Talk:Chinese Communist Party

Need for a history

Surely there is a need for a 'History of the CCP' article here? Arguably the most significant years of the Party came in the 1920s and 30s; the struggles in the Civil War, massive financial links and assistance with Soviet Russia etc. I would be happy to do it myself, but wouldn't feel qualified.... Jon.

Shall we note who's on the Central Committee, who's on the Politburo, and who's on the Standing Committee? If so, how?--GABaker

Should the history of the Chinese Communist Party be included? I think it's important for people to know about its formation due to nationalism, the long march, its role in the World War II, and the Chinese Civil War.

I expanded and footnoted the early history, and moved the Jiangxi Soviet flag down to the section on that period. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Modification

PBSC and PB members added, Sept 4, 2006 DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Hua Guofeng. I don't remember if he is still in the Central Committee, but he hasn't been in the Politburo or had any real power since the early 1980s.

Also removed the note about advanced age and retirement policy. The members of the Politburo don't see particularly old to me (they are mostly in the 60's), and they will be really young after the handover of power that is coming up. Also, there is an informal retirement age policy, but it wasn't promulgated by Jiang Zemin, rather it was one of those things that seems to have been enacted by consensus. --User:Roadrunner

Hua Guofeng.. He resigned two or three years ago, claiming that the CPC was virtually the same as the Guomindang/Kuomintang nowadays. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hua Guofeng was in the Central Committee until 2002. Since he was Mao's chosen successor, he was given special exemption to the retirement rule as homage to Mao and on the account that he no longer held power. Are there sources for him quitting the party? The wikipedia article says rumors of "health" problems. Roadrunner made those comments before the 16th Congress. --Jiang 02:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to find a reference. I read about it in Chinese a couple of years ago. Evidently he had to pay a large fee (membership dues or something; I'm hazy on the details) just to be allowed to leave the party. Shorne 03:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hua Guofeng was a member of the 11-14th CCP Central Committees, 1973-97. He was not a member of the 15th or 16th CCP CCs. Sources: http://www.chinavitae.com/biography/Hua_Guofeng; http://www.chinavitae.com/library/cpc_central_committee%7C15; and http://www.chinavitae.com/library/cpc_central_committee%7C16

DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing my comments partly on this: "Former CPC general secretary Hua Guofeng, ever appointed successor by Chairman Mao Zedong and a CCCPC member for four Party congresses, also retired as an octogenarian from the 16th CCCPC. 'This marks the end of a past era', a Beijing-based foreign diplomat said." (People's Daily). I also remember reading in some centrist US news magazine (TIME, Newsweek or whatever) pre-16th Congress that incorrectly predicted Hua would be kept in the Central Committee in the 16th. --Jiang 21:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Also removed reference to Li Peng being head of internal security. He doesn't have any special internal security power that I an aware of. Also removed line about Li Ruihuan being a rival to Jiang Zemin. There really isn't any clear reason to think that this is the case.

--User:Roadrunner

This is the information I've been getting off the press wires, including the age policy and positions. I agree with the assessment of Li Ruihan. Hua Guofeng is still on the Politburo, if not the Standing Committee. ?--GABaker

No. Hua Guofeng was removed from the Politburo in 1982. He probably still is in the Central Committee. Reference....

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0018944.html

Hua Guofeng is no longer in the party. See above. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have to be careful with wire service reports. They are sometimes shockingly inaccurate.

True. Thus we balance topicality with accuracy. Oh, well. --GABaker

---

Shouldn't this page be named Communist Party of China or whatever the correct name is?

Of course, please determine the correct name and do that. Fred Bauder 12:20 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm, the form Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is used in CIA World Factbook http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Govt

The form Communist Party of China (CPC) is used on the page "Political Parties and Social Organizations" of china.org.cn/

http://www.china.org.cn/e-china/politicalsystem/politicalOrgnization.htm

which is given as a link for "China in Brief" info on the web site of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/c2685.html

I'd say embassy trumps CIA. Comments, please?

Probably Communist Party of China is better. I've seen both, but CPC fits Wikipedia conventions --user:Roadrunner

Is it worth putting in a sentence about the "translation" from the Chinese name of the party to English? Or even simply an acknowledgement of the difference in Chinese? A better translation would be "People's Assets Party", of course I will defer to anyone whose Chinese is better than mine! --Shannonr 06:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made a minor change on the front page, to change "occassionally" to "also." In academic sources and historical documents, the term Chinese Communist Party or CCP is used quite often. RebelAt 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

CCP or CPC? In Chinese, the party is Zhongguo [China] Gongchan [communist] Dang [party], so CCP should be the correct acronym.

CMC or MAC? Junshi [military affairs] Shiwu [work or general affairs] Weiyuanhui [committee or commision], so MAC should be the choice. -- David O'Rear

---

This should be restored:

"The Communist Party of China is the most diabolical organization that has ever existed. It has more blood on its hands than any regime in human history:Tens of millions slaughtered in the terrorist campaign to seize control of the country, tens of millions starved to death because of evil Communist Policies, tens of millions of political murders, tens of millions dead due to campaigns of genocide that are still ongoing, and unspeakable poverty due to the failures of Communism. " JoeM

sorry. strongly POV. BTW, there was no real genocide, but you can't see it if you are blinded by your hatre of Communist Party of China. wshun

---

Well, where is the "history" section? wshun 20:09, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

First, I'd like to clarify that the new paragraphs aren't mine, but Roadrunner's. Although toned down, the hysterical charges by JoeM that are being reinserted distort the balance of the article. Roadrunner articulated the points of both those critical and supportive in an appropriate manner. In addition, the charges of "tens of millions of political murders" and campaigns of "genocide" are inappropriate. Even the most egregious estimates of executions under Mao come nowhere close to "tens of millions." JoeM seems to be confusing famine with executions. 172 11:45, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi 172, I think the criticisms should still be reported, even if (perhaps especially if) untrue. The fact that many people in the West think (for example) that the famines were intentional is a major factor in foreign perceptions of China -- JoeM's opinions represent one way that the Chinese government is perceived, and we should report that. If you can then balance that with evidence that these accusations are untrue, or add the opinions of others that they are untrue, this builds up the full NPOV picture. -- The Anome 11:55, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Those hysterical accusations cannot be sufficiently addressed in this article, but in the article on PRC history. In addition, JoeM's thinking is out of pace with the times even here in the United States. Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) is law; "constructive engagement" (now dubbed "strategic competition" by the Bush administration) is the norm; and the PRC has attained WTO membership. His opinions are those of a fringe of the American right. Most Republicans in the House and the Senate supported PNTR and so does the Republican president. Right now, top priority vis-à-vis China among mainstream American observers and policymakers is the debate over fixed or floating exchange rates for the yuan. 172 12:09, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

These are not fringe arguments. They are not hysterical. Many people blame Mao for the famines that occured during the 1950s/60s. Note that the criticisms do not blame the current leadership. If you want to keep removing criticism for the CCP, then I will remove support of it in the following paragraph. If criticism is not allowed then support is not allowed. I will also remove support of the CPC in the Li Peng and History of the PRC articles. That's the only way the article can be balanced. Your "contructive engagement" argument is irrelevant. That is for the US government to do, not for an encyclopedia. Are we afraid to piss off the commies here? --Jiang 21:47, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The famine claim isn't dubious, but the "tens of millions of political murders" rant from JoeM is. But this is beyond the point. This is an article on the CPC, not Chinese history. Thus, it's a digression. What I am leaving in the text is far better written and far, relevant, and succinct and accomplishes the task of presenting the views of critics. What I am removing, however, cannot be addressed in proper detail in this article, which is not on Chinese history. 172 22:19, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Anome has already edited out the emotional "tens of millions of political murders" rant and made it NPOV. The statements belong because it speaks directly of party leadership and legacy, which pertains to its viability in the future. Are we to edit out the bull in Ronald Reagan, specifically, "During his administration, there was a major scandal and investigation of his administration's covert support of wars in Iran and Nicaragua in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair. A member of his administration had sold arms to the Iranian government, and given the revenue to the contras in Nicaragua. Reagan's quick call for the appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate, and cooperation with counsel, kept the scandals from affecting his presidency. It was found that the president was guilty of the scandal only in that his lax control of his own staff resulted in his ignorance of the arms sale. " just because that is not an article on American history? Of course not! That's because he was responsble/involved. --Jiang 22:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any point in including the disputed passages under that heading. Anome's text is a lot more NPOV than the earlier writing, but it seems IMHO irrelevant in that context, when it is discussed in detail elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 22:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a lot less than what is put under the legacy section of Li Peng. You should also take note on the environment/patriot act sections of the George W. Bush article. It always been the case that the implementor of the policy gets a mention of it in his/her/its article. --Jiang 22:51, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Now that there has been a rewrite, the content is now fine. Dispute over. 172 09:52, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Supporters of Tibet nationalists and Taiwan independence, extreme right wing politicians in United States of America and Japan, are among the group which has represented the government of China by the CPC as a totalitarian regime

I don't think only the extreme right wing politicians accuse the Chinese gov't of being totalitarian. Int'l human-right organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International accuse it of being totalitarian as well. The US gov't as a whole also view the Chinese gov't as a totalitarian gov't in its annual human rights report.
128.195.100.178 03:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) User:128.195.100.178:

• I wrote this earlier today, assuming that this was the article on the People's Republic of China. I clicked on the talk page link after taking a look at the recent changes on my watchlist, and was under the mistaken impression that this was the PRC article. I would not have been as hard on this anon had I realized this. However, I still maintain that we need to keep the typologies out. 172 17:33, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can't stand starting my morning with yet another example of strong anti-China opinions and little knowledge: this is a secton of the article on the structures and institutions of PRC government, not the regime typology picked by outside activists imbued with the white man's burden. The paragraph in question just ought to be removed. Why don't we remove the typologies all together, and quit conflating ideal-type typologies, used in comparative politics for the purposes of research are and cross-regional comparisons, with regime-types? I'm tired of having to explain on page after page that these terms are not regime-types (e.g., monarchy, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, federal republic, Communist state, military regime, etc.). Can we all agree to use terms precisely, in their proper context, recognizing the proper definitions? If people here would just realize that it's impossible for Wikipedia to endorse typologies, and that a regime typology is not a regime-type, a lot of the most trivial disputes that I've encountered on Wiki could have been avoided. First, a regime-type is what belongs under the heading of government-type. It is the basic constitutional structure – and the officially codified relationship between layers of government and/or party structures, relationship between the party and/or state and military, and the nature of the party and/or state leadership and decisional hierarchy. I keep on stating "party and/or state" because there's always a state, and sometimes a party/state (such as CPC-rule of the PRC). Yes, sometimes sometimes this tells us nothing, and typologies do have their place. However, we can distinguish the nominal government-type from the practice in the remaining sections, without picking one scholar's typology over another. Although the approaches vary considerably, a typology is a theoretical conception often considering the state/party decisional flow beyond the scope of what's on paper, the nature of the party and/or state relationship vis-à-vis civil society, and the pluralism afforded (not just stated on paper) within the regimes structures and institutions. It takes into account variables of pluralism, civil society, and political culture related to the regime-type. And often other variables are far more determining of the typology than the regime-type. However, typologies are entirely inappropriate when conflated with regime-type, and they cannot be endorsed by a neutral sourcebook and encyclopedia. On of the idiosyncrasies of comparative politics is the rate at which these typologies – along with their diminishing sub-types even, proliferate and change over the years, and the frequent disagreements that arise over applying them to different regions. For over a generation, the tripartite distinction between authoritarianism, democracy, and totalitarianism has given way to hundreds of different approaches for categorizing typologies – so the approaches don't even overlap. Beginning in the 1970s, the top Soviet specialists in the West began finding that models of "institutional pluralism", "bureaucratic pluralism," "post-totalitarianism," or various interest groups approaches were far more suggestive and helpful in figuring out the inner workings of the Soviet regime than the old totalitarian model. In additon, serious scholars do not use the old totalitarian model for China these days. Furthermore, there will never be any consensus behind a universal approach to classifying regime typologies. Thus, endorsing a typology is impossible due to the NPOV guidelines. Nor would a consensus be needed. Any set of regime typologies could be more analytically useful to a researcher depending on the purpose employed. Based on empirical evidence, a specialist will have to determine which sets of typologies are best suited for his/her inquiry. Typologies can vary, and can even proliferate whenever new patterns seem to be emerging that do not fit old models. New evidence can trigger the modification. In addition, the classification schemes all have their temporal and regional confines. Some might be more ambitious than others, while others might be narrowed to a particular region or anything else for that matter. The term "totalitarianism," however, has moved from the ivory tower to popular discourse in the context of the Cold War, when the United States was mobilizing domestic and international agitation against the Soviet Union. Construing the simplified little epic of "totalitarianism versus democracy," while crushing moves toward democratization at times, and coddling some of the most bloody and repressive regimes in Latin American, Africa, and Southeast Asian history often at the same time, the term caught on and is used more in the context of propaganda than scholarship these days. However, whether as propaganda or typology, the term "totalitarian" doesn't belong in this article. 172 12:44, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

The term totalitarian *does* belong in the article because there are large and politically significant groups which see the CCP as totalitarian. I think they are nuts, but their views are significant enough to be worth mentioning.

Roadrunner 15:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term belongs, within that context, and that the people who see the CPC as totalitarian are nuts. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Also, changed the paragraph. There isn't anyone political significant who denies that millions of people died in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The issue is interpreting what that fact (which is undisputed) means.

Roadrunner 15:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

There are indeed disputes over those "millions", and even the CPC—which today bashes the Cultural Revolution at every turn and even puts the very name in quotation marks—has not taken the numbers for the Cultural Revolution beyond about 40 thousand. But these debates should be fought out in the respective articles on the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, not here. Shorne 02:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:CPCflag.PNG

How can that be the flag of the Communist Party of China if that is the flag of the U.S.S.R... Squash 05:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

not quite. there's no star and the hammer and sickle are slightly different shaped (rounder and wider than soviet version)--Jiang 08:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. Looks like I learnt some new, thanks. Squash 08:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

disputed

There is a dispute between two versions. To see the other version: [1], to compare: [2]

  — Instantnood 03:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

This paragraph seems to be centered too much on one particular source.

Roadrunner 05:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Evolution and Expansion of the CPC

Many changes have taken place within the party over the decades, as is documented in nine scholarly articles (jiuping) compiled by syndicated international newspaper The Epoch Times EnglishChinese. There is debate over whether party membership is on the rise or decline. During the months of March and April in 2005, it was reported that over 1 million Chinese had submitted written statements to withdraw from the Chinese Communist Party, at a rate of over 20,000 per day.[3]

Epoch Times is a biased pro-Falun Gong newspaper, and many of it's articles are without any sourcing. Falun Gong's intentions are to decrease the spotlight to China so FLG can receive more attention. It's methods are dubious, since many of them are online signatures without any IDs and you don't have to be a member of the party to sign. You don't quote 'facts' from a neo-Nazi site on a article on the Holocaust do you? I doubt that China is still Maoist, and belong in that catagory, or the accuracy of the link to 'Nine Commentaries'

Have you done your research? People have done several studies as to whether this is the case. In fact, The Epoch Times even has a FAQ in which you can get the answers to your questions about their newspaper. Have you actually read the Nine Commentaries? I checked out it's historical facts and they are all 100% legit. It seems that everyone knows about China's horrible Human Rights violations except Chinese citizens themselves (the ones being trampled on). Do you even know that China employs the largest internet (among other media of course) censorship in the world? Sounds like you are kept in the fog, if not a part of it... Mas5353 19:15, 2005 May 18 (EST)

You are blinded by your hatred of China, and there is nothing different between you and JoeM. Maybe you should provide links to your so called 'studies'. Also where are the footnotes or the FAQ? FLG's aim is to isolate China and cut it off from foreign media so its economy would collapse, and so that FLG can convert as many people as they can. They called the CCP an 'anti-universal force', 'evil spirit from Europe', and 'red dragon from the Bible', which makes China's claims of FLG being anti-China and a political organization correct. Their sources come from either FOX News or the hundreds of anti-communist books out there. They even count Japanese soldiers killed in WWII as 'killed by communism'. They even deliberately distort historical facts, such as that it's the KMT and Chiang that did the anti-Japanese fighting, while the CCP did nothing but attack KMT. That is bullcrap. Also they replaced communists persecuted by the Nazis and McCarthy as 'trade unionists', as if that communists has never been persecuted. Their so called news articles are strongly POV, and they like to use strong adjectives to distort headlines, and baseless figures. They claimed that 60% of Taiwanese people are pro-independent and against the mainland visits, but 60% what Taiwanese people? Chen supporters? I find it funny that that first told people that they only wanted to sue PM Jiang, and now they wanted to overthrow the CCP. 100% legit my ass. What amazes me is that some people actually believe the crap they spew, just because they never heard of it inside China. Their FAQ says crap. I tried to post my views on their propaganda, and they took my post off after several minutes, from people who call themselves 'democratic' LOL. Don't call me a coward or a part of CCP, I'm a liberal Chinese from Australia that's sick of both the CCP and FLG.

Just gonna throw in a comment in passing. Falun Gong practitioners were not against the CCP before the persecution, and have not said anything against it, the party, until the last year or so. After the persection started they refused to stop practicing, and made efforts to expose the reality of the persecution to people inside and outside China. A couple years later the lawsuits started. Now they want people to quit the CCP and learn about its barbaric past and present. It's clear that they're after nothing more than to stop being persecuted. They've tried different peaceful approaches, but have recently found that with the CCP still controlling China it's not going to happen. Mcconn 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you FLG people have your book studies to do and your exercise to do? Oh yeah FLG wikipedia was write-protected so here's a related site to vandalize.

-One million is actually a conservative number for them. The largest number they have claimed is like 30 or 40 million. According their source, the number of members should become negative in the near future. Anyway, in the future please do ever go to epochotimes for citation source again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.134.226 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayard

---

User 172.201.168.175, stop deleting other users's posts, or your IP address will be blocked. --211.30.211.93 11:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

-When CCP started, members of CCP are mostly influential students or scholars with some working class people (particularly in Shanghai). The goal of Chinese Communist is to get rid off Capitalism and establish a working-class oriented, people-based centralized democracy. In the process of revolution, inevitably there will be struggles against the force of minority Capitalist followers who strip the rights and well-being of Chinese people(and before 1949 CCP fought against Warlordism and foreign imperialism/colonialism since China was semi-colonized at that time in land and rights). It is special in China's condition to include peasants in the Chinese Communist Revolution because Chinese economy relies on agriculture. Peasants were largely affected by landlords in areas of income, tax (with factors from the government) and loan, all privately distributed and requested between the relationship of landlords and peasants. In rural economy, especially China in modern history, there was no working class (but there were goods-exchange commercial activities mainly in cities in Chinese history. Paper money was invented but not all successful) but peasants (who work for landlords and paid by landlords only, there was no social welfare system in Chinese history at all) since China was far away to equip itself to be industrialized till the end of Qing Dynasty. Therefore, Mao Tse Tong incorporated peasant class to the Communist party and CCP ideology and CCP eventually ousted corrupt KMT regime with the support of Chinese people.

What the Epoch Time "claims" as people withdrawing from the Party is a joke. If you just making a post on their website's forum, located here: http://tuidang.epochtimes.com/. You can just randomly sign up with a fake name and a fake story, they'll count you as "one of the people that has quit the party." You can also call their local telephone number (which I did), and make up a story about your childhood, etc, and you'll be considered as "quiting the Party." This is only ONE of the many hilarious aspects of this newspaper. 24.80.236.14 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Formation Date

Jung Chang's new book, "Mao: The Unknown Story" argues that the formation of the CCP occurred in 1920, but the date has been skewed. Evidence provided is that Mao was not associated with the party until the 1st party congress in 1921, and therefore the Chinese records were changed to create a link between the formation and Mao. See Page 19-20 for further details.

Perhaps a section is needed outlining this evidence.

So Jung Chang is automatically correct just because she wrote a book about it? She's not even a historian, but an author, and no historian besides her have proved her arguments.

---

I'm not Chinese, and I have no love at all for the CCP, but I'm alarmed to see Falun Gong cited as a source of commentary about the CCP right in the first paragraph, as if they're some objective authority. Perhaps their website should be linked to at the bottom of the page, but their hate pieces should not be incorporated into the main body. I came here for neutral historical information, not vitriol, even if I agree with it.

Chang and Halliday are useless sources. What they've got hold of is a meeting held in 1920 that was mistakenly reported in Moscow as the formation of a Communist party. Several books mention it, including Mao Tse-tung, ruler of Red China, by Robert Payne. They quote Payne on another matter, supposedly supporting their theory that the famous Luding Bridge crossing never happened. Peng Dehuai is supposed to have been unable to remember the matter, but check the reference and he is talking about something else.

Arif Dirlik's Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution has a lot about the transition of Chinese radicalism from Anarchism to Communism: though it is hardly news, Mao mentions it in Red Star Over China. There were definitely Chinese who considered themselves Communists in 1920, but not regularly organised. Phillip Short's Mao: A Life says that the 1st Congress settled what sort of party it was to be. Mao was present as one of two delegates from a Hunan Communist group, which had maybe 10 members out of 53 for all China. It was very small at first, but grew.

Yes, a history is needed. But ignore Chang and Halliday, whose vast reading list does not reflect much critical judgement.

--GwydionM 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the date of origin from 1920 to 1921. Other sources overwhelmingly say 1921, with vague beginnings in 1920. If someone wants to summarise Chang and Halliday's objections to the Received Standard version, fine, let them do so. I've already indicated why I don't take them seriously. --GwydionM 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GwydionM - There are many issues with the recent Jung Chang and Jon Halliday book - chief among them is the fact that they do not attribute enough credit to the Comintern in the formation and early years of the CCP. In terms of hte formation of the Party - Hans Van de Ven's work - From Friend to Comrade demonstrates the indigenous roots of the CCP, but a more nuanced view, combining the Comintern-CCP relations is rather missing in the literature. Views expressed by Tony Saich are a stepping stone to such a synthesis. 86.134.203.245 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest political party

I heard somewhere that the US Democratic Party has about 64 million registered members. Doesn't that make it larger than the CPC? DHN 08:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that members or registered voters? I live in the UK, but I've a notion that voters register for party primaries which make a lot of the key choices, without actually being members in the normal sense.--GwydionM 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be registered voters, not members. RebelAt 12:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gov.cn

I changed the external link to the offical website of CCP to www.gov.cn (actual ccp website) from ccponline.net which is what it was before. 70.68.234.153 04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a mistake in my view as gov.cn is the Chinese Government's home page and not the CCP's homepage (if the moderators decide to keep this reference is should be made very clear, what the link is about). Also in this case it would be better to refer to The Peoples Daily English site - as the newspaper at least is a Party paper and has some info on the CCP; you will be very hard pressed to find anything at all on the ccp at gov.cn.

Ideological evolution of the CPC

To sort of continue the stupid flamewar above: the evolution of the Party ideology ought to be more comprehensively addressed. I'm not enough of an expert, but I presume the founding ideology must have been heavily indebted to Marx and Lenin, wartime ideology to the military philosophy of Mao and others, the fifties to Stalinism and pragmatic economic goals, the late fifties to Mao's death marked by internal party conflicts, and post-Mao to solidified governance and economic growth. Of course, I don't really know what I'm talking about and the above could be expanded upon in detail. It would be appreciated if anyone who knows about these things could work on it. --Easytoremember 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could the CCP be considered to be evolving from communism towards fascism?

I know fascism's thrown around as an epithet a lot these days, and that's not the way I mean it... But as it sheds its communist ideology, the CCP has moved towards a more nationalist ideology, and towards a moderately free market in which the State remains all powerful, but chooses to respect private property and such. Both those things were characteristic of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy rather than the Eastern Bloc or other communist nations. I'm just saying. 76.106.145.195 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

China is a now a capitalist authoritarian state, there's no two ways about it. Stephen MUFC (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Full list of the departments which directly belongs to the Central Committee of Communist Party of China?

Besides some main departments such as Other central organizations include

The Central Military Commission

The Discipline Inspection Commission,

The International Liaison Department

The United Front Work Department

The Organization Department

The Propaganda Department .....in China,there're more Departements directly belongs to the Central Committee,I think that.

Can anyone show me this full list? Thanks, --Redflowers 06:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideologist of the Communist Party of China?

In this 16 th PSC,who's the main ideologist of the Communist Party of CHina? Can anyone show me the answer? Thanks, --Redflowers 06:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Li Changchun is in charge of ideology, although the job is much less important than 10 or 25 years ago. -- David O'Rear --

The CPC seems to be an oligarchy, not that much of a personality cult, you know. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i see the CCP as a nationalist party. It turend away form maoism and became a nationalist party after 1982. When Deng Xiaoping became ruler of China, he was the one that started the capitalist restoration in China. The Chinese Nationalist Party is a better term for the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP was a maoist party from the beginning with never intentions of building a democratic socialist state. Today the CCP is a big nationalist and in someway fascist group of capitalists and rich chinese who only care for money and power. --UDSS (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A un known SuJiaTun Issue

Some people believe that the chinese communist party or the ccp is removing people organs for profit. can anyone tell me if its true.

FalunDafa Hao

It is...but it isn't. They're removing organs from executed prisoners, or thats all I could uncover myself. It does not appear they're taking organs from anyone else, though. Here is an article about the subject: Harper's Magazine article on organ removal. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are "FalunDafa Hao", then you already believe it. Don't pretend, it runs contraire to your "truth" doctrine. 151.201.132.210 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Futhermore, I believe a lot of the allegations come from a Falun Dafa-funded Newspaper, the Epoch Times. User:children_of_the_dragon 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong and others

I am surprised there is nothing here about the CCP's human rights violations against all kinds of religous and spiritual groups, a notable one being Falun Gong. Has adding this content been opposed, and for any reasons? The Olympics are coming up in 2008 and the CCP has been accused of harvesting organs from living Falun Gong practitioners for profit, not to mention the other things they have been doing to them. At the very least there should be some information about this in the criticism section. I will get to work on it soon. Respond if you have some ideas. [[User: asdfg12345|asdfg12345--201.235.83.171 03:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)]]

Funny that the fulundafa do not think they are any kind of religion themself, and some tips for you: if your goal is to let people believe crap like organ harvesting of falungong people, dont mention unrelated things like the olympics, and dont register with a name like asdfg12345.

The so-called "organ harvest" has very little factual basis and thus would be inappropriate to include in an encyclopedia. So far there has been no evidence supporting these theories, except those from the Falun Gong group - a highly questionable and biased source. Even Harry Wu, a famous Chinese dissident who has written books exposing the Chinese labor camps, considers these allegations to be fallacious.

Oughtn't you sign your comments? Have you read the Kilgour-Matas report? It's pretty obvious that this is happening, right? Besides Harry Wu and the CCP denying it, the claims should be reported, shouldn't they? --Asdfg12345 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use carefulness in your understanding Falun Gong propaganda - if fictional account is on Wikipedia, credibility will damage, also I must advise those with administrator power that commercial opportunity may be facilitated by your cooperation with official Chinese factual and neutral viewpoint. I do not represent official Chinese Government, but I state facts you need understand. Wen Hsing 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe a lot of the allegations come from a Falun Dafa-funded Newspaper, the Epoch Times. User: children_of_the_dragon 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Children of the dragon (talk • contribs)

CPC v. CCP

Obviously, since this article is entitled the CPC, and that is what the party refers to itself as of late, CPC is the appropriate abbreviation. However, traditionally in English the party has been called the CCP, even by the party itself (see e.g. any copy of Peking Review from the 1960s or 1970s), and that appellation continues to be in use in historical writing and in journalism today. It is therefore appropriate for wikipedia to follow this convention and refer to the party as the Chinese Communist Party. I suspect that the change to CPC was an innovation of the Deng era. In most historical articles I have therefore reverted the references to what is the accepted norm (CCP), with the exception of this article. I hope this is reasonable and acceptable. Cripipper 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the name was CP of China, also during the Mao era. --Soman 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot say whether that is the case or not for sure from where I am at the moment, but the general usage in official sources, such as Peking Review, was CCP. Cripipper 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, hold on - I have just dug out a copy of Mao's 'Little Red Book' that I forgot I had here, and it refers to the Chinese Communist Party. Cripipper 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold up - it refers to both, but CCP is far more commonly used than CPC. Cripipper 18:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence on print media being published in the present "overwhelmingly" referring to the Communist Party of China as CCP? [4] Western media uses "Communist Party" and Chinese media uses "Communist Party of China". Perhaps the history books you are reading were not published in the past decade?--Jiang 19:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A search on the New York Times website for CCP pulls up 500 references, CPC pulls up 30; the ratio is 3:1 for the Times of London. And no, contemporary historians use CCP. Cripipper 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• There has to be a differentiation here: The name of party is, and always was, 'Communist Party of China'. However it is refered as the Chinese Communist Party. --Soman 09:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had been thinking about that semantic distinction. It is a slightly odd self-referential term which I guess has been dropped in the Chinese media within the past twenty years or so. Cripipper 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the source for the official English name?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See the following official CPC websites:

1. http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/ "News on Chinese Communist Party" (run by the People's Daily, the CPC's official mouthpiece);
2. http://www.idcpc.org.cn/ "International Department Central Committee of CPC";
3. http://www.china.org.cn/english/index.htm "China's Official Gateway" (run by CPC Propaganda Department)
4. http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/45954.htm "An Illustrated History of the Communist Party of China".

Among these websites, the party is referred to variously as "the Chinese Communist Party " or "Communist Party of China". However, the abbreviation is always "CPC", as reflecting the official English name, "Communist Party of China". --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are official sources which use the name "CPC". But what is the source which says that "Communist Party of China" is the official name?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The CPC doesn't seem to have an official party website as such. The closest thing I could find was this: the Party Constitution as listed on the International Department website, [5], which uses Communist Party of China throughout. --Sumple (Talk) 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The link with the quotations referencing CCP, actually has Communist Party of China written in its banner at the top. Having written a graduate paper which involved the Chinese Communists this year, I think the safest thing to say is that when speaking in historical terms, CCP is most often used in academia. In fact, Mao's Last Revolution by Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals [6], published this year by Harvard, uses CCP.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The historians I've personally encountered also use "Guomindang" "GMD" over "Kuomintang" "KMT", "Peking" over "Beijing", and "Canton" over "Guangzhou"...but this doesn't mean wikipedia should adopt these same conventions. Historians seems slower to adapt than journalists, and in the case of the GMD, I don't know what's going on...--Jiang 02:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

GMD is short the more recent english spelling for the Nationalist forces 'Guomindang' it seems unnecessarily complex as a Native English speaker for many Chinese words to have two different transliterations Bennyj600 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

CCP is definitively used most in scholarly literature and journalism on the Party. "CPC" is a modern innovation on the part of the Party, it doesn't mean the rest of the world should follow suit. Looking at wikipedia's naming conventions, it says: "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article", and "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize... Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." In this context it's obvious that Chinese Communist Party, while not the official term, is what is most commonly used in English. Google returns over 800,000 for Chinese Communist Party, and 519,000 for Communist Party of China. there is also reference above to NYT and some other academic sources. There are 3,620 for the latter in google books, and 8,060 for CCP. Seems obvious. I will change the name.--Asdfg12345 22:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems quite an uncontroversial proposition, I will go ahead and put the tag on the page.--Asdfg12345 22:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One more time: In Chinese, the party is Zhongguo [China] Gongchan [communist] Dang [party], so CCP (or, ZGD, if you like GMD for the KMT) should be the correct acronym. It is irrelevant what the US embassy, CIA or any other non-Chinese organization takes as its own convention. Further, there is no reason to take the first two characters – Zhong and guo – and put them at the end of the acronym. Finally, Communist Party of China is a passive phrase grammatically, which generally is less attractive. And, the same applies to CMC or MAC. Junshi [military affairs] comes first; shiwu [work or general affairs] is next, and the descriptor at the end is that this is a weiyuanhui [committee or commission], so MAC should be the choice. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that there was no consensus whatsoever to move the article from Communist Party of China to Chinese Communist Party. I have reverted asdfg's changes.--PCPP (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a policy on this, I quoted it above and provided some evidence in support; could you please respond to it?--Asdfg12345 02:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, the consensus has already been decided before. You can't just go in and attempt to move the article without discussion first.--PCPP (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird Al

Somebody stated that the Pary was cofounded by Weird Al Yankovich. Of course, this is ridiculous; it's not funny, so don't vandalise. Removed.

You mean Weird Al isn't Mao Zedong reincarnated? There's my whole world-view destroyed.Gjmulder (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Main influence

The article states that the CPC was the main influence, which I believe is slightly overstating the facts. Maoists were numerous but not the majority AFAIU. I'm not changing it, just asking for sources. "From the sixties until the death of its principal leader, Mao Zedong, the CPC was the main inspiration for the worldwide communist social movement." Prezen 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the statement above needs a citation, and so does the last sentence in the second paragraph, which has an inline HTML link which cannot be accessed without a "muse" password. I have marked these two places as requiring citations. If the contributor(s) cannot provide citations, these statements should be removed. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. - Ryanjo 20:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Term "ChiCom"

I recently encountered the term "ChiComs" in an article. Now, I "know" that this means Chinese Communists, but being a pedant, I wanted to check. I surprised to find that I was unable to find any reliable online source to confirm this. Can anybody find a good cite for this and add a quick note to the article (or elsewhere in Wikipedia or Wiktionary, as appropriate)? (I see that "Chicom" and "ChiCom" redirect here, but the actual definition's not in the article.) Surely this definition should be online, and what better place than on Wikipedia / Wiktionary? -- 201.50.254.243 14:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If I've ever come across this term, it was momentary, and I've forgotten it since. Rather than reference it in the article, I'd propose it'd be better to go to the articles which use it and put in the full "Chinese Communist." The terminology is certainly not used in academic circles or publications with concern to the topic. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"The terminology is certainly not used in academic circles or publications with concern to the topic." Well, it depends on what you mean by "publications with concern to the topic." -- 13 Google hits for use of the abbreviation in published articles, from the archives of well-known / influential conservative commentator John Derbyshire -- http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:www.olimu.com+olimu+chicoms -- Also, please do not miss my point. I did not ask whether occurrences of "ChiCom" in Wikipedia should be changed to "Chinese Communist", I asked whether anybody had a good cite for the abbreviation so that we could include its definition somewhere in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Thank you. -- 201.50.254.243 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a general google search on "ChiCom" and it appears to be a termed used mainly by conservative political commentators. When I said publications of note, I meant to refer to major academic journals on China and East Asian history. I wrote my master's thesis in part on the Chinese Communists last spring and I know that my adviser would have had my neck for not using the full term Chinese Communist. With regard to the question, you might try searching for a site that has definitions of political terminology or even perhaps, the Urban Dictionary. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is listed in Urban Dictionary, however I'd consider that to be pretty much the diametric opposite of a reliable source. :-) As I said in my OP, I looked but wasn't able to find any reliable-source definition online. -- 201.50.254.243 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not thinking of this earlier. If you can't find an on-line source, but you do have access to a library (a collegiate library all the better), you could look it up and then cite the source. Its the next best thing. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectful warn to all 'cowboy' newsmakers

I like to respectful warn of you to avoid defame the admired Communist Party of China, or great nation People's Republic of China. To do so creates many problem between our government and Wikipedia, as well as general relation with the West. I do not intend making threat, but I obligated to warn you that commercial operations of Wikipedia in People's Republic of China is dependent on government tolerance, and Administrator Jimmy Wales should be aware, he may need to use power assist in producing editorial environment conducive to Wikipedia in China, especially Taiwan Province related article. Wen Hsing 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan China. However, Wikipedia is a noncommercial project, not a "commercial operation", and, unlike Google and Yahoo, it does not yield to governmental censorship (or "content refinement" as you like to euphemize it elsewhere) that is contrary to its Neutral Point of View policy, even if that causes difficulty in international relations. *Dan T.* 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not suggest make film defaming China as Mr Borat Sagdiyev for Kazakhstan has made. It is showing disrespect, more proper diplomatic channel for detailing of concerns may be use.Wen Hsing 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Chinese government wants to block information on the internet out of concern for its image, they can do it. However, remember, Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge, all knowledge, to those who seek it. It certainly has its own ups and downs, but regardless of the opinion of the Communist Party of China or the United States government, if its true it belongs on here. :)

~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I complete agreement, truthfulness should be supreme on Wikipedia Project, bias must be purged both if pro- or anti-Wen Hsing 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Power assist to the people!" --Sumple (Talk) 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we handle the trolls, class?

- We don't feed them!

That's right, class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll#Not_feeding_the_trolls

-- 201.50.254.243 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am offend by your implication of my ugliness! You unable to see me, why you judging troll! If you disagreeing with friendship between Great Nations, I hope with sincerity your effort is a fail. Wen Hsing 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you refer to english newspapers as "cowboy newsmakers" doesn't help with your "warning" to stop defaming the Communist party of China. I don't think anybody here is insulting the communist party. Good friend100 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I love this. Some TWese dude pretend to be a commie official and other people actually buy it. This is hilarious. 151.201.132.210 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Phony glorious Chinese workers have feelups, too. You give us the insult! Wun Phat Cat 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.119.2 (talk)

Seriously, this is really funny. Thanks for being so hilarious, Wen Hsing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.147.28 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Reverts

In case you're wondering why I had to revert three separate times in succession ...

Reppu Fighter enclosed the entire page in nested comment tags and essentially replaced the article with a Japanese flag. I screwed up the first revert by not removing all the comment tags.

I screwed up the second revert by reverting to a previous version by Colipon -- the most up-to-date version was edited by TAIWAN.

Hopefully I got it right this time... =) Leaf of Silver 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maoism

I don't know if the Maoism template really fits on this article. The current Communist Party is anything but Maoist both in institution and in ideology. Therefore, I think it should be removed. Colipon+(T) 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, while I agree with you that the current party in action is anything but, I would have to say it should still stay, due to the fact is is an "official" guiding ideology and part of the constitution. (Majin Takeru 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Right. I am only afraid that it could mislead people who simply scan the article because the banner is so prominent. Colipon+(T) 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with this statement

There is also a common misconception that Communist Party members are supportive of their party's policies, and that the party line is united nationally. In fact, many regional party organizations pursue their own ideological deviants from the conventional ideologies promoted by the party, and can be antagonistic to the party at the national level.

There are a lot of situations in which local party groupings will pursue interests different from the national line, but I know of no cases in which a regional party has pursued an *ideology* that differs substantially from Beijing. If anyone doesn't, examples are needed.

Roadrunner 05:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is a "One party" state sustainable?

Q/ Is a one party system sustainable, and how will it effect the future development of China - possible partition, economic stagnation, stifling of dissent and fossilisation of "the system". Is this linked to China's struggle to adapt to the 19th and 20th Centuries? Teh path set out on by Sun Yatsen(sp?) is not completed yet? How will China manage to modernise without shattering?

Anonxx.xx.xx.xx 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

John Lee wrote a great book about this called "Will China Fail?", recently published in September 2007. It's about the inherent contradiction with the regime in China currently, between attempting to foster a free-market economy on the one hand, but not enshrining any individual rights, such as to land, law, belief, etc., on the other. The Party is running the show, and there are deep contradictions in its economic and political alignment. Something like 1 trillion dollar debt because of non-performing loans, which is only growing, because they can't afford to not keep lending to state-owned enterprises which are terribly inefficient and from whom they are able to recover very little of the loan, otherwise there will be more riots. The regime is really beset by troubles on all sides, and as I understand it from this book, the only thing that is sustaining them is the unparalleled growth. Though Lee says this is simply unsustainable (see inherent contradictions). An alternative perspective in this article, one backed up now by a growing body of scholarly literature, would be quite fitting and appropriate at this point. Any takers? Will Hutton wrote a book addressing this issue also.--Asdfg12345 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the first portion of your question, I blieve it would help to look at the other one party rules that occued in the 20th century. (i.e. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, USSR under Stalin, so on in this fashion) Most of these countries were sustainable, and in the sense of the first two came to power based almost solely on their ability to create a stable society in the turmoil of post WWI society. In most cases these one party states failed in their massively nihtmarish foreign policies, which led to a war that became a drain on their economies. In answer to your second question, China's struggles to adapt to a modern world has deep rooted issues based on their early allegiance to Confuscius, among other factors too numerous to discuss here. If you want a concise and excellent source on the course of modern China (end on Ming dynasty to the present), you should read Jonathan Spence's "In Search of Modern China". Its a bit of a lengthy read, about 700 pages, but your understanding of China will grow by leaps and bounds. He discusses at length all of the questions you have posed. FelixTiberius (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user (yet), so take this was you will:

I believe that in Italy, Germany, Russia and Spain, one-party states failed because they met at least one of two criteria:

1. The state in question had a past history of political rights & freedoms, including a functional democracy (Germany, Italy); OR

2. The state in question was used to looknig outside for ideas, in ways that China is not (Russia - looked to West for many many years; Spain - looked to anyand all Catholic nations for ideas, allies and inspiration).

Basically, the point that I'm getting at here is that in these nations, people either remembered the experience of political freedoms, or were at least not "locked into" an automatic rejection of ideas that came from elsewhere (or both!).

Neither of these apply to China; therefore, I believe that the CCP's rule can certainly be sustained for many more years to come. Whether it will hold up forever is, ultimately, dependant on the answer to one question: will Chinese people absorb Western ideas along with their goods, services and capital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.130 (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

olol

Is "olol" in the following sentence a proper word, and if so what does it mean?

Since the 1980s, as its commitment to Marxist ideology has appeared to wane, the party has begun to increasingly invoke Chinese nationalism as a legitimizing principle olol as opposed to the socialist construction for which the party was originally created.

130.226.143.244 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone trying to do laughing out loud (lol). The sentence works without "olol" so feel free to delete it. It shan't be missed.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:China, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao (10).jpg

The image Image:China, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao (10).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal or external groupings

This section needs work. In the 1990s and early 2000s, there was a school of thought that divided the leadership into the ‘elitist’ or ‘Shanghai clique’ and the ‘populist coalition’ or ‘Youth League faction’. With the change from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao, this distinction is no longer adequate. Moreover, it takes a brief slice of post-1949 history and uses it to define a broad concept. I suggest a section on factions that covers at least the post-1949 period, rather than just this very brief part. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I've made a few changes in the history. One is replacing the influence of the Soviet Union with that of the Comintern (which was the source of the Dutch, German and Russian advisers). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New Term

I've added the new term, Chinazi, which has been in recent use to describe the CCP (CPC) and their followers. This word has existed for some time and has been used in a number of ways to describe different things, it has since evolved to describe the CCP. Platinumkaiser (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Adding" a new term, and creating one are very different. Since your article on your made-up word has been nominated for deletion, my guess is that it won't become very common, not least for NPOV reasons. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

CCP member's share of the Chinese Population

In the first paragraph, it's stated that the CCP has 70 million members, or 15,5% of China's total population. While I don't know if the first number is correct, the second can't possibly be right, since that would put China's population at roughly 450 million people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.231.128 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

criticism

Here is a passage from a book chapter on the subject by Yuezhi Zhao:

"The massive spread of Falun Gong and its sustained global media activism is no doubt the most dramatic episode in the contestation over media power in the Chinese language symbolic universe. The fastest and most spectacular program of modernization involving the world’s largest population over the past two decades has produced an unprecedented, if contradictory, backlash against modernity. In short, one of the most tightly controlled modern media systems in the world has bred one of the most powerful counter-ideological and communication networks. Compared with the 1989 prodemocracy discourse, Falun Gong’s challenge against the Chinese media system and state power is more profound in its substance, more widespread in its societal reach, more globalized in its structure, and more sustained and militant in its efforts.

"Whereas the challenge against the dominant media system from intellectuals and students in 1989 was predominantly an ideological contestation from within a modernist paradigm (between authoritarian and liberal democratic versions of capitalistic modernity and between capitalistic and socialistic modernity), Falun Gong challenges the dominant meaning system both from without and within."

In terms of critics of the CCP, Falun Gong is one of, if not the most prominent. The CCP also cops enourmous criticism from the majority of western media outlets, and Falun Gong's anti-CCP discourse usually centres on the same liberal democratic themes. I don't know why it would be considered a fringe theory--perhaps there are some high-quality sources that I'm unaware of, which you could cite to support this view?--Asdfg12345 10:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So this is direct proof of the notability of Falun Gong's criticism of the CCP, and commentary that precisely why it's important is because it is not a critique in the usual sense, it is "challenging the dominant meaning system", in the words of Zhao. This establishes the relevance of this criticism with a top scholar--wikipedia is based on sources, not just because we think something is a "metaphysical fringe view". I've reinserted the text. Please let me know if I've misunderstood something about WP:V and WP:RS, since this is what it comes down to. --Asdfg12345 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong is already mentioned, a few sentences before. The quotes you give here do not really back up the reinsertion of the removed passage. The opinion of the Falun Gong that the CPC would be an 'anti-universe force' has no real meaning whatsoever for an encyclopedia, and the passage that I and few other have removed reads like an ad for the Nine Commentaries. promotion like this is generally unwarranted in Wikipedia. If you can cough up a source that indicates that the Nine Commentaries has any impact outside the following of Falun Gong, that would be welcome though. --Soman (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a scholar attesting to the significance of Falun Gong's criticism of the CCP. You have not provided any sources for backing up your point of view. How is it a soapbox? You need sources, can't just argue because you don't like it. Am I missing something?--Asdfg12345 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The main ingredient of the quote from Yuezhi Zhao is the differentiation between the Falun Gong discourse and earlier oppositional discourses. It has more place in the Falun Gong article than here, and the quote does not give a carte blanche to expand the coverage of the Falun Gong in this article. --Soman (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, got anything to back up the claim that it adds no encyclopedic value? What exactly does that mean? I think it's highly valuable, and according to Yuezhi Zhao it's part of the most "dramatic episode in the contestation over media power in the Chinese language symbolic universe", clearly notable, informative, etc..--Asdfg12345 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Its soapboxing in the sense that it seeks to advertise a publication, apparently by one or more followers of Falun Gong. What is the encyclopediatic value in stating the FG's opinions that the Communist Party is a "evil cult and "anti-universe force"", or that Communism is a 'distortion'? Lots of groups have lots of opinions on many things, and 'criticism' sections should not be coverted into soapboxes. --Soman (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Will seek a third opinion. I'm not getting any sources here, it just sounds like you don't like it. There's a scholar here saying that Falun Gong's criticism of the CCP is x and y, but you haven't really addressed this. The Falun Gong criticism comes from the publication, but that's not the focus, nor was it intended to be promotional. Could you suggest some way to maintain the content but make it appear less aparently promotional? What if we simply took out the 'anti-universe force'? Here's a modification:

The Falun Gong associated newspaper The Epoch Times ran a book-length editorial describing the party as an evil cult after the persecution of Falun Gong in 1999. They argue that the Party has used brainwashing, criticism and self-criticism, physical repression, isolation, paranoia, personality cultism and a full range of other cult-like manipulative methods to control the Chinese people, and further characterizes Chinese Communism as a distortion of Chinese culture that has reached deep into Chinese society. The newspaper further claims that over 40 million Chinese citizens have "renounced" the CPC, a figure which has not been verified by an independent party.

howzzaatt?--Asdfg12345 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome the involvement by other editors in the discussion, i think we know what the two of us considers by now. I cannot see any major alterations in the text (except the deletion of 'anti-universe force'). I retain two points; 1) I don't see why the Falung Gong criticism should be given such space, 2) the quote from Zhao doesn't back up the inclusion of the passage in the article. I'm not saying that I think Falun Gong are non-notable in Chinese society, but they are far from the only religious sect which has anti-communist persuations. The fact that FG oppose the CPC is already mentioned in the article. --Soman (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

hehe, okay, let's do a 3rd opinion.--Asdfg12345 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll see who turns up. I've found these processes to be slow moving at best. I think I got an insight into why, once. I wanted to do a little wikipedia opinion-dishing, such as responding to 3O, but found the kind of disputes going on just incomprehensively trivial, I couldn't conceive of why anyone would even bother disputing them, and felt I had nothing to say, over like, Zelda characters or whatever. And I suspect those disputing over Zelda characters are not much interested in our little difference of opinion here...--Asdfg12345 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, by way of response: 2) the whole quote (and I could find another couple of sources, like one from a China scholar) appears to me to back up inserting the passage, as this is the definitive Falun Gong criticism of the CCP, 1) seems resolved when 2 is realised. BTW, I agree that they aren't the only religious/spiritual practice or group which has anti-communist persuasions, but they are by far the most notable, as proven by this source. And not just among this type of group, but among all the critics of the CCP, Falun Gong are the main men, according to Zhao. So like, it seems to me you want to play down the most significant criticism of the CCP in modern times (according to Zhao). Alas.--Asdfg12345 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally finally, I'd like to point out that to a certain extent our opinions don't count for squat around here. It's about sources, as I keep saying, not what one of us thinks is the case or not. And this source says it, she's an academic, so she trumps editor X. To me, it is so simple. If I have cast the problem in new light it may be worth responding, otherwise let's wait for the peanut gallery.--Asdfg12345 14:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue of 'trumping' here. I read the passage of Zhao's book on google books, I find her analysis interesting and I do not challenge that the emergence of FG represented a major break in Chinese society. But the book doesn't back up the claim that the Nine Commentaries have to mentioned in a Wikipedia article on the CPC, does it? The criticism of the KMT, arguably a very notable organization in Chinese politics, or the Tibetan opposition is not mentioned in detail, and I do not see why FG should be given more space. Rather I'd prefer that the entire 'viewpoint' section be weeded out further (perhaps deleted altogether). --Soman (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment there's not a reference in the whole section. No one could do anything if you wanted to delete it. I can see how you do not draw a straight line between Zhao's commentary and the inclusion of the nine commentaries paragraph. Then Zhao can be referenced directly and leave a few lines for nine commentaries as an illustration of what she means. But actually, I just looked at the article and on that logic 90% of it could be purged. I honestly don't know why you'd want to delete a criticism section on this group though. They must be one of the most harshly criticised regimes of modern times, by people from all fronts. They are copping a hammering in the MSM now over their olympic antics, and western media regularly thrash them for all the torture, murder, etc. they get up to. I'd actually say that the majority of coverage of this political party is negative, and the only positive stuff they make themselves. I won't repeat about this source in particular, but I've realised this article in its current state is highly questionable.--Asdfg12345 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

btw, *chuckles*, here's something from Time you might like: "In its 51-year history ruling China, the Communist Party has been responsible for the death of tens of millions of innocent citizens, including its own supporters. Perhaps the evil cult is Jiang’s own Party." -- Time magazine, June 2001.--Asdfg12345 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Soman: there is plenty of Falu Gong reference. If you want a source of deep criticism that isn't only a few years old, how about the Nationalist Party? They've had much stronger (and better supported) criticism than FLG. I also want to point out that the *chuckles* by Asdfg12345 about the deaths of tens of millions of people is offensive, to say the least. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I was chuckling at another source calling the communist party an evil cult for killing all those people, not chuckling at the deaths.--Asdfg12345 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On a less blustery note, I did not mean any offence by my comment, and was only attempting to lighten up the discussion. These exchanges can become heated, and I understand humour as one way of expressing goodwill. I was not referring to the deaths as a source of humour. I sincerely apologise if my comments were misinterpreted or if they caused any offence.--Asdfg12345 03:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

The material would probably be most appropriate in the Falun Gong article. In the body of available critical sources, Falun Gong's criticisms are a drop in the bucket. Many critical views of the CCP are far more prominent. Expanding the Falun Gong criticisms would result in improper emphasis on their views. Vassyana (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing some of these fabled critical views, if only to put them in this article myself with proper references. Right now there's nothing referenced at all for the critical section. I can see how the paragraph about the Nine Commentaries may be considered undue by some, but I imagine simply quoting what Zhao has said about Falun Gong's criticism, and a few lines on what the criticism has been, shouldn't be too problematic. That is, sourcing a scholar, then the primary. Can someone give me some bibliographic details for some KMT attacks on the CCP, or other parties, and show me their prominence? Wikipedia relies on this.--Asdfg12345 08:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal perspective is that we should just strive to present things objectively - irrespective of whether the facts are of a "negative nature" or a "positive nature" and if there is significant amount of criticism from academic sources we definitely should present the same without adding any bias in. I think, given the extent of attention the issue has received in academic as well as human-rights circles, a section on human rights abuses by the CCP is very much necessary to make the article comprehensive. I also see that at many places, in related articles, what is presented is a highly propagandistic and painted version of the history of the party - with CCP's own propagandistic version presented as factual. We need to look into more objective and academic sources as regards details of the cultural revolution, the history of the party etc. I'll contribute as much as my schedule would permit. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, would you please double-check your neutrality on this article? Asking someone to provide you with KMT-sourced anti-CCP references is, in my humble opinion, contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Very contrary. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Now that you've said it, please explain how it is "very contrary" to the principles of wikipedia. Actually, at that time I had aimed to introduce some scholarly notes about Falun Gong criticism of the CCP and they were deleted as irrelevant. I didn't have time to follow it up then. Part of the reason they were considered irrelevant (including by you), was that KMT criticism is apparently more prominent. Then I asked for someone to show me the prominent KMT criticism. Besides that, if it's so prominent then it should be in the article. No one's done that. I do not see how that is contrary to the principles of wikipedia, or what it has to do with my views on the subject. Actually, wikipedia is all about adding reliable sources to articles. It's not like it's a big deal anyway, everyone knows the CCP locks people up in labor camps and tortures them for voicing dissent to the Party rule. That's not my opinion or something, it's just the fact of what they do to maintain power. Anyway, I'm still waiting for the KMT stuff and some explanations (I mean, in other reliable sources, not from wikipedians) for their prominence. --Asdfg12345 12:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, there seems to be some kind of difference of opinion as to what Wikipedia is (and is not), and what constitutes a neutral point of view. First, I agree that “wikipedia is all about adding reliable sources to articles,” but that is insufficient. It is equally “all about” adding relevant information and sources, not just more. As for the point of view, I believe that your comment “It's not like it's a big deal anyway, everyone knows . . . ” is exactly the difference between our positions.

I look at the history of the CCP, and try to cover it in a thorough, balanced and relevant way. I would never deliberately seek out positive or negative views simply because that would be inappropriate. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree on anything, to be honest. I was just asking about the KMT stuff. I respect your wish to cover topics in a thorough, balanced, and relevant way--that is a good wish.--Asdfg12345 10:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know why this is under the Critics section? Clearly, it is criticizm. If I'm wrong, pick it up here and put it back where you think it belongs.

"Many current party officials are the sons and daughters of prominent Party officials. These young, powerful individuals are referred to as the "Crown Prince Party", or "Princelings", and their rise to power has been criticized as a form of nepotism or cronyism."

DOR (HK) (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Where is the criticism section for the Republican Party, United Russia, Institutional Revolutionary Party, or even the Workers’ Party of Korea?70.227.30.19 (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere to be found of course. The historic success of the CPC generates a lot of jealousy from Tibetan separatists and Taiwan people. It's a harsh reality for Wikipedia that its articles about the world's oldest and most populous country are almost universially written in a negative tone. We need to combat this institutional bias. --Tocino 08:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics box..

Just created that box (If they provide us with tools to create articles, well, we should use em)... Provides for both simplified and traditional, wiktionary links and appliable transliterations....

Id like to move it to the top (collapsable, doesn't occupy much space), but if I do it, the political box doesnt go below, but to the left of the page... any tips pls? Gumuhua (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased wording found.

The party was small at first, but grew intermittently through the 1920s. Twelve voting delegates were seated at the 1st National Party Congress in 1921, as well as at the 2nd (in 1922), when they represented 195 party members. By 1923, the 420 members were represented by 30 delegates. The 1925 4th Congress had 20 delegates representing 994 members; then real growth kicked in. The 5th Congress (held in April-May 1927 as the KMT was slaughtering communists) comprised 80 voting delegates representing 57,968 members.

It was at the 1928 6th Congress that the now-familiar ‘full’ and ‘alternate’ structure originated, with 84 and 34 delegates, respectively. Membership was estimated at 40,000. In 1945, the 7th Congress had 547 full and 208 alternate delegates representing 1.21 million members, a ratio of one representative per 1,600 members as compared to 1:725 in 1927.

After the Party defeated the Nationalists, participation at National Party Congresses became much less representative. Each of the 1026 full and 107 alternate members represented 9,470 party members (10.73 million in total) at the 1956 8th Congress. Subsequent congresses held the number of participants down despite membership growing to more than 60 million by 2000.[7]

Could someone fix it please? I'm a supporter of the KMT, however with respect to Wiki's neutrality policy, I think it should be changed from the word 'slaughtering' to something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.1.153 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "hunting down and killing" could be substituted. Fred Talk 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Take your pick: We have the Shanghai massacre of 1927, the April 12 Incident, “large-scale purge of Communists from the Kuomintang in Shanghai, the Purging of the Party by the Kuomintang, the April 12 Anti-revolutionary Coup and “the April 12 Tragedy.”

Personally, I would steer clear of references to Shanghai, as there were important purges in other cities in the same campaign (e.g., Zhang Zuolin killing Li Dazhao in Beijing). My preference would be for the sentence to refer to “The April 1927 KMT-CCP split.” DOR (HK) (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was no consensus to move, defaulting to last stable title, Communist Party of China. In particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Divided usage and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Translation of party names apply here. kotra (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party — CCP is definitively used most in scholarly literature and journalism on the Party. Asdfg12345 02:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"CPC" may be a modern innovation, but it does not have support from the sources. Wikipedia's naming convention says: "title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article", and "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize... Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." In this context it's obvious that Chinese Communist Party is what is most commonly used in English. Google returns over 800,000 for Chinese Communist Party, but 519,000 for Communist Party of China. There are 3,620 for the latter in google books, and 8,060 for CCP. There are 31,700 in google books for CCP, and 14,100 for CPC. The New York Times uses Chinese Communist Party 3,900 times, while it uses Communist Party of China not at all. Based on these calculations, "Chinese Communist Party" is at least twice as frequently used as "Communist Party of China." The move appears uncontroversial, and fully in line with wikipedia policy as quoted above. Asdfg12345 02:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Naming conventions for political parties: The general rule is that English translations of party name ought to be used in the name of an article. But in many cases a variety of translations are possible. In some cases guidance can be taken from websites of a party or organization, or from promotional material of the party in question.Official English websites of the party uses CPC to describe the party [7] [8] [9] [10], not CCP. And this isn't a place to push your political agenda.--PCPP (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? How might CCP over CPC be part of my political agenda?--Asdfg12345 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Does Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party bring any hints?--PCPP (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no? Should it? Because the Nine commentaries using CCP, I am pushing for a political agenda? Most academic sources also use CCP, do they also have a political agenda? Please see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]... etc. etc.. I would again emphasise the massive disparity in third party sources between the usages. What do you say?--Asdfg12345 04:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents: I don't really care either way. Yeah, CCP is more common (especially in abbreviated form), but CPC is also pretty common. Neither one is "official", regardless of what idcpc.org.cn uses; when it comes down to it, they all are nothing but awkward translations, which is all we can ever hope for (unless we all pack up and go to zh-wiki). The terms are used pretty much interchangeably and a lot of people don't even notice the difference. There are no navigational concerns for wiki readers, since we have redirects. And, most importantly, there is not a difference in POV or connotation between the names (ie, it's not like arguing over whether to call someone "Chinese American" or "American-born Chinese" or "American of Chinese descent"); they mean exactly the same thing. For all these reasons, neither name is better than the other.

So the crux of it is that I don't see a strong need to move this, as the current name is no worse than what the proposed one would be. But if you are ready to clean up all the redirects and make the thousand or so edits it would take to replace all the instances of "Communist Party of China" in all the other articles (to keep things standardized with the name of this one), then be my guest—I'm fine with the article wherever it's located. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Very simple: the two are both commonly used. Even if we were to take the above user's ghit counts, 800,000 vs 510,000 is not a dominating majority. A cursory examination of the ghits in question will clearly show that that, in contemporary, neutral sources, both names are used. When I say unbiased source, that excludes attack sites, such as Falun Gong-affiliated websites, but includes official Chinese government sites, since the Communist Party of China would be expected to know their own name.

The Central People's Government calls it the Communist Party of China: http://www.gov.cn/english/links/cpc.htm. That is the official name, and so in the absence of a clear winner in the commonality stakes, the official name prevails.

The following is off topic, and is merely commentary: the use of a historical name instead of the modern official name - such as the use of CCP instead of CPC - can be a form of covert linguistic attack, just as many of us refuse to call Burma Myanmar because we do not agree with the military junta and question its legitimacy. Hence why hosile sources are much more likely to be found calling it "CCP", which brings with it a whole raft of Cold War-era, hostile connotations, compared to CPC. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Support a move to CCP. Joining the fray. I see two considerations: convention and accuracy. Convention applies to the KMT vs. GMD argument. It may well be that Guomindang is the more common spelling worldwide, but we all know what KMT means. Accuracy, however, is the issue in CCP vs. CPC.

Zhongguo (Chinese/China) Gongchan (Communist/Communism) Dang (Party) . . . Since ZGD wouldn’t make sense to anyone, CCP is the obvious English acronym.

Similarly, Jun (Military) Shi (Affairs) Weiyuanhui (Commission) is either JSW, which is nonsense; or MAC. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, one needs to take into account the difference between Chinese and English grammar. For example, the Communist Party of Indonesia is called Partai Komunis Indonesia in its native language, but we don't call it the Party Communism Indonesia in English.--PCPP (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying there DOR. Are you arguing that CCP is better than CPC simply because of word-order in Chinese? Would you translate Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo" as Chinese People's Republic? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not Chinese People's Republic? Well, because we are so used to PRC. However, that isn't a problem with CPC / CCP . . . or we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for the English grammer argument, the passive voice ("of China") is generally to be avoided in the written word. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So the American United States and the Great British and Northern Irish United Kingdom would be grammatically more suitable? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably so. But, we're used to the US of A. In the CCP / CPC discussion, we don't have that problem. Besides, all the academic literature I studied in college and grad school used CCP at least 10 times as often as CPC. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose a move to CCP. Googlehitcount is not an exact science, we have to see how the different translations are used; 1) The version 'CPC' is used by the party itself, [18], [19], [20], albeit the translations are not 100% consequent, 2) it is not strange that English-language media use the version 'Chinese Communist Party', as this might not refer to the name itself. The party is undoubtably internationally wellknown, and a mentioning of 'the Chinese Communist Party' might not necessarily refer to the name of the party. Likewise there are 28,000+ ghits for 'German Social Democratic Party'. --Soman (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency reasons: other Communist Parties are almost universally named "Communist Party of [X country]". Colipon+(Talk) 09:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. CPC is used universally, as the Communist Party of China. Changing this name would be inconsistent with other countries' communist party name convention, and would be violative of the consensus.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Both names are reasonably common, so go with the official translation. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support There isn't really any major difference between these names, but reading these posts it seems that "Chinese Communist Party" is the more widely used term. Using "Communist Party of China" for ideological reasons go against naming conventions, particuarly WP:OFFICIAL. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel that some of the opinions expressed are unrelated to wikipedia policy, which would presumably be the basis for the name of the article. Wikipedia policy clearly stipulates that reliable sources should be used to determine the recognizability of the name; CCP is at least twice as much used as CPC in reliable sources; if it was only marginally, it wouldn't matter, but academics overwhelmingly still use CCP. The policy I quoted above says that's the metric to judge things. I don't understand why we wouldn't follow wikipedia policy.--Asdfg12345 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I agree, it definitely seems to be more in use. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Foundation of the CCP

Contrary to what is stated in this article, the CCP was not founded in May 1920; loose organizations had existed from the time of the May Fourth Movement in 1919 in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Changsha under the leadership of men such as Chen Duxiu. These were not unified groups, and had in reality little concrete political ideology. The first congress of the CCP was held in the summer of 1921 which is when these groups were unified as more of an umbrella organisation. This group did not only contain Marxists, but Anarchists, Socialists of other guises, and also the Guomindang. Again, contrary to what is stated in this article, the CCP did not come to power by defeating the GMD, but actually collaborated with them in the joint task of defeating warlordism and imperialism in the cities. The split between the CCP and the GMD occurred at a later date during the Northern Expedition over the issue of class revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.249.69 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I am considering put a bunch of fact tags on certain information in here--would that be appropriate? Please share. Half of it is unsourced. On such a contentious topic, one would think there would be a much stronger culture of sourcing, and also simply more information about the CCP. It's quite odd that the criticism section is so paltry, given the history and current actions of the CCP. Can someone produce sources for it? I'm wondering whether it needs to be written according to reliable sources; I mean both criticism and defence parts.--Asdfg12345 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly, the article could do with better sourcing. But not all of the unsourced is contentious. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• But you should avoid using The Epoch Times. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, you did say reliable sources. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

lol. It would be good to get some sources though. I'm so used to strict sourcing, hehe...--Asdfg12345 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider rereading the history of the criticizm section. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Communist

Why is there nothing say that this is really communism? (Pure Communism) Does a country just go by what they say they are? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China. I suspect what you're looking for is communism. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What the IP is saying is that the CPC is far from being a "communist" party nowadays, and arguably wasn't a purely "communist" party even before the 1980s. It being named "communist" is simply a convention; essentially, "Chinese socialism" is a Third Way or neoliberal ideology. Similarly, the Social Democratic Party of Portugal is a right-wing party, and is labeled as such in its information section. I see no reason why the same method (recognizing both the official status of the name and its practical ideology) cannot be used in this article. 202.40.139.168 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag

I have been told that the current flag was not codified before late 1949, after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Does anyone have sources on this ? Was there a clearly-defined banner before that date ? In the documentary series "Mao, a Chinese story", I saw this flag (see right) being used as a banner by the Chinese communists and I have been thinking that it could be the correct one for the Chinese Civil War articles. It might have been an informal banner, but if it was in actual use, it could be used in the infoboxes (also with the various flags of the Chinese soviet republic and Chinese red army). Does anyone have info on this ? Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)