User talk:The Account 2

This is The Account 2's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Hi I have noticed you are one of the great contributors to CCP related content. I am deeply interested in the topic but I have only really contributed via Sinopec and Chen Tonghai. I would love to contribute more but I never feel like I am knowledgeable enough. Maybe you can recommend some direction to me?

I have read:

1. The Long Game - Rush Doshi (best book I have seen)
2. Party of One - Chun Han Wong decent for covering Doshi gaps
3. Beijing Rules - Allen tbh nothing stands out to me about this book
4. Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order - Ray Dalio Nothing interesting
5. The Secret Listener - Yuan Tsung Chen amazing first hand account
6. World Order - Kissinger exactly what it sounds like
7. Fortune's Bazaar - England not great still worth the read to me
8. The Rise of China as a Global Power - Hazelton elementry not worth the read
9. America Tianxia - interesting but not really much about China
10. Aftershocks - Kahl decent worth the read
11. Stronger - Hass good
12. Mao - Chang unserious got about 10% of the way in and stopped

current reading list :

1. Deng Xiaoping - Vogel
2. New China Playbook - Jin

I make attempts to read 求是 the magazine in Chinese but I am not skilled enough to understand it. For writing WP content BBC, South China Morning Post, Reuters, and occasionally 新华. Czarking0 (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking, and thanks for your praise!

Among the books I can recommend are:

1. Never Turn Back by Julian Gewirtz; a very good overview of how the reform and opening up started.
2. America Against America and Political Life by Wang Huning; very rare to have this kind of books by a senior Chinese politician, good sources for understanding the ideas of one of the top politicians in China today (and the first book feels a bit timely considering the recent events...)
3. The Political Thought of Xi Jinping by Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung; very in-depth and academic analysis of Xi's political ideas.
4. China and Russia by Philip Snow; probably the most detailed book about China-Russia relations.
5. Zhou Enlai: A Life by Jian Chen; good biography
6. The Shortest History of China by Linda Jaivin; good introduction to Chinese history
7. China's Civilian Army by Peter Martin; about China's diplomacy from 1949
8. From Rebel to Ruler by Tony Saich; good overview of the CCP

You can also check think tank reports for more technical analysis, though don't forget to take them with a grain of salt (as they tend inevitably tend to have a vented interested). Brookings Institution and Center for Strategic and International Studies tend to have interesting articles for example, though inevitably written from an American standpoint. Mercator Institute for China Studies tends to have solid reports too. I also like Asia Society's Decoding Chinese Politics, which includes a lot of technical but critical details about how the Chinese system functions.

Regarding news sources, South China Morning Post seems to have the most amount of content regarding Chinese politics, and they report on important news stories not covered by other news agencies. Newspapers like the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal have good coverage as well. I also like Bloomberg News, which is a very good source, especially regarding economics. Also to add, is there any particular topic about regarding China you're curious about? The Account 2 (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will be slowly adding these to my reading. I am most interested learning about the alternative model China offers the world in an economic sense and in a political sense. It is hard for me to summarize what that means. Czarking0 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading DengXiaoping now, I came across Wang Hongwen and was surprised by how limited the page is Czarking0 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, I feel like China and other East Asian countries do not have enough coverage on English Wikipedia (not just a China problem honestly. Japan articles tend to have subpar coverage as well). Though I guess this shouldn't be too surprising considering very few Chinese people use Wikipedia as it's banned there, with most instead using Baidu Baike. The Account 2 (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I plan to read all of these, I have crossed out the ones above that I have already read. I find that nearly all these books discuss the lenninist party organizational structure. However, basically none of them stop to explain what that means. I suppose it is in part because there is not single meaning of the phrase. Party organization differs from Russia to China and 1927 China is very different from 1997 China. However, do you think there is a meaningful core definition that can be explained and is useful for understanding these books? When I google, easily accessible web articles do not seem to answer the question: what polices, guidelines, systems, institions, or practices do organization leaders need to implement in order for their organization to operate lenninist party organization? From context I gather this is, a propaganda apparatus which engages the masses to instill class consciousness, and party members to educate them on the correct political line, the allowed interpretations of the political line, and current policies; a discipline inspection institution which facilitates individual political struggle and criticism; a leadership body for determining the correct political line; an organization apparatus to promote members; and a military commission which operates armed force guided by the political line. Is there more to uncover there?Czarking0 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, sorry, got a bit busy. I think the single biggest thing to keep in mind is that the PRC is at its very core a one-party state. Leninist party systems differ from other type of systems by putting the ruling party at the complete center of political life. Most parties in multi-party systems have relatively weak structures. In the United States, for example, both the Republicans and the Democrats have no de jure centralized leaderships (DNC and RNC notwithstanding), and have virtually zero control over their membership (Trump could technically register as Democrat if he decided to tomorrow, which he historically did funnily enough). Some, like the Labour and Conservative Parties in the UK, are relatively more institutionalized; they can expel members, have a clear leader and can impose party discipline. But they lack the organized control over society that Leninist parties have. There's no Labour Party Committees at UK companies, or a Labour Party Committee Secretary of Oxford University.

The leadership of the Communist Party is at the very core of the PRC and other Communist states. The constitution declares that "Leadership by the Communist Party of China is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics". Leadership of the Party in Communist states is declared to be the end goal in itself, and unlike some nominally multi-party systems, there isn't even a theoretical way the Party can lose power (i.e. in Russia for example, Putin can extremely theoretically be voted out of power in presidential elections, though we of course know that's not gonna happen; this theoretical pathway doesn't even nominally exist in China). Leninist theory holds that the Communist Party is composed of the most ideological members of society to lead masses towards socialism and eventually communism. The CCP itself has a description here on why it deems its leadership to be necessary.

The Chinese Communist Party doesn't just serve as a small ruling clique in China, but as the core of political and (in many ways) social life itself. It has nearly 100 million members. It has branches at the most grassroots level (such as urban apartments or villages). It controls numerous social organizations (i.e. the Young Pioneers, which most Chinese students have been a member of at some point), directly manages numerous state-owned enterprises (which comprise a significant part of the economy and employment), and indirectly influences private companies in some form. In short, the broader population of China actively interact with the Party in their daily lives in some form, which is unlike the political parties seen in other systems. The situaton was ultimately similar within the Soviet Union as well.

Communist Parties also have usually maintained a very hierarchical structure, and the CCP is similar. The principle of democratic centralism holds that decisions made by the Party are binding to all members and need to keep their opinions to themselves (meaning they cannot question it after the decision has been made), which is to ensure the Party remains highly unified. This effectively means decisions made by the Central Committee/Politburo/Xi Jinping are sacrosant to Party members, who have to ensure their implementation to the fullest degree. As you've noted, there are various party structures which serve various functions; the Publicity Department has oversight over media, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection overseas anti-corruption initiatives (it is the main organization implementing Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign), the Organization Department oversees the which cadre gets which job, while the Central Military Commission has total control over the People's Liberation Army, as well as the People's Armed Police. These organs have been more or less consistent in ruling communist parties (North Korea's Workers' Party of Korea also has a Propaganda and Agitation Department to give an example, while Vietnam's Communist Party has a Central Military Commission) There are additionally numerous smaller Party commissions dedicated to particular topics. For example, the Cyberspace Administration of China (which is an arm of the Party) is the main organization for implementing internet censorship. The Account 2 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate the answer Czarking0 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, here if you need if you have any other questions :) The Account 2 (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's been a new biography of Xi's father released recently: The Party's Interests Come First by Joseph Torigian. It seems to be a well-written book. You might be interested in it. The Account 2 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to check if you had seen this. I listened to it and it did not get very deep though I probably would at least look into reviews of Wasserstrom's work Czarking0 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it. Let me check it; thanks for the recommendation! The Account 2 (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw (but have not yet looked into) he has another interview with Keyu Jin Czarking0 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In conversation with a friend I was recommended to look into a Zixuan Ma (active on twitter). He recommends these works. I was wondering if you had any opinion to share on them?

1. 1587, a Year of No Significance (1981) by Ray Huang
2. The Rise of Modern China, 6th Edition (1999) by Immanuel C. Y. Hsu
3. Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang (2009) by Zhao Ziyang (I am familiar with this but have not read it. Probably speaks for itself)
4. The State Strikes Back (2019) by Nicholas Lardy How China Works: An Introduction to China’s State-Led Economic Development (2024) by Lan Xiaohuan

Czarking0 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another book to discuss: Breakneck by Dan Wang Czarking0 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this, not super deep but a good comparative study that has some facts I have not seen before Czarking0 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Dan Wang is a solid author. Seems like this book made a mark on public discussions about China too. The Account 2 (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, do you know of any sources that discuss how Xi's administration deals with potential neo-maoism? I would think Maoist critiques like probable defeat are rhetorically easy to make about the present day leadership of the CCP? Czarking0 (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second America against America. Many of the problems discussed in that book are somehow much more extreme today. One of the most interesting books I’ve ever read, bit outdated but can easily be revised just a bit and applied to the modern day. 2601:282:8903:D810:4E6:C4A4:C7B4:774A (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment feels so timely, considering what just happened... The Account 2 (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I finally picked this up and I am excited. However I already ran into some trouble, on one of the first pages (this dumb copy doesn't have page numbers) he says "The Chinese have overthrown the three great mountains that have been weighting them down for so long." What does this mean? Google does not have much to say? Czarking0 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which page is this? Let me check the original Chinese version. The Account 2 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I found it. The "three great mountains" (三座大山) refers to imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism. You can check here. The Account 2 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice is there an en Wiki on this? From that page I think something on along the lines of a Maoism page for "两座压在中国人民头" with some later history covering bureaucratic capitalism being added to that doctrine could be quite useful. Czarking0 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of relatively minor terms such as this, there generally aren't enough independent sources to warrant a standalone page. I think it's better to look at Baidu Baike for these things, with has a lower threshold for inclusion. The Account 2 (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"官僚资本主义" Is particular is a phrase that is unclear to me. When I first read your reply I assume this came later and referred to state owned enterprises like Sinopec. However, 百度 says that Mao said this in 1948 which is long before those came into effect. Is he referring to KMT style rent seeking capitalism? When Wang Huning says China has overcome 官僚资本主义 in 1991 is it even the same thing China has overcome? Maybe 1991 would be too early to say this but I think we can now say that China has overcome bureaucratic capitalism in the sense that the economy is no longer centrally planned and mutually owned (phrase from the first chapter of AGA). Czarking0 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the People's Republic of China considers itself as socialist, 官僚资本主义 is definitely not used to refer to modern China (except by the critics of PRC). Rather, the Communist Party considers the China under the leadership of Kuomintang to be 官僚资本主义. What is the full context of the quote? Maybe that can help me understand it better. The Account 2 (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this. Could be an interesting source. 江培柱 is listed as an early associate of 王毅 in the Japanese department of the Ministry of Foreign affairs. I can probably get you a copy if I dig hard you and you cannot get one.Czarking0 (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That could be interesting. I would be very happy if you found me a copy! The Account 2 (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will take me a few days and I will find some way to send you a pdf Czarking0 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LDMmAksLFw2wxAfgUXU3etgFv0QZoU1z/view?usp=sharing Czarking0 (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! I'll definitely check this. The Account 2 (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, mind giving England some love? Think it could do with your outstanding style of edits. ~2025-39144-74 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your praise! I'll check it soon enough. The Account 2 (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just so you're aware, your newly-translated article People's Liberation Army and People's Armed Police delegation to the National People's Congress flagged edit filter 869 twice for the addition of deprecated sources. Might be worth going back over the Chinese-language sources and double-checking any information sourced to the deprecated ones. Athanelar (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was an accident. Sorry about that The Account 2 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said "partially," and besides, the US is currently the only one to use that term, is that hard to understand? This isn't about being "America-centric." My addition is without error or flaw, do you really have rights to define whether it's needed? Please point out any errors I may have made. Thank you. Mayo Crim (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is the US State Department, which is a primary source. You're making your own conclusions based on a passing reference to "State Chairman Xi" in that source, which falls under WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. If you want to make this addition, you should find reliable secondary sources that state the US has started to refer to the office as "chairman". The Account 2 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the US government, it seems like there was initially an effort to refer to Xi as general secretary rather than president and mention CCP more instead of China, but that push seems to have quickly fizzled out as even Secretary of State Rubio isn't abiding by those guidelines. The Account 2 (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy The Account 2, it's Yue. Just stopping by to wish you and your family and friends a Merry Little Christmas and a Happy New Year! Thank you for your contributions to the project this year, and your coverage of all things China. Here's to even better work from us in 2026!
Yue🌙 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Merry Christmas to you too again! Here's to more happy editing next year. The Account 2 (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello The Account 2, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!!! Merry Christmas to you too! The Account 2 (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and thanks for your excellent work translating Chinese Wikipedia articles into English. If you have any spare time, this would be one that I would be grateful to have translated. - Amigao (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amigao!! Merry Christmas to you too. I'll check up on it. The Account 2 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article here: Excellent Journalism Award. @Amigao The Account 2 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Account 2. Thank you for your work on Early life of Xi Jinping. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page. Xi is particularly important, but as ever the question is whether or not a stand-alone daughter page for the main article is needed. The relevant section is a little long, in proportion to this article, but is perhaps justifiable. The main article is too long to accommodate a full merge in from this page.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've tried to write a "model" section on communist state politics in the Laos article. I will try to add a paragraph about the transmission belt organisations, but otherwise I feel it is good. I am thinking the Chinese article could be structured similarly: what do you think? TheUzbek (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks pretty good, though in the China article case I think the section can be a bit vaguer (considering how long the article already is) but otherwise good work! The Account 2 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the China section is quite good.

The only thing I am a bit skeptical about is the following: "The PRC officially characterizes itself as a democracy—more specifically, a whole-process people's democracy." The state constitution says democratic centralism, and what is whole-process people's democracy other than a PR stunt that seeks to renew the image of democratic centralism? TheUzbek (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, I think that can be reworded. I think its still important to note PRC considers itself as a democracy, as I've seen some people mistakenly say that PRC doesn't "even pretend to be a democracy". From a rough search, the Party seems to view whole-process people's democracy as very closely interlinked with democratic centralism as you can see here. It seems the Party states that democratic centralism is the method through which a whole-process people's democracy is built. I think you can clarify further. The Account 2 (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that article is that whole-process people's democracy (WPPD) is democratic centralism in practice. Democratic centralism is the system, the mass line the method, and WPPD is the term used to describe when Chinese governing institutions interact with the people and produce popular participation. Do you follow? Its hard to decipher all these terms: they make them sound as vague as possible. But I don't see how this can be understood in any other way than rebranding. TheUzbek (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my reading as well. Probably important to emphasize democratic centralism the most. The Account 2 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last note. What they refuse to say (and what they should say, I believe) is that the intention of the WPPD is to strengthen the orderly public participation of the Chinese people in state-party-controlled political processes through creating a set of institutions and procedures. But they refuse to actually say that, because that would mean admitting that the system needs clear improvements in this area. Liberal democratic politicians are vague; communists even more so at times. TheUzbek (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, that's likely because WPPD was partly emphasized back in 2021 as a reaction to US President Joe Biden's emphasis on "democracies vs autocracies" and the whole Summit for Democracy thing (feels like a completely different world now lol) as a way to say "we're a democracy as well" (I know it was first conceived in 2019 but it got particularly emphasized from 2021). Admitting the need for improvements probably wouldn't be optical when the whole goal was to emphasize the system's strengths vis-a-vis the US. I feel like since the Trump has now dropped America's official goal of promoting liberal democracy abroad (and ironically moved much closer to China's position to emphasizing non-interference in internal affairs), China doesn't feel the need to emphasize WPPD as strongly as before (though they still mention it). The Account 2 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that joke! I had completely forgotten about it. You are mostly correct. The term itself is just a rehash of people's democracy and socialist democracy (people's democracy mostly fell out of use with the 1975 constitution), but eventually, one concluded that it was an important term to drop and brought it back into use. But you are entirely correct about the Summit for Democracy link; I haven't thought about that. It was a weapon to wield against its enemies and stand with pride at home. Thinking about terms that have completely lost their meaning: people's democracy and socialist democracy. People's democracy was linked to the new democratic/people's democratic theory, but that is rarely acknowledged any longer, and China rarely acknowledges Laos' continued adherence to the people's democratic theory. Chinese media refuses to call Laos a people's democratic state, but Vietnam does. There is something here, but I will probably never uncover it.

The irony is that nothing is stopping the CPC to create a whole process democratic centralist system but themselves :P TheUzbek (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're curious, Baidu Baike actually has a page on people's democratic state. I think in China, the term socialist state is basically used as equivalent to what we in the West call communist states as you can see here, and they seem to downplay the differences between these different systems (I mean I can see why; since there are less socialist states today why emphasize the difference between remaining ones?) On the topic of democracy and democratic centralism, the Politburo actually just held their annual democratic life meeting a few days ago. I sometimes wonder what the discussions in these meetings are like, but alas, the general public is lucky to even get a glimpse of what Xi's office looks like. :) (it's a bit ironic how one of the most visible maybe the most powerful person in the world also has the ability to protect his privacy more than almost anyone in the world lol) The Account 2 (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda, it doesn't differentiate between people's democracies and socialist democracies, as the classic theory did. The people's democratic state was perceived as a state transitioning from capitalism to socialism; that is gone.

It's interesting how Xi is really emphasising materialism/atheism. I like that: Marxism is materialism, but focusing on Marxist materialism more generally than only class relations also gives you more dynamism within Marxism.

"中央政治局的同志一致认为，党和国家事业取得新的重大成就，根本在于以习近平同志为核心的党中央领航掌舵，在于习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想科学指引。"

and

"习近平对中央政治局各位同志的对照检查发言一一点评、逐一提出要求，并进行了总结。他指出，这次民主生活会开得很有成效，增强了中央政治局的凝聚力、战斗力，对于不断开创中国式现代化建设新局面具有重要意义。"

Sadly, most communist state collective decision-making organs have failed in creating organs of equals, but it's at least nice that Xi's CPC admits that it's not. This is the presidentialization of the party: the general secretary acts as the president, and the politburo as his cabinet. Sadly, I think the chances are slim for the CPC to actually create a decision-making culture based on equals, where the general secretary is nothing more than the first amongst equals. Hu had the chance, but he, like Brezhnev, did not seek to institutionalize but rather base collective rule on weak informal norms that could easily be done away with afterwards. TheUzbek (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for his secrecy: that's how it has to be if he stands above the rest. Either full secrecy or full cult; nothing in between. Both things lead to the same: aura, mystery, legitimacy... TheUzbek (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the previous collective leadership model was that when power was distributed that much between several competing factions in a weakly institutionalized, top leaders concentrated more on winning factional battles and installing people close to them than any kind of state efficiency. This also allowed corruption to fester a lot (many Chinese would attest just how bad corruption had gotten before Xi) and I feel the Party decided that with China entering a key era with its power rising, it decided to throw its lot in a strong leader system with the capacity to make quick and decisive decisions (especially considering how large China is). To be honest, we should also keep in mind that we don't know much about how decisions are taken and to which degree an idea originates from Xi, how much he listens to others opinions, what other Politburo members say and what's the relationship between Xi and other officials. We don't even really know that much about Xi as a person (is he a kind of person that personally doesn't tolerate criticism? Or does he have an ability to listen to what others say? These greatly vary from person to person regardless of political systems, and it's impossible to tell from the outside despite how many firm assumptions some people make about him). How does he treat others at a personal level? It could be completely possible, for example, that despite his political dominance, Xi is tolerant to people who express divergent ideas from him to evaluate regarding policy (these things depend on personality a lot, after all, and China's secrecy makes it hard to gauge what kind of a personality Xi has). The Account 2 (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding legitimacy I agree. Xi doesn't really have a cult of personality in the same way as North Korea; you won't see many posters of him if you visit China. However, you can subtly feel him and his policies influence, and the enforced secrecy (as well as the fact that you can't even mention him in Chinese social media that easily) gives the aura that he's almost his "own class" of human being, if I could express myself well. In some ways, I feel it's even more effective than a regular cult of personality. The Account 2 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that is why I describe it as presidentialism. A president is a top-dog that cannot be removed by the cabinet (the politburo in this case), but he can rule collegially. I do believe that Xi and the CPC believe in collegiality. That is what the propaganda says, and I see no reason to believe. However, without stronger rules that strengthen collective decision-making legally collectivism will always be weaker than leaderism. For a good collective to function one needs rules that gives all members of the collective clear legal rights, clear procedures to handle corruption, factionalism etc. If you don't, one devolves into the Brezhnev/Hu mess. Of course, you can make a strong collective and weak system (as Yugoslavia did).

I agree with your overall point :) TheUzbek (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 21:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Account 2. Thank you for your work on Welcome March. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NMUSIC. Please also fix the footnote errors. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Just checking (I have no personal opinion in this), isn't WP:HONORIFIC meant for the bodies of articles? Is there evidence it also applies to the infobox? It's very common to see many major monarch articles have title in infobox, for instance. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also the slow edit war on the South Korean president articles over this is getting a bit tiring; needs to be a clean discussion once and then maybe salt with invisible comments grapesurgeon (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be applied to infoboxes too? Otherwise, virtually every single current and former head of state can have "His Excellency" be written to their infobox. The Account 2 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think you may be right. Are you willing to help salt with invisible comments? Like put | honorific-prefix = <!-- Do not put "His Excellency" or similar titles here, per [[MOS:HONORIFIC]] -->. grapesurgeon (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be. The Account 2 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happened again on the Lee Jae Myung article, could you handle putting the invis comment there? grapesurgeon (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Account 2. Thank you for your work on Banned and Sensitive Words in Xinhua News Agency Reports. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Your contributions to Wikipedia is greatly appreciated! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 13:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mass entrepreneurship and innovation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Economy of Turkey, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Account 2, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your splits of the articles 12th State Council of China and 13th State Council of China from Li Keqiang government were not done correctly per WP:CORRECTSPLIT and WP:COPYWITHIN. Please see repairing insufficient attribution, so you can give the proper attribution for 13th State Council of China --- for copied material, you may use an edit summary like this: NOTE: The previous edit of (date you made the split), copied content from [[Page name]]; see its history for attribution.

I repaired 12th State Council of China for you. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Situation and Policy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Situation and Policy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Cabrils (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Account 2. Thank you for your work on Two No Walks. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Hi Can you remove the unnecessary bolding from the lead. Also can you please add trans-title tags to the references so they can be read by English readers. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 09:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will check it out, thanks! The Account 2 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was going through the merge backlog and saw that you were interested in merging Kuomintang Islamic insurgency into Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Southwestern China per the discussion at Talk:Kuomintang_Islamic_insurgency#Merge_proposal. Its been open for a while, as Favi mentioned in the discussion you can find instructions at WP:M5 but I would also be happy to help you with the merge if you want, just me me know. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. Where do you think I should start with? The Account 2 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten a bit busy these weeks so I couldn't put my mind to this, but I can try. The Account 2 (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I've usually done it copy over most if not all of the content from the source page and put it on the destination page under separate section headings with notes to myself that its content that needs to be merged. I've found that copying the wikitext is better than the visual editor in making sure to maintain references and such. I publish that edit with the attribution required by WP:M5 before doing any cleaning up, also that way at least everything is on the same article. You can also use the Template:In use while the article is a bit of a mess. Then you can go ahead and clean up the merge, delete content that is duplicated and rearrange things so that the article makes sense as a whole. Finally you can go back to the source article to use the easy-merge script to finish the merge or place the templates/redirect manually (or ask me for help). If you check the recent edit history of Metaphysical grounding you can see how I usually do the merge. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  An article that you have been involved in editing—Timeline of diplomatic relations of the Republic of China—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ~2026-45421-4 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Embassy of Afghanistan, Beijing, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article May 1st slogans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 1st slogans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Rocket Force corruption case, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Zhou Yongkang case, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bo Xilai incident, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)
• A generic title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page China–Malta relations, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you are busy or were already planning on doing this, but I need your help translating zh:中国—列支敦士登关系 into China–Liechtenstein relations. It is the last bilateral relations article for China that does not exist yet, and would make China the second country here on English Wikipedia (after the United States) to have a bilateral relations article with every other country. It would be very appreciated. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. Thanks for reminding me! I forgot about Liechtenstein lol. The Account 2 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed you’ve been making “Premiership of” articles for Japanese prime ministers. This might be warranted for Shinzo Abe, whose article is very long, but I have doubts about the others. In most cases, the main articles could be expanded instead. We also have articles for the individual cabinets. Perhaps there should be some more discussion about this? Mispoulet (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Japanese prime ministers should have their own premiership articles. We already have premiership articles for most modern British prime ministers, for example (even for Liz Truss), so I don't really see why Japanese prime ministers should be very different. I plan to expand these articles soon though. The Account 2 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like having individual premiership articles might encourage users to add details they might not normally add to their main biographies. The Account 2 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For example, after creating the List of international prime ministerial trips made by Fumio Kishida and Shigeru Ishiba, other users later took the initiative to expand these pages and also create the List of international prime ministerial trips made by Sanae Takaichi. I hope to have a similar effect here. The Account 2 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

British prime ministers naturally have more content on English Wikipedia due to more editors and sources, and they also tend to last longer than their Japanese counterparts, with the exception of Liz Truss.

Personally I'd be less inclined to add content on a prime minister if I felt obligated to write an expanded version of the same thing on a "Premiership of" page. This kind of material may also go on the cabinet article. Maybe we can get more input? Mispoulet (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing for that, though I personally do plan to expand these pages (since many of them have Japanese versions). The Account 2 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm open to hear what other editors think. The Account 2 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Yoshihiko Noda into Premiership of Yoshihiko Noda. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]