Why is this article about the People's Republic of China?
"China" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China in both the Chinese and English languages. For relevant policy details, see WP:COMMONNAME.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
China is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that China, with over 34,687 species of animals and vascular plants, is the third-most biodiverse country in the world?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent.", "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China", "and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 93 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2010, and 2011.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
India is page protected but why so many countries aren't page protected? Dipayanrao2003 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We've had this discussion numerous times, feel free to peruse the discussions in the archives. Remsense诉 17:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. Remsense诉 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have many many sources,,,,can we get an explanation as to why its not here? Moxy🍁 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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's Back (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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's Back (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. Remsense诉 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we aren't talking about hybrid regime, we're talking about authoritarian regime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Remsense China is not a Hybrid regime. It is a full authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
the links call China Authoritarian and I have put the link to support the authoritarian claim.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Third source is another advocacy group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This seems reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" 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)[reply]
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's Back (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tsang, Steve; Cheung, Olivia (2022-01-02). "Has Xi Jinping made China's political system more resilient and enduring?". Third World Quarterly. 43 (1): 225–243. doi:10.1080/01436597.2021.2000857. ISSN0143-6597. Moxy🍁 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is a middle ground here, what about adding authoritarian to the lead but keeping the infobox the same? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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's Back (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense but it is part of what |government_type= parameter is meant to describe ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for {{Infobox country}}. Remsense诉 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the lead but not in the infobox makes sense from my perspective as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the infobox contain "Authoritarian" in the government type parameter? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{Infobox country}} 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 requires 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep in mind that we use consensus, not voting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See WP:CONSENSUS for explanation as to how editors make these kinds of decisions. Remsense诉 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would argue the opposite. Each country has a different type of government and discussions like this should only involve individual countries. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
that is not the meaning of authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 & Space(Edits) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: See Nanking Massacre, estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000. 
