Jump to content

Talk:Deng Xiaoping/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Linked to socialist market economy.

Also removed link to was responsible for other purges and crackdowns (besides TAM) that led to the death of thousands of people. Need to be much more specific. I think that you could argue that his being part of the Anti-Rightist movement fits this, but this doesn't seem to work completely. Deng was rather remarkble for being remarkably non-bloody in his purges.

There are about three or four ways one could justify that statement, but since I'm not a mind reader I'll leave it to the original author to go into detail about what he meant.

Removed this statement. This sentence implies a reallocation of resources which did not occur in China. Quite the opposite, Russian-style socialist theory tends to create overallocation of capital in heavy industries, and overall, the Deng Xiaoping reforms have causes capital to move *from* heavy industry causing large numbers of industrial plants to shut down.

With the short gestation period, low capital requirements, and high foreign-exchange export earnings, profits generated by light manufacturing were able to be reinvested in more capital-intensive industries

I know this, Roadrunner. This doesn't change the fact that profits generated by light industry are reinvested to more capital-intensive industries. That's industrialization. The movement from primitive toward more technologically advanced industry. Your charges, that I do not understand the difference between Soviet and Chinese development models, are slander and vandalism.

But the profits weren't reinvested. The capital invested in heavy industry largely comes from the banking system, and most of that capital comes from consumer deposits. One of the first items of the DXP reforms was to prevent reallocation of profits except through taxation or through the banking system.
The whole point of the DXP is that profits wouldn't be transferred because doing so would discourage people from trying to make a profit.

--User:Roadrunner

172,

Can you explain what is wrong with my edits?

If I know what is objectionable, I can step by step explain the rationale behind them.

for example, its important to mention that DXP allowed experimentation with concepts that were merely not "anti-Mao" but also "seemingly capitalist". This is what made DXP different from Chen Yun who was also quite anti-Maoist but drew the line at some measures that would make China seem too capitalist.

Similarly, I changed the statement by Jiang from "expressed the sentiment of the nation" because there are large segments of the Chinese population who dislike DXP because of his role in TAM. Public sentiment toward Deng is generally favorable, but it's not universally favorable.

My objections to the description of light industry is stated above. I tried to rework the wording to keep some of your thoughts, but I think what you wrote had a someone misleading description of how the DXP reforms worked.

etc. etc. etc.

-- User:Roadrunner

My sentence was a bit vague, but I was fully aware of what you’ve illustrated above. I’m also aware of the contrasts between Chen and Deng. Those contrasts might be more appropriate in the article on PRC history though.

So what exactly is wrong with my edits which would prompt a mass revert. It's important to point out the differences not only between Deng and Mao but also between Deng and Hua Guofeng and Chen Yun.

--- User:Roadrunner

I did not see that new paragraph in the legacy section. Sorry. Keep in mind though, this is an article on Deng, not PRC history. If anything, I put too much on economic history in the article.

172,

Rather than massive revert, I'm going to get lunch and when I come back I'm going to introduce my changes one at a time. For example, my objection to 172 description of the focus on light industry is that while it does distinguish Chinese economic reform from Soviet russia, it *doesn't* distinguish Chinese economic reform for the reforms in Yugoslavia and Hungary which was also focused in light industry and trade with Western Europe.

The important difference is that in China, the profits from light industry weren't reinvested in heavy industry by government mandate. One of the first reforms in 1983 or so was that the central government would no longer direct the flow of capital and would not direct how the profits of the TVE's were to be spend.

Roadrunner:

You are acting like a childish show-off.

In other words, you can't find a flaw in what I've said.

This is an encyclopedia article. I gave a brief synopsis on economic history that will allow readers to understand what kind of changes are going on right now in Chinese society. Keep in mind that a short encyclopedia entry on Deng is not going to be written at our level. Let's find a different forum to discuss the inner-workings of Chen Yun, Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang, Li Peng, Hua Guofeng, etc. Let’s find another forum for comparative economics.

The most important thing for an encyclopedia article is that it be *correct*. If the problem is that you think that my edits have too much detail, you are perfectly free to move them to talk, create another article, or act in any number of ways.
The edits I made are rather crucial because they distinguish between the Chinese model of reform and the Yugoslav model of reform.

Add whatever the hell you want, but don’t delete my writing. It’s succinct and understandable, thus being beneficial to the “laymen” whom you callously deride.

The problem is that in many places, it is either wrong or misleading.

Why don’t you devote your time to writing new articles are revamping incomplete ones?

-172

Started putting in new edits....

1) Added text to compare and contrast Deng's views with those of Hua Guofeng and Chen Yun.

2) Added text to explain Deng's role in Chinese economic reform and compare and contrast with Gorbachev's role.

3) Added caveat on the nature of Chinese central planning. Up until 1995 or so the model for Chinese central planning was South Korea and Japan. Since 1995, it's been the United States.

4) reworded light industry section a bit. Introduced contrast with Yugoslavia and Hungary. Also changed profit -> revenue which is an important distinction. One of the important aspects of the Deng reforms is that the entity that makes the profit gets to keep it. The capital for heavy industry comes from consumer deposits, and worker salaries are part of revenue but not profit on the balance sheet.

5) Added section on class background and repudiation of Cultural Revolution. This should be expanded to include Beijing Spring and Democracy Wall as well as the leadership context.

6) Added stubs for anti-rightist movement.

7) Added more stuff about 1970's leadership struggles.

Roadrunner,

I welcome these new additions. This time, you’re enhancing the content rather than deleting and replacing parts of what I wrote.

One of the tenants of Deng Xiaoping Theroy is that there should not and cannot be only one mode of development, one concept of values and only one type of social system in the world due to differences in historical conditions, social systems, development levels, cultural traditions and concepts of values. While indicative of Deng’s “seeking truth from facts” and his highly empiricist, scientific (and I’d say sophisticated and correct) understanding of Historical Materialism, this tennent was a rejection of the application of both Western-style capitalism and representative democracy and the Soviet model. With that in mind, I changed the word “copied” to “were influenced”. They certainly didn’t copy the Tiger’s model, though the influence was invaluable.

Also, something had to be mentioned BRIEFLY about the Special Economic Zones, Hong Kong, and improving relations with the West. Soviet relations are also important.

Roadrunner’s croissant anecdote is humorous, but the role of France is a bit more important. There, he was exposed to Marxism and revolutionary ideas, like Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh.

172

Removed following sentence, which was POV: "The gravity of these concerns, however, pales in comparison to the social ills faced by China as late as the Tiananmen rebellion of 1989, not to mention the days of mass famine and civil war before the founding of the People's Republic. " soulpatch

soulpatch: I'm reverting that sentence. It's simply a fact. Apparently, you don’t know much about Chinese history.

Sentences like "apparently you don't know much about Chinese history" are not an even remotely serious attempt at discussing the issue here. The Discussion pages are for discussing, not for dismissive comments like that. You need to justify your claims here when people challenge you. And to claim that the gravity of human rights concerns "pales in comparison" to other problems is an OPINION, not a fact. Any attempt at juggling human rights concerns versus other concerns is necessarily a value judgment. As soon as you want to try to write serious articles here that aren't blatant examples of POV, please join us in the Discuss page and try to hash out something. soulpatch
Exactly, and even not withstanding that, there are a lot of people who think that China's economic problems today more much more serious and dangerous than those in 1989. I think that they are wrong, but that point of view needs to be mentioned.

Roadrunner

I agree with Soulpatch's removal. *I* personally agree with the removed sentence, but a lot of people *don't*. Bao Tong, George Chang, Wei Jingsheng, He Qianling, most revolutionary Maoists to name a few.

To see the problem with the sentence, you don't need to understand much about Chinese history. Just Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.

User:Roadrunner

I compromised. The sentence has been revised.

I still think that Soulpatch is being extreme about these NPOV guidelines. Pretty soon, we’ll have to follow the NPOV guidelines to placate Solipsists and conspiracy theorists.

Thank you. I think that that your change is a step in the right direction. soulpatch

Soulpatch: I hope that you’re not one of those parochial Westerners who thinks that blocked internet usage does not pale in comparison to the catastrophes of the nineteenth century that killed hundreds of millions of people.


What I think is irrelevant. This article needs to be NPOV. That means not asserting value judgments as if they were fact. soulpatch
It is a very widely-held belief that that China under Deng's leadership, when measured against things like the Universal Declaration of human rights, didn't. It is not particularly controversial to state that China did at the time, and still does, suppress political dissent in ways unacceptable to many. This is entirely appropriate to mention in an article on Deng, just as it is to mention that, say, Winston Churchill was amongst the idiots responsible for the military catastrophe at Gallipoli, or for that matter that Bill Clinton was fellated by an intern and lied under oath about it.

I'm TALKING with you in the TALK section. Lighten up.

Okay, fair enough. But I think we are at cross purposes here. I understand that you think that modern human rights abuses are not as bad as previous problems in China. You may even be right. What I am trying to say is this--who is to say whether one bad thing pales in comparison to another bad thing? Should such a statement really belong in an encyclopedia? soulpatch

Actually, the Chinese people have more individual freedom now than ever. That's fairly hard to dispute.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Deng Xiaoping/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.

The article has a lot of good info. It just needs more references and some expansion. --Danaman5 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Needle inside a ball of cotton

Deng Xiaoping appears to have been frequently liked to a needle inside a ball of cotton because of his tolerance (hence the cotton), which nevertheless had sharp limits (the needle). This seems like it could be mentioned in the article somewhere. But where exactly? I'm bringing this up because Needle inside a ball of cotton redirects here and it is currently under discussion at RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging by this young fella's general temperament and personal ideology, there seem to be more than one time in his tenure(s) when he may have picked up this alt name. One would have to weed through the sources to find the earliest when and who. If they can be found, then one would know where in the article to reference the nickname. Namaste, Uanfala!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Statesman

Statesman is defined as "usually a politician, diplomat or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career at the national or international level." Deng's career certainly was long, he led the nation and represented it internationally, and he was respected. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate to label him a "statesman" in the lead sentence and have reverted "politician" to "statesman." Phlar (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not in general agree with this change. You have done this on at least four articles without discussion yourself. Do not expect that it will stay frozen during this period. You need to defend this change in a much more specific way for each of the figures you have done it with rather than put up this kind of boilerplate. Rgr09 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood. It's been "statesman" for most of the past two years, if not longer. Another user changed it to "politician" two days ago. I reverted that edit and started this discussion topic. And I've made similar reversions and comments on a few other pages. Phlar (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I see this is the case for Liu Shaoqi as well. I should have checked the history of the articles first. Since that has been the general designation for so long, I would not dispute the consensus for Deng. For Liu and Soong Ching-ling, I think the case is much weaker, and I would be interested in raising the topic. I look forward to any comments you have. Rgr09 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
That's the reason you think he is a statesman? Why not think Zhao Ziyang is a statesman? He is only the super leader of PRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.83.69.156 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2017‎ (UTC)
I do think Zhao was a statesman. What's your point? Phlar (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rgr09: Apologies accepted. I've replied at the other talk pages. Phlar (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Can this be sourced? Would be relevant.

Page 337 of Ross Terrill's "China in our time". Deng went so far as to warn the world in 1989 that unless he was permitted to rule China his way with an iron fist, 100 million refugees from China would flood the world. Italic text Terrill gives NO source. The aspect is still valid today. Current US policies aim to hold China down, which could lead to extreme migration waves. 2001:8003:AD40:8400:B57D:8113:3689:D667 (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Per "Legacy"

The "Legacy" section feels funny to me due to the fact that it switches tones so quickly from a pro-Deng paragraph instantly to an offensive, incisive paragraph, calling him "little" and expressing great disdain for him. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Name change?

When I learned about this man in history class, his name was Dung Chow Ping ( in English: dung-chow-ping). Here his name is given as "Deng Xiaoping" -- in English, this would be "deng - ekseea - oh-ping". Why the name change? I don't see any mention in the article.

Hey, in Chinese Pinyin the name is Deng Xiaoping, and as such as a general courtesy in English we leave it as such. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisionism

I think this article need to be added content, such as Criticism of Deng, many Maoists and other anti-revisionists think Deng is a strong revisionist, a traitor of communism and Marxism. They also think the Reform and Opening is a strong revisionist movement. I come from China, so I know the reception of Deng clearly. JohnGao (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral source. If you have criticisms of Deng, you can express them from the point of view of the general populace - just do not make it such that it appears that Wikipedia is advertising against Deng. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a massive blank space at the top of this page?

There is clearly some type of formatting error with this page. The infobox appears to have pushed much of the introduction below it. This needs to be fixed ASAP. I tried tinkering with it, but didn't do much. Thanks HAL333 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding changes to the lead

@113.28.186.77:, please read the lead guidelines in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There is a reason why the lead must be reserved to four paragraphs. Any attempt to change the lead would result to warnings of vandalism.

祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 15:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The IP put too many excessive details. I've trimmed it down while keeping important & accurate information.--SCreditC (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Office or personnel swapped here

Chen Yun is listed in the sidebar as the successor to Deng as chair of the Central Military Commission, but he was actually successor as chair of the Central Advisory Commission as stated elsewhere in the article and confirmed on other pages. Jiang Zemin is listed as successor in the CAC instead of CMC. I wasn't sure if just these 2 names were swapped, or the headers with the titles (CAC and CMC), so I did not make an edit and will defer to someone else. It seems like the titles themselves were swapped, because the predecessor in the CMC is listed as "none," while that should be the case for the CAC. 67.10.242.77 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction box

Hello, I was advised to not get into an edit war. So I want to resolve an issue I have with this article. I would like the ideology to be pit in the little info box, instead of the redundant information of that he was Chinese or a politician. I would do it so you can access information more easily and it’s simpler to understand. Would it be fine if we did so? Grizi fu (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the idea of bringing forward more of his ideological stances was a fine one, and for that reason I was the editor who brought forward Deng's contributions to the Socialist market economy and his ideological contributions to Socialism with Chinese characteristics being regarded as Deng Xiaoping Theory.
Why do you focus on market socialist in particular, among the other available characterizations? It is less precise than these and less specific to the Chinese context. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I focus on the market socialist part as I think it’s very complicated for people that have less interest in political economics, what his ideas were, that’s why I want to put the market socialist part in the info box, so people get ideas more easily Grizi fu (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand your rationale better now. I think it is good to want to be clear for general readers. In this instance, I would continue to recommend the existing terms, as I do not think the benefits in simplification outweigh the benefits in precision.
Also generally, I recommend finding ways to describe ideology in a way that avoids a "Wikivoice" conclusion that a person or thing "is" or "was" a specific ideology. It can often result in contention or many extra characterizations being added. In the Deng example, someone might ask -- why would we say we was a "market socialist" instead of saying we was a communist? Or he was a Marxist-Leninist? Or he was a pragmatist? And so on. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point, but could I make a suggestion ? How about we put in the article, what you already wrote but then put in a subordinate clause his ideology and the in brackets deng xiaoping theory, for those who want more explanation? Thus we both would be happy and the article would be easier to understand and the overall quality of the article would even improve a bit. Would this be a good idea? Grizi fu (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Your attempts to rewrite the lead are not helpful: they are not meaningfully more accurate or more descriptive for an English-language audience. Remsense诉 21:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
How are they not helpful? Maybe if you had read my edit notes, you would have known why they are helpful. And if you read them, tell me why is the non western version is not helpful Grizi fu (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you're going to make me diagram all the reasons out, I really hope you engage with it.

Deng rose to power and led China through its process of Reform and Opening Up and the development of China's socialist market economy. Deng developed a reputation as the "Architect of Modern China" and his ideological contributions to socialism with Chinese characteristics are described as Deng Xiaoping Theory or in a more simpler term, that is used in western political science market socialism.

  1. The last sentence is a pretty awful-looking, confusing sea of blue.
  2. I hate pointing this out in particular, but since you're making me do it, "more simpler" is not correct English grammar.
  3. If one clicks on Deng Xiaoping Theory, they will learn these additional characterizations of it, which is what the link is for.
  4. Socialist market economy is already linked a few sentences previous.
Work with me, here. This is poorly-written kludge for the first paragraph of an article. Not every term we personally think is super important goes into an article's lead, which is meant to summarize the body. Remsense诉 05:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point however if we already use deng xiaoping theory, we might as well use a more western term for a more western audience. You have to understand that this article is going to be read by 11 year olds as well as 78 year olds as well as non native speakers and especially those people will enjoy a simpler term, than deng xiaoping theory. I understand that you dislike the cluster of blue and I would be willing to remove that. Also more simpler is correct grammar. Grizi fu (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I am also sympathetic with your point—however, this is an encyclopedia, and it's usually better when we are specific—the more often we editorialize, the less precise and useful our characterizations become. Remsense诉 08:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it is better to move past this issue, Grizi fu. Perhaps wait and see if there are any other views from editors not previously involved in the discussion. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok I will for now, accept this outcome, and not fight over this term.
Might I also ask since you guys have been on wikipedia for some time why we don’t put the ideology of politicians in the introduction box, I mean it makes more sense, doesn’t it? Grizi fu (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
When you refer to the "introduction box", are you referring to an article's lead, or to its Infobox? JArthur1984 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Well both, I mean we have it for political parties why not for their members as well? Grizi fu (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Because it's not easy to define for many reasons, and infoboxes (I assume you mean infoboxes) are designed to communicate key well-defined information, not labels that require a lot of explanation and nuance. For example, a politician's ideology may have changed throughout their life, like Deng's did for example. Remsense诉 13:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
And in the lead section? Why not there? For the same reasons? And for political parties the ideology is also in the info box, then why not for their representatives? Grizi fu (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Also since I was technically correct about the market socialism part, could I maybe add it somewhere where it makes more sense? Grizi fu (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Right now there's an unsourced and synth-sounding reference to "Deng's market socialism" in the article. Maybe you could re-work it with some appropriate sources or some other well-sourced perspective. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok I will gry it. Thanks for the information:) Grizi fu (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deng_Xiaoping/Archive_1&oldid=1229917551"