Talk:China

RFC: Authoritarian dictatorship

Hello everyone! Should the government type of China be changed from "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" to "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under authoritarian dictatorship"?

In my opinion, it doesnt make sense to label Russia, Belarus and North Korea as authoritarian/totalitarian dictatorships but exclude China despite overwhelming amount of sources calling it an authoritarian dictatorship. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No, is the short answer. TheUzbek (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Why? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

A somewhat longer answer is I don't feel objectively that these modifers add anything to the article. While I am not saying they don't have scholarly relevance those terms are vague. What is an authoritarian form of government? Its a vague modifier that does not actually say anything about the form of government, what institutions that exists in the state or how they operate (remember, non-liberal states can be run very differently from another). Communist state does, liberal democracy does, but not totalitarian and authoritarian. TheUzbek (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This does not answer my question. By your logic, countries like Russia, Belarus and North Korea shouldn't be called authoritarian/totalitarian either, but they currently are in their Wikipedia articles.

Why cant China be called an authoritarian dictatorship but these countries can? If these modifiers dont add anything important why dont you remove them from articles about Russia, Belarus and North Korea? Why remove them only from China? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE - we're on this page and your question was about the page for China, not the page for Belarus. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Im sorry, i just think that it makes 0 sense to not call China authoritarian dictatorship because its "a vague modifier that does not actually say anything about the form of government" but ignore articles about Russia, Belarus and North Korea. What makes article about China so special? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Because mistakes have been committed to those articles and someone should go over there and correct them. TheUzbek (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It's funny this is the article used at those other articles for an example of what not to do...lol. It's odd to link to a philosophy over government or political type as the parameter is meant for.Moxy🍁 22:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

How is a communist state a philosophy? It is the political type, the form of government of China. TheUzbek (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

No ofc not! that is so biased and violate wp:NPOV. that shouldn't be up to discussion inmo. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

But China is a dictatorship, how does telling the truth violate NPOV? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:RFCBEFORE Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This RfC should be speedily closed. The formatting is malformed and the question isn't presented neutrally. The new account is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just a burner for starting non-policy-based debates reminiscent of their username. They acknowledged on the Labour Party (UK) talk page that starting an RfC was a mistake, and then they started another RfC here afterwards. Yue🌙 09:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Concur with @Yue and @Lukewarmbeer that this RfC is malformed and poorly advised. It should be closed accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote what part of my RFC i presented not neutrally? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"In my opinion ..." RfCs aren't for general inquiries related to your personal opinions or preferences. They're last resorts after you've exhausted all other policy-based options, i.e. throwing the question out there on the talk, being unable to resolve a dispute and asking for a third opnion, etc. Making a new account and immediately requesting for comments on discussions rehashed ad nauseam is an oversight at best and wasting the time of other editors at worst. The FAQ section at the top of this talk page is there for a reason. Yue🌙 22:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors are not obligated to respond to me. It is entirely their choice to "waste their time" on me. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

When you initiate a formal discussion mechanism designed to resolve a serious dispute then involved editors are necessarily going to need to be involved in it unless they want to see articles degrade in quality. When that discussion is badly formed this, thus, wastes editor time. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Tryng to inform our readers is a waste of time? This article has lost its relationships with academic editors because most simply avoid difficult users. This is a topic of mass academic publications....

• Heurlin, C. (2016). Responsive Authoritarianism in China. Responsive Authoritarianism in China: Land, Protests, and Policy Making. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13113-2.
• Tang, L. (2017). China's Authoritarian Path to Development: Is Democratization Possible?. China Policy Series. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-70413-3.
• Ringen, S. (2016). The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century. The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century. Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-988-8208-93-7.
• Tang, W. (2016). Populist Authoritarianism: Chinese Political Culture and Regime Sustainability. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-020578-2.

Moxy🍁 17:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

When did you care about scholarly literature? :P No one denies that it's a useful term when describing China. Most people deny using it to denote a form of government. For example, the book The Perfect Dictatorship does not describe China's form of government as authoritarian, but it describes China as authoritarian. Notice the difference? I advice people to actually read the books instead of referring to the book titles alone. I have read two of those, you none. TheUzbek (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes we understand you don't believe that authoritarian is not a form of government Moxy🍁 01:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Its an extremely vague term that says nothing about what institutions govern China. If you want to be specific and be helpful to readers you pinpoint them to communist states.

As for that article, It doesn't refer to "form of government", but "style of government". Yes, sure, style seems more correct because it does not refer to any specific institutional arrangements or governing principles. That is why Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia and Xi's China can all be labeled it without having to bother to explain to readers how that is. Again, read the sources you share. TheUzbek (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Very clear to me they're in English..... Is there any sources that contradict this? I mean is there any sources for the current information.? We can list many more sources ...but I'm assuming you'll come up with a reason to dismiss them....you have any sources that we can dismiss? Moxy🍁 02:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

My main reason for dismissal is that "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" sounds like its written by a teenager attending high school. You will find no scholarly paper or book that defines a state using four different terms, and you want to add a fifth? TheUzbek (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

As for this, "We can list many more sources". You don't give a crap about sources, you care about pushing you're WP:POV and you do so by reverting edits based on scholarly works when it suits you. If you stop doing that than we can have a proper and civil talk. TheUzbek (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not the one here with a history of socking and pushing a POV. Any proof that I've removed scholarly publications? All I see from the history here is multiple editors trying to add scholarly information to no avail. Moxy🍁 17:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no history of POV pushing. All my edits are based on academic and/or reliable sources.

I've got proof,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_state&diff=prev&oldid=1209621232

Tell me, which of my contributions to that article was based on non-academic sources? Ah, I remember, I asked you this, and you couldn't even say one thing... the irony! TheUzbek (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is all explained on The Talk Page by me and others.... This is the type of s*** that got you in trouble last time. Moxy🍁 20:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you have never explained why. I got several compliments for the changes, and it is based on leading academic scholars in the field. So no, uou haven't explained shit. And you are using you're powers to get away with it... for example, you could have written why here (or anywhere), but you never do.... TheUzbek (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

agreed ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say yes, because it's more accurate. It's even questionable whether at this point the PRC is still properly described as socialist, though I'm not sure there's a term for what it is. Sort of a post-communist totalitarian (one-party + media control) regime, retaining some elements of socialist policy but commingled increasingly with limited, privileged, and often state-interested capitalism. In case my implication wasn't clear: use "totalitarian" not "authoritarian" since the former has a narrower definition, and PRC qualifies for its meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's very long. Could we ask the government to change how it operates so we can use a shorter version? SWinxy (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

On one hand, I hesitate to add to it because was a malformed “just asking questions”-style RfC which should speedily closed. On the other hand, I view this as another reason to raise my recurring theme that infobox on governments should closely track the form and structures of government in a non-contentious and concrete way. Characterizations can be addressed according to their due weight in article bodies where they can be attributed and detailed according the nuance necessary. I oppose the proposal by the editor who opened this Rfc. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. TheUzbek (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Word "espionage"

China additionally uses a massive espionage network of cameras, facial recognition software, sensors, and surveillance of personal technology as a means of social control of persons living in the country.

— Last sentence of Para. 2, China#Sociopolitical_issues_and_human_rights

As far as I know, China's camera system is all publicly visible and has not been established without the public's knowledge. Why is it called "espionage"?

I didn't find the word in the source and I think it might be an WP:OR, which might not have WP:NPOV. 23.163.8.24 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing. Changed to the more neutral "surveillance". Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, Chinese people did not consent for them to be monitored by CCP WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Nor do Canadians but we don't call traffic cams and ring doorbells an espionage network. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the effect of Donald trump actions and Chinese entertainment boosting its soft power be mentioned.

There are various articles talking about the increase of China soft power with regards to their entertainment business and China have been talking about business with other nations due to trump actions. Should they be included or is it too early to tell? Question169 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say mention of Trump is undue for this page for now. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that proposal is based on recency bias. Everything happening right now is important and unprecedented because it's happening right now. A US political trend that's been developing over the past few months might be worth noting in politics and politics-adjacent articles of both countries, but not in the main articles. China has had thousands of years of political history; what makes a development that has so far encompassed 0.003% of that history with no great consequence (yet) significant? Yue🌙 20:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth delving more into soft power with regards to entertainment at Culture of the People's Republic of China. I'm not sure how this is related to Donald Trump though. CMD (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There are several articles which states that trump is pushing Europe to China although that might be exaggerated. It's best to wait for more information. Question169 (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2025

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

Main article: 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, with the main agency that oversees the nation's media being the Central Propaganda Department of the CCP. 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)

References

Cinema

I suggest to add Nezha 2 in the paragraph "Cinema" because it has been the highest grossing movie in China's history of movies and also the world's highest grossing animated movie. IuyminirC (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The PRC is at least an autocracy according to Freedom House. Why is it called a Republic?

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)

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) 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. 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. 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) 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 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)

References