Talk:Politics of China

message: The last few paragraph's of the article's intro (beginning with "China practices a form of democracy that it calls socialist consultative democracy.") are written strangely. That paragraph in particular keeps repeating itself. The rest of the intro is oddly pro-Chinese, talking about the merits of "consultative democracy" and rebutting the notion that China isn't democratic.
I definitively second this notion. This opening seciton reads, borderline, like propaganda. Kyle C. 70.169.248.254 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Im finding that often on Chinese articles, in a sense. Its becoming hard to find actual criticism of the CCP, when there is in fact plenty to be had. This should be corrected for the affect of balance, as it can be stated that the CCP has done much good, but also a lot of bad. And its becoming harder for some reason to find any of the bad in these articles... So, yes. I agree. There seems to be some bias here.. SageSolomon (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and marked some sources as unreliable, hope this doesn't go to far, and I apologize if this is tag-bombing, I really don't have the expertise to actually fix most of the articles issues. Tijmen Wil (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I straightened out the section's language to make clear what was opinion. It's still not an adequate account, but what's there is NPOV. I removed the "better source" tags and made clear that these official sources are good for stating official views. ch (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddly-written intro, potential bias? 

message: The linked Wikipedia article disputes the fact that the consensus is generally accepted, citing the Taiwan consensus.
Tijmen Wil (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 consensus 

message: The role of president has very little de facto power. (but de Jura has power due to generally also being general secretary of communist party)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordWikiMaster (talk • contribs) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  is China semi-presidential?  

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) 12:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: :Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Uyghur genocide]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Civil society is something that has yet to be touch upon on this page. I added a new section but will need lots of help on developing it further. Maybe it should even have its own Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serinali (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section on Civil Society, possible individual page for Civil Society in China? 

message: I have no particular problem with this article, but I worry as I read it that there are many very bold and quite important claims that the average reader might take as stone-cold fact which are not backed up by any actual source. This starts within the first few sentences of the article and continues through to the final word. Just by way of example, under the subsection "Government", the article claims "the chief executive is typically a member of the local ethnic group while the party general secretary is non-local and usually Han Chinese." This may well be correct, but it requires a direct and reliable source - if such a source cannot be located and verified, the offending sentence should be deleted. This is consistent with website-wide Wikipedia guidelines. There are many very important claims made by contributors to this page which have no sources whatsoever, beyond just this one example. And again, I am *not* saying that these are incorrect - but they need to be backed up by sources. "Common sense" or "what I read in the paper at some point" are not sources, and cannot back up claims like this. Stricter moderation of claims and sources is required here. This article needs a thorough comb run through it in order to verify many claims here because, again, 'common sense' or 'what everyone knows' are not valid bases for a platform like this. (KronosAlight (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  General sources 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Seems like the editors don't really do their homework and relying on shallow stereotypes. Like ie - China does have elections on a local level where people can vote for their local reps. Also it's not one party system. They technically have more than one political party in government albeit the dominant party is by far the strongest. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just the strongest, it appoints the leadership of the other parties and controls them entirely... So yes, a one party system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Also just FYI you added a source article entitled "What America's flawed democracy could learn from China's one-party rule"  with the edit summary "Added more top sources" so it seems that not even you believe your own horseshit... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many things are wrong 

message: At least one line in this article (alleging vast human rights abuses on the part of China) cites Freedom House as its only source. Freedom House is a source that even this very wiki states is known to be state-funded and to declare the fake elections of right wing dictatorships to be "free and fair". There's no way that Chinese sources can be deleted and called biased while this is allowed to remain. FlamesThePhoenix (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom House is a biased source 

message: If you read the source, Rory Truex's book's thesis is to argue against the idea that China's government is not representative. Instead, in the quote I provided, he provides his central thesis of his book, which is that China (and other governments he classifies as "authoritarian") are in fact representative of their people to some extent. Yet, the quote (which I couldn't find in his book btw) is being used to present the opposite view, that China's government is not representative of its people. This is a misrepresentation of his work, and is not the central thesis of his book. As I pointed out, on page 13 is where he presents his thesis for his book, which is the part of the book I quoted. I'm not sure how it's "more relevant" to use an out of context line of his work to make the opposite point of the central thesis of his book. I don't know when or how it was decided that he should be given a mention in the lead of the article, but it's wrong to misrepresent his work to suggest the opposite of what his book is about. Either the book being referenced should be taken for what it argues, or it shouldn't be in the lead at all. But the current situation where a quote (that I haven't yet verified is even in this work being cited) is being used out of context to suggest the opposite of the author's main thesis. JasonMacker (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rory Truex's book is being misrepresented 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The main internal force shaping Chinese politics seem to be the clashes between Xi's faction (the Tsinghua clique) and Jiang's faction (the Shanghai clique), and to a lesser extent other group memberships: Tuanpai, princelings, etc. Generations of Chinese leadership is closely related. Has this information been moved to a subsidiary article, or is there some other reason it has been omitted?
This would be like US politics failing to mention the Republican and Democratic parties.
- CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , you make a good point. There's nothing of substance on factionalism in this article or in Chinese Communist Party, so that's clearly a gap that needs filling. There's a template for CCP factions but there is not a stand-alone article about the topic.  may also find this of interest. Amigao (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tagging me Amigao. I began adding information about the factions, will continue to add later. The main problem with writing about the factions is that due to the extreme lack of information on what is going on inside the Zhongnanhai, the observations about the factions are generally very conflicting and contradictory (i.e., one news will say this official is part of this faction, but another report will disagree). Additionally, it's harder to get reporting of factions under the Xi era due to his consolidation of power, and removal of the old factions, leading observers to focus more on Xi and less on other officials. The Account 2 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near-total lack of realpolitik in the article?