Talk:Democracy in China

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.

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]

Sources on materialist view

The paragraph on materialist view on this topic has three sources: one journal in the UK, one book by a French publishing house and an Italian book by an Italian publishing house. Mehdiabbasi (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them are pro-Chinese rhetoric or funded by any government. Mehdiabbasi (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

The user, User:HudecEmil, made some changes (if I am reading this right: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=1207065553) which includes, this sentence

Voters are encouraged to choose an official that benefits them and promotes their interests.^{[citation needed]}

A citation would be helpful here since the claim appears to be false on its face and -- if it is indeed false -- it should be removed absent a citation, of course.

To justify "false", I would suggest that election campaigns include numerous exhortations to vote for causes that are not always in the interest of any individual voter but are unmistakably in in the collective interest: increased measures to deal with climate change, increased spending on education/healthcare/public safety, etc etc. While there are naked appeals to self-interest as well -- eg to reduce taxation rates -- even that can be -- and often is -- framed for the collective good.

Perhaps the claim could benefit from additional nuance and definiteness. For example for increased definiteness,

Voters are encouraged to choose an official that benefits the individual and promotes a voter's self-interest.

Which -- by being more definite -- is arguably, more clearly wrong. And so to add some nuance, simply add the word "often" ( or "regularly" or "frequently")

Voters are often encouraged to choose an official that benefits the individual and promotes a voter's self-interests.

D wigglesworth (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding this right—suffice it to say, every bit of nuance or wiggle room we add is still our original research unless it's reflected in sources. It's best to complicate uncited claims as little as possible if we're going to have them—the choice should be between inclusion and exclusion entirely, not inclusion and nuance to keep up appearances. Remsense ‥ 论 16:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is from an article merge, explaining the older "Citation needed|date=October 2014". Agree without citation should be removed, and currently I don't have a citation. HudecEmil (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence, can be returned with citation. HudecEmil (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biased News Sources Used

I have just come across a line on this page making sweeping claims on china's political repression while citing a news article with large aggressive connotations of aggression from the author. I do not suggest that China does not perform tbese types of actions but that such information should be backed by an appropriate academic source due to the unreliable nature of news articles on this topic in the context of our current political climate. 82.37.35.133 (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly free to take your concerns about the New York Times to WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]