Talk:Deng Xiaoping

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)