Talk:System of people's congress

Untitled

This text is in the public domain worldwide because it is exempted by Article 5 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. This exempts all Chinese government and judicial documents, and their official translations, from copyright. It also exempts news on current affairs (the mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media, such as newspapers, periodicals and radio and television stations as defined in Article 5 of the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China), and calendars, numerical tables, and other forms of general use and formulas.

Link: http://english.gov.cn/about/politics.htm

It is copyrighted to prevent commerical use of the material. Wikipedia is non-profit. Dealko4 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it actually forbid commercial use? If so, then it is not public domain. Note, for example, that Wikipedia refuses to accept images which do not allow commercial use. 86.132.142.207 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it clearly says at the bottom of the page: "Copyright © 2006 www.gov.cn All Rights Reserved". I'm also HIGHLY suspicious of making such a mass copy from a source of VERY questionable neutrality and (un)criticality. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from these URLs: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/legislative/75857.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/kuaixun/76212.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/english/kuaixun/76336.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/english/kuaixun/76337.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/kuaixun/76340.htm http://www1.china.org.cn/english/kuaixun/76344.htm and http://www.chinese-outpost.com/chinapedia/government-and-politics/legislative-branch.asp. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL (which allows commercial as well as non-commercial reuse). (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Propose merging Role of the Chinese Communist Party in lawmaking into this article due to heavy overlap in content and no substantive reason for having two distinct articles. Amigao (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biasedness and impartiality in "Role of the CCP".

The content is supremely one-sided when it comes to political conclusions. Even if the CCP "controls" the whole nomination process, it can't control the whole of politics inherent to such elections. Hundreds of millions of people are involved in such processes and to assume they are incapable of politics is insane to me. They maynot have many political rights in the liberal sense but that doesn't mean they are to be silenced by one line of "no politics".

The sweeping conclusion that CCP is above any legal code and the Constitution is such an extreme position to have, based on handful of Western sources. Atleast acknowledge that this is an personal view.

Wikipedia was supposed to be a place to understand the grey areas, not paint them as white or black. In the very least, it makes it boring for us nerds. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you this seems like a blatant breaking of NPOV given that the only source is an American non-profit and one Princeton professor opinion. can we nominate this section for deletion? 208.70.31.232 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to propose edits backed up and cited with WP:RSes. - Amigao (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]