Talk:Chinese Communist Party

Copy-editing

I copy-edited the article but someone should probably check its neutrality. There are some problematic passages too; for example I don't think I understand this passage: "While both Su and Dong agreed that it was the collectivization of agriculture and the establishment of People's Communes which had ended rural exploitation, neither of them sought a return to that era." What era? The era of rural exploitation or the era of collectivization of agriculture? Not clear.

The article appears Biased

I don't see any criticism mentioned in the article. The whole article looks like it might have been written by a CPC flunky. It looks biased towards the CPC or at least to have shrouded the CPC in a haze of buzzwords. I do *not* think it's a good candidate for a 'good article'.Sanpitch (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sanpitch: Why should the article contain criticism? :p The article on China doesn't contain criticism, not even the article on North Korea contains criticism, so why should this be treated any differentially? --TIAYN (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sanpitch is right--the bias is pro-Party and should be reduced. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Tell me where concretely this article is "pro-party" Rjensen? --TIAYN (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The article makes it seem like the CCP is an open, democratic and largely bottom up party, much like a western political party. But my understanding is that it is a totally top down structure, where people largely do as they are told. And there is far to much vague woffle in it about "centeralized communism" etc. Tuntable (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer Introduction and Notes

This review is transcluded from Talk:Communist Party of China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and I will be the reviewer for this awesome article! This should be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note, that I'll try and do review comments in a 7 day time period. Just a note ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I will use this old peer review and check off if you did everything the reviewers recommended you do.

EDIT: to TIAYN, I do my review in a style with a main review covering most aspects, then doing an in-depth review for both the prose and sources. Just a note ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Okay, by reading each section of the article, there are no spelling or grammar mistakes. No problems from a first look, but other minor mistakes will be covered in the "Prose review" section. Also, just a question, how long does the article have to be to split it? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 16:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead pretty much summarizes the article, and layout is correct. From a first look, there aren't any "Pigeon words," but more will be covered in the prose review.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	From a first look, all sentences/paragraphs are relevantly sourced. More details in source review.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All statistics, statements, quotes are all directly sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is sourced, so there is no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The Communist Party of China article covers everything it "should cover." (the history, its point of views, etc.)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, just a question, does the article have to be like over 100kb to be split? I don't think its necessary, however.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Unlike the last review, which I rushed, after reading the article, the article has point of views from both sides. However, maybe add some international coverage, or sources if possible. (This is just a tip for FA.)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No really big arguments (Edit wars), and the article is relatively stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	will check images soon. Copyright status is tagged, fair use rationales are also provided for non-free content. Great job!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to each section, there are plenty to go around. Captions, I will check soon.
	7. Overall assessment.	See notes below and change them if needed. On hold. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Article is passed, notes were done. Good job. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review Notes (Followed everything noted in peer review) Y

Lede

• My concern is that this article's lede is so short, particularly given the length of the rest of the article. For instance, it does not mention Mao Zedong (surely an omission) and does not go into any discussion of the ideological background to the CPP. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed!

• We mention the 18th National Congress, but not the date in which it took place, which should be fairly important here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed!

History

• One of the main sources used here is ""History of the Communist Party of China". Xinhua. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2014", which seems to me to be the product of the Chinese state news. We can do better than that, surely ? Let's get some academic historical accounts of the CPP history in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed.

Other comments

• This page could probably do with more images; for instance, could we use an image of Mao, or Deng, or any of the CPC's founding members ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Good.

• This article is very long. Most of that is necessary, I appreciate, but when sections such as "Party-to-party relations" are considerably longer than that on "History", then I think that we have some problems on appropriate weight. Branch some of these sections off, creating articles devoted solely to them, and then edit this page down as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Yes, you cut down the prose. Good job with doing everything the peer reviewers noted. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose+Source Notes

Good sources, sources require no review :)

Prose Review Begins Here When you finish a point, just use a check sign which looks like this: Y Otherwise, use Y if it only partially is needed, or N if you don't think its necessary.

NOTE: Sorry that the review is so messy. Try and figure it out, but if you can't (which I completely understand) ping me or leave me a talkback template ;)

History Section (a big one)

• Founding and early history subsection

Good.

• Chinese Civil War and World War II (1927–49) subsection

"The near-destruction of the CPC's urban organizational apparatus, led to institutional changes within the party."

 Done Take out the comma in the middle.

"Li Lisan's leadership was a failure, and by the end of it the CPC was on the brink of destruction."

 Done Add a comma between it and the.

"The Comintern became involved, and by late-1930 he had been taken away his powers"

 Done Add a comma between 1930 and had.

"By 1945, the KMT three-times more soldiers under its command then the CPC, and because of it, it looked early on like it was winning."

 Done Maybe say "the KMT had three-times more soldiers under its command then the CPC..."

"However, the main failure was that the KMT, with 2 millions more troops than the CPC, failed to reconquer the rural territories which made up the CPC's stronghold."

 Done Change 2 millions to 2 million.

• Ruling Party (1949-present) subsection

Everything is good, just a question. Is there any new information on Xi Jinping's leadership?

 Done Added a line on Xi's anti-corruption effort and his bid to centralize more powers in the CPC General Secretary at the expense of the collective. --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Goverance section

• Collective leadership subsection

Good.

• Democratic centralism subsection

Good.

• Multi Party cooperation system subsection

"The Multi-party Cooperation and Political Consultation System is led by the CPC in cooperation and consultation with the 8 parties which make up the United Front."

 Done Add a comma between parties and which.

The below subsections are ALL UNDER THE ORGANIZATION SECTION.

• National Congress and constitution subsections

Good.

• Central Committee subsection

"While the Central Committee is the highest organ in the periods between party congresses, few resolutions cite its name. Instead, the majority of party resolutions refer to the "Communist Party Centre", an indirect way of protecting the powers of, and resolutions produced by, the Politburo, the Politburo Standing Committee and the General Secretary."

Maybe change the second sentence to ..."the majority of party resolutions refer to the Committee as the "Communist Party Centre"...'

 Not done @MrWooHoo: You seemed to have misunderstood the point, the point is that instead of citing or referring to the Central Committee, the party's "supreme body" inbetween party congresses, they instead refer to the "Communist Party Centre" which can mean the Central Committee, the Secretariat, the Politburo or the Politburo Standing Committee. Another example of informal politics in communist systems institutionalized; instead of delegitimizing the Central Committee, which they would by issuing resolutions which stated that they were published by the Politburo, they refer to the "Communist Party Centre". This is not to say that the Central Committee is unimportant but that its role is different from what is said it should be according to the party's constitution; in it the Central Committee is the supreme authority between congresses, but since the Central Committee meets only once or twice a year usually that power is handed to the Politburo, which in turn hands it to the Politburo Standing Committee. The centralization of power has turned the Politburo Standing Committee as the highest body in the land. However, when the Central Committee do meet, it acts as a "discussion chamber" where policy is decided. A place in which the communist elite can discuss and form policy, which is accordance with the party's constitution. Point being, the party's constitution gives the Central Committee supreme authority over all aspects of the party - thats a power it does not currently has, since in fact the Central Committee is more accountable to the Politburo then the other-way around. Of course, it still has these parties formally, and as can be shown with the Soviet Union in 1957 and 1964, if the Central Committee was unhappy with the leadership (and had the belief that it could change the leadership without suffering physical harm) it could dismiss Politburo members and the party leader. But this happened only twice, and its telling that with the majority of the Central Committee opposing Mikhail Gorbachev's reform efforts in the late-1980s and early-1990s, the man left the party by resigning from it in a bid to strengthen his legitimacy, and was not a case of the Central Committee actually using its powers as "bestowed upon it" by Lenin & co. Short, the "Communist Party Centre" does not refer to the Central Committee, in fact it does not refer to any specific body - it refers only to the party leadership. Not only does this make it impossible for the grassroots to hold the leadership accountable, it also institutionalizes the "dictatorship of the Politburo Standing Committee" (a small body) at the expense of the "dictatorship of the Central Committee" (a large body).... Any tips for making this clearer? --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: No, it's fine, I just needed a clarification. I have passed the GA Article. Congrats. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Central Commission for Discipline Inspection subsection

Good.

• Bodies of the Central Committee subsection with its own sections (all prose until Members subsection)

Good.

• Members Subsection

• Probationary period, rights and duties subsection of Members subsection

"To join the party an applicant must be 18 years of age, and must spend a year as a probationary member."

 Done Add a comma between party and an.

• Composition of the party and Communist Youth Leage subsections of Members subsection

Good.

SYMBOLS SECTION

Good.

Ideology Section

No prose errors, or infractions with MOS. Great job!

Party-to-party relations section

Nicely polished. Great job!

I agree that the article needs criticism of the "Communist Party of China". There should be criticism of the "Communist Party of China" from other parties that call themselves "communist" noted. 71.181.179.45 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical:
Maoism

why I can't put this in the box?--E.F Edits (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@E.F Edits: Because its not historical, they are still officially committed to Mao Zedong Thought. --TIAYN (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

CPC <> CCP

Only a small part of the text makes use of CCP. Should we not use CPC throughout for the sake of consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes! --TIAYN (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The actual translation of Zhonghua (China/Chinese) Gongchan (Communist) Dang (Party) makes it obvious that CCP is correct. CPC is merely a Western adaptation based on “Communist Party of ...” conventions left over from the Cold War.DOR (HK) (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104213020/http://english.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130513/chinese-communist-party-to-train-chavista-leaders to http://english.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130513/chinese-communist-party-to-train-chavista-leaders

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Left wing / far left

Does anyone really know what this means, or believe it actually represents current CCP positioning or ideology? If any of these short-hand tags have meaning, I'd say it would be nationalism, with neither a left nor right slant. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)