Talk:China/Archive 19

China is federation not unitary state.
Despite its large size and largest population in the world, why china is said to be unitary state rather than federation? Anyone who can find the answer about it? The wikipedia says it is unitary state when in eeal life it is federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1027:85F6:71F4:4162:9854:8BB6 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * China is not a federal state. Yue 🌙 03:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding to Yue's comment, a chapter in Stanford University Press's The New Great Game: China and South and Central Asia in the Era of Reform observes that China is unique among modern large states for not practicing federalism. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On paper China is a federal state, IRL its a unitary dictatorship. Those autonomous regions etc aren't autonomous at all. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * China is not a federal state on paper either. It is constitutionally a unitary state. Having autonomous regions doesn't make you a federal state, especially if the only special privilege you are afforded as an autonomous government is the ability to introduce meaningless legislation to protect local culture (meaningless because, on paper, the ethnic minorities are protected constitutionally anyways). Federal states have regional / state governments which can meaningfully challenge the national government per their constitutions (again, at least on paper; looking at Russia), which is obviously not the case in China, de facto or de jure. Yue 🌙 19:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At a minimum its a unitary multi-national state. The current Chinese constitution is not exactly a coherent document, its full of contradictory concepts like democratic dictatorship. Which makes sense for a state based on a party not a constitution, the whole thing is meaningless not just the parts you mentioned. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, Chinese state-media explicitly states that China is a unitary state. Wu Bangguo, one of China's top leaders under Hu Jintao, has also explicitly ruled out federalism. However, China's sheer size forces the central government to give a certain degree of autonomy to local governments. The Account 2 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, of course, it doesn't matter what we personally think or how we perceive (correctly or otherwise) the system in practice. What matters is what is verify through reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. The Account 2 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * wrong talk, supposedly i want to talk about: Why provinces of china aren't like in federalism like russia, canada, and usa? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:879:9C18:5AF9:7FE0 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * the provinces of china doesnt act like those in canada's province, right? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:879:9C18:5AF9:7FE0 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * China's entire system of government, including how its provinces are governed, doesn't act like that of Canada, just as that of the United States or Germany also differ from that of Canada. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You talk about autonomous territory doesnt make china a federation, but i wanna talk about the plausibility of provinces of china being functionally similar to the states of the soviet union. 125.164.19.126 (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * bravely you speak about autonomous region of china doesnt make it a federation. My topic different as well: why provinces of china arent like an autonomous province like soviet union? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:E409:3769:7AAC:D8A (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a general WP:FORUM for discussions about China. I suggest asking on a site intended for these sorts of questions. CMD (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is not a discussion forum, you take the wrong place to question about it. The communist government has been suppressing any Localism since its establishment, except for special administrative regions (SAR) of Hong Kong and Macau which were both former European colonies maintaining limited autonomy with their own organic law and Chief Executive, but those authorities are considered a devolution that granted by the central government of Beijing and can be repealed by the central government anytime. Since the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020 following the mass protest in Hong Kong, the autonomy to the SARs is also eroded. The PRC is without doubt a unitary state in both de jure or de facto aspects. 123.192.219.198 (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * in the past, china has tried to be federal dictatorship like soviet union too, but fails.
 * Is that true socialism with chinese characteristic doesnt make it a federal nation but unitary nation?
 * In my opinion, china is a federation, not a unitary nation since in the past they had passed a federal consitution during 1912 1928 period.
 * But sadly mao zedong failed to realize soviet union has a federal constitution. 182.2.140.147 (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear. We don’t judge anything in this encyclopedia by personal opinion, so your opinion doesn’t count, only reliable sources do. Simple as such. LVTW2 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * China is unitary state because of its governance characteristics. It has nothing to do with size. Even though it's obvious that it's divided in terms of administration for ease but yet the provinces has close to no autonomy. Which is the primary feature of a federal state. Dualcoreee (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Soviet union is the federation. 125.164.22.29 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

People's Republic of China is a unitary state under control of Chinese Communist party (CCP) in my opinion. She has organisations of CCP in all institutions including factories and companies. If there were self-governmental activity, it could be under allowance from CCP in Beijing. Special Administrative Regions (SARs) have more powerful self-governmental authorities but I know they are losing them when I watch their latest situations.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * unitary = eh ada uni rini. This sounds irritating to me. 103.10.97.150 (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As this is an English talk page, can you please translate "eh ada uni rini"? If it is English, please provide more information. Rscragun (talk) Rscragun (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023
On August 28, 2023, China released the latest version of the standard map of China, compared with the old version of the map, the new version of the standard map of China's land area increased from the original official announcement of 9.6 million square kilometers to 10.45 million square kilometers, and the original known nine-dash line also added another section in the eastern periphery of Taiwan, expanded to ten. 2405:6E00:2E69:D000:3DD1:A95:4275:73B5 (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Furthermore, where do you want to add this text? Lightoil (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023
There is a penis in the image reference to this page 2800:810:596:898:A54E:F3E2:83BD:333D (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done looks like the vandalism has already been reverted and deleted Cannolis (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * still there 29 days later if using safari. confirmed this also on a family members phone. do you know where it is on the wiki or is it solely in the 'summarized' safari preview? 174.57.238.52 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023
in the country info

Government	Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic

would more acuratly be described as

Government	Unitary Xi Jinping Thought one-party socialist republic

since Maoism diverges significantly from Marxism-Leninism and Xi Jinping Thought diverges significantly from Maoism TheLPope (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023
In this phrase:

China received 65.7 million inbound international visitors in 2019

please remove "inbound". If they were "received", they obviously weren't outbound; if they're "visitors", they're obviously not Chinese tourists returning from visits abroad; and "international visitors" makes it clear that they weren't merely received from one part of the country into another. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Include Uyghur genocide in the lead, it is the most notable genocide since the Holocaust
Considering that the Chinese regime is currently committing the largest genocide in the world since the Holocaust, it warrants an inclusion in the lead section as with Nazi Germany. At the end of the third paragraph, it should also include: In addition, genocide, mass murder, and forced labour are hallmarks of the Chinese regime, with its non-Chinese minorities being particularly affected. Since 2014, millions of Uyghurs have been interned and murdered in concentration camps in Xinjiang, known as the Uyghur genocide. 14.35.117.98 (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * why? Do you see any other Wikipedia article about a country with a long list of alleged crimes it has done in the lead. Well china is not Nazi germany, this "genocide, mass murder, and forced labour are hallmarks" of the chinese regime seems incredibally biased and seems more of an opinion than a fact,how is this a hall mark for the chinese government, it makes it sound to opinionated as almost suggesting the Chinese government is a bad thing. Huaxiazidi (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * there are many reliable sources claiming that the communist party of china is committing an ethnocide against ethnic uyghurs. i'd boldly assume you aren't an ethnic uyghur. whether this warrants a mention in the lead section? i wouldn't know. 2406:3003:2004:2E9E:54D8:7B05:DBE3:562A (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that those crimes shouldn't be in the lead, as describing a country usually doesnt include the crimes it's commited. The lead is for the straight basics about the country, not going on a tirade about it's controverisal policies. That may change in the future, and also shouldn't just be tossed out of hand. There should be something about such policies and activities commited against China's own citizens somewhere in the article with good reliable sources. The mentioning of the Uyghur genocide should be somewhere, but I'd also put forward it doesn't have to be indepth, as it should link to the Uyghur genocide article itself, in the first place. This is the article about China as a country. Not about all of the crimes its ever committed, ever. There are other articles for that. Am I wrong in this assertion? Anyone's thoughts are welcome. SageSolomon (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already in two different sections. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

eat bitterness
Don't know where this phrase would fit in the article, but when Xi tells Chinese students that they need to "eat bitterness" it can't be a positive sign for their, or China's, future prospects.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/business/china-youth-unemployment.html

China’s Young People Can’t Find Jobs. Xi Jinping Says to ‘Eat Bitterness.’ With youth unemployment at a record, the Communist Party is trying to reset expectations about social mobility 108.26.243.70 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not important enough for a main country article like this. Also, Xi makes a lot of statements. No indication this one is particularly important. The Account 2 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction
China is now the largest country, not second largest country. 71.167.7.27 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's unclear by what you mean 'largest', by population or land area? Alexeyevitch (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024
Under the section Politics -> Foreign relations, paragraph 4, line 1: "since the early 200s" should be "since the early 2000s". Arjunk1997 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Liu1126 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Official languages?
The Constitution of the People's Republic of China (Article 4) states that:
 * "All ethnic groups shall have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own traditions and customs."

But it does not grant official status to any language, not even Putonghua or Standard Chinese, which is merely defined as the "national language" (but is de facto the official language). For example, Uyghur is a language of instruction in Xinjiang as a widely-used lingua franca in the region, but it does not enjoy "official status", only a constitutional guarantee that, like several other languages spoken by ethnic groups in China, governmental services will be available in Uyghur for those who request them (Article 121 and 139). In fact, there have been movements in China to give co-official status to certain minority languages, like Uyghur. The source given to verify that Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, and Zhuang are "regionally" recognised does not say so, only that there are many ethnic minority languages and Putonghua is the national language. Meanwhile, Hong Kong and Macau have separate language policies because they have separate (de facto) constitutions. Yue 🌙 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Government type / Form of government in infobox
Why in gods name do we write "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" when "Communist state" would suffice? "Unitary communist state" also work. None of the links in the description even links to the article on the actual form of government in communist states either, which makes it even more controversial. Alas, I know some will write that "Communist state" is an oxymoron, but Wikipedia is not based on communist viewpoints but what reliable sources say. Communist state is a scholarly term, that is. That term encompasses "Marxist-Leninist", "one-party", "republic". See infobox below:

Moreover, why do these states describe themselves (often) as "socialist state" rather than "socialist republic"? Because, Marxism is interested in the class of the state. "Socialist state" says something about the class nature of the state in Marxist/Marxist-Leninist thought.

Alas,


 * 1) First, what is the article communist state about? It is about the form of government of these states. YOu are refusing to link to the article that deals with the forms of government of these states. That is problematic!
 * 2) Secondly, by unitary to you mean Unitary power, the principle of political power in these states? The one thing that differentiates their state structures from liberal democracies?
 * 3) Thirdly, where in the "form of government" do you guys state that is organised on the principles of democratic centralism?¨
 * 4) Fourthly, where in the "form of government" text do you guys mention that these states have one branch of government represented by the highest organ of state power?
 * 5) Fiftly, it seems that you're definition of "form of government" does not even define the main differences between a communist state system and a liberal state system

I propose changing it "Unitary communist state" as that would actually inform the reader and lead the reader to the article on the communist form of government. Why? Since "Communist state" encompasses both ideological standpoint, party system and way more than the current description. --TheUzbek (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: One thing that I have noticed is that the "government" field in the infobox appears to be a source of frequent contestation throughout Wikipedia. I am someone who favors describing de jure forms of government in this field, in a simple and direct way. I suggest we avoid characterizations as much as possible, understanding that article bodies have room for this. This field is better than many already non-Western government infobox fields already. Perhaps it could be better still. I will follow this discussion with interest. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The short answer is: Because it's more precise. "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" is decipherable and precise, whereas "Communist state" encompasses a wider (in my opinion, too wide) range of meanings, especially considering the diverse set of possible readers. There are and have been many types of communist state, just as there are and have been many types of government—democracy and autocracy—in general. Numerous qualifiers have crystallized and are still crystallizing to describe this zoo of political systems / governments; using a set of (de-)composable descriptors, to establish a systematic categorization, at least to some degree. TucanHolmes  (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreeing we need to be more precise. Political systems and government types are two different things. As seen above there seems to be a disconnect between forms and styles. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have there been communist states that are not Marxist-Leninists? All communist states have been Marxist-Leninist. You can read the statutes of the Party of Labour of Albania and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, and there are no references to Hoxhaism and Titoism. Hoxhaism as a term means anti-revisionism, that is, that they opposed Khrushchev's move to de-Stalinise. That is why the Party of Labour statute states, "The Party of Labour of Albania is a revolutionary detachment of international communist movement. In holding aloft the triumphant banner of the great ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, its tasks are, "to defend the purity of the revolutionary doctrine of Marxism-Leninism [... and it goes on]". However, on the Socialist Albania page, someone has faultily described the "Government" as Hoxhaist, but it doesn't mean anything at all in regards to state or government organisation. What is Maoism/Mao Zedong Thought according to the CPC? "With Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, Chinese Communists developed Mao Zedong Thought by combining the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism with the actual practice of the Chinese revolution" (this is from the party constitution). What is Xi Jinping Thought? According to the party constitution, "The Thought is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development. It is the latest achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context". If people would have bothered to read these things people would have understood it... Instead, you are talking about communist ideologies, different forms of communism, when its the same form (Marxism-Leninism), but different interpretations and creative applications of Marxism-Leninism. That is also the meaning of revisionism, someone who revises Marxism-Leninism the wrong way!
 * "Because it's more precise". How is it more precise? "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" This sentence leaves out information on unified power, democratic centralism, highest organ of state power, class system el cetra. Communist state, by definition as a term, encompasses the leading role of the party, unified power, democratic centralism, highest organ of state power, class system el cetra. If you mean precise by it leaves out a lot of information it is indeed more precise.
 * For instance, has there ever existed a communist state in which one-party did not govern alone? Has there ever existed, officially, a non-Marxist-Leninist communist state? No one has ever bothered to answer this question, and I know why..
 * "I am someone who favors describing de jure forms of government in this field". Indeed, de jure. China does not describe itself as "one-party state". Neither does it use "socialist republic" and "Unitary". So, if you want to have a de jure description, a communist state would be the correct way to go. What is obvious is that "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" is not a de jure description but a made-up description.
 * "There are and have been many types of communist state, just as there are and have been many types of government—democracy and autocracy—in general." This is wrong. From East Germany to the People's Republic of Angola, you had the same system of government based on unitary power, democratic centralism, the highest organ of state power, class system belief et cetra. Again, can you name one exception to this rule? I know you cannot mention a single one. In liberal democracy, you have parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy, for instance, to describe different ways to institutionalise political power. The fact of the matter is that all communist states have modelled their state system on the Stalin Constitution of 1936. This is also WP:OBVIOUS for anyone who has some basic knowledge on this topic. Furtermore, in the United States infobox it says "Federal presidential constitutional republic" and not "Federal liberal democratic presidential constitutional republic" so as to make it more specific to readers what government it actually has. It would be stupid, and everyone understands that.
 * "Numerous qualifiers have crystallized and are still crystallizing to describe this zoo of political systems / governments; using a set of (de-)composable descriptors, to establish a systematic categorization, at least to some degree." There are no other numerous qualifiers. For instance, Hoxhaism is not a form of government. Everyone agrees the USSR had the same state system until GOrbachev's reforms (that is, from 1936 to 1988/9). Stalinism partially reformed the state structure of the USSR, but it was based on the same principles. The form of government of the USSR did not change with Stalin's passing. Again, it is obvious here that you do not know what you're writing about.
 * At last, why do communists/Marxist-Leninists use the term "state" and not republic do describe their government? Because it delineates the state's class structure/class system. Republic doesn't do that, but state does. By dropping a Marxist term one also weakens the link between political system and the class system.
 * And this is the most annoying thing: it is obvious that there is an extreme lack of knowledge and awareness about communism on Wikipedia. Instead of admitting it, people are pressing head-on with wrongful views! TheUzbek (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You know all these things, but someone reading this page without your prior education probably doesn't, which is my point. You yourself noted: "And this is the most annoying thing: it is obvious that there is an extreme lack of knowledge and awareness about communism on Wikipedia." Why should we use vague and hazy terms like "Communist republic" if we could use precise, decipherable descriptors which can be readily understood? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written for the general public; it should be as comprehensible as possible, without prior specialized knowledge (since in that case, you wouldn't need to read a general encyclopedia). TucanHolmes  (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But why wouldn't "Communist state" suffice? The general reader knows that a communist party rules China and that the country is a communist state. Again, according to your reasoning, that would be the easiest for the reader to understand. TheUzbek (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...because we should tell our readers what type of "Communist state" it is. You seem to claim that no one uses the terms "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" for a government..... yet these are terms used by academics to classify governmental types  This is something we regurgitate as per the soures at articles like List of socialist states vs List of socialist states under the lable "Form of government" note "Non-Marxist–Leninist states". Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

China isn't really a communist state by the strict definition of it, it can only be considered such in the definition that it is governed by a communist party, things more symbolic such as planned economy are long gone, I still consider communist and Marxist Leninist as something more of an ideology not a polity, I do not support the removal of republic, republic represent the most important change in states of the last millennial, monarchy, theocracy, or republic, that ought to be the most fundamental and difference in countries, much more so than ideology. MarvelousPeach (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Even if there is a widespread conspiracy theory that the country that probably uses the most money on Marxist-Leninist education and propaganda isn't communist, that has no bearing on its form of government... which is communist. TheUzbek (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * eh, excuse me, unfortunately I do not see how the use of fund of propaganda has any bearing on the form of government. What exactly is a communist government? the term communist is a term to describe a series of political ideas, of how a society should distribute its wealth and henceforth about its governance, reader would have no clue what it means when it comes to how a country is actually organized simply by that term. MarvelousPeach (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the table above? Democratic centralism, unified power, the highest organ of state power, transmission belt... Have you even bothered to get acquainted with these terms before participating in the discussion?
 * Indeed, it's just a coincidence it invited communist parties from all over the world to China, established the world's largest physical library of Marxism in the world (did so under Hu) and used Marxist theory to legitimise itself. Or maybe, just maybe, you are not acquainted with Marxism? Just because Stalin invented the planned economy, that doesn't mean that's the only correct interpretation of Marxism. Scarier, you seem to ignore a good number of communists who opposed him (that he slaughtered), like Nikolay Bukharin and Grigory Sokolnikov et cetra, who supported retaining private ownership and a free market economy.
 * You need to become acquainted with the Marxist-Leninist conception of historical materialism and private ownership. Even Lenin prophesied that Russia needed to maintain private ownership for the foreseeable future in the "Tax in Kind". A Marxist-Leninist ruling party's main objective is to interpret the universal law of history, that is historical materialism. TheUzbek (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you could associate all those terms with the word communist, but communist alone doesn't actually implies those things! that's the problem. China is governed quite differently than the Soviet Union, how could you describe a federal and a unitary country simply as communist? What problem does it solve, how does that clear anything up? MarvelousPeach (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * China and the Soviet Union have nearly the exact same institutions. The National People's Congress is the highest organ of state power like the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The NPC has a permanent body and the Supreme Soviet had as well. In both cases unified power was centralised in the highest organ of state power (the people's congress in China's case and the Supreme Soviet in the USSR). The state was ruled on democratic centralism, meaning that the lower-level state bodies had to obey higher-level bodies (and the highest body in the land in both cases were the highest organ of state power). Both states had only one branch of government per unified power as well. Both state's had transmission belts, the main difference is that the CHinese have the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the USSR didn't have any.
 * You're argument is lacking. Both the United Kingdom and Norway are parliamentary constitutional monarchies despite being governed very differently. We shouldn't care they were governed differently, we should care they had the same form of government! TheUzbek (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel this argument is going nowhere, the example may not be perfect, to explain, China is unitary and the Soviet Union is federal, henceforth, the Soviet Union can legally dissolve, and other state may join, and that is not the case with China. The point is, he term communist itself gives absolute zero information about how the government is organized, how the state is organized. parliamentary constitutional monarchy says at that in the very least, they have a parliament, and is governed by a constitution, under a monarch. MarvelousPeach (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MarvelousPeach This is why uts been idiotic of you to partake in this discussion. You wrote: "The point is, he term communist itself gives absolute zero information about how the government is organized, how the state is organized." The problem, however, is that communist state does in fact do that! Communist state entails the implementation of unified power and democratic centralism, having a highest organ of state power, a leading nucleus of the state that is organised on Leninist lines and transmission belts.
 * Throughout this discussion I've explicitly written what per definition a communist state is, and the fact that you've managed to write that it gives "absolutely zero" information just prove that you are unwilling to listen to other people arguments. I've literally listed principles and what a communist state is by definition. Have you even read the introduction to the article communist state? Have you even bothered to become acquainted with the subject at hand? The answer is obvious, no! TheUzbek (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024
142.167.222.46 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC) GDP is $13721 per capital
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Largest city
Should the article mention that the largest city proper is Chongqing? 177.76.209.55 (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It currently is mentioned in urbanization. CMD (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should be in the infobox as well. 177.76.209.55 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Age
The correct age of China seems to be either 223BC-257BC 2600:1700:EBA0:2EC0:6C83:F5D5:F7D0:232A (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024
The date is wrong and I would like to change it to 253BC

John F. Kennedy 2600:1700:EBA0:2EC0:6C83:F5D5:F7D0:232A (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Religion
This page says the largest religion is Buddhism but Religion in China says it's "No Religion/Chinese Folk Religion". I think one should be updated. Furthermore, I think "Buddhism" should go to Chinese Buddhism and not Buddhism. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The "religion in China" article is outdated, as it is based on the CFPS 2014 survey. A few days ago I updated this article with new 2023 studies which are based on the CFPS 2018 and on other surveys. "Chinese folk religion" is still the largest category (70%), but within it the CFPS 2018 has isolated some orientations: Buddhism 33.4%, Taoism 19.6%, and the remainder are other folk beliefs. Æo (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is actually accurate to say Buddhism in this scenario, since folk religion isn’t really one religion but rather an umbrella term for various local belief systems 182.255.32.16 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

About the title of this document
China is a place name that includes both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and Taiwan, or Taiwan Island, is originally an island name, not a country. China is an abbreviation for both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and although the Republic of China lost its territory to the Communist rebels, the Republic of China, where the government of the Republic of China remains, is historically more legitimate. There are sensitive political issues between the two sides over the legitimacy of who is the real Chinese. But isn't it politically controversial to refer to only the People's Republic of China as China? I also have no disagreement over naming China and Taiwan as the titles of the two countries, but I'm simply curious. I didn't know English, so I used a translator. Therefore, there may be a problem. Once again, the purpose of this discussion is not to change the title of this document to the People's Republic of China, and there is no disagreement about the title of the current document, but I am simply asking out of curiosity. Mamiamauwy (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really about the title (as you write) but about talking about "China" and then ending with the People's Republic. We should perhaps indent the section Reforms and contemporary history under People's Republic (prior section) and ideally add some text about the rest (Taiwan). --Zac67 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * China is the WP:COMMONNAME of the People's Republic of China in English. Remsense  诉  00:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So this document includes not only the People's Republic of China, but also the countries called China, Qing, Ming, etc. that existed before the state was established, right? Mamiamauwy (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No. The article is about what it says it's about. France isn't about the Kingdom of France. Remsense  诉  02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If so, should it be understood that there is no political controversy even if the names China and Taiwan are used? Mamiamauwy (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is political controversy regarding every state and country on Earth; on Wikipedia, we use the most commonly understood names according to WP:reliable sources. Remsense  诉  03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The gist of my question is, "Is the name China and Taiwan as big a political debate as the political controversy with Greece in the days when the name of North Macedonia was Macedonia?" As you mentioned, the names China and Taiwan are common names, so I hope that the title of this document will be kept. Mamiamauwy (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In one word: "yes". Remsense  诉  03:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Government
Why is China described as a "unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" in the infobox when it functionally has an "authoritarian regime" and is constitutionally a "people's democratic dictatorship"? I think that designation is very vague, obsolete and inherently different from the Chinese government model (the "Marxist-Leninist" part has been abandoned long time ago). Politics of China clearly describes it as "authoritarian", and People's democratic dictatorship explains that concept well. There are also a lot of recent academic reliable sources that support the claims for an "authoritarian regime" and "dictatorship" such as:


 * Zhang, J. and Mora, L. (2023). "Nothing but symbolic: Chinese new authoritarianism, smart government, and the challenge of multi-level governance." Government Information Quarterly, 40(4). 101880. ISSN 0740-624X.
 * Shirk, S. L. (2018). "China in Xi’s “New Era”: The Return to Personalistic Rule." Journal of Democracy, 29(2): 22–36.
 * Dickson, B. J. (2016). The Dictator’s Dilemma: The Chinese Communist Party’s Strategy for Survival. New York: Oxford University Press, 352 pages.
 * Zeng, J. (2016). "China's date with big data: will it strengthen or threaten authoritarian rule? Get access Arrow." International Affairs, 92(6): 1443–1462.

It should be better to rephrase the description to something like a "unitary one-party republic under authoritarian dictatorship", "unitary multi-national state under authoritarian dictatorship" or "unitary multi-national one-party state under authoritarian dictatorship".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * For posterity, per the Easter egg comment in the article's wikitext:
 * Remsense 诉  10:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions that include "multi-national" would certainly earn an intensive debate—what does that mean here? I don't know how many nations China is, but there's plenty of answers for "one", and plenty for higher numbers. (Hopefully some for "zero" too, if you're forcing me to pick.)
 * I also just don't like the use of "authoritarian" as a descriptor here—I won't go as far as to say the word itself has no meaning, it does, but it is a wishy-washy cipher in a short descriptor like this. I *do* think "regime" is meaningless—it's just a word for "government" with a negative connotation, imo. Remsense  诉  10:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You may not like the term "authoritarian", but it's widely used in reliable sources. Moreover, there are countries like Russia, Belarus and Nicaragua that are described as "authoritarian" even though they all have higher scores on the Democracy Index and are classified together with China in the "Authoritarian" regime type, so it's not alien or unusual to use that adjective to describe a country's government model on Wikipedia at all. As for "multi-national state", there are also academic reliable sources that support it (e.g. El Kholi, H. (2019). "The Chinese Unitary Multinational State: A Normative Reappraisal." Nationalities Papers, 47(6): 1067–1082.) in case the Constitution of PRC isn't credible enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of WP:JDL—I was quickly summarizing, and my thoughts have more to them, I assure you.
 * Use of "authoritarian" not alien or unusual, but it is highly slanted towards Anglo–America. The Economist is a lovely representative as such—they certainly matter here as central to that media nexus, but it's worth pointing out as such. I reiterate that use of "authoritarian" here functions as an unhelpful catch-all. It's not a government type, it's a vibe check. It doesn't correspond to anything specific like each of the words "unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" (theoretically!) do. It means very little within a single phrasal descriptor, as opposed to in a paragraph which may provide additional context. The infobox is meant to be a summary, and "authoritarian" adds very little information by itself.
 * Here's where the rubber meets the road—China's official project for ages now has been various 族 under one Chinese nation. These terms do not translate cleanly across languages, and while you can translate 族 as "nationality", I'm a bit mystified that the official translation of the constitution did so—if I can be glib, "race" or "ethnicity" would be more appropriate for those uninitiated to get what is meant by 族 here. (Here's the Chinese language version, just so you can see that that is the word being used in the original.) To be glib-er—in does the Chinese government act as if Tibetans, say, are a different nation from Han—the modus operandi is that they are all constituent parts of the Chinese "nation", as we conceptualize.  Remsense  诉  12:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the main novelty I wanted to point out, anyway. Further thoughts mostly mirror the arguments for the current phrasing previously made earlier on this page and in the archives. Remsense  诉  12:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Just checked for my own edification—and look! a newer official English translation uses "ethnic groups" etc. for 族 instead, like I thought they were originally going to.) Remsense  诉  12:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Multinational is the right word for it, some people simply translate nations to sovereign countries, but that's not actually true. MarvelousPeach (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to better articulate my point, and I'm rereading the paper Kiril linked, which relates the relevant origins in the USSR's ethnic policy. Remsense  诉  18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Questions about the lead
What does it mean to say the Cultural Revolution purged all non-communist elements? I thought China was already communist before that time.

The final sentences mention China's military and international status. I do not find that much support in the body for "potential superpower". Its military, while large, has a much smaller global footprint than the United States. How were these determined? Senorangel (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * While I think "non-communist elements" is imprecise, it's important to remember how communists have generally seen the process of establishing it, broadly through social revolution. Very briefly: the goal of communism is social—literally changing the way people see themselves and their role in society—not just who's in charge and what their title is. Marx, Lenin, and Mao each fully internalized the idea that this is a slow process, and inherently creates conflict with the existing ruling class, who continue to have wealth and social function after any given government is enacted. Of course, the Cultural Revolution, as well as Stalin's earlier collectivization are both shocking, full embraces of the idea that if radical social change does not take place quickly enough, radical political change will eventually be undone and the revolution will fail. Of course, their efforts didn't work either in either case (in my view). Hope this makes sense. Remsense  诉  06:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Is it too much to include "widely considered to be a potential superpower"? A rather vague conjecture compared to the rest of the lead, especially "considered" and "potential". Nor has it been elaborated upon in the body of the article. Senorangel (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it adds any information to the lead, so I wouldn't include it. Remsense  诉  01:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"China" or "People's Republic of China"
I have noticed that in other language Wikipedias (e.g. Japanese Wikipedia) the PRC is referred to as the People's Republic of China (中華人民共和国) and not just "China" (中国). "China" refers to China as in the region, as in "Greater China". I believe that the English Wikipedia should emulate that as there are two states (PRC and ROC) claiming to be China, and prioritising one over another might be kind of political. I'm not talking about all mentions of China in any other article, just this one (as in the title, not IN the article itself). Others might say this is irrelevant or unnecessary as most people think of the a PRC when discussing China, but there are still people–including me–who are from the ROC that still identify as Chinese. Just a suggestion, it's not really a big deal but it would be nice.

By the way, click the link that says "中国" and change the language to English and you'll see what I'm talking about. I can see that there are many arguments about my suggestion and I'm willing to work out these issues. Ztimes3 (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME. If you start a formal request, your opposition will cite that policy. However, I do not recommend investing more of your time and energy into such a proposal as you would be going against an over two-decade old consensus. Although arguments similar to yours have been brought up in the past, they have been sparce and few in between. In other words, there is a near-zero chance of such a proposal succeeding. Yue 🌙 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your response. I'll think about whether I should. I was just confused because the consensus in other language Wikipedias is to refrain from being politically biased, even in relation to the name of an article being based on a common name used by the majority of people. Ztimes3 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC) (edited)
 * The other language wikipedias probably copied the old system here. This system changed to follow commonname, under which we refrain from imposing political consideration upon article titles as was done previously. CMD (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Ztimes3 (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Page protected
India is page protected but why so many countries aren't page protected? Dipayanrao2003 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pages are protected in response to a pattern of vandalism and disruptive editing, not proactively for some abstract reason. Remsense  诉  10:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense oh, I see. Btw how do we edit such protected pages. Is there any qualification requirements forutgis process or something else? Dipayanrao2003 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, extended confirmed protection allows editing by extended confirmed users, with the main requirement being 500 edits. You can learn more about various levels of protection at the page I've just linked also. Cheers! Remsense  诉  12:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks bro Dipayanrao2003 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why you revert those templates?
China is controversial and this is not a forum to talk about China. 71.126.106.243 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging as this user reverted the edits. 71.126.106.243 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * it's a waste of time and clutters up the top of this page. It will have zero beneficial effect and be totally ignored. Do you really think that one person is going to look at your template and say to themselves "i better not post my forum post here then". Of course not. So all you've done is expanded a big brown slab of nothingness at the top of this page that adds nothing (and which is already too big) except makes it longer for the page to load and dissuades anyone from looking at what is underneath it. Go and do something more useful. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024
In the subdivision of the history section called 'Establishment of the Republic and World War II', I request for where it says "An estimated 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese were were massacred in Nanjing alone during the Japanese occupation" to "An estimated 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese were were massacred in Nanjing alone during Japanese occupation" because how could 300,000 people be killed in Nanjing if the city's population was only 250,000. 95.147.145.134 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Nanking Massacre, estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000.  (talk | contribs) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on "authoritarian"
Should the infobox contain "Authoritarian" in the government type parameter? (talk | contribs) 11:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion – in short, it's not a government type. It does not correspond to any concrete aspect of a government's structure in the way that monarchy, federal, one-party etc. do—those being terms that are offered as examples on and tend to be used for this parameter. There's a reason for that. Instead, "authoritarian" is a higher-level characterization of the political culture effected by a given government in practice, which is inherently steeped in historical context and not very correlated to the dry facts of structure. Not only could such a culture result from many different government types, the nature of what the term describes is simply less well defined. It's inappropriate to treat it like a data point as opposed to a higher-level analysis, which is outside the scope of the kind of parametrizable data that infoboxes are able to effectively communicate. If something requires further nuance or a history lesson to understand what it means beyond pastiche, it's probably not suited for an infobox. Such a characterization of a government deserves adequate description per WP:NPOV—and in this case, it  a prominent description in the article's body, but it's simply not data for the infobox to list alongside a country's GDP or surface area.
 * Remsense 诉  11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inclusion - for the government field of the infobox, we should strive for concrete details. We should avoid characterizations and labels, especially contentious ones. Characterizations are more appropriate for the article body, where they can be explained, addressed according to their due weight, and attributed as necessary. The infobox should address the form of government in a concrete, non-controversial, and direct way --- is a country unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? "Fuzzy" labels should be avoided. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think such vore should be general and not specificly related to this article. We should have a general vote for the info box in general discussion. not in China article discussion. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that we use consensus, not voting.  (talk | contribs) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by consensus?
 * That if one is obejct all other in favour it wiil be rejected? 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENSUS for explanation as to how editors make these kinds of decisions. Remsense  诉  13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a lot harder for the case for inclusion I reckon, because on top of demonstrating that "authoritarian" is a government type, one would likely be arguing that it's a type equally applicable to some rather distinct governments. That would seem to highlight the issues with its inclusion whatsoever. Remsense  诉  13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest to move the vore to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_country as it should be a general question and not something specific to China. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not a vote. This is a discussion in order to reach consensus.  (talk | contribs) 13:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion should be general in order to remove bias. If it will be about china specific, people that love/hate China will be influnce by that feeling.
 * The discussion should be in general and for all countries. There is nothing special about China in this regard that demand special rule. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue the opposite. Each country has a different type of government and discussions like this should only involve individual countries.  (talk | contribs) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * they have different type of goverment. that is true. no argue about this. But the question whether to include specific charctaristic of a goverment should be a general and non bias question. not a different criteria for one country and a different criteria for anther. Unless of course there is a special case. and feel free to argue why China is a special case in that regard. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And it seems that most of us in opposition agree that the term "authoritarian" should have very strict conditions for inclusion at best or should be ignored entirely at worst. 296cherry (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What bias? This talk page is the most likely page to find people who are familiar with details of this particular situation, as with any other country. No one else has expressed the same worry that this issue must be considered for every country at once, so I am curious if you mean anything else by "bias" here. Remsense  诉  16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Authoritarian is not a valid label for a governmental system unless it is widely agreed upon by sources that such a label is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to the country's system of government. AKA: broad claims of China being authoritarian do not substantiate inclusion of that word in the infobox; instead, it should be in the lead or elsewhere in the article.
 * Also, arguments along the lines of "Russia has that label so China should too" fail the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS litmus test because the inclusion of that label in the Russia article wasn't based on any policy in the first place. 296cherry (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I concur with Remsense's opinion. 296cherry (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as far too simplistic to put in an infobox. Frankly all government is de-facto authoritarian in that it establishes governmentality as a seat of authority which it enforces. It's a useless word that only basically establishes that Wikipedia sees China as an enemy - not exactly neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * that is not the meaning of authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Authoritarian" is a description of a style of governance, not a defined system of government. Furthermore, it implies at least some degree of political oppression without a proper discussion, and therefore violates WP:NPOV. "Unitary one-party state" is far better. Any accusations or evidence of authoritarianism/totalitarianism should be carefully treated in the text of the article itself. Ships  &amp;  Space (Edits) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Authoritarian is not a valid label for a governmental system per others. And apart from the 'Russia' argument being an OTHERSTUFF one, Russia actually has "under an authoritarian dictatorship", not simply the adjective 'authoritarian'. Dictatorship is a system of government, not simply a disapproving adjective like 'authoritarian' - which is almost certainly true of PRC, but is not their type of government. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I concur with the reasoning of others. The current wording in the infobox is adequate and concrete. The description "authoritarian" is important to discuss in the article, but it is more of a characterization than a datapoint. I think inclusion of the term would be outside of the scope of the infobox. HenryMP02 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and on the side, in regards to the Russia government infobox that clearly violates wp:npov it should be corrected to reflect the actual government of Russia, not state as fact the select opinions of a handful of political pundits. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the status quo is more than sufficient, authoritarian is too simplistic and isn’t a government type. I don’t think an expert on Chinese society and politics would use that term. In short, it seems like an exonym. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Disappoint to see lots of guesswork in these replies. Moxy 🍁 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate? Remsense  诉  17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've come across a topic that's more easily sourced than this..... In fact it seems to be the de facto example used . Moxy 🍁 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, well—yes. Just because I don't find the term enlightening doesn't mean it doesn't appear in every other book about 20th century China that I crack open. I see what you mean. Remsense  诉  17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is one of the downfalls of the Wikipedia system.....the vast majority of responses are based on opinions rather than actually searching for academic sourcing. Luckily we are only dealing with the info box here thus the usage of the term with accompanying sources throughout this article and every other article on this topic will be there to educate our readers. Moxy 🍁 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Luckily, those in the habit of closing or effectuating RfCs et al. usually find it pretty easy to separate wheat from chaff. ...I almost think ChatGPT could get the answer right 70% of the time or so. Remsense  诉  18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol your 100% right..... Chatbot even gives us a source ........ Jesus would be easy to write articles with these things..... I see why there's a concern lately. Moxy 🍁 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm veering off-topic but my assessment from everything I've seen is it's largely just a way to generate spam and anything else that doesn't require editorial or creative insight 60–90% faster than before. The issue seems one of increased volume, as opposed to a scary paradigm shift that will have to make us rethink the nature of writing or art or whatever. Remsense  诉  18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment was wrong, but you're confusing RfCs for votes, when they're about building consensus. My comment/reasoning was what should be focussed on, not my 'vote'. And my reasoning was bad so it should be ignored.
 * Regardless of its veracity, authoritarian isn't a government type and shouldn't be included in this parameter. I think the reason people have sentiment against this RfC is because there's noticeably a lot of anti-China media atm and people don't want to be dragged into another hate filled cold war. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I agree with your sociopolitical sketch, I'm going to protest such a characterization of my potential reasoning for stalwart opposition. The Chinese government will be fine regardless of what this article says, important as I think these articles might be in some ways. It's meaningless to make editorial decisions based on notions like that, I think: it's not reflective of the way in which media and "real life" politics interact. I'm really beyond my remit now, so feel free to yell at me on my talk page or anywhere where I don't have to bother everyone else with my YESAFORUMing.  Remsense  诉  19:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was characterising other comments that didn't include decent reasoning such as mine Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would you say it's not a government type?.... Using the term gives us a government type and political ideology all in one word. ..... Moxy 🍁 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, I thought this parameter was about systems of government, and not forms of government, although authoritarian falls under both. See List of forms of government. I do still think it's too simplistic to describe a system of government in a parameter, authoritarian is heavily implied in the status quo. If we could only use one word then yes, but for this parameter no imo. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a pretty clear consensus. Close?  (talk | contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that I went through all this trouble, I was legitimately hoping for at least one actual support or at least an incisive comment. There's a strong or novel form of this argument out there, and I was hoping to see it! Remsense  诉  11:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

main template refer Xi as "CCP General Secretary" instead of "President"?
I know the former is the office that holds actual power but cmon this is GOVERNMENT section. Coddlebean (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The Communist Party is enshrined in the country's constitution as such. It's not even a de facto versus de jure distinction in my mind. Remsense  诉  10:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Authoritarian regime
Since china is no less authoritarian than russia and since it also a dictatorship, shouldn't we mention it as such in the info box? 2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We've had this discussion numerous times, feel free to peruse the discussions in the archives. Remsense  诉  17:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense I have just checked it, and I see it is you that object the word Authoritarian while other support such use.
 * The fact that you don't like this word is not an argument against it and wikipedia in fact use this word in the case of Russia. So there is no reason not to use in the case of China as it is much more Authoritarian than Russia. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. Remsense  诉  15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which discussion is the most recent one? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We have many many sources,,,,can we get an explanation as to why its not here? Moxy 🍁 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the most recent discussion was in the most recent archive, and it was about another suggestion for this field. These conversations blur together. Remsense  诉  18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the only relevant one I've had about the infobox on this article. Remsense  诉  16:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See prior discussions. I would add that the starting point is that in an infobox, there is little room for attribution, multiple characterizations, or nuance. It is someone analogous to the lead in that it is one of the first things people see in an article. We should avoid contentious labels in infoboxes as a result. When it comes to the government field, we should be matter of fact and concrete in describing how a government is set up, and avoid characterizations and labels. There are so many alternative labels and characterizations for governments we should stick to what is concrete. "Authoritarian" is fine for the body (like it is now) where it can be attributed to sources and explained. It should be avoided for the infobox for the reasons I discuss here also.
 * "Dictatorship" is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically four political systems in the world and you don't think one of them should be mentioned? Moxy 🍁 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Dictatorship is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE." is it? Whether China is authoritarian or autocratic (the two options here) Xi is still a dictator. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * China is one of the examples in every academic publication not seeing how it's undue. Authoritarian would be more appropriate than dictatorship.. as a dictatorship could be authoritarian or totalitarian. There is clearly a debate if it's authoritarian regime or totalitarian regime....but the vast majority of sources say authoritarian giving reasons why totalitarian. Moxy 🍁 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems we need to clarify what government_type is actually meant to describe. As my preliminary take, I think it is generally most helpful when it describes the concrete structure of government institutions, as opposed to broad characterizations of the cultural or political effects of said structure. I realize this is the most uphill of battles, but I see no other way forward other than actually trying to define the scope of what we're disagreeing about. Remsense  诉  18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my view.... as we do with other articles we should list one of the three main types of political systems today: democracies,
 * totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes (with hybrid regimes). I'm not seeing a debate within the sources they are pretty clear on this. Think it'd be hard process to find anything that calls them democracy outside of their own publications. Moxy 🍁 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? Remsense  诉  19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. Remsense  诉  19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But we aren't talking about hybrid regime, we're talking about authoritarian regime. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a tripartite scheme of democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian, which are apparently the three choices for government_type, a point which is still confusing me. Remsense  诉  15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense China is not a Hybrid regime. It is a full authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * two things need to be mentioned:
 * 1) there is a consensuses that China is an authoritarian dictatorship. This is NOT a minority view. and we have many reliable sources to support this:
 * https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/18/chinas-authoritarian-regime-an-analysis-of-political-control/
 * https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/LimitsofAuthoritarianResilience.pdf
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/defending-the-authoritarian-regime-online-chinas-voluntary-fiftycent-army/1770B27AFA2FCD7AD5E773157A49B934
 * 2) Wikipedia does use such information in the info box. Just looking at the info box of Russia shows that such information (authoritarian dictatorship) is mentioned.
 * There is no reason not mention it in the case of China. To be honest, I don't get why all the objection of mentioning a well know fact that supported by the sources. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IP, I intend for this to sound direct but not brusque -- if you don't realize that China-is-a-dictatorship is an extreme minority position among RS, you are better served by starting your Wikipedia contributions in other areas while you continue to learn about this topic.
 * Your first link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship.
 * Your second link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship.
 * Your third link is an abstract of subscription access journal article. The abstract doesn't call China a dictatorship. If you think it's there somewhere in the article, feel free to post a quote.
 * For accessible, recent, academic texts (or texts by academics) in English on China's system, I suggest Tsang & Cheung, The Political Thought of Xi Jinping, Oxford University Press (2024), Keyu Jin, The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism, Viking (2023), David Daokai Li, China's World View, W.W. Norton, (2024). Even more accessibly written and also good are Jeremy Garlick's Advantage China (2024) and Kerry Brown's China Incorporated (either 2023 or 2024).
 * If you have non-English language proficiencies there are even more opportunities to branch out in sourcing, consistent with WP:GLOBAL. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the links call China Authoritarian and I have put the link to support the authoritarian claim.
 * As for sources that say China is dictatorship:
 * https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/decoding-chinese-politics/introduction-black-box-chinese-policy
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591295000300104
 * https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256602
 * In any case, if your problem is with the word dictatorship but you are ok with Authoritarian, then we can put the word Authoritarian and continue to discuss dictatorship. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Asia Society appears to be an advocacy organization. I think the answer is no; please review prior talk page discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The second source appears to be a bog-standard misunderstanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on the part of the IP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Third source is another advocacy group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, IP’s misunderstandings reflect one of the reasons I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field, and stick to what is more concrete (for example, unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? And so on). Concepts, labels, and political signifiers with less agreed upon meanings belong in the article body where they can be presented according to due weight, be sourced, and attributed as necessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * " I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field," - since we already doing it (haracterizations in the government field) there is no reason for having exception for China. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are in general sources which say that China is authoritarian, but you seem to be presenting them as if they don't? Or are you presenting sources which support authoritarian but not dictatorship? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the claim of "dictatorship" with some recent high-quality sources that do not use that characterization.
 * I don't recall whether these do or do not use the "authoritarian" characterization, with one exception - I am confident that Tsang & Cheung do use it.  JArthur1984 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Moxy 🍁 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is a middle ground here, what about adding authoritarian to the lead but keeping the infobox the same? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind mentioning prominently that the government is characterized as authoritarian, that's obviously NPOV to me. My concern is having a concrete scope for what the government_type parameter is meant to describe. Remsense  诉  16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. Remsense  诉  17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah the way I look at it we have the long version at Government of China, the medium version in the body, the short version in the lead, and the short short version in the infobox. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thumbsup! Moxy 🍁 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense but it is part of what |government_type= parameter is meant to describe ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for . Remsense  诉  18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the lead but not in the infobox makes sense from my perspective as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * it should be in the infobox as well. it is important information and there is a consensus that China is an authoritarian country. so no reason to ommit this information. ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * except what infoboxes are for and the information they are designed to communicate. where should it go? my entire point is that "authoritarian" is not a government type. Remsense  诉  18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, for a label as controversial as "authoritarian" to be put in the infobox, it would not only need to be almost ubiquitous in reliable sources but also directly related to the system of governance. For example, China cracking down on a protest might be labeled "authoritarian", but that doesn't make such a label applicable in the infobox. Such aspersions should be reserved for the lead or later in the article. 296cherry (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not controversial at all...its the example used in all of society and is somthing China is proud about. Moxy 🍁 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether you personally believe China is "proud" of being "authoritarian" or not isn't relevant to the government type infobox. 296cherry (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, you repeat the claim that authoritarian characterization doesn't belong the info box while ignoring of the fact that is part of the info box of other countries like Russia for example (but not only).
 * I faild to see how can we progress in such discussion. can you address the fact that it is part of info box of other countries and as such it should be part of the info box of China? ArmorredKnight (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not ignoring that, I'm just aware that it doesn't matter: "other stuff exists" is explicitly not a justification in itself for any content being or not being in any given article. I don't think it should be in Russia's infobox either, but I haven't edited that article. But, if there's no overarching editorial policy, it doesn't matter that other editors have done things I disagree with to other articles. You have to make some case for why it's justified on its own merits, e.g. that "authoritarian" is describing a government type the same way "monarchy" or "federal state" is. You have not remotely attempted to do so. Remsense  诉  09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, it does matter that in other wikipedia articles it is included in the info box. This is because wikipedia should be consistent.
 * And if it is included in other articles, then it means that the de facto policy is to include such infomation. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter, and your understanding of basic site norms and policy like I've linked above is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. I could make the reverse argument that since it's not on this article, therefore that's policy and therefore it shouldn't be on Russia either, and it'd be exactly as inane of an argument. Remsense  诉  10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, no! you are missing the point. I am not saying it shoulod be included in this article because it is included in the article about Russia. I am saying it should be included here because it is characterization of the china regime.
 * You are saying that such info should not be included in the info box according to wikipedia guide line. I am saying that if there were such guide line that it would not have been included in the russian article. Therefor there are no such guideline. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And you have not made any argument that it is appropriate as a government type in the way that "monarchy", "unitary state" etc. are other than "Russia has it". Remsense  诉  10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense, it is part of what characterize the russia goverment, this is enough to include this in the info box 85.65.237.103 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. Remsense  诉  11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense you can say nope as much as you want. you have not shown any rule that say that and we can see in other article such information is included. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah. Remsense  诉  13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, such a label being included in Russia's infobox is NOT a reason to have it in China's! For one, we can easily reverse your idea and instead say that, since China doesn't have the word "authoritarian" in its government type, then NO article should have it. Secondly, Russia and China are different countries and their situations are different. Third, Wikipedia operates by community guidelines, not what random editors personally think should be mandated on all articles. 296cherry (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've started a RfC below.  (talk | contribs) 11:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @CanonNi, why is the vote mention in the specific article of China and not in general discussion about infobox? 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense has a great explanation in the RfC section.  (talk | contribs) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The key consideration (from my perspective) is that Russia's constitution is designed to function as a multi-party electoral democracy, but instead, one individual has consolidated power and suppressed opposition. China doesn't have that, so mentioning the de jure form of government is enough. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. 158.223.166.44 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Liu1126 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)