Talk:Chinese Communist Party

Former good articleChinese 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... 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


Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

edit

Change the name of the article to Communist Party of China. There is no reason to use the incorrect, unofficial name. 62.57.57.235 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed at length already; scroll up. --AntiDionysius (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add notes to Communism and Marxism in the infobox

edit

In Wikipedia, we do not really care about official party stances on their ideology, but rather we analyze them and reach consensus. While its true that until 80s the party had a communist economy, since Deng Xiaoping reforms, the party do not follow communism of any nature. Instead, consensus among scholar is that the CCP has a state capitalist and pragmatic orientation.

My propose is to mark somehow in the infobox that communism and marxism are not anymore de facto ideologies of the party. This can be done with a note next to each ideology in the infobox, explaining the party turnaround in the 80s. What do you think. FCBWanderer (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't recommend. First is a misunderstanding of Wiki principles: we do not ourselves analyze stances -- that's OR or SYNTH. We seek to reflect them according to due weight in reliable sources.
I do agree with scholarly consensus of the CPC's pragmatic orientation. I don't think that works well in the infobox, however.
There is not, however, a consensus that the CPC is "state capitalist". Although that is one interpretation among many, it falls far short of consensus.
Overall, I do not suggest trying to achieve too much in infoboxes given the limited space and lack of room for nuance. And they are a continual breeding ground for contention. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also do not support such explanatory notes in the infobox solely because it sets a precedent for all political parties to have analyses and critiques in the infobox. Yue🌙 19:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Rush Limbaugh/Chicom" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect Rush Limbaugh/Chicom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 6 § Rush Limbaugh/Chicom until a consensus is reached. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply