Talk:Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

The current photo doesn't show all 9 PSC members. Do you have the one where they were first introduced at the party congress in November? --Jiang 17:37, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now that the full historical list of PSC members has been added, does anyone feel qualified enough to add some comments about the "Four Generations"? Shannonr 07:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the comment about Deng undermining CCP power and overriding the majority of the PSC should be erased- according to the Tiananmen Papers, the vote was split evenly and 1 member (Qiao Shi) abstained. Moreover, there is no material evidence at all that the party is or was weaker because of 1989.

The Chinese abbreviation in the summery (“abbreviated simplified Chinese: 政治局常委”) is not precise. The word used actually refers to members of the committee, not the committee itself. Sources(in Chinese) includes politics.people.com.cn/GB/1024/9636072.html, news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-05/13/content_8155498.htm, in which the committee is correctly referred in its Chinese abbreviation("政治局常委会"). I have already made the minor correction. 95139ieaci (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Titan

I do not know if it is necessary and unbiased to include "is a committee whose membership varies between 5 and 9 people, usually men". To be fair, the committee indeed have had only male members. Yet I don't see "usually men" in the description of US presidency, which have had more members in its history then the communist committee. I also cannot see the point of adding some unnecessary exoneration of this sort randomly in the pages related to communist countries. 95139ieaci (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Titan

Wikilinks documents regarding the Politburo and computer hacking

(This comment pasted from my talk page to here by me, Tomwsulcer:) Hi, I'm not suggesting for the complete removal of the Wikileaks material, but I believe that it would be better placed on other articles regarding Chinese hacking such as Operation Aurora. Furthermore, the leaked documents largely contain speculation by US diplomats, and it's not actually leaked by China, which I feel might violate WP:UNDUE. I believe the purpose of the article is to introduce the functions of the PRC Politburo based on established facts, not speculation; the article on the US federal government does not contain Wikileaks material at all.--PCPP (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally I think the Wikileaks material is important, and it's not for us as contributors to judge whether it deserves to be treated as merely "speculation" or as solid fact. Top well-respected sources such as the New York Times have printed the material, making it highly notable, and specifically mentioning the Chinese Politburo as orchestrating a worldwide campaign of computer sabotage, hacking into computers and systems of private companies such as Google as well as governments such as the US government. If the purpose of this article is to "introduce the functions of the PRC Politburo", clearly readers would want to know what it does as reported by prominent newspapers; and one of the things the Politburo does (apparently, according to NY Times, etc) is hack into computers worldwide. I think this material belongs here as well as other places such as Operation Aurora as you suggest. Last, I don't see how comparing this article to the US federal government article makes much sense here -- I think neither the US nor the China article is well sourced, and both articles could use huge improvement, and I recommend adding Wikileaks material to the US govt article too, particularly regarding foreign policy issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely up to us as contributors to judge whether material is speculation or fact. Good newspapers do some of it for us, telling us that for example the information about Wen Jiabao's wife's supposed influence in the diamond industry comes from an anonymous "Chinese source" that reports to American embassy officials. There seems to be the misconception that these "leaks" are coming from the countries concerned, when in fact, they are leaked correspondence between American embassies and home base. As such, they reflect the biases, the prejudices, and the gullibility of American officials abroad.

If the purpose of the article is to "introduce the functions of the PRC Politboro", then it is the function of newspapers rather than encyclopedias to dedicate such a large chunk of the article to such prurient and recentist stories such as the Google break-in. Obviously, computer crimes are not a major or official function of the Politboro, and it hasn't even been established for sure that the Politboro had a part in the incident(s). It has definitely not risen to the level of "controversy" because there are no facts to be argued about.

So remove the information as undue, not well-sourced (and that regardless of the stature of the publication that reports on speculation), and for not contributing to a broad understanding of the Politboro. Perhaps the comparison to the U.S. Federal Government was not that wise, because the Wikileaks material is generally agreed upon to be valuable primary source material on U.S. foreign policy, but only because of the nature of the leaks and their source. We would definitely not base a whole article on German or Italian foreign policy based on U.S. diplomatic correspondence, because of how obviously skewed it would make the article. I see why PCPP makes the comparison, though; it's because the U.S. Federal Government article, no matter how poorly sourced, presents a very basic structure with good historical perspective, without dedicating a huge portion to recent polemics, even though there's no dearth of controversy about the U.S. Federal Government. Because of our demographics as an encyclopedia, we might have a harder time applying the same level-headedness to articles about the fearful and exotic Orient, but the relevant guidelines provide a clear imperative: the gossip must go. Quigley (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your thinking. The Wikileaks material is not mere "gossip" but revelations which are generally kept away from the general public. It reflects what US diplomats really think -- they think the Politburo is behind a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage. And that's what we should say: that US diplomats believe the Politburo is behind a campaign of computer hacking. That there's evidence from other sources, and an article devoted to this whole subject, namely Operation Aurora, such as comments by Google, and confirmed in news reports, confirms that this isn't mere gossip or wild speculation. And to devote two or three lines about this subject in an article about the Politburo -- which is essentially a secret hidden-from-view government -- I think is perfectly reasonable. To remove this material, in my view, is censorship. What else do we really know about the Politburo? Names of officials? That's about it. It may be the case that the Chinese government has hired operatives to infiltrate Wikipedia, for the purpose of whitewashing computer hacking, or covering up wrongdoing. But what Wikipedia is all about is -- exposing the truth. And this is a well-sourced relevant story which pertains to this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We know a lot more about the Politboro than the names as you say, and there are much better sources out there that can paint a more complete picture of the Politboro, and Wikipedia has satisfactory articles on many secret societies and opaque new religious movements. The relative lack of content in this article is probably due more to apathy and systemic bias than an airtight information blockade. I recognize that when many articles start out as stubby things, they disproportionally cover recent scandals, which are siphoned off as more content is added, which with any luck will also happen to this article. Understand, though, that this incident is really peripheral to the subject and the function of the Politboro, and its long coverage is an unsightly sore that symbolizes editors' parochialism so long as it remains. Quigley (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article:Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, OK, we all know that this committee is CHINA, because the top Chinese leaders are the committee members. But these people are Human Beings, just like any other mortals, they have ambition, greed, so occasionary, they have their cronies to make some money along the way like Ferdinand Marcos did, there is no big deal. Arilang ^talk 03:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

“ As Philippine president and strongman, his greatest achievement was in the fields of infrastructure development and international diplomacy. However, his administration was marred by massive authoritarian corruption, despotism, nepotism, political repression, and human rights violations. He benefited from a large personality cult in the Philippines during his regime. ”

Making slanderous accusations against living human beings on Wikipedia based on rumors and gossip, no big deal! Quigley (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When newspapers print material to expose the misdeeds of public officials, it isn't slanderous accusations but legitimate public information. Public officials need to be held accountable for what they do. If they organize worldwide campaigns of computer hacking, then this should be exposed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Arilang's comparison of "these human beings" to his portrayal of Ferdinand Marcos as corrupt, despotic, and nepotistic. But if you can find solid evidentiary material on which the cable allegations may stand (and not just about Aurora, which is a speck in the broad accusations), it would greatly help your argument. Quigley (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rumors and gossips?

• http://www.atimes.com/china/DA19Ad02.html The princelings and the protesters By Antoaneta Bezlova

“ In December, Securities Market Weekly, a publication that claims a circulation of more than 5 million copies, ran into trouble with Chinese censorship for attacking the role of Li Xiaopeng, Li Peng's younger son, who is chairman of the nation's largest independent electricity producer, Huaneng Power International.

Although corruption charges have surrounded the Li family for years, this time the Communist Party leadership proved particularly sensitive to allegations from the public about high-profile malfeasance and nepotism.

”

• http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/28/world/details-of-corruption-emerge-in-china.html?ref=lipeng

Details of Corruption Emerge in China By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: January 28, 2001

“ The most damaged is probably Li Peng, the conservative head of Parliament, who has close ties to the State Power Company. Two of his children have made fortunes as executives in the industry.

The former head of the Water Resources Ministry, who resigned last year after it was learned he had used government money to build an office building here, was also a protégé of Mr. Li.

Mr. Li has been losing his protégés for some time, a former official said, adding that the scandals had further clipped the wings of Li and his family.

But the official doubted that they would be publicly disgraced, because the practice of the party is to cover up for its top leaders for the sake of stability.

”

Arilang ^talk 03:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)