Talk:Zhao Ziyang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Zhao Ziyang is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 5, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poor Translation[edit]

Am I the only one who find the translation of Zhao's Tian'anmen square speech extremely poor? "We are already old, it doesn't matter to us." -- sounds like HE DID NOT CARE. (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The literal translation of what he said "你们不像我们,我们都已经老了,无所谓." is "You all are not like us, we are already old, doesn't matter." But I think if we were to translate it correctly in context it would be better to say "You are not like us, we are already old so we don't matter. What he's saying in that speech is that the students should not potentially sacrifice their lives, as it would be a shame for the students, who made up a large percentage of the protesters, to waste all the hard work they, their parents, and the country put in to getting them into college. They are young and have a bright future ahead of them. Zhao is implying that elderly government officials like himself have already reached the pinnacle of their potential, so they don't matter. --Lsatxut (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Misleading reference[edit]

The paragraph says: All Chinese newspapers carried exactly the same 59-word obituary on the day following his death, leaving the main means of mass dissemination through the Internet.[1] Internet forums, such as the Strong Nation Forum and the Forum were flooded with messages expressing condolences for Zhao, but these messages were promptly deleted by moderators, leading to more postings attacking the moderators for deleting the postings.

But upon visiting the link you'll notice it has nothing what so ever with doing with Zhao Ziyang, neither does this author give citations for this "flood of messages" or that it was "promptly deleted". Very misleading and POV. I think a rewrite is in order. Just.James (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


The wording of market-oriented was a fair description because it means supply and demand are determined by the market, as supposed to by command. (look up market-oriented economy) --空向 00:52, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? China and the US have two different *production* systems. In the US capitalists determine production, in China, the CCP determines production. The markets are the same, one goes down to the store and exchanges yuan or dollars for the commodity. What is the difference between the markets? How production decisions are made are the only difference. Ruy Lopez 04:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ruy, update your info... what you say about China dates back to the Cold War... olivier 17:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies regarding rehabilitation in article[edit]

"Zhao was rehabilitated by Zhou Enlai in 1973, appointed to the Central Committee, and sent to China's largest province (not including autonomous regions such as Tibet, etc), Sichuan, as first party secretary in 1975. "


"Zhao was rehabilitated in 1971 and appointed Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Revolutionary Committee secretary and Vice Chairman in March 1972."

Which one is right? Duct tape tricorn (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither, according to Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang (although, I can't understand why he is identified in the title by the second highest position he held). Page xiii says Mao Zedong made an off-hand remark ("Whatever happened to Zhao Ziyang . . . Purging every single person? That's not what I want...") that led to his rehabilitation in April 1971, as assignment (by Zhou Enlai) to the post of deputy party head of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


[1] It sound like he is dead, but more information is definately needed before an entry. Not a good idea killing a living person

Dead now. Xinhua-confirmed KittySaturn 02:16, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Do not use Wade-Giles[edit]

For a subject as young as Zhao Ziyang, the use of Wade-Giles is almost non-existent. It makes sense to list Wade-Giles for older subjects such as Chou Enlai, but no one uses "Chao Tzu-yang". I don't care if a blood-drenched dictatorship created pinyin. Everyone is using it. Wikipedia is not for political activism. --Jiang 02:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I HAVE seen material written in his active career that referred to him in Wade-Giles.If Wikipedia is not for political activism,Chiang,then those of us who dissent from the "everyone" who use pinyin have a right under NPOV rules to see our preferred forms listed as alternatives.It's not like I'm moving the article to the W-G name,though any reference book I was in charge of most certainly would.

Louis E./ 03:06, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not an npov issue. It's about leaving useful information in and unuseful information out. Who still uses Wade-Giles? Maybe for Mao Tse-tung they do, but not for Chiang Tse-min. Having simplified, traditional, pinyin, birthdate, deathdate, etc is enough to overwhelm people on the first line. --Jiang 03:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain this pinyin/Wade-Giles thing to me, is this why Tao is now Dao. I was so confused I thought there were two different Chinese Religion*/Philosophy*/School of Though* (*Delete appropriate). I hate it when they go and do this to me. Its just like A.D. becoming A.C.E. when did that happen? Why did I not get the email. Can you dump some info on my own page if you get time.--Sgt Howie 16:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The articles on Daoism-Taoism Romanization issue, pinyin, Wade-Giles, and Chinese language may answer your question. --Jiang 03:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

media writing class[edit]

If I were to want to say the name Zhao Ziyang, how would I go about pronouncing it? anyone know??


It's pronounced [t͡ʂɑʊ˥˩ t͡sI˨˩˦.jɑŋ˧˥] in Chinese - the closest English approximation is "Jao Dz-yahng" (Sorry, an exact rendering of this pronounciation using English phonemes is impossible, because it contains several sounds not found in English.).


Bk0 has repeatedly reverted the statement "He is survived by his second wife, Liang Boqi, four sons, and a daughter" by "He is survived by his second wife, Liang Boqi, and his five children" calling the former "anachronistic sexism". So Bk0, please conduct your crusade somewhere else. These are FACTS. His daughter has been quoted in the press several times. It would be far better to have her name here, but short of that, knowing that he had only one daughter surviving is a valuable piece of information: readers can learn here that the person referred to as "his daughter" is always the same person, and that the press did actually not imply "one of his daughters". So whatever you will read said by "his daughter" was always said by the same person, no matter whether she is male or female. If you have issues with sexism, then please go and fight in the relevant articles or in a dedicated blog, but please don't mess with the memory of Zhao Ziyang. olivier 18:51, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

The original wording of the sentence was (and currently is) rather sexist in that the genders of his children are mostly irrelevant but is the only information given. Also, the wording "...four sons, and a daughter" is strongly suggestive of the traditional sexism apparent in many societies including Asian ones (ie, "four important children, and also a daughter"). I would not object to the wording being changed to something like: "He is survived by...five children (a daughter and four sons).". I think that preserves the gender information you seem to care so much about while softening the sexist overtones somewhat. -- Bk0 20:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The obvious truth is that genders exist and should not be whitewashed. If the order of listing is a problem, then let's look into the ages of the children. Who is the youngest? Change it to "He is survived by...five children (a daughter and four sons)." if you like, but any destruction of relevant information, will be reverted.--Jiang 20:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Come again?"[edit]

In Hong Kong, 10,000-15,000 people went to the candlelight vigil of Zhao. The mainlanders such as Chen Juoyi said that it was illegal for any Hong Kong legislators to join any farewell ceremony "because under the 'one country, two systems' Hong Kong legislator cannot care anything about mainland." The statement caused a political storm in Hong Kong for three days after his speech. Szeto Wah, the chairman of The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, said that it was not right for the Communists to depress the memorial ceremony. The twenty-four pan-democrat legislators went against the chairperson of the Legco, insisting that security be tightened at Tiananmen Square and at Zhao's house, and that the authorities try to prevent any public displays of grief.

This paragraph seems a bit confusing not in its content but how it's written. Can anyone who's knowledgable of the response in Hong Kong rewrite this? And should the story about the legislators walking out of LegCo be added?-- 23:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To John Smith re: funerary arrangements[edit]

You are right in that previous leaders had "bells and whistles".

However, the reason that Zhao Ziyang did not have an elaborate funeral was, at least according to the CPC, that funerary arrangements had been streamlined in the early 1990's so that state funerals were no longer held, and a brief farewell ceremony is instead held. Zhao was the first former head of government to die after this new arrangement came in.

Read into that what you will (personally I think they put in the arrangements so that they'll avoid 1989-style public mourning that escalate into unrest), but that is the official policy.

Hope that clears things up for you. --Sumple (Talk) 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you don't mind me putting a little caveat to that affect in. John Smith's 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep that would be nice. =) --Sumple (Talk) 22:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Section removed from article[edit]

"This process was illegal under the PRC's constitution, as the National People's Congress was not in session. Legally, only it could dismiss him. The fact that he was removed in this way is one major reason why he was not rehabilitated after his death, as well as why the Tiananmen protestors are still officially labelled as criminals by the PRC government. If the CPC admitted that its handling of Tiananmen was wrong, it would have to address the unconstitutional removal of Zhao from power. If they admit that this action was illegal, the politicians who carried it out would be guilty of treason - Jiang Zemin included."

I've removed this section because it is blatantly untrue. Zhao was General Secretary of the Communist Party, not a state organ, despite the reality. Removal of its General Secretary does not require approval of the NPC. Zhao was not the President.

I've retained the section on this talk page, however, because something should be said about the fact that the transition to Jiang was illegitimate, and that Jiang was "eating human blood buns", as the Chinese saying goes. --Sumple (Talk) 11:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In Zhao Ziyang's recently published memoirs, he does in fact claim that his removal was illegal: "(p41) The Party Charter clearly states that Politburo meetings should be chaired by the General Secretary. However, before my title was legally removed, I had already been deprived of my right to chair Politburo meetings, which was passed to Li Peng. This was also illegal .. (p43) According to the Party Charter, the dismissal of a member of the Central Committee requires a two-thirds majority in the plenum to pass ... it was obvious that the top leaders were not confident they could achieve that ... if secret voting were to take place, it was possible that they would not obtain the necessary two-thirs majortity. Instead, they abandoned secret voting and called for voting by a show of hands" Funkydoodle (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read that section. This is notable and needs to be included, even if it is preceded by the line "In his memoirs, Zhao stated that...". Colipon+(Talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

someone on the Chinese site deleted my addition[edit]

I started a new section named as "under surveillance until death" which was basically what I wrote here. then immediatly it was put under protection by the chinese moderator louer. so I can't change it any more. This is what I wrote earlier which was deleted by user az1568 more than three times.

the chinese communists are taking over the chinese page[edit]

the communists blocked their people's access to wikipedia. and all of sudden, it seems that they unblocked it according to some people. some still can't get connected to

now it may seem to be nice. however, let's think it hard. why would they continue to block other web sites and only unblock this web site? The only way they will do it is because they now have control of this chinese wikipedia web site by putting their own spies into this system.

so far, they have deleted several articles, blocked many articles such as the "two China", "the treaty b/w Russian and China's borders", etc. and if you go read about the Tibet article, it did not mention anything about how the communists invaded tibet in 1949. over all, that web site is completely pro chinese communists, it is as if that whole web site is singing love songs for the chinese communists!

it simply doesn't make sense why there are mainland Chinese volunteerring for that site, when the chinese government blocked its access. normal people certainly won't be able to connect to the at all. and it even advertises for people to meet in chinese cities. we know chinese cops spy on their people's "illegal" activities. so you think that the chinese cops will allow its people to gather to talk about wikipedia which is a blocked site?!

someone should take some actions to make sure that chinese communist spies are not taking over that site.

  • Why do you think they are spies, but not normal Chinese citizens? Wiki has been unblocked on and off in China. and if you are wrong, you are doing nothing but denying the Chinese people's freedom of speech on subjects related to mainland China.*
don't be stupid, blocking the website DOES NOT prevent their spies from editing wikipedia. so there is no point UNBLOCKING it just to send spy in. go learn more about computer science before making claims that doesn't even make sense to any programmer.. !_! as for why it is unblock, i think you should go read what chinese think about western media now. Akinkhoo (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rise to Power and Guangdong Years[edit]

The opening paragraph has Mr. Zhao as a very early reformer, but that isn't necessarily the case. To wit, Chao was ardently leftist and, since August 6, 1951, assistant head of the Land Reform Committee as well as secretary general of the Party [Central South] Sub-Bureau just as Tu [Jun-sheng] was leftist, assistant head of the Central-South Party Bureau. [2]

Other early years background: Zhao worked directly under Tao Zhu for most of his time in Guangdong, first leading inspection teams looking at land reform in 1952.[3] Tao later purged the Guangdong party leadership, and Zhao took the lead in Northern Guangdong in April-June 1952, where over 1,000 party cadres were removed from office. [4] Among those who had to apologize for mistakes (and left Guangdong shortly thereafter) was Marshal Ye Jianying. Zhao became Guangdong CCP Secretary General in about 1953, and Provincial Party First Secretary in 1965, before being purged in the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution (GPCR).

Economic policy in Guangdong reflected national trends. Free agricultural surplus markets were reopened in the fall of 1956, and Zhao is quoted as saying Rich and middle peasants outside cooperatives take advantage of the slackness in management . . . to engage in private business . . . The Anti-Rightist Campaign began in mid-1957, followed by the Socialist Education Campaign and communization. In December 1958, Zhou told other provincial leaders to moderate policies toward peasants, particularly in communal property and meals. [5]

Tao and Zhao had a wild ride during the GPCR. In May 1966, Tao Zhu was promoted to No. 4 in the party, behind Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Lin Biao. That allowed Zhao Ziyang to take over as head of Guangdong province. Tao and Zhao were among the most enthusiastic of the early pro-Red Guard CCP leaders, but quickly fell from power because they tried to control the excesses of the leftists. [6] By early 1967, both men were out of power. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just flat wrong: As a supporter of the reforms of Liu Shaoqi, he was dismissed as Guangdong party leader in 1967 during the Cultural Revolution, . . . Zhao was purged because his patron, Tao Zhu, No. 4 in the party, fell from power. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Heavy editing needed[edit]

This article really needs some serious work, particularly considering the release of new materials. There are far too many unsubstantiated statements (e.g., the entire assassination section), and several contradictions. Very controversial stuff, I’m afraid. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article strays over the NPOV line too far, starting with the assumption of the inferiority of socialism. No way is this acceptable as an objectve article.
Pazouzou (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Why does article claim atheist? What is the citation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to become a member of the Communist Party, the person is required to be atheist. He may, privately, holding religious beliefs such as Chinese traditional folk religion or else but that, I'm afraid, will not be verifiable. Yifanwang99 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV issues?[edit]

Appears to be a lot of unsubstantiated claims that seeks to promote Ziyang's actions and policies. -Reconsider the static (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Tried to fix some of this in the intro. See if the new version is better. :) Colipon+(Talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Was Wen Jiabao really "Chief of Staff" to Zhao Ziyang?[edit]

The photo caption described Wen Jiabao as "chief of staff to Zhao Ziyang" I've changed this description. 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 [2]. Wen may have been sympathetic to Zhao or even a follower of Zhao but to describe Wen as "chief of staff" 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) 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Error in editing[edit]

"The twenty-four pan-democrat legislators went against the chairperson of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, who insisted that security be tightened at Tiananmen Square and at Zhao's house, and that the authorities try to prevent any public displays of grief."

Chairperson of the Legislative Council of HK ordering security be tightened in Beijing?!?!?! Sounds like someone accidentally deleted half of two sentences then merged the remanent.

This article seems quite well writtened but seriously need references to substantiate many of the claims. CW (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chao Tzu-yang[edit]

in Wade-Giles...Böri (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Li Peng's diary[edit]

I noticed that the article currently says it is "unclear what motivated Zhao" to side with the students. On Li Peng's recently published diary, page 48, the following:

April 30, 1989
Zhao liaised with Bao Tong immediately after his arrival in Beijing (from Pyongyang). Bao gathered some other of Zhao's supporters to hash out the situation. They feared that Zhao's political future was at stake: Zhao did not succeed in [managing] the economy, was not stellar politically, does not have a power base of his own, and his son was suspected of illegal business dealings. As such, it was likely that Zhao would become the "scapegoat" of the student movement. These advisors suggested to Zhao that he maintain distance with Deng Xiaoping, attempt to win the people's hearts, in order to save himself; there are no other options.

Don't know if this belongs in the article, since Li was clearly Zhao's rival. But it's an important revelation nonetheless... Colipon+(Talk) 01:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the general rule for primary sources is that they are OK to use, as long as it is explicit in the text that they are personal opinions rather than the product of a reliable, peer-reviewed or scholarly consensus (i.e.: "Zhao's rival, Li Peng, accused Zhao of..."). In his own autobiography, Zhao himself makes a point of complaining about the "slander" that was publicly directed against him by his enemies within the Party (primarily Li), without identifying what most of the complaints directed against him were. I think that it would be useful to include Li's accusations, as long as they were clearly identified that way.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Colipon+(Talk) 11:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to include this information in the article. Can you provide me with an MLA-style citation of this book so that I can edit it in?Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I included the information in the article, using what I thought was a probably citation. If your book is different than the edition which I cited, please correct it or let me know.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhao and the stock market[edit]

The New York Times states that Zhao Ziyang "opposed... starting a stock market", and that later reports that Zhao was responsible for introducing stock trading to China are incorrect. The Shanghai Stock Exchange, the first stock exchange in China, only opened in 1990, a year after Zhao was removed from office, so Zhao cannot possibly have "boldly introduced [the] stock market in China and vigorously promoted futures trading there", as the present article claims.

Because it is impossible that Zhao could have opened China's first stock market, the information in this article must be wrong. Unless you have evidence that China's first stock market was opened sometime before Zhao was removed from office, please do not attempt to revert my revision of this information.Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Go check this

  • 1985年1月,上海延中实业有限公司成立,并全部以股票形式向社会筹资,成为第一家公开向社会发行股票的集体所有制企业。
  • 1986年9月26日,新中国第一家代理和转让股票的证券公司——中国工商银行上海信托投资公司静安证券业务部宣告营业。
  • 1987年5月,深圳市发展银行首次向社会公开发行股票,成为深圳第一股。

and go check Zhao ziyang's report on 13th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The three dates that you have given are unsourced. Because the People's Daily is owned and published by the Chinese government, its articles on the Chinese government are effectively self-published claims, and so are not ideal sources for citation on Wikipedia. Primary sources, including transcripts of Zhao's report, are also not ideal for citation. Harassing me isn't conducive to resolving this, so I'm requesting that this page be semi-protected for as long as seems reasonable.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I've changed the template to the more appropriate one. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

quote out of context to suit one's purposes[edit]

Go check what nytimes reported, only quoted some watchful students of politics, In fact, some watchful students of politics in Beijing said the eulogies for Mr. Zhao tended to exaggerate his achievements. He opposed some proposals for opening the economy, like starting a stock market, that were embraced only after he lost power, these people said. according this report, you can get the conclusion Contrary to popular opinion, Zhao opposed the idea of expanding China's economy by allowing private individuals to purchase stock.?

Then I quoted Financial Times sources in the article to correct the wrong information, the guy Ferox Seneca do bad things destroy it again.-- (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong information and quote out of context to suit one's purposes : Contrary to popular opinion, Zhao opposed the idea of expanding China's economy by allowing private individuals to purchase stock. The idea of opening China to the stock market remained taboo throughout Zhao's time in government, but was gradually implemented later, in the 1990s.

I need change the above wrong information into the following information, sources from Hongkong open magazine and Financial Times China version:

Zhao boldly introduced the stock market in China and vigorously promoted futures trading there. [7] in 1984, under the support of Zhao ziyang, Beijiang,Shanghai and Guangzhou became experimental cities of joint-stock system,some companies issued stock only within own company workers. in November, 1985,the first share-issuing enterprise was established in Shanghai, and issued 10,000 shares of 50 RMB par value stock publicly, attracted many investors' interest. Zhao ziyang hosted a financial meeting on 2nd,August,1986, he demanded that the joint stock system should be carried out nationwide in the following year.[8]


  1. ^ Chinese Bloggers, Podcasters and Webcasters, EastSouthWestNorth, 18 September 2005
  2. ^ Vogel, Ezra, Canton Under Communism: Programs and Politics in a Provincial Capital, 1949-68, Harper & Row (New York), 1969. SBNN: 06-131629-6, p. 390
  3. ^ ibid, p. 117
  4. ^ ibid, p. 118
  5. ^ ibid, p. 257-258
  6. ^ ibid, p. 326-327
  7. ^ "赵紫阳之后的中国". Open Magazine. Retrieved 03 November 2012.
  8. ^ "股份制改革是市场行为吗?". Financial Times. Retrieved 09 November 2012.

Not done: the {{Editsemiprotected}} template is for requesting particular, specific edits, in a 'Please change 'X' to 'Y' format. Before using the template you need to establish a consensus for the change. The template is not for use in content disputes - where a content dispute applies, discuss the matter on the talk page first, and if that does not result in consensus, follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, until a consensus is reached. Thanks. Begoontalk 03:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Additionally, please see the message I left for you at your talk page. I'm linking it here since your IP appears to be dynamic, and you might not otherwise see it. Personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not contributors. Thank you. Begoontalk 04:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your communication style, these sources might potentially be reliable, so I have decided to review these sources more closely over the next few days, when I have more time.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)