This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Xi Jinping mentioned in NYtimes article as one of two frontrunners to succeed Hu
An article in today's NYtimes mentioned Xi Jinping is the favorite of Jiang Zemin to succeed Hu Jintao as China's paramount leader. Li Keqiang was mentioned as the favorite of Hu Jintao.
I am not a big wikieditor, so I will allow someone else to include this info in the respective personalities' wikientries if they see fit.
NYtimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05china.html?hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haglundt (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering, maybe we should cut some parts with regards to Xi's personal life. Colipon+(T) 02:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, You Made It Into Newsweek
Good question, Colipon, good question.
In the November 5, 2007 issue of Newsweek, page 15, staffwriters Melinda Liu and Jonathan Ansfield say that Xi Jinping's greatest assets include being seen by Westerners "... as a bit of a bumpkin." Then Liu and Ansfield add that "clodhopper" is "the phrase used in his Wikipedia entry." And so it is, that very word, attributed to his wife without any source, citation, or reference. In brief, just gossip.
Way to go, Wikipedia, way to go. Let's hear it for NPOV and Verifiability. Let's hear it for having a real good eye for publicity, especially international publicity, and getting yourself on the pages of nobody knows how many diplomatic memos worldwide.
I might mention that calling leaders of foreign governments insulting names is not usually considered a wise thing to do -- except of course in the name of being NPOV. So let's hear it for Wikipedia, the home of international grafitti.
I could ask what point was intended, except I know better -- the person who wrote this didn't intend any point; it was merely Wiki carelessness, so typical, so completely typical of the kind of adolescent foolishness that posts anything the editor can think of, verifiable or not, POV or not, insulting or not.
So, yes, Colipon, you've asked a good question -- but it's too late now. Now everybody in the world knows what NPOV means. It means "Let's call the new leader of the world's largest country insulting names."
Including this garbage in the article was a stupid move, not only because it insults somone, but because it gives Wiki an international bad name.
So I flagged the phrase with a "citation needed" note, but it's too late.
I did a little more checking. The article has four links/external references. The CNN link gives a 404 message, and one is in Chinese. The other two say nothing about Xi Jinping's personal life. So I'm going to remove the "Personal Life" section, working on the Wiki Be Bold principle, and on the principle that biographical material on living people has to be referenced explicitly, clearly, and with undoubtedly good sources (this is Wiki BLP).
I'm also trying to rectify some damage that I genuinely believe has been done to Wikipedia. I mean the Newsweek article, which puts us all -- I mean all of us who are serious about contributing to Wikipedia -- in a genuinely bad light, not only here and in China but everywhere else. I believe that we need to draw the line somewhere about POV carelessness, and when it reaches international politics, we've crossed that line. The older material exists on the history page, and can be located, so it is not lost to the archives, but Wikipedia should not, and I believe must not, lend itself to being misused so completely.
If someone wants to start an edit war about this, can you defend the degree of violation of Wikipedia principles involved in the Personal Life material? I do not care if you like Xi Jinping or not. Your politics have nothing to do with it. This page is not unique, and is not, nor should not, be a playground for some editor who wants to spread gossip.
That's ridiculous. We have to do something to improve this article. Who knows how many people worldwide will be turning into this page just to find who this guy is. It could be millions, really. Colipon+(T) 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Removed POV statement
I just removed an undocumented POV statement about Xi's education being a fake.
Before removal: "In 1975-1979 he studied Chemical Engineering in Tsinghua University.(At that time there was none universities in China had FOUR year programs, so this must be fake)."
After removal: "In 1975-1979 he studied Chemical Engineering in Tsinghua University."
Xi is said to have worked for Geng Biao, but that isn't possible during the period cited (from 1979 to 1982 he worked for his father's former subordinate Geng Biao in the General Office of the Central Military Commission (as an officer in active service) gained some military background.). Geng was CCP CC International Liaison Department Director from March 1971 to February 1979. After becoming Vice Premier (March 1978-September 1982), he then disappears from my view during the Sino-Vietnam War (coincidental? I think not.) and reemerged as Secretary General of the CCP CC Military Affairs Commission from February 1980 to July 1981. He was Minister of National Defense from March 1981 to November 1982. In September 1982, he "retired" to the Central Advisory Committee Standing Committee. Source: Lamb, Malcolm Directory of Officials and Organizations in China, 1968-1983, M.E. Sharpe, New York: 1983. So, at best Xi Jinping might have worked for Geng Biao at the CCP CC MAC for 18 months, February 1980 to July 1981.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
DOR, you raise good points. I think this article is very poorly researched and if we get a group of motivated contributors going we might be able to get this to a working standard before he assumes what would presumably be the leadership role in China in 2012. Meanwhile you should just change what you see fit.Colipon+(T) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Elevation and potential
Xi is said to be a protege of Hu Jintao, yet Hu is also mentoring Xi's only serious rival for the top job, Li Keqiang. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That is true, but it is all speculation. Some speculation has it that Xi Jinping was a compromise made by Hu Jintao and Zeng Qinghong, the two most powerful figures before the 17th Party Congress - a concession made for Zeng to retire. Colipon+(T) 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Cultural Revolution should be mentioned in his education
During Cultural Revolution, no professors in university could do any research and all high school students were sent to countryside to be 're-educated' by peasants. Actually, no regular teaching existed in university during Cultural Revolution. I think how well he was educated in Tsinghua should be doubted. Plus, he continued his graduate study in Tsinghua but he changed his major to Marxism-Lenism-Maoism. I also think that should be mentioned. --Haofangjia (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Mexico talk
Quotation:“有些吃饱了没事干的外国人，对我们(中国)说三道四。中国一不输出革命，二不输出饥饿和贫困，三不去折腾你们，还有什么可说的。”
This brief talk in Mexico had been quoted many times in Chinese blogosphere, I think it is worth a mention here. Arilang talk 11:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
@user Colipon, why delete the internet video section? I thought it was a good idea. Arilang talk 18:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional sources
Given that this man is a likely successor to Hu Jintao I think it would be a good a idea to improve the article quite a bit. At the moment citations are scarce and you don't get the impression this is a man that could be president of the PRC in a few years time. Or what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyckankommer (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Over the years I see this article is growing, slowing, well it's still 2 years until the handover in 2012, still a lot of time to beef up the article. 142.176.144.158 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikileaks cable
There's a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable which profiles him at some length... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think wikileaks cables can be used at will on Wikipedia, as they are primary sources (and possibly illegal at that). If there is a secondary source that describes the cables, that can be used. Interestingly, this issue doesn't seem to have come up previously on the reliable source noticeboard. Maybe other editors have a different opinion.Homunculus (duihua) 14:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There was this RfC, the relevant part of the conclusion is "That does not mean a prohibition on using them as sources, but the guidelines and restrictions on using primary sources apply". SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. AnonMoos, maybe you can provide a link to the cable in question, and we can evaluate it. We may be able to determine that the information contained within is available through a secondary source.Homunculus (duihua) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I should have really looked myself before - this from the BBC discusses the cables and links to the original as well. SmartSE (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That's helpful. I'm not really sure what to draw from them though, other than that Xi enjoys Hollywood war epics. If you can find something to contribute on the basis of these profiles, go ahead. Homunculus (duihua) 16:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Xi's early history
I think I am right here in refining this preceding edit re: Xi's father's and Xi's experiences during the '60s. Sorry to leave a cite-needed. Going to the user's talk page for a little more. Swliv (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Xi Jinping Macau 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Assassination?
Numerous reports on Chinese sites note that Xi cancelled meetings on with Hillary Clinton, as well as representatives of Singapore and Russia. Some are noting that these cancellations, plus his conspicuous absence from several events, may be related to an unsuccessful assassination attempt on 9/4/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.182.7 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you point us to sources? (I have no comment on the notability of this item yet). Homunculus (duihua) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Xi's "disappearance"
We are an encyclopedia, we are not here to report the news, especially news that does not even turn out to be significant. Xi Jinping's disappearance is just one such example. For about two weeks he did not appear in public, there was no explanation, but it turns out that things were just fine. I don't understand how any of this content is relevant in the long run, and I cannot reasonably forsee anyone revisiting this tale in four or five years time, except perhaps as a passing case study on how the Chinese gov't avoids reporting news about leaders' health (in which case it probably belongs in another article). Unless someone provides a few good arguments to the contrary that demonstrates the long-term significance of this story, I am removing it from this article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The more appropriate article is the one on the 18th party congress, with less focus on the details of the "disappearance," and more on the significance of it. ie, this was yet another hiccup on the road to the congress, one that demonstrated how ossified party protocols are, and how increasingly out of step with the demands of a more connected and engaged citizenry. Homunculus (duihua) 14:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
But all of the reporting on the disapperance was speculation, for all we know he might have taken a holiday with his family ahead of assuming a stressful job. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That's precisely why the "disappearance" itself is less significant than the party's handling of it. See my comment above. Under the circumstance that more information isn't available, it doesn't really matter where Xi went. What matters is that his disappearance was another bizarre episode ahead of the congress that spoke to the opaque, antiquated nature of party protocols in an age where people are starting to demand more engagement and transparency from the political process. Homunculus (duihua) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Birthplace
The page says he was born in Beijing, but the Mandarin Wikipedia page says he was born in Fuping, as do the South China Morning Post and CNN. There are also many sources that say he was born in Beijing. Does anyone know for sure where he was born? Kraikk (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
He is born in Beijing, which the Mandarin Wikipedia does say. He is regarded a Fuping-er as his family came from there by Chinese convention (where he is born/living is not important).134.76.62.130 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Colonizing the Arctic?
In the Political Figure section: "he wishes to stop the forced abortions, and control the birth rate by colonizing parts of the arctic." This seems outlandish and I can't find any source supporting the claim. Also there are a couple grammatical errors (Arctic should be capitalized and there's no space after the the end of the sentence). This leads me to think this might be vandalism, can anybody find a source backing this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.11.6 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Moreover there's no land in the Arctic but an ocean.--77.0.253.107 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Fake Signature?
I'm calling bogus on the signature as shown right now. There is no way his signature its that bad. Probably someone did it on paint or something and uploaded here.
I'd be very surprised if anyone's signature looked exactly the same every time. Mine certainly doesn't. Narom (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Paramount leader
I have changed the former heading called "Paramount leader". None of the authoritative reports use, whether in English or in Chinese, the term "paramount leader", and it is pretty unrealistic to expect Xi to have become the "paramount leader" when two of his predecessors are alive and, it seems, wielding power behind the scenes, and when he has to govern within a seven-person leadership collective not of his choosing. Jiang and (to a lesser extent) Hu are likely to remain the real "paramount leader(s)" as much as Deng was the real "paramount leader" even when Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were in power. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the issue here is who is the boss "behind the scenes" or not. That's another matter (in that case we should include Mao's wife because once upon a time she was the boss behind the scenes :-). The issue here is simple: who is the obvious, recognized boss (without being behind the scenes or hidden) who has the last word? Who's the commander in chief that has the finger on the nuclear button? NOT who is the secret manipulator or who occupies which office.
When Deng was alive, he was never the head of the party or the head of state, yet researchers choose to call him a "paramount leader" because he had more or less paramount power behind the scenes. That was the point I made in my last sentence. In any case, the issue here is indeed simple - if therea re no reliable sources backing up the claim that Xi is a "paramount leader", then it should stay out of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree, just use the official positions held. The idea of a single paramount leader is far less relevant today than it was in Deng's era.Homunculus (duihua) 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has repreatedly re-introduced the claim that Xi is "the paramount leader" of either the Communist Party or the PRC without providing any citation. This is unwarranted. I have removed the most recent piping and have gone into the paramount leader article, which is poorly referenced and seems to be mostly original research, so I have tagged it as such. It even claims a Chinese translation for "paramount leader" which is not actually used in Chinese, except to translate "paramount leader". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Echo statements above that the designation only really applies to Deng. Wikipedia makes it sound like a precise definition - it is WP:OR and should be removed. Colipon+(Talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Some time ago, I added a pronunciation gloss to indicate how "Xi Jinping" is approximately pronounced in English, because many English-language introductory sources (such as newspapers) note that "Xi" is pronounced like "Shee". Later, some other editor replaced it with the Chinese IPA gloss, [ɕǐ tɕînpʰǐŋ]. While more "technically correct", nobody who doesn't already know Chinese, or who isn't a linguist, can painlessly figure out what symbols like "ɕ" mean. There is already a Chinese-language infobox on the bottom with various ways of romanizing Chinese, and of pronouncing the Chinese. I would like to have some note in the lead about how to easily, reasonably, and intuitively approximate the name in English, since the pinyin "X" confuses a lot of people. Shrigley (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a palatalized sh, like Japanese sh, Catalan x, Polish si, European Portuguese coda s/z, most Brazilian Portuguese x/ch and Russian shcha. You make it putting your tongue in the meat behind the inferior teeth and making a comfortable bow with it, sufficient to touch just before the hard palate. The English sh is slightly labialized, as is the French. IPA is easy to learn about, at least 2 times easier than katakana and 4 times easier than hiragana. The ç in the IPA chart is the German ch in Ich, a voiceless palatal fricative. The ɕ is right before it, though it is a [voiceless pre-palatal/alveolo-palatal] sibilant i.e. a hissing- or hushing-like sound. Have fun.
BTW why Mandarin n doesn't assimilate to the place of articulation of the following consonant? 177.65.53.191 (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Because each syllable has to be clear.--2.246.20.2 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Shrigley, I added an "English approximation" explanation to the pronunciation of Xi's name, as a reference. Feel free to change it as you see fit. Colipon+(Talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Standard Chinese pronunciation is [ɕi˧˥ tɕin˥˩ pʰiŋ˧˥], so the English approximation should be /ʃiːdʒɪnpɪŋ/ (IPA) or shee jinping (respelling). --Yejianfei (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Mother?
Xi's mother isn't mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.102.154 (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Xi's mother is called Qi Xin, here is a semi-reliable source from the official Xinhua news agency in Chinese which you might find helpful if you wish to add the information to the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Title salad
Please, avoid going overboard with the man's titles in the lead paragraph. This article should be accessible to your average reader. He is the President, the party chief, and the CMC chief. That's all a general reader is concerned about. Lead sections should be concise, clear, and accessible.
The Gen-Sec holds membership ex officio on the Politburo Standing Committee, thus it is redundant to mention it. The dates at which he began his secretaryship and presidency are also by and large irrelevant. An average reader is not concerned about these facts, and in any case they can be found in the infoboxes anyway. Colipon+(Talk) 14:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Tours as Vice President Paragraph 3 tense/grammar
The first sentence in paragraph 3 of "Tours as Vice President" should be considered for revision of grammar: Xi has since gone on a series of foreign visits, some say to burnish his foreign affairs credentials before he takes the helm of China's leadership.
"before he takes the helm of China's leadership." Which he has already taken.
Bucknastay (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Ancestral heritage
In the "Early life" section, the article currently states:
"... of ancestral descent from Fuping County, Shaanxi.... His patrilineal ancestral home is from Xiying in Dengzhou, Henan"
Since his ancestry would flow from his father, one of these statements is incorrect. Which one is it? Philg88 ♦talk 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There's no conflict here. In this context, "of ancestral descent from" means "his father was born there". "patrilineal ancestral home" means "his paternal ancestor from N generations ago lived there". The confusion is understandable though, as there is no way for the average English-speaking reader to figure out the above from the text alone. WinterWall (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Panama Papers
The Panama Papers leak in April 2016 has bought to light new corruption and tax evasion by some of the highest Chinese officials including, Xi's family, storing a dodgy wealth of billions in off-shore tax havens.[146][147] - this needs to stand with the NYＴｉｍｅｓ ａｌｌｅｇａｔｉｏｎｓ of 2012 as further proof of his family's corruption
Life in USA
shouldn't there be more info of when Xi stayed with an american mid-west farming family?
It would have been interesting how long that stay was. Did he learn English? Has anyone noticed that there was a distinct negative or positive influence on Xi, maybe no influence at all? 58.160.78.63 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Footnotes
It may be an idea to switch to using {{Cref2}} in a new "Notes" section above the references in place of {{efn}}. This has the advantage that the text won't be split across three columns and the two blocks of Chinese (refs 38 & 39) can go in the new section. If no one has any objections I will go ahead and do this. Philg88 ♦talk 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. In my opinion, the "notes" are mostly unnecessary as they relate to the subject matter being discussed, as users can click on the links to find further information about each of the high offices that Xi holds. IMO they were inserted as part of a deeply disruptive pattern of behavior by User 彭家杰 who insists on the titles of political offices conform to the orthodox Chinese Communist Party nomenclature, and who goes around the encyclopedia doing drive-by edits to reinforce this notion, particular aiming to emphasize the office of the General Secretary at the detriment of the office of the President. Colipon+(Talk) 15:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Xi Jinping. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
This was added to the infobox, it appeared unsupported in the article and also unverified by a link so I bring it here for discussion, in the meantime I removed it.
I think the pinyin version of his name (Xí Jìnpíng) is important enough to be included in the first sentence of the article. This is done in, for example, the Arabic, German and French articles. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Consequence of dissent art?
I am wondering about this and this information. An artist who posted funny images of Xi is detained. I don't know whether the government regulations do not allow spoofing of any government authority. Ud3892jk (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Xi Jinping. 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Has anyone read Xi Jinping's PhD thesis and want to write about what it is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.98.179 (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Name in Simplified Chinese as used in mainland China
I changed the name in the info from Traditional Chinese to Simplified Chinese. Simplified Chinese is the script used on mainland China, and is Xi's native language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorritg (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
mention of Xi`s "blueprint" for cyberpolicy
Since China Cyberspace Governance Conference (Chaired by President Xi) April, 2018, should it not be included in this article? It is referred to as a "blueprint" for development of Cyberspace and Informationization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.243.99.240 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this should be beiefly mentioned. I've added some of the content you put on the Internet censorship in China article onto here :) --Bangalamania (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Craigheinke, good catch. It appears that the 7th value is missing from this article, which according to Document Number Nine, is about questioning Chinese economic reform and the nature of so-called "Chinese style" socialism. I'll add it to the article. Alex Shih (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Date of termination of Xi's term as General Secretary
Why is under his title as General Secretary in the infobox the date is listed as if his term ended on "29 November 2019"? Unless there have been a change in design, I thought there was suppose to be an 'Incumbent' designation under his title? Even then, why anyone believe that his term will end that soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyendacan (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the end date '29 November 2019' of Xi's term as General Secretary and add an 'Incumbent' designation to the title
Capitalize the word General Secretary and Chairman of the Central Military Commission Nguyendacan (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Highway 89 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The title of Xi Jinping concerning the PRC should be "chairman," not "president." No one in China calls him "president." It is not the accurate title for his position.
Hence, change "President of the Peoples Republic of China" to "Chairman of the People's Republic of China." Aki355 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi @DannyS712:. I have edited this article according to your recommendations in the previous GA Nomination and renominated this article for GA. In the previous nomination, you said "However, if anyone else would like to renominate this for GA, please ping me (DannyS712), as I would like to continue reviewing this article, given the time I've already spent on it." So, would you like to review this article again? The Account 1 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@The Account 1: sure, will do - should have a first read through done in the next few days DannyS712 (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Thanks, I'll further improve the article (mostly sources) in the meantime The Account 1 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
NOT PROMOTED
This article has failed its GA nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Plagiarism issue, shown below. Though the new york times is cited, their specific language is used; it shouldn't be. Though the paragraph includes quotes, the ordering, connection, and introduction of them is an issue:
As communist ideology plays a less central role in the lives of the masses in the People's Republic of China, top political leaders of the Communist Party of China such as Xi continue the rehabilitation of ancient Chinese philosophical figures like Han Fei into the mainstream of Chinese thought alongside Confucianism, both of which Xi sees as relevant. "He who rules by virtue is like the Pole Star," he said at a meeting of officials in 2013, quoting Confucius. "It maintains its place, and the multitude of stars pay homage." In Shandong, the birthplace of Confucius,he told scholars that while the West was suffering a "crisis of confidence," the Communist Party had been "the loyal inheritor and promoter of China's outstanding traditional culture."
“He who rules by virtue is like the North Star,” he said at a meeting of officials last year, quoting Confucius. “It maintains its place, and the multitude of stars pay homage.”In November, Mr. Xi visited Qufu, Shandong Province, where Confucius was born, to “send a signal that we must vigorously promote China’s traditional culture.” He told scholars that while the West was suffering a “crisis of confidence,” the Communist Party had been “the loyal inheritor and promoter of China’s outstanding traditional culture.”
Captions
`Xi` and `Xi Jinping` are both used at times; I know that `Xi` is short for `Xi Jinping`, and in prose `Xi` is frequently used after the first mention in a paragraph, but the captions should be consistent
BRICS leaders Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Dilma Rousseff, Xi and Jacob Zuma at the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, 15 November 2014 caption links `...G-20...`, while World leaders assemble for 'family photo' at G20 summit in Hamburg links `...G20...` - I don't care, but the term used should be consistent
Xi Jinping, Peng Liyuan and Barack Obama in the Lincoln Bedroom - should be `President` Barack Obama
Layout
there are 2 "note" tags that are never intentionally shown, ending up displayed at the bottom (below the authority control box)
I count 7 one-sentence paragraphs
The `Human rights policy` section contains: a {{main article}} tag, and a subsection, `Religious policy`, which itself only contains: a {{see also}} tag, and a one sentence paragraph
References: some specific issues identified below, if needed I can point out more specific issues but generally the section is in poor shape
Some of the "references" should be notes about translations (75, 76)
The citations (251, 252, 253) to "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China." all return bad gateways, and thus cannot be verified
Some of the references are missing details; many online sources should be rechecked, and date-accessed should be added. Additionally, 66 should credit "Simon Elegant" as the author, 104 should credit "Andrew Jacobs", 162 - "Craig Whitlock", 166 - "Michael Martina", 176 - "Shannon Tiezzi", 214 - "Philip Wen and Stella Qiu", 215 - "Lily Kuo", 216 - "James Griffiths", 219 - "Evan Osnos"
13 should include publication on "June 24, 2014", and the author wasn't "Tiezzi, The, Shannon"
10 gives a page range of "pp. 28–"
106 has issues with italics
113 starts with "1 :46." - what does this mean, and why the space?
Some of the references don't use normal citation templates, resulting in a weird order of information; 110, for example, lists the author in the middle
107 and 108 both have missing spaces before a `[`
Stability: I do not believe the article to be stable during any time that it is not protected
Since I closed the previous GA, and excluding my own (few) edits to the page, I count:
26 rejections of pending changes (since expired)
37 undos
41 rollbacks (not including ClueBot NG)
2 reverts by ClueBot NG
2 revision deletions
from January 3 to 20 July, when the article was protected, protection that was removed on 25 July. Following that, there were
2 undos
4 rollbacks (not including ClueBot NG)
until the article was again protected on 3 August. Once that expired, there was
5 undos
until the article was again protected on 13 August. Since that expired, I count 6 undos and a rollback. Unless the article were again protected or configured with pending changes, I do not consider it to be stable
As a result of the above, I have placed this GAN on hold. Given the scope of the needed changes, I understand if the nominator does not wish to continue at this time; if that is not the case, please let me know if you have any questions. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
@DannyS712: Hi, I edited the article according to your recommendations. As for the sources, where can I find the access dates for them? The Account 1 (talk)
@The Account 1: for access date, it should have been when the source was originally added; I suggest verifying them now and adding today as the date (also, please remember to use ~~~~ instead of ~~~, otherwise pings don't work) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, the list of specific sources noted is not exhaustive; there are lots with missing authors or other information DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@The Account 1: thank you for your work improving this article. However, at this time I am going to fail its good article nomination. The article is not stable enough to be a good article, nor is the content up to par. Among the remaining issues with references:
Ref 80 cites the daily mail, which is considered unreliable
Ref 113 gives the wrong publication date (source says Jul 4, 2015)
Rfe 114 lacks publication date (source sasy July 17, 2017)
Ref 183 lacks the publication date (2017年1月11日 = 1/11/2017) and author (黄安伟)
Ref 184 lacks publication date (January 11, 2017), but is the same source as ref 185, so they should be combined
Ref 198 gives the wrong publication date (source says Aug 15th 2013)
Ref 221 gives the wrong publication date (source says March 30, 2015, which the article being included in the April 6, 2015 issue; citation says publication on April 6, 2015)
If you continue working on this, and nominate it again as a good article, please ping me to review it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Studying Engineering
Could someone clarify how it was possible for Xi to go to University only 4 years after being arrested for deserting?
Judging from other communist regimes this should have prevented him from becoming anything other than a peasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.98 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not so extraordinary. This was during the Cultural Revolution. Even Deng Xiaoping was purged at some point in that period. If you come across reliable sources that elaborate on Xi Jinping during that period, improvements will be welcome. --MarioGom (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Mistake in the introduction of the article
Not sure if this is the right place, but there is most likely a mistake in the phrase: "Xi was governor of Fujian from 1999 to 2002, and governor, then party secretary of neighboring Zhejiang province from 2002 to 2007". The "and governor," should probably be removed.
"and governor" refers to him being the governor of Zhejiang province. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I find the wording "slick tool" inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, but I don't know exactly how to change the wording. Here's the content I'm talking about: [2]. I have changed the wording to "app". Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
"App" is more suitable.Mariogoods (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello all- I have stumbled across a BBC reporter and a musical composer who say that Xi Jinping wrote the song The Hopes of President Xi. If this is true, I think the song should be added either to this page or maybe to Template:Xi Jinping. Let me know what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
main photo
I think I can speak for many readers that the suit-and-tie, smiling image of the main photo does not reflect the essence of who this guy and his clique truly is - Red China is not a barrel of laughs for tens of thousands of political prisoners, many of whom are murdered every year. How about a non-posed, more 'dour' photo, if we can get one licensed. This person is one of the leaders of a brutal dictatorship - a little more reality, please.104.169.18.238 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
My personal comment, photo looks good, if you watch him he has the same weird smile in every meeting.142.116.149.244 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Best to steer away from either emotion or polemics. Aim for the highest quality. We are not here to right great wrongs. El_C 12:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Sources say Xi Jinping was not graduated from the primary or elementary school in China. Is that true?
Which sources? – Thjarkur(talk) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
English pronunciation of this Chinese leader's name
How do you pronounce his name? Is it Ksi Jinping? Kzi Jinping? Or something counter-intuitive like Zix Inpinge? This is an important world figure, but most Americans are prevented from knowing how to pronounce his name by Wikipedia. Every biography page has just meaningless symbols, and a worse than useless if not outright INSULTING help page. ENGLISH DOES NOT USE DIACRITICS. Wikipedia has become elitist and impenetrable. You can forget about any donations from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C100:3E9:1DB6:B7A3:2748:D751 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@2600:8807:C100:3E9:1DB6:B7A3:2748:D751: - I'm very sorry you feel that way about the International Phonetic Alphabet, the standard for linguistics and the phonetic spelling for foreign words, however, the best English approximation of the Chinese is "shee jin ping", with the "x" in Chinese being similar to the English "sh" Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 21:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
What a bizarre post, anyhow for what it's worth I generally do the X in Xi like the french j/russian ж, which is the english j but with out the d. So Zhee. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
This GA review fails. The nominator has not edited since 12/14/2018, and thus has not made the improvements to the article necessary to bring it up to GA level. However, if anyone else would like to renominate this for GA, please ping me (DannyS712), as I would like to continue reviewing this article, given the time I've already spent on it. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
"Following the dismissal of Chen Liangyu, Xi was transferred to Shanghai as party secretary for a brief period in 2007.“ （lede, who is that? no context re Chen Liangyu)
"He joined the Politburo Standing Committee and central secretariat in October 2007, spending the next five years as Hu Jintao's presumed successor. " (same as above - who in Hu Jintao?)
"Later, his mother was forced to publicly denounce him as he was paraded before a crowd as an enemy of the revolution. Xi was aged 15 when his father was imprisoned in 1968 during the Cultural Revolution; he would not see his father again until 1972." (phrasing)
"After a few months, unable to stand rural life, he ran away to Beijing. He was arrested during a crackdown on deserters from the countryside and sent to a work camp to dig ditches. He later became the Party branch secretary of the production team, leaving that post in 1975." (how does one lead to the other)
"There engineering majors spent about one-fifth of their time studying Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong thought, doing farm work and "learning from the People's Liberation Army"." (what does this mean? 1/5 each? total?)
Last paragraph of the "rise to power" section - needs more sources, currently reads like a puff piece
Generally, I suggest reading the article out loud to yourself - it'll help you find and fix any confusing phrasing. The list above is by no means exhaustive.
A review of Earwig's detector shows 32.4% (unlikely); after checking the top two hits (third was 22.5) there is no copyright/plagiarism violations, with sources cited for all relevant issues.
References to fix
#2 (Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary) - fill in missing information
#21 (Bosilkovski) - dates?
#37 (中共十五大习近平位列候补委员最后一名为何) - add translated title in english
#59 (Latin American Herald Tribune) - fill in missing information
etc. Please go through the Chinese references section and add any missing information, etc
Also, the start of the Trips as VP and Mexico... section may be over sourced - 9 citations in the first sentence?
Generally, there is little OR. However, the sentence "some say to burnish his foreign affairs credentials prior to taking the helm of China's leadership" is unsourced. Who says that?
"The overarching theme of the trip was to call for further economic reform and a strengthened military." - analysis of themes should have a source
The second paragraph of the Politburo Standing Committee section is out of place and confusing, some repeated content (Within a week of assuming the presidency, Xi embarked on a trip to Russia, Tanzania, South Africa, and the Republic of Congo. -> there is an entire section about his foreign trips, starting with "Xi made his first foreign trip as president to Russia on 22 March 2013, about a week after he assumed the office." which says the same thing that was said earlier).
@Bangalamania: I have started this review. Can you look over my notes on the references? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Just looked over the references now; I can't add the translated title as unfortunately I don't speak Chinese, and I couldn't find any more information on the Latin American Herald Tribune source, sorry. – Bangalamania (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bangalamania: Then until someone who knows enough chinese can review all of the references and add the info, I think it'll probably stay on hold. I'll still do the rest of the review, but my chinese isn't good enough to fix the references myself (应为我只是一个中文学生，所以我的中文不好 lol). Anyone you can reach out to? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Just looking at the conversations above, pinging @Khu'hamgaba Kitap: for help here (sorry to trouble). – Bangalamania (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Khu'hamgaba Kitap: 谢谢您。I would have done it myself, but my Chinese is nowhere near good enough. However, I was wondering if you could provide translations of the article titles, such as in references 65 and 66. (see 68 for a good example). --DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@DannyS712: 65 and 66 are not references to anything and are both quotes in Chinese from Mr. Xi where the English seems to be sourced from reference 67 (though I don't know where the Chinese itself came from). Adding the English to them as a note wouldn't be necessary (at least I think) because the English quotes themselves are already in the article. -- As for 68, the translation didn't make very much sense, so I tidied it up a bit -- If there's anything else I need to do that I didn't do before (adding translations to all references except 25 due to its long-dead state with no archives), feel free to ask in a clear manner. Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 22:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bangalamania: This has been on hold for a while. Any plans to improve it in the near future, or should I fail it? (I don't mean this to sound sarcastic or condescending, but just as a reminder) --DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Hey, sorry for the late reply - thought I had already replied to this but I must have forgotten. I'm not sure what I can to improve this really - as the discussion shows, the improvements would be better made with someone who could translate Chinese, and I can not. Sorry! -- Bangalamania (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bangalamania: See the notes under criteria #1 and the one issue under #3 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
Eee, so simple you won’t get rid of me! I am here - Trade Attache! I help sell gas to Russia.And, the fact that someone erased my proposal is Vandalism.Oberste Gorschkov (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
English J without the D??? I didn't know the English J even had a D. DZJayH? into ZJahyhh? or a SH- sound?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C100:F4D:F917:F82B:1371:57A0 (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and why is it bizarre to ask how the name of one of the most important persons in the world is pronounced??? This is a FUNDAMENTAL question and Wikipedia appears to be useless to answer it in the main article body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C100:F4D:F917:F82B:1371:57A0 (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The IPA pronunciation here is a bit misleading, "Xi" is not pronounced with "sh" but with (palatalised) "s". Check and hear it here: [3] --Võrok (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain why a nonsensical pronunciation of XJP's name was inserted into his page? The IPA for the Chinese one seems correct though
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To my horror, it is requested that a photograph used in this article, showing a man in Hong Kong throwing an egg to an already heavily smeared photograph of Xi, is deleted. Please those who appreciate this photograph as nearly iconic or otherwise as well, help oppose the deletion, which in my opinion would create an unwanted precedent, and speak up on the discussion page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2019-10-01_Demonstration_Hong_Kong_11.jpg. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
Eissink, please, check out WP:CANVASS. Non-neutral notifications like this are not appropriate for deletion discussions. Deletion discussions should be based on policy, not on how much you like an item. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that a bot would announce the DR, like in the message below, that's why I felt I should inform some contributors here, MarioGom. Since a bot does indeed give notice, I will not notify again, in case anything like this would occur again. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
before the table of contents, if you hit command/control f and search for"and, " you will find 3 of them I just can't fix because am new
Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the subsection entitled "Economic Policy" there is a typo that needs correction. Specifically, right now there is a sentence that reads "His administration made it easier for banks to issue mortgages, increased foreign participation in the bond market, and increased country's currency renminbi's global role, helping it to join IMF's basked of special drawing right." But I believe that should be "basket" not "basked." DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for comment on referring to the leader of China in the Manual of Style
which includes such tenants as
should be
which includes such tenets as — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlo FloatingFree (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Removal of citation needed and navigation template
@Eggishorn: please explain your removals [4][5], at the very least theres nothing wrong with the citation needed tag. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack:, see the above discussion. Unilaterally adding a LP to a template and then adding the template to the article when the associated template is a criticism of the LP is not an action that should happen. There at least needs to be an attempt at achieving consensus when the Xi Jingping = Winnie the Pooh connection is considered a criticism at best and a slur at worst. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m not adding it as a "criticism of the LP.” I’m adding it because it is clearly related. I have no opinion on whether the comparison is a joke, criticism, slur, etc I just know that it exists and its existence and censorship has been the subject of significant coverage from WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of your personal feelings, it is this is a living person and BLP applies. As the above discussion clearly shows, this association is perceived as critical and templating like this requires consensus. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 20:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Criticism isn't a problem RE BLPs. You also appear to be overstating the universality of perception, many also seem to perceive it as comical, ironic, informative, interesting, etc. I understand that it is your *opinion* that this is criticism but don't act like its anything more than your opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You also need to explain your reversion of the citation needed tag, you only did that once vs twice with the template but I see no explanation for it anywhere. Nor do you appear to have provided a citation for the unsourced text and note. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Extent of Winnie the Pooh censorship
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am repeating my concern above under a new request, since El C informed me that the previous edit request regarding Winnie the Pooh was already answered. So I think this is considered a new edit request, though it is about the same section of the article, since it involves a different problem with that section. As I wrote above, it is not accurate that Winnie the Pooh was "systematically removed" from the Chinese internet. See citations above. Therefore I suggest editing the opening sentence of this section to "Chinese social media platforms censor comparisons between Xi and the Disney character Winnie the Pooh following the spread of an internet meme ...."Plainsong43 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Done, with slightly different wording but the same idea. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Winnie the Pooh
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please consider the removal of Winnie the Pooh meme images and content from the article. It does not add any relevant information to the subject Xi Jinping. Furthermore, it could be considered libelous content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCD331 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that showing three meme images is probably a bit much, but since this subject has gotten so much attention from sources I do see a point in illustrating what the meme is about. Let's see if other editors want to chime in here. – Thjarkur(talk) 10:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
This subject has gotten attention from sources, but how relevant is this to the article (and to 'Leadership' section)? I would refer to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP on the neutrality of Wikipedia articles, especially since this is the central page of a political figure that is often targeted by detractors. WP:BLP states that 'Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints' so does this article really need a whole title, summary and 3 images reserved in the 'Leadership' section for "Winnie the pooh"? Political lampooning is rare for any kind of article on Wikipedia, and even then would be mentioned briefly without any images. It is also highly unusual for it to be placed in the 'Leadership' section of the article, I would suggest it be mentioned without images under the 'public image' subsection of the 'personal life' section.DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
If Xi were to have a fear of Winnie the Pooh imagery that he did not act upon in public life, that would indeed belong in a 'personal life' section and would, I'd argue, be irrelevant regardless. The notable (and neutrally ascertainable) point here is the extent to which Xi and the CCP have gone to censor the memes, which is a remarkable and unique feature of the current leadership, and therefore fits into the 'leadership' section rather well. Doanri (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Internet censorship is an important and notable topic of this article. However, the inclusion of three images presenting the person in a disparaging light is highly unusual in a Wikipedia biography of a living person. Isn't Winnie the pooh just one of the thousand different types of images being censored in China? Do the images represent the most important censorship that Xi Jinping has imposed? Why do we need a side by side comparison of Winnie the pooh and Xi Jinping? I would argue that these images were not put on this article to illustrate this controversy but intended to present the subject of the article in a disparaging light. They belong in another article related to the censorship in china (and even that doesn't feature any pictures), not in the biography of the subject that it is referencing DCD331 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the number of images is a bit high for a meme. I wouldn't remove all three images, maybe keep one or two (definitely would get rid of the car), since they are highly (self-)explanatory of why Winnie The Pooh of all things has come to represent the Chinese President in meme culture. I would not consider it libelous content, as long as it is not featured too prominently in the article. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
After doing some source checking, I would actually keep all three images (including the car one), seeing that it definitely is one of the more (if not most) censored images on the web. The "Winnie the Pooh" section is descriptive and neutral, so it doesn't seem to violate WP:BLP. See WP:CENSORSHIP. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I would reconsider the neutrality and relevancy of having these images in the article. Based on WP:NPOV, the proportionality of the view should be taken into account and you yourself have mentioned that 'the number of images is a bit high'. I would argue against keeping images based on how censored they are since there are probably thousands of these images and not one of these images is particularly featured anywhere. Please also note the sentence on WP:BLP: 'Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.' DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The information is relevant as it pertains to one of the most common parodies of one of the world's most powerful men, who is the subject of the article. It seems most unlikely that this would be found to be libelous content in a court in the free world. Doanri (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The content of this article "Xi Jinping" is about a prominent and controversial political figure with many detractors, hence the existence of these memes in the first place. Upon reviewing the edit history of this article, I would like to highlight that the original author of the Winnie the pooh content User:Ohconfucious could be motivated by political reasons (Hong Kong independence party logo on User page).DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Contributors' political beliefs (just like their gender, race, nationality, creed, etc.) are not relevant to this discussion. WP:PA. Doanri (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Bias should be considered when editing material. The extent of including three images into this article is questionable and it is worth probing the original editor's intent.DCD331 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia policy explicitly disagrees with you. Read WP:PA (especially the last paragraph, on how PA is dealt with). Doanri (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
While the meme and its censorship are somewhat relevant to the article, there are issues with the use of those images in the article: they seem to be a personal creation, they are more of meme quality than encyclopedic content, the choice of the pictures seem to come from [6] therefore WP:NPOV. Perhaps a solid illustration of the censorship of the meme itself, for example screenshot of the banned image on Wechat, would be preferable. Sgnpkd (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what you mean with the POV argument; clearly a meme making fun of a person is likely to be created by someone who doesn't like that person and isn't 'neutral' in their POV. 'Personal creation' is what Wikimedia Commons is built on. Regardless, I think the WeChat screenshot could be a good addition, as long as we do not remove the current illustrations. Doanri (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that the POV argument is very important when you consider the nature of this article and a significant reason for removing these images. It stems from proportionality and giving undue weight to information, and is one of the core principles of WP:BLP.DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to say, but it does seem to be off topic. Just add the WeChat image if you want to do that, and see TucanHolmes' post for the image's sources (a BBC blog!) Doanri (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources for these images are fine, the main contention is not related to how they were sourced. It is the biased nature of these images and lack of relevance to the topic of the article, which Sgnpkd mentions: 'meme quality rather than encyclopedic content.' Featuring internet meme pictures on a blog is fine because it is someone else's opinion but Wikipedia is a platform for impartial information for the wider public. Since when did internet meme culture require documentation in someone else's political biography to such a degree?--DCD331 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The images' file pages state they have come from news sites (e.g. File:XJP inspection parade.jpeg), so they are definitely not a personal creation. Multiple (reputable) news orgs have covered this story, using all three images (and others not included in the article), so I don't see how that would violate WP:NPOV. The images selected for this article, are (at least to my knowledge) the most well-known ones. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think you understand what libel is, it has to be false not just derogatory etc and this information is true. Why don’t you think its relevant? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The images are true to a certain extent as we are considering the article of a political figure, not the representation of a political figure. Political cartoons are not relevant to warrant three images in the 'Leadership' section of this article. Please also note the sentence on WP:BLP: 'Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false OR disparaging light.' DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
N/A, the images are used to present a specific controversy which directly regards them. Doanri (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd question why three images have been included to illustrate this specific controversy. It is exessive and of poor taste to feature in the biography of a living person.DCD331 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
It does feel a bit iffy, to be honest. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. The images, at the very least, are excessive. We don't need 3 images of Winnie to get the point. We don't even need one image, honestly. Perhaps it deserves a mention, but the current state of the section seems excessive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Has been reduced to one image with is well-supported by the text and the consensus of editors above. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 17:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The images are not in themselves derogatory, but humorous, except to those who have no sense of humour. In my view, WTP is an eminently likeable character, unlike XJP, so I'd say the comparison is flattering. The likenesses of the caricatures needs to be seen to be properly understood, and this is provided for in the fair use rationale of use of copyrighted images in critical commentary. The CPC regime is so utterly sensitive to the memes (and indeed any comparison even oblique references to WTP as code for XJP) that it wants to expunge all occurrences from the internet, and numerous press articles have been published commenting on the memes. But while the Great Firewall can screen this inside China, the regime has to use other means elsewhere. It's no surprise that we see this attempt to censor the images; note that WP is not censored. I contend that the Obama and Abe images are key to understanding why the memes went viral; the one with the car is meant only to show the most censored post of the year – so I'm less upset that it's gone compared to the Shinzo Abe meme. -- Ohc ¡digame! 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a more basic problem with the Winnie the Pooh section than the question of whether this section includes too many images. It's just plain inaccurate to say that Winnie the Pooh "is systematically removed on [sic] Chinese internet." Winnie is present and searchable on the Chinese internet today, and he was never not visible and searchable. Social media platforms removed images specifically comparing Xi to Winnie, but simple images of Winnie have always been available. This can be easily verified with a Baidu search or a search of Weibo, but if citing those searches violates the no original research rule, then see this post by a Fellow at the Yale China Law Center. I also note that the sourcing for the claim that Winnie was "systematically removed" is weak. The CBS News article contains no original reporting. It links to a BBC article. The BBC article asserts that censorship is occurring but doesn't cite any sources. And the BBC article never uses the word "systematic," nor does it assert that all images of Winnie (rather than just those images that compare Winnie to Xi) are censored. Therefore I suggest editing the opening sentence of this section to something like "Chinese social media platforms censor comparisons between Xi and the Disney character Winnie the Pooh following the spread of an internet meme ...."Plainsong43 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the meme with Shinzo Abe, since this was not part of the final edit: 'Has been reduced to one image with is well-supported by the text and the consensus of editors above'. Having two images fails to address the excessive use of pictures depicting a living person in a disparaging light, which was the main issue. Such elaborate imagery is not needed for one topic.DCD331 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
authoritarian leader
Glucken123 inserted "authoritarian leader" is is against WP:UNDUE, the clear majority view of the sources is dictator not "authoritarian leader", there are other academic sources not included in this article and again the clear majority view of the sources is dictator not "authoritarian leader" Gooduserdude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no clear majority or consensus on this - he is often labelled both. Don't confuse dictatorship and authoritarianism. Also the two search results from Google Scholar you provided, prove my point: 'authoritarian leader' shows 13,100 articles, while 'dictator' just 6,950. Glucken123 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, am not confusing anything, Am saying xi jinping is a dictator only, exactly as you pointed out, That is two different things, he cannot be both, and the search result does not specifically refer xi jinping himself as 'authoritarian leader', While search result about dictator does actually him a refer him as a dictator, also we have to name things and people after what they are and not rephrasing to sound more positive than what they actually are Gooduserdude (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Both terms are being used. I haven't rejected the word dictator, but he is also labelled as an authoritarian leader. That's that and encyclopaedically we can include both. No one is trying make Xi Jinping sound more positive. Glucken123 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
well its think its better for other people to decide, therefore am starting a rfc Gooduserdude (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was consensus to not merge. The subject of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy has enough significant coverage from multiple independent sources to qualify for an article separate from the one on Xi himself. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 00:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Seems hardly notable to warrant a new article. I don't see why any of this shouldn't just be mentioned in the main article.
Furthermore, the article Xi Jinping Thought already exists as well, so what exactly is the point of this? At the most, a new section would have sufficed. Telsho (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Opposed to what? Please clarify. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Widespread in-depth independent coverage says its significant and different enough from core Xi Jinping thought to merit its own article. A subsection about Xi Jinping thought on diplomacy could be made on Xi Jinping Thought but the coverage of it is clearly independent of Xi Jinping Thought or Xi Jinping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Xi is just another communist leader trying to impose his way of thought on the world. Dissent is not allowed, anyone who talks is silenced. He is almost a dictator, with just a different title. Dictatorship should not be imposed on the democratic world where criticism is allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.84.98 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: i agree with User:Horse Eye's Back "Widespread in-depth independent coverage says its significant and different enough from core Xi Jinping thought to merit its own article." Mao Zedong Thought has its own subarticles, so should xi jingping thought Gooduserdude (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
To add to article
To add to this article: mention of Xi's ruling "for life" (or "lifetime"). Why is this not mentioned? It seems a glaring omission. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the 'Winnie the Pooh' meme necessary?
I'm not for censorship or anything like that but Xi's page is supposed to be a neutral POV and professionally looking biography. Things like that allure to Donald Trump being compared with hundreds of things and countless memes but none of which are referenced in his article. I'm suggesting a more subtle reference than a whole subheading with pics.Alexceltare2 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This issue has already been discussed previously, with the consensus at the time being that the censorship of those images (there used to be three of them) is notable enough, even for the personal article. Additionally, the censorship of those images has itself become a meme, and Winnie the Pooh (in that context) has become a kind of symbol for Chinese censorship in general. TucanHolmes (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — TGHL ↗(talk) 19:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Biden comments on Xi's political rule
'American president Joe Biden compared Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin, "He’s one of the guys, like Putin, who thinks that autocracy is the wave of the future, (and) democracy can’t function in an ever-complex world". However, Biden also said Xi is a "smart, smart guy".[1]
'
I think this should be included. Biden comments are relevant. He is current president of USA. Other comments can also be included if anyone wants to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guodata (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Should a quote from the world leader of China's biggest rival be the first sentence (as your edit proposes) in the "Political positions" section of China's leader? Uh no. It is WP:UNDO and frankly, WP:NPOV. Should we now go to Biden's article and add a quote from Xi as the first sentence of his "Political positions" section? Clearly not. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes—that's Wikiquote. For the leader of a major world-power, we'll rely on evaluations from academic sources, not miscellaneous remarks by other world leaders. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Whitewashing his status as a dictator/authoritarian
There is no dispute in reliable sources that Xi Jinping is an authoritarian leader or dictator (there is no distinction between the two despite some of the bickering on this talk page about which term to use). It is not acceptable for the lead to present Xi's status as an authoritarian leader as an attributed pov ("He has been described as an authoritarian leader"). The lead should simply say in Wikipedia's voice that Xi Jinping rules an authoritarian regime (or is a dictator). This edit should be reverted ASAP[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Disagree, I would have reverted too. The lead is carefully constructed and well written, "He has often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader" is enough. We're not in the business of flat out (and unequivocally) labeling someone as a dictator, that's not a NPOV. The characterization is widely accepted in the Western world, but by no means universally accepted in the world as whole; China has enough allies to find some academic support, and I suspect a lot from the scholars in China it self. Aza24 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Go ahead: please present academic sources that dispute that he rules an authoritarian regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
[8] by Eric X. Li, anything by Hu Angang ([9]), from a quick search, I can't read Chinese but I'd expect a lot from there. But let me make this clear, that's not the point. The point is that calling someone an unequivocally, universally authoritarian leader, is the farest thing possible from NPOV. Look at Bashar al-Assad's article "Political scientists have characterised the Assad family's rule of Syria as a personalist dictatorship" not "Assad is a...". You're accusations of "whitewashing" (a term which makes no sense in this context) are foundationless, saying that the current world leader of a major country has "often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader" is an extremely powerful statement alone (not to mention the evidence given directly after the fact), if readers can't see that, that's on them. Aza24 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That Li article is not an academic source and it doesn't say Xi doesn't rule an authoritarian regime. I see nothing in the description of the Hu Angang book (authored by someone with a PhD in Engineering) that disputes that Xi rules an authoritarian regime. The Assad lead is far stronger in characterizing Assad's authoritarian rule than the Xi lead, but both leads should simply reflect what RS say and describe them as authoritarians in Wikipedia's voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The Li article is by a political scientist... and the Hu book is by someone lauding Xi's economic policies (hence by an economist). "Authoritarian" and "dictator" imply a negativity connotation, these people are disputing that. Thus far you have only been complaining and are yet to propose a new wording. Your former "Xi rules a dictatorship or authoritarian regime in Xhina" ([10]) would be more effective if you phrase it like Assad's article, e.g. "Political and academic observers characerize Xi's rule as dictatorship or authoritarian regime." But regardless, you are going to have to form a consensus for whatever you propose. Aza24 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Liking a dictator's policies =/= Leader is no longer a dictator. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your phrasing in that edit presents Xi as a universally disliked and oppressive figure (because, guess what, the vast majority of readers see those terms in that light), but this is WP:UNDUE. ([11]) Once again, you continue to complain without formally offering a specific proposal. Aza24 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Regime type has nothing to do with liking or disliking the regime's policies. My specific proposal is to revert this edit[12]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Controversial category
Bsy950707 has repeatedly added a category with BLP implications to the article. Both myself and Aza24 objected to the category. For one thing the article doesn't support it.[13] (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Just reverted it. The editor seems to favor edit warring over discussion anyway. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
RfC about the use of "authoritarian leader" in this article
CLOSED
The WP:CONSENSUS is to favor referring Xi Jinping both as authoritarian leader and a dictator.
The following discussion 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.
Question
Should we additionally describe xi jinping as an "authoritarian leader" besides dictator? (see the discussion above)
A: we refer him as both authoritarian leader and dictator
B: we refer him as dictator only Gooduserdude (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Can we change his place of birth to Shaanxi China? He wasn't born in Beijing. He was a farmer from northwest China Shaanxi province. The same province of Xi'an. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.205.67 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
B for me -- dictators have a characteristic of systematically removing high level opponents. that's new in China since mao's death and can be linked to Xi article. authoritarianism is a characteristic of last 70+ years. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A for me - both labels from academic sources can be used in Wikipedia. They are widely used by many authors. Glucken123 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Dictator only. Trying to shoehorn in "authoritarian leader" would make it appear that Xi Jinping has similar levels of control as Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, who operate within semi-functional democracies. Xi Jinping's China, on the other hand, fulfills the qualities of Dictatorship in being a One-party state employing widespread political propaganda, having no tolerance for dissenting groups, and no having tolerance for actual independent media. BirdValiant (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A Both are amply sourced. They have different meanings, so it is OR to pick one over the other. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A He is often described as both. While there is a significant overlap between the two labels, it is (theoretically) possible for a dictator to not be an authoritarian leader. A dictator is somebody who performs a specific function in a type of government. "Authoritarian leader" describes a specific type/style of ruler. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A, normally I would expect to say 'dictator' only since 'authoritarian leader' is largely a milder 'dictator' and risks being tautologous. However, given that this is in the sentence "Xi has often been called a dictator or an authoritarian leader by political and academic observers". I think it legitimate to say both - ie the jury is still out on which he is. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A: per sources, which use both. Additionally, in light of the power and existence of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party, it is not clear that he has absolute dictatorial power. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A If academic sources use both of these terms, let's roll with that. ~ HAL333 22:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
A, as he is called both.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
B, if one takes into account the context in relation to the following sentence in the entry, "citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure." Normchou (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
A, because, since sources use both, preferring only "dictator" would be a value judgement, even if it's one I agree with. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no distinction between the two. My preference is to use "Xi rules an authoritarian regime" but I do not oppose saying "Xi is a dictator". I do think it's clunky to say he's both an authoritarian and a dictator (because they are the same thing). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Neither, He was voted in by the People of China. Granted, this was not the entire population, only a select few are given the right to vote, this is "China Style Democracy" and shouldn't be confused with western style democracy.
Discussion
As I read the article, I noticed that nothing was said about China’s responses to climate change. The leader of China must have policies relevant to global warming. His many other major agendas were discussed. I think the omission of this topic should be addressed. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
Suggestion: Include a pinyin (with tone marks) transliteration of his name
I notice that, unlike with other major Chinese figures, there is no complete pinyin (including tone marks) transliteration of his name. That would be a nice addition if anyone is able to do it. Ricklaman (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Done.
Also, removed the audio file which was obviously recorded by a non-native speaker of Mandarin and was therefore misleading rather than helpful. Longitude2 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nardog:, the above is probably the explanation you were looking for. I'm not sure if the pinyin transliteration is warranted, as this is the English Wikipedia and that might end up just being too much cruft, but I would agree that the pronunciation is misleading. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. What Longitude2 removed is a transcription and an audio demonstration of the pronunciation in English. I don't see how that's misleading precisely given this is the English Wikipedia. Rather, I'm not sure if the Mandarin IPA in the lead is necessary, so I've swapped it for the pinyin. The Traditional Chinese, pinyin, and IPA are all available in the sidebar anyway. Nardog (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Touché, but thanks for taking a second look. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
How non-native speakers mispronounce Chinese names varies from person to person, so a recording of one person's mispronunciation is not of encyclopedic interest. Adding a non-standard English transcription is similarly inappropriate. The practice in other Wikipedia articles is not to include either of these, see for example the article on Mao Zedong. Therefore I restored the above change. Longitude2 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
RfC: Does Xi Jinping rule an authoritarian regime?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
B - 2 for A versus 15 for B. ExcutientTalk 16:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead of the article state that (A) "Xi Jinping rules an authoritarian regime" or (B) that "Xi Jinping has been described by political and academic observers as ruling an authoritarian regime"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Survey
A. There is no dispute in academic sources and other RS that Xi Jinping is the head of an authoritarian regime. To attribute the regime type designation to some "observers", the lead misleadingly frames this as a subject of active contention when there is zero dispute in RS about the regime type status. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Question What warrants the change of the lead? Something similar to what you suggest is already part of the article He has often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader by political and academic observers, citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure. Do you feel this is somehow misleading? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between stating clearly that he heads an authoritarian regime and attributing it as a claim advanced by some people. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You have attempted to force in the same edit a month ago and it has been explained to you that pushing for such inclusions is WP:UNDUE. To say in wikivoice that Xi Jinping rules an authoritarian regime means to imply that there is no political plurality, which is a false notion. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
is generally considered to rule an authoritarian regime, perhaps? The "has been described by..." verbiage I personally find both clunky and boilerplate-like, but I also take issue with the encyclopaedia making statements in Wikivoice as facts that are subjective by their nature (as a matter of style; I don't think there's any reasonable question of whether Xi Jingping rules an authoritarian regime, which is why it's fine to say "is generally considered to", but it's bad encyclopaedic style to say that he does without any kind of qualifier. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo, or B. The claimed lack of dispute in RS does not, on its own, preclude the use of attribution here, as should be done in case of a possibly contentious label such as this, especially referring to a living person. For precedence, compare: Pol Pot (attributed), Muammar Gaddafi (attributed), Ruhollah Khomeini or Ali Khamenei (Wikivoice, but describes leadership in a purely factual manner rather than using contentious labels directly). Wikivoice in this regard generally seems to be reserved for extremely influential, universally known figures - contrast: Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin (but oddly not Lenin, for whom the label is attributed). Should be noted also that successive leaders in countries usually not considered democratic (such as the PRC) are (generally) not repeatedly described as "authoritarian" in their leads (Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropovet al. in the case of the USSR, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin for the PRC - although notably skewered in the case of DPRK, where the label is omitted in the case of Kim Jong-unandKim Il-sung, but not Kim Jong-il, where the label is Wikivoice). I don't see the purpose of reiterating this here at all, myself (although not to the point where I would argue for this sentence's removal) - and out of the two options presented, especially not in Wikivoice. The key question here is - does switching from attribution to Wikivoice here meaningfully improve the article? I don't see how it does, and it shifts responsibility for this living-person attribution to Wikipedia. As a closing note (and an aside) I would say the RfC is quite oddly named, as the question here is whether or not the use of Wikivoice is appropriate; there is no debate about the facts (ie. the PRC, or Xi Jinping's regime being considered authoritarian) here. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo/b—this RFC is a mess, the name implies that the fact is up for debate, but the option imply that the only thing up to debate is how to present it. Do I think that the English Wikipedia should unequivocally present the current leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world as an authoritarian dictator? No, I mean come on, the current description is fine. Huge BLP risks here. This seems hard for the nominator to accept, as demonstrated in the thread above this, but words like "dictator" and "authoritarian" have an extremely negative connotation in the modern west, and the vast majority of our readers will only see it this way. Because of this, when we unequivocally assign it to someone, it makes it appear as if they are universally considered to be "doing the wrong thing"—but that's just not true. There is quite a bit of support for Xi in China ([14][15]), Africa and much of Asia. The current wording seems like the ideal compromise to preserve the actual meaning of authoritarian/dictator, while not compromising weaponizing the terms based on the extremely negative perception they have. I see no improvement coming out of this; the only thing A would result in are the risks admirably explained by Euan above. Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment No strong opinion here. It does not have to be either/or. We could describe him as "the supreme leader of an xxxxx regime" for example, where any of several near-synonymous terms might fit in the spot where I've written "xxxxx". Adoring nanny (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo/b. You'd be surprised at how many non-Anglophone writers disagree. See WP:BIAS. Perhaps it might be worth including any significant sources disputing that interpretation but I'm fairly sure you'd have to venture out beyond the English-speaking Internet. I agree with what was mentioned above too. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you think non-Anglophone editors are more likely to brand Xi as an outright dictator than native speakers? Why would that be? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe he meant the opposite, as he supports the status quo which means attributing such claims to the claimants instead of using wikivoice. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did, sorry I didn't make it clear enough. FelipeFritschF (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo/b as per FelipeFritschF above. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Both sides of this discussion are missing the point. "Authoritarian" (or even "dictator") does not have anything to do with whether someone or their policies is good or bad, popular or unpopular. It is a descriptive word and means (in the context of politics) usually just one thing: are they a ruler of a country without being democratically elected in free and fair elections?[1] There is no reliable source that disputes that Xi Jinping rules China and that he wasn't elected in a free and fair election. The reason why the word "authoritarian" is negative to many people is precisely because many Westerners place a high value on democracy. (Likewise, the word "genocide", because of what it is, inherently carries an extremely negative connotation as well. However, we don't write, "Many historians and other researchers have characterized the Holocaust as a genocide.") Thus, it would be completely appropriate to describe him in wikivoice as leading an authoritarian government. However, I'm not convinced that putting it in wikivoice would make the statement stronger, for the simple reason that many of our readers would consider academic sources to be more reliable than Wikipedia is. (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
References
^Oxford Reference definition of authoritarianism: "Nondemocratic regimes share the following characteristics: those governing are self-appointed and, even if elected, cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors; and there is no freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of the rulers."[1]
Authoritarianism is a complex political topic and checking if, at a glance, a country's government checks some boxes in an Oxford companion book is not how one reaches these sort of conclusions. "Genocide" (as you brought up) in the case of the Holocaust, much as the title of "dictator" in the case of Adolf Hitler, is so notable and undisputed worldwide that the use of Wikivoice is appropriate. Compare to the Holodomor - entirely different story. As some editors already pointed out one could find a lot of non-Anglophone academic sources disagreeing with the Western consensus describing China in its current state as authoritarian due to various reasons that need not be iterated upon here, because regardless if the words "authoritarian", "dictator", "totalitarian" etc. have technical meanings, their negative connotation is obvious, as you stated yourself, and this is a BLP article - attribution is appropriate and the point of Wikipedia is not to make people aware of how authoritarian certain leaders are with "strong" statements but to relate information neutrally. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, what source says that Xi Jinping does not govern the country in an authoritarian way? What source says there are free and fair elections, freedom of speech, freedom to form associations in China? No reliable sources contest this. Any dispute is over whether this ruling style is good or bad not whether it is undemocratic or authoritarian. (The Holodomor is not a good example because there is debate over whether there was specific intent required for it to be a genocide, or whether it was a non-intentional famine. If we were following your advice, the Armenian genocide article would have to be moved to Armenian genocide allegations and rewritten because Turkey and Azerbaijan dispute most of the article, making it not "undisputed worldwide". ) (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I cannot give you any sources because I don't speak the languages required to understand them - perhaps a Mandarin-speaking editor can help here - but to my own personal knowledge Chinese scholars contest that a multi-party system is an essential element of democratic rule and instead champion a concept of intra-party democracy, and insist that Western liberal democracy is incompatible with Chinese culture - again, this is pointless to discuss as this isn't even the topic of the RfC, despite what the name of it would have you believe. Nobody is suggesting to remove the reference, nobody is contesting that the overwhelming majority of Western sources agree on this. This article is BLP and needs to be treated accordingly; and I don't see any RfCs demanding the same statements being inserted into leads of such articles as Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin - other Chinese paramount leaders, one of whom is not even bound by BLP as of now - so what gives for Jinping? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@EuanHolewicz432: It's worth bearing in mind that concepts like authoritarianism, dictatorship, and democracy have quite distinct meanings in Marxist-Leninist discourse (certainly the latter two do), e.g. "dictatorship" in certain contexts is in fact a positive term used by the Chinese Communist Party itself, so you might be surprised by the number of Chinese scholars who'd be prepared to affirm that China is all three at once. That's an additional nuance at any rate. —Nizolan(talk · c.) 04:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see my comment "The current wording seems like the ideal compromise to preserve the actual meaning of authoritarian/dictator, while not compromising weaponizing the terms based on the extremely negative perception they have". You have too much faith in our readers; authoritarianism/dictator will mean something extremely negative for 99% of our readers, no matter the reason why. Thus unequivocally assigning it to the current leader of China is undesirable. You yourself seem to be arguing against some myserteous group of users that is denouncing the use of the term at all—this group is nonexistent. Aza24 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo / b — I don't have much to add to the points made above; the POV issue is obvious enough, but I'll say I'm a little confused by this proposal since it seems to me, at least, that proposal a actually makes the statement seem less strong by removing the authority for it and phrasing it as an unsupported assertion—presumably not the intent. —Nizolan(talk · c.) 03:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A per WP:SPADE - it must be stated straightforwardly and succinctly. Academics' and political observers' opinions can be referenced as support for the sentence. We should also distinguish "authoritarian" from "totalitarian" - the former, as buidhe rightly notes, is a normally rather neutral term symbolising the fact China is not a democratic country, on which there is scholarly consensus; "totalitarian", however, is much stronger and I agree it's a POV description that should be avoided unless there is a consensus of scholars on that. I am aware of a lot opinions (including in reputable scientific journals, distinguished scholars and simply RS) of China being totalitarian under Xi, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus on that topic; AFAIK there is, however, consensus that Xi oversaw China hardening its grip over the general population. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Uh, per WP:SPADE... that's not what that policy states, and that is in fact a discourse practices policy, not an article content policy. I don't think anyone has suggested "upgrading" to "totalitarian", either. But to address what seems to be what you were getting at by invoking SPADE: the statement is quite clear in its wording, it's just attributed - that isn't oblique in any way. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Not that I suggest we need to ask whether to insert the word "totalitarian", I just mentioned that a I am aware of a fair amount of instances of using "totalitarian" in the context of China. And that is POV, "authoritarian" isn't. Why exactly WP:SPADE - while it generally asks users not to obfuscate discourse (and I agree that's the point they address in the essay), what is important is the first sentence - be clear and direct, which also applies to writing text. We of course can wrap the text in weasel words, as MOS:WEASEL makes an explicit exception for the lead if the proof can be found in the body, but jest because we can doesn't mean we should. And, at least for my taste, writing as option B suggests could then lead to some pretty funny descriptions like CCP has been described by scholars as having a monopoly of power in Mainland China while it's both common knowledge it does and it's actually the law in China, or Martial law in Poland has been described by scholars and political observers as curtailing civil rights when it is known that any declaration of martial law (or any public emergency in general) entails restrictions on at least some civil liberties. Why not say it straightforwardly: "CCP has a monopoly of power in China" and "Martial law in Poland curtailed civil rights"? We don't need to hide behind an authority because it's a fact, not merely a consensus opinion.
Taking that analogy further on, writing "Joe Mercola has been described by scientists as being an anti-vaccine activist" instead of "Joe Mercola is an anti-vaccine activist" suddenly becomes quite fringey, because you (editor or reader) are tempted to continue, "but others dispute the claim" and to link to Del Bigtree, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other like-minded individuals, which we shouldn't. That Xi describes the current state of affairs as being "intra-party democracy" or "democracy compatible with Chinese customs" or Mercola says "he's pro-vaccine safety" to hide his opposition towards vaccination is irrelevant because the first is self-contradictory and the other is just used to avoid an unflattering expression. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo/b per different editors above. Idealigic (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Support B. Neutral and better explained.Yousef Raz (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
"Status quo' This is not how to present options at a RFC. Aircorn(talk) 22:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo/b Per the rationales above. Sea Ane (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Supporting status quo I do not see the need to edit the current wording, it is WP:DUE and we avoid the negative connotations of words like "authoritarian" and "dictatorship", which is a WP:NPOV issue by itself. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo/b As per other users explained (For Support status quo/b). Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support status quo Current lead is fine, and consistent with other articles on similar figures. BSMRD (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support B I view "authoritarian" as referring to more than simply not being elected in a democratic fashion. The wider reasons given to describe him as authoritarian (an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him, and the removal of term limits for the leadership) do support "described as authoritarian"; however these aren't accepted widely enough to call him "authoritarian" in Wikipedia's voice (also BLP concerns). If you're simply describing the political regime in China, use paramount leader (as the first paragraph already does). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support B Note that Xi Jinping was democratically elected. The Chinese system is a multi-level representative system; citizens vote for a local candidate, and then the people elected locally come together and vote for the representatives at the next level, etc. Citizens don't vote for the head of government directly, they vote for people who represent them at the next level. Xi Jinping has as much democratic legitimacy as Ursula von der Leyen who heads the EU, or almost as much as Boris Johnson who is the head of government of the UK. UK citizens don't get to vote for the head of government, they vote for a party, and then the party can choose its leader. The Chinese system has more authoritarian elements than the others because the opposition can't organize itself into parties, so it's uncoordinated. Also there's no real separation of powers; the judiciary is not independent. But Chinese voters can elect people who are not members of the Communist Party, and some of them do. Longitude2 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
If the opposition can’t organize itself into a party then theres no legitimacy in that democratic system. That is not the case in the non-Chinese examples you mentioned, those do appear to be legitimate (if imperfect) democratic systems. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not the opposition can organize itself into a party is not listed as a requirement for legitimacy of a democratic system in the usual definitions of democracy (e.g. the Wikipedia article on democracy). Your opinion may be a reasonable one, but it is just that - your opinion, no more valid than anyone else's. Longitude2 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Support B.Just sounds a bit more academic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Support B per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Support B because some sources say it is a totalitarian regime [16]. Hence we can not claim it is just authoritarian as a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
Order of positions in the lead
Recently, my edit has (unintentionally) started a bit of a conflict between various editors on the lead paragraph regarding the order of positions being mentioned. The older version orders General Secretary, Chairman of Military, President, and paramount leader. My version was Paramount Leader first and the other positions being listed after in chronological order because being paramount leader means being secretary, chairman, and president ever since Jiang Zemin took power. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this thread. I reverted you primarily because you added the unsourced "one of the most powerful people in the world"—such a characterization is unwarranted, and no articles on other leaders (Putin, Biden, Merkel etc.) have, or have ever had such descriptions. Paramount leader does not mean any particular roles, it simply means the most prominent Chinese leader; furthermore, it is not a real role, but a political title assigned by (probably Western) observers, to simply the complex modern Chinese politics. By including it in the first sentence we are simultaneously making it appear as a real, elected office, and also removing any explanation for what it is that is otherwise offered by the final sentence. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Aza24 I can understand why you'd revert that part...if I add it back I'll phrase it as "widely considered" and cite it. Anyways, Paramount leader is widely used ever since the tenure of President Hu even though it took on its general meaning during Jiang's rule. It may not be an official title, but it's so widely used that it's become the term for anyone who holds all three of those offices. I'd phrase it as "Xi Jinping is a Chinese politician who is serving as the paramount leader of the People's Republic of China, holding the offices of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Central Military commission since 2012m and President of the People's Republic of China since 2013." I think the official status of the office of "paramount leader" really doesn't matter because it's both widely used and Xi holds all the offices necessary to be Paramount Leader (as long as we're using today's definition, or at least the one used since the rule of Jiang Zemin. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry InvadingInvader adding even that he is "widely considered..." is going to need an RFC or something. Literally no other article has such a characterization for a living person and I frankly can't see any benefit for it. Keep in mind that not a single other Chinese leader has "paramount leader" in the first sentence and no one "served as paramount leader" because it's not a real position to serve in. I continue to think the position being real or not is extremely pertinent to how we treat it—as I said earlier, virtually all readers will read that position as one that is official in your proposed version is used. Aza24 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Request
I request an audio file of the correct pronounciation of Xi's name be added under the template IPAc-en Appu (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
"In 1963, when he was age 10, his father was purged from the Party"
pay attention to grammar, especially in preparing protected articles.
"In 1963, when Xi Jinping was 10". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.167.35 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Ph.D. dissertation
Why is there no mention of Xi's Ph.D. dissertation in the current version of this article (including the fact that analysis of said dissertation has indicated that at least some of it may have been plagiarized)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
3) Explain how such a category would not result in neutrality or BLP problems
4) Explain why such a category would be appropriate for Xi Jinping, but not the Chinese Communist Party, Li Keqiang, Li Yuanchao or any the other CCP members (unless you plan on adding it to all of them)
So, I've come here from the page on Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, where they had a similar discussion to yours on a person being a dictator/autocrat or autocrat and being described as a dictator/autocrat. This page reads: "Xi has often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader by political and academic observers,[8] citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him[9] and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure." This despite 13 sources describing him as such, as well as crimes against humanity, such as the camps in Xinjiang.
I feel strongly there should be a consensus on this, especially as the things Xi Jinping is accused of are more serious than Bin Rashid's. It feels biased. I feel either objectivity is too weighty a value here—at some point, the person fits the definition—or there are different interests at play. May we unify the two? It makes me uneasy it's all these Arab leaders who are described as being autocrats.
This has been thoroughly discussed (just two months ago) literally two threads above. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's the premise of this argument, as stated in the first sentence. I'm trying to reach a consensus here on two different sets of Wikipedia editors. Either this or the Mohammed Bin Rashid page needs to change. FishAndCrisps (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia really doesn't/can't work like that; working for cross continuity across articles on vastly different (and contentious) subjects is not something aim for. I would be surprised if anyone was willing to engage in a topic which has been thoroughly discussed so recently, especially for a reason such as this. Aza24 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It's just that, as an Arab, this is really depressing? There's a weird confirmation bias happening where our autocratic leaders are given more of a bad light than other ones around the world. Especially since Xi Jinping is responsible for ongoing genocide! We should seriously consider revising either this page or the bin Rashid one (plus a couple of other Arab leaders' whom I can't remember at the moment for the life of me). FishAndCrisps (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I read the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Wiki page and it states both: 'the government is autocratic' and 'the government has been described as autocratic'. If you wish to point out this discrepancy, you may be able to change this to 'described as' if you feel the language is too harsh or specific. If fact, the wiki page doesn't even describe Mohammed as being a dictator but redirects the focus to the government. DCD331 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes sure they get their "donations." This site really went downhill when the political bias set in. Enphektid (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I Know this is a month old at this point, but the problem we are facing is how complicated the structure of the Chinese government is (which is far more complicated and divided than they often like to project). It's not that Xi is a dictator, rather that he has positioned himself in enough of the councils to get the control he needs to project his vision (whereas dictator implies total control, which isn't really the case). Xi's power (and actions) are indisputable (though the 50 cents certainly try), but I am not personally sure whether it qualifies. I'll point you toward Kerry Brown's book: CEO CHINA. The book won a lot of awards and is perhaps one of the (if not the only) book(s) that can even begin to give us - the west - a proper insight into how China actually works. Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 14:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Environmental Policy
The grammar in this section is horrible. I don't really need to say any more than that.
162.83.143.126 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)whatever ip address i typed this from
Agreed, I'll see if I can improve it a bit Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 14:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No CCP IN CHINA
The correct synonym is CPC - Communist party of China.
There is no Chinese communist party in China.
Please correct. 121.6.98.34 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It's the same meaning of CCP and CPC, no different, normally, we use CCP more than CPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.144.128.15 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes but it's the same as Kyiv. Kyiv is the official, so it was changed from Kiev to Kyiv. Do the same thing for the CPC. Magellan Fan (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Infobox image
Proposed image
Seeing how this is a more better quality image than the current image, wouldn’t it be better to have this as the infobox image? 2A00:23C5:2C09:6800:947D:BC76:70A1:58E3 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to ping ScottishFinnishRadish for this one, as they typically review edit requests. I would think typically this would be a consensus issue, unless independent, reliable sources can support having His Excellency as his honorific prefix. Let me know what you think. I'm not sure a picture of Jinping with H.E. before his name would be enough for this, since the games are held in Beijing. Spf121188 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be used pretty often. White HousePresident Biden Meets with His Excellency Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, Jamaican GovernmentVice President of the People’s Republic of China, His Excellency Xi Jinping and his delegation arrived in Jamaica on Wednesday (Feb. 11, 2009), UNESCOLecture by His Excellency Mr Xi Jinping President of the People’s Republic of China. It looks to be the official diplomatic style of the President of China. No idea if that goes in the infobox of the person holding that office. I'll note that the formal title it isn't included in Vladimir Putin or Joe Biden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Going through leaders of sovereign states, there is ALOT of inconsistency with regards to the use of this prefix. FDW777 provided assistance to me on this in the past, maybe they can help us in this case also. Your references though, ScottishFinnishRadish are very helpful, thank you! Perhaps there's somewhere this could be discussed more broadly? Spf121188 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
My input was in relation to the use of this reference which appears to be next to useless since every single entry I looked at user His/Her Excellency (or translated equivalent). All it appears to confirm is that UN protocol is to refer to a head of state using the term, not that any individual country's head of state is entitled to it in everyday use as a result of holding the position. FDW777 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough FDW777, I just didn't know how to proceed in this scenario, as it doesn't appear the President of China's predecessors have the prefix on their articles. Its usage in infoboxes on other head-of-state articles is so inconsistent that it's hard to determine in this case if it should be used or not. Spf121188 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia obviously isn't a reliable reference, Excellency#International diplomacy would appear to confirm the gist of the UN document I linked to. The UN refer to heads of state and heads of government using "Excellency" as a matter of protocol, not because of a local (or perhaps better expressed as national) entitlement to the honorific. I did find an occasional entry on the UN document where things were slightly different, right down near the bottom of document the UK entry lists Elizabeth Windsor as being referred to as "Her Majesty", while using "Her/His Excllency" for Theresa May (PM at the time) and Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary at the time). There's definitely no right to "Excellency" in the UK. I think it's potentially something in need of a wider discussion, but despite linking back to my post at Talk:Stefan Löfven#"His Excellency" nobody seemed too bothered to refute what I said. I think the best course of action might be remove unless there are secondary references that actually talk about people/roles being entitled to it, rather than assuming they are because of some press release or news article using the term. FDW777 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the above statement; if there are secondary sources that support the inclusion, that would make sense. Otherwise, I feel like it should be excluded. Not that my opinion is worth more than anyone else's, just my $.02 Spf121188 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Per President of the People's Republic of China, that is the official, legal title. Boris Johnson gets "The Right Honorable" in his infobox, which is the title that comes with Prime Minister, but again, I don't see that type of title universally used in these types of articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It's labelled as "diplomatic", which it is. That's why you see other countries using it to refer to him. Is there any evidence he uses such a title within China? If it's an "official, legal" title as you claim, then there must be some legislation regarding it? Wikipedia is not bound by international diplomacy etiquette. I can provide similar references to those provided that Boris Johnson gets called "His Excellency" by other countries, such as the USA and India, but can you provide a single piece of UK legislation that says the UK prime minister gets an honorific prefix of "His Excellency"? FDW777 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View
This reads like a hagiography. A more neutral article (i.e. recent POTUS artcles) would be better. Jimstiles26287 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Picture was replaced with Winnie the Pooh
The portrait pic was replaced with a picture of Winnie the Pooh. DirtyPotatoEditor (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
"He is ranked among the most powerful people in the world." Needs citation 24.56.252.122 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Technically it doesn't, as the lead is a user generated summary of the article that does not itself require citations. It does however, need a reflection in the article, which it has under the 'Public Image" header. BSMRD (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources given in public image are very sparse. Also in that regard they are mentioned only by news organizations that have their own private criteria and opinion content that is not based upon peer-reviewed surveys. In other words, more studies based upon academic stances and international polls should be included if that point should remain unchallenged. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Most powerful people?
It seems to be an immediate POV pusher to list Xi as one of the most powerful people in the world. Not even presidents, PMs, and billionaires of other nations are given that statement in their leads. Although reliable sources probably back that statement up, it would certainly seem a bit biased to immediately call Chairman Xi one of the most powerful people when few other biographies outright claim their subject to be "a most powerful person." CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The Forbes Most Powerful People list clearly lists Xi as the most powerful one (https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/#tab:overall). Now, Forbes contributor article are not considered RS but this list, which is composed by the staff, should be considered an RS and is frequently mentioned- VickKiang (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
That’s a pretty good point. However, the list also includes other powerful figures and yet they are never mentioned as powerful people in their articles. So if other articles such as Donald Trump, Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin etc. do not mention their subjects as very powerful, it is an immediate point for bias that Chairman Xi is the only one out of the bunch that is expressed as “a most powerful person”. Now, I’m not the only editor here so maybe I should open a RfC regarding this. But if it’s consensus I’d prefer a journal article that shows its methodology rather than Forbes which doesn’t declare its own. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
young photo
there should be a photo of Xi as a youngster. I have seen some great photos online. Would be nice if one of the CPC editors here could release one into wikimedia and add it here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of a photo of him in his young boy atire, but that might not yet be in commons. Certainly, 2008 is better than nothing just today. Wikipedia should be encyclopedic and my favorite thing about encyclopedia Britannica decades ago was looking at the interesting photos.
Image for his article
I have noticed that most of the edits involving in Xi's article includes the change of article image involving the images shown below. We need to establish a consensus on the main image of the article, because I see some minor disagreement on this. Should we choose First or Second? I request the editors to reach a conclusion on which should be the article image. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
First image (Current image)
Second image
@Toadboy123: Apologies for the late answer. Funny you should mention this, since a landmark decision for Vladimir Putin was made in March. Aside from MOS:LEADIMAGE, MOS:PORTRAIT, which recommends that the portrait be oriented towards the article text, should be considered. The two images you suggest look alright, but not amazing, as representations of the article's subject in my opinion. Both have a low resolution that I'm not a fan of personally. Image 1 has harsher lighting and looks away from the article but is clearer, while Image 2 has softer lighting and looks into the article but is lower-res.
Thus, based on a cursory search of Xi's Wikimedia category, I'd also like to add these images (they may or may not align with MOS:PORTRAIT, it's mostly a guideline after all). These images date from 2016:
Second image per MOS:PORTRAIT. I oppose First image (Current image) and New image (7) per SuperWIKI's harsher lighting argument. lol1VNIO[not Lol1VNIO] (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
New Image (6): Images 2 and 4 are too pixelated. The current image is not too terrible, but it has bad lighting along with the rest, except for Image 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousillon (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
New Image (8?):This image fits the bill. There is a suitable background, and the subject is looking towards the centre. -- Ohc revolution of our times 14:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Very droll, good sir. However, it would be appreciated if you have a choice from the actual selection. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
My preference is for images that make him look as much like a pug as possible, as such that means image 1 or 6; I kind of think images 2 and 4 are kind of cute as he looks a lot like WTP (which I simply cannot unsee). But in all seriousness, I think one without a distracting background would be best. New Image 2 or 8 fit this bill, but a real image 8 this time. -- Ohc revolution of our times 12:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022
This edit request to Xi Jinping has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
China branch = 
People's Liberation Army
service years = 1979–1982
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Highway 89 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
· 
· 
· 
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
c (OR): 
Just looked over the references now; I can't add the translated title as unfortunately I don't speak Chinese, and I couldn't find any more information on the Latin American Herald Tribune source, sorry. – Bangalamania (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Done Darth Flappy «Talk» 18:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, with slightly different wording but the same idea. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Has been reduced to one image with is well-supported by the text and the consensus of editors above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
. In my view, WTP is an eminently likeable character, unlike XJP, so I'd say the comparison is flattering. The likenesses of the caricatures needs to be seen to be properly understood, and this is provided for in the fair use rationale of use of copyrighted images in critical commentary. The CPC regime is so utterly sensitive to the memes (and indeed any comparison even oblique references to WTP as code for XJP) that it wants to expunge all occurrences from the internet, and numerous press articles have been published commenting on the memes. But while the Great Firewall can screen this inside China, the regime has to use other means elsewhere. It's no surprise that we see this attempt to censor the images; note that WP is not censored. I contend that the Obama and Abe images are key to understanding why the memes went viral; the one with the car is meant only to show the most censored post of the year – so I'm less upset that it's gone compared to the Shinzo Abe meme. -- Ohc ¡digame! 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
_2.jpg)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect President Ji and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#President Ji until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
First image (Current image)
Second image
New image (3)
New image (4)
New image (5)
New image (6)
New image (7)
New image (8)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
:format(jpeg)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/XVACJHOEHRNVBLKEZQAOUHF6KY.jpg){kind=link}
