Talk:China#POV issues

{{Edit extended-protected|China|answered=yes}}

Request to change subsection title from China#Cinema to China#Media and Cinema and add the following underneath:

{{Main|Mass media in China}}

The mass media of China primarily consists of television, newspapers, radio, and magazines under the direct supervision and control of the government. Media in China is strictly controlled and censored by the CCP,{{cite web |title=Freedom in the World 2022 - China Country Report |url=https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114220429/https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2022 |archive-date=January 14, 2023 |access-date=14 January 2023 |website= |publisher=Freedom House |url-status=live }} with the main agency that oversees the nation's media being the Central Propaganda Department of the CCP.{{Cite news |last=Buckley |first=Chris |date=2018-03-21 |title=China Gives Communist Party More Control Over Policy and Media |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/world/asia/china-communist-party-xi-jinping.html |access-date=2021-11-12 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=November 12, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112211222/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/world/asia/china-communist-party-xi-jinping.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |date=3 March 2018 |title=China's Central Propaganda Department Takes Over Regulation of All Media |work=Radio Free Asia |url=https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-propaganda-03212018140841.html |access-date=November 12, 2021 |archive-date=November 12, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112222456/https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-propaganda-03212018140841.html |url-status=live }} The largest media organizations, including the China Media Group, the People's Daily, and the Xinhua News Agency, are all controlled by the CCP.

128.106.116.55 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:No. We are not going to create a media preface cited exclusively to American anti-communist institutions. That would be grossly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:{{not done}}: I agree with the user "Simonm223", we're not gonna create a media preface cited based on American anti-communist institutions, would not even be neutral. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 18:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As the title says, I declare that Freedom House and Democracy Index are trustworthy institutions to judge a nation's governmental system. China is an autocracy masquerading as a "republic". Should really be renamed to One-party dictatorship. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Its not a dictatorship, theres a difference between political pluralism and democracy, it operates via Democratic Centralism Gorgonopsi (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I accept that. So the government should be Democratic Centralism. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well we must go off of what is stated in the constitution which is a One Party dominated marxist-leninist-mao zedong thought republic Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Infobox government fields should closely track the form and structures of government in a non-contentious and concrete way (for example, unitary or federal? How is the legislative power structured?). The United States page is a good model: "federal presidential republic". Characterizations like "authoritarian", "people's democratic dictatorship", or "whole-process people's democracy" can be addressed according to their due weight in article bodies where they can be attributed and detailed according the nuance necessary. For example, one editor in this discussion hyperlinks the PRC white paper on whole-process people's democracy. Another editor raises the people's democratic dictatorship. We have both of those characterizations RS-sourced and attributed in the body, but neither of these characterizations are jammed into the infobox either. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, that is why its strange we continue to refer to the NPC as a legislature. The official system is the "System of people's congresses under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party". That explains how the system is institutionally structured, how all state power emanates from the people's congresses, and how the party dominates the system. I agree that the American term is good, but China is not a liberal state and has altogether different state institutions.. TheUzbek (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Would you remind me what your preferred language would be? Usually when this topic has come up over the years, I am focused on the infobox not getting worse (it is perhaps not ideal, but in its current state it is still reasonably good). JArthur1984 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Nice of you to ask! :)

::::# Communist state: China has absolute leadership by one party, exercises unified power, politics in command, democratic centralism, believes in the class character of the state, has transmission belts and sacralizes public property over private property. All this fits into one term: communist state

::::# System of people's congresses under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party: The official description, and an honest one at that. All state power (unified power) emanates from the people's congresses, and the people's congresses work under the leadership of the party. This will also indirectly make clear their opposition to the separation of powers, which I think is good. This is the second best option if you ask me. The problem is that it will look like each communist state has different systems (for example, the Soviets called it "The system of soviets")

::::TheUzbek (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What is meant by this is that Wikipedia is sometimes contradictory, according to the Dictatorship article here at Wikipedia, one party states are dictatorships by definition. This designation of China as a "democracy" is confusing to Chinese-Americans who will inevitably read this article and be offended. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is easily sourced for decades now (The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century{{cite book | last=Ringen | first=Stein | title=The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century | publisher=Hong Kong University Press | date=2016-05-01 | isbn=978-988-8208-93-7 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=QFPZDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=China+One-party+dictatorship&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj92qrVyN2MAxUWrYkEHcIGF7QQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=China%2520One-party%2520dictatorship&f=false | access-date=2025-04-16 | page=}}) however this article has always been lacking in trying to educate our readers on points of this nature..... due to the fact that many believe a dictatorship is not a form of government despite this being the example used in academic publications and Layman sources.{{cite web | title=Definition, Characteristics, Countries, & Facts | website=Encyclopedia Britannica | date=2025-04-07 | url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship | ref={{sfnref|Encyclopedia Britannica|2025}} | access-date=2025-04-16}} Moxy🍁 22:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::As a counterpoint: China is most accurately described as a People's Republic regardless of whether it will upset Americans. Simonm223 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's odd that we suppress this even when the Chinese government doesn't.{{cite web | title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China | website=The State Council of the People's Republic of China | date=2019-11-20 | url=https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html | access-date=2025-04-16|quote=The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants, which in essence is a dictatorship of the proletariat, has been consolidated and developed. }} Wondering iif we should get a group of academics editors here so we can educate our readers on the western and Chinese view of this. Moxy🍁 22:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/202112/04/content_WS61aae34fc6d0df57f98e6098.html Gorgonopsi (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I find it odd people keep touting Ringen's book as if it wasn't basically 21st century Fu Manchu stuff. Simonm223 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Required reading in political science.... simply cited everywhere in academia.(It's basic knowledge reading){{cite journal | last=Wasserstrom | first=Jeffrey | title=Knowing China: A Twenty-First Century Guide. By Frank N. Pieke. New York: Cambridge University Press, The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century. By Stein Ringen. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2016. 229p | journal=Perspectives on Politics | publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP) | volume=15 | issue=4 | date=2017-11-20 | issn=1537-5927 | doi=10.1017/s1537592717002894 | pages=1192–1194}} Moxy🍁 01:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, but I was told consensus should be reached before any decision is affected. How do we get consensus? Only 2 users here. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We'll have to get others involved but this has happened before... it goes back and forth all the time. It's hard to move forward when we have unknown editors always dismissing academic professional like Oxford professor Stein Ringen. Have to remember Wikipedia is edit by those all around the world who have different education systems and reasons for editing Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 02:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Ringen is not a leading China expert, but of course a noteworthy role. He came to prominence internationally because of his writings on South Korea and democratization. This does not mean his writings on China are not valuable, but to pretend that his views trumps that of leading China specialists is rather surprising.

::::::::As for dictatorship, that is a highly vague term that is often used to combin several countries with vary different features. For example, from a Western perspective, Putin's Russia, Iran's Islamic Republic and China are dictatorship. That is fine, but they are specifically more than that. It would be much more correct, and neutrally, to describe Iran as an "Islamic republic" and China as a "communist state".

::::::::Dictatorship is a term used by scholars, but its also a contentious term. Communism's definition of dictatorship is, as everybody knows, very different from libreal democracy's definition. Less controversial, there are also scholars who reject the use of terms such as totalitarian, authoritarian and dictatorship viewing them as highly general terms that don't really explain the nature of these regimes. That is, the classical understanding of totalitarianism (the academic totalitarian school) viewed totalitarian states as non-changing and, more or less, unreformable. But China has clearly changed and clearly reformed unlike, say, North Korea . We should also not pretend that the China academic community is not divided in how one should understand China. Ringen is a small voice, but he leans one way, and that is fine. TheUzbek (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::the only way China is a dictatorship is Dictatorship of the Proletariat which essentially means the Proletariat are the main class which dominate this state, this is opposed to how it views alot of the rest of the world [https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_bourgeoisie Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise] Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/dec/23.htm Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Again an unsourced rant rejecting western sources. As mentioned above we cant move forward when one side cant produce any sources. Moxy🍁 12:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No one is rejecting Western sources; nearly all my edits are based on Western sources... why? Because I am a Westerner. What I tried to inform you about is that this is not a simple issue, and pretending that every scholar agrees that China should be labelled totalitarian, autocracy et cetra is simply not correct. This is so basic, and if you want me to send you sources of this very normal position, I will. As normal you are very aggressiv, dismiss other positions and disregard other positions as unimportant or wrong. You are not the king of China studies... TheUzbek (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok. I believe the community consensus should resolve this issue that create a new label for the Government of the PRC. I believe the current one is outdated. I accept that "dictatorship" is not the best label. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"People's democratic dictatorship" is not a form of government, officially, the organizational form of state power is the system of people's congresses. China is obviously a republic, even though some die-hard liberal democrats refuse the notion that a republic can be non-liberal democratic. However, the consensus clearly accepts that China is a republic, so there is no point in discussing this. Democratic centralism is not a form of government, but is an essential feature of the communist form of government, that is true, but then you also omit unified power, the highest state organ of power, the party's leadership of the highest state organ of power and society at large, transmission belts/mass organisations... The people's democratic dictatorship is also a part of the communist form of government since communist states usually legitimise their states based on the class system that exists in them: the Soviet Union was a socialist state of workers and peasants until 1977 and then a socialist state of the whole people. China is a people's democratic dictatorship; but this term says very little about how the government is run, but it implies that the state is governed by and on behalf of the working class and the working masses. TheUzbek (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

: Replying to the original poster - states that claim to be or have the form of Republics can be de facto dictatorships or autocracies, just as monarchies can have representative, democratic, governments. It depends on how the government works in real life.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Nigel Ish. Just wanted to say that I felt as a Chinese American that I specifically cannot recognize the PRC as anything other than a dictatorship, and a very totalitarian tyrannical one because of the history of my family. Anyways, if the consensus is thus, that's ok. 190.219.180.78 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{edit extended-protected|China|answered=yes}}

X= As it is.

Y= Adding "Category:Newly industrializing countries" 89.240.106.155 (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 16:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|China|answered=yes}}

"In the east, along the shores of the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, there are extensive and densely populated alluvial plains"

This links to "alluvium". While alluvial plains are, of course, formed from alluvium, it seems unnecessary to link to that article when there is a perfectly good article on alluvial plains

Please change link for "alluvial plains" in the above sentence to actually link to "alluvial plain"

Thank you! 2A02:C7E:2F55:BF00:EACC:FDFF:B001:10A5 (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I know you can just CTRL+F but for convenience this is in the geography section

:Thank you 2A02:C7E:2F55:BF00:EACC:FDFF:B001:10A5 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} CMD (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors on some pages, like People's Socialist Republic of Albania, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and Somali Democratic Republic have stated that, in line with MOS:IBP, that the government form in the infobox be simplified from "Unitary Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic". Users suggest a complete simplification to Marxist–Leninist state. Users in favor have argued that "UMLOPSR" is redundant and excessively detailed, as Marxist-Leninist states are by definition one-party states and socialist republics.

I personally suggest a simplification to Unitary Marxist–Leninist state, if any simplification is to be done per consensus. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Where does "Marxist-Leninist state" redirect to? "Communist state". Use communist state, that is the article name.

:This is WP:Original Research: "Unitary Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic". If you search Google you get [https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22Unitary+Marxist-Leninist+one-party+socialist+republic%22 four hits]. On Google scholar, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Unitary+Marxist-Leninist+one-party+socialist+republic%22%22&hl=no&as_sdt=0,5 you get two pages]. In contrast, the official name of China's form of government, the system of people's congress, gets [https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22System+of+people%27s+congress%22 over ten pages of hits] on Google Books and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=70&q=%22System+of+people%27s+congress%22&hl=no&as_sdt=0,5 eight pages] on Google scholar.

:We need to add what the goddamn scholars write, and not people's imagination!

:This is not a "simplification", but a correction. Adding five to ten words in a sentence does not make the system more comprehensible! In fact, it does the opposite. TheUzbek (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|China|answered=no}}

Change anthem file from US Navy Band Version to Official Band Version Official audio tracks of National Anthem of the People's Republic of China (Band Version) LoneShadow42 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)