Talk:Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party

China: Politics High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese politics (assessed as High-importance).

Order of names

The members are listed in "stroke order of surnames", the Chinese equivalent of alphabetical order. This has no relevance to an English-speaking reader. The source lists them in order of ranking and separates standing committee members from lower ranking members. Kauffner (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The order is indeed terrible. I was looking for Wang Yang and thought he has the same name as the other Wangs, but he obviously has 3 strokes more. Please reorder, since noone here knows the chinese characters this well.

--87.79.231.15 (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Emblem of People’s Militia.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Standing Committee members be indicated on individual Politburo articles?

A user has recently undertaken the task of reformatting the individual Politburo articles from list to table style, and splitting off the Standing Committee information into child articles. (Example before → after + child article).

The new individual Politburo articles no longer mention which members are on the Standing Committee, which another editor disagrees with. (Background: 1, 2, 3. Currently affected articles: 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.)

Now that we have child articles for individual Standing Committees (16, 17, 18, 19, 20), should the Standing Committee members be indicated on the individual Politburo articles, or is a clickthrough good enough? If they should be indicated, how should that be done? Folly Mox (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:16th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party, Talk:17th Politburo etc., Talk:18th Politburo, Talk:19th, Talk:20th.
Notified: User:TheUzbek, User:71.105.190.227.
Notified: WikiProject China. Folly Mox (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@71.105.190.227 and Folly Mox: Thanks for getting involved Folly Mox! :) There are several reasons for not supporting this, the most obvious two are that we have separate articles and the second is WP:BOLDFACE. As far as I can gather 71.105.190.227 is not against having separate articles for the standing committee, and therefore having two lists with the same info seems strange to me. While it is true that one has to concurrently serve as a member of the Politburo to be eligible for Standing Committee membership that doesn't mean that these institutions are identical or one and the same. The relationship between the Standing Committee and the Politburo is the same as that between the Central Committee and the Politburo, that is, you have the be a member of the former to be a member of the first.

It is true that earlier the politburo and the standing committee shared the same article, but I was WP:BOLD. As far as I have gathered no one is opposed to these edits. Membership + meeting list is enough to have one separate list as well. I also note that the 8th Politburo of the Workers' Party of Korea does not list in its list the 8th Presidium of the Workers' Party of Korea either. So it does not seem to be the norm. I also note that the Central Committee of the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) does not have members of the politburo, orgburo or secretariat in bold either (and that list is a WP:FL)

I would rather propose that 71.105.190.227 adds information in the lead on who serves concurrently in the Standing Committee if he feels it is natural... But alas, it is the CC and not the Politburo that elects the members of the Standing Committee, but it could be notable.

I am, however, interested in a compromise that makes everyone happy. It should be possible! --TheUzbek (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Politburo articles previously distinguished between PSC members and the rest much as the various print reference books I referred to elsewhere have always done...and it seems to me that mere bolding is a less obtrusive way of making the distinction than actually repeating the names in the lead paragraph.

But if you're looking for another way,note the "Inner-composition" columns in 19th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party as an example of how it could be indicated if each Politburo member is a holdover member, new member, or non-member of the PSC.71.105.190.227 (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, and yes, I concur that some do. But the Chinese don't, for instance - see [1]

I don't think adding another column would be wise since it would be empty most of the time. It feels redundant.

And you've still failed to explain why it must be shown in an article about a different institution. The Political Bureau and the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau are not the same. TheUzbek (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party article has four columns that are usually vacant (and thereby making the important point that it is a special status for it to not be vacant) relating to the member's also being in PSC/POL/SEC/CMC...I'm asking for one...unless you're OK with something else visible by default (such as the bolding you insisted on deleting).

The information is important and useful and it was always there until you deleted it.

71.105.190.227 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. As the neutral party who opened the discussion, I'd like to avoid offering any opinion. Given there's no engagement so far though, I'd like to try to make a suggestion for a compromise solution, until and unless more editors show up with ideas.

User:TheUzbek, you've stated opposition to boldface and a separate column, but that addition may be acceptable somehow (you suggest prose in the lead). Would some sort of legend in the table be an ok compromise for you? Like a symbol next to the officeholder's name (★??)? or an entry in the "No. of offices" column like "(member Standing Committee)"? Folly Mox (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entry in "No. of offices" column is a reasonable solution, and the one I like most of those you outlined! TheUzbek (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is it is not automatically displayed,and the person coming to the article remains unaware of which Politburo members are PSC members unless they deliberately look for it in a place it is not clear they can find it...it should be readily discernable at a glance which Politburo members are more important than the others.

The reader and article are entirely advantaged and in no way disadvantaged by the structure of the Politburo and its inner circle being there for all to see.

71.105.190.227 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WikiProject Politics. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold 71.90.229.134 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record,I am a different person from that "71"...is this a recommendation of my boldfacing or of "being bold"?

71.105.190.227 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]