Talk:Three Represents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Where does the quotation (described as the formal statement of the theory) come from? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was from Jiang's speech at the 16th CPC Congress. Colipon+(T) 18:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks — I've added the reference. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of Title

Shouldn't the title be "Three Representation" instead? The term "代表" in Chinese can mean "represent" or "representation". I think the term "representation" is the better term for this translation. Arbiteroftruth 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow the provided link. Chinese sources call it "Three Represents". That's about as official as it gets, no matter how silly it sounds in English. (I have similar problems with the word "International". To me it's an adjective, not a noun. To committed communists it is a noun.)

There's no issue to be had with the International; you can noun or verb any word in English. In German, French, Spanish and so on it works likewise. —Nightstallion (?) 08:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can noun or verb any word in English

You, sir, are a genius! 160.39.226.187 17:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —Nightstallion (?) 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that you can noun or verb any word in English, it is a practice that is best used sparingly because it confronts the reader's expectations, and thus detracts from the conveying of information. It's moot here, however. We should be using whatever translations are used by those who author, promote and report on these concepts. -Harmil 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

is there any connection with traditional socialist thoughtBacknumber1662

[edit] Removal of the most questionable assertions

Without proper referencing, the following statements should be removed from this article as original research which borders on POV:

• "... as a result has been the subject of quiet but heated opposition within the party.
• "... Second, it is an attempt to cement Jiang Zemin's historical legacy as a [[Marxist]] theorist"
• "... many Chinese, including members of the Party, find it incomprehensible."
• "... there have been reports of private unease at this theory from within the [[Communist Party of China]]"
• "Many dislike the focus of the theory on the advanced social productive forces"
• "Also many feel that [[Jiang Zemin]]'s promotion of the theory was similar to the creation of a [[cult of personality]]."
• "Since the ideology's inception its reception has been cold both inside the party and in the general populace."

These statements simply cannot stand on their own without significant sourcing, as they appear to place Wikipedia in the role of critiquing the Chinese government from a non-neutral point of view. Properly sourced, of course, these statements would be fine (though the use of "many dislike" and "many feel" is too weasel wordish and should be edited to be more exact). -Harmil 12:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)