Talk:Scientific Outlook on Development

message: 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)
thread_title:  Note to keep tag free 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redacted unacceptable material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  At last, I'm no Marxist. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Archived Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision Comparison 

message: 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)
replies: text:  "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.
#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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: That DarkLiberty the recently blocked edit warrior here is also  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 []. 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)
thread_title: Assuming

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed material