Jump to content

Talk:Wen Jiabao/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sections

This article should be divided into sections. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 17:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know the exact birthdate of Premier Wen?

I will delete the literal meaning warm family jewels because it does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.204.95 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. In any case, the exact translation is more like "warm family treasure". Bmdavll talk 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Early life

Surprisingly little about his early life, and Cultural Revolution experience at Beijing Geological Institute. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Rise to power?

Doesn't that kind of have a negative connotation to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.42.141 (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.6.36 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous poem by Wen

To be translated: 温家宝总理的诗作《仰望星空》：

　　

我仰望星空，

　　它是那样寥廓而深邃；

　　那无穷的真理，

　　让我苦苦地求索、追随。

　　我仰望星空，

　　它是那样庄严而圣洁；

　　那凛然的正义，

　　让我充满热爱、感到敬畏。 Arilang talk 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

　　我仰望星空，

　　它是那样自由而宁静；

　　那博大的胸怀，

　　让我的心灵栖息、依偎。

　　我仰望星空，

　　它是那样壮丽而光辉；

　　那永恒的炽热，

　　让我心中燃起希望的烈焰、响起春雷。

Name in Shoe Throwing Incident Section

In this section it says: "The young man then threw his shoe at Jiabao, missing the premier by a few feet." Shouldn't this refer to him as "Wen," being that it is his family name? I believe it is considered fairly rude to call a person by their given name in China unless you know them very well. 71.237.203.127 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think its appropriate to use the full name in a encyclopaedia. Yifanwang99 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Shoe throwing incident, and Wikilameness

Is it really necessary to go into so much detail and analysis of the shoe throwing incident? Is it even that notable? Unlike the incident with George W. Bush, the good-for-nothing hopeless guy missed by at least 30 metres (learn to throw... G. Bush actually had to duck for cover), and unlike the Bush incident, there was no cultural implications. In Chinese culture, no one gives a damn about how rude shoes are percieved. For the Bush incident, the shoe was thrown as it was a sign of disrespect according to Islamic culture; the shoe thrown here was from an entirely unoriginal copycat Caucasian. I just do not understand what all the rage is about. </rant> -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with toning down that section. It was also a victim of WP:RECENT. Colipon+(Talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Wen Jiabao really "Chief Assistant" to Zhao Ziyang?

The page described Wen Jiabao as "chief assistant to General Secretary Zhao Ziyang" and also described Zhao Ziyang as "his boss". I've deleted these descriptions. While I'm aware that there are numerous Western media reports which describe Wen as an "aide" or "assistant" to Zhao Ziyang, these descriptions seem to be imprecise at best. The appointment which Wen held at that time was Director of the General Office of the CPC Central Committee [1]. Wen may have been sympathetic to Zhao or even a follower of Zhao but to describe Wen as "chief assistant" to Zhao is incorrect.

In the Introduction to the Tiananmen Papers, Andrew Nathan has the following description "Wen Jiabao, a follower of Zhao Ziyang, who was director of the Central Party Office and was in charge of handling paperwork for the Politburo and the Central Committee" . The Tiananmen Papers (Chapter 7, Footnote 11) also lists 5 secretaries (Bao Tong, Bai Meiqing, Zhang Yueqi, Li Shuqiao, Li Yong) whom Zhao had at the time of the Tiananmen incident, none of whom are Wen Jiabao.

The Chinese wikipedia page for Wen also (correctly I believe) states that "Wen Jiabao, in his capacity as Director of the Central Party Office, accompanied Zhao Ziyang to Tiananmen Square ... "

Funkydoodle (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good fix. Western media sometimes simplify these positions to make them more easily understandable to their readership. Colipon+(Talk) 00:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this article written by heavily biased employees of the Chinese government?

This article shows strong signs of biased editing by the Chinese government. It has no criticism section, which is extremely odd for a controversial leader, and the article goes as far as to describe Wen as "populist"--a ridiculous term to apply to a leader who was not democratically elected. Focussing primarily on lauding his leadership skills, it says very little about his political positions.

Most disturbingly, this article is chock full of signs that it was written by non-native speakers. Smothered in passive voice, hanging clauses, and odd phrasing, virtually every sentence reads like a textbook example of poor usage or bad writing. It would take too long to list all of the problems with the writing, so let me just analyze a sentence picked at random from the beginning of the article: "A postgraduate and engineer, Wen graduated in the major of geological structure at Beijing Institute of Geology." To begin with, the word "postgraduate" is awkward and rarely used in English and laughably redundant in this particular context. The phrase "graduated in the major of," while technically grammatical, is not really English; it should be "majored in." The English phrase for the discipline is "structural geology," not "geological structure." And it should be "at the Beijing Institute of Geology," not "at Beijing Institute of Geology."

The exceptionally poor English makes this article hopelessly difficult to read, and the obvious positive bias makes the context extremely suspect at best.Rppeabody (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these concerns. I have attempted to fix the grammatical errors in the past, but they just keep coming as new events occur. You raise a good point about Wen's critics and the lack of coverage in this article. Even in China, a lot of people accuse him of being fake and too camera-friendly. These views deserve more coverage indeed. If you would like, please be bold and help wherever possible. Just complaining doesn't get us anywhere. Colipon+(Talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Colipon, for your tireless efforts to improve this article. You've definitely made it a lot better. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on modern China by any means, so I would feel uncomfortable making the substantial revisions that the article needs (and you've been making); I don't have unlimited time, and I focus my efforts on topics I do know something about. I've added a POV tag to encourage other qualified editors to come help out, though.Rppeabody (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Criticism sections, while common on some articles, are almost never seen in featured biographies. The correct way to handle criticism is to integrate it into the main text. For example, Colipon says that people accuse Wen of being too camera-friendly. You would put that in the section about his image, not in a dedicated criticism section. Also, it is not ridiculous to describe Wen as "populist" even if he wasn't elected. Populism is a political philosophy that is anti-elitist; many (unelected) elites through history had populist leanings, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk for example. And perhaps there is not much on his political positions because they are not as accessible as democratic politicians', who must have a clearly defined platform to campaign on.
That the article contains many nonstandard grammatical structures is not a priori proof that it was written by Chinese government officials. At most, it probably indicates that the article was edited by people with some language transfer from Chinese. We should copyedit this sourced work, not throw it out as propaganda. As you have indicated no specific, targeted sections to be fixed (other than the "random sentence" which has since been corrected) and your proposed remedies, I am removing the tag—to do otherwise would allow the article to be taken hostage to your personal caprice. Splittist (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to working criticism into the text of the article, but I do think it should be there. I agree that censorship and the lack of free elections make it somewhat difficult to find internal criticism, but criticism from the West and Japan should not be too hard to find.Rppeabody (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reinstated the tag. Please do not remove it again. Removing POV tags because you approve of the current version is generally considered poor form. The reason I did not generate a list of specific sections is because pretty much the whole article is dripping in pro-Wen bias, and I don't have the time or space to list all of the issues. I did justify my concerns when I started this section. The laudatory tone of this article is undeniable, and Colipon agreed with my concerns. I agree that the poor English is not absolute proof that the editors were members of the Chinese government, but it certainly is pretty good supporting evidence. More importantly, poor English makes the article pretty hard to read, so I'm adding a cleanup tag as well. And let's stay civil; please don't accuse me of caprice.Rppeabody (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't remove POV tags because I approved of the current version (don't assume that I do). I removed it because what you did (it's called drive-by tagging) is considered poor form. When you tag an article, you need to present specific, actionable issues that can be resolved for the tag to stay. Otherwise, as I said, the tag is just a big ugly stamp of personal disapproval from you. As a sidenote, the English in the article is not bad, certainly not to the point of being unreadable. It does not qualify for a cleanup tag, which is for stylistic issues like formatting.
Reading the article, I found areas where the bias could be discussed. For example, the relative popularity of Wen's Facebook profile probably does not merit a paragraph. If I felt this change so controversial that I would not do it myself, I would mark the section with {{POV-section}} or even a sentence with {{POV-statement}} and talk about it. Your refusal to do this for matters of "time or space" is frustrating to editors who want to remedy the situation, but have no special access to your brain, because not everybody's idea of "pro-Wen bias" is the same. If you have critically read the whole article enough to say that "the whole article is dripping in bias" as you did, and have enough time to defend your tags and argue for them as you did, you should also be able to quickly and easily outline specific, actionable issues. Simply tagging, soapboxing, and accusing other editors of incivility (which is itself uncivil) will not cause a genie to come and fix the article to your liking.
Meanwhile, passing readers are discouraged by the tags from reading the article, deceived to believe that there is an active dispute over specific content in the talk page that all parties are actively working to fix. Splittist (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Splittist is right to say that drive-by tags are not helpful in the process of building a better article. Thus I have removed it. This does not imply that this article is free of bias or poor stylistic choices, but it is merely productive to discuss the specific issues rather than leave a tag and expect things to improve.

I think the Facebook paragraph is being given undue weight and should be cut down to a single sentence. The shoeing incident, in retrospect, is also not terribly important in the grand scheme of things. The criticisms of Wen most certainly should be meshed into the section on Wen's public image, drawing on best practices from pages like Hillary Clinton. Colipon+(Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Amping up rhetoric on democracy

[2] For future reference, or anyone interested. (Article in Chinese). Colipon+(Talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Wen

As a close follower of developments in modern Chinese politics, I can find three broad categories of criticism for Wen Jiabao:

  1. His parade of media appearances in disaster areas are insincere and melodramatic; his policy promises are "all talk, no concrete action".
  2. Speculation about his family, particularly his wife and son
  3. His populist policy is negatively affecting China's economic growth

Of these criticisms, the first category is perhaps the most prominent and most easily sourced. Overseas Chinese websites are often flooded with such anti-Wen commentary, and this is probably notable enough to warrant inclusion (and I have included it in the "public image" section). The second category is more difficult to integrate into the article, given strict guidelines of the BLP policy, coupled with a general lack of transparency in the Chinese government. Only very reliable sources can be used for this. The third category is rather esoteric and can be sourced to some policy think tanks and Chinese economists; it will take a bit of digging.

Other criticisms exist as well, of course. I'm sure Falun Gong will find some way to pick a bone with Wen. These criticisms, in my view, do not warrant inclusion. Colipon+(Talk) 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Colipon. Although, as the AP article states, 1 is not universal among Chinese dissidents. Some dissidents see Wen as insincere, while others see Wen as a powerless pro-democratic reformer.--RossMonro (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The victims of one of the most publicized human rights disasters in recent history commenting on those responsible for their plight "not warrant inclusion"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.149.71 (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

According to Chinese official sites, Wen Jiabao was born in 1942, not in 1945. 83.80.18.68 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Killiondude (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Family fortune

The obama page lists obamas net worth why not list this for wen? New York times says $2.7 billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.178.151 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The $2,7 billion is the Wen family's worth according to the NY Times. And after the NYT published the article the NYT was blocked in China. Says something about how they deal with criticism. I think something about this belongs into the article. --Krawunsel (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
According to latest intelligence report in china, the information was given to NYtimes by Bo Xilai's　powerful supporters.

72.53.146.220 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what belongs in this article is what Wen thinks about it? A US diplomatic cable obtained by Wikileaks, dating from 2007, quoted an executive in Shanghai as saying: "Wen is disgusted with his family's activities, but is either unable or unwilling to curtail them." Or some context: A former government colleague of Wen, speaking anonymously, told the New York Times: "In the senior leadership, there's no family that doesn't have these problems … His enemies are intentionally trying to smear him by letting this leak out."[3] Btw, we don't have to make a note every time something is censored in China. It happens quite often. Shrigley (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about making a note everytime something is censored in China. But that's not just "something", that puts Wen in the same category as African or South American dictators. It's worth noting. --Krawunsel (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not a good comparison, because "African or South American dictators" are known for gaining their riches by abuse of state power. Here's what the NYT has to say about its own article: The Times article did not allege any illegal business activity, and it said that Mr. Wen did not appear to have accumulated assets. The article also said that there was no evidence that Mr. Wen personally intervened to help family members’ investments.[4] Shrigley (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The recent controversy over his potential wealth and associated censorship should be included in a specific sub-topic in this article. A link to the NYT article and any other relevant articles regarding the subsequent and rapid censorship is also required. It's current exclusion makes this article seem biased and lacking rigour given the depth that any wiki for a western politician with similar alleged concealed wealth would incorporate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.217.144 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The initial "controversy" here seems to be merely about how Wen cultivated a folksy image, and about how the Times is accusing him of hypocrisy by association with his family. There was nothing "concealed" since the Times admitted that it gained its information from publicly available sources that China made available to investors. There are no allegations of illegal activity or improper use of Wen's influence as a politician. If we're going to decide what goes into this article by comparison to western politicians, then we realize that this populist grandstanding is really routine: Mitt Romney,[5] Paul Ryan,[6] and just about Every Major Speaker At Every RNC Convention gives a tearful rags to riches story, despite the fact that 47% of the US Congress are millionaires and part of "the 1%".[7] The other controversies that this article might document come afterwards, including (1) How did the NYT get the lead; was it from a friend of Bo Xilai? (2) To what extent are the existing, scanty NYT allegations true, especially since Wen's family is considering legal action? and finally (3) The supposedly shocking censorship and denunciation of the story by a very conservative government in Beijing. Shrigley (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow... Hammersbach (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, please refrain from making pointless comments. This applies to your edit summary as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Pointless? No, I was most decidedly making a pointed comment. Perhaps what you are really trying to do is to tell me not to make comments that you don’t like or that you don’t agree with? Hammersbach (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, "The obama page lists obamas net worth why not list this for wen? New York times says $2.7 billion" - That 2.7 billion figure refers to the family of Wen, and is not his personal net worth. We do not know Wen's actual personal net worth. We can't list his net worth as 2.7 billion, because that would be incorrect. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's reported in NYtimes doesn't mean it's true. There are news reports that Obama's not a US citizen. 72.53.146.220 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes but in this case it is true. As Shrigley points out above, the NYTimes obtained “its information from publicly available sources that China made available to investors.” Hammersbach (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My two cents on Wen's wealth

I've been following this story fairly closely over the last few days, and it seems to me that it is no longer just any ordinary New York Times article - the article and its related events have become something of a political 'incident' that requires somewhat more detailed elaboration here on Wiki. For example, a blog on the Council of Foreign Relations says that the incident irreversibly tarnished Wen's reputation, delivered a major "political coup" for reformers, and exposes weaknesses in China's political model, so on and so forth. It all makes for very interesting reading.

Namely, I think we need to include on this page:

  1. The contents of the NYT report, whether they are true or not.
  2. The denial issued by Wen's family, lawyers, etc. Also notable is the defense of Wen issued by many normally considered 'dissidents' - such as Bao Tong.
  3. The analysis on how much it affects Chinese politics, Wen's legacy etc.

Colipon+(Talk) 20:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If properly referenced, this is certainly of value. I don't think there is a need to rehash every commentator's interpretation of the possible effect of the article, however. Much of the comments will be pure speculation. Harro5 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wen called for probe and Sunshine legislation

Can someone add Wen's calls for probe and Sunshine legislation?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1075169/premier-wen-calls-party-probe-claims-familys-hidden-fortune

--LLTimes (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wen Jiabao/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

No refs. --Ideogram 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wen Jiabao. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wen Jiabao. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wen Jiabao. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wen_Jiabao/Archive_1&oldid=1155624393"