Talk:Government of China

message: So far the only government site given is the english one. I would appreciate the chinese version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.245.115 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese language government site?

message: This page contains too much text that was copied from politics of the People's Republic of China (indeed, it seems all of it was copied from there). The entity we should be interested in is the Central People's Government. We should be expanding that article. The relations between party state and army belongs under politics, not under a entity "Government of the People's Republic of China "  (more properly the "Central People's Government") which belongs solely under the state. --Jiang 18:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Central People's Government is not recognizable in English as the government of China. If it is in use in China to refer to the government of China, that might be mentioned in the article. Politics is the process of influencing or controlling a government, not government itself. I think we are having some problems in semantics with literal translations of Chinese terminology not meaning in English what they mean in Chinese. Fred Bauder 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above.  Government of the PRC is clear, Central People's Government would only be found via a redirect which Wikipedia prefers to minimize.   SnowFire 03:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the merge. This article (government of the People's Republic of China) is a topical article discussing the government aspect of the politics of the PRC. The politics and government articles can be better organised, e.g. politics and government of France. It currently covers the legal system, the communist party, the PLA, etc. The Central People's Government in modern times is largely synonymous with the State Council, but the term has in the past different meanings. — Instantnood 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this page is almost exactly the same as the Politics of China page - word for word. If the article is not going to refer specifically to the Government, as opposed to the party and the military, then it should be merged with politics of China (have a look at that page - it is exactly the same). If, on the other hand, it is to refer to the Government, as in one of the three parts of the politics of China, the other 2 being the party and the military, then it should be merged with Central People's Government, and most of the stuff in this article about the party and military should be gotten rid of. Either way, this article needs to be merged with one of the two. What then that new article should be called is another matter. It may be true that Government of China is a better name than Central People's Government, although I think Central People's Government specifically marks out one of the three branches of authority in China, whereas Government of China is more broad, and is similar to Politics of China. If we are going to maintain the page Government, then the content should be distinguished from, and more than a cut and paste of, Politics of China. - Matthew238 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contemporarily speaking, the law courts and the National People's Congress are not part of the CPG. — Instantnood 07:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: This article says (or implies) that the constitution of the People's Republic of China defines the president's power. I read through an english translation of it (linked to in Constitution of the People's Republic of China) and I saw no reference whatever to the president or courts. Also, it seems important to note that there are no specific references to how the government works in any of the constitution. This leaves the whole government in the hands of the Communist Party and in the hands of whoever is in power.Rhinocerous Ranger (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution 

message: There are lots of statistics here, but it's unclear how the hierarchy of local governments is structured, exactly. What is the difference between a prefecture, county, city, municipality, urban district, township, and village?  What does it mean to be (for example) a county-level city? Also, it would be informative to have more information about which local governments are elected vs. appointed. -- Beland (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provincial and local government 

message: It would be informative to give some sense of how much independence (if any) the various organs of government have from the Communist Party (or other centers of power), in practice.  How much of a role does corruption play in government? -- Beland (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical considerations 

message: Confusion about the department of
* 中央办公厅 - http://www.gov.cn/gwy2010/content_1439539.htm
and
* 中共中央办公厅 - http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&safe=strict&q=%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%AE%E5%8A%9E%E5%85%AC%E5%8E%85&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
--124.78.208.113 (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reason for the topic of [[List of Chinese (People's Republic of China) government entities]] 

message: The first sentence reads "All power within the government of the People's Republic of China is divided among three bodies: the People's Republic of China, State Council, and the People's Liberation Army (PLA)."  The second "People's Republic of China" seems to be in error, as it makes no sense.  Based on the rest of the paragraph, it appears that "Communist Party of China" is what is intended.  DWorley (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly so. I have clarified the lead. The article does not at this time serve its intended purpose as a description of the administrative structure of the Chinese government. Close to zero actual information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outright errors? 

message: I recommend moving this page's contents to "Government of the People's Republic of China," which currently redirects to this page, in order to maintain neutrality with respect to the PROC's and ROC's rival claims to legitimacy as the government of China per se. Antediluvian67 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend move to "Government of the People's Republic of China" 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and hasn't there been discussion? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Government of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504140432/http://govinfo.nlc.gov.cn/ to http://govinfo.nlc.gov.cn/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: First off, there's the "too few inline citations" that's been there since 2008. (It has recently be removed, and I disagree, there are still too few inline citations.)
There is effectively no lead, as the article immediately begins with a list.
The article makes no mention of potential problems/controversies/etc with the government, and seems stripped of anything positive or negative about it, being purely informational.
There are a good few too many sections, which could definitely be condensed.
And there are almost definitely more issues, but i'm not a skilled enough editor to spot them.
--MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Being purely informational is precisely what this article should be - that's called being neutral. Furthermore, if your concern is that the lede is too short, please go ahead and propose changes. It's inappropriate to show up on an article, and without so much as a single edit, just tag the heck out of it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view. A single POV isn't WP:NPOV. NPOV is all significant POVs on a subject. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Being neutral isn't a single point of view. It's neutrality. There's no need to put in people's POVs ABOUT the government in an article describing the FORM of the government. Or would you like Government of the United States to contain an in-depth discussion of Neoimperialism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I am talking about POVs about the FORM. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have reliable sources claiming that how China says its government is structured is false?!?!?!? Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues. 

message: Voice 2405:204:10AC:6BB5:0:0:3E8:B8A1 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  characteristics of unitary system in China 

message: Please edit article to show the 8 political parties of China. 24.163.114.243 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Atinoua (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 political parties 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Doesn’t make sense. “that” after the first comma should be replaced by “but”. And “is usually holding” by “usually holds”. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar in Note 1