Talk:Constitution of China

China Top‑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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 13 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Constitution of the People's Republic of China to Constitution of China. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

Read the article before editing. I mentioned private property at the end already. Discussion of amendments go at the end. The title of the article goes first, not a mention of how the subject is ignored. --Jia ng

Put in some (hopefully NPOV) information about the relation between the Constitution and the Party. Roadrunner 20:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Current revision

This line confuses me: "The current revision was adopted by the National People's Congress on December 4, 1982 with further revisions in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004."

Does the current revision date to 1982 or 2004? --Polynova 06:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

"Revision" should be changed to "version". They promulgated an entirely new constitution in 1982. They amended this specific constitution in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. --Jia ng 07:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Articles Biased

This article, or at least the paragraph regarding the 2004 revisions, is extreamly biased and needs to be rewritten

Agreed, in order to draw attention to it I have stuck up a NPOV sticker, hopefully someone more knowledgeable about the subject will correct it. Sjerickson07 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Enforcement

Tweaked the paragraphs. The NPCSC isn't a rubber stamp as was illustrated by Sun Zhigang. Also, PRC courts do not have the general power to invalidate a legislative statute (neither do most French courts) but they can reverse individual decisions under that Administrative Procedures Act. Also, I'm not sure about the statement that PRC courts cannot reference the constitution in their decisions. It is true that violation of constitutional rights is not an independent basis of action in the PRC, but I don't know of any decision or order of the Supreme People's Court that forbids referencing the Constitution.

Roadrunner 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

But with all candidates for these important positions shall be first submitted and granted by CPC, and financing for all these organs coming from CPC, it is impossible to keep the independence of these organs.

There isn't a formal requirement that candidates be approved by the CCP. Also financing doesn't come from the CCP.

Roadrunner 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move here

Also, because the Communist Party has much control over the judicial system, they can ensure that Constitution rights cannot be used to protect people who are challenged by the State.

This needs to be expanded. There are cases in which the judicial system *has* been used to challenge the state (i.e. land seizures and migrant rights).

Roadrunner 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact problem

However, China has still not yet ratified the United Nations Agreements on Human Rights, leading to questions over how honest an attempt China is making towards protecting human rights.

This is factually incorrect. The PRC ratified the ICESCR in 1997 and the ICCPR in 1998.

Especially with recent years' booming economy, local governments are zealous in requisition of lands and houses by using force and without fair compensation, which raise great tension.

This needs to be connected with the main article better.

Also, according to the New York Times, "The constitutional changes of March, 2004 were unlikely to have any direct influence on the outcomes of court cases, said Chinese legal experts, because the courts here usually do not test laws and government decisions for fidelity to the Constitution."[1]

There needs to be a larger discussion of the mechanism of constitutional enforcement in the PRC.

Roadrunner 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need rewrite

The only exception was in 2001, in the Supreme People's Court's official reply given to Shandong Higher People's Court on the case of Qi Yuling, it first quoted the articles of constitution on education rights as base for judgement.

This was not an exception to the lack of judicial review, since the case did not attempt to strike down a statute.

Roadrunner 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write

I've started a re-write of this page at User:PalaceGuard008/Constitution of the People's Republic of China. As part of that project. I've created Constitutional history of the People's Republic of China. As yet unsourced, but I don't believe any of the statements should be too controversial. I will, of course, reference all contestable statement before the end. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.

Basically, I will follow roughly the scheme I used on Constitution of Australia, which itself is adapted from the scheme used on Constitution of the United States of America. I will endeavour to incorporate all relevant information currently in the article, but strive for a more comprehensive coverage of the subject, especially with a systematic overview of the actual Constitution itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections on the OCI

The OCI resumed operations in 2010 after (all?) charges were dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.243.117 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Constitution

Can people here please add a link to store selling the paper version of this Constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.181.199 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed contents about CPC Constitution

It is obviously different from the Constitution of China, and it has a separate page on Wikipedia--妖怪兽 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) PadFoot (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "Taiwan" and "China" is the short form name of ROC and PRC respectively. Barring concerns that many contents of constitution consisted of either claim of "China" and "Taiwan", the name "Constitution of Taiwan" and "Constitution of China" already redirected to these two articles. So, it may be necessary to move those articles according to common name guidelines. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The ROC and PRC lay claim to each others territory so there's no need to move the article as that constitution was originally written in Nanking in 1947 while Taiwan was part of Japan under ROC-Allied occupation. The "Constitution of Taiwan" article redirects to the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China. They have not officially renounced claims to the territories controlled by the PRC, Mongolia, India, Russia and other nearby areas. They might as well move the Constitutional history of the People's Republic of China to the Constitutional history of China instead that covers the constitutional scope of the two regimes.

Silence of Lambs (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is no "constitution of Taiwan". cookie monster 755 21:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRECISION. - Amigao (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject China, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Though this appears to lean heavily to "Oppose", there is another related RM that has had more participation, so I wanted to put project notifications in here (as they are there) just to be safe. ASUKITE 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Taiwan has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the first one, but the bundled nomination doesn't help anything here. CMD (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (to both moves only). I understand the complex situation of the two rival states, but there is consensus here to use the very common short names China and Taiwan rather than the formal, official names; it logically follows that the derived and related article (Economy of etc.) should do the same. It belongs to the lead section and to a short explanatory note to clarify what the official designation of the document is. If not, the other articles should be moved to PRC and RoC as well. And the bundle nomination is in order: it would be illogical to move one article and not the other. Keriluamox (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it's illogical, it would put the constitutions in line with the governments they underly, the Government of China and the Government of the Republic of China. CMD (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have Politics of Taiwan however… Keriluamox (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose the "Constitution of the Republic of China" was ratified in 1947, before the Nationalists lost, before they moved to Taiwan. The proposed title is therefore wrong. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 amendment

On october 22 2022 the contitution wasamended,this is not mentioned in the article UnsungHistory (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Party Constitution, not the state one. The Account 2 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the People's Republic of China → Constitution of China – Requesting a move again; seems like nearly all of the opposition to the previous move attempt was due to the inclusion of the Constitution of the Republic of China. I wonder if others would support a standalone move from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China to the Constitution of China. The Account 2 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will support. Right now it is the ‘worst of both’ — long article name while still needing a lengthy disambiguation page. We will still need disambig note at top so we should at least get a more concise article title. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PRECISION. No policy-based reasons have yet been articulated in favor of such a move. - Amigao (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it WP:Concision? JArthur1984 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't WP:PRECISION be in favor of a move though? I feel like Constitution of the People's Republic of China is too precise. I also think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME apply, as the PRC Constitution seems to be commonly referred to just as the "Chinese Constitution" 1 2 3 4 or the "Constitution of China" 1, similar to the Flag of China or the President of China articles. The Account 2 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Country's common name should be the central, not the constitutional name. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Common name per WP:COMMONNAME OrientalTraveller (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.