Talk:Xi Jinping

Cult of personality in the lead

Given there have been several reverts over this I think it is time to discuss if the phrase cult of personality belongs in the lead. I think WP:LEADFOLLOWS should be the guiding principle here but I have not spent enough time on the article to determine how to apply it here. @The Account 2: you think it does not belong, why is that? Czarking0 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I felt like putting it on the lead would create the mistaken impression that a cult of personality around Xi is more widespread than it actually is to the point of being a defining features of his leadership. It could easily mislead readers to think his cult of personality reaches a level of Mao, Stalin or North Korea. While there's been more praise of Xi in state media compared to previous leaders, I'd argue it still hasn't reached leadworthy levels. As The Economist said: "A visitor to India will encounter Mr Modi’s face more often in one day in Delhi than Xi Jinping’s in a month in Beijing." Xi's cult of personality is at a much much smaller level than what comes to mind when the term "cult of personality" is used. A visitor to China would see his face in posters very rarely (you'll in fact see some famous celebrities in adverts more), there are no portraits of him hanging over in China (except in places like Tibet), and a user of Chinese social media might notice how rarely he appears there. Yes, he appears a lot on state media, but how many Chinese people spend their days reading articles on People's Daily anyways? The Account 2 (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

On a side note, there is indeed a lot of propaganda that Chinese people constantly come across, but they heavily praise the Chinese Communist Party itself rather than Xi Jinping as a single person. Propaganda in China is heavily Party-centered rather than personality-centered. The Account 2 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you convert this into a policy based argument? Your rational here does not seem to be based on leadfollows or other policies for how the lead should be written Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, perhaps WP:DUE applies no? The Account 2 (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

DUE is more about if it should be included in the article. Also just mentioning that a policy exists is not really an argument for what to do in a specific case. Czarking0 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I was noticing your exchange, and I think WP:LEADFOLLOWS is a reason not to have personality cult in the lead. There's not a great deal on the notion in the body. It's good that the idea is referenced in the body but not emphasized, although its an idea we see from time-to-time in Western media, it's a bit silly trope. So the body is fine, we're better off not in the lead, and also we have links in the body and the two different templates. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the article does not say much about the cult of personality directly. I think a bit of a compromise here is how Xi Jinping Thought is presented in the article. It is mentioned many times but more as links to the pages than as article text. I find that to be an odd misalignment. I believe the number of mentions warrants a more significant inclusion in the lead than is currently given. Things like Xuexi Qiangguo, an app for teaching Xi Jinping Thought had become the most popular smartphone app in China in 2019 indicate how a cult of personality might be a very different thing in 21st century China than any examples in a less technologically integrated society would lead us to look for. I have not seen sources that indicate we should make that particular point in the lead, but further discussion of this new form of mass work may satisfy those wanting to cover Xi's unique influence more directly while sticking to leadfollows guidelines. Czarking0 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the concrete facts, like a sentence on Xuexi Qiangguo. This is often a good way to resolve questions about using or not using a certain label. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The Account 2 (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There are, in fact, peer-reviewed academic WP:BESTSOURCES that go into depth regarding Xi's cult of personality. For starters:

• Gondek, Olivia (2025-10-01). "To Praise "Xi Dada": Analyzing the Personality Cult of Xi Jinping". Araneum: Richmond Journal of American & Global Affairs. 3 (1).
• Esarey, Ashley; Han, Rongbin, eds. (2024-12-31). "Love through Fear: The Personality Cult of Xi Jinping in Xinjiang". The Xi Jinping Effect. University of Washington Press. doi:10.1515/9780295752822-009. ISBN 978-0-295-75282-2. JSTOR jj.18501143.11.
• Luqiu, Luwei Rose (16 November 2016). "The Reappearance of the Cult of Personality in China". East Asia. 33 (4): 289–307. doi:10.1007/s12140-016-9262-x. ISSN 1096-6838.
• Yin, Liangen; Flew, Terry (February 7, 2018). "Xi Dada loves Peng Mama: Digital culture and the return of charismatic authority in China". Thesis Eleven. 144 (1): 80–99. doi:10.1177/0725513618756098. ISSN 0725-5136.

- Amigao (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes but my concern is is it due? Donald Trump also has a lot of sources saying he has a cult of personality (including a lot of academic sources as can be seen from his page), yet we don't mention a cult of personality in his lead. Ditto for leaders like Brezhnev (see #Cult of personality), Chiang Kai-shek (see #Cult of personality), Erdogan (), Putin (), Modi (), Ali Khamenei (), or even Hugo Chávez (whose cult of personality has a whole Wikipedia page). The Account 2 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Other pages not handling things the same way is not a policy based argument for handling this page any particular way. If you want to argue that those pages should start discussing CoP in the lead then discuss that on those pages. If there is an actual reason for the lack of lead inclusion on those pages then maybe that reason will be relevant here but the fact that another page does something is not a reason to do anything on this page. Czarking0 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's still a good reference to see whether it's a defining part of his rule. Building a cult of personality hasn't really been one of the defining things Xi has did since coming to power. Most articles on reliable sources I've seen on Xi's rule completely omit this. It hasn't really made an impact on most Chinese people's lives. For leaders like Mao, Stalin and the Kim family, a cult of personality was one of the most defining parts of their rules; the same doesn't really hold for Xi. The Account 2 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure whether being a "defining part" of Xi's rule is the right criterion for a linked mention to Xi Jinping's cult of personality being WP:DUE in the lede or not. Xi's personality cult very much exists with its own nuances and dynamics, as Olivia Gondek's recent scholarship or The Xi Jinping Effect (both linked above) demonstrate. Amigao (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not disputing whether it exists (I mean one can look at the top banner of the People's Daily website...) My concern was about at which level a cult of personality is due for the lead. My viewpoint is that a cult of personality be pervasive in daily life to deserve a mention in the lead, though I can understand other viewpoints. The main comparison to Xi I had in mind is Leonid Brezhnev. He also had a cult of personality (in some ways quite similar to Xi actually) but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the lead. I know other pages aren't supposed to inform what happens on this page, but I though it would be an interesting comparison as the closest possible equivalent to Xi there is. The Account 2 (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think some comparative analysis of the frequency in which things present in the lead are mentioned in the article is warranted to give some scale to the number of times cult of personality is mentioned Czarking0 (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2026

I personally can't say I've ever heard "Jinping" pronounced as /dʒɪnˈpɪŋ/. I would have gone with /ʒɪnˈpɪŋ/ or /ʒɪŋˈpɪŋ/. ~2026-40361-39 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Can't act on personal anecdotes. Yue🌙 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)