial enterprise in East Germany, run by the Stasi officer Alexander Schalck-Golodkowski
 * Albizia lebbeck or Koko, a species of tree
 * Gege (title) or Ko-ko, a Manchu title
 * ǂKxʼauǁʼein languages or Koko
 * Tapu Koko, a Generation VII Pokémon
 * Kōkō, short for Kōtōgakkō, meaning a high school. See Secondary education in Japan
 * Koko (millet porridge), a type of porridge by Hausa people
 * KOKO Networks, cooking fuel and equipment company headquartered in Kenya

title: Koko


text:
Yukari Yoshihara

Yukari Yoshihara (吉原 由香里) née Yukari Umezawa (梅沢 由香里) is a Japanese Go professional.

Biography
Yukari Umezawa was born in Tokyo in 1973, and graduated from Keio University in 1996. She first played Go at the age of 6 and she became a professional Go player in 1996. She then attained the rank of 5-dan in 2002 at the age of 29, and was married in the same year. Umezawa supervised the production of Hikaru no Go, a manga about Go written by Yumi Hotta and illustrated by Takeshi Obata. She also became a consultant for the anime version of Hikaru no Go and hosted Go educational programs on NHK. Umezawa's sensei was Masao Kato. Umezawa is married to Shinya Yoshihara. They have a son (born 2011).

title: Yukari Yoshihara


text:
Talk:Koko

Order of entries on dab pages
Hi, just to let you know that most of the time a chronological order isn't the best way of arranging entries on dab pages (see WP:DABORDER). Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I am aware WP:DABORDER states, as appropriate, alphabetical or chronological. Leaving it open to even that being optional.

 * (1) Have I done some damage in adding missing dates and in physically sorting by date like-named items? (2) What basis is there for your assertion "most of the time?" I feel I have only applied "chronology" to appropriate situations.

 * I feel that for a visitor to wiki, wouldn't having a clue, as in a date, so that if they are looking for something more recent or something pertinent to a particular time period, wouldn't having a date facilitate discerning at least that difference between like-named items? I also thought having things organized facilitates the viewers gaze and aids future editors in figuring out where to insert items during page maintenance. Dating and sorting, I'm thinking here especially of those trudging through life laboring under misapprehensions like that The Beatles ripped off some of Paul's and his band Wings music.
 * I only saw your edits at Koko and I haven't reverted them as I don't have a strong opinion on that. WP:DABORDER states that (emphasis is from me). So that would mean for example Koko (novel) coming before Ko-ko, and this order is followed by most dab pages I've seen so far, so changing the order here creates inconsistency and isn't helpful to the reader. Now, when it comes to ordering within each set of identically named entries, then of course the chronological order makes sense. Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't understand, as the sub-category, by your example, is Fiction, and the items are almost all character names versus just the single play and single novel title (which you referenced), so under Fiction, maybe breakout sub-sub-category Character versus Media seems more apropos.

 * And, as one more salient point, sorting by date seems most appropriate in general as authors, and basically people, tend to be influenced by the past in appropriating names and ideas for their own derivations. And thus it would seem that the historicity of the usage of the name, or other disamb term, is easily attenuated visually with chronological ordering– for the discerning viewer.  WurmWoode  T   21:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The key phrase is "similarity to the ambiguous title" and this is how entries on most dab pages are ordered. So, for the Fiction section in Koko this would mean we start with Koko (novel) and all the characters named just Koko (between themselves ordered chronologically), then list the ones whose names contain that word (Koko the Clown going before "Koko Hekmatya"). Ko-Ko (with the hyphen) would go either in the middle or at the end. As for the chronological order – yes, it is sensible and sometimes it would be best to ditch the guidelines in order to use it. Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The ambiguous title at that point is Koko in Fiction, but dealing with character names and then just two titles, may I suggest change Fiction to Fictional characters, and throw the two titles into Media or some such for these two out-liers.  WurmWoode  T  !

 * I'm only seeing one title (Koko (novel)), which is the other one? I wouldn't expect the title of a work of fiction to be in a Media section, Literature seems good, but there have to be at least two entries. Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 * My eyes, my eyes! I don't know why Koko conflated itself with The Mikado in my mind. You missed how I kept saying that there were two titles involved, to be fair, I said a novel and a play . So now, wowzers, ALL character names except one novel. Agh!  That makes some better sense now out of your frame, since I now no longer have two items for my frame. Thank you.

 * Still, with all names and one title, as a mainframe programmer, it "hurts" my database schema to mix apples and oranges together, like names versus titles. I lean towards split-out, but if only a second title could be found to make that solution more palatable.

 * So under Fiction characters just the names, and under Fiction the novel and Koko Flanel, 1990 film, and KoKo Chops Suey 1927 film by Max Fleischer and Koko and the Ghosts 2011 film?  WurmWoode  T   00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Koko the food company
Is Koko the food company worth mentioning?

https://www.kokodairyfree.com/about_us/

EDLIS Café 18:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)
 * This is a disambiguation page: a list of Wikipedia articles which might have been called Koko in the absence of other articles also claiming the title. The first step would be to check whether Koko the food company is notable| enough to have its own article.  If so, you could create the article with a title such as Koko (food company) or Koko Dairy Free, then list it on this page. Certes (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Koko (Hip-Hop/Grime artist)
Koko is a YouTuber / up and coming music artist, how can I create a Wikipedia article about him? Koko.BMF (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 * You don't. Wikipedia does not accept articles about up-and-coming people or things. Only topics that are already notable (as Wikipedia defines it) are considered to be worthy of inclusion. Once this person has achieved a level of notability that is evidenced by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then it may be possible.
 * If this is person is actually yourself, then you should definitely not write about yourself, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Autobiography. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "koko" in African languages
I remember it meant your ancestors, your blood? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It means "blood" in Hawaiian apparently, but that kind of information doesn't really belong here. – Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Koko