Talk:Democracy in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

name

Originally this page redirects to

Chinese democracy movement, which is relavant, but not fitting as the description of "Democracy in China". Coconut99 99 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Structure - Two pages? Two Sections?

I think the title of this article is confusing. Most of the beginning section is about Taiwan, which, while technically being China, is not China in today's modern sense. Also, the latter portion is about China (the big one). I think that another page should be created (Democracy in Taiwan) OR there should be two distinct sections in this article and the title should be changed to something like "Democracy in Chinese areas after the fall of the Qing Dynasty" but shorter. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a splitting up the article into the history and the status currently may help. Mopswade (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article should be merged with

Chinese democracy movement, both articles are really about the same thing. Charles Essie (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose While the two articles overlap when they come to the 1980s, they are separate topics. One involves political philosophy and government reform, the other is a movement among students and intellectuals.
It would be more important to supply the references called for in the other tag.
Since nobody else has weighed in one one side or the other in nearly a year, I think we should take down the merger proposal. If nobody objects, I will do so in a few days. Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has commented in several weeks, after no comments for a year, I will remove the "merge" tag. ch (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section biased

Very blatantly depicts The Economist as unreliable. Seems almost like Chinese propaganda... DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 05:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacking neutrality and balanced perspectives

This article only references one point of view, the current content's neutrality is questionable. The page should be updated to "describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopswade (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true neither of the sources you added are
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Based on consensus the sourced information already on this page can remain. The sources used however were reliable, and follow most requirements on the

WP:RS page. The sources used were state papers and state publications, as well as reputable news organisations that provided non contentious facts on the topic of this article. Mopswade (talk 07:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Editorial independence is of course good to have, but it doesn't make the knowledge claimed unreliable per se. The Xinhua source was also used to verify the fact that President Xi said something - articles on this topic were run by other non-state-owned news agencies as well - but Chinese state news can be trusted to report on what government officials say in China. State papers were cited for reference to China's constitution, they are arguably the eminent source for this purpose. Incidentally, I was under the impression that we were trying to form a consensus here. Mopswade (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article lacks any substantive detail on the current Chinese political system; the information is all old, and even the opening is incorrect - China calls itself a "socialist consultative democracy". Mopswade (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be pushing a pretty clear POV with edits such as changing "Around the world in various media outlets” to "In foreign media outlets in Western states” which is just untrue. You also deleted entirely two paragraphs one which was sourced to the economist and one which was sourced to the SCMP which contained negative information about China, why did you do that? Also yes per
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also wow I just noticed you claiming on your talk page [1] that you consider The Economist a RS which means that your deletion of the paragraph sourced to them is just mind boggling, you appear to have been aware that you were deleting information sourced to a RS.
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I saw your talk page message, I think the lead section should more accurately summarize the article. My edit to mention "foreign media" was more to show that Chinese media and media from China friendly states have not been calling China "totalitarian, authoritarian etc." All those sources cited were based in "Western states". I agree the SCMP source was negative, yet the topic discussed was not relevant to this article; although human rights and democracy are usually correlated, human rights abuses are not mutually exclusive to multi-party democracies, and vice versa. Perhaps this information would be better placed on the article Human rights in China. Mopswade (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI if there is something in the lead sourced to a WP:RS the proper course of action is to move it to the main section, not to delete it. News outlets in nations like Qatar, India, Singapore, South Korea, The Philippines, Japan and Taiwan etc also refer to China in the same way... Implying that its just “western” or nations unfriendly to China which do so is editorializing. The line "After Xi Jinping succeeded General Secretary of the Communist Party of China in 2012, human rights in China have become worse.” seems like a good summation of the content at
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the Economist Intelligence Index sentence will go well with the Amnesty one. Certainly, more needs to be added on this article, if there's nothing else, I'll get back to editing. By the way, would you think Amnesty is a reliable source as it's not exactly a third-party source, as it is in their own interest to negatively report human rights statuses so they get more media coverage (bad news spreads faster than good news), extra funding, and to justify their own organisation's existence? Mopswade (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bias and reliability are not the same, you may of course continue to edit the page but putting statement from Chinese government white papers in wikipedia's voice is still a no-no as is using Xinhua (or most other Chinese media) to source factual statements. If you can back up your assertions about Amnesty with sources/facts you’re more than welcome to take your concerns over to
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also see
WP:SOAPBOX), nation's mouthpieces like SCMP, XinhuaNet. Your texts overly depended on theatlantic.com despite there is enough contradiction available in better sources. See this book by Oxford University, it tells completely opposite about the actuality of village elections and voting rights in China. NavjotSR (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
SCMP is highly regarded as a reliable source and most certainly is not a national mouthpiece. Quoting Xi is not "soapbox", it is providing information on what the strategic direction of the country is, or wishes to be seen as. There was the use of multiple sources from NYT, The Economist, 2 articles of SCMP, and The Atlantic. You can add reliably sourced information to the article as you like; we are here to develop an encyclopedia. Mopswade (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book you show here does not "tells completely opposite about the actuality of elections". The article states there are elections, the book does too. Of course, this is an excellent source to use for the article, I shall incorporate it into the article. Mopswade (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SCMP was a reliable source, but not since it is owned by Alibaba, which is the most Pro-Chinese group in the world after communist party of China.[2] As long as you don't have a scholarly source to debunk what has been said on the this book by Oxford University, you would need to avoid repeating those claims. Also read this. The positive views which you are providing about "democracy in China" are certainly outweighed by the arguments provided against them. NavjotSR (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting claim about Alibaba and SCMP as a whole, I won't engage unless there is evidence. Discussing a whole book is too wide, you need to provide specific points, if you want me to be able to discuss with you. As for whats in the article, I am only providing reliable and verifiable fact, and as mentioned, "The article states there are elections, the book does too". There is only 1 paragraph in the article on elections, it is very succinct and consice. The article only mentions how China holds elections and how many people ave voted, albeit a old figure. This claim is universally recognized. As for your second book, the page that you gave me is talking about information 20 years old. Not a very good representation of what it is now, especially considering China only began phasing in elections in 1987.Mopswade (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I redact part of my message. There are only one sentence on village elections: "the government organized village elections in which several candidates would run". Other direct elections are summarized in this sentence. "Prefecture-level members of the National People’s Congress are directly elected the general public". Mopswade (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in front of you and you are simply ignoring it. Those books say that the elections in China are rigged and people have no hope with them. But you are presenting a completely opposite picture and that is how your edits are undue and too non-neutral. NavjotSR (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SCMP is still considered reliable. I have seen no evidence to support your argument that "SCMP was a reliable source, but not since it is owned by Alibaba, which is the most Pro-Chinese group in the world after communist party of China.” and the HKFP piece doesn’t seem to support that argument. That being said the overwhelming amount of coverage on Democracy in China does appear to be “negative” and we should be wary of introducing a false balance, at the end of the day China is an abusive totalitarian single party state so barring any massive changes in government this, like
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with everything except what you said about SCMP. HKFP says: "The SCMP itself is now owned by Alibaba, perhaps the biggest pro-China organization in the world, if you don’t count the Communist Party." NavjotSR (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The books do not say things like people have "no hope" with elections. I think the words you are looking for are something along the lines of how voters do not have much influence on policy. Wikipedia is here to deal with facts, not politicking. As for your books, are there any newer books that can be referenced? The information there is quite outdated. For SCMP, the reference to HKFP is'nt the most suitable. "perhaps the most pro-China..." are weasel words, HKFP is a direct competitor to SCMP and has all the initiative to lower the reputation of SCMP, and HKFP is less credible that SCMP, according to a report which you can find on HKFP's wikipedia page. These sweeping generalizations should definitely not be trusted especially without any tangible evidence. Mopswade (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you want to avoid going on a rant about credibility, reputability and tangible evidence right after all of your edits have been removed from the page for plagiarism?
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Plagiarism, pernicious as it is, isn't exactly correlated to credibility etc. And I don't like going on rants, only things that need to be said are laid out in a short and concise manner. Mopswade (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But nevertheless it shows that you have a poor understanding of judging sources and interpreting them. SCMP is no longer as credible as it used to be, and this view is shared by those who are not controlled by state. You have also used Jinping and Xinhuanet for sources. Do you really see no violation of
WP:SOAP here? NavjotSR (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Xi is quoted just as other national leaders are quoted. If you are going to say SCMP is uncredible, you need a another source to back up your claim. If you have concerns about the information sourced in this article from SCMP and believe the information is inaccurate, please raise it up. Mopswade (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xi has been quoted more than enough times. Who said that he shouldn't be quoted at all? But you are using his argument as authentic rebuttal. I have already commented about SCMP above, which you seem to be ignoring even now. NavjotSR (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a proper discussion please? You made your points, I saw them. Other editors and I have commented about SCMP and discredited your current points. If you have any more please raise them, there is no point repeatedly saying the same things again and again. Likewise in discussions points need to be backed up by evidence and need to be specific. What is "more than enough times"? Why shouln't he be quoted? Mopswade (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Democracy in the Pr of C" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Democracy in the Pr of C. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Cabayi (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Remove content about Taiwan

I removed the content about Taiwan, because including Taiwan in this article about China is not neutral point of view.--Woof1351 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
Democracy in Taiwan given Elections in Taiwan exists. NavjotSR (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want to split the article, you should create a splitting proposal, not remove the content in this article and hope that someone will come and re-create it somewhere else. Mopswade (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the loss? It was entirely unsourced anyway so any attempt to make it wikipedia-worthy would be starting from square one. There is already sourced coverage of Taiwan’s democracy movement like
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Article scope on post-1949 ROC/Taiwan

There was a previous discussion about removing the then-unreferenced subsection on democracy in post-1949 Taiwan/ROC. The subsection has since been completely rewritten based on reliable sources. Should the scope still include Taiwan / post-1949 ROC?

Sometimes, general articles on China include Taiwan due to the stances of the PRC, Pan-Blue Coalition, and naming of the ROC. On the other hand, specific articles on China may exclude Taiwan on the basis of

Democracy in Taiwan isn’t a terrible alternative though. — MarkH21talk 01:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I can see arguments on both sides, the Taiwanese and Chinese democracy movements get irreversibly entangled when the KMT flees to Taiwan (also it should be noted that most of the Taiwanese democracy movement does not survive the
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with your points, but I’m confused by the last sentence – I didn’t suggest making a subsection at
Democracy in Taiwan article or just leaving the material here. — MarkH21talk 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, I was confused because its a redirect to Elections in Taiwan and because the History section located there is the most complete account of the history of Democracy in Taiwan that is currently on wikipedia.
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, I see. If nobody objects, I‘ll probably go and create a Democracy in Taiwan article using the content both here and at Elections in Taiwan, while leaving both articles’ coverage of the topic where they are. — MarkH21talk 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no objections.
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Democracy in the United Kingdom both redirect to Politics of... respectively—it seems a little odd that Democracy in Taiwan currently redirects to elections, I think, but it's ultimately not a huge deal). It's covered variously in all sorts of other article, like you note, but there's definitely also a lot of work on democracy in Taiwan as such, including its history and the contrast with the PRC, and it should be consolidated. Either way, I'd be very interested in helping out with such an article/section--feel free to ping me if you do so! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

More allegations of biases

This article is biased. Inevitably so, because as an English language article it's only going to get the perspective of English-speaking editors and it's only going to include English language sources. An article written by Chinese editors would have a very different tone, just because of standpoint theory. It's probably unavoidable.

However, there are places that just go too far. The paragraph that starts with "China is not a democracy" is an example. The paragraph very explicitly says that China can't be a democracy because it's a "surveillance state". England, Israel, and the USA are all surveillance states. They're also democracies.

It is not a universally held opinion that China is not a democracy. There is good faith disagreement on this topic. It seems to be the opinion of editors, based on this Talk page, that anything short of the most maximalist, unnuanced opinion is literally Chinese propaganda. That's just a sign of how biased the mostly American and British editors of this page are. You'd never see a similar consensus about the page on democracy in America, despite the fact that it's widely acknowledged that the US government engages in the kind of PR maintenance that includes editing wikipedia and even funding studies that sometimes appear as sources in wikipedia articles.

I'm not saying there's a particular standard that ought to be applied, either for this page or for the equivalent page for America. What I am saying is that whatever standard is used, it ought to be the same standard, and it currently is not. What we have right now is extreme skepticism of any pro-China source and uncritical credulousness of anti-China sources, compared to credulousness toward pro-America sources and skepticism of anti-America sources.

If you doubt this, take a step back and then read both pages. It's painfully clear.

It's not in any way surprising that the English language Wikipedia would be biased in favor of English speaking countries and biased against those countries' official enemies. However, we should not be complacent about this problem.

Edit: I'm sorry this isn't in a section. I don't really understand how talk pages work. I occasionally edit wiki pages, but I'm a filthy casual

___________ 

I'm moving this section into its own section, because it was previously just kinda sitting up on top. -Tausami Tausami (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-removal of peer-reviewed publications and insertion of fringe content

A number of IP users and single-purpose accounts have removed content sourced to multiple high-quality peer-reviewed academic publications and inserted fringe original research that characterizes China as a democracy. The content sourced to high-quality academic content should be restored and the content sourced to fringe original research should be removed.

talk) 14:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This page is currently experiencing off-wiki
talk) 19:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The IP that inserted those edits is a user of /r/GenZedong, a controversial subreddit that defends the actions of the CPC vigilantly and are known for brigading other communities with pro-China rhetoric. I say the addition of those fringe sources should be undone as they were added for canvasing purposes. RockfordRoe (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another user here, from a community who constantly deals with /r/genzedong. Those people are known for brigading other subreddits and purposefully posting pro-china content no matter how badly sourced it may be. They are also attempting to insert their bias in other articles. Those people tend to brag about their "praxis" on the subreddit itself, which is composed mainly of young users who have very little real world and editing experience and are trying to insert pro-China rhetoric in other articles. Keep an eye for similar edits. RagingSalamence (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the paragraph in question, I suggest you stop edit warring between two extremes and write something a little more encyclopedic. Beginning a paragraph with "China is not a democracy. It is an authoritarian state..." is jarring and argumentative. Looking at the versions, I'd suggest something more along the lines of, "Although China's has been officially called 'The People's Republic of China' since 1949, and its state constitution classifies it as a 'people's democratic dictatorship', China is not a democracy. [Insert name of an authoritative reliable source] calls China an authoritarian state..." ~Awilley (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be an attributed POV by some random individual that China is an authoritarian state. It is an authoritarian state by every single high-quality reliable source. We don't make heliocentrism, evolution and Obama's birthplace seem like contested opinion just to compromise with vocal fringe groups.
talk) 12:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

This page has clearly been changed by western chinese fanactics to boot lick for the Chinese government. Please, please, please fix this 72.205.26.76 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)'[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: This user (and sorry for not knowing how to format this properly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.239.196.109 is active on biased reddits, showing off the misinformation they're spreading (seen here https://i.redd.it/lvd70md61jv71.png). They have repeatedly undid people reverting their edits. Their changes should be reverted again, and article protected from future vandalism. Apologies for bad wikiedia etiquette from me, I've never used it before here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postingevidenceorwhatever (talk • contribs)
In addition, the BoN added this in the comment of the revert war: "I have sources as well that are more objective ones unlike your CIA think tank garbage.." RockfordRoe (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

"China is not a democracy". Not "according to someone", not "claimed", but presented as a rock-hard fact, as if a law of physics. Wikipedia should remain unbiased and neutral, please abstain from cheap politics. 2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this claim should be attributed to those making it not just stated on its own, in a clunky stand alone sentence. Corinal (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editors above are part of a coordinated effort of trolls to change this article[4].
talk) 12:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
First of all, I am not part of any troll organisation. Secondly, the thread you linked is almost happened 2 weeks ago, which coordinated effort? You are beginning an edit war and will be reported. 2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a troll nor part of a coordinated effort simply because i think the article should be changed, you can link to some site where this article was shared but that holds no bearing on this discussion Corinal (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your first edit to this article was made on the same day that the Mao fanboys were canvassing people to warp this article. Are you saying that it's a pure coincidence that you just happened to make your first edit on this page on the same day that the frontpage of the Mao fanboy subreddit was canvassing people to edit this page?
talk) 01:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
China is not a democracy, and this is overwhelmingly supported by the citations. Even China doesn't claim to be a democracy: they have explicitly said it does not work for them, and this is also in the article. — Czello 20:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not fair to attribute the claim? My edit did not remove the claim in any capacity, please address my edit in particular not whatever your addressing here. Corinal (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not attribute non-controversial uncontested claims. We certainly do not attribute it to "Western authors", as you are trying to do. There is zero dispute in reliable sources that China is an authoritarian state and that it is not a democracy.
talk) 01:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Claims that are seen as "non-controversial" are often attributed on wikipedia, and with the term "western authors" I do admit the term is rather vague but it still needs attribution from someone, do you have a better term to use? Perhaps we should use that.
Your edit also mentions me "scrubbing" sources even though my edit offered an explanation, i do not think we need over 5 sources for this one claim, is that not something you agree with?
Furthermore how exactly am I a "single purpose account?" I have made many edits on a variety of topics and my account has existed for years, you and others have kept linking this reddit page which shows that some users have come here from that but I am not one of those users, i found this article days after whatever was going on there began and I'm pretty sure it has already ended, I simply thought that the sentence is stark, unattributed and doesn't even attempt to justify itself.
I see that you have it in your head that everyone who disagrees with you on how this article should be written in any way is "edit warring" (as you put on my page despite only reverting once a revert by someone who didn't respond directly to my edit) or from some subreddit or shilling for china or whatever but that isn't the case at all and you are supposed assume good faith on wikipedia after all. Corinal (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what your doing now, if I try to discuss this in the talk page i get ignored but if i revert your edit because of a lack of response I am accused of edit warring. Corinal (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to attribute basic uncontested claims just because a vocal fringe minority who believes the Earth is flat exists.
talk) 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
You are comparing attributing specific language used to refer to china to attributing the fact the earth isn't flat? I think its clear you simply have no interest in discussing this and are using your apparent status on wikipedia to get the article changed to how you would like it without consensus or even discussion.
I will be reverting your edit, don't accuse me of edit warring or anything like that, feel free to revert my edit back if you feel the need to, but at least discuss it here rather than ignoring me for multiple days and then making a nonsensical comparison. Corinal (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans is absolutely correct, it is a non-controversial statement and is fine as it is. Your changes don't have consensus, so yes you are edit warring. — Czello 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As predicted, no discussion has been attempted, my edit has been reverted and I have been accused of edit warring. Yes my change has no consensus because you and snoog are completely unwilling to even discuss it, but are very willing to revert my changes just 9 minutes after i make them, if you are so concerned with my change how about you actually discuss it with me rather than simply reverting it and not attempting discussion. Corinal (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what discussion you're expecting beyond what's already happened, here? As snoog said, the claim doesn't really need to be attributed as it's completely non-controversial and is a statement of fact. If it's the sheer number of references that bothers you, we can always group them together under one <ref> tag. Otherwise I see no issue with the wording as it stands. — Czello 13:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears another editor has made changes to the article and been reverted, I think its clear there is dispute over how this article should be presented. In your reverting of that editors edits you mention they need to get "approval", from who exactly? You in particular? They do not need your approval, they need consensus and you are making it impossible to get that by continuing to refuse to discuss it while still reverting edits.
I don't particular care about there being that many citations it just seems unnecessary and unclear which exactly was being cited for the short sentence that they are supposedly being cited for.
I expected a response to my responses, again the comparison between attributing views on china's government to attributing the fact the world is round is completely nonsensical, one is a matter of complete fact while the specific wording to describe china's government is not. Furthermore regarding presenting china's view, even if we were to accept the comparison (which again is completely nonsensical), flat earth is mentioned in the article about the earth, and of course has its own article which includes arguments made by flat earthers despite being, of course, totally false. Corinal (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "other editor" being the redditor who admitted to trying to "de-libify Wikipedia", you mean? — Czello 22:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor who's edits you just reverted a day ago, who I'm pretty sure is not the same editor your talking about. In any case its irrelevant, you AGAIN refuse to respond to anything of importance that i've said, instead picking out one relatively unimportant thing from what i said and then dismissing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinal (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does seem as though you are correct it is that editor but as i said already it's not that important, and you haven't even attempted to respond to the actual things of importance that i said. Corinal (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you believe needs addressing? As Snoog said, we don't attribute non-controversial statements. — Czello 08:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous multi-paragraph response to that since you already asked it, and i already responded Corinal (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly no purpose in trying to discuss this with you, as you clearly have no interest in spending more than 5 seconds reading what i've said, You should reflect on this discussion but you've made it very clear that you wont. This is not how wikipedia works and reflects very poorly on you, you seem to think I and that other editor have the same intentions, even calling me a "SPA" despite my edits on a variety of topics and reverting my other, unrelated edits for no reason other than that. Goodbye. Corinal (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Democracy, I hope this resolves future disputes.

China is not considered a "Western" democracy in the sense that multiparty elections are held. The political parties themselves are separate from the state, that is a hallmark of western/liberal democracies. China does not fit this category, however they also would not be classified as a democracy in a Marxist-Leninist sense. Leninist democracy governs differently in the sense that only one party exists and controls the state, however according to Lenin, factions are allowed to exist within that party. Democratic centralism is the premise where various factions can raise concern within internal party debate. China does not exhibit this trait. From Mao to Xi nearly every Chinese General Secretary has controlled the party to the sense that their interpretations influence the party's constitution itself. Within the CCP, debate and dissent are forbidden. Open criticism even from top party officials is punished. Therefore China would not be classified as a democracy in both a Leninist or liberal interpretation. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 21:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant Pro-Chinese rhetoric

Came here just to look at the page, and this is ridiculous. This page should be locked or semi locked, China is not a democracy just as the USA is not a fascist state, despite what some fringe elements might say about both. This article is a mess and I honestly can't say I trust any of it given the amount of edits recently. 2601:2C1:8200:7700:28FA:339F:F073:3EDC (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections on Taiwan be split to "Democracy in Taiwan", as discussed previously. HudecEmil (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Your phrasing of Taiwan as opposed to RoC probably already captures this point, but I believe the scope of this article ought to still include pre-1949 matters. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democracy_in_China&oldid=1212779129"