Talk:Xi Jinping Thought

Requested move 23 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved with no prejudice to future re-nomination due to potential WP:COMMONNAME changes DrStrauss talk 13:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era → Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era – See CPC rolls out Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as guideline, China’s leader Xi Jinping declares the start of a “new era , Xi Unveils New Chinese Communist Party Programmatic Guidelines, and Party Congress: China striding into a ‘new era’. All of those sources use the term "Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era" without "Xi Jinping". 123.161.171.32 (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's just wait until the discussion on this concludes today or tomorrow - then we will know for sure. Colipon+(Talk) 21:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose See CPC Constitution enshrines Xi's thought as part of action guide.--QBear (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose it seems the full title includes Xi, see here _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment after some further thought (pardon the pun), it may even be an idea to rename to simply "Xi Jinping Thought". This seems to be where Forbes and NYT are heading. The reason why this is notable and - as has been said - puts Xi on par with Mao is actually the fact that he was enshrined with his thoughts by name. Mao is the only other person included with thoughts._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Forbes and New York Times are not authorities on what Chinese ideologies are called. The name that all of the papers in China are calling it as New Era Socialism. There is not a single Chinese language source that calls it Xi Jinping Thought This is extremely significant Roadrunner (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think it will be shortened to Xi Jinping Thought in a few years, but right now the full name is what the Chinese government use. Tuanminh01 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, especially given the tendency for terms to shorten over time. Morganfitzp (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, this contraction has been widely used by the media already in preference to the clunky official title. Xi Jinping Thought is the WP:COMMONNAME in English language sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a very official article from Xinhua, in the 'Authorized Publications' section. Every time it mentions this thought, it uses the full name 习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想, which bears Xi's name. This is a fixed, unbreakable title which connotes obvious meanings to any politically acute eyes, and is in line with the Communist tradition. Sofeshue (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

People's Daily calls it New Era without Xi Jinping. When the Chinese newspapers contract the name they call it New Era Roadrunner (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The name is so clunky and doesn't translate well because Mandarin has no plural indication. Because the singular noun "thought" is also the past tense for "think" in English, the current name is confusing. "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism" sounds like he was thinking about socialism some time in the past, and that these "Chinese Characteristics" were thinking with him in regard to the future. Better translations could include "Xi Jingping's Ideas on New Chinese Socialism," "Xi Jinping Ideology," or "The Xi Jingping School of Thought," but that might be a bit far-reaching until said school has a few more disciples. Morganfitzp (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose; if anything it should probably be shortened to "Xi Jinping Thought" tout court per WP:COMMONNAME. 131.111.184.13 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Agree and Comment: My local newspaper (the Windsor Star)'s National Post section referred to it as "Xi Jinping's Thoughts on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era", so I would assume it would also be referred to as such by other PostMedia papers like the London Free Press. As it stands, it sounds like the article name is about him thinking on something, or someone thinking of him, when that's not the case. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Considering Mao Zedong Thought readers would have a much easier time finding the article by having a shortened, matching name. Right now the article name is fine; the full name can be found easily in the lead of the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Agree to the move. The official name is Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. There is not a *single* source in Chinese that refers to the ideology as Xi Jinping Thought and the official contraction that all of the Chinese papers use is New Era Socialism. The term Xi Jinping Thought is a name that is coined only by Western news reports and not the Chinese government, and makes Xi seem much more powerful that he in fact is. Recommend that the full name be used as a title with a link from Xi Jinping Thought.Roadrunner (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Here Kiril kovachev (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per sources cited above, looks like the WP:COMMONNAME in English is the current title. agtx 05:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Can someone outline what the Thought is about? It's very vague at the moment

202.106.49.22 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

+1 --Yug (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

All of the newspapers in China are calling it "New Era" - It's basically a list of policies that says that the Communist Party should promote the economy and also the environment. It's basically a political slogan that emphasizes science and technology to develop the economy and environment.

Page move

I have been bold and moved the page to Xi Jinping Thought, in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Prevailing custom on Wikipedia is to use the short or common name of a law, policy, theory, etc. rather than full, often voluminous (as is the case here) titles. --Varavour (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The common name in Chinese is New Era. Calling it Xi Jinping Thought is extremely misleading as no one uses that name in Chinese. Roadrunner (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Per above.123.161.169.31 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• We are not a Chinese-centric encyclopaedia. If international (especially English language sources) call this XJP Thought, it should be reflected as so here. If the Chinese language encyclopaedia wants to call it New Era, they can go ahead. New Era is also a disambiguation page anyway, you cannot move to that, so you would have to disambiguate which I am not in favour of. starship.paint ~ KO 01:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Applaud the boldness of this page move and support a simple system of redirects so that everyone easily finds everything they're looking for. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Be bold must be based on other valid WP guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME, for instance). One cannot "boldly" vandalize WP arbitrarily after all. --123.161.169.116 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

An edit and a suggestion

Given recent history, the phrasing "make (country Nnnn) great" is perhaps nearly pejorative. Checking the cite, I see the sentence in the NYTimes article says:

In his report to the congress, Mr. Xi suggested that if Mao made China independent, and Deng made it prosperous, he would make it strong again — propelling the country into its “new era.”

I will change the word 'great' into 'strong'.

Separately, a few places in this article use "Xi Jinping Thought", a few places use "Xi Thought", and a few places use "Xi thought". Note the lowercased 'thought' in the latter.

Should all be changed to the full "Xi Jinping Thought" (which sounds clumsy repeated everytime in a non-ideologically-driven article), or can the others be uniformly just "Xi Thought"?

Shenme (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Did XI Jinping follow Mao Zedong Thought?

If so, then respond it quick.

Xi Jinping was exiled in province under Mao's reign.

124.106.130.148 (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of uncorroborated, online verbiage, "Dengist"

Original: "socialism with Chinese characteristics, a Dengist term"

Suggested edit: "socialism with Chinese characteristics, a term coined by Deng Xiaoping"

Rationale: "Dengism" is a non-existent characterization largely used pejoratively and only in online discourse. It has no material precedent in party literature or within any meaningful source. It should be avoided as it's not a verifiable term.

Alaks Hovel 05:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not proposing to bring it back here but "Dengism" has a wide range of usage in reliable academic sources and is certainly not an invention of online discourse [1]. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

/* History */ Remove unverified quote (not in cited source)

Text (added on 15 July 2020 by userJM199723) contained: The reembracing of Marxism is a key element in the Xi Jinping Thought; in Xi's words, "We commemorate Marx in order to pay tribute to the greatest thinker in the history of mankind, and also to declare our firm belief in the scientific truth of Marxism."

But in the cited source (http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2020/06-30/9225122.shtml) there is no mention of "Marx" the "thinker", only Marxist theory - and no claim of "firm belief in the scientific truth of Marxism" - in the only two mentions:

现在，你们积极宣讲老校长陈望道同志追寻真理的故事，传播马克思主义理论，是一件很有意义的事情。希望你们坚持做下去、做得更好。 (Now, you are actively preaching the story of Comrade Chen Wangdao's pursuit of the truth and spreading Marxist theory, which is a very meaningful thing. I hope you will persevere and continue to do even better.)

希望广大党员特别是青年党员认真学习马克思主义理论，结合学习党史、新中国史、改革开放史、社会主义发展史 (It is hoped that the majority of Party members, especially young Party members, will earnestly study Marxist theory and combine the study of Party history, New China history, reform and opening up, and socialist development history)

Removed this exceptional statement that's given as a quote, in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline: "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Zahzuhzaz (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Xiism

@Tokisaki Kurumi: THe old intro states Xi Jinping Thought "is an ideological doctrine based on the writings, speeches and policies of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping." That is false, and not officially stated neither.

The present ones state that Xi Jinping Thought "is the policy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with General Secretary Xi Jinping as their chief representative, of implementing the tenets of Marxism to China's present-day realities." .. it is not a masterpiece of a sentence, but states that Xi Jinping Though is a product of the CCP and not Xi Jinping personally. Why this difference? Because while Xi Jinping Thought clearly showcases to the Party and the whole world whose in charge by naming it such, it does not state the Thought is a product of Xi's thoughts and works. It is an important distinction that the lead you reverted to fails to differentiate between. Mao Zedong Thought was during the Cultural Revolution deemed to be the result of Mao's personal thinking but that was deemed an error. Since then all major thoughts/theories/or what you call them have been deemed the result of the Party's collective thinking. Even Deng Xiaoping Theory is deemed as a result of the Party's collective thinking, and not Deng's. But Deng, of course, was leader in the period, why they call him "chief representative" during that period. TheUzbek (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: "not officially stated neither". Wow ...... reminds me of 1956.

Anyhow, Can you find sources to support your view that Xi Jinping's ideas were generated collectively by the Party?

"an important distinction that the lead you reverted to fails to differentiate between", really? I am curious about your opinions about that the Chinese Wikipedia holds exactly the same wording. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 17:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I will give a more detailed response based on my comments above later. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: My sources are pretty much every CPC newsoutlet and the CPC's own constitution on the subject. None of them state that Xi Jinping Thought is the result of Xi Jinping's own beliefs, writing or speeches.. But they are of course part of it, but not the only ones. For instance, read the CPC Constitution:

Since the Party's 18th National Congress, Chinese Communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their chief representative, integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and fine traditional culture, have provided sound answers to major questions of our times, such as what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics the new era requires us to uphold and develop and how we should uphold and develop it, thus giving shape to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The Thought is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development. It is the Marxism of contemporary China and of the 21st century, embodying the best of Chinese culture and ethos of this era.

The Constitution clearly states that the "Chinese Communists" have, and not Xi personally. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: This Xinhua piece says it more specifically: "The thought represents the latest achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and encapsulates the practical experience and collective wisdom of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the people." --TheUzbek (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: I read even the Chinese version of ...... In any case, please note the following:

1. Xinhua is not that reliable compared to academic sources (according to Wikipedia:RSP).
2. Even if there is such a definition, it is not always necessary to adopt it, for two examples: Stalinism itself is not the contribution of Stalin alone (it is also arguably a "succession" to Leninism), yet the current Wikipedia entry does not describe it as such; the same goes for Trumpism, even Trump's own definition was once removed.
3. Even if we fully recognize Xinhua's definition, it still doesn't have to be written that way. In terms of ideology, "it's an idea based on John" is certainly more NPOV than adding a bunch of adjectives.

Of course, as usual, it ends with a bit of off-topic at the end: I think their 1921 party platform is better. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: As I wrote above, my sentence "is not a masterpiece". I'm all for alternatives, but that new sentence should not state it is the" "ideological doctrine based on the writings, speeches and policies of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping" (this is, of course, the complete opposite of the official line as well).

I can, for instance, support something like "officially, is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Xi Jinping's leadership attempt at implementing the tenets of Marxism to China's present-day realities." I can also support suggestions made by you, but I strongly feel "ideological doctrine based on the writings, speeches and policies of" Xi is wrong. Several officials and institutions compete to develop Xi Jinping Thought in their favour and some of them are accepted. While Xi and the Central Committee might very well be the ones accepting and disapproving of what gets the official nod or not not everything is the product of Xi's own work. China ain't NK. --TheUzbek (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: Wow, that does make it a bit tricky to say. It's not really appropriate to explain too much on this discussion page, and there's nothing wrong with what you're saying. BUT the issue is that Xinhua doesn't mean what you're trying to say, you say "some of them are accepted", and I agree, but Xinhua's wording doesn't show that, and personally, I don't even think it is better than the original version, which is why I revert, and I'd be happy to talk to you here about how to phrase it better. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just reverted back to the original version again because I noticed that the words you added already have the exact same statement in the later text, saying "has also been called as the 'Marxism of contemporary China and of the 21st century'". ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. You don't have any references that support that earlier version and its factually wrong. It is not the "ideological doctrine based on the writings, speeches and policies" of Xi. I have not seen a single reference that describes it as such. TheUzbek (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: Reverted again. I've told you that your version includes duplicate words (the first sentence v. the second). You should reach a consensus of what to write there, not boldly revert. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition, what you wrote and what you want to reflect are not the same, Xinhua's word is not the same as what you said "compete to develop Xi Jinping Thought in their favour and some of them are accepted". ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You've had the chance to rewrite to something that is factually correct but you refuse and you refuse to reference an inaccurate statement. I have referenced you have not. Revert again and be constructive. The next sentence says something else. TheUzbek (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: Hey, what are you up to? I never refused to rewrite this, but I must point out that your version contains two repetitive sentences, can't that be done too? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, do whatever you have to but describing it as "ideological doctrine based on the writings, speeches and policies of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping" is incorrect.

Secondly, the two sentences do not say the same thing but I'm in favour of you re-writing those sentences, but not when you re-add the old factual incorrect sentence. TheUzbek (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: So... I do find some secondary sources, let's check 'em up:

1. Al Jazeera ([2]): "an ideology mostly pieced together from directives, speeches and writings of the Chinese leader over the years and now encompasses 10 affirmations, 14 commitments and achievements in 13 areas."
2. New York Times ([3]): "a blueprint for consolidating and strengthening power at three levels."
3. BBC ([4]): "has 14 main principles which emphasise Communist ideals and also..."
4. Asia Society ([5]): "the absolute audacity of his political strategy", "now the exclusive embodiment of contemporary Chinese Marxism to be applied across the board".
5. Australian Broadcasting Corporation ([6]): "a set of personal and national ideals for the advancement of Chinese society that was developed by Chinese President Xi Jinping."
6. Foreign Affairs ([7]): "a unified program of, to use Xi's words, 'national rejuvenation.'"

My quotes here may not be appropriate (I've only quoted the closest lines), so it is highly recommended that you read the literature in its entirety. Therefore, I think that instead of writing about applying Marxism, you should write something like this: A theory that mixes the idea of Chinese Marxism and the idea of national revival, developed by him. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I have to say that the one from Al Jazeera can support the original version. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Only one of those sources refer directly to them being Xi's ideas, and that is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation... But no scholars and specialists do, and neither do the Chinese.

Why can't you and I agree on a new sentence that is more correct? TheUzbek (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I changed you're last version to "an ideological doctrine that combines Chinese Marxism and national rejuvenation, which was developed under General Secretary Xi Jinping's leadersip of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)."

But again, this is a strange rewrite since national rejuvenation is a concept of Chinese Marxism. It's like writing "Marxism-Leninism is an ideology that combines Leninism and the vanguard party". TheUzbek (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Because what you are trying to say is not the same as what Xinhua is saying, you seem to be trying to say that this is an idea similar to democratic centralism, but Xinhua doesn't say that.

As for the national rejuvenation ... in fact it didn't, you may need to take a look through the past policies. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never said XJT is similar to democratic centralism. My point is that national rejuvenation is Chinese Marxism, just like the vanguard party is Leninism. You're saying two things twice.

"As for the national rejuvenation ... in fact it didn't, you may need to take a look through the past policies". I don't get what you mean, national rejuvenation was used in communist discourse before Xi and the idea of national rejuvenation was introduced by Mao just like socialism with Chinese characteristics (he, of course, talked about implementing Marxism to Chinese conditions). TheUzbek (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"national rejuvenation was used in communist discourse before Xi and the idea of national rejuvenation was introduced by Mao", can you give me a source supporting this?

"socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a specific term, just like Bolshevism, primitive communism, and it appears after 1978, period. Again, you may need a source supporting your claim. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Read Jiang Zemin's report to the 16th Party Congress: [8] The term is used three times. Earlier, they also talked about national rejuvenation but did not use that specific term. Sun Yat-sen talked about "rejuvenating China", for instance. Another hit under Hu's leadership [9]

I know that, of course, but every term has a pre-history. What does socialism with Chinese characteristics actually mean? It means Marxism adapted to Chinese conditions. Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought are all socialism with Chinese characteristics. These ideologies, specifically, are Marxism adapted to Chinese conditions for a specific time/era/period/leadership. Xi Jinping Thought will be replaced when another leader comes to town.

As for "specific terms". The idea of a vanguard party came before Leninism... Right? THe idea of socialism with Chinese characteristics came before that term. This is neither radical or a new perspective. For the official perspective, read An Ideological History of the Communist Party of China. Three volumes, but you'll understand a lot if. I read those books because I work in the China field... But you seem interested in the topic, so you might as well. TheUzbek (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek: I am aware of this, however they do in fact define terms, which are not used interchangeably in their discourse.

As for the other questions ... I think maybe you could send me an email? It may be a bit off topic to explore here. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Whow, this article is the official line!

That's what I hoped to find on official Chinese state sites. So I found it here. Good.

Now we need another article which discusses "Xi Jin Ping Thought" independently and with a critical mind.

But this existing articke should stay as a monument.

cheers, L.Willms (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)