Talk:China

China is most commonly referred to as and is in fact a socialist state. This whole effort to use wikipedia as a vehicle to project personal political views or oversimplify complex realities is both counterproductive to and goes directly against wikipedia npov policy. Furthermore, using the niche analysis of a small group of political scientists to expand the definition of a communist state is textbook undue weight in the context of already having a technically and factually correct consensus. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, socialist state does not mean in Marxist-Leninist speak "form of government". It denotes what in Marxist-Leninist speak refers to as state type, that is, the class character of the state and its material base. You are mixing up state type with state form, which is the M-L most identical to what we liberals term form of government. State form, according to M-L, encompasses three sub-terms: form of government (is it a republic or a monarchy), state structure (unitary or federal), and state regime (separation of powers or unified state power). What they call the state form is what we (and Western scholarship) call "Government type"/Form of government. The Chinese term their form of government, their organisational form of state power as they term it, as the system of people's congress under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, literally unified power.

Secondly, the only article about the form of government of these states here on Wikipedia is found in the article communist state. This article should link to the only article on the subject. The article socialist state (communism) is clearly about something else. TheUzbek (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The distinction between communist state and socialist state (communism) is self contradicting and poorly sourced from a few academics, primarily from works between the 1950s and 1990s, again bringing up npov among a few other issues which mainly revolve around factual accuracy being shelved for undue contextualization. Though I'd be willing to put it up to a consensus. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article on socialist state (communism) is mostly referenced by sources from this century... As for how I interpret the rest of your comments: "I don't care of the sources or Marxist-Leninist ideology disagreed with me, I am correct"...Sure you are.. TheUzbek (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care for your attempt to personalize my dispute with a small issue regarding this particular article but regardless it remains a valid point of factual inconsistency per WP policy. Perhaps when you have better regulated your emotions you can offer more than a personal attack to enhance whatever point you're trying to make. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Its not factually inconsistent, and I have explained to you why. If you cannot offer a counter explanation then "you are wrong " you have no place here. So do you actually have an arguement beyond "I am right, but I won't explain". Will you even respond to the facts I listed in my first comment? That you are, from a M-L, vintage point mixing up state type with state form? TheUzbek (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You haven't explained shit except lecture on about some dopey interpretation you have of "Marxist-Leninist speak" and I hate to insult your intelligence, but nobody cares about your personal interpretation. Nobody is interested in your unlettered assessment of anything unless you have reliable sources that comport to WP standards. The problem here, and for the sake of brevity I'm oversimplifying things, is that "communist state" is gibberish. It's informal slang that's unhelpful to anyone who is genuinely using this article page to accurately understand the subject matter. Ive already stated why the former terminology was far superior in every regard to what's left of WP standards that you seem eager to circumvent. With that being said, I understand it's pointless to disagree with the editors of the communist state article because they have clearly chosen a strong preference already, your poor behavior here demonstrates it. But with regards to how individual articles regarding nations states apply WP standards I always insist that accuracy and NPOV are paramount, which is what I'm trying to do despite your childish attempts at personalizing this contention in bad faith. If "Marxist-Leninist state" is truly the same as "communist state" then what are you upset over? Jetsettokaiba (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

1. This is not personal interperetation, but the truth. This is very basic Marxist-Leninist theory. The sources are to find on communist state constitution, Socialist state (communism), People's democratic state, National democratic state etc all of which wrote with reliable sources. But thanks for proving my point. A solid editor would say. "Ah, I've never heard of the concepts state form and state type. Can you direct me to a work that explains and uses those categories so I can check for myself?" I would have gladly done that, but instead you met me with a wall of arrogance. I advice you to treat other users with respect, and engage in discussions. You obviously have little knowledge on this topic, read little M-L philosophy and are only engaging in bad faith behavior.
2. It's not unhelpful. That is why we can categories communist states that have never called themselves socialist states as communist. The USSR didn't call itself socialist until 1936 and Laos has ner claimed it has been anything else than a people's democratic state. But again, the problem is that the form of government of these states are not socialist state, people's democratic state etc. The official form of government of the USSR was the unified system of soviets (hence the name Soviet Union) and the official form of government of China is the system of people's congress under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. You are mixing up very basic terminology.
3. "If "Marxist-Leninist state" is truly the same as "communist state" then what are you upset over? " I don't understand what you're point is here. "Communist state" is a term produced by the Western academic community and is widely used.

TheUzbek (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, Marxist-Leninist state is vastly more accurate, politically neutral, and more meaningful in a scholarly context than communist state because the latter is shorthand slang often used as a pejorative term. I don't why the editors of the article "communist state' chose to go backwards when most scholarship and contemporary coverage of the subject no longer uses the phrase "communist state" but apparently a relatively recent consensus was held to aggressively to push this backwards language across the platform and scrub the more accurate and neutral "Marxist-Leninist state". If enforcing that is your position, that's fine but I'm disagreeing with it in regards to this article. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is all very forumy. Please present sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I will back off. TheUzbek (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The term "communist state" is scholarly. It gets 60 400 hits on Google scholar. In contrast, Marxist-Leninist state garners 2 020 hits. Scholars use the term communist state. Yet another example of being dead wrong... TheUzbek (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As expected, you dont bother to actually pay attention to what's being said. Maybe English isn't your first language so it's difficult for you to really understand the conversation without getting frustrated and taking things personally. Either way Im withdrawing my original position, no point. Wikipedia is already being obviated by LLMs. Yet again a "professional" wikipedia editor exemplifying why AI will necessarily obviate them from both professional and opensource spaces. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your decision to withdraw the objection. For the record, the distinction between state form and state type is a technical one rooted in primary documents and Marxist-Leninist constitutional theory. Regarding the term communist state, there is a clear scholarly consensus, as evidenced by the 60,000+ citations previously noted. In the absence of scholarly counter-evidence, the current classification will be maintained as it aligns with both NPOV and reliable sourcing. Best of luck. TheUzbek (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The image under the "Foreign Relations" section, which is a map of China's relationship with the other countries on earth, lacks a key. One has to assume what the various colours mean, making it relatively useless. I propose that someone who knows what the colours represent create a legend for the map to put in its caption, perhaps. Intilyc (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)