Talk:Wen Jiabao

Untitled

• Birth date? Colipon 03:39, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
• An other pic: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/2005/43666.htm --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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。

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)

CNN Interview, misleading

When asked by CNN whether or not China will liberalize for free elections in the next 25 years, Wen stated that it would be "hard to predict"

Source for this? This implies that Wen admitted the election system in China was not free, which is hard to believe.

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)

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)

Amping up rhetoric on democracy

[2] For future reference, or anyone interested. (Article in Chinese). Colipon+(Talk) 03:26, 28 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 semi-protected or unprotected pages. Killiondude (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)