Talk:Chinese Communist Party

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese Communist Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why is the article titled "Chinese Communist Party" when the party's official name in English is the "Communist Party of China"?

A1: The name "Chinese Communist Party" is more commonly used by reliable sources in the English language. Consensus on the current title was reached on 23 July 2020 (see discussion). As of May 2024, there have been five failed proposals to revert this decision due to a lack of policy-based arguments (i.e. pertaining to WP:MOVE) on the part of the proposers.

Q2: Why are certain political ideologies and positions not included in the infobox?

A2: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, content in an article's infobox must appear and be reliably sourced in the article body. A fact should only be added to the infobox after it has first been added to the article body with reliable sources. Content that is in dispute between reliable sources is generally not included in infoboxes.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Chinese Communist Party was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 30, 2014	Peer review	Reviewed
October 12, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
September 22, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 23, 2017, July 23, 2018, July 23, 2021, and July 23, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

Politics: Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance).

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Top‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Top‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Asia High‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Chinese / Cold War / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Logs and discussions:

Move logs: Communist Party of China
Chinese Communist Party

Discussions:

RM, Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party, No consensus, 6 September 2009, discussion
RM, Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party, Moved, 16 July 2020, discussion
- MRV, Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party, Endorsed, 25 July 2020, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 21 January 2021, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 9 July 2022, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 19 October 2022, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Gongchandang, Withdrawn, 8 February 2023, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 4 May 2023, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 27 October 2023, discussion

Left-right position of party

The party itself refers to Marxism, although its policies are different, but it could be assumed that the party's line is simply left-wing, not far left.

The most important aspect of the analysis is it needs to start with how the balance of WP:RS describe the CPC's ideology. As a further matter, the left-right dichotomy arises from the Western political and historical context, and becomes less useful once removed from them. Our current ideology section of the infobox is much more precise and specific to the Chinese context. For further information, take look at the archives section of the talk page to see how this recurring discussion has played out in various ways over the years. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPC should still be relisted as Far-left as they still technically retained communism and many of its well associated elements such as Marxism afterall Communist Party of Vietnam is still listed as Far-left despite having very similar economic reformation policies to China. Mhaot (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider "far-left" to be fitting for communist parties in the political context of Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea? If not, should the descriptor be removed from the Wikipedia articles for those parties too? TheTajik (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It starts with how the balance of the RS on each of those frames it. It’s probably worth assessing each of those. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About my editing

Hello Amigao! I try to use Google Translate typing Chinese words 中国共产党, it is translated to "Communist Party of China" in English. I edit it, but why does my edit has undone? Piggy Studio (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who undid your edit. Please see the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this talk page. Remsense诉 02:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Andy Boreham send a X post (formerly Tweet) to call the "Communist Party of China", and English Wikipedia formerly used "Communist Party of China" but now is "Chinese Communist Party" this word?" Piggy Studio (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this talk page. Remsense诉 02:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you pinged Amigao when they had zero interactions with you really says something. Yue🌙 04:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of China (CPC)

Closing unproductive discussion. The reason for the current article title is explained in detail in the FAQ above. The consensus for the article title is linked twice above, in the FAQ and by a header specifically showing all the move proposals attempted. Editors familiar with this discussion need not repeat themselves every time a new voice pitches in with the same line of inquiry. Yue🌙 19:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that Wikipedia should use the official name of the party, even if you disagree with its policies, instead of using an American colloquial or slang term as the official page title as well as in the article itself. This is standard procedure for any party in the world, so why not here? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sympathetic but this discussion recurs frequently so it’s best to review the talk page. CCP-proponents place great weight on the common name policies. Others observe that CPC is also common and has the advantage of being as you say official. I also point to WP:GLOBAL as helpful in thinking about this topic. The page had the correct title quite a few years ago, and the trend has been that the consensus towards correcting the page title is improving over time. Nonetheless, we are probably not due for another discussion on this point for some time. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) This isn't a nickname, colloquialism, or slang term. This is a translation. It simply uses a slightly different formulation than what the party does in its own materials. There is no substantive difference between "Chinese _____" and "_____ of China".

2) Standard procedure for any party in the world? Really? So explain why we call the Danish party Green Left instead of Socialist People's Party? Or why we call the Japanese party Free Education For All instead of Party to Realize Free Education? What is actually done for any party in the world is use the name that English speakers most often use for a party.

3) I think WP:USEENGLISH would be more relevant here.

4) "Correct" is POV. And since the article was moved and has not been moved back, would seem to be contrary to fact. The article is where it should be by WP's rules. Your idea of "correct" seems to be "whatever the party says". Sorry, but their opinion is irrelevant.

5) I have seen no such trend. What I have seen is an increasing number of Chinese citizens who seem to have a problem with the idea that WP is not subject to control by their government. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcomed to disagree on the basis of policy, but please refrain from remarks on the nationality of those you disagree with. It is non-productive and editors could quite reasonably take offense. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply reporting the nationality that many of those asking for this move have reported for themselves. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why does the English-speaking world's translation of Communist Party of China supersede the Chinese translation?

The reason for the current article title is explained in detail in the FAQ above. The consensus for the article title is linked twice above, in the FAQ and by a header specifically showing all the move proposals attempted. See WP:NC for the broadest policy of why we use the names we do, specifically common names in English. Remsense诉 21:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The official website of the CPC translates it as CPC, not as CCP. Source : https://www.idcpc.gov.cn/english2023/zlbjj/bzzc/

Why does the English speaking world's translation supersede the Chinese one? Remember this is not some google translate or AI translation, this is the literal CPC calling itself CPC in its official English language website designed to be shown to the English speaking world.

Why does it matter if 100 million English speakers wrote 100 million articles in 100 million reliable and trustworthy magazines, newspapers, scientific papers and books, that can be used as 100 million sources to be linked in Wikipedia, when the actual CPC itself considers it wrong?

Why do the people who AREN'T part of a thing the sole decision makers in the name of a thing, and the people who are part of a thing not allowed to have their official name for their thing in the English language be the name for the article of the thing that faces the English speaking world in the English version of the wikipedia article of the thing?

Why does "reliable sources" rule apply here, when the problem here is not the reliability of sources or the ubiquity of usage, but the actual CORRECT term to be used?

No one denies how reliably true it is that the vast majority of English speakers call it CCP. The question is, why does the usage of the majority automatically make it the correct title?

The marijuana article is called Cannabis, because the majority of sources are scientific sources. Why doesnt non scientific sources like newspaper articles or books matter there?

Trans people article have their preferred name and pronouns because the sources are mainstream media. Why are sources of mainstream media quoting transphobes (who number in the millions and use deadnames and original pronouns) not matter when it comes to the article name and pronouns?

Why are sources used selectively? Why are Chinese sources translated to English using translation software, or Chinese sources in English translated by the source itself, not "reliable"?

Also, how "unbiased" are sources based in countries that openly express hostility to the CPC? Is Chinese state media used as sources in articles about US foreign policy, for example?

Before you respond in an emotional manner, I'm not making a rhetorical argument here. I want the literal answer to all the questions posed above, directly explaining which Wikipedia rules apply to each and the correct argumentation for each.

Thanks. 125.62.204.79 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.