Talk:Xi Jinping/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Xi has no BEng degree

According to Xi's resume published in early years by Tsinghua University, Xi was "graduated" from the "College General Class" (zh: 大學普通班) of the Department of Engineering Chemistry as a Worker-Peasant-Soldier_student . Such General Class is a special kind of education only existing during 1970~1976 when National College Entrance Examination is paused due to Great Cultural Revolution. It is usually two-year or three-year, and is considered as neither undergraduate education (zh: 大學本科) nor vocational college education (zh: 大學專科) by the authority. Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim Xi was a (under)graduate at THU and it is unreasonable to assume Xi did obtain a bachelor's degree at THU. 虹易 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether you think it is reasonable or not, this reliable, English-language source cited in the article says he completed the two programs and was awarded degrees as reported. "He returned to Beijing to complete the first of his two degrees from the elite Tsinghua University. Unlike most recent politburo members he has a doctorate in law and ideological education." We rely on our published sources. General Ization ^Talk 02:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

During cultural revolution there was no proper educastion in China and The Guardian is just a newspaper. --ZemanZorg (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, General Ization. That claim sounds somewhat ambiguous. I suppose the word "degree" just means "education" there (or why it doesn't mean an associate's degree?). The established reliability of the media/source does not imply every word is irrefutable. In this report, that detail might be too trivial to be verified and worded carefully. By googling "同志简历" (comrade resume) and "学士" on (bachelor's degree) gov.cn [1], there are lots of resumes of officials clearly noting "bachelor's degree". On the contrary, Xi's resume in 2018[2] only notes that "1975-1979 Studying in Basic Organic Synthesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, Tsinghua University". And as I explained above, according to the formal administrative document of the authority, a Worker-Peasant-Soldier_student in a College General Class is never acknowledged as an undergraduate graduate, so they wouldn't be able to obtain a bachelor's degree at all. --虹易 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The established reliability of a cited source versus the absence of a reliable source relating information to the contrary means that we will rely on the information in our cited source. Unless you can cite a source that clearly indicates that Xi has no degree, and/or not the degrees described in the article, the information will remain. Since I do not read any dialect of Chinese, I cannot determine whether any of the sources you have cited here on the Talk page explicitly contradict the information in our cited source, but given the context in which you cited them I suspect not. General Ization ^Talk 06:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

General Ization. I am not planning to add "Xi has no BEng degree" to the article, since it would also be WP:SYNTH. Instead, I think it would be better to avoid explicitly noting the BEng degree per WP:BLP, in view of the fact that it is pretty questionable & contentious and not really clearly supported by reliable sources. In most sources, either in Chinese or English, there are sentences such that "Xi has studied Chem Engineering in THU" instead of clearly noting Xi's bachelor's degree. Also, I find no state-owned media or official press release that did mention Xi's "bachelor's degree". --虹易 (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To sum up, there are actually no credible sources supporting Xi's BEng degree. I am suspecting that people just made a wrong assumption just because Xi had studied at THU in his early years. But such an assumption is certainly unreasonable. --虹易 (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

His Excellency Xi Jinping

Is Xi Jinping's honorific style not 'His Excellency'? As such, shouldn't this be reflected in the infobox? Compusolus (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

I would like to change the photo to a New Version as of 2022 2001:56A:761E:3300:80E3:DF5A:7F17:EBB7 (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2022 (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. Link to your proposed version here and reopen the request at that time. Also see WP:Image Use Policy for instructions Cannolis (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Should Xi be described as a dictator?

While he's certainly an authoritarian leader (and we have academic sources to back it up), should he still be described as a dictator? I looked at the sources and they're generally journalistic sources (with a good amount of opinion sources), which I don't think are the most reliable kind in a very strong claim like this, especially if we consider WP:BLP and the fact that Vladimir Putin or even Kim Jong-un (although Kim says totalitarian dictatorship) are not described as dictators in the leads (despite numerous sources calling them such). However, if there are academic sources describing him as a dictator, I would be happy to add them. The Account 2 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, there certainly is an abundance of sources, no matter their quality, supporting the claim that Xi "has... been described as a dictator" by some people, but on the other hand the value of simply reporting what people have say about their political opponents is limited; I don't think it would be considered appropriate at all to hop over to Obama's Wikipedia page, find Fox news/conservative think-tank sources calling him a dictator, and use that state in the lede that he has often been described as a dictator. Same with Trump.

Then there's the question of what the word "dictator" accomplishes that "authoritarian leader" can't. And I find that the answer is nothing, because the two are pretty much synonymous, with the former being significantly more politically charged. I find the use of "dictator" to be suspicious and potentially problematic, in an article where the body is constantly insinuating comparisons between Xi and Hitler and Stalin. I think to use the term, or even parrot applications of the term from political pundits, is something that we should view with caution, especially for a current political figure. Normsupon (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Normsupon My concern is that not even Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Slobodan Milošević, Omar al-Bashir, Vladimir Putin or even Joseph Stalin articles don't describe the subjects as dictators despite the fact that there's an abundance of sources calling them such. Actually, looking at it, not even Saddam Hussein's article (!!!) describe him as a dictator. On the Putin example, I get many more results that call Putin a dictator in some way than when I search about Xi. Additionally, a good portion of the sources describing Xi as a dictator seem to be opinion pieces, not the strongest kind of source for such a claim. From my knowledge, many analysts and journalists are cautious to call Xi an outright dictator, (IIRC not even the State Department under Mike Pompeo or even Pompeo himself have called Xi a dictator). So what's your suggestion on what to do about this sentence? The Account 2 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

All the discussion on this page has only made me more weary and frustrated with this use of Wikipedia as a platform for blatant polemics. Especially for this page, it seems like we are making Xi Jinping's article a special no-rules-apply-zone, where we can include anything and say whatever without any regard to Wikipedia policy, just because both political parties in the United States have deemed China their main foreign enemy. If we have not found it appropriate anywhere else to use the word dictator on a contemporary political figure, it makes no sense whatsoever why we would use it here. I say you should go ahead, be bold, and delete the statement out of the lede or at least move it to the body where it more appropriately belongs. Normsupon (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree its unnecessary, "authoritarian leader" is more than enough and is more widely supported. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the dictator label. If anyone disagrees, I would be happy to discuss. The Account 2 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This article needs an overhaul.

This entire article has an unfortunate amount of shoddy writing, WP:OR, and strange uses of sources. Many statements are completely unbacked, or manipulations and exaggerations of the cited material. Many arguments drawn from op-eds are presented as facts. Many sections that require academic sourcing only include news reports; I can only assume that any overarching narratives not obviously suggested by the bare facts are WP:OR. And in general, the tone of the article is weasely: scare-quotes are meant to obviously suggest to the reader things that the article can not itself state; impossible speculation into the mindsets of CCP leaders is stated without sourcing of any kind, while the language itself presents Xi as conniving and duplicitous by veiling all of his public statements under this language of schemery ("In Xi's view, the CCP is the legitimate...," "Xi believes..."); there is an over-emphasis of Western viewpoints that paint an image of consensus that, IMO, simply does not exist (though I am less wed to this point than the others). I am a history professor at a well known university, and I can promise you that this level of rigor when it comes to unbiased (or attempted-unbiased) fact reporting is not acceptable, especially for an encyclopedia. Ideally this article would be torn down and rewritten, but given that that's not exactly a possibility, it needs a deep overhaul at least. I will be slapping an NPOV template on the article in the meanwhile. Below are some specific instances in the article that I found problematic.

In the lede

"Xi has often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader by political and academic observers" needs to qualify who exactly is making these descriptions, unless we are to argue that the only "political and academic observers" that either exist or that we ought to listen to exist in China's diplomatic opponents.

The lede makes no mentions of policy or governance, aside from foreign policy (which is directly relevant to Americans) and things that are meant to make him look bad. This does not look like the Wikipedia page of a political figure.

In 'Early life and education':

"The engineering majors there spent about 15 percent of their time studying Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong thought and 5 percent of their time doing farm work and 'learning from the People's Liberation Army'." What is the phrase "learning from the People's Liberation Army" supposed to suggest? It says nothing about the content of the studies, and doesn't really even say anything about course of study at all. This sentence in general is redundant, unless we're going to go on every single prominent politician's Wikipedia page and put the exact ideological composition of their university studies in their 'Early life' sections.

In 'Rise to power':

Minor comment, but this section title seems editorializing in itself.

In 'Politburo Standing Committee member':

"Xi's position as the apparent successor to become the paramount leader was threatened with the rapid rise of Bo Xilai, the party secretary of Chongqing at the time. Bo was expected to join the PSC at the 18th Party Congress, with the possibility of creating a counterweight to Xi, or even replacing him." This entire half a paragraph is spun out of a passing mention of Xi in the source, which doesn't even claim that Xi's position was "threatened", it just said that Bo Xilai was believed to have had presidential ambitions. The article makes no other mention of Xi. The next two sentences seem to imply that Xi cunningly plotted Bo's downfall, which the source, an op-ed, argues, but the page knows it cannot directly say.

"In February 2009, in his capacity as vice-president, Xi Jinping embarked on a tour of..." Sub-section is one paragraph long. The motives of the visits (did the government explicitly state that its purpose was to "to promote Chinese ties in the region and boost the country's reputation in the wake of the global financial crisis"?) needs better sourcing, or any sourcing at all.

The 'Disappearance section" seems to be given undue weight for me. A prominent politician cancelled several meetings and did not appear in the media for fifteen days, which could have been for any number of reasons. Just because the media began wildly speculating doesn't mean it deserves an entire section on Xi's Wikipedia article. The sentence, "It was said that Xi effectively "went on strike" in preparation for the power transition in order to install political allies in key roles," makes no mention of who this was "said" by, and the New Yorker article does not either.

In 'Leadership':

"Xi also vowed to root out "tigers and flies", that is, high-ranking officials and ordinary party functionaries." The word "vow" makes Xi Jinping sound like a super-villain.

In 'Censorship':
"Universal values, a notion contrary to Maoist doctrine, whereby the Western value system transcends nation in class, and applies to China." I don't even know what this means. Maybe the "in" is a typo, but any analysis that argues that the nations is primary in Maoist theory is patently bunk. "Pro-market neoliberalism, referring to libertarian economic values and globalization;" The latter part is directly contradicted by other parts of the article that claim that Xi Jinping is a proponent of globalization. Is he a neoliberal, or is he not?

These items have to be listed, but the analysis is based off of one book source by a foreign correspondent, who is not an expert in political theory or the history of philosophy and economics. Normally that would be fine, but this is a technical section and the source clearly gets basic definitions wrong. The title of the book, Inside the Mind of Xi Jinping, also susses me out, as does the book description on Amazon: "Xi Jinping wants to become the world's most powerful leader. To succeed, he must balance Mao's Little Red Book with the Analects of Confucius, and more." This does not sound scholarly, or even reliable in any way.

"Coverage of these topics in educational materials is forbidden." What "coverage"? What "materials"? This sounds like you aren't even allowed to criticize neoliberalism in Chinese media. Even worse, the source doesn't even say anything at all about media coverage. It literally just mentioned that these things aren't allowed to be taught at universities.

"Although it predates Xi Jinping's formal rise to the top party and state posts, the release of this internal document, which has introduced new topics that were previously not "off-limits", was seen as Xi's recognition of the "sacrosanct" nature of CCP rule over China." Neither of the two words quoted appear in the NYT source. The phrase "was seen" needs an agent.

In 'Cult of Personality':
"Xi has had a cult of personality constructed around himself since entering office with books, cartoons, pop songs and dance routines honouring his rule." Sentence implies that the Xi government is producing dance routines to honor Xi Jinping, though from what I can tell any dance routines praising Xi Jinping were created by one provincial government, which needs clarification. The article is also dishonest about what sort of dance routines are being talked about by omission of context (this is a very specific cultural activity), and follows the sensationalism of the articles it cites. Unsure whether this has to be omitted, but needs some pruning at least.

In 'Economic policy':
This section is nowhere near long enough. For an article that spends so much time fixating on Xi's personality, there is only one (and maybe a half) paragraph about his domestic economic policy. This is not a subject that is inaccessible to writers. This is not a subject that is secondary or unnecessary.

"In a speech in 2020, Jack Ma said that Chinese banks had a "pawnshop mentality" and called out government regulation. Xi was said to have been furious over it and decided to halt Ant Group's IPO, leading to a crackdown on Chinese big tech." All hearsay. Who "said"? What scholarly analysis supports this? Is it possible that Xi's anti-monopoly initiatives have some context? This episode does nothing to actually explain Xi's economic policies but imply that the Chinese economy runs on the whims of a single, unstable man. Wikipedia is beyond hearsay and speculation.

In 'Reforms':
"The one-child policy was also abolished, resulting in a shift to a two-child policy from 1 January 2016." Outdated. The two-child policy has been abolished.

In 'Foreign policy':
"A Chinese nationalist,..." Objectively? Did he profess it himself? If so, we need a source. Actually, a couple paragraphs down contradicts the objectivity of this statement when it says, "Both are viewed as strong leaders with a nationalist orientation..." Anyways, there is a deliberate confusion of terminology here, as the article links to Chinese nationalism, a notion of nation-centered identity that dates back to the early 20th century under the Republic, while using it later in the sentence and throughout the rest of the section to imply a sort of Trumpian "China first" politics. Either that, or it's assuming some sort of relationship between nation-building ideology and aggressive foreign policy that is not held as a consensus in academia, and could only come about by equating someone like Gandhi or Malcolm X with Hitler and Hirohito. Using nationalism to mean both the academic and popular media use of it at this same time makes as much sense as arguing that if Locke, Jefferson, or Hayek lived today they would have voted for Hillary Clinton, because they were all self-described political liberals. None of these sources can support the idea that the concept of national identity leads to stronger emphasis on national security, or international aggression. All of them are either op-eds, or news reports that cite op-eds, and whether or not Wikipedia cares about citogenesis or not, these claims shouldn't be placed at the top of the section completely unqualified and presented as established, objective fact.

"In April 2022, Xi Jinping expressed opposition to sanctions against Russia. On 15 June 2022, Xi Jinping reasserted China's support for Russia on issues of sovereignty and security." This paragraph omits the fact that whether or not China actually supports Russia's invasion is ambiguous. The sources themselves admit that China has taken a very careful opinion on this subject; the NYT source even states itself: "Before and shortly after the invasion, Beijing sounded sympathetic to Moscow’s security demands, mocking Western warnings of war and accusing the United States of goading Russia. Over the past two weeks, though, China has sought to edge slightly away from Russia. It has softened its tone, expressing grief over civilian casualties. It has cast itself as an impartial party, calling for peace talks and for the war to stop as soon as possible. The quandaries for China, and Mr. Xi, remain." But the page only suggests that China is wholeheartedly supporting Russia. This is dishonest at best.

In 'Human rights':
"As of 2019, China is holding one million ethnic Uyghurs in internment camps in Xinjiang." In desperate need of sourcing.

In general this section needs some cosmetic updates, but otherwise everything else seems alright.

In 'Environmental policy':
Section has little on implemented policies or specifics of the government's plan. This sentence:
"The agreement was achieved after months of negotiations, including between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping. It strengthened the ambition of the conference." Is complete speculation, and seems entirely uncritical of China's climate policies.

In 'Political positions':

Quote at the top of section is out of place. Wikipedia is not a monograph; it needs no epigraphs.

In 'Chinese Dream': "...the slogan's use in official settings since 2013 has taken on a noticeably more nationalistic character, with official pronouncements of the "Dream" being consistently linked with the phrase "great revival of the Chinese nation"." Cleverly, this section has a note at the end to hide the fact that it has no citation. It is not supported by the citation in the middle of the sentence (which may be called a news report, but features heavy, heavy editorializing.) In fact, the source even softens its own claim by stating: "While his speech in November on the Chinese dream appealed to the nationalist cause, by March his language had turned softer. 'In the end the Chinese dream is the people’s dream...' " Are we to assume that Xi is only speaking his mind when he's attempting to appeal to demographics we don't like, and that he must be lying and speaking out of mere political convenience when he addresses people we like?

In 'Cultural revival': "As communist ideology plays a less central role in the lives of the masses in the PRC,..." The source makes no mention of any supplanting. The argument that communist ideology is diminishing in China is both vague (who is driving this? Is it society, or is it top down? Is the government abandoning communism? The article seems to imply both—that the CCP is committing treason against its own ideology, but at the same time the people are naturally drifting away [and revolting against?] the party line, in the same direction as the party) and delicate—we're going to need to cite some sociological papers, we're going to need to separate society from the state, and we're going to need to better identify the political blocs and interests at play here, lest we seem to imply that Chinese people only exist as an appendage of the government.

"...both of which Xi sees as relevant." Ungrounded speculation into his mindset, unless we can find a quote from the man himself. If we feel like it's implied by other statements he makes, that doesn't matter. It's still WP:OR.

"Hanfu, the traditional dress of Han Chinese, has seen a revival under him." What relationship does this have to the rest of the paragraph? What is this implying? Is Xi himself driving this trend, or is he riding along? Why is this worth including in the first place? The Xi government's relationship with clothing traditions is a complicated topic with nuances that this sentence obliterates. Cf. Tangzhuang.

In 'Xi Jinping Thought': "Xuexi Qiangguo, which translates to 'Study powerful country'..." Plainly a wrong translation. I'm not going to say it's racist, because we have to maintain good faith here, but the article on the app has three translations alone: "Study and strengthen the nation", "Study the Great Nation", "Study Xi, Strong Nation," and this article chooses to go with a boorish calquing that, no matter its intent, makes it seem like Chinese people can't speak their own language properly. (Cf. wikt:no tickee, no washee) Even Google Translate pops out a grammatically coherent phrase.

"social media apps such as WeChat and TikTok – known as Weixin and Douyin, respectively, in mainland China." Weixin and Douyin are the Chinese names for WeChat and TikTok. The meaning of "Weixin" in English is "WeChat"; "WeChat" in Chinese is "Weixin". They are the same words. There is no encyclopedic value to including these translations. I'm not going to argue that their inclusion is politically charged, but one very well might make such a case.

In 'Role of the CCP': "In this vein, Xi called for officials to practise self-criticism in order to appear less corrupt and more popular among the people." This was an accusation levied by those who were forced to self-criticize, who of course are going to have some thoughts on the subject. The NYT article even says that. But the article takes this and makes it seem like Xi himself confessed that this was a PR move. The entire next section is mystifying, and I can't tell which side is trying to propagandize here.

In 'Personal life':

"His favourite political thinkers include Mao Zedong, Han Fei, Karl Marx and Carl Schmitt." The citation is an op-ed. We do not know who Xi's favorite political thinkers are, and we can't just take some Dutch guy's speculation and present that as a fact on Wikipedia. Notably, if you look into any analyses of Xi's relationship with the thought of Carl Schmitt, none of it actually touches on Xi, or quotes anything he has said; they just mention Chinese academics who cite Schmitt and assume that means Xi must be a Schmittian himself. It seems like making claims like this needs a little more grounding. This is tantamount to calling him a professed Nazi; doesn't that count as a WP:BLP violation? This entire paragraph is entirely strange to me. I do not know why an article on a politician should include what his favorite movies are. Who his favorite American author is seems entirely irrelevant. This is essentially a paragraph of CCP propaganda interrupted by a sentence intimating that Xi Jinping is a Nazi.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and the entire article needs a thorough combing-through and source reevaluation. I would do it myself, but I would appreciate some other points of view before I decide if I want to WP:JUSTDOIT. People might disagree with me, but I think from an objective standpoint, this article is simply not up to standards—it reads like a New York Times op-ed. This is a delicate subject that needs care, attention, and honesty. I dislike Xi immensely. There are many things to criticize about him that are obscured by the weasely language of this article. It is in the best interests of both Wikipedia, and for human rights in China, that any representations and criticisms of Xi are fact-based and exaggerated. Normsupon (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Normsupon I saw the edit you made concerning some of the text which was duplicated on the Internet censorship. However there is no page now which displays that image of Obama and Xi that you removed anymore. I feel like if you were going to remove that image from this page, you should've added it to the other. Zaurus (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zaurus Internet censorship in China already has an illustration for its section on the topic. Wikipedia is not a repository for Winnie the Pooh memes. If you think it is a better image than the one already used, you can go ahead and replace it. Normsupon (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh Memes ≠ Xi's efforts at suppressing Winnie the Pooh Memes

Even if it was on the wrong page, having both those images gave a good encyclopedic view on the issue, whereas now it sort of looks like a one-off. I applaud many of your efforts at cleaning up this page, but this one was overzealous and resulted in a deleting of some valuable encyclopedic information. Zaurus (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The text of the article already mentions several incidents involving several such memes, and the caption of the photo already implies it is one of many memes. I am unsure what value adding another instance of it provides that the one doesn't already, and I would hardly consider deleting one image of a Winnie the Pooh meme when another one already exists to be "deleting... valuable encyclopedic information." If you can figure out a way to add it on the internet censorship page without cluttering up the article, you can go ahead and do it yourself, but we do not need to include funny images purely for the sake of including funny images, and it clearly does not warrant creating an entire section on this article just to have it on our website. Normsupon (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with many if not all of @Normsupon suggestions. I have observed the gradual decline of this article with astonishment and disdain. There were originally three Winnie the Pooh meme images in the article, and I had to argue with several editors to have two of them removed. It is clear that a lot of effort went to painting Xi JinPing in an unfavourable light, and what has been proposed by @Normsupon will provide some much needed editorial refinement and tonal sensitivity. DCD331 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I could see how 3 could be too many. When I have the time I will update the Internet censorship in China page per my reasons above. I do appreciate everyone's efforts in removing the non-encyclopedic tone from this page. Zaurus (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have improved the page according to your suggestions and removed the neutrality tag from it. Tell me if you see any other big problems and thanks for the list, as it has been useful for me in improving the page. Cheers! The Account 2 (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The Winnie the Pooh section

The "Winnie the Pooh caricature and censorship" section seems completely WP:UNDUE to me. This in particular is not a significant part of Xi's administration, any more than SNL criticisms of Trump, individual memes criticizing Rama IX, or gay-clown-memes and shirtless-horse-riding Putin memes are to their respective careers. It is barely a news story in most parts of the world, including China (and, yes, political discourse does exist in China), so unless this article is about Western perceptions of Xi Jinping rather than the man himself, I see no point to this being on here. The large amount of articles about the subject doesn't necessarily suggest anything in itself either, as the media trend seems to be more based off of curiosity and ridicule (c.f. John Oliver's coverage) than immediate political relevance, and appears to be a product of circular reporting, rather than this actually being a major, enduringly topical, and historically significant aspect of Chinese government policy. The subject is directly relevant to the topic of censorship and perceptions of Xi Jinping domestically and globally, so it could probably be incorporated into another paragraph as one sentence, but it does not merit its own section. This is an encyclopedia. We must ask ourselves if we are including this for genuine encyclopedic purposes, or if we're using Wikipedia as another platform for political ridicule. I have attempted to remove the section myself as part of a larger revisal of the article (I have another thread a couple sections up on this talk page, where this issue is also discussed), but my edits have been consistently undone without engagement on the talk page. If you have objections, please voice them here. Normsupon (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• The caricature itself is personal and biographical at the same time. Who can argue at the validity and pertinence of the comparisons? Yet here we have an assertion that the issue is "not a significant part of Xi's administration" notwithstanding the well documented cult of personality that exists for XJP that is second only to that of Chairman Mao. Why is it being suggested that "media trend seems to be more based off of curiosity and ridicule"^{{{citation needed}}}? To ordinary people, to be compared to Disney's Pooh would be positive because Pooh Bear is endearing. But not XJP. People with a sense of humour will simply see the funny side without taking offense; XJP considers it lacking in respect for a the paramount leader. I'm pretty certain the assertion about the existence of political discourse as applied to this subject in China is not true: Any political discourse gets snuffed out when the leaders disapprove, and nothing touches a more sensitive nerve than this topic, because it potentially messes with the personality cult the Regime is attempting to create. Netizens started to discuss it initially because there is free political discourse, but the topic is routinely and automatically snuffed out, as is documented by reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon. Articles repeatedly mention the algorithmic blocking of particular comment (or creative variants or homophone) because the censorship is a perennial fact. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

None of that speaks to its encyclopedic value. The point I'm making is that this is but a part of a larger topic of Xi's public perception and internet censorship, which in itself should have at most three or four paragraphs dedicated to it. The size of Xi Jinping's cult of personality has nothing to do with the importance of the Winnie the Pooh memes to this article. Whether you disagree with the censorship or not has nothing to do with the importance of the Winnie the Pooh memes to this article. Whether "netizens" are discussing it has nothing to do with the importance of Winnie the Pooh memes to this article. Whether comparing Xi Jinping to a cartoon character "touches a... sensitive nerve" among government censors (because no sources show or even claim that Xi is doing this personally?) has nothing to do with the importance of Winnie the Pooh memes to this article. Whether it's technically lèse-majesté has nothing to do with the importance of Winnie the Pooh memes to this article—I brought up the example of Rama IX specifically because lèse-majesté is specifically codified as a crime in Thailand, yet nothing on his Wikipedia article mentions specific memes made about him. If you want to synthesize the two points about Xi's cult of personality and the government's use of censorship to enforce it, sure, go ahead. But this specific paragraph does nothing except skewer Xi through a platform where there is no place for that kind of politicization.

As the article stands, Winnie the Pooh memes are given more weight than the Belt and Road Initiative or any of his domestic economic policies. An encyclopedia is not unbiased if it just cites facts. Undue weight on certain topics can create misleading, if not false narratives. As far as I am aware, the Wikipedia policy is not that we have a moral imperative to paint Xi Jinping as a cartoon dictator. Should we hop down to the Donald Trump article and add an entire section about how orange his face is? Normsupon (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The only reason anyone would add an entire section about how orange Donald Trump's face is would be pure slander. Although some might enjoy an extended section about Winnie the Pooh memes on Xi's page for similar reasons, it discounts the valid reasons for it. Your titling this thread The Winnie the Pooh section seems biased to me, As you have mischaracterized the section titled Winnie the Pooh caricature and censorship. Sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I thought we had mostly reached consensus in the discussion around moving content to Internet censorship in China above. Zaurus (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

One could feasibly justify adding a section about Trump's skin color, because it directly relates to his public perception, his use of social media, his relationship with the press and unfavorable depictions of himself in media (i.e. SNL), his relationship with the office of the presidency and whatever dignity it is expected to embody, his personality cult and the lead up to the Jan. 6 attacks, etc., etc., etc., which are all important topics in themselves. Just because his discourse around his cosmetic choices factors into each of them somewhat doesn't make his skin color notable in relation to his general Wikipedia article altogether. You can say the same thing about many other figures: depictions of Hillary Clinton as a lizard or Bill Clinton's puppet-master, accusations of Obama being a secret Muslim and caricatures of him depicting him in a turban, Gerald Ford falling down a lot, etc., but all of their articles are simply about their political careers, views and initiatives, and small personal details. Even Putin's article doesn't touch on instances or alleged instances of him censoring unflattering depictions of himself—if someone were to add an entire gay clown meme section on his article, I doubt any others editors would allow that to stay, simply because it is self-evidently and egregiously inappropriate for a page like that. Again, I don't think any of these arguments offer any reasons based on Wikipedia policies on notability and neutrality for this section to stay, however one might characterize it. If we were to go off the guidelines offered by other editors in this thread, we could include all sorts of outrageous nonsense on any politician we don't like's page, and even skirt around WP:BLP violations with dog-whistles and technically valid, undue statements. We need a stricter level of scrutiny for something like this, than that we should include an entire section on "Winnie the Pooh caricature and censorship" just because we don't like the man. It says a lot that so much weight is put on this compared to other sections—it makes one think whether this article genuinely reflects the reality of Xi's administration, with all the political and economic complexities involved in running a country, or whether it only reflects Xi as he is presented in our media: from reading this page, one gets the idea that Xi isn't actually a real leader of a real country with citizens and families and an economy and genuine conflicts, but is instead some cartoon autocrat running a country that only exists abstractly, on paper, as a spectacle and source of entertainment for us in the West.

On the previous consensus reached, I created this thread because some editors have been repeatedly adding the section back, so I thought this topic could warrant some more discussion. Normsupon (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't have significant coverage of how orange Donald Trump's face is but if we did of course we could have a section on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you google "Trump orange face" you get 175,000,000, with sources including The Independent, SCMP, Vox, NY Magazine, Business Insider, The Conversation, The Guardian, LA Magazine, Metro, The Daily Beast, MSNBC, CNN, and Washington Post. There is significant coverage, but that doesn't mean that it's relevant. Not everything about a person belongs on their Wikipedia page, and even if it did, we should ask ourselves why we include this type of content on some articles and not others. Normsupon (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Are those passing mentions or significant coverage? You don't seem to know the difference. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

These are articles specifically about Trump's skin color. I doubt article from New York Mag or one from the Independent (global coverage!!!) could be considered passing mentions. Orange becomes a byword for the man himself in Washington Post article, and German ecstasy manufacturer actually modeled a pill off his face and made it Orange, again reported in Wapo. This is a matter of political significance also—as the Independent reports, has asked his lawyers whether he could make the DOJ or FCC punish SNL for his (orange) depiction. He has gotten into disputes with talkshow hosts over people calling him orange. I'd say this is even more significant than the Winnie the Pooh stuff: we could tie in other individual orange depictions of Trump, each of which have their own Wikipedia pages, like Donald Trump baby balloon, Our Cartoon President, Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump, The President Show, etc. Even Chinese media is reporting on this issue! Wikipedia itself seems to agree with me that this is a significant matter; there's an entire section on his in popular culture article about how orange he is, and the "orange man bad" meme, which itself has six citations, none of which I have even mentioned so far. None of this indicates in any way whatsoever that we should allow for there to be an entire section on the Trump Wikipedia page about his skin color in media. Please, go google and see it for yourself before personally attacking me. Normsupon (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that theres a Xi Jinping page other than the main one you think this is better covered on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It is literally already covered on Internet censorship in China, as was discussed in the thread above, which is why I felt comfortable deleting the section on this page in the first place. If you want to create your own page on the subject, you can go ahead. Normsupon (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No matter what else happens theres going to be a section for it on this page, the only question is how long it should be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You still have not given any justification for why there should be a section at all. Normsupon (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Because WP:NPOV exists and a page about Xi Jinping which doesn't touch on Winnie the Pooh is not neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV page itself contradicts your entire argument, see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. If everything ever written about a politician has to be included on their page for neutrality's sake, that's not a policy at all, and if there's no real policy at work, you can include anything you want, like this section, whose inclusion is a blatant NPOV violation. In what way would not including an entire section on an internet meme about the president of China, which is clearly only there for polemical purposes, a breach of NPOV? Normsupon (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not the meme thats notable, its Xi's response. We cover both the great accomplishments and talents of people as well as their weaknesses and failures. If you're trying to argue that a subject's weaknesses and failures should be ignored in favor of their accomplishments and talents you are the one arguing for a false balance. Also note that when theres this much coverage in WP:RS WP:DUE doesn't let us not cover it, we're explicitly required to. Per DUE we have to " fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." so unless you're saying that this info has not been published in dozens of WP:RS theres no DUE argument to exlude. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Millions of images, stories, movies, images, and news articles have been censored in China, but no-one would say that they are Xi's response. It is part of the global censorship carried out in the Chinese government, hence why it belongs in a topic article rather than a significant figure article. The issue is that you are mistaking censorship of winnie the pooh with something that Xi should be held accountable for and should be considered a 'weakness or failure', when there is no factual relevance to Xi Jinping's character at all. No matter how many reliable sources you give, they all fail to link Winnie the Pooh censorship to Xi Jinping in any meaningful way. You are assuming Xi Jinping was directly involved in the conspiracy, much like Bush did 9/11, when there is a high likelihood it is just a part of the systemic censorship already occurring in China to maintain the face of the CCP and other political figures.

This also applies to the image. There is no direct relevance to the character of Xi Jinping at all in terms of weakness and failure. If there was an image of Xi Jinping with his hand in the cookie jar then that might justify its use; however, it is literally a picture of the 'topic' itself and not the 'person'. Again, there is a huge issue with using this image since it carries the risk of defamation and pointlessness. Overall, the cons outbalance the pros, and should be removed. DCD331 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What risk of defamation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

China did censor this, the US did not do 9/11. How is that equivalent? Also the WP:RS do frame it as a weakness. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Currently there is about the same amount of words dedicated to economic policy as there is a meme about how he looks like Winnie the Pooh in the section on his leadership. Dedicating almost half the discussion about censorship on this article to a meme about how he looks like Winnie the Pooh is absurd, IMO. This is such a ridiculously small aspect of his career as leader of China. Endwise (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The solution would appear to be creating either a daughter page or a stand alone article for the meme and the draconian response to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for people to create pointless articles that have no relevance. This topic is already covered extensively in Internet censorship in China, and it is even given its own subsection as an example of internet censorship in China. This is a biographical profile article, not a topic article, so its relevance here is very questionable. DCD331 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ir clearly passes WP:GNG, that means its relevant and could have a stand alone page. On Wikipedia biographical articles are topic articles where the topic is a person, its a distinction without a difference as all biographical profile article are also topic articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Surely you would not object to someone adding paragraph-long sections on Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump, the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, and List of nicknames used by Donald Trump to the Donald Trump article, if it is merely a topic page? Say we added a paragraph on the Obama tan suit controversy to Obama's article, because clearly it passes GNG and is therefore a significant part of his administration? None of your arguments hold for any other page on this website. Normsupon (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You understand that every single one of those was a paragraph-long section or longer on Donald Trump until a stand alone page was made, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's funny, because that is blatantly untrue. Look at the article versions from right before those articles were created. And even if it was true, that has diddly-squat to do with the argument. Other editors created an undue section in another article, which was split off, and the content was then pretty much entirely removed from the main article? You understand that of those three articles, two of them aren't even mentioned on Trump's page, and one of them only has a sentence within a broader paragraph? Normsupon (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you can go to Talk:Donald Trump and raise that legitimate due weight concern, I will support you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there are more relevant aspects of censorship and better examples than the one that is taking up half this section and includes a picture as well. There is need to better understand article structure and balancing how content is developed. DCD331 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears that consensus has largely been reached, save for one hold-out who I can only assume is stonewalling the consensus process with silly arguments and moon logic. No arguments in favor of keeping the section have even been passably based in Wikipedia policy. I will be going ahead with deleting the section. If there are any objections, I will be reaching for a higher authority next time. Normsupon (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Still objecting... Please appear to those higher authorities now. I suggest WP:NPOVN, also note that you've made a false claim of consensus. Three editors oppose and two editors support its inclusion with serious policy concerns being raised, there is no consensus here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Having a whole section about the Winnie the Pooh meme does seem pretty UNDUE. Longer works regarding Xi tend to either not mention this or just give it a passing mention. Of the main book length works cited in the article only Economy's The Third Revolution mentions it once as a passing reference. I keyword searched another 10 book length works on Xi and only got hits from passing mentions in Chan's Xi Jinping (OUP, 2022) and Garside's China Coup (University of California, 2021). Given this, I think at most a passing mention of it in the censorship section would be appropriate with better coverage of the meme in other articles. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Consensus, what consensus? Please take it to a "higher authority". Just because the CPC try and censor and whitewash the Tiananmen Square massacre doesn't mean that it isn't notable. The WTP meme is now a well-established part of his public persona, to the extent that many who see am image of XJP can only try and unsee the likeness of the bear. It may not be as scholarly as, say, his attempts to sideline or eliminate all his political enemies, but in the popular perception the WTP persona still looms very large. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 09:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong "favourite philosopher"

This article states that Xi Jinping's "favourite philosopher and political thinker is Han Fei" and put as a source a hit piece who talks about the authoritarianism of "China’s dictator, Xi Jinping", and says that pro-authoritarian Han Fei must be his favourite philosopher. That is not an academic source, and the article never gives any evidence (when or where Xi has stated that his favourite is Han Fei). Hong Kong free press is an openly anti Xi press (that's totally legit, I happen to agree in general with that spirit) but not a serious source.

It is very different to assert that Xi is implicitly following Han Fei's authoritarism (a fair statement, but asserted by an analyst) that to say that he is his favourite philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.16.16.13 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

In the section "Political positions" -> "Taiwan", the opening sentence states "In 2005, Xi met with Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou...". The date is incorrect. It should be 2015. Change 2005 to 2015. Yaosquare (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 23:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Remove comma from the last sentence of the first paragraph. "Xi has been the paramount leader of China, since 2012."

Reason: incorrect grammar. 71.112.204.181 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xi_Jinping&type=revision&diff=1117499789&oldid=1117309686 Cannolis (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

recent rumors of xi jinping's house arrest and a coup in china are spreading around on social media as of late, super obvious vector for misinformation as a tense situation continues to develop in the international community Wintermintleaf (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/women-and-girls/chinas-influence-means-authoritarianism-spreading-asia-human/

An article that references these rumours (and says that they are likely misinformation).

PlasticStylus (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a good source saying so. Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"rumors were rife that Xi was disposed in a military coup" Even supposing the rumours are true, the correct word is 'deposed', not 'disposed'. Combirom2 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Xi Jinping is in house arrest after a coup. 2620:0:2820:2001:851:E56F:894A:BF76 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We do not update the encyclopedia based on rumors, which are all that appear in any of these articles. We will wait for confirmation. General Ization ^Talk 01:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree.

The telegraph's article on the rumours explicitly dispel any notion that there ever was a coup.[3]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/24/rumours-china-coup-swirl-congress-set-give-xi-unprecedented/

See:

• “There’s no evidence of a coup in China and no reason to even slightly think there has been one,” said Nathan Ruser, a China-focused researcher at the think-tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “Xi's decade of intense political consolidation behind him can't be overturned by a missed meeting or a few cancelled flights.”

Lluq (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

To people saying he's "deposed in a coup"

Please PLEASE provide a reliable source. So far the people I've seen claiming this are Falun Gong people, sensationalist Indian media and random Twitter armchair experts. If there was an actual coup, it would be ALL OVER BBC, CNN, New York Times etc etc. Also it's illogical: Xi has consolidated IMMENSE amount of power, the only "party elder" that could plausibly have enough influence to do anything is Jiang Zemin who can barely physically stand up without assistance and the People's Liberation Army is under STRICT control of the CCP. Don't let your dislike of Xi put you in a fantasy world. The Account 2 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For that matter there would be tons of footage from bus stations and airport terminals for media to use. And I speak as the editor who put up 2022 Coup in China just in case there had a been a truly efficient new blackout. kencf0618 (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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:

• 中国街头出售的面孔可以变换的毛泽东和习近平像.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories

@Wallnot The reason I removed those two categories were because they were highly controversial. One is about violence against Muslims, which doesn't list people involved in anti-Islam campaigns in general, instead listing specific instances of anti-Islam violence. The second, Genocide Perpetrator, is very controversial due to the nature of the Uyghur genocide (note, I'm not in any way denying the horrors happening there) and Wikipedia agreed not to list it in the Genocide Denial page, also deleting the Deniers of Uyghur Genocide category. However, I now agree that we should keep the category of persecution of Christians, as Xi and his administration has been involved in large scale abuses in this area. My intention was not to push a POV here, and I apologize if I look like I did that, and I don't like defending things Xi does, but we have to maintain consistency. The Account 2 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Treatment of Hu Jintao at the CCP Congress 2022

In the long version one can see how Hu Jintao was removed from his seat in front of the cameras. Was he treated so undignifiedly despite or because of being the former party chairman? Anyway, that's the current state of affairs of China's government. Myosci (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Myosci, is your comment one requesting a change to the text in the article or something else? I wanted to check as it was unclear based on what you wrote. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

People's leader

Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Guofeng Should not Xi's header include the People's leader title at the top? Seems to be the highest most prestigious title china offers a head of state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing the portrait

I've noticed that for many world leaders, either an official portrait is uploaded (such as that of Joe Biden and even Theresa May, even though she has not been UK Prime Minister for several years) or another image is used, such as that of Emmanuel Macron. In fact, Macron does have an official portrait containing both the French and EU flags. I do not know if Xi Jinping has an official state portrait like Biden, May, and Macron. However, assuming that he does not, I would highly recommend that the current Wikipedia portrait of Xi Jinping be changed.

In my opinion, the facial expression is not only bizarre (at least Macron's unofficial photo used has him smiling), but the fact that it features the Japanese flag is truly unbelievable. I assume that there wasn't any bad intent behind it, but given the historically strained relations between China and Japan, I feel that this is an unwise choice for a photo. I am making this observation objectively and notwithstanding my own opinions on Xi, which are irrelevant to this conversation. Eliu.usa23 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the points about the strange expression and the Japanese flag. Unless a more recent and high-quality picture can be found, I think we should continue to use File:Xi Jinping 2019.jpg. — Goszei (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Update: File:Xi Jinping 2022 (cropped).jpg is now being used, which seems acceptable. — Goszei (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The new photo has odd coloration and doesn't really seem to be better than the one from 2019. I'm going to restore the 2019 photo. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Ribbon of the Order_of_the_Friendship_of_Peoples_(Belarus)

There is a ribbon for this order, it can be added into Honors instead of NO RIBBON.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:By-order_friendship_of_nations_rib.png

45.94.119.255 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Knight (?) of the Order of Saint Andrew

In the HONORS section "KNIGHT of the Order of Saint Andrew" is specifically listed.

But:

First, most other awards are listed without a rank/grade/title, that is, almost everything is "Order of XYZ", not "Knight of the Order of XYZ").

Second, there are no "KNIGHTS" in Russian Federation awards.

Third, the (Russian Federation) Order of Saint Andrew has no ranks (grades), or, if you wish, has only one rank (grade), and it is not "knight".

So, if there is no any reasoning behind the "knight", I'd suggest rewording the HONORS section to read "Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called" (or "Order of St. Andrew the Apostle") instead of "Knight of the Order of Saint Andrew".

Cheers! 45.94.119.255 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done It does indeed seem that no source actually specifies that the holders of the award are "knights". Removed the "knight". Cortador (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Max article size

Hello English Wikipedia! I work (mostly) on the Swedish Wikipedia and I have a question regarding max article size. I am expanding the Swedish version of Xi Jinping with help of this Wikipedia-article among other sources. When working with the article I have come over 2MB which is the max size of an article, so that my sources have started to show incorrect. I wonder how this article can exceed that limit without this problem?

Best regards, KonstapelKatt (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sister list appears to be incorrect and inconsistent with Chinese language page

It looks like Qi Anan was removed from the article for an unknown reason.

References to sister Qi Anan:

https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat2/4sub5/entry-4300.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-01/xi-zhongxun-xi-jinpings-father-biography/100173986

Thank you 101.112.97.41 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

Xi Jingping is the Chairman of PRC. PRC has no President. Zipw (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As mentioned in the article about the position, the role is ceremonial. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the editor was referring to the Chinese name of the "presidency", which technically translates to English as "chairman" (主席). However, it must be noted that sources overwhelmingly refer to Xi and the political office as "president" and not as "chairman". The Account 2 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

please Change “Communist” under political party to “Chinese Communist Party” to be more specific 2A02:8084:122:6580:F43E:F6E7:C236:405A (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

Change 'Antony' to 'Anthony' in this sentence: "Between 15 and 16 November 2022, Xi attended the G20 Summit in Bali, meeting numerous world leaders including the US president Joe Biden, Australian prime minister Antony Albanese..." 124.169.91.158 (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

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:

• Xi Jinping 2023.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

... his father's purge....

Did his father purge him or was his father purged? Rezoon (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Should this article be extended-confirmed-protected?

I don't understand why Donald Trump is extended-confirmed-protected and not this one. MasterRichinator (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Net worth of Xi Jinping. Why is this not in the article?

https://www.google.com/search?q=xi+jinping+net+worth

https://finty.com/us/net-worth/xi-jinping - "His family owns a generous number of shares in a Chinese company that is public. The valuation of that company is in the lower billions meaning that Xi Jinping could very well have at least $1 billion dollars in personal funds."

https://caknowledge.com/xi-jinping-net-worth - "His extended family has multi-million investments and properties in China."

https://www.velocityhousing.in/biography/politician/xi-jinping-net-worth-family-wife-president-successor - "It is estimated that Xi Jinping has a net worth of $1.2 billion."

2012 articles:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-29/xi-jinping-millionaire-relations-reveal-fortunes-of-elite
• https://www.chinafile.com/links/Xi-Jinping-Millionaire-Relations-Reveal-Fortunes-Elite -

"As Xi climbed the Communist Party ranks, his extended family expanded their business interests to include minerals, real estate and mobile-phone equipment, according to public documents compiled by Bloomberg."

https://asiasociety.org/blog/asia/following-money-inside-family-assets-incoming-chinese-president-xi-jinping - "Xi's extended family has to date accumulated over hundreds of millions of dollars, most of which are held by Xi's sister Qi Qiaoqiao, her husband Deng Jiagui and Xi's brother-in-law Wu Long."

https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Xi-Jinping%27s-family-is-into-rare-earths,-real-estate-and-public-contracts-for-a-billion-dollars-25173.html - "they can be identified in thousands of pages of regulatory filings. Those interests include investments in companies with total assets of US$ 376 million; an 18 per cent indirect stake in a rare-earths company with US$ 1.73 billion in assets; and a US$ 20.2 million holding in a publicly traded technology company. ... In the past 20 years, the income gap between rich and poor, urban dwellers and rural residents, has grown exponentially, more than in any other country in Asia." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Add dictator label

Xi Jinping is a dictator, as mentioned by U.S. President Joe Biden. 223.133.184.87 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Dictator or dictatorship is mentioned 3 times already in the article. And Joe Biden calling him a dictator is all over the news. So pointing out this fact in the article and/or the talk page is notable and meets WP:RS. Note to admins and others: Please don't bite the newbies. WP:NEWBIES.

I am not saying that Wikipedia should be calling him a dictator. I am saying that it is a fact that Joe Biden called him a dictator. WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

Theres a typo, it should be "held" instead of "help". Original: "Following several terrorist attacks in Xinjiang in 2013 and 2014, the CCP leaders help a secret meeting to find a solution to the attack" Yvmarath (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 08:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think he's in any way a communist

He is as communist as George Soros. He is in charge of a largely neoliberal state where the status quo is upheld and promises of bootstrap theory are very much baked into the culture. He pays lip service to communist talking points while doing things Marx would frown upon Alena 33 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

That would be helpful. Is Shee Jin Ping correct for English? Is it Jin or Zhin? 99.228.43.228 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Pronounced "SHEE jin PING" with the J of "Jin" pronounced like "Jack". We can add an audio file to the first sentence, there are a few options:

2. (low audio quality, pretty loud at least for me)
3. (American accent, but good audio quality and very clear enunciation, that's my favorite).

DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

Xi Jinping is Xi Zhongxun's second son, but not the first of Xi Zhongxun and Qi Xin. Xi Zhongxun has a first son with his first wife. Xi Jinping is Xi Zhongxun's first son with his second wife, Qi Xin.

Therefore, please change this line "Xi Jinping was born in Beijing on 15 June 1953,[2] the second son of Xi Zhongxun and his wife Qi Xin." to the following:

"Xi Jinping was born in Beijing on 15 June 1953,[2] the second son of Xi Zhongxun and the first male offspring the elder Xi had with his second wife, Qi Xin." Spiegel2071 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spiegel2071:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The book that is cited in the footnote is one of these sources. Besides, how did the original error get accepted when there is no reliable source cited for it? Spiegel2071 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

Change Hu Jintao to Hu Jintao ElectraLumen (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear which instance of the name you are referring to, but it seems like it has already been linked multiple times. In general, links should appear only once in the article, unless repeating it helps navigation. Liu1126 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Word choice

Perhaps "Ascension to top posts" would be better than "Accession to top posts." 76.30.240.113 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)