Talk:Scientific Outlook on Development

Note to keep tag free

I could and somebody probably will slap a lot of tags on this for synth, tone, original research, etc. Information content is good but needs more refs, wikification. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

redacted unacceptable material

viz:

This seemingly novel ideology was in reality a more capitalist deviation to Deng Xiaoping's original Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and served more as official rhetoric than in practical usage. In addition, its poorly defined limitations as well as the timing of its inception seems to point to it being a legacy project for Jiang. After his departure from an official role, Jiang Zemin continued to wield significant influence in the country's affairs. Due to popular pressure and increased inner party struggles, Jiang was forced to give up the power that remained through a gradual process lasting from 2003 to 2005.

redacted for the obvious reason the tags note as well as elements of the next ¶ This article treats it's topic in a gossipy and salacious manner and implicitly has a frivolous anti-CCP POV, possibly anti-scientific as well. I don't see what the various labor policies and so forth have to do with "scientific development". If it's being alleged that "scientific development" is just an empty slogan for crumbs of justice meted out to the working class, this needs to be made clear. Otherwise there needs to be more content on the actual topic of the scientific development of Chinese society under the CCP or at least its articulation as a policy initiative. Lycurgus (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Article can be blanked and rewritten according to these principles:

The Scientific Outlook on Development or Scientific Development Concept is a post-ideological vision of technocratic governance by the People's Republic of China driven by these core principles:

• Pragmatism, analysis, experimentation, and empirical validation
• Depoliticized, low-profile, collective, and agile decision making
• A coordinated and interventionist approach to policymaking as opposed to laissez-faire
• Policy targeting wide social gains in utility and not just economic growth, also addressing income
• Active participation in government and transparency at the academic level, and increasing freedom as society develops.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived Content

this section is removed content, for reference:

"It incorporates scientific socialism, sustainable development, social welfare, and a humanistic society,.

"Such a scientific approach is said to minimize conflict amongst different interest groups in society in order to maintain stability on the national level, in turn fostering economic and cultural advancement."

"In contrast to Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and Jiang's Three Represents..."

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: removing vandalism; its an ideology , everyone agrees if its an ideology.. If the ideology is Marxist, pragmatist, capitalist, keynesianist, reformist socialist I don't know, but pressing one view infront of the others is wrong, its POV. You're breaking WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is the first version before change. --TIAYN (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: At last, I'm no Marxist. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about user Dark Liberty's conduct. I read his contributions to this page and I don't think they are necessarily all bad, but reverting without discussion and with abrupt edit summaries does no one any favours. I suggest we restore the page to its state before this user's edits and try to hash out a consensus from there. Colipon+(Talk) 18:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The Scientific Outlook is non-idelogical, Anyone who reads the article will believe otherwise. According to the ideology of Sparta, "Stoicism lacked both the idealization of government, [and] also the extroverted rational utilitarian pragmatism." Editors should discuss changes and reach an agreement on what should be included.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision Comparison

When comparing both versions of the articles, my revision actively conforms to Wikipedia's MOS and states the thesis, which editors may be in favor of.

The Scientific Outlook on Development or Scientific Development Concept (Chinese: 科学发展观; pinyin: Kēxué Fāzhǎn Guān) is a post-ideological vision of technocratic governance by the People's Republic of China driven by these core principles:

• Pragmatism, analysis, experimentation, and empirical validation
• Depoliticized, low-profile, collective, and agile decision making
• A coordinated and interventionist approach to policymaking as opposed to laissez-faire
• Policy targeting wide social gains in utility and not just economic growth
• Active participation in government and transparency at the academic level

The previous version, below, suffers from poor writing. For example, what is social welfare? What is a humanistic society? China is democratic? Define Socialist Harmonious Society. It is copied directly from the speech, followed by some unsourced statements.

"The Scientific Outlook on Development, sometimes translated to either the scientific development concept, or as the scientific development perspective, is one of the guiding socio-economic principles of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It incorporates scientific socialism, sustainable development, social welfare, a humanistic society, increased democracy, and, ultimately, the creation of a Socialist Harmonious Society. According to official statements by the CPC, the concept integrates Marxism with the reality of contemporary China and with the underlying features of our times, and it fully embodies the Marxist worldview on and methodology for development."

• Also is the problem "official statements by the CPC" I don't think that has any bearing on a political article.
• Concept integrates "Marxism with the reality of contemporary China, and fully embodies the Marxist worldview" - This statement is unsourced.

"The ideology stems from the basic premise that it is possible for the state to engineer sustainable development through tested and proven methodologies of governance. Such a scientific approach is said to minimize conflict amongst different interest groups in society in order to maintain stability on the national level, in turn fostering economic and cultural advancement."

• This section is acceptable, but does not state what the Development Concept is. I moved it to the Theory section.

"The ideology is recognized by observers as a comprehensive response to the ideological gap left by the social problems that resulted from China's market economic reforms. Credit for the theory is given to former Chinese leader Hu Jintao and his administration, who was in power from 2002 to 2013. It is the newest slogan added to the idea of Socialism with Chinese characteristics ratified into the Communist Party of China's constitution at the 17th Party Congress in October 2007. It is lauded by the Chinese government as a successor and extension ideology to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the Three Represents."

• What is Mao-Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and Three Represents? If these are to be included, they belong in the body and not the thesis. However, they have no bearing on the article.
• Hu Jintao's term and how many term limits he has is not the subject of the article.

The second version of the article lacks any real legitimacy because political scientists or scholars will not recognize it being the actual belief or policy, nor does it inform the reader as an encyclopedia should.

Dark Liberty (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Article thesis

If anyone would like to know what the thesis of the article is, it is:

"The Scientific Outlook on Development is a post-ideological vision of government which represents China's ideological shift from economic growth towards one more oriented towards the development of society."

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: It might work as a thesis, but state that the Scientific Outlook on Development is post-ideological is were the problems start, its an ideology and China hasn't moven into post-ideological politics. The party publishes theoretical articles, books, magazines, tv shows all the time. They have a Propaganda Department, they have several leading groups on propaganda, which are responsible for disseminating ideology. What the ideology of the CPC is however discussable, but to say, without controversy that China is post-ideological is nonsense. If that had been the case, they would have downsized the propaganda sector instead of expanding it in recent years. --TIAYN (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad you responded. I wanted to include post-ideological in the thesis, because it accurately describes where some governments may be moving towards. Of course it's an ideology, but more so than in practice, it's like post-modernism, which in its current form, extends to politics. If we use the word ideology instead, I think we run into some problems. We would have to categorize it as an ideology and compare it with all the previous -isms, something which can be avoided.

Dark Liberty (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Scientific Outlook on Development, is one of the guiding socio-economic principles of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It incorporates scientific socialism, sustainable development, social welfare, a humanistic society, and increased democracy."

Here's the original thesis, but there's two problems. The Scientific Outlook is in direct contrast with the previous policies (even the Capitalism of the 1990s). Also, when you state the Party, it has to be current, and it's better to avoid this problem altogether.

The statements on scientific socialism, sustainable development, etc. is acceptable but they are vague. And if they are vague they have to be sourced. It would be more appropriate to state, for example, Scientific Outlook uses market research in inviting citizen feedback, focuses on social problems rather than pure GDP growth, and that it would increase participation as time passes.

Dark Liberty (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty:

1. is a post-ideological vision of technocratic governance by the People's Republic of China driven by these core principles - post-ideological as already mentioned, technocratic is controversial, just as many (or more) call it highly disciplined or simply corrupt . Secondly is modern China more technocratic then the USSR, if you look at the education of the respective Politburo members, no.
2. Of course we should call it ideology, and of course we should discuss its relations with the other ideologies. It was introduced as a continued development of Marxism to Chinese conditions, this means that by its very nature that the ideology can only be defined by explaining the continuities and discontuities with the other ideologies
3. "stated that one of the main goals for his administration was to fill the ideological vacuum left by the transition from Marxism-Leninism towards a market-oriented economy" - Hu never said this, China or the CPC has not transitioned from Marxism-Leninism officially/formally. Marxism-Leninism is still considered the main ideology of the CPC, since all the other ideologies (Mao Zedong Though, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, this) grapple on how to implement M-L in practice (thats the official stance). Hu never said such thing.
4. "The Scientific Development Concept stems from the basic premise that it is possible for the state to create sustainable development through tested and proven methodologies of governance, as an extension to Marxism-Leninism" - its not an extension of M-L, it is M-L in practice (or more aptly, a guide to how to implement M-L in practice)
5. "The state is viewed and governed as a corporation, where the Central Commitee functions as a corporate board of directors. " - total fantasy, the role of the party and state has not changed with the introduction of this theory
6. "Also, an active approach, in contrast to the laissez-faire policies of Militon Friedman, is taken to balance social issues such as crime, unemployment, and pollution " - this is nothing new, and has been the CPC's and the state's position since the introduction of reform. They talk of controlling the Commanding heights of the economy (and of sectors; for instance, sectorally, the state owns the largest tourist company). This opposition to market fundamentalism (as its referred to by the Chinese, in Chinese) is nothing new, and is not linked explicetly to this concept anymore then the Three Represents was linked to it.
7. " Finally, the concept states that democracy should operate on higher levels of society, especially academia, and over a period of time the common people given more political freedom." - democracy, when used in Chinese parlance, is always used alongside such terms as "inner-party", "socialist", "consultative" and so on. The CPC or the Chinese state have never promised more freedom of speech. There might have been some hopeful Western journalists who believed, or still believe that, but the CPC has never supported the extension of freedom of speech.
8. summarized the principles as "democracy, the rule of law, justice, and harmony," which represents China's ideological shift from economic growth towards one more oriented towards the development of society. - right word here, move to orient Chinese growth to develop the people's need. The term "Serve the people", a Maoist lingo, was reeintroduced during Hu's rule to showcase this.
9. the goal of the theory was to put an end to the rising inequality and introduce measures which would make more equal by enlarging the middle class. Its goal, however, was not to enlarge the corporate class (which would be a paradox to say the least).

• In short, too many inaccuracies. The other one is bad, you're one is worse. --TIAYN (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User Dark Liberty, could you please cite a reliable source for all of this synthesis? I don't want to say that you are wrong as you do bring about some interesting points but I do want to see if these characterizations of the Scientific Outlook on Development has received mainstream academic coverage. Thanks, Colipon+(Talk) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No scholar would argue that, "Marxism-Leninism is considered the main ideology of the CPC." That is a faux pas when it comes to political theory. I'll cite you a passage from any from any mainstream American history textbook (e.g. Pearsons, Addison-Wesley) that will say quite the opposite.

Now, to address his points,

1. technocratic is a term used to describe China as well as BRICs in AP Comparative History. AP is an equivalent to a college-degree course in American high school. Have you taken school?
2. It should not be grouped with other pre-existing ideologies, specifically because it strives to be neutral or impartial towards abstract concepts such as socialism or democracy.
3. It is assumed and implied that it was one of his main goals.
4. Agreed.
5. Corporations are authoritarian in nature do not hold democratic elections. Decisions are made by a Central Commitee, and any microeconomic business principle, including agility, applies directly to the state.
6. Scientific Outlook is in direct contrast and directly opposes the Three Represents (Economic Growth Policy), that is why Scientific Outlook should not and will not be bundled with all the other -isms.
7. There is more pluralism in the Central Committee than in Congress. In the United States, you have Democrat, and Republican. So sure, in China there is freedom of speech in the higher echelons of society. ;)
8. "Serve the people" is as meaningless as "Social Harmony Theory." Democracy, rule of law, and harmony, on the other hand, means: a) Legitimacy granted by the people, in which the leaders serve b) Justice and fairness in a Legalist context and one by John Rawls, and c) Confucianism, which is not appropriate for this article.
9. If you enlarge the middle class, it doesn't mean the upper-class will shrink. On the contrary, a reduction in the lower class, an increase in the middle class, and an increase in the upper class, will entail an increase in the middle class.

Dark Liberty (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty:

1. "No scholar would argue that, "Marxism-Leninism is considered the main ideology of the CPC." That is a faux pas when it comes to political theory. I'll cite you a passage from any from any mainstream American history textbook (e.g. Pearsons, Addison-Wesley) that will say quite the opposite." - wrong again, scholars would rightly claim that the CPC is non-ideological ,but formally their main ideology is Marxism-Leninism. Therefore the main ideology of the CPC, formally, is M-L. You are right that many Western scholars don't agree with that assumption, but in all formality, it is.
2. How is the Ideology of the Communist Party of China breaching NPOV? Its built entirely on third-party sources. Every sentences is referenced. The articles doesn't breach NPOV, it opposes you're assumptions of China. Thats something entirely different.
3. I don't attend an American university.... But I attend a Norwegian one, and no-one has ever called China a technocracy. Simple as that.
4. It should be grouped because it is linked to the pre-existing ideologies. If it is linked, to strive for neutrality, we have to explain the connection. POV isn't about leaving out information, its about writing about information as neutrally as you can.
5. "There is more pluralism in the Central Committee than in Congress. In the United States, you have Democrat, and Republican. So sure, in China there is freedom of speech in the higher echelons of society." - You're using a Liberal term do describe a communist situation, and it literally doesn't make anysense. This is what they call socialist/inner-party democracy. At last, this is nothing new, this was not introduced by Hu & co.
6. "Corporations are authoritarian in nature do not hold democratic elections. Decisions are made by a Central Commitee, and any microeconomic business principle, including agility, applies directly to the state" - So because the CPC is undemocratic its a corporation. What was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union then? What is the Workers' Party of Korea then? Again, stop pressing the view that China and the CPC are technocratic.
7. Wrong, the Scientific Outlook on Development does not oppose the growth theory in the Three Represents, rather the SOD focuses on the third premise of the Three Represents; "Represents the fundamental interests of the majority". This is why the slogan "Serve the people" was reintroduced.
8. "Serve the people" isn't a meaningless term, and its a theory which explains how the party should become closer to the masses, never lose contact with the masses and rule on the support of the masses. Its not a meaningless term, its not like the CPC suddently decides to use an old term from the 1960s-70s again just for the sake of it, there are reasons... Serve the people means in communist terminology [if paraphrased in a Liberal way] "Legitimacy granted by the people, in which the leaders serve".
9. "Democracy, rule of law, and harmony, on the other hand, means: a) Legitimacy granted by the people, in which the leaders serve b) Justice and fairness in a Legalist context and one by John Rawls, and c) Confucianism, which is not appropriate for this article" - in a non-communist context they mean that, in a communist context thats nonsense.... Confucianism is appropriate for this article since it was around this time the idea that you could construct a sort of "Confucian socialism" (and this was connected, formally, with this concept) got steam.
10. Justice and fairness in a Legalist context and one by John Rawls - again, you seem to wrongly believe that using John Rawls theory (when they guy has never, or barely at all written about China, is uncontroversial to use). Secondly, justice and fairness in a legalized context is positive in liberal democracies (of all the Chinese people I met, no one wants to destroy the party)
11. From what you wrote the CPC leadership called for the expansion of the upper-middle class to, which is false.

You're POV-pushing one view on the article; that the CPC is technocratic. Which is not even the dominant view. Socialist, communist, capitalist, corporatist, technocratic, pragmatist, right-wingers and more can be used, and should be added in the article, but one view shouldn't suppress all other views. As you have done with you're version. --TIAYN (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Francis Fukuyama has written a great deal on the world moving towards a post-ideological phase, especially in technocratic nations such as China, in his acclaimed book, The End of History. The article (my revision) reflects Fukuyama's views. TIAYN, on the other hand, is a serial POV pusher whose revisions include Ideology of the Communist Party of China. I am surprised that Wikipedia has allowed certain individuals to even have the right to edit these articles, and equally so the time I have spent to undo vandalism when this is universally accepted per WP:CONSENSUS. Nonetheless, I hash out the consensus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NdFpQwKfX2IC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"emergence of a technocratic elite in China created a large bias to favor markets and economic liberalization"

Dark Liberty (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you come from a Norwegian University, then your view of the world is wrong. Many Norwegians support China, and that is wrong, when clearly it is against their interest. POV is about being right. In your case, many of the articles are so poorly written that they are unsourced that it comes across as being bad.

6. What does Corporations in the Soviet Union or North Korea have anything to do with this article? If you can establish a causal link, then you are the winner.

7. Yes, Scientific Outlook opposes Three Represents. China realized it cannot follow the interests of technocracy for an extended period of time.

9. Confucianism is not appropriate for this article, because even though Scientific Outlook in many ways embodies Confucianism, it is absolutely not related.

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: "If you come from a Norwegian University, then your view of the world is wrong. Many Norwegians support China, and that is wrong, when clearly it is against their interest." What the fuck? No Norwegians support China, they broke of relations with us... And even if that was the case, do you have the right to condemn a view? - "it is wrong". WTF? being a technocracy isn't bad.

1. I don't consider Fukayama's book any more reliable then Karl Marx's Das Kapital here on Wikipedia..--TIAYN (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Because the state-party works nearly identical to its sister party in the former USSR, hence "The state is viewed and governed as a corporation, where the Central Commitee functions as a corporate board of directors"
3. No, the Scientific Outlook on Development doesn't oppose the Three Represents.
4. Confucianism is appropriate because the Scientific Outlook on Development embodies Confucianism. You even said so yourself. You're POV pushing important topics from the article, and you even admit so ""because even though Scientific Outlook in many ways embodies Confucianism [...]"

You've still failed to explain how the Ideology of the Communist Party of China article is POV, and failed to explain of how all those third-party sources are POV. You are failing in many areas it seems. Accusing me of POV pushing won't improve this article, even more so when I'm not actually POV-pushing anything. --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

In response to User Dark Theory's sourcing above to Fukuyama's book The end of of History, I cannot find anything that directly mentions the Scientific Outlook on Development (in fact, even his 'revised' version was only published in 2006, at a time when "Scientific Development" has not yet matured as a concept in China. Please cite specific passages. In addition, Fukuyama's book is mostly composed of his own opinions (some of which are valid, some of which are very questionable). As such I would be reluctant to insert his characterization of this ideology as anything other than his own view. And to both of you, please, let's keep this discussion civil. Colipon+(Talk) 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Colipon, it was supposed to be Scientific Outlook is a post ideological(cite Fukuyama) vision of government etc.

Scientific Outlook is not quite an ideology; it's a method. It lacks the idealization of government as in the West because it strives to be neutral or impartial towards abstract concepts such as socialism or democracy. Also, User TIAYN has been involved in many disputes that may undermine his credibility as an editor.

Scientific Outlook was formulated to combat and reverse the previous ideology (and emphasis on ideology, and according to the article, represents the possibility of sustainable development through tested and proven methods of governance. which of course refers to methodology rather than a belief. It is also written that "Three Represents signifies Jiang's dwindling position of power," which indicates that User TIAYN is on a serial agenda to place non-academic information in the article. All it takes is one editor to claim WP:CONSENSUS, when the only consensus is themselves.

If Confucianism seems to have a correlation technocracy and the development of civil society in China, even though they both arose independently, it would be POV-pushing to outline that when especially it needs to be sourced extensively, and that the audience is not yet ready to accept it.

Dark Liberty (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright folks, instead of throwing accusations around could we get back to the topic at hand? I think your thesis is interesting but the point of Wikipedia is to present information with reliable sources, particularly for something relatively contentious such as this topic. You cited Fukuyama as a source, but he does not mention Scientific Outlook directly. We need something concrete, written, that speaks to Scientific Outlook as it relates directly to the thesis you present above, otherwise, all of what you mention above is original synthesis, and not admissible to Wikipedia, unfortunately. Colipon+(Talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to place Fukuyama as a citation after the word post-ideological (Only to define post-ideological), but we'll need a separate section in the body that demonstrates that describes governments moving towards a new post-ideological order, maybe a Background or Origins section, which would have to be properly sourced and must relate to Scientific Outlook. Right, and I think the lead needs to be completely rewritten and sourced. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Colipon and Dark Liberty: While he's certainly attacking me, I'm not attacking him. To be clear, he knows little of the subject, and as you can see for yourself he is writing this article as it would have been hand-in assignment at college. Wikipedia is about two things; reliable third party sources and facts. Again, to make it clear, I've did not write the present version, other editors did. Consensus means the stable version of the article before edit-wars/disagreements. As said before, I don't like this version, but you're one is worse. This is not a personal attack, but rather fact. The proof of this is you're use of post-ideological; you can't use post-ideological in the article if the source doesn't use in any way connected to the Scientific Outlook on Development, however, you still seem to POV push a term in which the author doesn't link to the subject. And even if you find an author who uses it, its really used, and therefore has no place in the article. At last, just because I have incidents at a noticeboard doesn't undermine my credibility, thats not how Wikipedia works. One thing is clear, and this is not a personal attack; you don't know how Wikipedia works. And you accuse me of things which doesn't make sense; I'm not a POV pusher because I oppose you're edits, that doesn't make sense. Such a perspective can only be perceived one way; arrogance. As for Colipon, I give up, you clearly can't reason with Dark Liberty; give it a shot yourself, see how far you'll get. --TIAYN (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

The Communist Party of China and Ideology - Kerry Brown, China: An International Journal
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/china/v010/10.2.brown.pdf
"China since 1978 has been called a post-Communist and post-ideological society."

The End of History - Francis Fukuyama
"The end of history will be [characterized by] economic calculation, the solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands."

Interview with Fukuyama, 2014 - Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winston-shi/francis-fukuyama-end-of-history-_b_5569581.html
"Do you think China is a kind of heir to the Soviet Union (an explicit reference to Marxism-Leninism)?
Fukuyama: "No, I think that's probably not a good analogy for a couple of reasons. First of all, the Soviet Union had a universalistic ideology, so they were trying to spread their system. The Chinese don't care about [Soviet ideology]."

See Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_modernization

Dark Liberty (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: I've read the Brown article, and It doesn't say the same thing as you; he actually goes out of his way to show that the party has an ideology (its even a source at the Ideology of the Communist Party of China article). The first Fukuyama quote can't be used as a source in the article since nothing in that quote is directed at China. What China thinks of Chinese ideology can be added, but can't form the basis of this article. Simple as that. --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: Of course it's an ideology, but it's not as one would say. Yes, the first Fukuyuama quote can be used because I have written a note that it does not directly relate to the thesis, yet, its premises relate directly. The Chinese have no opinion or understanding of ideology. Today was September the 11th. I hope you know what that means.

Dark Liberty (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Fukuyama is not admissible as a source, full stop, as it does not speak directly to the Scientific Outlook; I am quite perplexed why you keep citing him as this amounts to very evident synthesis. The former quote doesn't even talk about China. Moreoever just because modern China is the subject of someone's views doesn't mean modern China is related to "Scientific Development", as the current administration seems to have moved on to the more abstract "Chinese Dream" as its guiding ideology. As for the Kerry Brown source, if you could somehow grant me access to send me a copy that would be good, as simply having an abstract doesn't really speak to how that source relates to the subject of this article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesus, what part of a definition do you not understand? It's added only to define post-ideology, because the Wikipedia article on post-ideology was original research and failed Wikipedia's notability standards. The reason is there because it clearly and explicitly explains what Scientific Outlook is about, but it is stated it is explicitly not a source for Scientific Outlook.

Also, If it had to be sourced, there would have to be a separate section in the body titled 'Fukuyama' for it. If you don't like it, go ahead and remove the Fukuyama reference and the note; it's your own preconceived notions of right and wrong that limit you from taking action. There is nothing that it slates or even pretends to be sourced.

You could be spending so much time revising all the bias (not on these articles, of course), but I see that you take an Ivory tower role and have long given up on the articles you care about most. What's the point of even signing on? What is Chinese Dream? Just another ideology that no one knows about (or cares about) in the West? Do you really think that people in China believe in it?

Dark Liberty (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot continue in this discussion as you have entered the territory of personal attacks. I will return once cooperative ambiance is restored. Colipon+(Talk) 19:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Colipon:It is you who is attacking others, under the guise of martial law, and stating that the Francis Fukuyama's post-ideological reference needs to be sourced when clearly, it is used to define a word. You know that you were wrong, and that you misinterpreted the statement as to source the entire article. I request you go and revert my change, to demonstrate to me what WP:CONSENSUS really is, and I will never participate in the article or discussion again. Otherwise, I will escalate this to RfC in which neither of you can participate in. Dark Liberty

@Dark Liberty: And we've been telling you, you can't use that word in that sentence if noone uses that word in the same sentence as Scientific Outlook on Development. You are breaching WP:SYNTHESIS. We've been telling you this how many times now? Instead of edit-warring, what about listening? --TIAYN (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have zero to do with this article but saw an editor here warned DarkLiberty about his editing. I did the same thing just before also on his talk page. Suggest a block is needed. He is not here to build the encyclopedia in my estimation he is here to trash talk and blog. Example [1] If he has edit warred and sock puppeted really isn't that enough to make the point? He used an I.P. also when debating something with me, but that is not against the rules but it is if it is done to betray the editing community by using a fake identity to echo his own point. Happy to throw in my two cents if there is an Ani and yes I know I should not be writing this, but I am anyway. I don't think he is going to stop disrupting articles and my guess is that he has been through this a lot with other names etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is well known that Wikipedia has no sympathy towards the "conspiracy-theories" that Mr.Earl (or is that not his real name and rather a meat puppet?) is so interested in. However, it is also equally true that Wikipedia is hostile towards mainstream views, in which, these views are taught in every American high school and every private university, runs so deep in American society. When you work for Government, you are instilled a sense of social justice and authority to serve the public. Your worldview becomes, bad articles written by second-year olds will become good. Right will become wrong.

Actually, though, because of how a few misinterpreted my language and cannot read, it is more than likely they are to be edited until TIAYN becomes the last unicorn. Maybe it's someone's opinion. Maybe some believe we never landed on the Moon. but what is absolutely true is I have public approval and consent, of authorities beyond Wikipedia, of people reading this very talk page, and every mainstream scholar and celebrity you can think of. Anarchical behavior over a single word "post-ideological" is not acceptable, even in a forum. You are to restore my revision, and we talk from then on what to include, and not to include.

Dark Liberty (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: I also have "public approval and consent, of authorities [which go] beyond Wikipedia" at the Ideology of the Communist Party of China, but you don't seem to give a shit about that when those sources don't agree with you. ... "However, it is also equally true that Wikipedia is hostile towards mainstream views, in which, these views are taught in every American high school and every private university, runs so deep in American society" So you're saying just because some Americans are taught something what the Americans learn have universal value? British learn different things, french too, the Russian and the Chinese... I don't the get the point; Its smells like grotesque American exceptionalism. --TIAYN (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming

That DarkLiberty the recently blocked edit warrior here is also [2] this editor as a new sock puppet. Maybe if the blocking Admin. is reviewing this, if they are watching DarkLiberty's behavior they can check and block him again. It appears to be the same person because of the interest and the non coincidence of editing these subjects and how that relates to their interest. I believe he has recently edited Zeitgeist: The Movie under another sock puppet name [[3]]. User TIAYN I can not help but think you are being trolled by this person. Its your prerogative if you engage him but the usual advice is the do not feed advice. Just a suggestion. I think he is here for the chaos factor rather than editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me over two blocked accounts you may have created is the greatest mistake you'll ever make, along with misreading my original comment. If an administrator as an emergency surgeon in a hospital who confuses patient A's diagnosis with patient B's. That is very dangerous, and brings into question the ability of the surgeon. I have no interest in the "conspiracy theories" in both links you posted that you are so interested in.

I can guarantee you haven't even read the contents of this discussion either. It's about Fareed Zakaria and Francis Fukuyama using a new buzzword named "post-ideological" to describe developing countries, with the approval of all parties, of course.

You're afraid of whatever is bothering you. If you had your administrative privileges taken away from you, everything you do would get reverted. We hold the same views on the subject, I was going to assist in removing the vandalism and patrol the page, but now, you no longer have the privilege of speaking to me. If those sockpuppets come under your IP or anywhere close to your location, then it would be very unfortunate.

Dark Liberty (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Include: China's economic reform process which began in 1978 has transformed the nation from a state-dominated economy into a predominantly market-driven economy in which corporations have become the predominant factor in economic growth.<citation>

Include: Scientific Development Concept embodies Confucianism in that both value social harmony over materialism and the pursuit of justice.<citation> However, <reason and differences between the two ideas>.

Economic Growth in China - University of Cambridge

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PMzvzOsVBnUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Markets+over+Mao+Nicholas+Lardy&ots=eVjB6k0UA4&sig=ExjU8BIMbYGdU5MzQuneg-niH5Y#v=onepage&q=centralized&f=false

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

removed material

placing material that i just removed here for reference. this content was either unsourced or had nothing to do with the topic.Happy monsoon day 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Implementation

In his speech, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to spend 10.9 billion yuan ($US1.3 billion) on the "re-employment" of millions of laid-off workers and another 3 billion yuan to improve industrial safety, especially in the country’s coal mines. He pledged to abolish the central government’s agricultural tax on 730 million farmers and provide education subsidies for poor rural children.

Wen specifically referred to the 140 million rural migrant workers who form the backbone of China’s cheap labour force. “A mechanism will be promptly set up to ensure migrant workers in cities get paid on time and in full, and the work of getting their back wages paid to them will be continued,” he said. Official estimates put the backlog of unpaid wages as high as $US12 billion.

The actual application of the Concept has received mixed results. The central government faces significant opposition from regional governments and from the so-called 'Shanghai Clique' from within the Politburo Standing Committee who wish to place greater emphasis on the path of economic growth (as opposed to the Concept's more tempered approach with a view to the social costs of development). [citation needed]