Wikipedia

Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 7

< Talk:Chinese Communist Party
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 108.34.149.124 in topic Just move the page and end it
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Requested move 19 October 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago50 comments27 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: malformed, premature, and without consensus.. This move request was not made with full substantial reasoning or support. Further, it is only 3 months after the previous identical RM which determined consensus against the move. If this is to be revisited, it should be done at least 6 months after the previous (and preferably 1 year) by convention. Or with substantially new evidence or sources. Neither are true. As such, I'm closing this as malformed and without any applicable or useful consensus. Questions? Ping my talk. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Coddlebean (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose and speedy close per WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing has changed since the previous 3 requested move discussions. The current article title remains the most common name in English for this subject. And with the most recent RM being only 3 months ago, I think this nomination should be speedily closed. More than one RM per year is usually inappropriate unless circumstances have materially changed in some way, which they have not here. Also, the proposer has failed to even provide a rationale for this RM, which makes it procedurally flawed. I am also a little suspicious that the nominator might be a sockpuppet, since they have only done 2 edits on Wikipedia, and one of them is for this RM. Seems very odd to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It's what the party is called. The Communist Party of China. That's its actual, official English name, and there isn't a particular reason to insist on calling it something else simply because some English speakers have incorrectly named it. There is a simple, correct answer, as the Communist Party of China does have official translations and communications, in which it is called the "Communist Party of China." This is all retreading ground, but it's frankly absurd that this obvious change hasn't already been done. It's needless and contrarian to not have the article titled by the actual name of the party. The title of the page for the Conservative Party (UK) for instance isn't "Tory party" despite that name being a common colloquialism which has notably more justification as a page title than does the present "Chinese Communist Party."
SuperUltraMegaDeluxe (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
We do not "correct" English-language usage here on Wikipedia, we follow it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Communist Party of China. All western editors should leave our articles alone. We don't want you. We don't need you. We don't wanna see you. Go edit your articles. Leave our articles alone from now on, and that means you. 202.9.46.226 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    You can't just make a claim like "OUR articles". Wikipedia is a global endeavor, and you need to do some more reading up on Wikipedia policy before continuing this train of thought. WP:OWNERSHIP states: "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say." Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    China's Communist party has exactly the same meaning as Communist Party of China and could also be used. 2806:107E:13:3C74:9875:451F:7DC0:94D9 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -It is important to note the difference which "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" have, even if that difference seems minute at first. Indeed it seems as if though only a few words are being swapped around, but the meaning of those words significantly affects the definition of, and how the party is seen.

"Chinese" is distinct from "China". "Chinese", while it can refer to Chinese people in general (including all nationalities of China [see Zhonghua minsu]) it is usually made to refer to the Hanzu, which are only one of the ethnic groups of China. Since the Qing era, "China" or Zhongguo has been stressed by the Chinese government as referring to all of China, and not just the Han-populated areas. Notably, you will find this same terminology used in the rival Guomindang's official name, it is not "The Chinese Nationalist Party" but the "Nationalist Party of China". This is because both parties see themselves as representing not the Chinese people (commonly understood to be the Han) but all of China. This gives them much more a claim over the juridistiction of China and its autonomous regions as both the GMD and CPC do not describe themselves as being the political party of the Chinese but of China. All of China- including the mainland and the island of Taiwan.

We can indeed pull up the Common Name rule, and point to how the common name should have priority over the official name (the Guomindang is an example of this)... but what distinguishes the Guomindang from the CPC is that the etymology of the Guomindang's article comes directly from the official name of the Guomindang "Zhōngguó Guómíndǎng". I believe that people have misunderstood or used the COMMONNAME rule incorrectly as a way to justify the continued incorrect usage of the term "CCP". Generally speaking, most of the articles which fall under the examples of COMMONNAME have their common names directly originating from their "real names" or instead are what they are consistently referred to both academically and casually. The "Chinese Communist Party", however- does not fit this trend. As I explained previously, the "Communist Party of China" wishes itself to be seen not as a communist party that is Chinese, but rather THE communist party of China. Not just "another communist party".

The Netherlands is commonly (and incorrectly) referred to as Holland, even in academic media, but the wikipedia article is not titled as "Holland" but as "Netherlands", noting the incorrect name as being an informal name. There are many other examples, such as "America" being commonly used to refer to the United States but the latter's page still being called "the United States". You could of course argue that both "the Netherlands" and "the United States" are still popular terms even informally but it still stands that Holland and America remain common names for both nations. The common name rule, while it can apply to other articles, simply does not apply effectively to the CPC's page. I would also like to point out that other communist parties do not generally follow this same principle (such as the Communist Party of Vietnam, USA, etc.) and the CPC is an outlier and not the norm.

Using the "CPC" is not only academically correct but should replace "CCP" as the title of the page, as "CCP" does not fit the general principles of the common name rule.

Or alternatively we could rename it the "commie chinese party" - TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The technical distinction that you are attempting to make between "of China" and "Chinese" does not exist in English. They are linguistically equivalent in English. A "Chinese person" in English does not just mean a Han Chinese person. Just look at the Chinese people article. It encompasses all ethnic groups of China. And frankly, what the CCP wants its name to be or mean is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think the name CCP has led anyone here to believe the PRC isn’t a de facto one party state. Also, there are no COMMONNAME exceptions similar to the one referenced by you. Doanri (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
When we say it is the "common name" on Wikipedia we don't mean that it is the colloquial name or a name that is commonly used by a lot of people in the general population, like "Democrat Party" vs "Democratic party". What we mean by "common name" is that it is the most common name used in reliable English-language sources. So, with that definition of the term, on what basis do you assert that it is the "common name" of the party? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This Requested Move discussion was also started by a likely sockpuppet in bad faith and several of the supporters' accounts/IP addresses also look suspicious, which taints this entire RM process. One supporter's user page literally says that he is "Part of the glorious 50 Cent Army". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Chinese Communist Party" is simply the common name in English by any metric, across both academic and non-academic works. I consider this the textbook case of why official translations are not always the best choice for article title. — Goszei (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support If we look through academic publications and news media, we can often see CPC and CCP used interchangeably. Although CCP is the more common name, I don’t think WP:COMMONNAME necessarily apply to it, as CPC is just as recognizable the a common audience. I don’t think the common reader would be unable to recognize « Communist Party of China » as the party in charge of China any more than « Chinese Communist Party ». Both CCP and CPC are commonly recognizable. Using CPC and « Communist Party of China » has the added benefit of being the official name of the organization. I should also note that CPC is most commonly found in English language government publications like Chinese press releases and US government handbooks. TypeKnight03 (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
A less common name being recognizable is not a generally accepted exception to WP:COMMONNAME. Lots of less common names for topics are still recognizable to readers, but we still use the most common name for article titles, while including significant alternative names in the lead section. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Chinese Communist Party, together with its abbreviation the "CCP", is already widely known and commonly used throughout the world. I don't see why changing it to the "Communist Party of China" would make any difference. Siuhl10 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    A handful of western outlets is not "the world," as you put it, and if in your perspective the vote doesn't make a difference you shouldn't be voting on it. 2601:285:4180:80B0:AD91:5C07:4D96:A219 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    If you meant that my vote doesn't make a difference, well it does. Moving it to the "Communist Party of China" just doesn't make sense. Plus, this should've been already agreed upon years back. And to top it off, it's not only "A handful of western outlets" that uses the term CCP, but worldwide. Siuhl10 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as a generally good idea. Their own references use CPC. The common name rationale for prefering CCP is underwhelming. Nobody would make an argument preferring CCP over CPC if CPC was the status quo. I will note that as a matter of process this is a bad faith nomination from a sockpuppet account. It doesn't even have a rationale in the request. This should have been speedy closed but too late with all the discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
    Addendum since poking in an argument here I've listened closely to a lot of news about last week's party elections. I didn't hear "Chinese Communist Party" so much as "China's Communist Party". We'd never use that level of informality for a serious title. In any case, it's just another unofficial possessive form. I'm more convinced that the "common name" is being given too much weight.
    Common names are one of five WP:Criteria for naming articles. It is not the most important. Anothe criteria, of equal weight, is Consistency with other article titles. All of the other article titles about national communist parties are in the form of "Communist Party of Xyzab", unless they have a more specific name. Thus, Wikipedia has Communist Party of Vietname as preferred over Vietnamese Communist Party but Japanese Communist Party is official, and so preferred over Communist Party of Japan. In this case, of China is both official and consistent with WP policies. Consistency, in and of itself, is as important as common name.
    By WP:Criteria, CPC has the advantage of being official, being precise, being consistent with other articles, and just as, recognizable and natural to native English speakers. If I was nearly indifferent about the status before, the criteria policy has convinced me the move should be made. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Nobody would make an argument preferring CCP over CPC if CPC was the status quo. This is not Wikipedia's role, Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm not looking to right any great wrongs. I'm looking at this discussion being a recurrence of this Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. Sometimes the name Wikipedia's policies derive at are just wrong. The wrongness creates the endless discussions. So fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
        Adding to your point @SchmuckyTheCat, common name is a policy that talks about the most frequently used name "generally" being the most appropriate. The policy does not require us to propagate errors like "CCP." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
        And yet despite constantly claiming CCP to be an 'error' and 'wrong', not one of the Support votes has provided proof of this. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
        The name of the organization in English is, "The Communist Party of China," abbreviated as "CPC." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
        And your source for this is? Not a source saying the CCP wants their name to be CPC, a source saying the predominant use in English is CPC. Because there is no authority on what any English word is beyond what is most used as the word, the myriad of national variations of English attests to this. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
        Organizations name themselves. We should use those names if they are clear and not confusing. Using the correct (or as you might concede, official) name is not confusing here. We have a citation in the article currently regarding the official name. More get added on the talk page as this discussion recurs. You are focused on predominant use in English, but the common name policy does not require us to use the predominant name in English. That policy notes that the predominant use is "generally" appropriate, because it will generally fit the criteria for article naming. Here, the correct name fits the criteria better than CCP. It has the advantage of being official and what the organization calls itself. As this is an encyclopedia, we should strive for accuracy. It is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility that we continue to use the incorrect name. Understandably because this is the English side of Wikipedia, there is a focus on the anglophone perspective but we should not let that lead us to be inaccurate. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
        • The perpetual existence of rename requests certainly proves that there is no clear and overwhelming consensus for CCP and it comes across as wrong to those who advocate for the change. Those people do have valid rationales that you cannot dismiss by hand-waving and saying they don't. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, it merely indicates people have begun to WP:Bludgeon, as there is a clear and overwhelming consensus for CCP in sources, which Wikipedia operates on (rather than operating rationales based on personal opinion). --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It would take a very compelling reason for the clarity of "Communist Party of China" over "Chinese Communist Party" for me to consider it, and I don't see an advantage. Ovinus (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment seeing how often this issue is brought up, I'm certain another request to move or debate on the article name will be brought up not too long after this discussion is closed, regardless of the final result. Since the page for the party is pretty important, maybe this should be posted on WP:DNR or maybe an rfc should be made. Also, there might be a potential WP:POV problem with regard to the title, as strong supporters the party use CPC, while those who strongly oppose the party use CCP. Both sides commonly accuse users of the 'wrong term' of being biased or shills or something. From what I can gather, neutral sources usually use CCP when talking to a common audience or when referring to the party as a whole in the greater context of Chinese or world politics; CPC is usually used when talking about the inner workings of the party in particular, such as when discussing party organs, events, or policy. TypeKnight03 (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This really isn't a difficult case. Even most of the supporters of this RM who want to move the article will admit that the most common term for this subject in English is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's so clear at all that supporters of the move admit CCP is the most common term. More importantly, is whether common name is being given unequal weight as just one of multiple criteria. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Move- Use of the term CCP has become a derogatory standard used as a pejorative against the party, which picked up pace in 2020. It is neither accurate nor appropriate- 118.176.52.32 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
That's nonsense. "Chinese Communist Party" is in no way derogatory or pejorative. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons which I stated at the previous RM:
  • Most importantly, the current title is the common name, as seen in the ngrams, and as affirmed and reaffirmed at the last two RMs. Contrary to suggestions that the common name is a result of recent political shifts, the common name has remained the same over a long period of time – indeed, for as long as the party has ever existed – and has not changed even through decades of drastic back-and-forth shifts in relations between China and major English-speaking countries. It is also the common name in both American English and British English. The current title follows established usage in English-language sources, and the conventions, style, and grammar of languages other than English do not matter.
  • Comparisons to other parties are inapt. When the official name and the common name agree, such as Japanese Communist Party (ngrams), there is nothing to dispute. When two names refer to two completely different entities, such as Brazilian Communist Party and Communist Party of Brazil, it is different from when two names refer to the same entity. When two names are equally common, such as Communist Party of Vietnam and Vietnamese Communist Party (ngrams), then naturally other policies are needed to reach a conclusion. None of these cases is analogous to the present case.
  • Of course, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense (WP:TITLECHANGES).
In the above, none of the underlying evidence or policy has changed in the past three months (except that the reference to "the last two RMs" is now the last three RMs). For all of these reasons, the article still should not be moved. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
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.

Leave our articles alone

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
WP:SOAPBOX AND THUS WP:TALKOFFTOPIC
Not a fruitful discussion for improving the page.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Go and edit your western articles. Leave some of our articles alone like this one. 202.9.47.11 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This kind of comment is not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines because Wikipedia is 'not a forum.' You are encouraged to join Wikipedia and edit constructively, citing reliable sources (and you may be particularly helpful in this regard as I presume from your comment that you are literate in Chinese). But this sort of general complaint is not useful. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Also WP:OWNERSHIP. Honestly don't think it's worth engaging with comments like this because they are clearly unserious; no reasonable person would believe that a proposal to have articles edited only by (anonymous) editors from certain locations / nationalities / ethnicities is possible. Yue🌙 06:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You are probably right Yue, I am likely too much of an optimist. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article has six appearances of decision-making and one of decision making. Please change the one decision making to decision-making. 120.21.29.150 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: The phrase is hyphenated when used as an adjective (eg a decision-making institution) but not when used as a noun (eg a lack of transparency in decision making). I did correct the misused hyphenated examples. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase the first sentence of the lead to say the official name first.

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments8 people in discussion

The starting sentence should be changed to the one of this revision

"The Communist Party of China (CPC), commonly known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),"

Instead of

"The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),"

Aside from the fact that Chinese Communist Party/CCP is literally wrong - CPC is the official name. It's not ambiguous - the official one should simply come first. FF toho (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. As you will see on the talk page and archive, it is a recurring issue. It sticks in my craw that we can't get a simple issue like this correct and I view it as credibility-damaging for Wikipedia. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It's because Wikipedia elites are Western supremacists (i.e. modern Nazis) 68.93.143.10 (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We’re following Wikipedia policy correctly, even if it goes against party doctrine. Whilst I can see how that can be hard to swallow, it is strengthens Wikipedia’s policy credibility, rather than disproving it. Doanri (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Having wrong information on the wiki strengthens its credibility? No, it does not. FF toho (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No, the criteria of ‘right’ information differ between the CCP and Wikipedia, as they so often do Doanri (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no argument whether CCP is correct or not, its not. It is objectively false, their name is CPC. CCP' is Western usage in an attempt to associate 'CPC' with 'CCCP' in the minds of a western audience in the hopes it drums up the old red-scare terror. As such, anyone who uses 'CCP' is either straight up malicious or ignorant (and if ignorant, still kind of malicious because of said ignorance). FF toho (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
No, this isn't some modern Western attempt to drum up "the old red-scare terror". The fact of the matter is that, throughout the entire existence of the Gòngchǎndǎng, the dominant English-language name has been the Chinese Communist Party. The claim that anyone who uses 'CCP' is either straight up malicious or ignorant (and if ignorant, still kind of malicious because of said ignorance) amounts to little more than a combination of confused historical revisionism and an assumption of bad faith. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
this is an absolutely false statement. If you do a search on all the article that contains the term CCP it is mostly in negative coverage. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Lol most westerners don't know know the significance of "CCCP"... we don't really put that much though into the acronym we use. But studying political science in school, we never used CPC, always CCP. You call something what it's called. In English, the Communist Party of China is exclusively referred to by the acronym CCP 2601:643:897F:8C40:1169:C757:A266:89D8 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The WP:COMMONNAME of the party in the English language is reflected in the current title and lead of the article, which has been repeatedly reaffirmed in move requests. That we list its official name in the first sentence in writing The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC) is perfectly fine. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is just fine the way it is. It's much better to have the title name first and official name second, so it is explicitly stated what the official name is. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"CPPRC" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect CPPRC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 19 § CPPRC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Socialism with Chinese characteristics

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Are the pre-Deng ideologies (communism, Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought) considered to be components of the larger socialism with Chinese characteristics too? I read the article given in the discussion which put this into the ideology infobox but I couldn't really find the part that said these were components of the SWCC (or maybe I missed, I read it a bit quickly so). Tagging @Yue who is the editor that made this proposal and change before. The Account 2 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. See: [1]. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh I see now, thanks a lot! The Account 2 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
One last question, I saw Yue say back in the time that socialist patriotism is officially a component of the larger socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, currently in the article it is put as a standalone ideology along with Chinese nationalism. So should the infobox be amended to make socialist patriotism one of the bulletpoints of socialism with Chinese characteristics? The Account 2 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I see no reason to go down the rabbit hole of listing every policy position as if it were on equal status with the Four Cardinal Principles (etc.). DOR (HK) (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. There are far too many policy positions to list in one infobox, so only the most critical ones should remain. The Account 2 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Reason editorial

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Other editors have brought up issues regarding the nature and tone of the source given for this recent addition, but none have pointed out the obvious: An editorial from Reason, a magazine which writes specifically from an American libertarian perspective, is not a reliable source on the matter. This should also be obvious to most editors but it is still worth mentioning: A source that primarily cites unverifiable first-hand accounts is not reliable, contrary to the edit summary of this revert. Yue🌙 07:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with it is that its an editorial, not sure why you're making such a broad argument. We don't discriminate against American or Libertarian sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I think your last point is the more significant one, Yue -- unverified descriptions of firsthand impressions of policy impacts on the family of a particular editorial writer are not appropriate.
More generally, however, sources may be an RS even if they have a specifically ideological leaning. For another example from the American media market, the democratic socialist magazine Jacobin is also an appropriate source, just as the libertarian magazine Reason is.
For the source at issue here, the major problems come from concerns other than the ideological standpoint of the magazine. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I never said the magazine itself is inherently unreliable because it is biased, as every source has some bias to it.
"An editorial from Reason, a magazine which writes specifically from an American libertarian perspective, is not a reliable source on the matter [of the Chinese Communist Party]."
I would not cite or include a criticism from Qiushi in an article about the Democratic Progressive Party, for example. That would be giving undue weight to the most critical and fringe opinions on the subject. Yue🌙 21:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand the analogy. Reason is not published by the Libertarian Party (United States). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
You initially replied by asking me why I made a broad argument but it was a very specific point. The affiliation of Reason is irrelevant; my point is not that critics with opposing views should not be included, because otherwise how would criticisms be included at all? My point is that an opinion piece written by one non-notable author from the opposite end of the political spectrum (which relies on completely unverifiable testimony) should be avoided. I think we both agree that, in contrast, criticisms which many analysts and observers make belong in an article. Yue🌙 23:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Let me tweak my analogy: I would not cite a polemic against the U.S. Libertarian Party by a Maoist weekly paper and add their critiques to the article. A libertarian's critique of the Chinese government (and CCP by extension) as infantilising is as fringe and ridiculous as a Maoist's critique that the U.S. government is fascist. Yue🌙 23:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The source in question should not be used because it is an opinion piece. "infantilising is as fringe and ridiculous" has nothing to do with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Nomination withdrawn. Well, looks like this RM has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. I shan't waste everyone's time here. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party → Gongchandang – This is a more neutral name, as well as it being less controversial. Plus the new name stays consistant along the lines with Kuomintang. How says everyone? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose and speedy close. It has been repeatedly established through RM that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject. Although this is a variant on the usual "Communist Party of China" proposal, and no doubt opened in good faith, there is nonetheless no new evidence presented that the common name is other than the current one and I don't see the value in arguing about this for a further week. Suggest a moratorium on new proposals. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. While I appreciate the attempt to use a correct name instead of the current incorrect name, using Gongchandang on English language Wikipedia raises issues with the article naming WP:Criteria particularly "Recognizability" and "naturalness" for non-specialists. Ultimately I believe we should be using the correct English name "Communist Party of China" (CPC) which avoids the recognizability and naturalness issues of Gongchandang. Procedurally, I recall a move discussion was asked not to be initiated for several months, in any case. But thank you for a thoughtful attempt to grapple with the issues. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. For the obvious reasons that it would make the article difficult to find, and unnecessarily confuse people. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
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.

CCP vs CPC

Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments13 people in discussion

is there any explanation for this inconsistency? and would it fit in the intro? Irtapil (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that here are 2 ways to translate the party's name into English. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Please read the prior discussion. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a rather said affair and seriously compromises Wikipedia's already very questionable credibility.
CCP, or Chinese Communist Party, is meant to imply a racial or ethnic nature to the party, portraying it as solely a Han Party and not a Party representing all the people’s of the geographic and civilizational area known as China. CCP also sounds scary like CCCP while CPC triggers the red scare conditioning less FF toho (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
No it's not. In the English language, "Chinese" does not mean "Han Chinese" any more than "American" means "White American". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The party is from the same era as the Third International, which had an official rule that all member parties must rename themselves to "Communist Party of [country]" in their respective languages. While I don't believe the CPC was ever a member of the Third International, the fact that it was part of the same Marxist-Leninist tradition as the parties of the International should cause us to err on the side of that naming convention.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm
Number 18 (near the end).
FF toho (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Why? Why should this complicated folderol replace the simple rule of use what is actually used by the majority of the English speaking world? English usage is English usage. End of story. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Because it's incorrect information on a supposedly neutral (lol) encyclopedia. FF toho (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not incorrect. "Chinese Communist Party" is a perfectly valid translation of the Chinese name. The fact that they prefer to use another translation doesn't make this one wrong. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Khajidha yes it does. it's not your party. it's not America's party. it is not Wikipedias party. respecting other countries and cultures by using their preferred name is simple common sense and courtesy. it's equivalent to using someone's preferred pronouns or using their preferred name.
saying ccp is correct is purely racist, chauvinist, and above all, factually incorrect. 2601:603:5000:68D0:E09B:BFBE:1026:9F24 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
"it's equivalent to using someone's preferred pronouns or using their preferred name" - No it's not, a party is not a person. "saying ccp is correct is purely racist, chauvinist, and above all, factually incorrect" - Nor is it racist, a party is not a race. Similarly, it's not factually incorrect, the CCP doesn't get to decide what is and isn't fact. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:BC29:2BAE:692A:3149 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@FF toho: A dozen of communist sections don't follow. For example, in the far east, we have Japanese Communist Party and Indochinese Communist Party. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Bullshit. While "Chinese" may refer academically to every ethnic group in China (known in China as the Zhonghua minzu), "Chinese" is almost universally applied to the Han Chinese when relating to ethnicity. The only times it isn't is when referring to diplomatic state institutions or as a demonym (like "Chinese President").
I support that "Chinese Communist Party" should remain the title of the article, but that the starter sentence should be swapped.

The Communist Party of China (CPC), colloquially the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC)

Kalivyah (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
So you're saying that our article on Chinese people should focus solely on Han Chinese rather than all people of China? I really don't like saying this, but the idea that only Han Chinese people are the true Chinese people seems a little bit racist to me at face value. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
No it isn't, Chinese in this context is almost universally applied to Chinese citizens or people who origins in China... Within China people might be obsessed with that sort of chauvinism but outside China nobody is distinguishing Han Chinese from Manchu Chinese or Zhuang Chinese when they say "Chinese" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Ngram viewers linked here shows the usage of "Communist party of China" vs. "Chinese communist party", and the usage of "CCP" vs. "CPC" - respectively. [2], [3]. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    The abbreviations' Ngrams are probably less useful given that each stand for other things as well, e.g. Conservative Party of Canada = CPC. Also worth noting that the Communist Party itself did not change its official name in English to "of China" until the early 2000s. If anything, the results indicate that the official name never caught on with English language media. Yue🌙 02:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
    Do keep in mind that Ngram includes all published books, i.e., romance novels, books about 20th century Chinese history, and books by Rush Limbaugh. But by my count, both terms were used roughly equally by Reuters and the NYTimes, using 2005 as an arbitrary cut-off date. I do think a move request is still largely unwarranted. DFlhb (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    DFlhb, I wanted to provide a third opinion/option to settle this. I'm afraid that the article name would continue to spark more disputes in the future. Well, guess not then. Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

WWII Outbreak edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone else feel that the 1936 Xian Incident was the start of the second united front, rather than the 1937 Japanese invasion? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, can you develop with some sources specifically dating the formation of the Second United Front? The abduction and negotiations occur in late 1936 but my recollection is sources generally attribute 1937. I'm open to considering. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


“Consequently, on December 12, 1936, after Chiang [Kai-shek] had arrived in the city of Sian [Xian] to announce a new offensive against the Communists, Chang [Hsueh-liang, a/k/a The Young Marshal, Zhang Xueliang] arrested him, demanding that he accept a 'united front' between the Communists and Nationalists to fight the Japanese."

"China: the roots of madness : a documentary", by Theodore H. White and Mel Stuard, 1968, p. 152, [[<https://archive.org/details/chinarootsofmadn0000whit/page/152/mode/1up>]].
See also "The Sian Incident: A pivotal Point in Modern Chinese History", by Tien-wei Wu, Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies No. 26, 1976, [[<https://archive.org/details/sianincidentpivo0000wuti>]]. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the quotation, it is certainly correct, but negotiations followed the kidnapping. I am not sure it's correct to say that 1936 is when the second united front "started." The Xian incident obviously set the immediate impetus for the forming of the front, but negotiations continued for some weeks after.
Prof. Rebecca Karl's excellent Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth Century: a Concise History uses the construction of when the Second United front was "finalized" for her dating of the events -- "The United Front was finalized in the autumn of 1937; it held for several years, always frayed and fraught. Mao remained rhetorically committed to the United Front, even as the unity broke down in the early 1940s." Pg. 55. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about Prof. Karl, but Theodore White was on the ground in Chongqing during that time. The point isn't the formal dating of the Second United Front, but the point at which the KMT slowed its efforts to annihilate the CCP, and began to pay more attention to the Japanese. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with the way you phrased your edit. I think the approach you used is a good one. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Page move moratorium

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Given there have now been 3 official votes (edit: in the last year) to move the article to Communist Party of China and that's not counting the dozen or more arguments to move it where the have been no new points raised, would it be an option to place a moratorium on move requests or discussion? Apologies if this is the wrong place to suggest this, I've just seen this as an option on other pages. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. No new issues are being raised. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
All of the recent RM discussions have been very definitive in their result and another formal RM discussion is highly likely to have the exact same result and would be a waste of time. I would support a moratorium until at least a year from the close of the last one in October. If the people really want to give it another go, I would strongly encourage them to wait at least until the end of this year before launching another Requested Move discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Why would we wait? There is general agreement that CPC would be a better title. The previous RM discussion ended with the conclusion that CPC wasn't the most commonly used name, therefore CCP should be the title, but we just discussed that CPC overall fits a more accurate and neutral name without confusing anyone, and the guidelines would support this. Dotacal (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
We should wait simply because there is not "general agreement" on anything. Read the discussion! DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
All of those same arguments have been brought up in the previous RM nominations, and all have failed and are very likely to fail again. Like it or not, CCP is the most common name for this topic in English, and until that changes, this article will probably not be moved. And there may be general agreement among you IP addresses and accounts created in the last few days, but that's not going to cut it in a formal RM discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Sad that Wikipedia is prone to political bias. Dotacal (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This isn't political. Since your account is new I will assume that you are just not very familiar with Wikipedia's article titling policies. I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rreagan007 And there may be general agreement among you IP addresses and accounts created in the last few days: WP:FOC (and there are as many if not more IP editors/new accounts against proposed moves, this comment of yours doesn't hold water). –Vipz (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
If you look through all the previous RM discussions, you will see that it tends to be a lot of IP addresses and newly created accounts that push for changing this article title to CPC. So yes, my critique does hold water, and WP:SOCK is a constant threat when contentious title moves are being discussed, and particularly this article for some reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: I did not negate WP:SOCK threat, only criticized your statement. Most accounts in the section above in 'general agreement' with the page move are in fact neither IP addresses nor accounts created in the last few days; the only IP throughout these two sections is this one proposing a page move moratorium out of thin air (but as I said with WP:FOC, let's get back on track about content, discuss this elsewhere). –Vipz (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I was directly addressing an account that was created less than a week ago (and which has now been permanently blocked), apparently for the purpose of pushing for this page to be moved. And if you will look through the other RM discussions, you will see other such accounts engaging in the same behavior. And there is nothing more to discuss as far as moving this page goes that hasn't already been discussed multiple times before, as no new rationale for moving this page has been presented. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
the only IP throughout these two sections is this one proposing a page move moratorium out of thin air - Were you to look back through the last year or so of this talk page, you'd see that I'm very much not proposing this "out of thin air" and have indeed previous participated in some of the previous back-and-forths (both on this IP and others because of dynamic stuff). --1.157.30.241 (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
What you say applies the other way around too. IPs and new accounts (probable socks) may exist on both sides of move requests. Now let's stop commenting on editors. –Vipz (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm specifically talking about move requests for this article, where I have noticed over the previous RM discussions that they seem to be very one-sided. If you want to remain willfully blind to this pattern, that's fine. But don't criticize me for calling it out when I see it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Just move the page and end it

Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments13 people in discussion

It's the official name. It's not ambiguous. It's not unwieldy (like the expansion of NATO or Mueller report would be). No one would be confused by a redirect from CCP/Chinese Communist Party. Mention CCP/Chinese Communist Party is common in English, but not the official English translation. There's no controversy here except those invented by rules lawyers who think COMMONNAME (which, personally, I think is one of the worst policies on Wikipedia, but I'm willing to recognize its usefulness for articles like Mahatma Gandhi, though I'd argue that "Gandhi" is the most common in English, and almost invariably refers to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – if it doesn't, it's always accompanied by disambiguation through the use of a given name – and that "Mahatma Gandhi" is a concession to common sense in defiance of COMMONNAME) is the be-all, end-all. This is one of the stupidest disputes on Wikipedia I've ever seen. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like the policy of titling articles by their most common name in English, then you need to try to gain consensus on the talk page at WP:COMMONNAME to change that policy. But the current title is very clearly the most common name in English for this subject, so that is what the title should be based on our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Using CCP have nothing to do with the common name clause. It is the principle of Wikipedia to be neutral. CCP is not a neutral term. CCP is a term used by biased medium to invoke soviet era red scare CCCP and the usage of CCP is almost always associated in negative coverage.
In addition to not being neutral, there is also colonialism undertone behind the term CCP, just as western society try to mimic Chinese pronunciation such as Peking or Nanking back in that period. To this date this is still being used to highlight the difference in the type of government of the local people. This should be changed back to the official name and reflect a more neutral tone. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
So because the English and Americans are degenerate liars like your hero, Ronald Reagan lover, now everyone has to follow their lead? 68.93.143.10 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, CCP is a political term and the official term should be used instead. Thetukars (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Although I agree with you on grounds I have discussed on this page and previous move discussions, it will be some months yet before another move discussion is appropriate. My suggestion is that it might be more productive to monitor and return to the page once a move discussion occurs. And I have no doubt such discussions will continue in the future. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like this. It pains me to see something on Wikipedia that’s so easy to get right, still be wrong. All we have to do is switch two letters in the acronym and we can have an accurate CPC instead of CCP. As you point out, it will confuse no one.

Also, I noticed that this page used to be “Communist Party of China” (presumably with the correct acronym), so it’s not like a consensus for the incorrect acronym is set in stone. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It really is absolutely embarrassing that all these clowns who pretend to want impartiality are absolutely committed to using a derogatory name for the title of this article. They should be ashamed of themselves for betraying the entire idea of Wikipedia to push their political agenda. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on you (or anyone) to demonstrate how "Communist Chinese Party" is derogatory. By your logic we can't talk about the Chinese government or Chinese civilization but must say government of China or civilization of China. Explain how the exactly parallel usage Chinese Communist Party is derogatory but these other usages aren't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't convince you of something you refuse to see, or talk you out of garbage logic. The phrase "the Chinese government" is an ordinary and generic construction. "The Communist Party of China" is the official and common name of a specific organization. This whole "debate" is like insisting on changing every instance of "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party" because that's what Tucker Carlson says. It is a deliberate choice to exclusively use an incorrect and unofficial name associated with right-wing political bias. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that Democratic Party is a name created in English. Whether to use CPC or CCP is a question of translation from Chinese. CCP is the translation most commonly used, so that's what we use. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not a question of translation, no. The party has established and published a correct English-language name which is in common use outside of the Epoch Times. Choosing the alternative has a clear derogatory political meaning, whether you choose to lie about it or not. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Last I checked the party doesn't have such a power to establish a correct English name. However widespread their preferred translation is, the one we use here is more widespread. And there is no derogatory meaning, so I will thank you to quit slandering me, other editors and the English speaking world as a whole. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That's absurd. Their power to establish a correct English name derives from the same authority they have to establish a correct name in Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Kazakh, Korean, Yi, and Zhuang. They are not race-locked and incapable of engaging with the English language themselves. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
on the contrary, it is the concept of ttempting to control languages that are foreign to you that is absurd.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
And there it is. After all, how could a dirty, stinking Chinese be an English speaker, or have any business using our language?Glaug-Eldare (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:AGF. It is much more likely that Khajidha is speaking in the sense that the English language is "foreign" to the CCP. Which it is, just as much as the Chinese language is "foreign" to the Australian government. Furthermore, in the sense of the CCP having the power to "establish a correct English name" in the listed other languages, they no more have it than they do in English or any other language. While they're not "race-locked" (whatever that means) or "incapable of engaging with the English language themselves", they are certainly incapable of controlling the English language. No organisation is capable of that. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
No editor is obligated to assume good faith after being on the receiving end of a remark like that. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I may be failing to read into it, but to me it seems Khajidha isn't trying to somehow imply Glaug is a "dirty, stinking Chinese" and that's why I said to assume good faith. My reading of the remark is the "you" refers to the CCP, in the sense of "it is the concept of attempting to control languages that are foreign to the CCP that is absurd". In the context of the discussion they don't seem to be implying to Glaug that English is foreign to them purely because they're Chinese, especially since I can't see any implication either way to them being Chinese in the discussion. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. And I demand an apology from both Glaug-Eldare and JArthur 1984. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You will not have it, Khadija. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
If the Australian Labor Party decided on a Chinese-language name for itself and used it in Chinese-language publications (e.g., to Chinese-speaking voters or in official relations with Chinese-speaking countries), I suspect that English-speaking Wikipedians would demand that the Chinese-language Wikipedia respect it. The problem here is racism. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
You'd be wrong. My point is that NO group has the power to determine its name in any language foreign to itself. I would, in fact, be telling the Australians to shut up and stop trying to control the Chinese language. From my point of view, it is this attempt to control other languages that carries a whiff of racism. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Once again, you are loudly proclaiming that the Chinese people are unwelcome to communicate in English, and subject to insult when they do. I don't think that's a good enough rationale. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Where have I ever said that Chinese people shouldn't speak in English? But when you speak in a language (any language) you should try to use the words and constructions used by native speakers of that language. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
In Chinese 102, I learned that the US government hates it that "White House" is consistently rendered 白宮 ("White Palace") in Chinese media. Anyway CPC makes the most sense to me, but I'm not really a media consumer. Folly Mox (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Having been on the losing side of a number of Common Name discussions advocating for less common variants for various reasons, labeling this page "Chinese Communist Party" is clearly consistent with the common name policy. Those saying that changing that policy is the way to go if you want this change are correct. Jahaza (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • So Glaug-Eldare and one of the pro-CPC IP users have been blocked for personal attacks against editors opposed to a page move. Let that be a lesson for all the other pro-CPC accounts who'd fancy it a good idea to insult or slander their opponents in a move discussion. The accusations of racism above are totally frivolous and in violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. Nutez (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    "Let that be a lesson for all the other pro-CPC accounts"
    Yeah, them and only them!
    You can communicate the unacceptabiliy of personal attacks without getting in a petulant dig at the side you don't like. 108.34.149.124 (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party/Archive_7&oldid=1169740620"