Jump to content

Talk:Chinese Communist Party: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 257: Line 257:
:Since this discussion has been given a break, Keep the above in mind and I’d suggest using the fresh start with the intention of ensuring that ensuing suggestions to edit the article are accompanied by [[wp:RS|reliable]] [[wp:secondary|secondary]] sources.
:Since this discussion has been given a break, Keep the above in mind and I’d suggest using the fresh start with the intention of ensuring that ensuing suggestions to edit the article are accompanied by [[wp:RS|reliable]] [[wp:secondary|secondary]] sources.
:Happy editing [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
:Happy editing [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|SarekOfVulcan}} As long as you state clearly to Wingwraith he can't add factual innaccuracies, and especially contentious information to the infobox, I'm fine with the left-wing position in the infobox... But the All-China Women's Federation is not part of the CPC. I know that, and he's unable to source it. Thats his problem, not WP's. So if you clearly state you support [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]] regarding infobox information, I'm fine. --[[User:Trust Is All You Need|TIAYN]] ([[User talk:Trust Is All You Need|talk]]) 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 14 May 2018


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.

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)[reply]

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

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Add: The CCP isn’t listed in the Far-left political parties Category (which for some reason disappears as a Wikilink). Their policy positions don’t match our Left-wing politics article. Chinese trade unions, for example, have less to do with advocating for workers’ rights than they do with surpressing (or, controlling, to use a more neutral term) a potential political force.

Anti-globalization? Green politics? Internationalism over nationalism? Social justice for minorities? LGBT rights? Not a chance.

As we say in our Left-wing politics article, “In China, the term “Chinese New Left” denotes those who oppose the current economic reforms and favor the restoration of more socialist policies.” In other words, China’s left is not the governing force, and so the label doesn’t fit in this article. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These labels mean nothing for governing parties in one-party states. The line should be removed altogether. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's see if anyone else chimes in before we remove it. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The CPC may be qualified as a Third Position's party, due to the nationalism, even ultranationalism of both Chinese politicians and civil society (e.g. aggressive attitude and threats against Vietnam, Philippines until the victory of Duterte, Japan and other countries about Spratleys, Paracels, Senkaku; violence and persecutions against Tibetans and Uighurs and aggressive messages on social networks) which look like German or Japanese attitude in 1939-45; and also the opposition to both liberal values and economic communist's policies, so that throughout not abandoning completely and officially communist ideology, the economic policy seems to be an alternative between formal capitalism and collectivized economy combined with a dictatorial regime (third position's supporters are described as against democracy and for a syncretism of nationalism and communism). Martopa (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Socialism with Chinese characteristics is listed in the section see also of Third Position. Martopa (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2018


I removed the left-wing label, as per this discussion.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to remove the description and, for the record, I object to your naming of the description of its political position as an exercise of labeling as there's nothing ulterior in stating the obvious (and, as a corollary, everything ulterior in not stating the obvious). Affiliated organizations with the CPC such as the CPSU or the Communist Party of Cuba both have their political positions documented in their respective infoboxes so I don't see why the political position of the CPC shouldn't similarly be documented in this case, and just because you think that political labels mean nothing for governing parties in one-party states doesn't mean that that in fact is true, much less that political ideologies do not in fact exist. The political position of the CPC is by definition left-wing, it explicitly identifies itself through the media of its constitutional foundations as adhering to a left-wing ideology (socialism) and its MO is similarly specialized along the logic of that ideology. Your comment about how the labels mean nationalism doesn't make sense as nationalism isn't a political position (it's an ideology that bisects the political divide) as is the comment by Martopa about how the CPC is a representative of the Third Position ideology when it explicitly attacks, in both theory and practice, what it sees as Western/non-Asian types of political systems. I have restored the description as you don't have consensus to remove it (I am disagreeing with you) so please do not restore it until we have sorted this out. Wingwraith (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "Far-left" must be combined with "Anti-globalization" or "Green politics", or political parties in China couldn't use the label. However I agree that after Deng come to power, the CPC nowadays is a Center-right to Far-right party de facto.--Wkbreaker (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And believe me, if you work hard to check out the constitution of CPC, you would find "Social justice for minorities" and "Protect the Environment". Maybe it isn't these that make a party "Left" or Marxist--Wkbreaker (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political position and the slogans

The political position of the CPC has been removed. However,there is no consensus to remove it(see the discussion above),so it should not be removed. The slogan part is also unnecessary.The sentences cited are used by the CPC,however they are not widely-used "slogans"that can represent the CPC.If these sentences can be referred as slogans,any sentence in a CPC publication can be a 'slogan',and this is not reasonable.--113.128.150.197 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ending the position arguement

@Wkbreaker, Wingwraith, DOR (HK), Martopa, and Soman:

  1. First things first. A position in a political map is a democratic thing, something which exists in liberal and iliberal democracies. In China there is only one party, and only one political movement. The party and the movement defines themselves as communists.
  2. It doesn't really matter that people are to the left or right of the CPC does it? There were people to the left of Stalin, they were shot! There were people to the right of Stalin, they were shot too! .. Are we suppose to conclude that Stalin was a centrist, and a defender against the extremism of the left and right?
  3. Third position. As far I remember, the Soviet Union underwent ethnic cleansing of sorts, Russian nationalism (Central Asians were not allowed to lead their own republics because Russians, and Eastern Europeans were preferred - China is better here), and suppression of specific groups (the Muslims in Central Asia had it way worse than the Christians in European Soviet area)..... Are we to conclude that the Soviet Union was third position? No.
  4. Territorial claims are not synonymous with nationalism. If I rightfully think something is mine, and I want it back, thats not nationalism - thats wanting something back. The conflict in the South China Sea is not proof of ultranationalism.
  5. So everything that opposes liberal democracy is third position?
  6. How is CPC a right-wing party? They have one of the most progressive tax systems in Asia - Thomas Piketty (yay that guy) has even written about it. The state owns the majority of the economy. They call themselves socialists, and say their highest ideal is communism. Despite the conflict with Vietnam, it has the highest level of diplomatic friendship China can have with a country - comprehensive strategic partnership (neither Vietnam or China designates their relationship with Japan, China, US or Russia that way)... In an increasingly liberal world, China is literally the only leading country holding onto state-owned ownership, the only country which officially proclaims that markets fail without state leadership el cetra el cetra.. Of course, in China education and health is partially privatised, and GINI is high... My point is not to say China is left or right, its just to say that its absolutely wrong footed to call the CPC centre-righr or far-right. They have literally instituted many policies leftists the world over can only dream of.
  7. Yes Tibetans and Uyghuirs are not treated well.... However, Tibet is also one of the fastest growing economic regions of the country... Hu Jintao even headed the province for several years - yes him, the previous leader. They might be suspicious of Tibetan political sentiments (because they have a strong and vibrant independence movement) but its not like they are trying to make their life a living hell. They are improving the economy in the area, they are improving living standards. That doesn't sound like either ultra nationalism or like anything else.


  • Conclusion. China is complex. The CPC is complex. The political map is relative to each country. For instance, if the most right-wing parliamentary party in Norway (that is were I live, correct) had ran for election in the US, it would be deemed far-left. Of course its not far-left. Still ,this just goes to show its relative. I find it strange that Westerners, who don't belong to China uses Western values (I probably shouldn't have used that term) to interpret the CPCs political position.

No position in the infobox. It should be removed from every one-party state ruling party on WP. Just because they make mistakes doesn't mean we should. --TIAYN (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no "position" should be listed in the infobox. It adds not factual value at all. In reality the left, right and centrist elements of modern Chinese politics all cohabit inside CPC, fighting to pull the party in one direction or another. --Soman (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with TIAYN. The CPC's positions vary depending on the issue, and are hard to pin down and summarize in the infobox. Also remove the "slogans" too. Slogans were big in the Mao era, but not for today's CPC. -Zanhe (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trust Is All You Need and Soman: The fact that we are in presence of a single-governing party doesn't necessary mean that the party hasn't any position (e.g. Nazi Party in Germany or fascist Italy, Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Videla in Argentina who are largely recognized as far-right), but the most important thing is that these positions must be sourced. In the case of Communist Party of Cuba, French newspaper Le Monde diplomatique classifies the party as far-left (they use the French word extrême gauche 1) ; but for the CP of China the main problem is that there are no reliable sources which define clearly a political position and Chinese leaders widely accept private property since Deng Xiaoping, so it's not really conform to the definition of far-left (far-left or far-right parties are generally antidemocratic, even if China is currently non democratic, it's not a sufficient criteria). Historically, under Mao there is no doubt that they were far-left ; but from its beginning to nowadays, the party has substantially evolved. Moreover, majority versions of Wikipedia in other languages (in French, Italian, Spanish) don't mention any political position (except in Serbian and Hebrew versions) so I think that it's most reasonable to leave the position empty ...
PS : The fact that the most right-wing party in Norway is more leftist than American Democrats of Obama/Clinton is dubious. Indeed, American political spectrum is widely perceived as very right-winged due to their strong social and religious conservatism, economic ultraliberalism, neo-conservative foreign policy ; but the Democrats aren't anti-immigration contrary to Porgress Party of Norway ; and far-right European parties are authoritarianists/antidemocratic (see threats and physical attacks from French National Front to journalists/medias), some of them openly support Mussolini and Hitler, which is not the case of the GOP which accept democratic institutions, doesn't glorify fascist or nazi regimes and under previous Republican presidencies doesn't organize pogroms, killings of immigrants, foreigners (except Trump and his supporters, but he isn't historically a real Republican and his supporters come mostly from neo-nazi groups and KKK rather than Republican party ; however there are effective counter-powers that prevent him from doing what he wants, to establish a dictatorship and so on.). And if Chinese behavior in "South China Sea" (the name isn't consensual and is subject to caution) isn't a proof of ultranationalism, it can be considered nevertheless as irredentist (same thing for Putin's Russia in Eastern Europe -> Ukraine, Georgia etc.) --Martopa (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are mixing apples and oranges in this discussion. First of all, labelling NSDAP as 'far right' is not helpful. It could easily be identified as 'far right' in the years leading up to 1933, but being in government makes the label irrelevant since 'far' indicates occupying a fringe position. In a way one could still consider German and Italian regimes in a left-right axis, because they could be compared with the opposition forces (PCI in Italy, KPD in Germany, most notably). But in present-day China the system isn't challenged from outside, all strands of modern Chinese politics, left-center-right can be found within the CPC. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TIAYN: There's no reason to remove the description and I note for the record that your absurd insinuation that the naming of the description of the CPC's political position is a Western-cum-democratic machination is, in conjunction with your seventh point, proof positive that you don't even make an attempt to edit this article from a neutral point of view and therefore provides good reason to summarily dismiss your recommendation to remove the political position item from the infobox. As aforementioned, affiliated organizations with the CPC such as the CPSU or the Communist Party of Cuba both have their political positions documented in their respective infoboxes so I don't see why the political position of the CPC shouldn't similarly be documented in this case; you also didn't raise this naming issue on either the CPSU or Communist Party of Cuba talkpage as you did here, so I don't understand the double standards of your commitment to render your proposed modification. Furthermore, just because you think that political labels mean nothing for governing parties in one-party states doesn't mean that that in fact is true, much less that political ideologies do not in fact exist: the political position of the CPC is by definition left-wing, it explicitly identifies itself through the media of its constitutional foundations as adhering to a left-wing ideology (socialism) and its MO is similarly specialized along the logic of that ideology. You will also note that you contradict your master conclusion when you explicitly say through the intermediate conclusion of your sixth point that "they [the CPC] have literally instituted many policies leftists the world over can only dream of." I understand that you are pro-CPC so it makes sense that you would try to present it through its Wikipedia article with a moderate physiognomy by eliminating any mention of its political position but that's no excuse for justifying your proposal with the fundamentally defective arguments that you proffered in your OP. I have restored the description and inserted another description (authoritarian socialist) as a potential succedaneum for the CPC's political position in an effort at compromise building, but in any case you didn't have consensus to remove the initial description so do not remove that material (again) until we have sorted this out. Wingwraith (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwraith: You've very clearly misunderstood me and @Soman:. To make the following clear:
  1. Chinese political scientific literature don't write about left or right, or if the CPC was far-left or not. They do write about left and right in the context of Europe. But its not like they are writing; "the CPC was a far-left movement which seized power".... Of course not, since left and right are relative terms...
  2. Then you misunderstood my seventh point. Leftists the world over, in democracies and what I consider as leftish (I live in a democracy), would consider China to have very leftish policies.... That does not mean that what I wrote over was wrong. The political spectrum thing is still a democracy thing. Talk to Chinese students studying abroad - they don't say "yeah, the CPC is bit to the right..." Why would they? The spectrum thing is completely pointless to them. If you are left, you have to be left of someone. Who in gods name is the CPC left too? Or right? Saying the CPC is left if compared to the Republicans is neither rationale or a good starting point.
  3. I've removed the positions several times from the Cuba party and Soviet party articles. But people like you always readd them. Check my edit history.
  4. Political ideologies of course means something for ruling parties of one-party states. But what does socialism mean? I believe that Tony Blairs socialism was down right rightism when it came to taxes and the economy. He was social of course, and increased spending on social services and school... but, yeah. Many call Blair a traitor to Labour, to the nation and to the socialist cause... Many disagree. It doesn't become easier to define a party's political position because of ideology. The Socialist Party of Serbia calls themselves socialists, but there policies have been neither very social, distributive, liberal or state-ish. They still call themselves socialists though!
  5. Yes, I do believe many leftists would have a way more positive attitude to the CPC if they recognised it as left-wing... however, as far as I know, most people in the West don't know about this aspect and its rarely in focus. Most leftists are not China admireres.
  • You havn't proven me wrong one bit with you're arguments... Literally, instead of reading what me and Soman wrote you're saying this and this does not make sense. --TIAYN (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't misunderstood anything you just aren't making sense in no small part because of your strong political bias on this issue.
1) Even if that was true it still wouldn't matter as you admitted that the political position of the CPC is on the left. ("They have literally instituted many policies leftists the world over can only dream of.") In any case if you don't like that description because it is (apparently) too vague, then we can go with what I recommended which is that the party's political position is authoritarian socialist. Either way your justifications to purge any mention of the CPC's political position on the article don't make sense.
2) Your seventh point was just a pro-CPC screed that proved my point about how you make no attempt to edit this article from a neutral point of view.
3) That's not the point the point is the double standards of your commitment to render your proposed modification, you don't go nearly to the same lengths to remove on the other two articles the same item that you are trying to remove on this one.
4) Stop restoring as you did here your disputed modifications to the article, the article listed the political position of the CPC for a long time before you came along with your (disruptive) edits.
Wingwraith (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wingwraith, there is something fundamentally wrong with “stating the obvious” in an encyclopedia article: the lack of a citation. When something is “by definition,” there has to be a source, somewhere. No one has come up with one and after two weeks of waiting for objections (back in January 2018), I took the bold step of rectifying a mistake.

And, let’s not forget that the political position description itself was inserted at some point, with less discussion than we are having right now.

The case for inserting a political position description has not been made.

The CCP is not the CPSU (for one thing, it still exists) or the CPCuba. However much one may wish for all communist parties to be identical, this isn’t the Cold War prior to the Sino-Soviet split. Accept that fact, and then we can move on to factual descriptions of what the CCP actually is, and how it describes itself.

Here’s how the CPP describes itself, officially:

The Communist Party of China (CPC) was founded on July 1, 1921 in Shanghai, China. After 28 years of struggle, the CPC finally won victory of "new-democratic revolution" and founded the People's Republic of China in 1949. The CPC is the ruling party of mainland China (P.R. China). The Communist Party of China is founded mainly on ideology and politics. The CPC derives its ideas and policies from the people's concentrated will and then turns that will into State laws and decisions which are passed by the National People's Congress of China through the State's legal procedures. Theoretically, CPC does not take the place of the government in the State's leadership system. The Party conducts its activities within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the law and has no right to transcend the Constitution and the law. All Party members, like all citizens in the country, are equal before the law. http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/

The left-center-right description adds no value to this article but only serves to confuse. It should be removed. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwraith: You are the only one who supports including positions in the infobox here... in this discussion!

There is really no point in having this discussion since you refuse to engage in talks. Instead of digesting what I mean, and from that basis refuting them... you are simply refuting them!

  1. I don't have a political bias on this issue? What would that be? What is my bias? I simply don't have one....
  2. I've never said the CPC is to the left. I've said its to the left in the Norwegian context. Because if you compare the CPC to the Norwegian parties its to the left... However, you can't use that as a basis to claim if its on the left or not. The CPC has to be to the left or right of a party / movement in China. That in fact doesn't exist. CPC is not to the left or right of anything because there doesn't exist anything else. You have to be to the left or right of something, the CPC is not to the left or right of anything in the Chinese political context.
  3. Yes it is the point. The difference is that this is a WP:GA and the other articles are not that good, mostly terrible.
  4. I won't. The only one who is disputing it is you.

--TIAYN (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the rare cases where I'd indeed suggest leaving that parameter empty. There simply is no good way to describe shortly the party's position. Theoretically it's still far-left, but its policies are neoliberal, i.e. right-wing. Let us leave it empty.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian socialism political position

For the record I completely disagree with the nonsensical points that have been raised but for the sake of argument then we go with my compromise proposal, which is that its political position is authoritarian socialist (accompanied by the relevant citations...just to satisfy the captious types) and remove the left-wing/far-left description; either way it makes no sense to remove (purge) the political position item from the infobox. Wingwraith (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingwraith: Authoritarian socialism is a made up term, and is not a scholarly term... Most of the sources in the article refers to Marxism-Leninism and its deviations.. That article should be deleted and should not be included in this article. Never. --TIAYN (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritarian socialism is a scholarly term (See for example: Naughton, Barry. 2017. "Is China Socialist?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 (1): 3-24. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.1.3) and a position that can be mapped onto the political compass (you should know this because you use the political compass to derive your political orientation which you display in one of your infoboxes on your talkpage.) As I said I understand that you are pro-CPC so it would make sense that you would try to eliminate any mention of its political position but that really is no excuse for refusing to compromise by resorting to these ridiculous arguments. It's a complete fucking crock what you are doing and I will not stand for it. Wingwraith (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwraith: You can add authoritarian and socialism into one term, but is it a scholarly concept? No. It is a term with much depth? No.
I am not pro CPC. I am pro the Norwegian Labour Party, a social democrat my whole life and a pro democrat. So yeah, you are way wrong. Do you want to see my party card as well? --TIAYN (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous there's an article on authoritarian socialism and I've already given you a citation from an academic journal that references that concept. What your infatuation with the CPC is telling you is or isn't a scholarly concept is irrelevant. You're free to ignore what I've written but as you're the one who brought this whole political tag objection up in the first place, it's YOUR responsibility to escalate the dispute resolution process. Wingwraith (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwraith: There is a consensus on this page Wingwraith. Everyone disagrees with you. See this discussion and the one below. Stop forcing everyone. I'm not wasting my time any longer. The consensus, as you see from this discussion, is to remove position and all the ideologies, in addition to factually inaccurate information in the infobox. The CPC doesn't have a student wing for instance.
You lost, no one agrees with you.--TIAYN (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the deception already there's no consensus to remove anything except some of the ideologies in the previous version of the article (see below). It doesn't matter what you personally think (e.g. "The CPC doesn't have a student wing for instance." which is something that you actually have to prove) just like how it doesn't matter that I personally think that your ideal society is a shithole that's run by fascists, what matters are the facts of what you've done here in the (virtual) public which is to refuse every opportunity to engage constructively. Like I said, you are free to do that, but it's your responsibility to escalate the dispute resolution process as you're the one who brought this whole political tag objection up in the first place.
@113.128.146.247 and Vif12vf: In lieu of that user's continued refusal to co-operate and the need to move this debate forward, can you two comment on the dispute above? I understand that the two of you have been active in the thread below, so your input here would be welcomed. Wingwraith (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most socialist regimes have been considered authoritarian. Thus "authoritarian socialism" is not a separate concept. This is why the democratic version is called Democratic socialism and not just Socialism. As for the position of the CCP, all marxist-leninists and communists regard themselves as either just left-wing or in some occasions as far-left, radical left or even extreme left. It is also common for the position of parties on wikipedia not to be based on where the party stands in comparison to other parties of the same country (the CCP is not the only political party in China. The position of a party is usually more in line with a non-official international standard in which communist parties are usually left-wing whereas social democratic parties are usually center-left. Unless the CCP has any official ideologies that would put them on another part of the political spectrum (like Conservatism) then i would say the CCP by all means belong somewhere on the left. But lastly, no, "authoritarian socialism" is by no means a separate thing from normal socialism, and even if it were, it would be an ideology and not a political position. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Unless the CCP has any official ideologies that would put them on another part of the political spectrum (like Conservatism) then i would say the CCP by all means belong somewhere on the left." I will take it that you wouldn't object to/would support a description of the CPC as left-wing/far-left in its infobox on the main article.
2) But the term authoritarian socialism denotes a political position it's a position that can be mapped onto the political compass (specifically the NW quadrant) and it isn't tautological if it was there wouldn't be academic articles (e.g.: Naughton, Barry. 2017. "Is China Socialist?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 (1): 3-24. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.1.3) which employ and an article which explicates that concept. You'll also note that the tautological objection is internally defeasible through your own ideas: we need the term authoritarian socialism to distinguish those socialist polities that are authoritarian from those that aren't (which must exist because you only said that most socialist regimes have been considered authoritarian and for which your reference to democratic socialism and analogous discussion of left-wing and center-left parties are further proofs of that proposition.) Wingwraith (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwraith:... If you had read closely below Vif12vf wrote "having only Communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics in the infobox like before people began to split up the ideology seems like the best decision"
In addition, swearing is a blockable offense, accusing me of communism and now fascism is very interesting...
Do I need to say more? --TIAYN (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vif12vf: I agree with what Vif12vf wrote there. The question is not if a movement or left or right, but if it has a position in the political spectrum... Having other parties don't really matter in the Chinese circumstance because they all support, and fall in life. They all support what the CPC support with minimal variations... But yes, generally Marxist–Leninists are left-wing and the CPC does call itself a left force. But its not left in the context of a political position but because of ideology. Hard to word. --TIAYN (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Prospective contributors to this section of the talkpage should note that three further editors (@Icarosaurvus: ([1], [2]), @Indy beetle: ([3]) and @Mr rnddude: ([4])) disagree with TIAYN's assertion that authoritarian socialism is not a scholarly term. Wingwraith (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Political descriptor RFC

Should a political description item be included in the Communist Party of China's infobox and, if so, should this political descriptor be left-wing/far-left, authoritarian socialist or a combination of the two? Wingwraith (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the tentative result of this RFC, the rest of the above, the discussion below and WP editing guidelines, I've restored a modified version of the article that existed prior to TIAYN's editing warring. Wingwraith (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include pretty standard really when there’s a wealth of info which falls into categories universally shared with other articles of its nature. Lots of the stuff being contended (above and below) is problematic as lots of their so called positions and manefestoes are basically party slogans and “branding”. With apologies for the poor comparison, nut-job supremacists self-titling themselves identitarian on their related article is an example of similar terminology which people frequently want to kick out of info boxes on other articles. Not having time to comment on each issue individually I’d say, generally be wary of putting something into an info box which falls under this heading of “branding” (and would require in-text attribution which can’t be given in the space provided in an info box). Edaham (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wkbreaker:, @DOR (HK): @Soman: @Zanhe: @Edaham:: Can you please comment and be finished with this? --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the sources used to reference Authoritarian socialist don't actually use the term "Authoritarian socialism" in any of the articles (check for yourself):


Also note the following changes to the infobox:

  • I removed International Communist Seminar - it hasn't been active for years.... there is not a tradition in WP to add every historical group a party was affiliated with (and non do).. the majority of social democratic parties in Western Europe don't say they were members of the Comintern either for example.
  • Removed State Council from seats - I know of no other party articles which list the number of cabinet members.. especially not in uniform, non-coalition governments
  • Removed the CMC. Its a party organ - why is it surprising that the party has all the members?
  • National Supervisory Commission is the same institution as the Central COmmission for Discipline INspection.. Its part of the party's policy of having one institution, two signs.
  • Judicial seats... again, I know you have this in some US articles, because they are directly elected. I know of no other party articles which have these. Its a reason for that. And again, its the CPC, its China.
  • CPPCC National Committee - maybe its noteworthy, maybe
  • I replaced People's Liberation Army (formerly Red Army, 8th Route Army, New 4th Army, etc.) with People's Liberation Army .... its about the current CPC, not a history lession. Thats why we both have a history section and a history article on the CPC and the PLA.
  • Slogans.. As far I know, the CPC does not have an official slogan.
  • All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not a CPC organ. Its officially a non-government assocation... which in China means its formally separate... The communist party does not formally exist in China, and none of it organs formally exist... So if something formally exists its usually either a party-state organ or a non-party institution.
  • United Front.... Its not a popular front, its a name of a Central Committee Department...
  • All-China Women's Federation... Again, not a CPC body.. Its former name was "All-China Women's Federation of the People's Republic of China".. It is also, formally, an NGO.
  • All-China Youth Federation is not part of the CPC, and is also an NGO... The Young Pioneers of China is part of the Communist Youth League, and is administered by the COmmunist Youth League.
  • All-China Students' Federation is an NGO.
  • Central Policy Research Office is not a think tank. Its an organ of the Central Committee.... It doesn't even fit the definition on WIkipedia.
  • The Internationale is not the de facto anthem of the CPC. It plays the national anthem way more than it does "The Internationale". Where is the source for this?
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability WIkipedia does not do Wikipedia:No original research.. ... those policies have been reached by Wikipedia:Consensus... So a user cannot add them without actually sourcing that information per the aformentioned policies. --TIAYN (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is tedious. It appears that infoboxes attract certain demographic of editors, whose primary focus is stacking a seemingly endless list of labels in 'ideology' or 'position'. The solution is fairly simple: Stick to broad and uncontroversial concepts (in this case "Communism" and leaving "Position" blank) and avoid that the infobox tries to explain every potential shade of a complex entity. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman:, @Wingwraith:, @DOR (HK): and @Trust Is All You Need: Wingwraith, there are two important points that must be underlined. First of all, you absolutely want to mention a political position in order to satisfy infoboxes' captions. It's not a mandatory task, there are a lot of parties which haven't their positions documented in their infoboxes (e.g. Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), Libertarian Party (United States), Lao People's Revolutionary Party, Communist Party of Chile, Communist Party of Spain etc.). For the US Democrats and Republicans, political position field were left empty for the same reasons as here (many users who disagree with each other), while we can easily find sources who describe Obama Democrats' as centrists or centre-left and right-wing for Republicans (far-right for xenophobic and authoritarian pro-Trump faction).
So it's not a good idea to impose a version which isn't more consensual than the other : currently, there are at least five users who are in favor of remove (Miacek, TIAYN, Zahne, DOR (HK) and Soman), while only two (the anonymous user and you) or three (with Wkbreaker but he prefers centre-right to far-right description so he partially disagrees with you) who are for maintaining political position, so there's de facto a majority for remove. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, nobody here has a veto power unlike five permanent members of UN Security Council. As for me, I'm rather for leaving the political position field empty (so nearly six users against), but I'm not opposed to mention it if it's correctly sourced (as I said few days ago). Authoritarian socialism is sourced and contrary to TIAYN, I think that it's a scholarly term, nevertheless it's rather an ideology than a position : for Libertarian Party (United States), nobody mention Libertarian Right as a political position of the party. Positions recognized on political spectrum are far-left (in Western Europe they divide this category between maoists/anarchists/revolutionary extreme left and reformist parties like Podemos/Die Linke which are rather radical left), left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing and far-right. Even Third Position or Syncretic aren't really recognized as positions on political spectrum, mostly for Third Position which has no equivalent elsewhere in the world (even in Western Europe where they only speak about Third Way like in France where the translation Troisième position is never used by scholars, medias and so on), syncretism is mainly used for religions, philosophy... --Martopa (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Martopa:! I don't care if you agree with me or not, but you're comment was VERY VERY helpful! :D Alas @Wingwraith: As mentioned above, you have to prove that the All-China Women's Federation is part of the CPC not me... I've asked for a source, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research....
As for vote stacking... those people participated in the last debate... thats not vote stacking, thats getting the participants involved. --TIAYN (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but @Martopa: the references he use don't use the term authoritarian socialism (or socialist authoritarianism or something similar)... even if you agree with him or not, you do see the problem with that? --TIAYN (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding every ideological development in the infobox is wrong

@Helper201 and Vif12vf: Guys, we have to stop adding every ideological development in the infobox. First things first, Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Socialism with Chinese characteristics and Xi Jinping Thought is Chinese communism. Secondly, someone forgot to add the Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development. Which means, we are lacking two ideological developments.. But we don't want to include them because then the infobox would look like a mess.

Secondly, there is no point in adding Communism if you are going to include Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Developmenet Socialism with Chinese characteristics and Xi Jinping Thought

Thirdly, Socialism with Chinese characteristics means Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances and to present conditions. So all CPC policy is Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought are just Marxism-Leninism adapted to Chinese conditions for different times. The same ideology, just for a different era.

At last, as you know hopefully understand proponents of adding everything are both cluttering the infobox and using terms without understanding them. As a compromise I wrote Marxism–Leninism, socialism with Chinese characteristics. Which means the CPC ideology) (Marxism–Leninism) adapted to specific Chinese circumstances and eras (socialism with Chinese characteristics)... An example of a specific era is Deng Xiaoping Theory... However, Deng Xiaoping Theory was a guide for a specific set of circumstances and a specific time period. The present guide is Xi Jinping Thought.


Note. Removed Chinese unificiation. The CPC does not have an ideology of Chinese unificiation, they have a policy of it.

Hope people understand more clearly CPC ideology. --TIAYN (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vif12vf: then participate in the partake in it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not necessary to split up socialism with Chinese characteristics into all of it's separate tendencies, however ML is a tendency and thus having only Communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics in the infobox like before people began to split up the ideology seems like the best decision. In other words, i think it looks good the way it is at the point of this message. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same as above,I believe that Marxism-Lenimism should be included.Mao Zedong Thought is also not a part of socialism with Chinese characterristics.--113.128.146.247 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, ML should be included as it's not a tendency that can be turned on and off like a light switch. I'm restoring that ideology as that was in the article status quo ante bellum.Wingwraith (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus (majority) formed, replace communism with Marxism–Leninism. --TIAYN (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, there are two opinions against (myself and Tiberius Jarsve who said, "however ML is a tendency and thus having only Communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics in the infobox like before people began to split up the ideology seems like the best decision"), is one opinion for (you) and another one that is undecided (113.128.146.247) concerning your proposal to merge the two ideologies. Wingwraith (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TIAYN. Wingwraith, you have no support for your position and are simply being obstructionist. Get over it. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, you would have known that I have support for my position(s) if you (cared to) read the above. Unless you want to end up incurring a block just like your fellow editor, I would suggest that you get more specific about your comment or just move the hell on already. Nobody needs these wiseacre one-liners that do nothing but add to the clusterfuck that is this talkpage. Wingwraith (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was not helpful, and as you well know there has been no reason for threatening a ban.DOR (HK) (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No my comment was entirely helpful and I wasn't threatening you with anything I was advising you to do something. Except for coming up with meaningless one-liners (you did it again) and piggy-backing on other people's arguments, you've done nothing in what you've written on this talkpage to advance the debate. Wingwraith (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss this comment, and the authoritative citation it contains?
Wingwraith, there is something fundamentally wrong with “stating the obvious” in an encyclopedia article: the lack of a citation. When something is “by definition,” there has to be a source, somewhere. No one has come up with one and after two weeks of waiting for objections (back in January 2018), I took the bold step of rectifying a mistake.
And, let’s not forget that the political position description itself was inserted at some point, with less discussion than we are having right now.
The case for inserting a political position description has not been made.
The CCP is not the CPSU (for one thing, it still exists) or the CPCuba. However much one may wish for all communist parties to be identical, this isn’t the Cold War prior to the Sino-Soviet split. Accept that fact, and then we can move on to factual descriptions of what the CCP actually is, and how it describes itself.
Here’s how the CPP describes itself, officially:
The Communist Party of China (CPC) was founded on July 1, 1921 in Shanghai, China. After 28 years of struggle, the CPC finally won victory of "new-democratic revolution" and founded the People's Republic of China in 1949. The CPC is the ruling party of mainland China (P.R. China). The Communist Party of China is founded mainly on ideology and politics. The CPC derives its ideas and policies from the people's concentrated will and then turns that will into State laws and decisions which are passed by the National People's Congress of China through the State's legal procedures. Theoretically, CPC does not take the place of the government in the State's leadership system. The Party conducts its activities within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the law and has no right to transcend the Constitution and the law. All Party members, like all citizens in the country, are equal before the law. http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/
The left-center-right description adds no value to this article but only serves to confuse. It should be removed. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
No I read it and what you wrote was just crap the article isn't supposed to read like an advert where the only information that is allowed is the information that it produces. There's already been extensive discussion/debate (see above) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise like I said you just need to move the hell on already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wingwraith, please point to another article where the only authoritative source on the subject is ignored because it doesn't fit preconceived notions. You will have some trouble doing so, because that's not what we do here. We use primary sources where ever possible, and secondary ones where necessary or useful. Get over it.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using the grammatical person "we" when you don't even know what the rules are. There's ALREADY been extensive discussion/debate (see above RFC and all) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise you are just wasting everybody's fucking time Wingwraith (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned via legobot. Hope the editing is going nice and smoothly guys! Looks like it might be time to swallow hard and send out some wp:wikilove to get those collaborative beans bouncing on beat again. With regard to the discussion, please see my comment on the RfC above. The Chinese party, probably More so than other well-known parties, comes up with and rigorously publicizes official sounding terms about whatever it woke up thinking of that day. It also makes claims of associations with other political movements and thinkers which political scholars may point out exist only tentatively. Whilst it’s probably ok to find sources for and include information on their means of self-styling, it would almost certainly require in-text attribution to make clear that the party makes such-and-such claim about itself. By default this kind of attribution isn’t possible in an info box and as such the information there can sound more authoraritive, appearing to be imparted in wikipedia’s voice. With this in mind it’s probably best to consider whether or not the info included there can be verified by multiple independent sources - independent meaning in this case that the information did ‘’not’’ originate with the party. Edaham (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute protection

I've protected the article for two weeks. Discuss your edits, come to consensus, and file {{edit fully-protected}} requests. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone writing above, “we use primary sources wherever possible and secondary sources where useful or necessary”. The opposite is the case on Wikipedia. Secondary sources are to be preferred when writing about entities which are capable of producing their own source material. People or organizations don’t get to write their own articles. The gold standard here would be a balance of information from academic sources with corresponding attribution. As this is a political article, if scholarly thought is divided then both schools of opinion should be presented with due weight given to the more mainstream view. Primary sources are only useful (with attribution and in moderation) for demonstrating what the party claims, or what it writes about its self.
To give an example, using a primary source to say something like, “the Chinese communist party is is guided by Xi Jinping thought” is (from a sourcing perspective) similar to using a coke press release to write, “Coca Cola’s ingredients are full of life and happiness”.
Since this discussion has been given a break, Keep the above in mind and I’d suggest using the fresh start with the intention of ensuring that ensuing suggestions to edit the article are accompanied by reliable secondary sources.
Happy editing Edaham (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: As long as you state clearly to Wingwraith he can't add factual innaccuracies, and especially contentious information to the infobox, I'm fine with the left-wing position in the infobox... But the All-China Women's Federation is not part of the CPC. I know that, and he's unable to source it. Thats his problem, not WP's. So if you clearly state you support Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research regarding infobox information, I'm fine. --TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]