Talk:Chinese Communist Party
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese Communist Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Q1: Why is the article titled "Chinese Communist Party" when the party's official name in English is the "Communist Party of China"?
A1: The name "Chinese Communist Party" is more commonly used by reliable sources in the English language. Consensus on the current title was reached on 23 July 2020 (see discussion). As of May 2024, there have been five failed proposals to revert this decision due to a lack of policy-based arguments (i.e. pertaining to WP:MOVE) on the part of the proposers. Q2: Why are certain political ideologies and positions not included in the infobox?
A2: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, content in an article's infobox must appear and be reliably sourced in the article body. A fact should only be added to the infobox after it has first been added to the article body with reliable sources. Content that is in dispute between reliable sources is generally not included in infoboxes. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
Chinese Communist Party was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
May 4 movement
This is not a controversial statement and per WP:XINHUA the source is not deprecated. Why remove it? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here are several supporting sources:
- Amigao Here's your article talk. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources do not exactly back up the statement in question. Probably best to find academic WP:BESTSOURCES to actually back it up. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is something bordering on WP:SKYBLUE that the CPC arose out of this movement. I gave you three sources supporting Xinhua which, as I said, is not a deprecated source and can be used for uncontroversial statements you need a better reason to exclude than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- No one said WP:XINHUA is deprecated. If you read the guidance, it clearly says, "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately." - Amigao (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- What dispassion is needed here? It's a flat historical fact, well cited to other sources, that the CPC was one of the groups that came out of the May 4 movement. If it were claiming that the CPC founded the May 4 movement or that other groups did not then you might have a point. But that's not what you removed. And to claim that the sources I gave are insufficient too? You are literally just occluding a well accepted piece of historical information for no apparent reason beyond disliking the source that was there. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RS continues to apply here and very much to the statement in question. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I gave you four sources including Xinhua and your response was just "nah I don't like them". Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- They don't back up the actual statement in question. Let's find WP:BESTSOURCES which do. - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain how. Because your assertions are incredibly vague and hand-waving beyond just asking me to spend more time satisfying you that what? That the May 4 movement existed? That it included communists and anarchists? That the CPC traces its origin there? I honestly don't understand the locus of your objection beyond your obvious distaste for the source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- They don't back up the actual statement in question. Let's find WP:BESTSOURCES which do. - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I gave you four sources including Xinhua and your response was just "nah I don't like them". Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RS continues to apply here and very much to the statement in question. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- What dispassion is needed here? It's a flat historical fact, well cited to other sources, that the CPC was one of the groups that came out of the May 4 movement. If it were claiming that the CPC founded the May 4 movement or that other groups did not then you might have a point. But that's not what you removed. And to claim that the sources I gave are insufficient too? You are literally just occluding a well accepted piece of historical information for no apparent reason beyond disliking the source that was there. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- No one said WP:XINHUA is deprecated. If you read the guidance, it clearly says, "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately." - Amigao (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is something bordering on WP:SKYBLUE that the CPC arose out of this movement. I gave you three sources supporting Xinhua which, as I said, is not a deprecated source and can be used for uncontroversial statements you need a better reason to exclude than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources do not exactly back up the statement in question. Probably best to find academic WP:BESTSOURCES to actually back it up. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Amigao Here's your article talk. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about stating that the CCP itself traces its own origins to the May 4th movement. Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself? The question being discussed above is about whether this is true, or not, which is an entirely different issue. Moreover, the concept of "tracing origins" has no hard and fast definition; it is merely indicating that prior events had an influence on later events. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself?
- Any reliable secondary source whatsoever. As we're an encyclopedia, we generally don't prefer primary sources to support claims about a subject in any case.
- I think it's an easily verifiable claim, and we can easily do better than Xinhua for it. Remsense诉 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I provided three other sources and Amigao rejected them out of hand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the question was "did the CCP arise out of the May 4th Movement," then the issue of credibility of the source is of paramount importance. Thankfully, that is not the question here. Rather (now, pay attention here: this is important) the actual question is "Does the CCP claim that it traces its origins to the May 4th Movement?" . . . see the difference? Discuss. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Here’s a pretty good source:
"Mao Tse-Tung on Literature and Art":
“If we trace China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution back to its formative period, we see that it has passed through a number of stages in its development: the Opium War, the War of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, the Reform Movement of 1898, the Yi Ho Tuan Movement [Boxer Rebellion], the Revolution of 1911, the May 4th Movement, the Northern Expedition, and the War of the Agrarian Revolution. (p. 52)
Footnote 8 (p. 57): “The War of the Agrarian Revolution was the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people waged under the leadership of the Communist Party from 1927 to 1937 ..”
< https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.467258/page/n65/mode/1up?q=May+4th&view=theater>
More?
“It must also be noted that many of the prominent leftist intellectuals such as Ch’en Tu-hsiu and Li Ta-chao did not swing strongly in this [anti-capitalist] direction until after the middle of the May Fourth period.” (p. 216)
Chow Tse-tsung, "The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China" <https://archive.org/details/mayfourthmovemen0000zhou_v4d0/page/216/mode/1up?view=theater>
Still not convinced?
"From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolutin: Guo Moruo and the Chinese path to Communism," < https://archive.org/details/frommayfourthmov0000chen>
DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Amigao: We're now at six sources supporting the statement previously cited to Xinhua. Is this enough yet? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- That statement was replaced and expanded upon with a more accurate paragraph with academic WP:BESTSOURCES days ago. This is a WP:DEADHORSE situation. - Amigao (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Why continue encouraging a Perjorative Label?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An encyclopedia should be based on official names throughout an article, not perjoratives. This article is about the CPC. Even if folks in the West commonly use CCP instead (a negative stereotype, possibly to associate it to Soviet communism), it should not be a base noun of this article, as it indicates bias.
Analogously, in the past, Japan was referred to as "Jap-Land", as a sign of disrespect, in some quadrants. But I would never expect to see an article on Japan to use the label "Jap-Land" further promoting it's widespread use, instead of the correct term, through out the reference article. 163.120.113.248 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Left-right position of party
The party itself refers to Marxism, although its policies are different, but it could be assumed that the party's line is simply left-wing, not far left.
- The most important aspect of the analysis is it needs to start with how the balance of WP:RS describe the CPC's ideology. As a further matter, the left-right dichotomy arises from the Western political and historical context, and becomes less useful once removed from them. Our current ideology section of the infobox is much more precise and specific to the Chinese context. For further information, take look at the archives section of the talk page to see how this recurring discussion has played out in various ways over the years. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class political party articles
- Top-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- B-Class organized labour articles
- Top-importance organized labour articles
- WikiProject Organized Labour articles
- B-Class Cold War articles
- High-importance Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles