Talk:Politics of China/Archive 1

Bias
This article is extremely biased against the CPC and the current government in China. I'd invite everyone to have a look at the Neutral Point of View tutorial. Babelfisch


 * Please be more detailed so we can see into (and perhaps correct) any problems. It is also a good idea to post at the bottom (and not the top) of talk pages. --Jiang 21:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is is good to post at the bottom of Talk pages? Is there a convention or etiquette about this? I find that new posts at the top of Talk pages make current issues more accesilble.


 * Please see talk pages. --Jiang 07:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Babelfisch is right. Talk page comments are more accessible when they are at the top. That's what newcomers usually do, because it's the most logical thing.

 pluma  ♫ '''♯ 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the intrusion; I’m new here. I expanded the organizations under the CCP, as per a request below (source: http://www.giga-hamburg.de/index.php?file=chinadata.html&folder=ifa) and deleted Ren Rong as CCP General Secretary (he was secretary of Tibet, not China).DOR (HK) (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to New York Times article only give the full text for two weeks for free. After that you get an abstract and have to pay a small fee to see the full text. User:Fredbauder

Source of number of executions is: China's New Rulers: The Secret Files, Andrew J. Nathan and Bruce Gilley, New York Review of Books Press, 2002, hardcover, 150 pages, ISBN 1590170466 Fred Bauder 11:35 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

AI and Human Rights Watch in China report a *MUCH* lower number 1500-2500/year which is based on official statistics. With due respect to Nathan, I do not find the number of 15000 executions per year credible. Basically, it would imply that 9 in 10 executions in China are not officially reported, and there is no way that that could happen without AI, HRW and other Western human rights groups noticing. Furthermore I can't possibly imagine a political motivation for not announcing executions. You are trying to keep people in line. What's the point of executing people in secret? Roadrunner

Move
Politics of China as of now contains only info on those pertaining to the PRC. Should it be moved to Politics of the People's Republic of China? And leave this page to the plenty, and extremely plenty political intrigues and intricacies of the dynastic China? --Menchi 02:51 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the article you're proposing should be at Politics of Imperial China since people would expect to find PRC politics under China, and not imperial politics. --Jiang 07:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Menchi to move this page to the more accurate title (Politics of PRC), since we now have People's Republic of China seperated from China. It would be confusing to have an article titled Something of China but actually only talks about Something of People's Republic of China. --Lorenzarius 17:44 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Then are we to move the other "of China"s such as Media in China, Police in China, Foreign relations of China, Geography of China, Provinces of China, etc? In my opinion, either they should all be moved or none be moved at all. The important part is staying consistent. --Jiang 02:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Whether an article should be moved depends on its content: the articles Media/Police/Foreign relations of China only deals with the current government on Mainland so they should be moved. But geography of China has nothing to do with politics and provinces of China does not refer to provinces of PRC only, so I think those two should stay. --Lorenzarius 07:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Provinces of China lists the now defunct provinces established by the ROC, so it can't be said as Provinces of the PRC. --Menchi 07:10, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * As a foreign student I rely a lot on Wikipedia for my research and when I search for "China" I usually mean PRC (Past and Present)Nathalie23 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement
"The PRC is an oligarchy in which political power and advancement depends on gaining and retaining the support of a informal body of people numbering one to two thousand who constitute the leadership of these organs. "

What is factually wrong with this statement? --Jiang 17:42, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

IN my point of view, with the gradual liberization of chinese economy,foreign interaction and the dissemination of internet, it is inevitable that spirit of democracy will take root in china.--219.140.92.118

Debatable. Democracy is not necessarily the final goal of sociological progression. 219.140.92.118's opinion of the inevitability of democracy is very Hegelian. Besides, does personal opinion belong in Wikipedia articles? --165.228.69.79 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Engineers in Chinese Politics
I find it facinating that over the past 10-20 years most of China's political leaders have been engineers (See Premiers and  Presidents). In Australia, polical leaders generally have a background in economics and law. Can someone explain this trend? Do engineers have a higher standing in Chinese society than in Western examples, like Australia and the USA? --Commander Keane 13:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My Chinese politics professor once offered the explanation that under the early Chinese Communist regime, when most of the current leaders were in college, engineering was one of the very few higher education subjects that wasn't open to any suspicion on ideological grounds -- leading to both more people majoring in engineering than typical in Western countries, and more engineers than other majors surviving the various purges to reach high levels of power. I don't have any paper sources to cite on this point, but perhaps this will give you a place to start looking. --Ambyr 22:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a clue. As far as I know, members of my family who attended universities, were not engineers.  My grandparents were certified public accountants, an uncle who studied in France to become an artist, another uncle who did not study engineering in the U.K.,,,no engineers (at least I don't think there were) except for me but I'm retired and I'm not Chinese (instead my ancestors were of mixed aborigine, Han, and possibly Aliens who journeyed to Earth in a UFO) and very certain, I'm not a politician either....,,,,,,Ariele 05:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think: Deng Xiaoping wanted his successers to follow his reforms in a reliable and loyal manners. He picked a bunch of technicians so they would not come up with a bunch of new theories to derail Deng's reforms. His two followers, Jiang and Hu, enhanced Deng's reforms but never changed much fundementally.

Article naming
This article should be renamed to "Politics of the People's Republic of China", with "Politics of China" summarizing both "Politics of the People's Republic of China" and "Politics of the Republic of China" (as this is where "Politics of Taiwan" should be) WhisperToMe 04:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal pradesh has been shown as a part of China in this article.It is as of now an integral part of india and fully democratically elected government is in place there as of now.It is one of the 28 Indian Provinces.

Re: Tibetan and Uighur separatism
Ran, in what section do you suggest it go?

Lapsed Pacifist 23:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just start another section. Copying what we have from the People's Republic of China article would be a good start. Then expand on it. -- ran (talk) 23:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Generous financial encouragement"
Okay, this has been troubling me for some time, because it defies both official PRC policy, and also the tearful horror stories being spread all over the Internet by Han Chinese from Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia of being loathed, harassed, raped, and murdered in cold blood by locals while local government stands idly by. What exactly is the extent of this "generous financial encouragement"? Who are these paid to, and in what form? How are these justified against official policy that clear favours ethnic minorities? -- ran (talk) 15:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you like those stories, check out some of the separatist websites. What is bringing the Han to these places, and keeping them there, if not the financial incentives offered by a government eager to develop the sparsely populated west?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of people here have an idea that "if you're Han Chinese and you're in Tibet, you get money."

Let's take a look at what the U.S. Department of State has to say:



''The Central Government and other provinces of China heavily subsidize the Tibetan economy, which, according to official statistics, has grown by an average annual rate of over 10 percent for the last decade. Over 90 percent of Tibet's budget income comes from outside sources. Tibet also benefits from a wide variety of favorable economic and tax policies. Government development policies have helped raise the material living standards of most ethnic Tibetans, particularly by providing better transportation and communications facilities. However, in recent years, freer movement of persons throughout China, government-sponsored development, and the prospect of economic opportunity in Tibet have led to a substantial increase in the non-Tibetan population (including China's Muslim Hui minority as well as Han Chinese) in Lhasa and other urban areas as migrant workers from China's large transient population seek to take advantage of these new economic opportunities. Most of these migrants profess to be temporary residents, but small businesses run by ethnic Han and Hui citizens (mostly restaurants and retail shops) predominate in almost all Tibetan cities.''

''The Dalai Lama, Tibetan experts, and others have expressed concern that development projects and other Central Government policies initiated in 1994 and reemphasized and expanded at the 4th Tibet Work Forum in June will continue to promote a considerable influx of non-Tibetan Chinese into Tibet. They fear that Tibet's traditional culture and ethnic Tibetan demographic dominance will be overwhelmed by such migration.''

Let me get this clear. The financial encouragement that we speak of comes in the form of government sponsored development projects. This has been happening for some time, for example, the government financially assisting people displaced by dam construction, etc. to move to sparsely populated regions and develop those areas. It does not mean that "if you're Han Chinese and in Tibet you get money".

-- ran (talk) 16:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

As for "what's keeping them there" &mdash; because it's home? What keeps the Jews in Israel when they can have a better life in, say, America? Han Chinese in Xinjiang feel that they have a sacred duty to guard the motherland against "evil forces", i.e. Islamic fundamentalism, Western plots to split China up, etc. Many of them have been there for 2 generations, and they know no other home.

And for that matter, they don't have much choice either. You might want to take a look at the hukou system. If you're from one place and you go another place, be prepared to meet discrimination head on. -- ran (talk) 16:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, why did you revert all of my changes, spelling corrections included? -- ran (talk) 16:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I missed the spelling corrections. As for the rest, you seem to be missing the point.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we'll do it one at a time then:

exemption from population control policies &mdash; this part sounds strange, and can be miscontrued to mean that ethnic minorities are exempt from school admissions, government employment and military recruitment.

others feel that they are still inadequate without full independence, and still others, especially Han chauvinists are critical of them, considering them to be either inadequate, or misplaced. Really clunky. If you can rework it please do.

 (despite the generous financial incentives they themselves receive)  As I have already said this is based on a misunderstanding.

-- ran (talk) 16:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let me say this again: financial support is given to projects moving Han Chinese (and other ethnicities) into Xinjiang; financial support is not given to individual Han Chinese who make the decision to move into Xinjiang. The notion that all Han Chinese in Xinjiang continue to receive incentives simply for being there is false, and is a gross disrespect to the unfair treatment that Han Chinese in Xinjiang continue to receive from their own government despite having heeded their own government's call (however justified/unjustified this call may be). -- ran (talk) 07:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to Google four words; financial incentives Han Tibet. You will see links to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Lonely Planet, Let's Go Travel Guides, along with many other travel sites, numerous prestigious universities (especially American ones) and a host of Tibetan and human rights websites. All of them confirm what I have written and you have reverted. The way you structure your sentences leaves them open to misrepresentation and clouds the issue. I don't believe I have ignored you. If you don't consider the incentives generous you should explain why not. Patriotism and financial gain are a powerful combination. Why did you remove the link for colonialism?

Lapsed Pacifist 08:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, this is exactly why sloppy language is evil, especially when it surfaces on one website and then is copied by a large number of others with no clue what is going on.

The financial incentives that you refer to come in several forms:
 * 1) There are programs settling people from various areas (e.g. desertifying areas on the Loess Plateau, dam construction on various rivers, etc.) into sparsely populated areas in Xinjiang. These people are recompensated, though usually not enough.
 * 2) There have always been programs moving cadres, teachers, doctors and other professionals into Tibet and Xinjiang. These people are indeed motivated by financial incentives to offset the harsh conditions in Xinjiang and Tibet.
 * 3) Some of the sites mention shopkeepers in Lhasa who moved there in the 1980's. This suggests strongly that there was some government program at the time that encouraged business owners from China proper to set up shop in Lhasa, with financial incentives. A description of the original program would be nice, though.

They do not come in the forms of:
 * 1) People who moved to Xinjiang with the XPCC or other programs, and have lived in Xinjiang for one or two generations, do not receive incentives simply for being there. (In fact this is why many of them are leaving, because Xinjiang is so poor.) In fact, many people who went with the XPCC, the camps-turned-farms in the Chaidam Basin, etc. were forced to go there. Some of the people in the Chaidam Basin were political prisoners. They have never been recompensated for their forced relocation.
 * 2) The constant stream of migrants privately entering cities in Xinjiang and Tibet from impoverished areas in China Proper do not receive incentives. They are there to make money off the market economy (tourism, retail, etc.), not the command economy of the government. Many of them aren't even registered, so it's not like the government even knows who or where they are. And for this reason, many of them do not want to stay permanently.

You might also want to re-read some of those links that you yourself found. You can especially take a look at this, which is definitely pro-Tibetan independence and yet provides a very comprehensive and unexaggerated account. Look for "A Swathe of Incentives".

As such, when you say that Han Chinese in Xinjiang are complaining despite receiving money, you're misrepresenting the situation. Many Han Chinese in Xinjiang are not receiving any money for staying in XJ, and have never done so. (Which is why many of them leave.) Their grievances against their own government are fully valid.

Finally, I did not remove the link to colonialism. Check again. -- ran (talk) 15:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

In reference to your note on the incentives given to "teachers, doctors and other professionals". When I first made the edit about financial incentives, you got rid of it straightaway. You could have qualified it with the above and saved us both a lot of fuss. I was under the impression the incentives applied to all workers, I know now that's not the case. This is indicative of my problems with the manner in which you edit. It struck me that this policy would'nt be something the PRC would like advertised, and when I saw that you (and I knew you to be well-informed) had edited it out, it grated. A simple qualification was all that was required.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for being somewhat confrontational. By the way, I've posted the question to the Chinese Wikipedia, asking about the exact details of the aforementioned incentives. (Who gets them? How? For how long? etc.) Surely there's someone there who knows about this! When I get enough replies I'll come back here. -- ran (talk) 01:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the reply that I've gotten so far, translated word for word:


 * If you go on your own to Xinjiang or Tibet, you won't get any money. You have to be part of an official program of "aiding the frontier", "entering Tibet", etc. The government isn't really interested in "colonization", it's more interested in "importing officials". For places like Xinjiang and Tibet, if you don't use a carrot and stick, there is no way officials are going to go there. As for regular Han Chinese, they go because they have no choice, in the past it was mostly forced migration with construction corps or production corps. Nowadays tourism is developed, so many Han Chinese are working there, but very few people are actually willing to stay permanently.

Not sure if this is the most comprehensive answer possible... Also not sure if the government is really uninterested in "colonization" (why would there be so many Han Chinese in Xinjiang then?) Also I have a very strong suspicion that when he said "importing officials", the "officials" included professionals in the employment of the government, like people working in engineering bureaus, education, healthcare, etc. Perhaps that's implied. (It's not like there were any "private" engineers, teachers, etc. before market reforms.)

But in any case, I'm still waiting for more replies.

-- ran (talk) 02:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's another interpretation that's been offered by several people on the Chinese Wikipedia:

When we speak of "financial incentives" being offered, more often than not these are offered to cadres, teachers, and other professionals willing to relocate and work in the entire impoverished western half of China, i.e. not just Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet Autonomous Region, but also Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Yunnan, Guizhou, etc. Moreover there is no evidence that this is offered only to Han Chinese; indeed it is offered to anyone who applies.

Here's a website they found:



This is a government program for university students who agree to work in fields such as education, healthcare, poverty reduction, etc. in impoverished areas of western China for a period of one to two years. The government provides them with 600 RMB (~US$80 by exchange rates; ~US$200-300 by PPP) of living allowance every month, or 800 RMB for the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Now, there are certainly other programs like this for government cadres, etc., involving longer periods of time. The "net effect" of this is that there are a lot of Han Chinese in XJ and Tibet. But from another perspective, this is a benevolent effort by wealthy eastern China to aid impoverished western China with an inpouring of professional talent, with no strings attached. Any country with a wide geographical disparity in income should be expected to engage in programs like these.

What does everyone think?

-- ran (talk) 16:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh, someone from the Chinese Wikipedia with friends in Tibet and relatives in Xinjiang is asking (sarcastically of course) how exactly to get the aforementioned financial incentives, since they never received a cent. -- ran (talk) 06:17, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Government of the People's Republic of China
I have created a new article, Government of the People's Republic of China, the purpose of which is to outline, and provide links to, the structure of the bureaucracy of the state, as opposed to the political structure and concerns that make up the content of this article. For example, I know there are a few bureaus which deal with water resources, the Ministry of Water Resources and the State Environmental Protection Administration. The purpose of the new article is to list and provide links to such state agencies. Fred Bauder 15:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * that information belongs at Central People's Government. see note left at Talk:Government of the People's Republic of China.--Jiang 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently both articles look almost identical - Matthew238 10:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This information needs to be added in to this page. http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31280.htm - An Extraterrestrial —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.75.200 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Changed first paragraph
1) Power is not really divided among three different bodies since you have a lot of interlocking membership.

2) It's not clear that the party is the most powerful of the three. Normally you don't get too many conflicts because of the large amount of interlocking memberships.  The last time there *was* a major conflict (in 1989), the Party lost.

Full list of the departments which directly belongs to the Central Committee of Communist Party of China?
Besides some main departments such as Other central organizations include

The Central Military Commission The Discipline Inspection Commission, The International Liaison Department The United Front Work Department The Organization Department The Propaganda Department .....in China,there're more Departements directly belongs to the Central Committee,I think that.

Can anyone show me this full list? Thanks, --Redflowers 06:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's your source: http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/ias/archiv/cds/cds_0804.pdf. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideologist of the Communist Party of China?
In reality,who's the main ideologist of the Communist Party of CHina? Can anyone show me the answer? Thanks, --Redflowers 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's the main ideologist of the Communist Party of China? Are you asking about present members or past members? Because the Communist Party of China was made by Mao, who is the father of Maoism, which is the socialist style that China uses. -- An Extraterrestrial

Chinese government
I guess you finally got your way and we no longer have an article on the government of China, just this mess. So when I want to find the State Food and Drug Administration of China, no place to naturally find a link to it. There is no excuse. Fred Bauder 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I understand that people may be shying away from adding this as a topic heading due to a potential edit war, but I think it would be appropriate to add. 198.166.16.171 (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Accurately describing how the system works is criticism. It is not really necessary to explicitly use words such as fraud, corruption and dictatorship. Simply titling the state "People's" and detailing how politics actually work in China is enough. Fred Talk 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Factions
I propose a section on factions, based on what I've written elsewhere. Objections? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Post-1949, factions in the People’s Republic of China had a profound influence on both politics and policies. In the 1950s, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Field Armies were sources of factional support for senior party cadres with close ties to individual military units.[3] In the 1960s, Mao Zedong’s Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution drove all conservative factions together, for (often unsuccessful) matters of survival, whereas the radical left split into “redder than thou” factions.[4] The 1970s saw a grand alliance of military, conservative and moderate radical factions overthrow the notorious Gang of Four in a coup d’etat.[5] DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

POV Problems
Reading the article, I noticed that the opening section before the table of contents had a POV bias in favor of the government. It might be good to go through the article and check for other POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogburt (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Socialist/communist conflict
This article is unclear whether China is communist or socialist. It seems to say it's socialist in some places, but it calls it communist other places. This is very confusing and should be cleared up.  pluma  ♫ '''♯ 01:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

add book?

 * China: Politics as Warfare June 21, 2012 review by Jonathan Mirsky of book edited by Elizabeth J. Perry and Sebastian Heilmann in The New York Review of Books 99.181.128.237 (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in my comment removing your edit, the book might be added, if relevant to the topic. The review is not at all relevant.  And you should not add it, because you have frequently lied about content.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be an excellent source if someone gets ahold of it. While the thesis is questionable attempts to support it would involve setting forth a great deal of useful information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is a book review of a relevant book not permissible content? I fail to understand. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's permissible content once removed; if the book is relevant, it should appear in the article (at least as "Further reading"), and the review only in an article about the book. If the book isn't relevant, then neither is the review. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the section Politics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China where that book and other particularly useful books might be listed. That review is rather tendentious. The book itself is obviously useful as would be Mao's works, at least in some suitable summary form. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have several overlapping articles: Government of the People's Republic of China, Communist Party of China, History of the Communist Party of China, and this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was moved by BD2412. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Politics of the People& → Politics of China – The primary topic of China is the country formally titled the People's Republic of China. It follows that subtopics describing "Foo of China" should reflect "Foo of China". I would move this title to Politics of China and either move the existing disambiguation page to Politics of China (disambiguation), or delete it altogether and point a hatnote to Politics of Taiwan. bd2412 T 01:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename per China, per WP:COMMONNAME and per the practice for other countries of not using the long form of the country name when the country is at the short form. It's time the article titles were more consistent. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move other to Politics of China (disambiguation) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME China. And delete Politics of China (disambiguation) per WP:TWODABS. Sawol (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The dab page can be expanded to list the various articles that cover politics in the various dynasties of China -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Calidum   15:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Politics of China → Politics of the People's Republic of China – It's more convenient to rename this article Politics of the People's Republic of China in contrast to the Politics of the Republic of China article because there are two governmental entities that control and claim to be "One China. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Strong oppose The current arrangement matches the current country article and WP:COMMONNAME. It's 2016 not 1949. Timrollpickering 12:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Should follow name of country article, which is China per WP:COMMONNAME. --T*U (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until the title of the country article changes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - This is about politics of the currently recognized PROC, not about the PROC itself. "Politics of China" is not the broad-concept article at this point, so move Politics of China (disambiguation) to "Politics of China". Also, there is Politics of the Republic of China. Also, COMMONNAME is too much of a weak argument when the article discusses "Politics of"; so is consistency, which is tricky and less clear to me. --George Ho (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Politics of the Republic of China should be at Politics of Taiwan - it was moved against consensus many years ago and attempts to move it away from that title or clarify the scope have run into the usual stonewalling, filibustering and other obstruction that's been used to disrupt the encyclopedia in this area over the years. A lot of the articles are still in a mess because people keep trying to refight the names on most individual articles and/or mix up the contents. Timrollpickering 11:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is probably the most important article which should be at Politics of the People's Republic of China per WP:PRECISE. The topic "politics of China" is much more nuanced - it includes cross strait politics of both the PRC and ROC. The political entity specific to this article is the PRC. Other articles such as Politics of the Palestinian National Authority are usually specific to the entity. This should be consistent here as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Pinging Timrollpickering, Lugnuts, and TU-nor. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC); Almost forgot Necrothesp. 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Emblem of People’s Militia.svg