Talk:Government of China

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

Chinese language government site?[edit]

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)[reply]

More Substantial Content[edit]

OK, this page really sucks. It doesn't tell you anything about how government in the PRC actually works. I'd like to see some description of the tiao/kuai relationship and the descent of authority from the Center to provinces to cities, townships, villages. etc. Also some explanation of the problems inherent in the Chinese system including the lack of a stable, formal mechanism for the transfer of power and the informal basis of politics, ie. a leader's power depends more on who supports him and less on his actual position. --Kingshiadric, 14 February 2006

Merge?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Contemporarily speaking, the law courts and the National People's Congress are not part of the CPG. — Instantnood 07:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to verious sources, "' the Central People's Government' is synonymous with the State Council", therefore the merger is proposed between the wrong articles. I will change the tags accordingly. Ohconfucius 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution[edit]

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)[reply]

Provincial and local government[edit]

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)[reply]

Practical considerations[edit]

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)[reply]

Another reason for the topic of List of Chinese (People's Republic of China) government entities[edit]

Confusion about the department of

and

--124.78.208.113 (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outright errors?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 13:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Government of the People's Republic of China → Government of China – For the same reason that China is at China, and People's Republic of China is a redirect to it. I would also move the current Government of China page to Government of China (disambiguation). bd2412 T 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recommend move to "Government of the People's Republic of China"[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 6 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While I understand the concerns for WP:PRECISE, arguments for WP:COMMONNAME are prevalent here. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 03:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government of China → Government of the People's Republic of China – Per Antediluvian67's request, the PRC Government only controls the Mainland while the ROC controls the Taiwan area. 135.23.144.238 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and per the main article China. Timrollpickering 12:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as yet another China-related move request. The main difference between the China situation and the Ireland/Macedonia situations is that "China" commonly refers to a country, not a geographic area.  ONR  (talk)  16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Main article is (correctly) China. WP:COMMONNAME applies here as well. AusLondonder (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:PRECISE. This is Wikipedia's worst case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. A government is always tied to a political entity, which in this case is the "PRC". There are 2 competing governments, both of which claim to govern "China - which is a region including the present PRC and ROC territory). As an encyclopaedia, it is also our duty to make sure that people understand the difference, hence my argument for WP:PRECISE. (Note that in the case of disputed territories such as Palestine for example, articles have always used the precise name such as Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank and Palestinian government. I have yet to see a "Government of Palestine" articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sympathetic to Lemongirl's arguments, but I think the WP:COMMONNAME argument, as well as the main China article having a hatnote at the top for ROC is precedent enough to follow here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Simonm223, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Simonm223, I am talking about POVs about the FORM. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you have reliable sources claiming that how China says its government is structured is false?!?!?!? Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

characteristics of unitary system in China[edit]

Voice 2405:204:10AC:6BB5:0:0:3E8:B8A1 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8 political parties[edit]

Please edit article to show the 8 political parties of China. 24.163.114.243 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Atinoua (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar in Note 1[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit Suggestion 26 August 2023[edit]

Hello! I had a suggestion to improve our article which is why I will suggest the changes on the talk page for discussion and work towards a consensus.

The current article reads: "The Government of the People's Republic of China is a unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party authoritarian political system under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[1][2]"

I had originally wanted to change it to this: "The Government of the People's Republic of China follows a unitary Marxist–Leninist framework with a dominant authoritarian governance style. Within this framework, China's political landscape features the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the pivotal central leadership entity among the nine political parties in the nation.[1][2]"

However, another editor commented about how the language is essay-like. That wasn't my intention and I agree that it can be improved.

Here is my new suggestion: "The Government of the People's Republic of China is a unitary Marxist–Leninist authoritarian political system with 9 political parties led primarily by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[1][2]

This change benefits our article for multiple reasons.

1. Another user, 5+ months ago had suggested more emphasis to the 8 minor parties. Over 1 month ago, I had shown my agreement to the request but did not edit the article to wait for other editors to contribute.

2. The current lead does not mention anything about the other political parties that exist. This hurts the balance of our article. This is why I suggest mentioning the 9 political parties as well as emphasis on the dominant role the CCP plays.

3. The question of whether China has a one-party system is not agreed upon unanimously. To reflect a more nuanced view of reality, I have included a source for it.[1]

4. One of the sources, Minzner, Carl. "Countries at the Crossroads 2011: China", does not reflect the information in the article so I suggest it be removed (and replaced with the source listed above).

The current version reads: "The Government of the People's Republic of China is a unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party authoritarian political system under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)."

However, the source for this statement reads: "[There are] eight minor political parties as channels for providing government and party leaders with suggestions"

Interestingly, the source follows up by saying "Party authorities, however, retain tight control over candidate pools and selection processes, and warn that candidates' popular support should not be the determining factor in ultimate selection decisions."

The primary source provided from this secondary source can be found here. Nowhere in this source does it say that party authorities retain tight control over candidate pools and selection processes, nor does it warn that candidates' popular support should not be the determining factor in ultimate selection decisions which is why I suggest it be removed. Atinoua (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao I thought it would be a good idea to notify you of this proposal because you had suggested to put it to the talk page. Please let me know (and all other editors are invited to share their thoughts too) what you think! Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undue to have the eight minor political parties in the lead. The role of the minor political parties is addressed in the body of article. They have little to no meaningful power. Also, the People's Daily is not a reliable source in this context. Amigao (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. You're right that the body of the article does mention the role of the minor political parties. My suggestion is for including a sentence about it in the lead of our article as well. I believe this piece of information is extremely important to include, especially considering the source I included which emphasizes the cooperation between various parties in the decision making process. Another user also had mentioned months ago about how the political parties should have more emphasis. This suggestion reflects the attached source, published by Redfame Publishing, which emphasizes "multi-party cooperation and political consultation led by the CPC and further developing the function of the party participating in the management of state affairs... The CPC maintains wide political cooperation with the democratic parties and unites with them in the march forward." Please let me know if you still have any objections after this clarification. Atinoua (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to reflect the minor parties in the lead. I am in favor of doing so. I don't think readers will be confused about their subordinate role. Indeed the second paragraph begins, "The government in China is under the sole control of the CCP, with the CCP constitution outlining the party as the "highest force for political leadership".
Given the sentence I quote here and the emphasis on One Party in the lead sentence, it's important to reference the minor parties in the lead. Without that, as currently worded, we risk readers developing the incorrect impression that there's only one party operating in China. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor would one want to create a false impression of the importance of minor political parties in the Chinese government. As such, it would be undue for the lead. Amigao (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a neutral WP:RS that explains their importance? What you provided is not WP:NPOV language and is not a WP:RS. Also, keep in mind that something cannot be in the lead if it's not first covered adequately in the body. Amigao (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have in the body. One is an SCMP article available online which is nice as it can be easily referenced for anyone interested in the Talk page topic. Good summary. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, probably need something more neutral than WP:SCMP for CCP-specific issues. Second, the piece does not really lend itself to stressing overall importance of the eight minor parties. Amigao (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SCMP is fine for this purpose. It's a generally reliable source and nothing in this article is a contentious subject. While there was a "rough consensus that additional considerations may apply" in CPC related coverage, there's no reason to apply additional considerations here. I don't even know what those additional considerations might be. This is just nuts-and-bolts material about how China's government is structured. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't support the notion that those minor parties are of such importance to be in the lead. Amigao (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. My suggestion is to have the sentence read: "The Government of the People's Republic of China is a unitary Marxist–Leninist authoritarian political system with 9 political parties led primarily by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)." It improves the neutrality of the article because it no longer gives the impression that only 1 party exists and operates in China. Can you please explain what you mean when you say my language isn't neutral? I am trying my best to improve our article in a way that reflects important information accurately. Also, can you please explain why the sources I provided is not a reliable source? And as you correctly pointed out in your first reply, the 9 parties are listed in the body of the paragraph. I also agree with @JArthur1984 that including this will help to prevent readers from believing that only 1 party exists in China. Looking forward to your reply. Atinoua (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think there are a great many ways to make this point that could be valid. It's clear to me that minor parties need to be referenced in the lead. I'm fine with your proposed language. I don't know that publisher you referred to in an earlier comment or the quality of that source, but there are already sources in the article that address the minor parties and their role. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If anyone has other suggestions for a better way to include the minor parties in the lead, please suggest them! Atinoua (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Items of lesser importance do not belong in a lead. Per WP:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Amigao (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead should give emphasis to important topics, and I believe that including more emphasis to the 9 political parties is very important information to include in the lead. By having this sentence, the reader will have a better understanding of the core of how the government of China functions. Also, to make sure that the reader does not get the idea that there is only 1 political party functioning in China, this information is extremely relevant to include. I agree that specific details don't need to be included, and this is a very broad topic that is expanded on later in our article. The lesser important stuff is mentioned in the main body of the article. There are 2 editors other than me right now who have expressed the need for the minor political parties to have more emphasis which suggests a change should happen. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the existence of eight minor political, but their overall importance in the Chinese government. You still have not produced any WP:RS that make that case. Until you can cite WP:RS that lend greater weight to the importance of the eight minor parties in government, the topic remains undue for a lead. Amigao (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These minor parties are not mentioned at all in our article's lead which gives the impression that they do not exist. This suggestion improves the article while also acknowledging the CCP being the dominant political party in the country. The source provided gives some information about the developments of these parties. If this source is unreliable, can you please explain why? I have looked closely at this source and I cannot find anything alarming about its reliability. Here are a few quotes from the source I originally provided which give more details of the importance of these parties:
  1. "the  RCCK  actively  engaged in  land  reform movement, Resist-America-Aid-Korea Campaign , the movement against the “three evils” and the “five evils”."
  2. "Since reform and opening-up, performing its functions of democratic supervision, and actively engaging in the programme of intellectual poverty alleviation and non-public economy development, the CDNCA has made great contributions to the economic development, political stability and social progress."
  3. "Since  the  new  period,  by  constantly strengthening  the  self-development  and  working  persistently  towards  a  new economic landscape, the CPWDP takes an active part in the activities of the CPPCC at various levels. With incomplete estimation, more  than60,000 issues having  been submitted, the  CPWDP  central and local  organizations  have made important contributions to the development of our economy, culture, society, and especially to the medical and health work."
There are details about each specific party, but I only listed 3 because I'm sure you get the idea. By mentioning the minor parties that exist, it improves the balance of our article by presenting information more accurately and by acknowledging the government structure surrounding the many political parties. Like JArthur1984 said, the current lead gives the impression that only 1 party operates in China. A call for change regarding the 9 parties has been suggested 3 times now by various editors which signifies to me that a change is needed. Consensus building requires input from all not just these 3 editors, and I look forward to your response. Atinoua (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Atinoua, nothing is implying that eight minor parties do not exist. The lead is about summarizing the most important points of the body, as backed up by WP:RS. If you are interested in more reliable sourcing than the People's Daily source that you previously cited, you probably should consider WP:GREL. Amigao (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. By including info about how China has a 1-party system, and by not including how there are actually 9 parties, it does imply that these parties do not exist. One of the reasons for this suggestion is to avoid confusion. Why do you think it should not be added? Shouldn't we be cautious about this? I also need to clarify that the source I provided is not from the People's Daily, it is from RedFame Publishing. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead as it stands now is not good enough. We need to work together and be willing to give-and-take collectively. The lead is not good.. For instance, how does the CPC control state appointments? Through the NPC and the people's congresses, but this article completely fails what institutions the CPC governs through. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Atinoua and Amigao: I've added a sentence about the other parties. We should also add a paragraph about the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Yes, its not independent of the CPC, but its transmission belt, which, when it functions, allows the Party leadership to acquire knowledge about other viewpoints. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated above that in my view there were a number of different ways to address the minor parties in the lead that could be acceptable. The version you have added to the lead is the clearest language so far. I recommend we keep the language you have added. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with these changes. A good compromise. Thank you. Atinoua (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I re included the part about Marxist Leninism. I do not think there should be any argument over this as even Atinoua uses the term as part of the original suggestion. Politixsperson (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it to "The government of the People's Republic of China is based on a system of people's congress, in which the Marxist–Leninist Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is designated as "the highest force for political leadership" and enacts its policies through people's congresses." A Marxist-Leninist state or Marxist-Leninist system is a very vague term TheUzbek (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kept much of what you wrote, but I would like to point out two changes which I made. First, I disagree with you when you say Marxist-Leninist state is a vague term. It has its separate article which opens up with a precise and specific definition: a one-party state that is administered and governed by a communist party guided by Marxism–Leninism. What is vague is when you wrote The Marxist–Leninist Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which suffers from a redundancy problem as Marxist Leninism forms the ideological core of any communist party. It would be akin to saying the capitalist Capitalist Party of Norway - not necessary to describe the party in that way when capitalism forms the ideological core of any capitalist party. Politixsperson (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you're points about "Marxist-Leninist party", its redundant.. Socialist state / communist state is more fitting, however, the problem is that China is officially a socialist state and not a communist state... TheUzbek (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Officially yes this is correct but we cannot just go by what is "officially said" when there are independent sources which say something different. Here are sources which describe the country as a Marxist/Marxist Leninist state. [1] [2]. Once more, I would like to remind you that the original suggestion used the term Marxist Leninst so this is something we should not be removing. Politixsperson (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Xiaoyi, Huang (2021-03-11). "Eight Democratic Parties in China". International Journal of English and Cultural Studies. 4 (1): 39. doi:10.11114/ijecs.v4i1.5187. ISSN 2575-8101.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_China&oldid=1207361588"