Jump to content

Talk:China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleChina 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2004.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2006Featured article reviewKept
March 15, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
March 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
August 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 21, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
December 16, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 17, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that China, with over 34,687 species of animals and vascular plants, is the third-most biodiverse country in the world?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2004, October 1, 2005, October 1, 2006, October 1, 2007, October 1, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 1, 2010, October 1, 2012, October 1, 2014, October 1, 2018, and October 1, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article

Critique

[edit]
Just a bunch of AI glurge with no clear connection to the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strengths

  1. Expansive Coverage: This article is a beast—over 15,000 words, spanning China’s prehistory to its modern economy, politics, culture, and more. It’s a thorough primer, touching on everything from the Xia dynasty to Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign, with detailed sections like “History” and “Economy” standing out.
  2. Rich Data: It’s loaded with stats—1.408 billion people (2024), $37 trillion GDP (PPP, 2024), 9.6 million km² area—which anchor its claims. Tables (e.g., largest cities, ethnic groups) and maps (e.g., territorial disputes) enhance clarity and visual appeal.
  3. Historical Depth: The “History” section is a highlight, tracing China’s evolution from Paleolithic hominids to the PRC’s founding in 1949 and beyond. Key events like the Great Leap Forward (15-55 million deaths) and the Cultural Revolution are well-documented with context.
  4. Balanced Tone: It strives for neutrality, acknowledging China’s achievements (e.g., poverty reduction of 800 million) alongside criticisms (e.g., human rights abuses in Xinjiang). Citations from diverse sources—BBC, Freedom House, Chinese state media—lend credibility.
  5. Multimedia Integration: With images (e.g., Great Wall, Tiananmen Square) and an anthem clip, it’s more engaging than a text-only wall. The topographic and climate maps add scientific heft.

Weaknesses

  1. Overwhelming Length: It’s a marathon read. Sections like “History” (over 20 subsections) and “Science and Technology” feel exhaustive, potentially alienating casual readers. The sheer volume risks burying key points—like the one-child policy’s impact—in minutiae.
  2. Uneven Updates: Despite my current date being February 21, 2025, some data lags: population estimates stop at 2024 (1.408 billion), and the latest census is 2020. Recent developments (e.g., 2025 policy shifts under Xi) are missing, making it feel slightly stale.
  3. Dry Prose: The tone is factual but often robotic—“The PRC has diplomatic relations with 179 United Nation members states”—lacking narrative flair. It could use more human stories (e.g., a Uyghur’s experience) to break the encyclopedic monotony.
  4. Bias Leanings: While it aims for balance, Western critiques (e.g., Freedom House’s “not free” label) dominate “Sociopolitical Issues,” with less space for China’s rebuttals or internal perspectives. The “Religion” section’s 2023 stats (33.4% Buddhist) feel speculative without clearer methodology.
  5. Structural Clutter: Subsections like “Etymology” or “Fashion” feel peripheral next to giants like “Economy” and “Politics.” The “Infrastructure” section crams too much (rail, telecom, dams) into one chunk, diluting focus.

Structural Issues

  1. Repetition: The “one-China principle” appears in “Foreign Relations” and “Political Geography” with overlapping details. Economic stats (e.g., GDP rankings) recur across “Economy” and “China in the Global Economy.”
  2. Inconsistent Depth: “Biodiversity” dives into species counts (551 mammals), while “Tourism” skimps on specifics beyond 65.7 million visitors in 2019. “Military” lists PLA branches but glosses over strategic goals.
  3. Citation Overload: Some paragraphs (e.g., “Space Program”) are footnote-heavy (e.g., 367-385), cluttering the flow. Others (e.g., “Cultural Revolution” death tolls) lack precision—15-55 million is a wide range without explanation.
  4. Fragmentation: The “Government and Politics” section splits into “CCP” and “Government” subheadings, but they overlap heavily (both discuss Xi). A tighter merge could streamline it.

Specific Content Gaps

  1. 2025 Context: No mention of events post-2024—e.g., updates on the Belt and Road Initiative, Xinjiang policies, or tech rivalry with the U.S. The “Reforms and Contemporary History” stops at Xi’s 2012 rise, missing recent moves.
  2. Cultural Nuances: “Culture and Society” covers architecture and cuisine but skims modern pop culture (e.g., Douyin/TikTok’s global impact) or youth trends beyond esports.
  3. Economic Trade-offs: The “Economy” touts growth but underplays costs—e.g., environmental damage beyond a brief “Environment” nod (1 million air pollution deaths). Debt from BRI loans is mentioned but not quantified.
  4. Visual Shortfalls: Only 12 images for such a massive article—more could illustrate diversity (e.g., a Xinjiang camp, a Shenzhen skyline, or rural poverty).

Opportunities for Improvement

  1. Condense Redundancies: Merge overlapping sections (e.g., “Foreign Relations” and “Political Geography”) and trim “History” to pivotal eras—say, Shang to Qing in one chunk, then 1912-2025. A “Timeline” sidebar could offload details.
  2. Update Dynamically: Add 2025 data—population, GDP, or policy shifts—sourced from X or state media (I could search if asked). Tag outdated stats (e.g., 2020 census) for cleanup.
  3. Humanize the Narrative: Weave in anecdotes—e.g., a farmer’s life post-reforms or a tech worker’s view on censorship—to make it relatable. “The Cultural Revolution sparked a decade of upheaval” could become “Mao’s 1966 call uprooted lives like [name]’s.”
  4. Balance Perspectives: Amplify Chinese voices—e.g., state media on Xinjiang as “vocational training”—against Western claims. X posts from citizens could enrich “Public Views of Government.”
  5. Enhance Visuals: Add a timeline of dynasties, a map of BRI routes, or photos of modern China (e.g., a 5G tower, a polluted river). Wikipedia’s tools support this.

Threats to Quality

  1. Edit Conflicts: The “extended-protected” status hints at past disputes (e.g., Taiwan’s status, Xinjiang). Without vigilance, bias could creep in—especially in “Sociopolitical Issues.”
  2. Stagnation Risk: If editors don’t keep pace with China’s rapid changes (e.g., tech advances, population decline), it’ll lose relevance. X moves faster—e.g., recent posts on fertility drops could outdate the 1.09 TFR stat.
  3. Accessibility: The dense, academic style suits scholars but not casual readers. A “Summary” section or simpler language (e.g., “China’s army is huge” vs. “2.2 million active personnel”) could broaden appeal.

78.3.92.198 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels weirdly AI generated. the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 19:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a serious proposal for improvement, especially since it's lacking any reliable source. It appears to be one of twelve AI-created "analyses" that the IP address posted. The first one posted initially said "the Wikipedia-style article" before changing the wording to "this article". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the pseudo-analyses this anonymous user is posting, for no clear reason, are especially unhelpful in suggesting "problems" and "improvements" from the angle of journalism or a personal essay (like high-school to college undergrad homework) which are entirely off-base for encyclopedic writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian dictatorship

[edit]

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)[reply]

No, is the short answer. TheUzbek (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But China is a dictatorship, how does telling the truth violate NPOV? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RFCBEFORE Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you quote what part of my RFC i presented not neutrally? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes we understand you don't believe that authoritarian is not a form of government Moxy🍁 01:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
agreed ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&oldid=1280085018"