Misplaced Pages

Talk:Democracy in China

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 17 May 2020 (→Article scope on post-1949 ROC/Taiwan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:35, 17 May 2020 by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) (→Article scope on post-1949 ROC/Taiwan)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program.
WikiProject iconChina Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Liberalism task force

WikiProject iconPolitics Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Even if that were true neither of the sources you added are WP:RS and you deleted sourced information which was from reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Xinhua is not reliable as among other things it has no editorial independence, please review WP:VERIFY. Chinese state sources are not reliable for statements of fact, especially not things in Wikipedias voice as you have done here and especially not about anything controversial such as this topic. I don’t think you know what WP:CONSENSUS means. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 WP:SOURCES editorial independence is necessary for a source to be a WP:RS. If it doesn’t come from a RS we don’t put it in Misplaced Pages's voice, period. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Also wow I just noticed you claiming on your talk page 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)
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)
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 human rights in China which provides background for the rest of that section which is still to be written, more recent history should be added rather than deleting the history we do have. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but it is inappropriate to speculate here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Human Rights in China, is going to be an overwhelmingly “negative” page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

"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)

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)

@Woof1351: I agree with the removal. Anyone can create Democracy in Taiwan given Elections in Taiwan exists. NavjotSR (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 Wild Lily student movement, in addition the situation is a little different than China because descriptions of Taiwan’s current government are descriptions of democracy in Taiwan. China remains one of the world’s most abusive dictatorships. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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 WP:COMMONNAME and the Pan-Green Coalition stance. In this case, it seems like the former should hold because the article includes a history of the pre-1949 ROC. Splitting off the subsection into Democracy in Taiwan isn’t a terrible alternative though. — MarkH21 01:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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 February 28 incident and associated killings). The other thing that complicates it is that Taiwan is currently a democracy so all the pages that cover government, politics, and society in Taiwan also cover democracy in Taiwan. In an ideal world we probably would have a stand-alone Democracy in Taiwan page *and* we would touch on democracy in the ROC post 1949 here as well. For now I like your suggestion of making a subsection at Elections in Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your points, but I’m confused by the last sentence – I didn’t suggest making a subsection at Elections in Taiwan. I suggested either making a Democracy in Taiwan article or just leaving the material here. — MarkH21 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. — MarkH21 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I see no objections. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Categories: