Talk:Paramount leader

Who else?
Other than Deng, who else does this title refer to? --Menchi 07:44 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * refers also to all successors like Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.226.158.8 (talk • contribs) 12:16, January 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that can be. Hu Jintao certainly does not have paramount power in the same way that Deng did. The only paramount leaders I can see would be Mao, Deng, and possibly Jiang, although he was so incompetent the word "paramount" seems self-contradictory on him. --Sumple (Talk) 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Incomptence -if true, your claim- is irrelevant, the term describes the pinacle position- like Caligula, who was mad as a hat, was as 'paamount' as any other princeps. Fastifex 17:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was just the offside remark. My main point is that, Mao, at the very least, is a paramount leader. You can't get more paramount than him, surely? Hu, on the other hand, is a leader in an institutionalised oligarchy, and thus would not be a paramount leader. --Sumple (Talk) 23:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 'More paramount' is besides the point, the notion is essentially 'top dog', whether one uses it to shine as 'father of the nation' (Mao), to change its faith (Deng) or rather fails to assure a notable place in history, what counts is the relative position while in office - 'for lack of better' will do. Fastifex 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will add Mao to the list. I hope no-one objects.
 * Nevertheless, if a paramount leader is merely "the top dog", isn't George W Bush also a paramount leader? In my mind "paramount leader" connotes some sense of unchecked authority. --Sumple (Talk) 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting thought, and technically I suppose he wmight qualify- but another characteristic is that the position is given this generic name because it is not formally defined and styled (the hinese cases don NOT share the same titulature) as such by law, unlike the constitutional position of a US President Fastifex 06:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Pinyin on this page might not be accurate, but I am not a native speaker. Also, does anyone know the source of the term paramount leader? I can't find any references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcc76 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Power struggle
Anyone follows the Chinese communist politic would know that there is always in-party fighting and constant behind the scene life-or-death power struggle. To start with, Hu Jintao may be the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, but the real power that commands the PLA is not in his hand. In the true sense, Hu is not yet THE paramount leader, but on the outside, he is. This is the complexicity of Chinese politic; there is a lot of guess work. Arilang   talk  22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Paramount leader → Paramount Leader &mdash; "Paramount Leader" is used as a title, even though it's unofficial. roc (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose — IAW WP:TITLE — V = I * R  (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: in my reading it appears the phrase "paramount leader" is primarily used as an uncapitalized, informal description -- as noted it's not an official title. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2010

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move Orlady (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Paramount leader → — Why was this rejected? Let's think this through. Either "Parmount Leader" is a title or it is not. If it is a title, then it is is a proper noun and both words should be capitalized. If it is merely a description, neither should be capitalized. (One usage that is clearly incorrect would be "Paramount leader", which I had found used in the Hu Jintao article. "Paramount leader" means "The Paramount (who is a leader)").

But it's clearly a title, albeit an informal one - the title of the leader of China. If it's not a title, what is it? If it's merely a neutral description, like "head of state" it would apply to any national leader. For instance, we could say "Barack Obama is the paramount leader of the United States." We could say this, but we don't, because its not a generally accepted neutral description. When and if we do, we can use the same capitalization for "Paramount Leader" as we use for "Head of state" (and change the article to read "Paramount leader is the generic term for an individual who is generally considered to be the most powerful political figure in an independent state..." or something). Finally, consider the parallel to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who is not just the "supreme leader of Iran". Granted his title is formal while Hu Jintao's is informal, but so what?

At any rate, this article and related articles need to rationalized. This article uses both "Paramount Leader" and "paramount leader" (and I have seen "Paramount leader" elsewhere). I can't fix this until I know what the deal is.

If the current title is retained, we probably ought to consider just deleting the article. We don't have articles such as Greatest leader of all mankind ("Greatest leader of all mankind is a description of the position of Kim Jong Il among mortals...") and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but it does seem to me as though this is not a title requiring capitalization (as it would if it were a formal title), but is nonetheless a widely discussed concept deserving of an article. (So oppose, as people did in the previous proposal just above.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Next generation
I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but Reliable sources are now consistently saying that Xi Jinping is expected to take over Hu's position(s) next year as a new generation of leadership transitions in. This seems like valuable information to include in the article but I honestly couldn't figure out where to put it. some sources. and pretty much any time a newspaper talks about Joe Biden visiting China, or anytime Xi Jinping is mentioned there is some mention that he is presumed to be the sucessor to Hu. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can afford to be somewhat patient with this one. Until Xi take over in November 2012 first as General Secretary... we can update the article then... Colipon+ (Talk) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed and original research tags
While the term "paramount leader" is well attested in relation to Deng Xiaoping and (less so) Mao Zedong, the claims that it also applies to Jiang, Hu and Xi are in decreasing order of acceptance. The article as it stands now provides no citations for its most central claims - the two citations which have been provided relate to peripheral claims only. Unless better citation can be provided, it seems wholly inappropriate to claim that, for example, Xi is called a paramount leader. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Deng's 'enddate' is not certain
I don't know if it is appropriate for Wikipedia to prescribe the 'end date' for Deng Xiaoping's tenure as 'paramount leader'. It is unsourced and totally dubious - and would need to be substantiated. Deng Xiaoping's informal authority, some scholars believe, continued well into the 1990s. Others say he lost it before his "southern tour" of 1992... so it really depends on who you ask when Deng was paramount "until". Colipon+ (Talk) 04:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Second that. It reflects the more general issues with this article - it contains a great deal of original research by an editor who has convinced himself or herself that "paramount leader" is a real position. All that can be said reliably, based on actual pronouncements by the leadership, is that Deng was and was acknowledged to be the "paramount leader" at least until 1989, anything after that date is debatable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I third that - looking through this article, and the bios of Deng Xiaopeng and Jiang Zemin, I see nothing that would indicate the significance of "12 October 1992" as any kind of milestone date. Where did this figure come from? Peter G Werner (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Communist Party's officially summary of its history regards the Deng-Jiang transition as taking place at the 4th Plenum of the Thirteenth Central Committee (Jun. 23-24 1989). I will use this date since it is at least somewhat official. Metuselth (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What's up with this "timeline" image. It is incomprehensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1.3.2.%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%B1%E5%85%9A%E5%8F%B2.%E9%A6%96%E8%84%91.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1000:2A80:ADDA:EFA6:1F6:A7AF (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm removing it. - Tronno ( t | c ) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is 最高 translated to "paramount"?
最高 should be translated as "top". Why does the article use "paramount"?

Translating 最高领导人 to "paramount leader" is just weird. The term "top leader" would be accurate. Even "supreme leader" would be a much better alternative compared to "paramount leader".

Should the term "paramount leader" be changed? Pacerier (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is simply tradition discourse. Google those two terms with date range before Wikipedia (e.g. 2000) to see that both terms have been used before then. "Paramount leader" was already the dominant term for Chinese leadership, while "supreme leader" was already in use for Iran and North Korea. --207.96.108.179 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Beijing At-large (49–76)?
What do the “Beijing At-large (49–76)” etc. refer to? These must be made clear. --Kaihsu (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jiang Zemin Official.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Xi Jinping 2023.jpg