Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{Ping|Eggishorn}} please explain your removals , at the very least theres nothing wrong with the citation needed tag. ] (]) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Ping|Eggishorn}} please explain your removals , at the very least theres nothing wrong with the citation needed tag. ] (]) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Horse Eye Jack}}, see the above discussion. Unilaterally adding a LP to a template and then adding the template to the article when the associated template is a criticism of the LP is not an action that should happen. There at least needs to be an attempt at achieving consensus when the Xi Jingping = Winnie the Pooh connection is considered a criticism at best and a slur at worst. ] ] ] 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Horse Eye Jack}}, see the above discussion. Unilaterally adding a LP to a template and then adding the template to the article when the associated template is a criticism of the LP is not an action that should happen. There at least needs to be an attempt at achieving consensus when the Xi Jingping = Winnie the Pooh connection is considered a criticism at best and a slur at worst. ] ] ] 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
:: I’m not adding it as a "criticism of the LP.” I’m adding it because it is clearly related. I have no opinion on whether the comparison is a joke, criticism, slur, etc I just know that it exists and its existence and censorship has been the subject of significant media coverage. ] (]) 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:31, 12 August 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xi Jinping article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 October 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
A news item involving Xi Jinping was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 November 2012.
Misplaced Pages
A news item involving Xi Jinping was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 March 2013.
Xi Jinping was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please consider the removal of Winnie the Pooh meme images and content from the article. It does not add any relevant information to the subject Xi Jinping. Furthermore, it could be considered libelous content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCD331 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that showing three meme images is probably a bit much, but since this subject has gotten so much attention from sources I do see a point in illustrating what the meme is about. Let's see if other editors want to chime in here. – Thjarkur(talk)10:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
This subject has gotten attention from sources, but how relevant is this to the article (and to 'Leadership' section)? I would refer to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP on the neutrality of Misplaced Pages articles, especially since this is the central page of a political figure that is often targeted by detractors. WP:BLP states that 'Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints' so does this article really need a whole title, summary and 3 images reserved in the 'Leadership' section for "Winnie the pooh"? Political lampooning is rare for any kind of article on Misplaced Pages, and even then would be mentioned briefly without any images. It is also highly unusual for it to be placed in the 'Leadership' section of the article, I would suggest it be mentioned without images under the 'public image' subsection of the 'personal life' section.DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
If Xi were to have a fear of Winnie the Pooh imagery that he did not act upon in public life, that would indeed belong in a 'personal life' section and would, I'd argue, be irrelevant regardless. The notable (and neutrally ascertainable) point here is the extent to which Xi and the CCP have gone to censor the memes, which is a remarkable and unique feature of the current leadership, and therefore fits into the 'leadership' section rather well. Doanri (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Internet censorship is an important and notable topic of this article. However, the inclusion of three images presenting the person in a disparaging light is highly unusual in a Misplaced Pages biography of a living person. Isn't Winnie the pooh just one of the thousand different types of images being censored in China? Do the images represent the most important censorship that Xi Jinping has imposed? Why do we need a side by side comparison of Winnie the pooh and Xi Jinping? I would argue that these images were not put on this article to illustrate this controversy but intended to present the subject of the article in a disparaging light. They belong in another article related to the censorship in china (and even that doesn't feature any pictures), not in the biography of the subject that it is referencing DCD331 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the number of images is a bit high for a meme. I wouldn't remove all three images, maybe keep one or two (definitely would get rid of the car), since they are highly (self-)explanatory of why Winnie The Pooh of all things has come to represent the Chinese President in meme culture. I would not consider it libelous content, as long as it is not featured too prominently in the article. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
After doing some source checking, I would actually keep all three images (including the car one), seeing that it definitely is one of the more (if not most) censored images on the web. The "Winnie the Pooh" section is descriptive and neutral, so it doesn't seem to violate WP:BLP. See WP:CENSORSHIP. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I would reconsider the neutrality and relevancy of having these images in the article. Based on WP:NPOV, the proportionality of the view should be taken into account and you yourself have mentioned that 'the number of images is a bit high'. I would argue against keeping images based on how censored they are since there are probably thousands of these images and not one of these images is particularly featured anywhere. Please also note the sentence on WP:BLP: 'Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.' DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The information is relevant as it pertains to one of the most common parodies of one of the world's most powerful men, who is the subject of the article. It seems most unlikely that this would be found to be libelous content in a court in the free world. Doanri (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The content of this article "Xi Jinping" is about a prominent and controversial political figure with many detractors, hence the existence of these memes in the first place. Upon reviewing the edit history of this article, I would like to highlight that the original author of the Winnie the pooh content User:Ohconfucious could be motivated by political reasons (Hong Kong independence party logo on User page).DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Contributors' political beliefs (just like their gender, race, nationality, creed, etc.) are not relevant to this discussion. WP:PA. Doanri (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Bias should be considered when editing material. The extent of including three images into this article is questionable and it is worth probing the original editor's intent.DCD331 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
No. Misplaced Pages policy explicitly disagrees with you. Read WP:PA (especially the last paragraph, on how PA is dealt with). Doanri (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
While the meme and its censorship are somewhat relevant to the article, there are issues with the use of those images in the article: they seem to be a personal creation, they are more of meme quality than encyclopedic content, the choice of the pictures seem to come from therefore WP:NPOV. Perhaps a solid illustration of the censorship of the meme itself, for example screenshot of the banned image on Wechat, would be preferable. Sgnpkd (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what you mean with the POV argument; clearly a meme making fun of a person is likely to be created by someone who doesn't like that person and isn't 'neutral' in their POV. 'Personal creation' is what Wikimedia Commons is built on. Regardless, I think the WeChat screenshot could be a good addition, as long as we do not remove the current illustrations. Doanri (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that the POV argument is very important when you consider the nature of this article and a significant reason for removing these images. It stems from proportionality and giving undue weight to information, and is one of the core principles of WP:BLP.DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to say, but it does seem to be off topic. Just add the WeChat image if you want to do that, and see TucanHolmes' post for the image's sources (a BBC blog!) Doanri (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources for these images are fine, the main contention is not related to how they were sourced. It is the biased nature of these images and lack of relevance to the topic of the article, which Sgnpkd mentions: 'meme quality rather than encyclopedic content.' Featuring internet meme pictures on a blog is fine because it is someone else's opinion but Misplaced Pages is a platform for impartial information for the wider public. Since when did internet meme culture require documentation in someone else's political biography to such a degree?--DCD331 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The images' file pages state they have come from news sites (e.g. File:XJP inspection parade.jpeg), so they are definitely not a personal creation. Multiple (reputable) news orgs have covered this story, using all three images (and others not included in the article), so I don't see how that would violate WP:NPOV. The images selected for this article, are (at least to my knowledge) the most well-known ones. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think you understand what libel is, it has to be false not just derogatory etc and this information is true. Why don’t you think its relevant? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The images are true to a certain extent as we are considering the article of a political figure, not the representation of a political figure. Political cartoons are not relevant to warrant three images in the 'Leadership' section of this article. Please also note the sentence on WP:BLP: 'Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false OR disparaging light.' DCD331 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd question why three images have been included to illustrate this specific controversy. It is exessive and of poor taste to feature in the biography of a living person.DCD331 (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
It does feel a bit iffy, to be honest. Misplaced Pages isn't a tabloid. The images, at the very least, are excessive. We don't need 3 images of Winnie to get the point. We don't even need one image, honestly. Perhaps it deserves a mention, but the current state of the section seems excessive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The images are not in themselves derogatory, but humorous, except to those who have no sense of humour. In my view, WTP is an eminently likeable character, unlike XJP, so I'd say the comparison is flattering. The likenesses of the caricatures needs to be seen to be properly understood, and this is provided for in the fair use rationale of use of copyrighted images in critical commentary. The CPC regime is so utterly sensitive to the memes (and indeed any comparison even oblique references to WTP as code for XJP) that it wants to expunge all occurrences from the internet, and numerous press articles have been published commenting on the memes. But while the Great Firewall can screen this inside China, the regime has to use other means elsewhere. It's no surprise that we see this attempt to censor the images; note that WP is not censored. I contend that the Obama and Abe images are key to understanding why the memes went viral; the one with the car is meant only to show the most censored post of the year – so I'm less upset that it's gone compared to the Shinzo Abe meme. -- Ohc 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
@Horse Eye Jack:, see the above discussion. Unilaterally adding a LP to a template and then adding the template to the article when the associated template is a criticism of the LP is not an action that should happen. There at least needs to be an attempt at achieving consensus when the Xi Jingping = Winnie the Pooh connection is considered a criticism at best and a slur at worst. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m not adding it as a "criticism of the LP.” I’m adding it because it is clearly related. I have no opinion on whether the comparison is a joke, criticism, slur, etc I just know that it exists and its existence and censorship has been the subject of significant media coverage. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Has been reduced to one image with is well-supported by the text and the consensus of editors above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
. In my view, WTP is an eminently likeable character, unlike XJP, so I'd say the comparison is flattering. The likenesses of the caricatures needs to be seen to be properly understood, and this is provided for in the fair use rationale of use of copyrighted images in critical commentary. The CPC regime is so utterly sensitive to the memes (and indeed any comparison even oblique references to WTP as code for XJP) that it wants to expunge all occurrences from the internet, and numerous press articles have been published commenting on the memes. But while the Great Firewall can screen this inside China, the regime has to use other means elsewhere. It's no surprise that we see this attempt to censor the images; note that WP is not censored. I contend that the Obama and Abe images are key to understanding why the memes went viral; the one with the car is meant only to show the most censored post of the year – so I'm less upset that it's gone compared to the Shinzo Abe meme. -- Ohc 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
