Talk:China/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

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'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'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)

 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)

 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)

References

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)

 Done 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)

 Done 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)

References

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:

Outlining of principle features of communist states

Type	Communist state	Parliamentary liberal democracy	Presidential liberal democracy
Party structure	One-party system (normally)	Multi-party system	Multi-party system
Leading role of ruling party	Yes	None	None
Power structure	Unified power	Fusion of power	Checks and balances
State branches	One	Minimum two	Minimum three
Democratic structure	Democratic centralism	Liberal democracy	Liberal democracy
Legislature type	Highest organ of state power	Parliament	Parliament
Does the legislature have unlimited power?	Yes	No	No
State system is based on	Class values	Universal values	Universal values
Transmission belt mass organisations?	Yes	None	None

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- 20:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@TucanHolmes and Moxy: 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)

But why wouldn't "Communist state" suffice?...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 Burnett, M.T. (2020). Nationalism Today [2 volumes]: Extreme Political Movements around the World [2 volumes]. Mount Royal University. p. 612. ISBN 979-8-216-12134-3. This is something we regurgitate as per the soures at articles like List of socialist states#Current socialist states vs List of socialist states#Non-Marxist–Leninist states under the lable "Form of government" note "Non-Marxist–Leninist states".Moxy- 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

 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)

@CMD: 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)

 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:

Note: Describing the PRC's government type has been a contentious issue. Please read the archives of past discussions before making or proposing changes. [...] The Wikipedia page for one-party state describes it as "a type of state in which one political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution". In 2018, the Chinese government added the CCP's leadership to the constitution, which officially makes China both a de jure and a de facto one-party state.

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 no way 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)

Paper not published in a journal

Moved to Talk:Income inequality in China

 – Remsense诉 19:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)