Talk:China

Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist state" / "socialist republic"

In the infobox, the term "socialist republic" was changed to "socialist state" by, from what I can confirm, Josethewikier. This edit was not explained in any means. The edit was summarily reverted, before being re-reverted again by another user, who claimed that there had been extensive discussion and consensus on this issue.

While it is true that the topic was discussed recently in January, the topic did not go anywhere, there was no consensus reached, and I have due reason to believe that these edits were made without consensus or agreement from the rest of the community. The wording of "socialist state" and "socialist republic" imply very different things, which Wikipedia as an information source cannot simply change without consensus.

Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea, all of which follow (or are inspired) by Marxist-Leninist organization and which organize themselves similarly to China, are all labeled as "socialist republics". In particular, North Korea, despite being a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, is still labeled as a socialist republic and not a socialist state. This edit was made thus not only without consensus, but against the customs established by other pages.

I will discard my own biases here, but I believe that it is not biased to say that with Wikipedia's current definition that considering that wikipedia currently labels North Korea, which is by consensus considered to be a totalitarian dictatorship, as a "socialist republic" rather than a "socialist state", it can be considered that China- while by consensus an authoritarian (or even totalitarian country), that China should not be labeled as a "socialist state" but as a "socialist republic".

If we are to suggest that the labeling of China's government type should emphasize it being a "state" rather than a republic, then this should not apply solely to China, who is not unique in their form of organization based on Marxism-Leninism, but to Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba as well (as well as North Korea). This however requires a consensus: this requires a discussion, and a proper discussion with a vote and consensus was never reached. I believe that this issue should be solved with a discussion and a vote. I have given my own reasonings as to why I believe the edit should be reverted and China should be described as a "socialist republic" instead of a "socialist state" in the infobox.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support - The discussion in January turned into a debate on "communist state" vs "socialist republic", and no clear consensus was formed. To quote TucanHolmes in that discussion, "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" is decipherable and precise. I fully agree with that statement. Like many other socialist countries that exist today, China is a republic; sure, it might be authoritarian, but it's still a republic, not a vague term like 'state'. Similar countries, such as Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba already use the term "socialist republic" in their articles. Even North Korea, the textbook definition of a dictatorship, is a republic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would additionally like to ask that, until a consensus has been made, that by default "socialist state" be reverted to "socialist republic" until a consensus has been made. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally find the efforts of a few editors to semantically distinguish between "socialist state" and "socialist republic" to be redundant and tiring. I understand the distinction between a "communist state" and a "socialist state" as communists and non-communists have differing understandings of the former (communists are more specific about the meaning of "communist state" as it is the end goal for them, not a current reality), but once you start dissecting the meaning of "republic" and "democracy" and referencing scholars of their time from the 18th century then you've lost me. Yue🌙 00:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Might I add my comments as well. I believe that change was made by User:Amigao at 18:59 on 2024/04/12, rather than by me, although if further evidence suggests otherwise, I am indeed terribly sorry for such a change. I did not edit this page from Mar 6 (in the early days of my account) until April 22, and I cannot find when I could yage edited the above as is suggested. Nevertheless, Socialist states and Socialist republics are (according to the English Wikipedia) the same thing, as the latter redirects to the former. Regardless, I fully support the change be reverted back to a Socialist republic, until an updated consensus is formed and reached. Cheers. Josethewikier (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean to add that they are the same thing as per the EN WP, and therefore there should be no reason to prefer one over the other in a Wikipediac sense. Since "republic" seems to be overall a more preferred term by most (including myself), I will indeed support that. I am editing on the iOS app due to having enforced my Wikibreak, and due to my inexperience using the app, I regret any inconveniences I cause. Josethewikier (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I regret my stream of apologies, explains why I'm taking a wikibreak. 🍁 Josethewikier (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no preference one way or the other. Remsense诉 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Socialist republic" and "Socialist state" will not "imply very different things" to almost all readers, being functionally identical in any situation where they are not specifically defined for that situation as meaning something different. CMD (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with this notion. If readers were to look at any other article currently labeled as "socialist republic" (again, such as the articles already mentioned in the starter) Wikipedia may come off as biased in their implication that China is not organized as a republic or that it is somehow organizationally "different" from countries like Vietnam, Laos, and other Marxist-Leninist states when that simply is not the case. It carries implications of bias that Wikipedia has to avoid as a neutral source. It only ceases to "imply very different things" if all countries currently labeled as socialist republics were to be labeled as socialist states, but because they are not; and thus hence there is a set in stone distinction in Wikipedia that Marxist-Leninist states are referred to as socialist republics rather than socialist states, it only seems conclusive to revert the edit made and reverse it to socialist republic.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anything in this article suggests China is not a republic. It seems clear from the text that it is. CMD (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then there's no reason for the article to display China as a "socialist state" and it makes no sense for the article to label China as a "socialist state" in the infobox if it is established everywhere else throughout the article that it is a socialist republic or a republic. This again was an unnecessary change and should be reverted.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I fundamentally agree that there is no extreme difference between the labels 'socialist state' and 'socialist republic' but I think its necessary to be accurate when there is both universal consensus and overwhelming facts on the ground that conclude China is a republic. To go from the more accurate 'socialist republic' to the less accurate 'socialist state' is an unusually retrograde move which suggests ulterior motivations. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Unitary or federal?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the government form described in the "Government" section of the infobox is absurd. While "Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist state" is true, the land area of PRC may not suitable for an unitary management, because there are some autonomous regions (e.g. Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang...) and the normal land area of Chinese provinces are comparable (or even larger than) with the Russian counterparts. There also a gap of cultural differences between these provinces (like Xinjiang follows Central Asian culture, Tibet follows Buddhism and Guangdong uses some sorts of Vietnamese traditions...). I didn't even cited SARs. Kys5g ^talk! 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The PRC is among the most unitary states possible. The devolved local governments are entirely the legal mandate of the national government to create, expand, or abolish. There is no constitutionally enshrined balance of both local and national governments, which is what federalism is.Remsense诉 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "unitary state". Autonomy (which is, in reality, very nominal) of certain regions does not necessarily equate to a federal or devolved structure. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marxist-Leninist and socialist republic

Why does it say Marxist-Leninist and socialist republic on the infobox?, China is arguably more capitalistic than the US, it's really only communist in name

Not trying to stir up controversy or anything, just wondering 2806:230:1036:BCED:1AE2:13F8:6360:1D85 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's always tough to field this question because it requires explaining the entire history of the political left and global industrialization. In the briefest terms, the idea is "they're working on it", but they need to do a lot of capitalism first because no one has ever denied that capitalism is better at growing economies than a socialist economy without profit motive. This hasn't really been the direct reflection of any government policy since Deng's southern tour at the latest, but the underlying ideas are still swirling around as far as I can tell.

(Any reply to this explanation will be telling me things I already know.) Remsense诉 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)