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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2006 Featured article review Kept March 15, 2007 Featured article review Demoted March 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept August 15, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted October 21, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed December 16, 2013 Good article nominee Listed December 17, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2014. 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? Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2004, October 1, 2005, October 1, 2006, October 1, 2007, October 1, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 1, 2010, October 1, 2012, October 1, 2014, October 1, 2018, and October 1, 2019. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

China Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries 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 WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Asia Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

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]

Which discussion is the most recent one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 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]

Here's the only relevant one I've had about the infobox on this article. Remsense诉 16:18, 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:

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/18/chinas-authoritarian-regime-an-analysis-of-political-control/

https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/LimitsofAuthoritarianResilience.pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/defending-the-authoritarian-regime-online-chinas-voluntary-fiftycent-army/1770B27AFA2FCD7AD5E773157A49B934

2) Wikipedia does use such information in the info box. Just looking at the info box of Russia shows that such information (authoritarian dictatorship) is mentioned.

There is no reason not mention it in the case of China. To be honest, I don't get why all the objection of mentioning a well know fact that supported by the sources. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[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.

As for sources that say China is dictatorship:

https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/decoding-chinese-politics/introduction-black-box-chinese-policy

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591295000300104

https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256602

In any case, if your problem is with the word dictatorship but you are ok with Authoritarian, then we can put the word Authoritarian and continue to discuss dictatorship. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[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. ISSN 0143-6597. 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]

Thumbsup! Moxy🍁 17:08, 15 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]

Nope. Remsense诉 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]

Nah. Remsense诉 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]

I've started a RfC below. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:25, 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]

@Remsense has a great explanation in the RfC section. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key consideration (from my perspective) is that Russia's constitution is designed to function as a multi-party electoral democracy, but instead, one individual has consolidated power and suppressed opposition. China doesn't have that, so mentioning the de jure form of government is enough. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. 158.223.166.44 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, the term "socialist republic" was changed to "socialist state" by, from what I can confirm, Josethewikier. This edit was not explained in any means. The edit was summarily reverted, before being re-reverted again by another user, who claimed that there had been extensive discussion and consensus on this issue.

While it is true that the topic was discussed recently in January, the topic did not go anywhere, there was no consensus reached, and I have due reason to believe that these edits were made without consensus or agreement from the rest of the community. The wording of "socialist state" and "socialist republic" imply very different things, which Wikipedia as an information source cannot simply change without consensus.

Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea, all of which follow (or are inspired) by Marxist-Leninist organization and which organize themselves similarly to China, are all labeled as "socialist republics". In particular, North Korea, despite being a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, is still labeled as a socialist republic and not a socialist state. This edit was made thus not only without consensus, but against the customs established by other pages.

I will discard my own biases here, but I believe that it is not biased to say that with Wikipedia's current definition that considering that wikipedia currently labels North Korea, which is by consensus considered to be a totalitarian dictatorship, as a "socialist republic" rather than a "socialist state", it can be considered that China- while by consensus an authoritarian (or even totalitarian country), that China should not be labeled as a "socialist state" but as a "socialist republic".

If we are to suggest that the labeling of China's government type should emphasize it being a "state" rather than a republic, then this should not apply solely to China, who is not unique in their form of organization based on Marxism-Leninism, but to Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba as well (as well as North Korea). This however requires a consensus: this requires a discussion, and a proper discussion with a vote and consensus was never reached. I believe that this issue should be solved with a discussion and a vote. I have given my own reasonings as to why I believe the edit should be reverted and China should be described as a "socialist republic" instead of a "socialist state" in the infobox.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The discussion in January turned into a debate on "communist state" vs "socialist republic", and no clear consensus was formed. To quote TucanHolmes in that discussion, "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" is decipherable and precise. I fully agree with that statement. Like many other socialist countries that exist today, China is a republic; sure, it might be authoritarian, but it's still a republic, not a vague term like 'state'. Similar countries, such as Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba already use the term "socialist republic" in their articles. Even North Korea, the textbook definition of a dictatorship, is a republic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would additionally like to ask that, until a consensus has been made, that by default "socialist state" be reverted to "socialist republic" until a consensus has been made. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the efforts of a few editors to semantically distinguish between "socialist state" and "socialist republic" to be redundant and tiring. I understand the distinction between a "communist state" and a "socialist state" as communists and non-communists have differing understandings of the former (communists are more specific about the meaning of "communist state" as it is the end goal for them, not a current reality), but once you start dissecting the meaning of "republic" and "democracy" and referencing scholars of their time from the 18th century then you've lost me. Yue🌙 00:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add my comments as well. I believe that change was made by User:Amigao at 18:59 on 2024/04/12, rather than by me, although if further evidence suggests otherwise, I am indeed terribly sorry for such a change. I did not edit this page from Mar 6 (in the early days of my account) until April 22, and I cannot find when I could yage edited the above as is suggested. Nevertheless, Socialist states and Socialist republics are (according to the English Wikipedia) the same thing, as the latter redirects to the former. Regardless, I fully support the change be reverted back to a Socialist republic, until an updated consensus is formed and reached. Cheers. Josethewikier (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean to add that they are the same thing as per the EN WP, and therefore there should be no reason to prefer one over the other in a Wikipediac sense. Since "republic" seems to be overall a more preferred term by most (including myself), I will indeed support that. I am editing on the iOS app due to having enforced my Wikibreak, and due to my inexperience using the app, I regret any inconveniences I cause. Josethewikier (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regret my stream of apologies, explains why I'm taking a wikibreak. 🍁 Josethewikier (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference one way or the other. Remsense诉 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Socialist republic" and "Socialist state" will not "imply very different things" to almost all readers, being functionally identical in any situation where they are not specifically defined for that situation as meaning something different. CMD (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with this notion. If readers were to look at any other article currently labeled as "socialist republic" (again, such as the articles already mentioned in the starter) Wikipedia may come off as biased in their implication that China is not organized as a republic or that it is somehow organizationally "different" from countries like Vietnam, Laos, and other Marxist-Leninist states when that simply is not the case. It carries implications of bias that Wikipedia has to avoid as a neutral source. It only ceases to "imply very different things" if all countries currently labeled as socialist republics were to be labeled as socialist states, but because they are not; and thus hence there is a set in stone distinction in Wikipedia that Marxist-Leninist states are referred to as socialist republics rather than socialist states, it only seems conclusive to revert the edit made and reverse it to socialist republic.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything in this article suggests China is not a republic. It seems clear from the text that it is. CMD (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's no reason for the article to display China as a "socialist state" and it makes no sense for the article to label China as a "socialist state" in the infobox if it is established everywhere else throughout the article that it is a socialist republic or a republic. This again was an unnecessary change and should be reverted.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally agree that there is no extreme difference between the labels 'socialist state' and 'socialist republic' but I think its necessary to be accurate when there is both universal consensus and overwhelming facts on the ground that conclude China is a republic. To go from the more accurate 'socialist republic' to the less accurate 'socialist state' is an unusually retrograde move which suggests ulterior motivations. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]