Ratnahastin (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|||
{{featured}} |
|||
{{American English}} |
|||
{{mainpage date|March 7|2004}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
{{v0.5|class=FA|category=Geography}} |
|||
|action1=FAC |
|||
{{WPCD}} |
|||
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:59:59 |
|||
---- |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/People's Republic of China/archive1 |
|||
''An event mentioned in this article is an [[Template:October 1 selected anniversaries|October 1 selected anniversary]].'' |
|||
|action1result=promoted |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
|action1oldid=2784471 |
|||
|action2=FARC |
|||
|action2date=2006-04-23, 02:55:31 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China |
|||
|action2result=kept |
|||
|action2oldid=49687712 |
|||
|action3=FAR |
|||
|action3date=08:29, 15 March 2007 |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/People's Republic of China/archive1 |
|||
|action3result=removed |
|||
|action3oldid=114945583 |
|||
|action4=GAN |
|||
|action4date=2007-03-31 |
|||
|action4result=listed |
|||
|action4oldid=119192127 |
|||
|action5=GAR |
|||
|action5date=21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|action5result=kept |
|||
|action5oldid=245304743 |
|||
|action6=GAR |
|||
|action6date=15 August 2009 |
|||
|action6link=Talk:People's Republic of China/GA1 |
|||
|action6result=delisted |
|||
|action6oldid=308205953 |
|||
|action7= GAN |
|||
|action7date= 21 October 2012 |
|||
|action7link= Talk:China/GA2 |
|||
|action7result= failed |
|||
|action7oldid= 518550880 |
|||
|action8= GAN |
|||
|action8date= 16 December 2013 |
|||
|action8link= Talk:China/GA3 |
|||
|action8result= listed |
|||
|action8oldid= 586320371 |
|||
|action9= GAR |
|||
|action9date= 17 December 2020 |
|||
|action9link= Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/China/1 |
|||
|action9result= delisted |
|||
|action9oldid= |
|||
|maindate=March 7, 2004 |
|||
|topic=Geography |
|||
|currentstatus=FFA |
|||
|dyk1date=3 January 2014|dyk1entry=... that '''[[China]]''', with over 34,687 species of animals and vascular plants, is the third-most biodiverse country in the world? |
|||
|otd1date=2004-10-01|otd1oldid=6297937 |
|||
|otd2date=2005-10-01|otd2oldid=24515704 |
|||
|otd3date=2006-10-01|otd3oldid=78615955 |
|||
|otd4date=2007-10-01|otd4oldid=161471416 |
|||
|otd5date=2008-10-01|otd5oldid=242016556 |
|||
|otd6date=2009-10-01|otd6oldid=317298627 |
|||
|otd7date=2010-10-01|otd7oldid=388034588 |
|||
|otd8date=2012-10-01|otd8oldid=515266661 |
|||
|otd9date=2014-10-01|otd9oldid=627827804 |
|||
|otd10date=2018-10-01|otd10oldid=862015777 |
|||
|otd11date=2019-10-01|otd11oldid=919050385 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class = B|collapsed = yes|vital = yes|1 = |
|||
{{WikiProject China|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Countries |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Gs/talk notice|uyghur}} |
|||
{{old move |
|||
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|||
| from = People's Republic of China |
|||
|- |
|||
| destination = China |
|||
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] |
|||
| date = 5 March 2010 |
|||
---- |
|||
| result = not moved |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
| link = Talk:China/Archive 9#Requested move |
||
|[[Talk:China/Archive 1|China/Archive 1]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Talk:China/Archive 2|China/Archive 2]] |
|||
|[[Talk:China/Archive 3|China/Archive 3]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Talk:China/Archive 4|China/Archive 4]] |
|||
|[[Talk:China/Archive 5|China/Archive 5]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Talk:China/Archive 6|China/Archive 6]] |
|||
|[[/Archive 1|PRC/Archive 1]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[/Archive 2|PRC/Archive 2]] |
|||
|[[/Archive 3|PRC/Archive 3]] |
|||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|||
| from2 = People's Republic of China |
|||
== Suggestion: Make [[China (disambiguation)]] page as the main page for "China" == |
|||
| destination2 = China |
|||
| date2 = 31 August 2011 |
|||
| result2 = moved |
|||
| link2 = Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Talk:People's Republic of China/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 256K |
|||
|counter = 19 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:China/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|||
{{external peer review|date=April 30, 2007|org=The Denver Post|comment="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 [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post|examine the findings]].}} |
|||
{{All time pageviews|93}} |
|||
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]], [[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]], and [[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]]}} |
|||
{{annual readership}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Authoritarian regime == |
|||
''The vote has been moved to [[Talk:China#Vote:_Should_we_direct_all_users_who_typed_.22China.22_in_the_Search_box_to_China_.28disambiguation.29_page.2C_instead_of_the_Chinese_civilization_as_it_stands_right_now.3F|'''Talk:China page Here''']] because the discussion is not related to the People's Republic of China'' - [[User:Heilme|Heilme]] 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
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? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A|2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A]] ([[User talk:2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A|talk]]) 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]] edits == |
|||
:We've had this discussion numerous times, feel free to peruse the discussions in the archives. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]] keeps repeatedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=59458948&oldid=59415174 adding] [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]] to the "See also" section even though the link is already clearly mentioned in the article. I suspect he is also using his sockpuppet [[User:Chairman LMAO]], to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=59519300&oldid=59518834 evade] the 3RR. [[User:72.65.75.237]] is believed to be the same user editing under a dynamic IP address [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=59272298&oldid=59249233]. Are [[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]]'s appropriate? --[[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] |
|||
::@[[User:Remsense|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. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 07:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Which discussion is the most recent one? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We have many many sources,,,,can we get an explanation as to why its not here? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Apologies, the most recent discussion was in the most recent archive, and it was about another suggestion for this field. These conversations blur together. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[Talk:China/Archive 19#Government|Here's the only relevant one I've had about the infobox on this article.]] [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose.''' See prior discussions. I would add that the starting point is that in an infobox, there is little room for attribution, multiple characterizations, or nuance. It is someone analogous to the lead in that it is one of the first things people see in an article. We should avoid contentious labels in infoboxes as a result. When it comes to the government field, we should be matter of fact and concrete in describing how a government is set up, and avoid characterizations and labels. There are so many alternative labels and characterizations for governments we should stick to what is concrete. "Authoritarian" is fine for the body (like it is now) where it can be attributed to sources and explained. It should be avoided for the infobox for the reasons I discuss here also. |
|||
:"Dictatorship" is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Basically four political systems in the world and you don't think one of them should be mentioned? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::"Dictatorship is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE." is it? Whether China is authoritarian or autocratic (the two options here) Xi is still a dictator. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::China is one of the examples in every academic publication not seeing how it's undue. Authoritarian would be more appropriate than dictatorship.. as a dictatorship could be authoritarian or totalitarian. There is clearly a debate if it's authoritarian regime or totalitarian regime....but the vast majority of sources say authoritarian giving reasons why totalitarian. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It seems we need to clarify what {{para|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. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::In my view.... as we do with other articles we should list one of the three main types of [[political system]]s today: [[democracy|democracies]], |
|||
:::[[totalitarian regime]]s and, sitting between these two, [[authoritarianism|authoritarian regimes]] (with [[hybrid regime]]s). 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::But we aren't talking about hybrid regime, we're talking about authoritarian regime. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::We're talking about a tripartite scheme of democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian, which are apparently the three choices for {{para|government_type}}, a point which is still confusing me. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] China is not a Hybrid regime. It is a full authoritarian. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::two things need to be mentioned: |
|||
::1) there is a consensuses that China is an authoritarian dictatorship. This is NOT a minority view. and we have many reliable sources to support this: |
|||
::https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/18/chinas-authoritarian-regime-an-analysis-of-political-control/ |
|||
::https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/LimitsofAuthoritarianResilience.pdf |
|||
::https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/defending-the-authoritarian-regime-online-chinas-voluntary-fiftycent-army/1770B27AFA2FCD7AD5E773157A49B934 |
|||
::2) Wikipedia does use such information in the info box. Just looking at the info box of Russia shows that such information (authoritarian dictatorship) is mentioned. |
|||
::There is no reason not mention it in the case of China. To be honest, I don't get why all the objection of mentioning a well know fact that supported by the sources. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::IP, I intend for this to sound direct but not brusque -- if you don't realize that China-is-a-dictatorship is an extreme minority position among RS, you are better served by starting your Wikipedia contributions in other areas while you continue to learn about this topic. |
|||
:::Your first link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship. |
|||
:::Your second link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship. |
|||
:::Your third link is an abstract of subscription access journal article. The abstract doesn't call China a dictatorship. If you think it's there somewhere in the article, feel free to post a quote. |
|||
:::For accessible, recent, academic texts (or texts by academics) in English on China's system, I suggest Tsang & Cheung, ''The Political Thought of Xi Jinping'', Oxford University Press (2024), Keyu Jin, ''The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism,'' Viking (2023), David Daokai Li, ''China's World View'', W.W. Norton, (2024). Even more accessibly written and also good are Jeremy Garlick's ''Advantage China'' (2024) and Kerry Brown's ''China Incorporated'' (either 2023 or 2024). |
|||
:::If you have non-English language proficiencies there are even more opportunities to branch out in sourcing, consistent with [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|WP:GLOBAL]]. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::the links call China '''Authoritarian''' and I have put the link to support the authoritarian claim. |
|||
::::As for sources that say China is dictatorship: |
|||
::::https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/decoding-chinese-politics/introduction-black-box-chinese-policy |
|||
::::https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591295000300104 |
|||
::::https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256602 |
|||
::::In any case, if your problem is with the word dictatorship but you are ok with Authoritarian, then we can put the word Authoritarian and continue to discuss dictatorship. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Asia Society appears to be an advocacy organization. I think the answer is no; please review prior talk page discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The second source appears to be a bog-standard misunderstanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on the part of the IP. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Third source is another advocacy group. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, IP’s misunderstandings reflect one of the reasons I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field, and stick to what is more concrete (for example, unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? And so on). Concepts, labels, and political signifiers with less agreed upon meanings belong in the article body where they can be presented according to due weight, be sourced, and attributed as necessary. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This seems reasonable to me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::" I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field," - since we already doing it (haracterizations in the government field) there is no reason for having exception for China. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Those are in general sources which say that China is authoritarian, but you seem to be presenting them as if they don't? Or are you presenting sources which support authoritarian but not dictatorship? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I was responding to the claim of "dictatorship" with some recent high-quality sources that do not use that characterization. |
|||
:::::I don't recall whether these do or do not use the "authoritarian" characterization, with one exception - I am confident that Tsang & Cheung do use it. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{cite journal | last=Tsang | first=Steve | last2=Cheung | first2=Olivia | title=Has Xi Jinping made China’s political system more resilient and enduring? | journal=Third World Quarterly | volume=43 | issue=1 | date=2022-01-02 | issn=0143-6597 | doi=10.1080/01436597.2021.2000857 | pages=225–243|quote=}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Maybe there is a middle ground here, what about adding authoritarian to the lead but keeping the infobox the same? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't mind mentioning prominently that the government is characterized as authoritarian, that's obviously NPOV to me. My concern is having a concrete scope for what the {{para|government_type}} parameter is meant to describe. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Yeah the way I look at it we have the long version at [[Government of China]], the medium version in the body, the short version in the lead, and the short short version in the infobox. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Thumbsup! <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] but it is part of what |government_type= parameter is meant to describe [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for {{tlx|Infobox country}}. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, in the lead but not in the infobox makes sense from my perspective as well. [[User:JArthur1984|JArthur1984]] ([[User talk:JArthur1984|talk]]) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::it should be in the infobox as well. it is important information and there is a consensus that China is an authoritarian country. so no reason to ommit this information. [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::except what infoboxes are for and the information they are designed to communicate. where should it go? my entire point is that "authoritarian" is not a government type. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I agree, for a label as controversial as "authoritarian" to be put in the infobox, it would not only need to be almost ubiquitous in reliable sources but also directly related to the system of governance. For example, China cracking down on a protest might be labeled "authoritarian", but that doesn't make such a label applicable in the infobox. Such aspersions should be reserved for the lead or later in the article. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Not controversial at all...its the example used in all of society and is somthing China is proud about. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Whether you personally believe China is "proud" of being "authoritarian" or not isn't relevant to the government type infobox. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::@Remsense, you repeat the claim that authoritarian characterization doesn't belong the info box while '''ignoring of the fact that is part of the info box''' of other countries like Russia for example (but not only). |
|||
::::::::::I faild to see how can we progress in such discussion. can you address the fact that it is part of info box of other countries and as such it should be part of the info box of China? [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::No, I'm not ignoring that, I'm just aware that it doesn't matter: "[[WP:OTHERCONTENT|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. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::yes, it does matter that in other wikipedia articles it is included in the info box. This is because wikipedia should be consistent. |
|||
::::::::::::And if it is included in other articles, then it means that the de facto policy is to include such infomation. [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 10:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::No, it doesn't matter, and your understanding of basic site norms and policy like I've linked above is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. I could make the reverse argument that since it's not on this article, therefore that's policy and therefore it shouldn't be on [[Russia]] either, and it'd be exactly as inane of an argument. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|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. [[User:ArmorredKnight|ArmorredKnight]] ([[User talk:ArmorredKnight|talk]]) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::And you have not made any argument that it is appropriate as a government type in the way that "monarchy", "unitary state" etc. are other than "[[Russia]] has it". [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], it is part of what characterize the russia goverment, this is enough to include this in the info box [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::Nope. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Remsense|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. [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::Nah. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::No, such a label being included in Russia's infobox is NOT a reason to have it in China's! For one, we can easily reverse your idea and instead say that, since China doesn't have the word "authoritarian" in its government type, then NO article should have it. Secondly, Russia and China are different countries and their situations are different. Third, Wikipedia operates by community guidelines, not what random editors personally think should be mandated on all articles. [[User:296cherry|296cherry]] ([[User talk:296cherry|talk]]) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've started a [[WP:RfC|RfC]] below. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 11:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:CanonNi|CanonNi]], why is the vote mention in the specific article of China and not in general discussion about infobox? [[Special:Contributions/85.65.237.103|85.65.237.103]] ([[User talk:85.65.237.103|talk]]) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] has a great explanation in the RfC section. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The key consideration (from my perspective) is that Russia's constitution is designed to function as a multi-party electoral democracy, but instead, one individual has consolidated power and suppressed opposition. China doesn't have that, so mentioning the de jure form of government is enough. [[User:TheRichCapitalist|TheRichCapitalist]] ([[User talk:TheRichCapitalist|talk]]) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024 == |
|||
:"Chairman LMAO" is not me. Other "see also" links appear elsewhere in the article. This is a selective, POV-pushing deletion. [[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]] 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit extended-protected|China|answered=yes}} |
|||
::Do you have any proof that "Chairman LMAO" is not you? {{user|Chairman LMAO}} have been helping you revert war in this article and the [[Manchukuo]] article. The [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]] is clearly inappropriate in the "See also" section. The other "see also" links are broad categories which is clearly China-related. The protests links are already mentioned and it is POV-pushing to redundantly add them multiple times. [[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] |
|||
Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. [[Special:Contributions/158.223.166.44|158.223.166.44]] ([[User talk:158.223.166.44|talk]]) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist state" / "socialist republic" == |
|||
:::I can not provide proof that a user is not me as it is impossible to prove a negative; it is also impossible to disprove your positive assertion as you did not provide any evidence for it. |
|||
:In the infobox, the term "socialist republic" was changed to "socialist state" by, from what I can confirm, [[User:Josethewikier|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. |
|||
:::As for the dispute, you previously asserted as a reason for its removal that it is mentioned in the article already. This is not a sufficient reason, as other "see also" links appear elsewhere in it as well. The link details an event and period which is notable, important, and commonly cited and discussed in the context of the PRC and its recent history. Deletion of it is selective and betrays a sense of removing critical information. [[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]] 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
While it is true that the topic was discussed recently in [[Talk:China/Archive 19#Government type/Form_of_government_in_infobox|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. |
|||
[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: ''Support'' - The discussion in January turned into a debate on "communist state" vs "socialist republic", and no clear consensus was formed. To quote {{u|TucanHolmes}} in that discussion, {{tq|"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. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 03:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: 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. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: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. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 00:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]] ([[User talk:Josethewikier|talk]]) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]] ([[User talk:Josethewikier|talk]]) 02:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I regret my stream of apologies, explains why I'm taking a wikibreak. 🍁 [[User:Josethewikier|Josethewikier]] ([[User talk:Josethewikier|talk]]) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no preference one way or the other. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"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. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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. |
|||
::[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think anything in this article suggests China is not a republic. It seems clear from the text that it is. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. |
|||
::::[[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Jetsettokaiba|Jetsettokaiba]] ([[User talk:Jetsettokaiba|talk]]) 20:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Unitary or federal? == |
|||
::::Then why are you using constantly changing IP address to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=59385621&oldid=59381276 evade] the 3RR? [[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]], if you are editing in good faith, why don't you stick to ''one'' username or ''one'' IP address. Using constantly changing IP addresses counterproductive to consensus and allows you to escape accountability. |
|||
{{Archive top |
|||
::::The protest link is way too specific to be in the "See also" section and has little to do with the PRC broadly. Look at the other links in the section. Except for the China link, the other links do not clearly appear in the article at all. The protest link is already clearly in the article and re-adding redundant link is POV-pushing. Broadly speaking, the protests have little to do with the PRC as a whole, its ''one'' single incident in history, if we allow that, it will allow other people to add many other single incidents into the section. [[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] |
|||
|result = Closing per [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. Keep your [[WP:OR|personal analyses]] to yourself. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 00:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
I think the government form described in the "Government" section of the infobox is absurd. While "Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist state" is true, the land area of PRC may not suitable for an unitary management, because there are some autonomous regions (e.g. [[Inner Mongolia]], [[Xinjiang]]...) and the normal land area of Chinese provinces are comparable (or even larger than) with the [[Federal_subjects_of_Russia|Russian counterparts]]. There also a gap of cultural differences between these provinces (like Xinjiang follows Central Asian culture, Tibet follows Buddhism and Guangdong uses some sorts of Vietnamese traditions...). I didn't even cited SARs. [[User:Kys5g|<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: bold;">Kys<span style="background-color: rgb(50, 0, 129); color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">5</span>g</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Kys5g|<small> talk!</small>]]</sup> 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The PRC is among the most unitary states possible. The devolved local governments are entirely the legal mandate of the national government to create, expand, or abolish. There is no constitutionally enshrined balance of both local and national governments, which is what federalism is.[[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The above is a lie put forward repeatedly by a user who refuses to acknowledge the meaning of dynamic IPs. [[User:141.153.114.88|141.153.114.88]] 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you misunderstand what is meant by "unitary state". Autonomy (which is, in reality, very nominal) of certain regions does not necessarily equate to a federal or devolved structure. [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries|TheodoresTomfooleries]] ([[User talk:TheodoresTomfooleries|talk]]) 18:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Archive bottom}} |
|||
Could not the Boston Tea Party be considered ''one'' single incident in history? Is it not true that one brief incident can have a profound effect on history? I believe that such an incident is clearly China-related, and would argue that it is a broad issue, for such protests will tend to influence and instigate future protests(or in some cases the lack of future protests).--[[User:Tmchk|Tmchk]] 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, but the protest link is already clearly mentioned in the article. It is redundant and POV-pushing to add it in another section. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] clearly states that links should only be linked ''once''. You could also argue that the protest are not broad as the other links in the "See also" section. |
|||
:Another anonymous IP address, {{user|83.149.72.211}} has just reverted once again and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=59544283&oldid=59539329 re-added] the redundant protest link into the article again. Are [[User:83.149.72.211|83.149.72.211]]'s edits appropriate? [[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] |
|||
== [[User:Joinalex]]/[[User:203.118.157.30]] == |
|||
This user continues to add the same POV diatribe involving Chinese governmental agents to the Human Rights section of the article. Access article history to see what I'm talking about. |
|||
I'm trying to keep the user at bay. I've left notes on both user talk pages in an attempt to resolve this, and will proceed through [[WP:DR]] if necessary. However, as far as this article goes, I'm up against the 3RR and not currently sure if this falls under one of the exceptions. |
|||
–[[User:ArmadniGeneral|ArmadniGeneral]] ([[User talk:ArmadniGeneral|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ArmadniGeneral|contribs]]) 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:Joinalex]] left this message at my talk page: |
|||
::I would view the ideals that you have constantly ovwritten mine with as being equally, if not more POV. That you don't realise this, I'd conjecture it to be blunt evidence of a lack of research on your part - something which is just a lil unbecoming of encyclopedic entries. If you wish to ''discuss'' the issue of what is appropriate to put in this section, given the proven horrific human rights abuses in China, I am willing to do so. Until then I am more than willing to continue to attempt to gather full academic references to prove this 'point of view', and to fight to keep it within the realm of reason as opposed to a vehicle of Chinese state propoganda (can countries be guilty of points of view, or are they exempt from bias?). Or at least I would be, but I got an exam tomorrow and have 2 sleep *yawn* goodnight General/Comrade chairman. |
|||
:Let us please not pretend that the direct appeal for the user to refresh the page "over the next 30 seconds," so he/she can see how the Chinese government has removed [[User:Joinalex|Joinalex]]'s paragraph from Wikipedia, is neither POV nor unencyclopedic. That particular element of your edit is totally over the line. |
|||
:But even if we remove that part entirely, what we have left is nothing more than you totally eliminating a legitimate paragraph about recent developments and the PRC allowance of localized demonstrations. At that point, we have your one sentence (with one cited source about executions), leading right into another, far more detailed paragraph. As a showing of good faith and construction, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=60159857&oldid=60156109 added] the execution factoid into the article, with the right percentage and a more comprehensive reference. |
|||
:I've done all I can now to help include your contributions. However, again, the specified paragraph should not be removed, and the personal appeal is unencyclopedic. |
|||
:–[[User:ArmadniGeneral|ArmadniGeneral]] ([[User talk:ArmadniGeneral|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ArmadniGeneral|contribs]]) 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
In all honesty I the request to refresh the page is based on anecdotal beliefs I held, which were the basis for the way I dealt with editing the page, which I felt would not remain in place for more than 30 seconds. That may have been a misguided belief, and I apologise. Nonetheless I am not certain that the attention paid to this page and in particular, this topic is completely free of partisanship, however I have to concede that it would be utterly unencycolpedic and unacademic to have the page left in the state in which I edited it (please remember that I never believed it would remain in this state). I would like, however to deal now with what the page should represent. |
|||
It does not reflect reality at all to simply gloss over facticity regarding human rights abuses with purpoted developments. The scope of human rights abuses in China is gargantuan, and the fact that this is denied by the authorities there does not materially change the facts. The PRC government's viewpoint certainly does, again in an encyclopedic sense, deserve to be part of the page, as their stated opinions are a fact in that they exist. However, to summarise - cultural genocide (seriously, I don't just use the term to be melodramatic) has been practiced upon regions that have come into PRC control in recent years. Dissidents are repressed brutally, as are demonstarations by dissidentss, or, as is now happening schoolchildren. There are few limitations to the methods that are used in this repression of political, social, economic or religious freedoms, this is well documented. A dissident who had been jailed for a number of years for reporting on a widening of a river to a relative in the US was released after pressure from Amnesty international a few weeks ago. As he was walking down the street he ws attacked by an 'unknown assailant' who severed his spinal column expertly, leaving him unable to do more than move his eyelids. The shock value of this is not sufficient to justify condemning the PRC government's human right srecord, however thsi kind of behaviour has been reported again and again and ''again'', by the media and by human rights groups, it is not part of popular knowledge, nor is it something many people care about. However it is easily verifiable fact. I would hope that this encyclipoedia cannot be blinded by the simple virtue of repeating a lie often and loudly, and will attempt to steer it towards an accurate representation of fact, at all stages discussing this with the people who have an (independant) interest in this matter. |
|||
All the best. |
|||
Alex. |
|||
:I understand your concerns, and do not, by any means, feel that you are outright wrong. If you feel that changes to the article are required, you are always welcome to make them in a strictly encyclopedic way. When making changes, however, please note that the two-paragraph Human Rights section is not intended to cover all available information on the subject. Due to the length of the article, it has been split into multiple subpages. As such, the article you will likely take interest in is located here: [[Human rights in the People's Republic of China]]. (Please note that it is currently protected until an edit dispute is resolved. Discussion is present on talk page.) |
|||
:So once again, if you would like to edit either article's content, you are welcome to. Please simply ensure that the final product is fact-neutral (well-cited) and encyclopedic. |
|||
:–[[User:ArmadniGeneral|ArmadniGeneral]] ([[User talk:ArmadniGeneral|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ArmadniGeneral|contribs]]) 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Ethnic groups in China == |
|||
I'd like to ask those who might be interested in the subject of ethnic groups in China to weigh in on the [[Talk:Nationalities_of_China#Let.27s_try_this_again_-_Proposed_Move_and_Split.|current discussion]] in another article. I proposed that we split the article to a listing of the minority groups and an article discussing ethnic minorities in China. [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Name "China" to be used in the main description?== |
|||
We should use the name "China" like usually referred to as China in the description. It's more correct and easier to understand. What do you guys think? I think this is necessity since not a lot of people know the official name. [[User:168.253.23.214|168.253.23.214]] 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=="China" to be included in the main description of the article== |
|||
Ideogram, user, don't you ever threaten me again. I will bring this matter the higher it can on the Wikipedia chain to the founders and have your priveleges revoked and proper people notified. Don't you ever threaten positve and constructive edits. I warn this to you and this is your last warning withour proper explanation of your reverts. I'll notify the proper people. The privelege you have doesn't mean you have it forever. It will be revoked. This is your warning from vandalism [[User:168.253.23.214|168.253.23.214]] 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:You're the one who revert-warred, buddy. Take it up with whoever you want, you won't get far. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Don't buddy me, this is constructive edit, explain your position why are you reverting stuff. This doesn't give you the privelege to threaten and revert edits whenever you feel like it. I'll make it go far. There is no such thing as "revert-warred." You are threatening opinions and constructive edits. I will bring this up if you ever threaten edits again. [[User:168.253.23.214|168.253.23.214]] 07:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Go ahead. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just explain why are you reverting my change? Is there a problem with it? of so just say it and I'll understand. What is the problem with my change? I know the three revert rule. What is the problem with my change, you are not giving any explanation and threatening people with 3 revert rule. I'm trying to reason with you. I respect the 3 edit rule. Explain your revert in the first place. [[User:168.253.23.214|168.253.23.214]] 07:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with Miborovsky. Why don't you discuss it with him? --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Then say it, make it clear. Without you telling me what's going on I don't know why you are doing it. Thank you and I don't vandalize Wikipedia just to let you know. I brought this up in the discussion after you threatened me with blocking. No hard feelings. [[User:168.253.23.214|168.253.23.214]] 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Miborovsky's edit summaries made it quite clear. It is redundant. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Well it's not intuitive. Actual typing and description would be much better and understandable. I would suggest you give explanation before you actually do 3 revert edit warning for all articles, so that you don't have to go through this again. [[User:168.253.23.214|168.253.23.214]] 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::May I suggest the same to you. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== To the user who deleted the entire Culture section of the article: == |
|||
The user [[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] who deleted the entire Culture section of this article should explain himself here in the talk pages for his decision. He should also explain his decision in rearranging the remaining article. These drastic and wanton changes were not discussed at all here; and they were completely inappropriate and disservicing to the editors of this article who have worked very hard to keep the PRC article as a Featured Article in the past year. '''I consider your act [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] (blanking) and have completely reverted you.''' I will not hesitate to go into a reverting war with you unless you explain yourself here, and reach a general consensus with the other editors of the PRC article. --[[User:Naus|Naus]] 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The primary purpose of my deletions was to put information about people, history, culture and geography in [[China]] and politics, government and economy in [[PRC]]. This split makes sense because both the PRC and the ROC claim to be rightful rulers of all of China. This is also supported by Wikipedia policy: |
|||
{{cquote|Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China.}} |
|||
:--[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::* You should've volunteered to discuss here the changes you made first. I skimmed through some of your previous comments on PRC and China talk pages, and you have consistently lectured others about the need to discuss changes made. IMO, the split you made does not make sense because the Culture section in the PRC article is mostly about PRC culture (i.e., cultural development and trend since Communist rule). Albeit there is some projection into the past, but this is mainly context, and explains a lot of things about PRC culture as well (meritocracy, exam culture, intellectual discussion in the mainland, cultural continuation/separation from the old dynastic system, and the PRC's current re-emphasis on the traditional aspects of Chinese culture). The Culture section in the [[China#Culture|China]] (not PRC) article right now is a verbatim copy of the [[Culture of China]] header, and makes '''no''' mention on PRC cultural developments. Thus your "split" was simply a removal. It is naive to think that a political state cannot have its own specific culture and cultural influence. By "splitting" (removing) Culture away from Politics, Government and Economy of the PRC, that is exactly what you are doing. '''There <u>are</u> cultural aspects only specific and relevant to the PRC even though PRC culture and Chinese culture aren't mutually exclusive.''' --[[User:Naus|Naus]] 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::The Culture section in [[China]] was reverted after I made my changes, and I am trying to discuss instead of revert-warring. |
|||
:::I don't think a political state has a culture, a group of people has a culture. The Chinese people clearly are governed by more than one political state. |
|||
:::Properly speaking, the main article should be [[China]], and politics, government, and economy would normally be covered there. The current political situation means we have two articles covering these topics; we cannot simply merge both of them into [[China]] because that would be too long. |
|||
:::The current Culture section of this article is laughably short. The main section contains two paragraphs one of which is historical. The only subsection is "Sports and recreation" and contains nothing PRC specific. |
|||
:::You seem to be arguing that cultural developments during the PRC era belong in the PRC article. I believe that they belong under the Culture section of [[China]] where they can be viewed in the context of the historical development of Chinese culture. The fact that you need to include a historical paragraph in the PRC article to establish some context proves this. |
|||
:::Remember that my point of view is that [[China]] should be the main article. That means anything not directly related to the PRC should go in [[China]]. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::* Let me remind you that the Culture section in the [[China]] article didn't even exist until someone copied it by verbatim from the [[Culture of China]] header. The Republic of China legally still claims Outer Mongolia, would Outer Mongolian culture be part of the Culture section of China as well? How is saying that Mongolian and Tibetan horseracing are still popular in the PRC today not related to the PRC article? People actually live in the state called PRC, it is not a fictional state like the Republic of China over Outer Mongolia; the state obviously influences the development of its subjects' cultures. --[[User:Naus|Naus]] 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::To paraphrase my comment left on [[Talk:China]]: ''"This page is a naming conventions '''guideline''' for Wikipedia"''. Nothing on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)]] is policy. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things]] on the other hand, is. --[[User:Daduzi|<font color="Brown">'''Daduzi'''</font>]] [[User talk:Daduzi|<font color="Green"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Unfortunately your position disagrees with [[User:Naus]]. He wants this article to remain in the state it was before I made my edits. You want to merge it into [[China]]. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Ideogram, I think it might be a good idea to retain the Culture section of the PRC article. The Culture of the PRC is not necessarily the same as the culture of China, if we maintain the usual assumption that PRC does not equal China. --[[User:Sumple|Sumple]] ([[User_Talk:Sumple|Talk]]) 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In my opinion the topic PRC is a subset of the topic China. I don't think the PRC has a culture, but if it did, it would be a subset of the culture of China. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 23:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I think it's a good idea to at least have a summary of the culture here. I mean, for the reader's sake, it makes it a complete article. If you want to go into more detail on the [[China]] page, that's fine. But I think a summary (of the mailand-related material, for example), would be useful in this article. --[[User:Sumple|Sumple]] ([[User_Talk:Sumple|Talk]]) 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::: '''No, my position does not disagree with [[User:Daduzi]]'''. Daduzi feels that China is the '''common name of the PRC''', which I agree as well. My position is that the current [[China]] article as a "civilizational" compromise is ridiculous. The current [[PRC]] article should be renamed China, and its history section expanded to include pre-1949. China in common English usage refers to the nation-state we now know as the PRC, not some abstract, impossible to succintly define civilization. Please look at every single published English language encyclopedia on their conventions in treating China and Taiwan. You will see that using the common name is '''the standard'''. The current Wikipedia status quo in treating China is unprofessional, confusing and '''not''' necessarily NPOV. If you want to do a Chinese civilization article, start up a new [[China (civilization)]] or [[Ancient China]] article. --[[User:Naus|Naus]] 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:17, 17 June 2024
![]() | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners |
Authoritarian regime
Since china is no less authoritarian than russia and since it also a dictatorship, shouldn't we mention it as such in the info box? 2A02:14F:1F5:5F19:0:0:3EB3:515A (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion numerous times, feel free to peruse the discussions in the archives. Remsense诉 17:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense I have just checked it, and I see it is you that object the word Authoritarian while other support such use.
- The fact that you don't like this word is not an argument against it and wikipedia in fact use this word in the case of Russia. So there is no reason not to use in the case of China as it is much more Authoritarian than Russia. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. Remsense诉 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion is the most recent one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- We have many many sources,,,,can we get an explanation as to why its not here? Moxy🍁 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, the most recent discussion was in the most recent archive, and it was about another suggestion for this field. These conversations blur together. Remsense诉 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then what conversations are you referring to? Please link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which discussion is the most recent one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I participated in the most recent discussion—there's been more than one. Remsense诉 15:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. See prior discussions. I would add that the starting point is that in an infobox, there is little room for attribution, multiple characterizations, or nuance. It is someone analogous to the lead in that it is one of the first things people see in an article. We should avoid contentious labels in infoboxes as a result. When it comes to the government field, we should be matter of fact and concrete in describing how a government is set up, and avoid characterizations and labels. There are so many alternative labels and characterizations for governments we should stick to what is concrete. "Authoritarian" is fine for the body (like it is now) where it can be attributed to sources and explained. It should be avoided for the infobox for the reasons I discuss here also.
- "Dictatorship" is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Basically four political systems in the world and you don't think one of them should be mentioned? Moxy🍁 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Dictatorship is an extreme minority position and so would be totally WP:UNDUE." is it? Whether China is authoritarian or autocratic (the two options here) Xi is still a dictator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- China is one of the examples in every academic publication not seeing how it's undue. Authoritarian would be more appropriate than dictatorship.. as a dictatorship could be authoritarian or totalitarian. There is clearly a debate if it's authoritarian regime or totalitarian regime....but the vast majority of sources say authoritarian giving reasons why totalitarian. Moxy🍁 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems we need to clarify what
|government_type=
is actually meant to describe. As my preliminary take, I think it is generally most helpful when it describes the concrete structure of government institutions, as opposed to broad characterizations of the cultural or political effects of said structure. I realize this is the most uphill of battles, but I see no other way forward other than actually trying to define the scope of what we're disagreeing about. Remsense诉 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)- In my view.... as we do with other articles we should list one of the three main types of political systems today: democracies,
- totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes (with hybrid regimes). I'm not seeing a debate within the sources they are pretty clear on this. Think it'd be hard process to find anything that calls them democracy outside of their own publications. Moxy🍁 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? Remsense诉 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. Remsense诉 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- But we aren't talking about hybrid regime, we're talking about authoritarian regime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- We're talking about a tripartite scheme of democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian, which are apparently the three choices for
|government_type=
, a point which is still confusing me. Remsense诉 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- We're talking about a tripartite scheme of democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian, which are apparently the three choices for
- @Remsense China is not a Hybrid regime. It is a full authoritarian. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- The term hybrid regime was not introduced until the mid 1990s. Remsense诉 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a circular argument, that typology was not introduced in the mid-90s... Try 1890s for its origins in the Western polisci context. They are now in fact universal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't it concern you that treating this typology that was introduced in the mid-90s (at the earliest) in a largely Western polisci context as universal could be both low-information and NPOV? Remsense诉 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- two things need to be mentioned:
- 1) there is a consensuses that China is an authoritarian dictatorship. This is NOT a minority view. and we have many reliable sources to support this:
- https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/18/chinas-authoritarian-regime-an-analysis-of-political-control/
- https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/LimitsofAuthoritarianResilience.pdf
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/defending-the-authoritarian-regime-online-chinas-voluntary-fiftycent-army/1770B27AFA2FCD7AD5E773157A49B934
- 2) Wikipedia does use such information in the info box. Just looking at the info box of Russia shows that such information (authoritarian dictatorship) is mentioned.
- There is no reason not mention it in the case of China. To be honest, I don't get why all the objection of mentioning a well know fact that supported by the sources. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- IP, I intend for this to sound direct but not brusque -- if you don't realize that China-is-a-dictatorship is an extreme minority position among RS, you are better served by starting your Wikipedia contributions in other areas while you continue to learn about this topic.
- Your first link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship.
- Your second link does not support your position. It doesn't call China a dictatorship.
- Your third link is an abstract of subscription access journal article. The abstract doesn't call China a dictatorship. If you think it's there somewhere in the article, feel free to post a quote.
- For accessible, recent, academic texts (or texts by academics) in English on China's system, I suggest Tsang & Cheung, The Political Thought of Xi Jinping, Oxford University Press (2024), Keyu Jin, The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism, Viking (2023), David Daokai Li, China's World View, W.W. Norton, (2024). Even more accessibly written and also good are Jeremy Garlick's Advantage China (2024) and Kerry Brown's China Incorporated (either 2023 or 2024).
- If you have non-English language proficiencies there are even more opportunities to branch out in sourcing, consistent with WP:GLOBAL. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- the links call China Authoritarian and I have put the link to support the authoritarian claim.
- As for sources that say China is dictatorship:
- https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/decoding-chinese-politics/introduction-black-box-chinese-policy
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591295000300104
- https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256602
- In any case, if your problem is with the word dictatorship but you are ok with Authoritarian, then we can put the word Authoritarian and continue to discuss dictatorship. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Asia Society appears to be an advocacy organization. I think the answer is no; please review prior talk page discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The second source appears to be a bog-standard misunderstanding of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" on the part of the IP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Third source is another advocacy group. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, IP’s misunderstandings reflect one of the reasons I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field, and stick to what is more concrete (for example, unitary or federal? How is the executive power held? How many legislative houses? And so on). Concepts, labels, and political signifiers with less agreed upon meanings belong in the article body where they can be presented according to due weight, be sourced, and attributed as necessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- " I always suggest we avoid characterizations in the government field," - since we already doing it (haracterizations in the government field) there is no reason for having exception for China. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't mind mentioning prominently that the government is characterized as authoritarian, that's obviously NPOV to me. My concern is having a concrete scope for what the
|government_type=
parameter is meant to describe. Remsense诉 16:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for articulating it in that way, IMO that is a reasonable concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. Remsense诉 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah the way I look at it we have the long version at Government of China, the medium version in the body, the short version in the lead, and the short short version in the infobox. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thumbsup! Moxy🍁 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I felt something was getting lost in translation here, glad I hit upon the right formulation. Remsense诉 17:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense but it is part of what |government_type= parameter is meant to describe ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for
{{Infobox country}}
. Remsense诉 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything like that on the documentation page for
- 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)
- Yes, in the lead but not in the infobox makes sense from my perspective as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- it should be in the infobox as well. it is important information and there is a consensus that China is an authoritarian country. so no reason to ommit this information. ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- except what infoboxes are for and the information they are designed to communicate. where should it go? my entire point is that "authoritarian" is not a government type. Remsense诉 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, for a label as controversial as "authoritarian" to be put in the infobox, it would not only need to be almost ubiquitous in reliable sources but also directly related to the system of governance. For example, China cracking down on a protest might be labeled "authoritarian", but that doesn't make such a label applicable in the infobox. Such aspersions should be reserved for the lead or later in the article. 296cherry (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not controversial at all...its the example used in all of society and is somthing China is proud about. Moxy🍁 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whether you personally believe China is "proud" of being "authoritarian" or not isn't relevant to the government type infobox. 296cherry (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Remsense, you repeat the claim that authoritarian characterization doesn't belong the info box while ignoring of the fact that is part of the info box of other countries like Russia for example (but not only).
- I faild to see how can we progress in such discussion. can you address the fact that it is part of info box of other countries and as such it should be part of the info box of China? ArmorredKnight (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm not ignoring that, I'm just aware that it doesn't matter: "other stuff exists" is explicitly not a justification in itself for any content being or not being in any given article. I don't think it should be in Russia's infobox either, but I haven't edited that article. But, if there's no overarching editorial policy, it doesn't matter that other editors have done things I disagree with to other articles. You have to make some case for why it's justified on its own merits, e.g. that "authoritarian" is describing a government type the same way "monarchy" or "federal state" is. You have not remotely attempted to do so. Remsense诉 09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- yes, it does matter that in other wikipedia articles it is included in the info box. This is because wikipedia should be consistent.
- And if it is included in other articles, then it means that the de facto policy is to include such infomation. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't matter, and your understanding of basic site norms and policy like I've linked above is simply incorrect, I'm afraid. I could make the reverse argument that since it's not on this article, therefore that's policy and therefore it shouldn't be on Russia either, and it'd be exactly as inane of an argument. Remsense诉 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, no! you are missing the point. I am not saying it shoulod be included in this article because it is included in the article about Russia. I am saying it should be included here because it is characterization of the china regime.
- You are saying that such info should not be included in the info box according to wikipedia guide line. I am saying that if there were such guide line that it would not have been included in the russian article. Therefor there are no such guideline. ArmorredKnight (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- And you have not made any argument that it is appropriate as a government type in the way that "monarchy", "unitary state" etc. are other than "Russia has it". Remsense诉 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, it is part of what characterize the russia goverment, this is enough to include this in the info box 85.65.237.103 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. Remsense诉 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense you can say nope as much as you want. you have not shown any rule that say that and we can see in other article such information is included. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. Remsense诉 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, it is part of what characterize the russia goverment, this is enough to include this in the info box 85.65.237.103 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- I've started a RfC below.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 11:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- @CanonNi, why is the vote mention in the specific article of China and not in general discussion about infobox? 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense has a great explanation in the RfC section.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense has a great explanation in the RfC section.
- @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)
- The key consideration (from my perspective) is that Russia's constitution is designed to function as a multi-party electoral democracy, but instead, one individual has consolidated power and suppressed opposition. China doesn't have that, so mentioning the de jure form of government is enough. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. 158.223.166.44 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Liu1126 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist state" / "socialist republic"
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I regret my stream of apologies, explains why I'm taking a wikibreak. 🍁 Josethewikier (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no preference one way or the other. Remsense诉 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Unitary or federal?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the government form described in the "Government" section of the infobox is absurd. While "Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist state" is true, the land area of PRC may not suitable for an unitary management, because there are some autonomous regions (e.g. Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang...) and the normal land area of Chinese provinces are comparable (or even larger than) with the Russian counterparts. There also a gap of cultural differences between these provinces (like Xinjiang follows Central Asian culture, Tibet follows Buddhism and Guangdong uses some sorts of Vietnamese traditions...). I didn't even cited SARs. Kys5g talk! 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The PRC is among the most unitary states possible. The devolved local governments are entirely the legal mandate of the national government to create, expand, or abolish. There is no constitutionally enshrined balance of both local and national governments, which is what federalism is.Remsense诉 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand what is meant by "unitary state". Autonomy (which is, in reality, very nominal) of certain regions does not necessarily equate to a federal or devolved structure. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)