proposal for re-arranging the China articles a bit |
Assessment: banner shell, Politics, −Atheism (Rater) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
Probably, most people that want to refer to the country [[People's Republic of China]] will link to this page, as [[China]] is the name by which it is commonly known. The "PR of" part is usually only added in formal use. As far as I can judge, most of the articles linking to China also intend to link to the PR (or perhaps the "old China") but few or none intend to link to the ROC, which is better known as Taiwan - that article is also located at [[Taiwan]]. |
|||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|||
{{American English}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
|action1=FAC |
|||
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:59:59 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/People's Republic of China/archive1 |
|||
|action1result=promoted |
|||
|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 |
|||
I propose to: |
|||
| from = People's Republic of China |
|||
| destination = China |
|||
| date = 5 March 2010 |
|||
| result = not moved |
|||
| link = Talk:China/Archive 9#Requested move |
|||
| from2 = People's Republic of China |
|||
| destination2 = China |
|||
* put a redirect at [[People's Republic of China]] to [[China]] |
|||
| date2 = 31 August 2011 |
|||
* put a redirect at [[Republic of China]] to [[Taiwan]] (it probably already exists) |
|||
| 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}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist state" / "socialist republic" == |
|||
[[User:Jheijmans|Jheijmans]] 07:12 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT) |
|||
: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. |
|||
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? == |
|||
{{Archive top |
|||
|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) |
|||
: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}} |
|||
== Marxist-Leninist and socialist republic == |
|||
Why does it say Marxist-Leninist and socialist republic on the infobox?, China is arguably more capitalistic than the US, it's really only communist in name |
|||
Not trying to stir up controversy or anything, just wondering [[Special:Contributions/2806:230:1036:BCED:1AE2:13F8:6360:1D85|2806:230:1036:BCED:1AE2:13F8:6360:1D85]] ([[User talk:2806:230:1036:BCED:1AE2:13F8:6360:1D85|talk]]) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It's always tough to field this question because it requires explaining the entire history of the political left and global industrialization. In the briefest terms, the idea is "they're working on it", but they need to do a lot of capitalism first because no one has ever denied that capitalism is better at growing economies than a socialist economy without profit motive. This hasn't really been the direct reflection of any government policy since Deng's southern tour at the latest, but the underlying ideas are still swirling around as far as I can tell. |
|||
:(Any reply to this explanation will be telling me things I already know.) [[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>]] 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Should the signficance of the Senkaku Islands be discussed, it seems that Japan has had more scrambles between 2014 and the present than it had in the years prior. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.242.176.66|199.242.176.66]] ([[User talk:199.242.176.66#top|talk]]) 22:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 18:24, 19 July 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 |
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)
Marxist-Leninist and socialist republic
Why does it say Marxist-Leninist and socialist republic on the infobox?, China is arguably more capitalistic than the US, it's really only communist in name
Not trying to stir up controversy or anything, just wondering 2806:230:1036:BCED:1AE2:13F8:6360:1D85 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's always tough to field this question because it requires explaining the entire history of the political left and global industrialization. In the briefest terms, the idea is "they're working on it", but they need to do a lot of capitalism first because no one has ever denied that capitalism is better at growing economies than a socialist economy without profit motive. This hasn't really been the direct reflection of any government policy since Deng's southern tour at the latest, but the underlying ideas are still swirling around as far as I can tell.
- (Any reply to this explanation will be telling me things I already know.) Remsense诉 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the signficance of the Senkaku Islands be discussed, it seems that Japan has had more scrambles between 2014 and the present than it had in the years prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.176.66 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)