 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this informative new article, but note that other editors have called for precise page numbers in the references..
---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned over the neutrality of this page. It seems in its tone overall not just to emphasize the unity of China as a political entity (a politically controversial subject that should be handled with care), but goes so far as to denigrate and/or minimize times at which China was less politically unified. It openly praises the effects of centralization reforms, uses words such as "central" so often as to sound very much like propaganda, and even discusses the "corrupt" gentry system, the "primitive public ownership in politics" that was reflected in the "democratic election of tribal alliance leaders" (both of those were under "Other critical political systems in ancient China"), the "invasion of western capitalism", and "chieftain officials held by local minorities" which "had autonomy over the administration of the areas under their jurisdiction" and "gradually evolved into a separatist force".
The article's information, while often not strictly factually false, is written oozing with bias, comes off as strongly biased in its tone [I don't want to assume intentions or come off as overly rude in my response, hence the change] going against Wikipedia's "Impartial Tone" requirement under the page "Neutral point of view".
Special concern, overall, is given to the portrayal of China as historically unified (only sometimes the case) and the critical tone used with local autonomy, devolution, and the portrayal of China as more decentralized than the authors believe.
--Owlblocks (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC) edited --Owlblocks (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If 'bureaucratical monarchy' was the only political system, the page is misnamed. Generally speaking, this is a rather bizarre, opaque, and difficult-to-happen-across title in the first place. Isn't government of imperial China far clearer and better?
This page needs to be reworked into a landing page for the various dynasties' specific government pages regardless and the name would make that clearer. — LlywelynII 00:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
