Talk:President of China

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chairmen of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress

"The powers of the head of state reverted to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress"

Since this was an honorary role, did the 'powers of the head of state' actually leave Ye Jianying as NPC Chairman during those two weeks?217.44.182.27 09:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the list also include effective leader? like Deng
-- user:voidvector

No. This article is about a specific office in the PRC. The fact that that person may not be the effective leader needs to be mentioned, but it really belongs in politics of China.

Chairmen of the People's Republic of China

Mao Zedong (1954 - 1959) Liu Shaoqi (1959 - 1969)

Presidents of the People's Republic of China

Li Xiannian (1983 - 1988) Yang Shangkun (1988 - 1993) Jiang Zemin (1993 - 2003) Hu Jintao (since 2003)

So who was in charge from 1969 to 1983? All I know is that Mao' funeral was held September 18, 1977. I remember the date, because Rev. Moon held a crucially important peace rally on the same day at the Washington Monument. --Uncle Ed 14:21 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

IIRC, during that period the position "Chairman" (or "president") was cancelled. --Lorenzarius 14:50 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Song Qingling, former vice-president of PRC, was named to be the Honorary President of the PRC before the passage of the constitution of 1982. "

Is this the same Song Qingling as Sun Yat-sen's widow? --Jiang 04:36, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes --Sumple (Talk) 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Created by 1982 Constitution"?

The articl ie self-contradictory: on the one hand it says the position was created in 1982, and on the other hand it refers to officeholders before 1982, and explains that these were translated as "chairman/woman".

If there were officeholders before 1982 but with a different translation, wouldn't it be the same office? --Sumple (Talk) 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao vs. Liu

I find it interesting someone inserted that Mao didn't want the presidency back because then it would seem he just wanted to rob Liu of his position. Where did you find this. I'd like to read up on it. Colipon+(T) 07:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what's with the translation

Is anyone able to explain where, why and how the title was translated as "President" rather than another term? Is this official for the CCP's use, or in other literature? (deleted a fellow's resume that had been posted here. It may mean no one is watching this page.)--Asdfg12345 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the, term "President of the People's Republic of China" is official use by the Government to represent "Head of state" of PRC only since 1982 due to conformity with Western terminology, check out the official website: PRC President Official Website they even call Mao Zedong President. As for CCP(CPC) there is another position for the party only it is know as "General Secretary of the Communist Party of China" to represent "Head of Party" of CCP(CPC) only. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

china's airforce one....

any information on the transportation of the president and his staff? 218.186.17.240 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the article

This article has many problems and needs a careful revision. Originally it started off as an article about a specific position in the People's Republic of China: this position is called 中华人民共和国主席 Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi; a word for word translation is "chairman of the People's Republic of China". This position was established in the 1954 PRC Constitution. It was eliminated in the 1975 Constitution. It remained absent in the third constitution, adopted in 1978, but reappeared in the 1982 constitution, where it has remained throughout the periodic constitutional revisions since then. There are several problems with this article's description of the position, which to avoid confusion I will simply call Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi.

The first point that I would like to make here is that prior to 1954, this office did not exist; there was no Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi. It is an error for this article to assert that Mao Zedong was the Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi in this period; he was not. No one was.

A second problem is that from 1975 to 1982 (prior to the promulgation of the new constitution), there was also no Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi. Both this article and the List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China add in other positions during this period, such as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. It is not clear why. Apparently there is some idea of trying to figure out who was the theoretical head of state during these periods; this is a very problematic element to introduce in this article, which is supposed to be about a specific position. If there is a desire to explain non legal concepts such as "head of state" or "paramount leader" as they apply to the PRC, that should go somewhere else, not here.

A third problem, very serious in my opinion, is the claim that Dong Biwu and Song Qingling went from Zhonghua renmin gongheguo fuzhuxi "vice chairmen of the People's Republic of China" to acting "Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi" from 1968 to 1975. This is completely undocumented. There must be a source for this claim; it is not acceptable for an editor to present his or her own legal theories about the status of these people during this period as if these theories were established fact. Song and Dong are not identified as "acting chairmen" in any documents I can find, including the PRC government's current official publications and websites, or past publications such as the People's Daily. Biographies and other scholarly research completely fail to mention this. There must be published, reliable sources which state that this was the case before Dong and Song can be described in this way. The article must also explain what they actually did in this period in connection with this office; as far as I can tell, this can be easily summarized as ZERO. The article in fact originally stated that from 1968 to 1975 the position of Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi was "vacant" from 1968 to 1975. This was clearly the case and is stated explicitly in many reliable sources. Why was the article changed to paste these two figures in here? Again, there must be a solid documentary basis for this.

A fourth problem, perhaps minor but quite troublesome, is the English translation of the Chinese term Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi. The article claims that the "official" English translation was changed in 1982. This is certainly not true, and this is not what the source quoted says. A real source for this is necessary. It seems to me that there is actually no need for there to be an "official" translation. Whatever is most common on the Western language writings on this subject, is what we use. "President" doesn't seem like such a bad choice; the use of the term "president" for this position occurs occasionally in English language writing on China from the 1950s on. Again, I don't think that this is a particularly important point. What is important is that all discussion makes clear that this term is an English translation of a specific Chinese name for a specific governmental position that has its origin in specific documents. Naturally, consistency is very important, and that is why this is such a troublesome problem; the translations of this term throughout Wikipedia are very diverse and will certainly confuse anyone who can't run to look up original sources. An example of this problem is in the article List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China, where Mao is said to be the First Chairman of the People's Republic of China, contradicting the title of the article. Apparently the idea is that from 1954 to 1975, we should translate Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi as "Chairman of the PRC" and for the period 1982 on we should translate it as "President of the PRC". While there is a point to this, in that the descriptions of the powers of the Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi differ in the 1954 and 1982 constitutions, this distinction is not made in any consistent way throughout Wikipedia. This very article you are reading fails to maintain this distinction!

The most serious problem for this article is that it completely fails to explain the legal function of the position of Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi as stipulated in the various constitutions, its actual implementation, and the changes it underwent. This failure makes the article almost useless, except to confuse those who don't know anything about this position. I strongly suggest that the article clearly focus on the nature of this particular position, and that a cleanup removes all the confusing references to other issues, perhaps putting them in an article titled "head of state in the People's Republic of China." Reliable sources are essential to document who held the position of Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhuxi and what this position enabled those people to do. I'm willing to start doing this, but since this will involve a thorough revision of the article, a note in the talk section seems appropriate first. Rgr09 (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents

The list of presidents was changed again. Two points: first, the list of Presidents in this article and the article List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China need to be consistent. Second, a discussion of the difference between specific titles such as Chairman of the Central People's Government, President of the People's Republic of China, Chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, and the term head of state is needed somewhere. It is not an artificial distinction. This article is not on the head of state of the People's Republic of China. To give a list of putative PRC heads of state in this article and label it as a List of Presidents therefore seems wrong. Please at least discuss here. Rgr09 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second your sentiment. Precision is required here. We should not replicate poor translations and lax use of terminology but rather explain the intricacies and complications. The current hat note might cause some confusion as it says "This article is about the nominal Head of State of China under 1982 Constitution." using the words Head of Statewithout mention of the word president. I suggest the hat note be reworded. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the difference between different offices (and titles) is needed somewhere. But such a list - or rather gallery, is not that place.

Either the article encompasses all heads of state - in which case the gallery should do the same -

or we restrict the article to those that actually were chairman/president, which leaves us with Mao after 1954, Liu, Li, Jiang, Hu and Xi - in this case the heads of state 1968 to 1983 should be included at all.

A grey area is the period 1968-1975 when there was no President but the Presidency had not yet been abolished. If Mrs Song and Mr Dong where something like Vice Presidents now acting as Presidents (as some articles claim), they should be included in the gallery as well - but right alongside Mao, Liu and the others. This is actually what the article "List of Presidents ..." does.

Finally, the article should not talk about "nominal" heads of state as these people pure and simple were heads of state. That heads of state have little actual power is quite common in modern times. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The inconsistency with the article "List of Presidents ..." doesn't exist as that article lists the non-Presidents chronologically alongside the others. Only the pictures are omited a the moment but I hope to change that soon.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened since I wrote the above. I have now re-integrated the two Acting Presidents into the gallery. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to state, party, military

These sections simply repeated that the Communist Party always appoints its General Secretary President; no need to say this three times in the article. The section on the president's relation to the military is difficult to follow, speculative, and unsourced. If I can find info on this in Shambaugh or other sources, I will try to rewrite, otherwise it should go as well. Rgr09 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section on the president and the military

The article originally included a section on the relation of the president to the military. This was a very confused section, but apparently the original point was to observe that there was a potential for conflict if the CPC general secretary did not hold the office of chairman of the Central Military Commission, as happened when Hu Jintao first became General Secretary. This may be so, but this is a CPC internal conflict, not a constitutional issue. In the current Constitution, the President has no military power or authority at all. What authority the last few Presidents have had over the military was due to their positions in the CPC; this is due to the fact that the PLA is primarily the CPC army, not the PRC army. Rgr09 (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duties of head of state in 1975-8 constitutions

The discussion of the history of the office of state chairman (now "president") noted that the 1975 constitution abolished this position. This was later edited to add the phrase "while passing the duties of the chairmanship to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress." The 1975 constitution does not do this. The Chairman of the Standing Committee is mentioned only once in the 1975 Constitution, in article 18; this article does not specify his powers or duties at all. The 1978 Constitution stipulates several duties of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, but in no way associates these with the role of head of state. Rgr09 (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whom were foreign diplomatic representatives accredited during this period? john k (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on the acting presidents

Song Qingling and Dong Biwu are listed here again as "Acting Presidents." This is still unsourced, and as such is subject to challenge and removal. In an attempt to resolve this, I finally got access to the People's Daily database and here are the results. From Feb 24, 1972 to Jan 19, 1975, Dong Biwu was referred to as the "Acting State Chairman" (中华人民共和国代主席). In several articles published after Dong's death on April 2, 1975, he is also referred to as the "former acting State Chairman." These are from articles citing foreign governments offering their condolences on Dong's death. Prior to Feb 24, 1972, Dong is always referred to as "State Vice-Chairman"; for instance, in an article on Feb 4, 1972 noting Dong's congratulations to the King of Nepal on his coronation.

Since there does seem to be some basis for claiming Dong was "acting" State Chairman (= President), I will revise the dates given in the article based on the People's Daily articles.

For Song Qingling, however, she is NEVER referred to as "Acting State Chairman" in the People's Daily, but always as "State Vice-chairman." There are many articles during the period when Dong was "acting chairman" that both Song and Dong are mentioned. Their titles are always different in this period: Dong is "acting chairman", Song is "Vice-chairman." Based on this, I am deleting Song from the list at this point. If you have some basis for claiming that Song was also an "acting chairman", please put it up here. Any unsourced reversions, I will question, and if there is no response, delete.

Note that these changes also mean that from 1968 when Liu Shaoqi was removed from office extra-constitutionally until 1972, when the People's Daily began referring to Dong as "acting" chairman, the office of state chairman or president was apparently vacant. Rgr09 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The office of state chairman was vacant not just until 1972 but right until it was abolished. The confusion you noted regarding Dong's titles is pretty easy to solve: he - alongside Mrs Song - was Vice Chairman. As such the two could fill in in the absence of a Chairman. Whether that happened before 1972 and how to note this is our decision. Apparently, after 1972 (but I'm not so sure about the exact date you give) Dong permanently filled in and hence was referred to as "Acting Chairman" but he was acting as chairman in his position as "Vice Chairman".

The vacancy of course then must be reflected in the timeline graph as well. I tried to change it accordingly. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(and apparently never Mrs Song) at some point permanently

What on earth does this mean

Therefore the title "President" in this case does not mean the same as in the United States or other Presidential systems, but rather as an approximation in terms of its power.

Could somebody explain in clear English what on earth this means? Isn't the issue more that the term "Zhuxi" is not used for foreign presidents, or for Presidents of the Republic of China ("Zhongtong" seems to be the term for presidents of the ROC)? What we actually say seems like utter gibberish to me. john k (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that latter statement? I agree that what the article says right now is gibberish amounting to nothing more than the obvious "Presidents have different powers in different countries". Str1977 ^(talk) 07:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Please feel free to reintroduce this request in the future, including evidence of common usage in reliable sources and compatibility with the criteria for naming articles, if you would like to continue to pursue the request. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President of the People's Republic of China → President of China – As the common name by far for the role and its occupant. Right now there’s a dab page at President of China, but no-one would ever call Tsai Ing-wen the "President of China", except for comedic effect. Search for "President of China" in Google and the very first page result returned is this one, at least when I tried it. Mainly though, again, it’s the common name, in common use: everyone knows Xi Jinping as the President of China, JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose journalese. see other president articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on that? 'journalese' does not mean anything to me, and as far as other articles go the first one I thought of was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom which matches the common name of the country. It’s not the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or it’s President of France rather than President of the French Republic. Looking at Category:Presidents by country they overwhelmingly use the common name of the country.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Red Slash 13:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per common name, conciseness, etc. Red Slash 13:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are plenty of articles on presidents and other chiefs of state which use the name of a political entity rather than a geographic term; the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom are easy examples. This is by no means unusual, and a change is not warranted simply on the basis of counting articles in Wikipedia. Nor is evidence cited that "President of China" is more common than "President of the PRC." Certainly in the general, historical, and scholarly literature on the PRC, the term President of China is actually unusual. Rgr09 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all causes and concerns, “China” refers to the PRC. I looked up “Xi Jinping” on Google and I fail to find a single reference of him as “President of the PRC” - all simply used “Chinese President”. Similarly effectively everyone refers to Tsai Ing-Wen as “Taiwanese President”. Juxlos (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, you will find very few references indeed to the Prime minister of the United Kingdom, but that's not an argument for changing the name of the Wikipedia article. Rgr09 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. NB other titles at Category:Presidents by country. — AjaxSmack 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the naming concept of the country (or sovereign state) is not similar to political leadership of one sovereignty. Id est "President of China" vs "President of the People's Republic of China" is not similar to "China" vs "People's Republic of China". Also, the article is about one President of that sovereign state, not about the sovereign state or country itself, especially in the context of politics and history.
Also, while the US legally, diplomatically, and politically recognized ROC as "China" until 1979 (if not 1971 per UN recognition), Chiang Kai-shek was the "President of China"... well, the "President of the Republic of China", which was legally recognized by the US as "China" until 1979 and the member of the UN (or UN's permanent member of the Security Council) until 1971 when the Resolution resulted in many members recognizing PRC as "China". Even Yen Chia-kan and Chiang Ching-kuo were technically Presidents of China under US's recognition.
Moreover, the leadership of the PRC was... kinda... variously different, especially according to my recent research. Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference used to have a lot of leadership influence, especially when chairmen Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping were in power. Also, the Presidential role was nonexistent from 1976 to 1982 (unless you count one honorary president Soong Ching-ling).
Maybe we should turn the ~~redirect~~ page "President of China" ~~into a dabpage for historical context.~~ --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC); Didn't realize it's currently a dabpage. --George Ho (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, 20 countries still ~~recognize ROC as "China"~~ retain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and do not have diplomatic relations with PRC; I believe that those 20 countries consider Tsai Ing-wen ~~as the current "President of China"~~. (No longer sure.) --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC); self-corrected, 01:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 50 years ago the US called Chiang Kai-shek "President of China" but that was 50 years ago. And even then I suspect they preferred "Republic of China", to emphasise continuity with the pre-1949 government of China. They certainly do now. See e.g. File:Taiwanese Embassy in Mbabane.JPG, from your link. It says "The Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" on the building. Neither they nor anyone else calls Taiwan "China" today.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per consistency with other leadership titles in relation to the PRC/ROC situation - if one is proposing to move all related PRC-ROC leadership articles, in line with their common name, then I would support per the common name principle, but that these articles have been relatively stable for some time gives no need for this to be moved. Having said that, which perhaps may not be sufficient, I propose a discussion on the China and Taiwan Project pages, hopefully generate some discussion in relation to China-Taiwan article titles in which case, if the consensus is to move all related articles in question, then I would have no problems supporting. --Tærkast (Discuss) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is the common name. The ROC President article should probably be moved to "President of Taiwan". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sun Yat-Sen was president of "China" and then Chiang Kai-Shek, other than those two, there has never been a President of "China". There's been one for ROC and one for PROC since then. President Sun would never be the PRC president. The rename would present the FALSE IMPRESSION that there were no presidents prior to the PRC. It would be saying that the Fifth Republic's presidents are the only presidents of France, and those of the Third Republic didn't exist. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "President of China" can always be redirected to List of Presidents of China, after a move to "(disambiguation)" -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes no sense. There is a Chinese president, Xi Jinping. No-one knows Tsai Ing-wen as the president of China, which is what is currently suggested by President of China disambiguating between the two. Yes, Sun Yat-Sen was president of China, but over 100 years ago. That has little to do with who is the president of China today.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to initiate a discussion on WikiProject China and WikiProject Taiwan considering the names of articles such as these, after which the move can be revisited, since this will likely not be the last of the discussions held.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy requirement to have such a meta-discussion, but in a sense it has already happened. When People's Republic of China was moved to China it established a precedent that the common name of the country is "China", a precedent that has been referred to in many other page naming discussions and moves in the years since. E.g. Talk:List of political parties in China#Requested move 7 February 2017, Talk:Flag of China#Requested move 3 December 2016. I am sure there are many more, those are just the two most recent I can find in my contribution history.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a policy requirement, but if you're having this page moved, then the others (PRC Premier, ROC President/Premier etc...) ought to have been included in the move request as well, otherwise it just leaves some weird inconsistent titling. --Tærkast (Discuss) 11:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about China, not Taiwan. But even within China articles there’s no requirement that it’s consistent. E.g. it might be that Xi Jinping is so well known as the President of China, that it becomes what he is commonly known as in English. But less well known leaders (and all of them are a lot less well known than Xi Jinping) might not have a common way of referring to them in English, especially those with roles that do not have equivalents in the west (Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, things like that).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be about PRC/China articles but it affects others as well. So what's going to be the difference between President of China, and President of the Republic of China? That is what's going to happen if this article gets moved as it stands. It would be advisable to look at the bigger picture, all articles concerned. In any event, I was merely making a suggestion, nothing I say can compel anyone in any way to act. I'm almost sorry I made the suggestion. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my initial proposal, no-one calls Tsai Ing-wen "President of China". That‘s the difference, it‘s two different roles, two different people. Moving the article will help clarify that, while having no impact on President of the Republic of China. Whether that article would be better at President of Taiwan is another matter, but independent of this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Has this page been confused with the head of state of Thailand?

This page makes many references to the "head of state of the People's Republic of Thailand." This does not seem at all correct with the pages title and the subsequent list of presidents. I believe this page needs to be changed and heavily edited or split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by POderfla (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman vs President

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I'd just like to share these articles which makes a very good point that referring to Xi Jinping as a president is both technically inaccurate and a subtle means of legitimizing an oppressive authoritarian dictator.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3831190 https://qz.com/1112638/xi-jinping-title-xi-jinping-is-not-the-president-of-china/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/xi-jinping-president-chairman-title.html

I'd really like for Wikipedia to reflect his title as "Chairman" at the very least for the sake of technical accuracy. Though I understand this is at odds with the preference for common usage titles. Sadly in the case, the common usage is objectively incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.136.134.11 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo this concern. The same term (主席) is used to refer to the head of state for the old Soviet Union. It is translated into English as Premier. This is especially apparent because there was a short-lived position called the President of the Soviet Union, which was translated as President (总统) in Chinese. There is no President of the People's Republic of China, and both the US and China legally distinguish between Chairman/Premier (主席) and President (总统). This article should reflect what is factually accurate and reference colloquial usage in the lede. Suzutai (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Chairmen/presidents" sub-section title

Under the "Timeline" section, I find it a bit strange that there are two distinct sub-sections between "Chairmen/presidents" and "Other heads of state". The former only lists Heads of State under the 1st and 4th constitutions, and not the Heads of State under the Central People's Government (CPG) nor 2nd and 3rd constitutions. Why is there this (in my opinion arbitrary) distinction that the titles of "Chairman of the PRC" and "President of the PRC" should be distinguished from the titles "Chairman of the CPG" and "Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC)", when they were all effectively Heads of State under their respective constitutions/eras?

My guess is that the President of the PRC and Chairman of the NPCSC are separate roles today, so the article wants to bring out that distinction. In that case, would it be more precise to re-title the sub-section as "Chairmen/presidents of the PRC"? Littleghostboo[ talk ] 14:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Jiang Zemin Official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Xi Jinping 2023.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Head 0f State

Tagging @TheUzbek since they made this edit. Does China really have no head of state? I've searched for sources from China and they generally state that the president is the head of state. For example, this one refers to the presidency as the head of state, while this article in Chinese also uses the word "国家元首" i.e. head of state to refer to the presidency. Additionally, other articles from Chinese state media seem to call Xi the head of state as well. Maybe there's something I'm missing, however. The Account 2 (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a thorough answer later today, I promise! :) TheUzbek (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot! The Account 2 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for asking! Way too often, users revert without asking questions.

Secondly, the best book on this topic (in the English language) is The Constitutional and Legal Development of the Chinese Presidency: The Emperor's New Clothes? by Zhang Runhua. It's not well-translated, but very informative.

All socialist states are governed by the principle of unified power in which all powers are bestowed on the legislature, which has "supreme power". China is no exception to this rule. Similarly, all socialist states have modelled their constitution on the 1936 Soviet Constitution. In his speech, "On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R", Stalin stated clearly, "According to the system of our Constitution, there must not be an individual president in the U.S.S.R., elected by the whole population on a par with the Supreme Soviet, and able to put himself in opposition to the Supreme Soviet. The president in the U.S.S.R. is a collegium, it is the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, including the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, elected, not by the whole population, but by the Supreme Soviet, and accountable to the Supreme Soviet. Historical experience shows that such a structure of the supreme bodies is the most democratic and safeguards the country against undesirable contingencies." After the formation of the People's Republic of China, Mao was elected Chairman of the Central People's Government. Mao was very clear that this office was modelled on the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, stating, "The structure of the central government is similar to the government of the U.S.S.R. It is headed by a presidium with a chairman". Dong Biwu clarified further, "The powers and functions of the Central People's Government Council are often provided by other countries' constitutions as those of the heads of state." That is, Central People's Government Council was intended to function as the head of state and not the chairman, which had only two important powers; to convene meetings of the council and lead its work.

After WWII, the Eastern European socialist states established their own constitutions, all basically copies of the Soviet constitution. There are two exceptions. The East German constitution established the office of "president of East Germany". This toothless body was created especially for Wilhelm Pieck and was abolished upon his death. The other was the president of Czechoslovakia, which had broad powers and, in this sense, was more similar to liberal democratic constitutions (only this sense). The Chinese established the state chairmanship in the 1954 Constitution. As Mao wrote, "What is called in the Soviet Union the Supreme Soviet is the NPC in China, the Presidium of the Soviet Union is China's NPCSC, and the Council of Ministers is China's State Council. Compared with the Soviet Union, we have one more chairman. The chairman is equivalent to less than half of Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov. The chairman less than, not up to, the half of Voroshilov because the Standing Committee deliberates on everything and turns its decisions to the chairman to promulgate." Voroshilov was, at this time Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Presidium. Further, "The chairman should promulgate those decisions made by the Congress, but he cannot promulgate those that the Congress does not decide. Also, the chairman could not executive, which belongs to the State Council. He cannot act on his own. The chairman is not in opposition to the NPC and its Standing Committee [as Mao believes it would be under the separation of powers]. Instead, he follows them. In substance, we are the same as in the Soviet Union, because our chairman is not an individual president and cannot dissolve the NPC. Our country has a collective leadership represented by one individual."

Mao objected to calling the chairman a head of state. Liu Shaoqi stated in his "Report on the Draft Constitution of the People's Republic of China" that "The functions and powers of the head of state in our country is jointly exercised by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which is elected by the National People's Congress, and by the Chairman of the People's Republic of China. This confirms the actual situation of our country and is based on our experience in the building up of the highest bodies exercising state power since the founding of the People's Republic of China. Ours is a collective head of state. Neither the Standing Committee nor the Chairman of the People's Republic of China has powers exceeding those of the National People's Congress." In the 1975 Constitution, the state chairmanship was abolished, and China introduced the "traditional model" found in other socialist states; that is, that the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the NPC became the leader of the collective head of state body (but the chairman was not head of state), similarly to the USSR and other socialist states. This also makes sense from the perspective of unified power: the supreme organ of state power is the legislature! The 1982 Constitution established the chairmanship, now called the President of the People's Republic of China, but its powers were further reduced. As state chairman, Mao and Liu were heads of the state national defence council ex officio, but not the 1982 office. The 2004 amendments to the Chinese Constitution clarified the president's powers somewhat, stating. "The President of the People's Republic of China, on behalf of the People's Republic of China, engages in activities involving State affairs and receives foreign diplomatic representatives and, in pursuance of decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, appoints and recalls plenipotentiary representatives abroad, and ratifies and abrogates treaties and important agreements concluded with foreign states." In this system, in place now, the president must be delegated authority from the State Council to, for instance, sign treaties. But, of course, the president is often treated as the head of state by foreign media.

There is much history here, with many quotes and not the best-written prose either. Sorry for that.

While it may be true that commentators call it the head of state, most researchers and no official documents do. The clearest position the president currently has is the following, "The President of the State is an independent State body, a representative and symbol of the State." It not being the head of state also explains why the position is so weak. The People's Daily writes, "In our country, the president has no substantive and independent powers and is a "fake" head of state. It is worth mentioning that the presidency is not a position. The Constitution stipulates that the President of the State is an organ of the State, but a single person holds the office of President of the State."

I could write more, but does this clarify? TheUzbek (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already got the passage ready here in the talk section, I don't need to explain anymore. 虚位元首 is a specifc political term in Chinese lanauge. It means Titular leader, Titular ruler, or ceremonial head of state. You can't translate that as fake president, or remove the mention of ceremonial head of state, since that's the legal term. In your original article, it arleady said the President is the representative of the Naitonal People's Congress, however, the Presidnet only has the power to publish any law that passed, holds no veto power, and cannot decide anything. However, it can represent the Chinese govenrment and has diplomatic role. -Loned (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But legally speaking, what you are saying makes no sense since the president is not designated formally as either head of state or as titular ruler. So you're point is rather mute!

The office of the president has very few powers that are independent of the NPC. Why is there a need to use the term "ceremonial"? No Chinese politician or leading constitutional scholar (members of constitutional committees appointed by the NPC) use the term "ceremonial". TheUzbek (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: only China continues the Soviet tradition of the remaining socialist states. Cuba, Laos and Vietnam explicitly state that the president is the head of state. The North Korean constitution states that the chairman of the State Affairs Commission is the "supreme leader", which we can presume means the same thing. Compared to these offices, the Chinese presidency is way weaker. TheUzbek (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks a lot for your long explanation! Chinese politics is often very peculiar, and this has been really informative in the subject of heads of state in China and socialist countries in general.

So, if my understanding is correct, the presidency and the NPCSC jointly exercise the powers of the head of state. Is that correct? The Chinese Wikipedia says so, and I found this page which also states that. If this is correct I think it should be mentioned in some way. The Account 2 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ... That's correct. The President and the NPC Standing Committee collectively function as China's head of state, but not the president alone. It should be mentioned somewhere. This article is on my to-do list, but I have other priorities at the moment. TheUzbek (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@210.0.147.9: I really want to have a proper discussion with you, and when you are prepared, ping me here. It would be much more constructive than accusing me of being another user and refusing to discuss things. --TheUzbek (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Unanimous support, follows established practice of referring to the PRC as just "China". (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 04:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President of the People's Republic of China → President of China – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WIKIPEDIA:PRIMARYTOPIC and WIKIPEDIA:CONCISE TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 23:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning explained below:

I believe that "President of China" falls under COMMONNAME.
- While "President of China" has historically referred to various historical positions, including that of the Republic of China's Presidency, data from the likes of Wikinav show that the vast majority of people, when browsing "President of China", redirect themselves to the article for the PRC's presidency, which I believe is grounds to say that the usage of "President of China" to describe the PRC's position has become the Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. I believe also that this is sufficient grounds to say that its usage as the PRIMARYTOPIC will overrule WP:PRECISE.
I also believe that the rename would fall under WP:CONCISE as "President of China" nowadays has become the most commonly used term to describe the head of state of the PRC; and that hence it falls under the conditions of "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area".
I do not believe that at the present "President of China" (to refer to the PRC) can be confused with the office of the President of the Republic of China. The ROC Presidency is more commonly referred to as "the President of Taiwan", far more than "President of the Republic of China", which I believe is grounds to assert that the two offices will not be confused with each-other. I believe that "President of the Republic of China" works on its own as a suitable umbrella article to describe the current iteration of Taiwan's presidency as well as all of its previous iterations, while "President of China" (PRC) can stand alone as an article describing the position of the current Head of State of China.
Per WP:Consistency in article titles. We use President of Germany (1919-1945) to describe the office under the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany as it was a historical position, but we don't use President of Germany (1949-) to refer to the modern office. It's just more frustrating for users to have to redirect themselves to "President of the People's Republic of China" when most users are looking for that said article when they look up "President of China" and it goes against consistency.

I thus ask that this article be moved as per COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Nobody is searching for Lai Ching-te when they look up "President of China". The Account 2 (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. PRC is commonly known as 'China', thus this proposal makes sense. OrientalTraveller (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: For more opportunity for editors to see this discussion, since there was previously no consensus at #Requested move 20 April 2018. SilverLocust 💬 23:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and per WP:COMMONNAME, as evidenced by Google Scholar hits: currently 3550 for "President of China" "Xi Jinping" and 1120 for "President of the People's Republic of China" "Xi Jinping". Some of the oppose arguments in the 2018 discussion seem to imagine that the phrase "President of China" is ambiguous between China and Taiwan, but it's not; China is the primary topic for "China", and the president of China is the primary topic for "President of China". I don't think anyone would call Lai Ching-te the "President of China" (usually he's called the "President of Taiwan", and in very formal and legalistic contexts he may be called "President of the Republic of China"). A hatnote similar to the one at President of Germany might be appropriate to cover pre-1949 presidents. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. "China" seems sufficiently clear, commonly used, and more concise. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per above "China" here has been decided to commonly mean the people's republic, so WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. A hatnote or an RM would do for the ROC position. Dank Jae 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.