Talk:Judicial system 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.

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.

Judicial independence[edit]

What do outside observers say about the independence of China's judiciary? In this radio program, one environmental activist claims that a judge in one of her cases was under strong pressure from the local government. This article implies that this does not happen. -- Beland (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS SERIOUS REVISION

In it's current form, it is cut-and-pasted from the uncritical, state-run china.org.cn

If anyone has read academic sources on the topic such as Randall Peerenboom's books from Cambridge University Press, please contribute to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spieragastini (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs work indeed[edit]

This is certainly among the longest article I have found on Wikipedia that cites no references. Moreover, it would appear that the lede is largely plagiarized from Chinese government websites[1] (unless this is a weird feedback loop, which I doubt). I am going to clean some of that up, and in the coming days will aim to propose a reorganization of the page. Any suggestions on sources or other aspects of this project would be greatly appreciated (I will slack off if left alone).Homunculus (duihua) 06:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Court system of the People's Republic of China with this article.[edit]

Proposal: Court system of the People's Republic of China should be merged into this article, as the content of the articles is similar, and also this is a more suitable title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it. Many of these top-importance Chinese law articles need a great deal of work, and (at a most pragmatic level), such a merge can help reduce the workload a bit. Also agree that this title is more appropriate, as it encompasses the court system but can also be understood a bit more broadly.. Homunculus (duihua) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31280.htm http://eng.chinalawinfo.com/legal/Display_2.asp http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31277.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31278.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31275.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31185.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31141.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31137.htm http://eng.chinalawinfo.com/legal/Display_5.asp http://eng.chinalawinfo.com/legal/Display_10.asp http://www.china.org.cn/english/Judiciary/31005.htm http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5001_25_34.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (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 published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. 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. MER-C 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I noticed the plagiarism problem as well, fixed the lede and planned on fixing the rest, but wasn't bold enough to just delete all the copied material. I'll try to re-prioritize this page.Homunculus (duihua) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain wretched irony in the fact that there are hundreds of scholars of the Chinese judicial system (Westerners, proficient in the English language) who are busy publishing obscure treatises in select journals about arcane aspects of their field of study, but who never took the time to see to it that one of the most widely consulted sources on the topic, by non-specialists at least, was in any way useful to the world. Such are the incentives of the modern academy. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the rest of the body seems to have been copied from this source. Wayback confirms that they have had it since 2005 ([2]). I can't find any sign that this was already present on Wikipedia at that time, say in another article. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! (unless it was actually original Wikipedia content recycled by the other site). Either way delete. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 April 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial system of China → Judiciary of China – Standardizing the names of articles in Category:Judiciaries to the most common one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose ambiguous naming wikt:judiciary means the body of judges. While "judicial system" clearly refers to the judicial system and not the body of judges -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: its actually a rather logical move. "Judiciary" means the entire system, not just judges. Its more succinct and can be made uniform across other nation's judiciary pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to oppose As the two interpretations above suggest, "judiciary" is a bit ambiguous, and may refer to either the body of judges or to the whole judicial system. Furthermore, within China there are three judiciaries, as there are several in the United States‎, the United Kingdom‎ and possibly other countries. "Judicial system" is a more generic WP:TOPICCAT, so it can better accommodate these issues. --PanchoS (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial system 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019034145/http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/chinas_criminal_justice_system.pdf to http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Chinas_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf

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) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]