Talk:Hukou
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
Hukou is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] More than just the PRC
Jiangs edit comment said that Hukou are also issued in Taiwan. If so we need a pointer and article written for the ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 04:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is a system in mainland China and territories administered by the ROC. Currently the article does not have any reference to the ROC's system. — Instantnood 04:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- make some, it probably doesn't need a seperate article. You could also link to Right of Abode for the HK and Macau perspective. SchmuckyTheCat 04:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I added the first sentence 70.57.137.163 01:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) [Dpr]
should we use gender-inclusive language? Yiyun 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Allegations of Chinese apartheid
Assuming that it's still around, it appears that the section Allegations of Chinese apartheid#Treatment of rural workers, largely criticisms of the Hukou policy, could be merged here. Criticisms should not normally be shuffled off into separate articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not normally but Allegations of Apartheid sphere of articles is exactly that. Unless apartheid is a word to avoid outside the realm of south africa, it should stay there IMO. Amoruso 17:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Amoruso. I oppose this proposed merge, as I believe it should not be discussed or decided in isolation. A precedent was set on Wikipedia to refer to "apartheid" in the title of an article about one country that had been accused of "apartheid." That was an unfortunate precedent, but until it is changed, consistency demands that "allegations of apartheid" be treated the same for different countries. Amoruso also refers to the issue of "words to avoid", and there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid of a proposal (which I support) that articles other than those about South Africa should not have "apartheid" in their titles. 6SJ7 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree Irrespective of whether the word "apartheid" may validly appear in another article or not, parts of the deleted article are of great relevance here. I am working on integrating these in my userspace, and will post when I have it in a presentable state. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the DRV is endorsed, the battle will spill over to this article ;-)Ohconfucius 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Amoruso. I oppose this proposed merge, as I believe it should not be discussed or decided in isolation. A precedent was set on Wikipedia to refer to "apartheid" in the title of an article about one country that had been accused of "apartheid." That was an unfortunate precedent, but until it is changed, consistency demands that "allegations of apartheid" be treated the same for different countries. Amoruso also refers to the issue of "words to avoid", and there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid of a proposal (which I support) that articles other than those about South Africa should not have "apartheid" in their titles. 6SJ7 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Much of the content of that article was in fact about Hukou, not about the allegations. In fact, probably well more than 50% of that article was actually about Hukou. How much, if any, can be usefully integrated here is an interesting question. The right answer may be very little, but I don't think it is none. GRBerry 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"Allegations of Chinese apartheid" is on the term and its political use, while here aspects of Chinese society are presented. --tickle me 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Working comments on merge Aug 7, 2007
I have carefully worked on merging the relevant section of the 'apartheid' article in my userspace, and then transferred it in 4 macro steps.
I felt that the breach of WP:SYS needed to be dealt with instead of just lazily C&P. WP:COPYVIO was certainly relevant in the merge, as many of the sentences cited from the 'apartheid' article were directly lazily and unashamedly copied word for word from said footnotes. The article also violated WP:PSTS, and thus the heavy reliance on the number of primary sources has been reduced to a minimum. As there was already quite a bit of information in the BBC and Independent articles, I was able to cite the same facts as per the primary sources, reducing reliance on these. I also felt that referencing the word "apartheid" with n different and unique citations when those references (and info therein) could have served more widely to populate the article was tantamount to point-pushing, so these have been properly refocussed. Ohconfucius 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
