Talk:China

Some thoughts

I've been going through with a scalpel and trying to cut off unnecessary detail from this article. I think we can quite readily take it down below 12,000 words, but ideally we should be aiming for under 10,000. (After all, India does this.)

Various places I think we can do better, if we want to take this up to GA or FA:

• Sourcing is all over the place, and often subpar. This is a common problem when you have articles built piecemeal by many editors. We have some very wonderful sources we ought to make more use of (Wilkinson's Chinese History: A New Manual, the Cambridge History of China, but there are many primary or tertiary sources no article of this scale should use (Ancient primary sources, the Encyclopædia Britannica (cited multiple different ways for fun), various modern news sources to cite current economic conditions, the HSBC for some reason).
  • To this end, I think we ought to adopt SFNs and build as much as we can off a smaller pool of high-quality sources. There are academic sources which talk about current economic and political conditions, we don't need to rely so much on news.
• History section can still be condensed a little, I'll work on that. We should focus more on broad historical trends rather than individual events.
• Random parts will go into excessive detail. I will try to cut this as much as I can; wherever there is a long list of individual names, locations, or companies, we can probably cut it.05:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your efforts, what parts do you think can be trimmed further? The Account 2 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think the remaining area to trim is under Politics and Economy now, as well as the latter half of History (which I haven't gotten to looking at). I think the India page should be our guideline here; all their foreign and international relations fits into a ~350 word subsection, and government structure into ~450 words. Its economy section is about half the length of China's right now, too. (Also, looking at India, we might want to incorporate image galleries to avoid sandwiching in certain sections.)

Side note: Wow, there's no info on geology? It'd probably be a short subsection of Geography, but that seems like something important to include for completeness.

After this, I think the real big step will be trying to reduce the number of sources down to a few dozen academic texts, only sparingly using news articles for statistics and such. Once that's achieved, I think it'll be basically GAN-ready; and possibly FAC-ready soon after. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Any academic texts/books you have for suggestion? I can try to work on that. The Account 2 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I put some in a sources section in the article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Great work on further trimming the article by the way. The Account 2 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Comparing section sizes to the India page: Etymology is about same, History and Geography are a little smaller than India's, while Government and Politics is much larger (nearly threefold). Economy is a bit shorter, and infrastructure isn't even a section on India. While I think that's a bit too much, looking at other featured country articles, I think it'd be fair to merge Infrastructure into a short subsection of Economy; Japan has a much shorter section, while Australia has no such section at all.

To make up for a shorter politics section, we can expand the history section a little and significantly expand the Culture section. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have made some more cuts. I think once we got a solid foundation throughout the article, we can selectively add more stuff back. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 12:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the page looks much better now. Thank you! The Account 2 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Account 2: I finished up my rewrite, at least for now. Does everything look good to you? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I daresay that this page is now probably among the best country articles on Wikipedia. I don't think it should have much trouble getting Featured Article status. Great job on the rewrite! The Account 2 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with trimming, but a lot of sources have been replaced with others which would benefit from more citation parameters (like publishers, quotes to verify inline content etc.).

In the Religion section also, I don't quite see the point of your edit here Replacing the sentence on "ethnic minorities in China who maintain their own indigenous religions, while major religions characteristic of specific ethnic groups include Tibetan Buddhism and Islam" with something that is already mostly covered in the Human Rights section is not really an improvement. The separatism part can just be mentioned in Human Rights while the rest of the sentence can be deleted. (The Antara source also imparted useful info on Yugurs.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, your deletion of notable sources based on WP:NONENG is not valid since non-English sources are currently featured in other FAs without issue like in Bulgaria, Cameroon, Germany and Ratanakiri province (among others). WP:NONENG is not a blanket ban on such sources, so your actions interpreting it this way is inappropriate. (WP:WYCD and WP:MONDIAL are written in part to discourage this sort of behaviour.) Donkey Hot-day (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I replaced them with English sources which were higher quality anyhow. NONENG applies; note English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available, relevant, and of equal quality. It is not like the newspapers in question are the only quality sources which convey this information. Besides, why cite newspapers when there are academic texts which say the same thing? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I added the Birgun source because the statement lacked an inline citation. If you want to argue Zeng & Hesketh are higher quality, then fine but it should be cited clearly. If you want to argue that Richard Madsen is a higher quality source than Antara, then I flat-out disagree. Madsen's "Religious Policy in China" is useful for providing a Western perspective on religious discrimination by the CCP (as he cites US State Department reports and UCA News articles), but it has essentially no info on minorities who aren't Uyghurs, Tibetans, Christians or Falun Gong. Antara like I've already said provides useful info on Yugurs and also a bit on the Hui.

I also don't see why China's Religion section can't just follow that of Turkey, Qatar or India where the focus is on demographics and ethnic breakdown over human rights issues (which belongs in its own section). As a side note, I'm also surprised that India with its FA status doesn't even have a human rights section covering the well-documented govt abuses against its Christian and Muslim minorities. If such leniency can be afforded to India in its Religion section at least, then China shouldn't be held to a different standard. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems like something you should push for on those pages; the India article should certainly cover its human rights abuses. Knowing that the Chinese state has a slate of recognized religious bodies (to my knowledge, a pretty unique system) and cracks down on unrecognized practice is important for understanding how demographic info is so unreliable and hard to come by. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Should the PRC be described as a Communist state?

Whether the post-Mao CPC/CCP is ideologically communist is an open question academically, and even if one accepts that they are, it's also debated whether the PRC as a state can be described as such due to its capitalist policies since reform and opening up.

Points for describing it as such:

• The CPC describes itself and its policies as communist
• The structure and role of the CPC is heavily rooted in the Leninist vanguard party model
• The CPC has its ideological origins in Mao, one of the most influential Communist thinkers

Points against describing it as such:

• It is heavily debated whether the modern CPC is attempting to advance communism as an ideology
• The modern Chinese economy is generally identified as state capitalist, and it is unclear if a country under such a system can be described as a communist state.

Pearson et al. 2023 describes the PRC as "post-socialist", analogous to the post-Soviet sphere. Jin Keyu describes it as a hybrid system in the The New China Playbook, incorporating aspects of both free-market capitalism and socialism. In contrast, Joseph in Politics in China (2024) describes it as a "communist party-state". Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like it should; as @TheUzbek mentioned a lot, being a communist state is more about the nature of the institutions PRC has adopted rather than its economic model (where there seems to be much more debate on whether PRC is socialist). Throughout its entire existence, PRC has more or less kept the same kind of state institution form i.e. a supreme state organ of power at the top, the leading role of the party, democratic centralism, etc etc). From my understanding of communist states, a state can have a communist state form and also capitalism at the same time. Most of the debates on whether China is socialist seem to be more about the nature of its economy, not its institutional form; many foreign analysts label the Chinese economic system as state capitalism. The Chinese themselves reject this, stating it is a socialist market economy. However, I haven't seen a source so far that says Chinese political system has adopted a post-communist form. I would note that there was a recent RFC on North Korea page where there was a rough consensus to describe it as a communist state; I just feel it would be wrong to describe even North Korea and not China as communist state. The sources you use give are very useful, but I feel they should be used in the economy section to describe the debate on China's economic model. The Account 2 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

For example, the Pearson et al. 2023 source is mainly about how China's economy operates. Jin Keyu's book is also about China's economic model. Joseph's Politics in China (2024), in contrast, is about how China's political system operates, so there seems to be a difference between these two fields. The Account 2 (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

China's political system is Marxist-Leninist, which I think is agreed upon in reliable sources. Whether the country's aim is to create a communist society (a society without private property, social classes, money, and the state) is dubious. So, the infobox (and the body) should state that China is a Marxist-Leninist state. Its economic system is complex, observers say its state capitalist while China describes it as a 'socialist market economy'. The body should reflect both opinions. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

For the government field of infoboxes, we should be keeping as constrained view as we can, focuses on the forms and systems government. Various characterizations can be addressed in the body according to their due weight.

The government field of the infobox has been a recurring discussion for years. The current formulation has been mostly stable and acceptable to a broad swathe of editors. Perhaps it is not perfect (it was not my favorite when the discussion occurred) but it passes muster. It also addresses one of my own major issues, which is a country infobox government field should always answer the question of unitary vs. federal. I'm very glad for that. I'd like to see it stay as it is.

Additional perspectives, detail, and characterization, should be in the body. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I definitely prefer Marxist-Leninist state, which is more specific and less ambiguous. The classification of China's economic model post-Deng has long been disputed, and the term communism refers to a primarily economic ideology or structure which, as the article notes in the lede, is not limited to Marxism-Leninism. What is unambiguous however is that the structure of the Chinese party-state is based on ML/vanguardist models, which was not fundamentally altered following the economic reforms (and this is of course leaving aside the question of wherever "communist state" is generally accurate/non-contradictory to use to refer to states more generally) Iostn (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is odd we link to an article that explains that China no longer uses this economic philosophy. Moxy🍁 23:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Account 2, Vacant0, JArthur1984, and Moxy: The Account 2: I agree with your assessment. This is a state in which the constitution still states, "Socialist public property is sacred and inviolable. The state shall protect socialist public property". Most commentators also agree that the Chinese economy is dominated by the state and whose companies do not operate similar to other state-owned enterprises (as they do in the West, at least). Vacant0: The communist state article is titled "Communist state". There has been a discussion to move that article several times, and it has never been moved. "Communist state" is the preferred scholarly term; its the term the academic community uses, and so Wikipedia uses it as well. JArthur1984: I agree, good reasoning. Moxy: The article makes no such statement, in fact makes it clear that China does run that system. A ruling communist party that declares itself to be the vanguard party that enshrines in the communist state constitution the leading role of the party, which operates on democratic centralism. The state is led by the party, chiefly through the supreme state organ of power, and the state is organised per the unified state power that organises the state as a unified state apparatus and also on democratic centralism and the division of labour of state organs. The communist state also organises transmission belts. Last time I checked, that is what the communist state article actually says... --TheUzbek (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion we should State the type of government that people when researching would discover authoritarian regime...authoritarian regime that is led by a communist philosophy despite its economic policies. Moxy🍁 16:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy Why chose a vague term when we can have a specific one, + actually link readers to the article that discuss that type of authoritarian states? It is obviously better for our readers to be pointed to the specific page first. The article already says that commentators call it authoritarian. TheUzbek (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

We should be specific about the type of government...not about a state position of the perceived social economical philosophy that most scholars agree they have diverged from decades ago. The question I have for you is why aren't we being specific as to what type repressive regime it is ... be it totalitarian or authoritarian? Is North Korea and China in the same ballpark of Communist States or are there government ruled in a different fashion? What's more educational for our readers leaving them to an article that describes China as no longer following this philosophy with no source or leading them to an article and sources that explain the modern situation. Politically, China is governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC) but its simply a one-party authoritarian state. Economically it operates a "socialist market economy," Standing China is a communist state is an antiquated cold war term that has been abandoned by modern academics for decades. free knowledge. Moxy🍁 03:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy We are moving in a strange direction? Does Norway and the UK have the same form of government? Yes. Is it practiced differently? Yes. So why does the literature treat them as hsving the same form of government? Because they share the same constitutional structure, principles , and institutions. No one believes China is ruled the same way ss the DPRK, but its also obvious that thry have the same institutions. Again, unified state power, democratic centralism, supreme judicial organ, supreme state organ of power, central committee, politburo, etc. So China and North Korea have the same constitutional structure, principles , and institutions, just as the UK and Norway share thr samd form of government, but a form of government operate differently within each states because while thr form of government is the same, how actors realize it differs. TheUzbek (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like simply having "authoritarian regime" is excessively vague though. China's political system doesn't share much in common with, say, Russia or Iran. And if we're gonna be blunt, China's political system shares more common characteristics with North Korea than it does with almost any other nation. Even authoritarianism-wise, there's a bigger gap between Germany and Japan than China and North Korea in V-Dem Democracy Index's liberal democracy index. The Account 2 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I strongly object the usage of "communist state" in the infobox as it is an oxymoron. The correct term here is Marxism-Leninism. I don't care how our article is called because it is clearly incorrect. Communism = stateless society. Marxism-Leninism = socialist state as a tool towards stateless society. Communist state = stateless state!? WP:IAR. The end. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the user who above stated: "Communist state" is the preferred scholarly term; its the term the academic community use, and so Wikipedia uses it as well. So yeap, Communist state. That's it. We are not here to act as activists, nor are we here to decide what we like or dislike based on our personal preferences or our own "research." This is not a soapbox. The end. ~2026-36979-57 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Preferred scholarly term? Is there a source for this claim? the basics here Moxy🍁 03:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0 This is an interpretitve error on your part. The term communist party in your mind does not mean “stateless party" but "communist as in the movement party" and "communist state" means "communist as in the movement state", that is, a state ruled by self-designated communists. There is nothing oxymoronic about it... TheUzbek (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:China/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 13:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this. Comments to follow in the next few days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Just checking back in on this review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been collating thoughts off-wiki and will set them down this weekend, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Miscellaneous thoughts from Aza24

Hope I'm not intruding, but I'm a little concerned on the accuracy of some of the statements (particularly in music) made in the article:

• Do we have a source for considering Song-Liao-Xia-Jin as part of "medieval" China? Frankly, I would just avoid the relatively loaded term altogether, and use Mid-Imperial. But either way, the Historical Dictionary of Medieval China (2017), for instance, defines medieval China as from the Three Kingdoms through the Five Dynasties
  • Good point; retitled to mid-imperial period.-G
• "Records of performing arts in China date back to the Zhou era" — I see that this is sourced, but I just can't understand how it can be true. There are whole articles written on the instruments from the Shang dynasty (Late Shang, that is)—I mean, we have flutes that survive from 3000 years before the Shang dynasty even began! If by "records" we mean "written records", that seems to simply mask the truth
  • True, and I've written an article about a pre-Zhou musical instrument! I realize now this is kind of an inane statement anyway, because all human cultures have some sort of musical tradition. I just removed that sentence.-G
• "Chinese opera emerged in Southern China during the 16th century in the form of Kunqu" – this seems a best misleading, at worst incorrect. Nanxi and Zaju are full-fledged traditions, and not hazy possible precursors as something like Canjunxi is. See p. 128 in The Other Classical Musics (2015) for instance
  • Good catch, the sources were kind of oversimplifying things. I reworked to use Miller and Church for that section, since that seems like a higher quality source-G
• "Western-style music and conservatories were introduced during the 1800s" this is unsourced in the article, probably because it is completely incorrect. The first Western style conservatory was founded in 1927; as musicologist Frank Kouwenhoven says, "Virtually unknown in China around 1900, Western piano, choral and symphonic music rose to great popularity after the 1940s [...] founded mostly in the 1950s, the conservatories ..." (see p. 108 in The Other Classical Musics (2015)
  • You're right, I think I mixed up the date the Shanghai Municipal Orchestra opened with the date the Shanghai Conservatory opened. It now matches the cite, Lau 2008.-G
• 2022 Asian Games — since they actually took place in 2023, this should probably be noted
  • Footnoted.-G

I have a number of thoughts on certain content gaps, but more for something like a PR or FAC, the above comments seemed more pressing for a GAN. – Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Aza24: Thank you for the side-review, it's real helpful. I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback on my talk page or the article talk page. I do want to bring this up to FAC eventually; I think a big concern at that level is how much weight to give certain aspects and topics within the overall article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)