Template:Vital article

	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.
	China has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2006 Featured article review Kept March 15, 2007 Featured article review Demoted March 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept August 15, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted October 21, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed December 16, 2013 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Asia GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia GA‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Socialism GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Notice-nc-geo

@Zozs, Bridies, and FutureTrillionaire: I find it interesting that everyone here on WP has decided to accuse that every ideological concept conceived by China is propaganda, while Western concepts, such as liberal democracy, constitutionalism and so on are treated as facts (even if in countries like China, they are scorned)... The people's democratic dictatorship is not a propaganda concept, but is Marxist terminology at its best; PRC is democratic because its based around the majority (the CPC being the party of the working class and the common masses), its a dictatorship because (as in all societies, according to Marxism, one class rules the state) and its the People's state because the CPC is based upon (as mentioned) the working class and the common masses. You may not believe it as such (and I don't believe it either), but I find it strange that the Chinese people and Communist cadres sacrificed their lives for this idea if it was merely propaganda. They believe in it. And WP does not have the right to claim that the Marxist idea of people's democratic dictatorship is any more nonsense then liberal idea of constitutitionalism... Of course, this is not surprising, this article from the New Statesman proves my point. At last, its not like communism is dead; it officially rules four countries, while one (North Korea) calls themselves Juchites. Its not like communism is gone in Western countries; its an electoral force in Portugal, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Russia, Greece, Slovenia so on, and large in Latin America in Brazil, Chile, Venezuela. Therefore, to claim that all communist terminology is just all propaganda is biased, not neutral, and also shows a clear bias that you have to liberalism (everything else is propaganda with the exception of our system).. Communism isn't dead and WP shouldn't treat it as such either.

At last, Marxism-Leninism is an ideology. You don't write that the US is a Liberal democratic presidential system do you? No, why do we treat socialist states differently? Single-party state is not a political system, a form of government and does not the answer the question of what China is.. Therefore, the correct answer is either "Socialist republic", "Socialist republic of the people's democratic dictatorship" or the "People's democratic dictatorship". --TIAYN (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those though are terms commonly used in English. "socialist republic" sort of makes sense, but is far too vague. "people's democratic dictatorship" doesn't even make sense. It can't be both democratic and a dictatorship, they have opposite meanings, while "people" here doesn't mean anything. "people's democratic dictatorship" seems to be something the CPC calls itself; maybe it works better in Chinese as it doesn't really work in English, and is just confusing if used to describe the political system.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "people's democratic dictatorship" doesn't make sense. It's a bit Chinglisy but I think it gets across the meaning of the people dictating how the state is run, which is of course nonsense in actuality, but it is the way that the Chinese government itself describes the political framework of the country. Just my 2 RMB's worth.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: I agree with Philg88, its nonsense, but thats how they view their own state. At last, how is "socialist republic" vague? Tell me of one socialist republic which hasn't introduced single-party rule? You can't think of any because not one modern case of it exists (post-1917 all declared socialist states have had single-party rule or one-man rule) ... At last, democracy and dictatorship has opposite meaning in liberal terminology and not in Marxist terminology. According to Marxism, every society created in history so far has been a class dictatorship of some kind .. The whole point of communism is to create a dictatorship of the proletariat, since the proletariat are the biggest class (it forms the majority). As with democracy, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is a dictatorship against all other classes but is a democracy for the bourgeoisie. Similarly, the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed too, in theory, be the dictatorship of the proletariat which safeguards the democratic rights of the proletariat (hence why communist regimes talked about "proletarian democracy"). .. --TIAYN (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"socialist republic" is vague as "socialist" is an imprecise term applied to many systems - right-wing American commentators use it to describe a wide range of things on the left they disagree with such as Obamacare, which to anyone outside the US is still a market-led right-wing healthcare system. "republic" is either meaningless, as many states self-identify as republics or misleading, as it more precisely means a government of elected representatives. The problem with both "socialist republic" and "people's democratic dictatorship" is they seem to be ones the PRC chooses to identify itself. I.e. they are examples of propaganda, not the correct political terms for the system.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to take these histrionics seriously. Nevertheless, I also think "socialist" is a dubious term to apply to China, though less so than the other archaic guff suggested above. Single party (I'm inclined to drop "state", if it necessary to make it clear we're referring to the government; it redirects to the same article, which also has "one party system" bolded in the first sentence), which is far more prevalent in the secondary literature (think it's biased? Tough), is the appropriate term. If one thinks nominal Communism is not being afforded recognition, I'm not opposed to adding "Communist" as a second term, as someone did to the Vietnam article recently. bridies (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: This article should be treated similar to Syria; it is referred to as a "Unitary dominant-party semi-presidential republic". China is a "Socialist republic of the people's democratic dictatorship".. Adding "Communist" wouldn't help at all since "Communist republic" is not a form of government according to anyone, Socialist republic isn't either. However socialist republic is a definition of what form a state it is (and both communists and non-communists alike agree on that), but does not describe the political system. Therefore, the right terminology is "Socialist republic of the people's democratic dictatorship" is more correct. Its more correct then Marxist-Leninist socialist republic. Single-party socialist republic doesn't make since you are mentioning the same thing twice; every post-1917 socialist state has had single-party rule (with the exception of maybe North Korea which has royal family rule, but that state formalyl has one-party rule).. --TIAYN (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that the People's congress system in China is based upon the people's democratic dictatorship. So the people's democratic dictatorship describes the legislative system in China. --TIAYN (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "communist" were added, it would just be "communist", not "communist republic"; I, personally, am happy for it to say "single party" rather than "single party socialist XYZ"; there are prevalent secondary sources which will describe either the government or the state as "single party". bridies (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these arguments contain some logic, but it really doesn't matter what kind of government you think China has. What matters is what reliable sources say about the matter. Beyond that we have to make adjustments because of context or because our purposes and language is slightly different from those sources. Single party state is notheless both the common way to refer to the system and reasonably accurate. Ultimately it's good to be concise here. There's no way we are going to explain their governmental system in a few words, thats what the body of the article is for. The label used at syria is ridiculously convoluted. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Metal.lunchbox: The problem with this line of thinking is that you're saying the sources within Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China, Syria etc are not trustworthy when defining China's political system. Even if those states are dictatorships, its still a view they hold. --TIAYN (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Vietnam and Laos, with their world-renowned scholarship and universities, and fine, independent media. bridies (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: Independent media doesn't really mean anything, its a view. Its a view held by those states. And you would have thought a view supported by a state was more notable then a view supported by some in the free press. Wouldn't you think? .. And stating that because these states are dictatorships their views don't count is BIAS. And state, somehow, that the views pronounced in the free world are somehow of a higher standard because they are expressed in the free world is wrong.. This smells like a "we always right, they always wrong" scenario.--TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it's rather central, since Wikipedia is entirely based on reliable, independent scholarship. We don't cover the views of states, we cover the views of sources, and sources are not reliable third party ones on the subject of a government if they are owned by that government (!). (And similarly, if you are talking about, for example, Vietnamese media commenting on China's fundamental political system, it is subject to censorship on that subject and neither independent nor reliable). bridies (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: First, that's biased. Secondly, that doesn't make sense, since WP routinely uses Chinese sources.. This article, a GA, uses Xinhua, People's Daily and more. --TIAYN (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not biased. There are Chinese state sources, yes, but the only relevant content I can see that is sourced to them is to give the numerous neologisms the Chinese leaders have espoused, as well as names of the bits and pieces of the bureaucracy; as primary sources, essentially, and not secondary analysis. This info could - and should - just as easily be sourced to scholarly secondary sources. bridies (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single-party state too socialist republic/state

@Zozs, Bridies, and JohnBlackburne: Per a quick google search, a search for "China" "socialist republic" gives 1,900,000 hits, while a search for "China" "single-party state" gives only 386,000. Per WP guidelines, we should use what the sources use (and the majority of people on the internet seem to "socialist republic" and only "socialist republic" to describe China.. A search for "China" "single-party socialist state" gives hit 362,000.. A search for "China" "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" gives 388,000 hits. Its clear what most people use. --TIAYN (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A quick google search" is entirely useless. bridies (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the second page of that first Google search (telling me less than 500k hits, not 1.9m). I've got a dictionary entry for "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" and the address of the "Embassy of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka" in China. Highly relevant. bridies (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: Why? A quick google search is commonly used on WP to find out if an article is notable or not. A quick google search should then suffice to see what term is most commonly used to describe China. What is clear is that no establish scholar as I know of (if there are some, they are the minority) use the term "Single-party socialist state" to describe socialist systems , and never "Marxist-Leninist single-party state".. They do, however, describe them as having a Marxist-Leninist ideology and having single-party rule, but adding the terms together without thinking its controversial is suspect. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: But I agree, its not reliable. A search on Google Books (where you only access books, articles, newspapers etc), more reliable, gives 8 hits for "China" "Marxist-Leninist single-party state", gives 63,000 hits for "China" "socialist state", a search for "China" "single-party socialist state" gives 90 hits, "China" "single-party state" gives 2,450, while a search for "China" "single-party system" gives 17,000 hits, a search for "China" "socialist system" gives 96,900 hits, a search for "China" "Marxist-Leninist state" gives little more then 4600 hits.. Google books is much more specific.

I think it's worth reading parts of this in the context of the current discussion. Multiple Chinese language sources do exist to verify China's governmental ideology. The fact that they're not in English, per the guideline on reliable sources, is irrelevant. Although such references may not be accessible to the majority of English readers because of the language barrier, Wikipedia policy allows for their acceptance in good faith. We should not try to foist Western political analogies onto something that is considerably different from Western systems of government.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: The problem is, as Birdies has stated, he doesn't believe we can use Chinese sources because China is a dictatorship (and lacks a free press). Therefore, according to his own statement, the only way to interpret/define the Chinese political system is to use Western sources, and Western sources only (that is, from liberal democratic countries), and define China from a liberal democratic perspective. --TIAYN (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am again looking at first page of the "China socialist system" (or similar) Google Books search, and again: almost all of them refer to economics, one is referring to the 1950s - Google results with no context are again just useless. Both the strawmen posted above are spurious, and further indicative of TIAYN's descent into bad faith accusations and personal attacks. The relevant argument was that Chinese state media are simply not secondary sources on this subject, and academic sources within China both tend to be of lower quality and subject to censorship (even if this may not disqualify them per se). PhilG's suggestion that this is a linguistic issue and that Western analogies are being shoehorned into the article is not true: anyone remotely familiar with Communism and its nomenclature will be familiar with its Western lineage (nope, dictatorship-as-democracy is not a Chinese linguistic concept). Finally, the suggestion that all sources coming out of the West are liberal is preposterous, and in fact much of Western academia is notoriously to the left; second, one is aware that Chinese academics actually publish fairly widely in Western scholarly journals, right? Finally, can we not just begin a genuine debate on the subject, by citing actual sources with context? bridies (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: Liberal in the sense that the majority of people in democracies actually support LIBERAL democracy, the democratic system which formally exists in all of Europe (maybe with the exception of Belarus) and North America. Iliberal in the sense that they oppose liberal democracy (if a person is to the left doesn't really matter in this sense of the word liberal). The political system of all these countries are based on liberalism; the question of left and right in democracies don't often question the legitimacy of the political system itself, but instead the economic system. You see, different things... "anyone remotely familiar with Communism and its nomenclature will be familiar with its Western lineage (nope, dictatorship-as-democracy is not a Chinese linguistic concept)" it may not be a Chinese linguistics term, but thats what they use to describe their own system. That the West doesn't support this position is another topic to say the least; but thats not surprising, since in the West the idea of liberal democracy has hegemony and in China (and in other countries), illiberal ideas have hegemony (or at least looks like they have hegemony on the surface - you never know how rotten it is until the surface breaks, e.g. USSR) in China (and other countries). --TIAYN (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you keep referring to states and not sources: there are many - again, notoriously many - in Western academia who are not liberal democrats, and who are Marxists, anarchists and whatever else. bridies (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that illiberal ideas are hegemonic in China (or in Vietnam etc.). bridies (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: its a reason why that, here on WP, we don't discuss if the US is a bourgeoisie democracy or not, because liberal ideas have hegemony (and are not threatened by Marxist ideology, Anarchist theory or any such thing; it was, however, during certain parts of the Cold War)... But back to the point. Google Books is as good as any; socialist state is predominantly used more then Marxist-Leninist state and "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" and "Socialist single-party state". Therefore, socialist state should be used. .. As Metal Lunchbox said "Many of these arguments contain some logic, but it really doesn't matter what kind of government you think China has. What matters is what reliable sources say about the matter "Many of these arguments contain some logic, but it really doesn't matter what kind of government you think China has. What matters is what reliable sources say about the matter." What matters are what scholars say, and scholars use socialist state. If we are going to try to find a generalized way of what is most commonly used, a search on Google Books is the best I can think of (can you think of anything better)? --TIAYN (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said iliberal ideas had hegemony in China (said it looked like that on the surface). --TIAYN (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try doing more than looking at the alleged surface, then. bridies (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: You are looking at the surface; you say you're version is more acceptable because its more commonly used, but haven't been able to put one single reason for why it should stay. You're argument is based on this; me wrong, this better. But you havn't been able to define why you're version is better (with an argument based upon reliable sources, or sources at all). --TIAYN (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes longer to give an actual citation and an indication of context, as opposed to a search result consisting of plainly bullshit entries. Here are half a dozen cites - all I have time for at the moment; these are neverthless to peer-reviewed, academic journals and give an indication of the credence of "single party" (and I do not care what if anything goes after that), in reference to either/both (given TIAYN's current attempt to change the template itself) China's government and/or political system, in a broad range of contexts and with a broad set of scholars, and is better than TIAYN's reverting on the strength of zero cited sources.

• Malesky, E., Abrami, R., ; Zheng, Y. (2011) “Institutions and Inequality in Single-Party Regimes: A Comparative Analysis of Vietnam and China”. Comparative Politics.
• Schubert, G. (2008) “One-Party Rule and the Question of Legitimacy in Contemporary China: preliminary thoughts on setting up a new research agenda”. Journal of Contemporary China, 17 (54).
• Smith, B (2005) “Life of the Party: The Origins of Regime Breakdown and Persistence under Single-Party Rule”. World Politics, 57 (3). [yes, China is discussed in this context]
• Roy, D. (1994) “Singapore, China, and the “Soft Authoritarian” Challenge”. Asian Survey, 34 (3). [“Beijing government claims a single-party system is required to maintain stability and unity”]
• Lo, C. W. H., Yip, P. K. T. Y. & Cheung, K. C. (2000) “The Regulatory Style of Environmental Governance in China”. Public Administration and Development, 20. [“It is shown that China's being a single-party regime with a “rule of persons” tradition has heavily shaped its environmental governance”]
• Sato, H. (2006) “Housing inequality and housing poverty in urban China in the late 1990s”. China Economic Review, 17. [“The differences in the impacts of meritocracy and political credentialism by business/nonbusiness sectors seem to reflect the characteristic of the Chinese-style systemic transition, in which marketization is progressing under the single-party system.”] bridies (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The "socialist state" refs I've checked from the Google searches - those which aren't completely irrelevant, like works referring to '40s - appear to discuss the actual (welfare, hukou etc.) state apparatus, and not the basic central government system. Some indication of otherwise might be nice. bridies (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: To quote another user (at the Talk:South Yemen article;

I am no expert; however, from the little I do know, that statement gives two, main important pieces of this puzzle. Those are Marxist–Leninist and socialist state. Just a scan of those two articles can lead to truth here. The former describes an ideology, not a type of government, although forms of government may be based upon that ideology. The latter, "socialist state", describes a type/form of government that may be based upon an ideology. Ideologies and types of governments are two different things, aren't they? It would seem that no matter how many sources one may provide, it is how those sources are interpreted that applies here. And they should be interpreted by use of the definitions of "ideology" and "type of government". When a source refers to a country as "Marxist–Leninist", the source refers to the ideology, not to the type of government. I could be wrong, but it strongly appears that when the ibox parameter is "government_type", this country's entry should be "socialist state".

Just replace Marxism-Leninism with single-party and ideology with system/institution.. A single-party system is not a form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, see Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#Politics and Template:Infobox country/doc.. It suggests that we either use short terms, such as Socialist republic or go more into depth; socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship.--TIAYN (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I am no expert...", yes, exactly, yet more editors' own talk page original interpretations; I have cited above some actual experts. Struggling to see that a comment regards a defunct state on another continent is very useful, in any case. A single-party system is very plainly a form of government, and again I'm happy for "socialist state" to be removed but "single party" must remain (why are you even mentioning Marxism-Leninism? Is that used in this infobox? Is anyone arguing for it to be used?). bridies (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no sources to defend you're position

@Bridies: I'm going to very clear here; none of the sources you purportedly gave says China has a "form of government" which is a "Single-party state"... For instance while the article's title is "One-Party Rule and the Question of Legitimacy in Contemporary China: preliminary thoughts on setting up a new research agenda" the article itself doesn't say that china's form of government is a single-party system, but its used as a description/generalization. It doesn't even say "One-party system", but "One-party rule"... To break down one of the sentences, "It is shown that China's being a single-party regime with a “rule of persons” tradition has heavily shaped its environmental governance" doesn't neither say that China has single-party form of government. It says regime, regime is not the same as form of government, and even if it was, it would be more apt adding in the infobox that China is a "Single-party socialist regime". Regime it at last, is not easily defineable (if we forget one trait; all definitions says a regime is by definition authoritarian). .. Another quote, "The differences in the impacts of meritocracy and political credentialism by business/nonbusiness sectors seem to reflect the characteristic of the Chinese-style systemic transition, in which marketization is progressing under the single-party system", is more tricky since the term "system" is used. But there is a difference between "Form of government" and "Political system". Wikipedia even have two articles on the subject, see Form of government and Political system.. You say that I havn't given any useful sources, neither have you. Socialist republic/system is apt because a "Socialist system" is clearly definable; all socialist states from Soviet Russia to modern China have had the same basic traits; one-party system, dormant legislatures, weak state agencies (if compared with the party, and so on). The consensus before was a "sham consensus", it was factual inaccurate, and thats been my whole point from the very beginning... And it doesn't help really that no modern sources actually talk of a form of government in the former, or present socialist republics. --TIAYN (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be better if I'd cited the address of Sri Lanka's embassy in China... Again, it is clear both from the context and the explicit terms (One-Party Rule is synonymous with a form of government here; regime is synonymous with government here). You seem to want a sentence that explicitly says "China's form of government is one-party" from the one hand; and on the other cite nothing but your own original analysis, Wikipedia articles, and irrelevant addresses on the other. Nevertheless, from a quick search, I have from Wang (would that be a Chinese scholar?), 2006: "The term “regime” here refers to government in power. Hence, “Chinese regime” denotes the Beijing Government that is under Chinese CCP rule. As it is still a one-party government or a party-state, sometimes “the Party”, “the CCP”, “the CCP regime”, or “the CCP Government” is used." Also from my quick search I have "China is a country with a fifty-year tradition of one-party government" (Galbraith, 1999). There's more but at this point I can't even be bothered. bridies (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: Alas, what should I say, that Yan Sun's book The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976-1992 he has two chapters entitled ""The Noncompeting Nature of the Socialist Political System" or ""The Reassessment of the Socialist Political System". Using terms, which he believes, rightly, are clearly definable. To the point, which you still have failed to answer; why do we have to terms which mean the same; "Single-party" and "socialist"? The difference between the terms are simple; socialist explains the current system in China in every way, while single-party explains only one (important) feature of the system. Remove single-party state. --TIAYN (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another work about the '70s and '80s? "Reassessment of the Socialist Political System"? Does he even say it still has a socialist political system? "Single-party" may inherently be part of "socialist state" but not vice-versa. Those sources calling it "single party" do not necessarily call it "socialist" (because, frankly it isn't; for every source you can find calling China "socialist" you can probably find more saying that it is not socialist; good luck finding anyone saying it's not single party). Put a semi-colon between "single-party" and "socialist" (Or again, just remove socialist) if you like. bridies (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: You don't need to be socialist to have a socialist political system; there is no universal law which says that.. The majority of people analyzing China admits it has a socialist political system, but capitalist economy. Secondly, no one argues that China's political system is none-socialist, they say the economy is non-socialist.... the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front in Ethiopia operates in a multi-party system, however, they are still authoritarian and cheat in every election, it doesn't make the system less of a multi-party system (since parties exist which oppose them). --TIAYN (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious. You are again inventing a "majority". For the majority of analysts, as I have demonstrated, the defining factor in China's political system is that it is single-party. Socialism doesn't come into it. A single party happens to be part of an archaic, minority view that you happen to prefer, so you want the defining factor subsumed into that definition, spuriously. bridies (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: Of course its socialist; its the continuation of the system conceived by the Chinese communists under Mao in 1949. The system doesn't suddenly change along with ideological change you do know that? The party and state are still based upon democratic centralism, the People's Congress system still exists, opposition to the separation of powers still exists (and are still referred to as bourgeoisie/capitalist), there still is a United Front, there still exists a body in which the other progressive parties can have their say(officially at least). These things all remain the same, the only thing that has changed, Bridies, is ideology. Stop saying yeah, its not socialist, so neh. The system is clearly socialist, clearly Leninist (its still organzied on democratic centralism conceoved by Lenin), so its clearly a socialist political system. If the party still remains socialist is another question, but as you know as well as me; foreign commentators often lament that their have been radical economic reforms, but that there has been an absence in political reforms. A system doesn't change because the party's belief changes - those are two very separate things, and you know that. --TIAYN (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact there has been a lot of change, in practice, in the system and this is the reflected in the literature (you have been citing a source about political "Reassessment" over 2 decades, for example). Everything you've described is merely nominal, from an increasingly niche POV (Marxist), and dubious in the first place. Ideology and economic MO are part of the package - as demonstrated by the way consensus has been going in the other disputes in which you're involved - even if we don't need to put them in the infobox (and hell, if we do not need to put the actual ideology and MO in the box, we certainly shouldn't put a discarded ideology and economic MO in the box). Again, you are spuriously extrapolating that every scholar defining the government/system as "single party" is therefore calling it "socialist" because Marxists/Leninist/Maoists call it "socialist" and that the "single party" remains part of their POV. bridies (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: huh? I literally have no clue what you're talking about here; rambling about "MO", "niche POV", what Marxists think and son. Everyone agrees that the Soviet Union had a socialist political system. That system was defined as a party-state based upon democratic centralism, belief of a vanguard, unitary executive power (as seen in the Supreme Soviet) and opposition to a separation of power. All these defining features exists in China. Non-socialist calls the Soviet political system socialist, non-socialist calls the Chinese political system socialist. The system conceived by Lenin is generally conceived by the great majority of being a socialist political system. That system may have been oppressive (Kautsky), deformed (Trotsky), not representing the will of the proletariat (Kautsky, Luxembourg), may have been the logical evolution of a system based on such an ideology (right-wing scholar Robert Service, neutral Archie Brown) but that system was, and still is, defined as socialist. In The Rise and Fall of Communism by Brown he even goes as far as to state that China has totally rejected communism, but despite this he acknowledges that the socialist political system is still in place. --TIAYN (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly stopped reading at the mention of the Soviet Union. Brown is merely one of many that point out that China has indeed, uncontroversially rejected Communism and Marxism-Leninism. You are again showing your (ever-increasingly) niche Marxist political readings: China's system is no longer analysed merely as part of Marxist political theory. Other political scientists (Brown being a scholar of Communism), political geographers, Asia scholars and so on, place it other contexts, one of the main ones being Asian authoritarianism. It is just as easily compared to Singapore as it is to the Soviet Union (one of these has the advantage of not being defunct). The common denominator here is "one party" state/system/regime (and tbh, if the issue is one of nomenclatural bias - although apparently today it's not - and we want to clarify its lineage, I'm not opposed to adding "democratic centralism" or "centralised democracy", in brackets or after a semi-colon, if it can be demonstrated there is any currency). And yet again, that calling it a "socialist" state/republic/government implies a whole host of things, in addition to one-party, that it does not have. First you wanted to cite loads of economics-focussed mentions of "socialist" into the discussion, now you want to dismiss that aspect - which is it? bridies (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: I'm not a Marxist, even if it seems like you think I am. Secondly, political system is not the same as the economic system. The one doesn't necessarily follow the; Venezuela is very close to having a planned economy, however, the system is still (in institutions at least) a liberal democratic democracy. Alas, Asian authoritarianism is not a form of government, the socialist political system is a form of government. You're widening this discussion for no reason; my point is simple, the socialist political is a form of government. Yes China and Singapore shares many similarities, but not in government structure. officially Singapore has a separation of power, officially Singapore is not a one-paryy state, officially (I can go on). And not even that, in Singapore you have in practice a whole set of different instutions and even have opposition parties. China is similar, and may still exist because of this "Asian authortarianism" concept, but thats not what the government_type parameter is asking for. Its asking for form of government. The form of government in China, how the government is structured has no similarities with Singapore... And honestly, you can't add Democratic centralism because democratic centralism is not a form of government.. You seem to be going out of you're way to not add the form of government of China; adding words together don't make a form of government... Tell me what features in the Chinese political system in which China doesn't share with its present and former counterparts? "And yet again, that calling it a "socialist" state/republic/government implies a whole host of things, in addition to one-party" - what other hosts of things does it imply? .. It doesn't matter what it implies if you're talking about economics, because economics is not the same as form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be a Marxist, but your discourse here is limited entirely to Marxist political theory. Officially (nominally) this, offically that... again, I refer you to the top of the discussion (and however many other times the point has been made by others): we refer to what the scholarly literature says it actually is, not what it nominally is according to state sources. The literature does discuss Singapore as a one-party state (oh, it nominally has more than one party? And did you not point out above, that China does also? Burma too under the junta...). Japan also. Perhaps I'll be forced to cite some. I'm not "widening the discussion for no reason", this reflects the scholarly discourse on China's political system, as I've demonstrated with cites: you have been narrowing the discussion to Marxist theory (which you've given parity with absoulutely everything else, which equates to "liberal theory", as you see it). bridies (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: Its a reason why Singapore, unlike China, is referred to on WP as a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional republic" (thats because thats what the majority of scholars say it is).... To formulate myself in a different way, the institutions in Singapore are not similar to those in China. In China you have other parties, but they all support the CPC continued rule, and exist to strengthen the CPC's rule by criticizing it through proper channels ("consultative democracy"). In Singapore you have three forms of elections; city council, municipal and national. In China you one; the people elect the members of the local People's Congress, the local people's congress elects amongst its members people to the municipal people's congress, and so on, until it reaches the National People's COngress. UNlike in Singapore, China does not have three branches; executive, legislative and judicial. In China all power is in the people's congress system; there is no executive, judicial or legislative in the traditional sense, but was the Chinese call most aptly "people's power". All power is in the assembly. Because of democratic centralism, that means all power is in the Presidium/Standing COmmittee of the National People's Congress and its chairman. The role of president has only a ceremonial role (similar to that of the former eastern bloc countries, and other existing socialist states), and the post is connected to power because the CPC GEneral Secretary is the state president. In China, unlike nominally in Singapore, the courts are not independent (they are nominally under the control of the people's congress at their level, but in reality under the control of the CPC at that level).. I could go on forever. Unlike China, Singapore has opposition parties in every sense of the words which vehemently oppose the ruling People's Action Party, there doesn't exist opposition parties in China (and there never will under CPC rule)... Most commonly Singapore, in literature, is most commonly tagged in the dominant-party system category. At last, very important, the state institutions are not organized on line with democratic centralism - of course it wouldn't, since Singapore doesn't have a socialist political system. Democratic centralism is important here, and which is why the remaining socialist countries Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China and even North Korea is important - its the basis for high comformity and discipline in which the CPC leadership is able to force upon its members and the society as a whole.. There is one important similarity, the PAP is organized on a semi-Leninist basis, but doesn't have the same organizational structure (fewer at the top, much stronger leader). Burma was a military dictatorship; are you saying that China is a military dictatorship? .. I'm not narrowing my discussion on Marxist theory, none of what I've written the last two days have any connection to Marxist theory (with the exception to show that the Chinese use some sort of deformed Marxist theory to rationalize their system)

you're argument seems to base on the preposition of "Asian values", and that all these states have similarities, and therefore using the term socialist political system would somehow weaken that link to the other states. I don't get that rationale at all. To the point, what you've proven so far is that the socialist political system has certain things in common with the system in Singapore, and thats certainly right. But doesn't explain the need to include "single-party" in the description, when its already, by definition, included in the socialist state tag. You seem to argue against the inclusion of the socialist political system tag here on this article since it would somehow confuse the connection between China and the other authoritarian states. Which a strange argument, and again taking the discussion a bit too far. My point is simple, socialist state means; one-party system (or as in China, a system in which only party can rule), democratic centralism party-state, an ideological apparatus (shown in China through the propaganda apparatus) and one form of dictatorship.. Singapore has, in contrast, a multi-party system, a semi-Leninist system in the party but non in the state, not an ideological apparatus but control over the media, and a authoritarian/guided democracy (elections are held, but rules/laws are always enacted which helps the ruling PAP). There are clearly similarities, but no one disagrees with that (only the PAP would I guess, the Chinese themselves agree with the similarities and have written a ton of stuff about it...) --TIAYN (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you could go on forever. "You seem to argue against the inclusion of the socialist political system tag here on this article since it would somehow confuse the connection between China and the other authoritarian states. Which a strange argument, and again taking the discussion a bit too far." Pretty much, in addition to the equally significant fact that it makes China seem like a socialist state per se, when it's not. It's neither "strange", nor "too far"; it's mainstream, as least as much so as peddling tired, nominal Marxist concepts. "Asian values" is part of the relevant discourse, yes; much as Trotskyism, Gramsci(ian)(ism?), demoncratic centralism, or any slice of communist ideology is part of the discourse on communist states. The states have many similarities, yes, for broader reasons, and my point is while they are certainly not the same, they are at least as the same as China now is to the Soviet Union (Ahem: "the Chinese themselves agree with the similarities and have written a ton of stuff about it..."; right, so who is neglecting the Chinese viewpoint again?). Single-party state may not be the prevalent view of Singapore (which is why it doesn't get into the respective infobox) but it's a verifiable, justifiable view, and at least as salient as your assertion that China's system has any real vestiges of the Soviet Union. Single-party is again part of socialist state, but crucially, not vice-versa. The references I provided do not refer to a socialist system but a one-party system, which is the crux of the argument; which if you disagree, refer to the actual sources to demonstrate why. If you're really unhappy about the two terms, again: remove "socialist", as it's by far the most tenuous of the two. bridies (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridies: You're best argument so far, and one I can respect. I would disagree that socialist is the least tenuous of the two in a system sense of the word. If the question was, what China is, then of course single-party would be far-less controversial and socialist would have been tenuous at best (since we in the West don't accept the Chinese ideological discourse as a lot of talking but lack in content).. China is a socialist state, and according to WP itself, it fits the bill; "The term socialist state (or socialist republic) usually refers to any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the construction of a socialist society." it is dedicated to the cause in every way, the only difference between these communist and former is that the meaning of what socialism is has changed dramatically. But I'm off. To the point, the infobox is not the place to try to connect China with other states. And I consider it a bit POV too. It would be like adding the Marxist tag on the Ethiopia article since scholars admit that the modern Ethiopian state, the state established after the Derg, was based around and inspired by the Marxist national question and the later developments in the USSR (in which Gorbachev tried to establish a Union of Soviet Sovereign States), which called for the establishments of independent states based around ethnicity. However, adding Marxist woouldn't make sense since the institutions themselves are not socialist in any sense of the word, despite them being created on the basis of reading and intepretation of Marxist writing on the national question... The infobox is not the place to try to connect China with other states, thats what we have the Politics section for. It asks for one thing only government_type. --TIAYN (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about following the CIA World Factbook and calling it a [big "C"] "Communist state?"[1] It is governed according to a constitution written by the Communist Party of China. TFD (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: In that instance I think Communist state is synonymous with Socialist state... From what I gathered from this article, they differentiate between Communist state and socialism so as to make it more accessible to readers. In this cases they are synonymous, I think. Of course, I'd rather have just Communist republic then "Single-party socialist state".. But to be clear, the issue here is wether to use the term Single-party in the description when by definition a communist-socialist system is a one-party state. Its superfluous including "single-party" when socialist state already, by definition, implies one-party rule. I can't think of one socialist state post-1917 which hasn't had a one-party system of one kind or another. --TIAYN (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact many Communist states had multiple parties, although the Communist Party was guaranteed a majority. The GDR for example had five parties, two of which merged into the CDU and two which merged into the FDP after re-unification. The fact that their members would choose to align with "bourgeois" parties indicates that they had at least some degree of difference from the main Communist parties. But I prefer "Communist" over "socialist." That these countries were not only run by big-"C" Communist parties but that these parties wrote their constitutions is a matter of fact. That they were socialist is a matter of opinion. TFD (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've currently got very little time this week, to reply. Briefly, again the preference for single-party isn't a desire for a POV comparison, but again pertinent to how the term, and China's system, is understood broadly to scholars and probably general readers. I am happy for a second term - currently it's "socialist" (which someone au fait with Marxism apparrently finds a tautology alongside "single-party"; but I don't think a general reader - i.e. WP's audience - would), but I am probably also fine with "centralised democracy", "democratic centralism", "people's democracy" or "communism" (whichever can be shown to have most currency in sources) to illustrate the nominal specifities of China's system. At this point, I don't see that one or two editors, at most a handful, having lengthy discussions with piecemeal reference to sources will amount to much; if one is determined to change it, an RfC or something may be required. Regards the CIA factbook: I think that is a dubious source to use, from an NPOV standpoint, for China's system; in any case, I wouldn't regard it as definive. bridies (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I unlock the lock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyducklips (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodyducklips: Welcome to wikipedia. The page is semi protected so you can request any edit by using this talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Trade Relations there is an error because the picture is from the G-20, and not from the BRICS, as the third from the left is the former President of Mexico (which is not part of the BRICS), and not Vladimir Putin, who founded the BRICS Group.--83.63.225.149 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The only photo on the page with a Mexican president is a photo of the G-5. It is labeled as "A meeting of G5 leaders". It has been this way for a while. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk)

That is ridiculous. The article should be more serious about that because the so called G5 doesn´t exist, and cannot be compared to the BRICS Group which even have created a common Development Bank and has annual meetings. --83.63.225.149 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@83.63.225.149: Yes they do, see Group of Five. --TIAYN (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that so called "G5" didn´t meet again since 2005, nine years ago...Ridiculous.--81.35.196.42 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a different photo would be more appropriate then replace it. Claiming that the G5 doesn't exist, or that the image is incorrectly labeled is confusing and unhelpful. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to see the article China, but I find that it's mixed with The People's Republic of China. Why? When we say 中國 (China), we mean 中國 (China), not the People's Republic of China. The history of 中國 (China), is not the history of the People's Republic of China. The culture of 中國 (China), is not the culture of the People's Republic of China. The art of 中國 (China), is not the art of the People's Republic of China..... Can the article The People's Republic of China itself be created, so we can have the article China? --一二十 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, even in today, besides the People's Republic of China, there is the Republic of China. So how can People's Republic of China = China? Even in politics, China does not mean a dynasty/state/government, but all dynasties/states/governments of China. --一二十 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the 'Frequently asked questions' section at the top of this page. When people say 'China' in English, they normally mean the PRC. William Avery (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I think it needs rediscussion, because there is no article China (中國) in English version, only the article of China (中國) mixed with People's Republic of China. The article China (中國) is needed. --一二十 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on China, the country. Which is also/more formally called the People's Republic of China. But they are the same thing. 'China' is the common name.

If you are looking for Chinese history then there's the History of China, which links to many other articles on Chinese history topics. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. But I do not simply want see the History of China, but the whole of China, a complete China. I think many people is the same. So why shouldn't there be the article China? --一二十 (talk)

If the encyclopedia is compiled or hosted by United Nations, I'll have no problem that People's Republic of China = China politically, since there has always been only one representative government of China in a single time, and now it recognizes only the People's Republic of China. But it's not a fact there is only one state of China. There are two states (republics) with the name China, although Republic of China is not recognized by UN and many states in the world. And, actually, when we say 中國 (China), we mostly often do not mean it politically. When we say we love China, we do not mean we love the People's Republic of China. That’s totally two different kinds of meanings, concepts and phrases. --一二十 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have brought your opinions forward during the page move discussion that took place during 2011. It's too late for this now, community consensus has already established the PRC as the primary topic of "China", and this discussion is rather unlikely to be going anywhere. If you were to propose a page move, I really doubt that you can gain consensus. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that consensus can change, and it appears that this consensus is moving slowly more and more towards the decided outcome of the move decision. That is to say that what at the time was highly controversial, is becoming less and less controversial, so if you wish to request a move, you may find a time machine helpful. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: 1) what do you mean "I do not simply want see the History of China, but the whole of China, a complete China."? What would be on this "complete China" page that isn't on this page or the History of China page? 2) more importantly, what relevance does the usage of Chinese words in the Chinese language by Chinese speakers have to the usage of the English word "China" in the English language by English speakers? --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Chinese and I can confirm that when we say "China" in Chinese we do mean "People's Republic of China". If we want to refer to "Republic of China", we simply say "Taiwan". It's completely the same usage with English speakers. --JesseW900 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Political meetings between foreign government officials and the 14th Dalai Lama are also opposed by China, as the latter considers Tibet to be formally part of China.[168]" Could this be made to sound like Tibet is in fact part of China (the reality, I gather from other articles), instead of "China would like Tibet to be a part of China"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.157.119 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that sentence, mainly because the Telegraph source doesn't support the claim (it just mentions one such event, and doesn't explictly say why). Otherwise, I don't think this is that controversial: Tibet is de facto part of the PRC territory but frankly not part of a Chinese civilisation or nation (or we could be generous to the Chinese view and say it's contentious). So that sentence was again just falling foul of the China = PRC or China = historical Chinese civilisation problems (and China view Tibet as part of the latter, is what the sentence was about). As I said, it needs clearer semantics and a proper source. bridies (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IMF, China is now the worlds largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Someone should update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipm (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government allows to use both the Russian ruble and the yuan, in Suifenhe, China as a legal tender. It is the first time in the history of PRC when the usage of a foreign currency as a payment for goods and services is allowed on its territory. I suggest to add the Russian ruble to the list of currencies along with the yuan in the same fashion as it's done for Panama and US dollar, but with a footnote that its usage is only allowed in a certain region.