Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Requested move 4 May 2023

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: not moved. No consensus to move (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 14:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China – The Communist Party of China, like all other major communist parties in the world, follows the English naming convention of "Communist Party of". On the List of communist parties, we clearly see this consistent naming convention as well as the correct name for the party in China, i.e. Communist Party of China, not Chinese Communist Party. The foremost international bodies refer to the party as the CPC, not the CCP, e.g. the United Nations. The consistent naming convention means that English speakers around the world can successfully find information about communist parties. For example, the English-language broadcasts of France 24, a popular French state-owned media network, have a tag for the Communist Party of China but not the Chinese Communist Party. As is well known and as is immediately mentioned on the existing Chinese Communist Party, the official name is in fact the Communist Party of China, with the associated initials of CPC. Evidence abounds for the clear and consistent use of the CPC naming convention by China and others, including at the diplomatic world stage. Because CCP is a strongly Western-biased acronym, Wikipedia's neutrality rules are violated by uniquely choosing this jingoistic, ethnocentric naming scheme. The page was also only move protected in 2020, indicating politically motivated origins. Cogitamus Credimus (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The CPC itself disagrees (the text says that while the Party officially prefers the use of CPC, not all usage of the CCP is negative nor all usage of the CPC is positive, and the usage instead depends on the context). Chinese official media such as CGTN use Chinese Communist Party from time to time as well. The Account 2 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: User:Cogitamus Credimus, have you read the past discussions? Regards, ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Support per nominator, full agreement here. The name really does sound ethnic on purpose. --Killuminator (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. No new arguments presented, and the WP:COMMONNAME remains unambiguously for CCP. Also, "jingoistic and ethnocentric" is unnecessary hyperbole. For most English speakers, Chinese is just the demonym of the country China; just as French, British, Danish and American refer primarily to a nationality rather than an ethnicity, so does Chinese. Can we please have a maratorium here, we don't need to keep going through this endlessly...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose CCP is the standard English-language abbreviation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain the sense in which it is "standard"? Designated Management (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose No new arguments are being raised, basically just regurgitation of the same old vacuous rubbish

2A05:9CC3:7E:827F:108:62C9:2209:BD77 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support although my support is focused on different grounds. The 5 WP:CRITERIA are: (1) recognizability, (2) naturalness, (3) precision, (4) concision, and (5) consistency. The CPC formulation meets this criteria as well or better than the incorrect CCP formulation. For example, previous discussions have also cited worldwide communist party naming conventions. I view it as a blot on Wikipedia's credibility that we cannot get this accurate and it's hard for me to understand a principled reason to continue re-producing the incorrect but frequent acronym.

In these recurring discussions, the Chinese Communist Party side places too much emphasis on "common name." First, the reason that the common name is generally recommended is because the common name will generally fit the five criteria. But Communist Party of China also readily fits the five criteria. Second, Communist Party of China (CPC) is also itself a common name in English language sources. Third, both English language sources in and outside of anglophone countries must be considered. Related, the concerns in WP:GLOBAL underscore the need to not be Western-centric in our thinking. Fourth, consider how radically different the arguments about common name are with regard to this article versus the examples in WP:commonname (for example, "Bono" not "Paul Hewson."). Finally, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO. Common name should not restrain us from using a nearly identical, also frequently used formulation, which has the added benefit of being "official." JArthur1984 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. OR: I spent 40+ years professionally focused on China, and CCP is the more easily recognized abbreviation. There is no mistaking it for the Cubans, Czechs, or anyone else. It also has the advantage of being a more accurate translation, as anyone who can read Chinese will know. Beating a dead horse won't change anything. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  How easy the abbreviation is to recognise is irrelevant to whether the title should be 'Communist Party of China' or 'Chinese Communist Party'; changing the title would not require removing the CCP redirect and would entail the creation of a redirect of 'Chinese Communist Party' to the moved article, so the change would create no issues of clarity. Further, if the move were made, I'd imagine it would be nessecary to include that the party is often referred to as the 'Chinese Communist Party' in the lede. As such, I can't see how any issues of recognisability would arise. Designated Management (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Designated Management, If I follow your logic, there is not need to make any change at all, since Communist Party of China redirects to Chinese Communist Party. Case closed? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. You have not followed 'my logic'. My point is that the move would have no impact on the recognisability of the title, not that the difference between the titles is irrelevant. You suggest the change would impact the recognisibility somehow, due to the change in the primary acronym, and I have shown that this is irrelevant. That is all. Designated Management (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - The party's official name is the Communist Party of China, not the Chinese Communist Party. It doesn't matter what other people calls it. Twa0726 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This comment is directly in contradiction to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, which holds that the "official" name is secondary to what English-language reliable sources say.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Somewhat new on WP but this has always bugged me a little. CPC meets WP:Criteria and, as noted by other editors, is name the party has indicated it prefers. The Canberra article makes a reasonable case that CCP conflates the party with the nation, the people, and Chinese identity, and thus that CCP is a non-neutral term. It is clearly ambiguous as to whether the adjective 'Chinese' refers to something pertaining to the country China or to something pertaining to (a cultural aspect of) Chinese people, whereas 'of China' unambiguously refers to something pertaining to the country. I believe the ambiguity should be avoided in and of itself, but I'm not certain if that's covered by policy in any way. However, it remains a non-neutral term in its association of the party with Chinese people generally, as per the cited article.

On the grounds that it is not neutral, one would need to make the case that either Non-neutral but common names or Non-judgemental but descriptive titles applies:

1. With regards to the first, the requirement is that "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources". Putting the two into Google scholar returns 45,500 results for "Communist Party of China" and 120,000 results for "Chinese Communist Party". Clearly the results favour Chinese Communist Party, but it is certainly not the case that the subject is referred to "by a single common name".
2. Since there is an official title which is in common use, there is no need to create a descriptive title, so 'Non-judgemental but descriptive titles' would not apply even if one presumed the title non-judgemental.

Thus, the criteria are not met to use a non-neutral title. As the title is non-neutral, the page must be moved. Designated Management (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why is it not neutral? Regards, ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

As per the Canberra article cited, 'Chinese' carries connotations which 'of China' does not. Consider the difference between 'Chinese Singaporeans' and 'Singaporeans of China'; the first we would take to refer to Singaporeans with some connection to Chinese culture, whereas the latter we would take to refer to Singaporeans with some relationship to the country China.

Typically, this distinction isn't hugely important as conflating a people with the geopolitical entity governing the area from which their culture originates isn't particularly problematic. For instance, you're unlikely to run into issues of neutrality conflating 'being culturally French' with being 'of the country France', though it should be noted this still introduces ambiguity. However, in this case, geopolitical tensions with the United States have resulted in negative views towards the country China, and thereby towards the single party by which it is governed. The further conflation of the party and Chinese people (in 'Chinese Communist Party') carries the negative associations with the party to Chinese people and culture more broadly.

This isn't a purely theoretical point about semantics, note this article in the Guardian reporting that geopolitical tensions with China are in part responsible for the rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans seen in 2022. Such a connection (between geopolitical tensions with a country and hate crimes against a cultural group) is only possible through the conflation of the cultural group with the country. We see here that the conflation a given cultural group, in this case Asian Americans broadly with a country which is percieved negatively in much of the anglophone (i.e., en.wikipedia reading) world, as a result of geopolitical tensions, is non-neutral; it carries a negative judgement upon the culture and people which it conflates with the country (and, in this case, its sole ruling party).

While I would assume anyone reasonable would

1. Not conflate a culture with a state
2. Not conflate a culture with the ruling party of a state
3. Not conflate particular people identifying themselves with a culture with the ruling party of a state.

As per the Guardian article, it is clearly the case that this happens; unreasonable people exist, and these unreasonable people are conflating their negative views of China/the party with Asian Americans (presumably including Chinese Americans), in a non-trivial manner. As such, it is non-neutral to associate the party with Chinese culture. Designated Management (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Designated Management: Thank you so much for your explanation, and first I must state that I am very sorry and concerned about the current situation in the US, but is there a chance that many of the essays in simplified Chinese and the party's own position are that they want to be representative of the Chinese as a cultural group? For example, its constitution states that "The Communist Party of China is the vanguard of the Chinese working class, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation. It is the leadership core for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics and represents the developmental demands of China's advanced productive forces, the orientation for China's advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the greatest possible majority of the Chinese people." Also do remember these are directly quoted from official documents instead of some more fierce statements used by news medias.

As for the rest, I highly doubt that changing the name of the article is an effective measure to reduce discrimination, though I think I would even support it if you could prove that it does work. Regards, ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This might explain why the party endorses both names and isn't bothered when referred to as CCP in state media. The naming issue really only exists among the public. @Designated Management: when it comes to WP:POVNAME, there is a very relevant precedent 'Spanish flu' still standing under that title (and had the WHO not jumped in at the right time, we could have had 'Chinese virus' as a more recent example). Take into consideration that negative associations are much less far-fetched with that article and its title than it really is with Chinese Communist Party/Communist Party of China (CCP/CPC). –Vipz (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making that point about why the party doesn't mind being referred to as the CCP. I was going to put in something like that myself but I 1) deemed it somewhat irrelevant to my broader point 2) didn't have the relevant evidence to hand (as provided by ときさき くるみ). On the 'Spanish Flu' precedent, I would refer you to my general point about neutrality in article titles. The condition only applies where there is one common name, my case is that there are two common names, CPC and CCP, and that CCP is non-neutral, so we should use CPC.

On the point about far-fetchedness, I do agree that if the common name of COVID-19 had been 'the Chinese Virus', it would have had a greater impact than the CCP naming convention has had, as there is clearly still an extent to which the negative associations with an 'of China' entity bears upon Chinese people (I would also argue this is because the party has had a far smaller impact of the typical American life than COVID, but that's neither here nor there). I would make two points here: 1) In CCP, the negative judgement still exists, regardless of impact, and we should not make such a judgement if possible; 2) Even if there is still a negative judgement transferred by 'of China', there is no way in which Wikipedia has facilitated such a judgement, as this requires the reader to have associated Chinese people and the country China in advanced. Between these two, the alternative proposed title has the advantages of neither linguistically facilitating judgement nor concretely passing it, so it should be implemented.

N.B. I'm writing this on a phone and can't spell check particularly well. Please forgive any SPAG errors. Designated Management (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I may not have sufficiently clarified w.r.t. the Spanish Flu that there is no other common name for the Spanish Flu (I've certainly never heard of another) whereas there are two common names for the party governing China. Designated Management (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

(Edited to resolve formatting issues at 10:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)) Also to ときさき くるみ, I believe it's entirely possible that the party wish to be seen as a representative of Chinese people, but we aren't here to reflect the party's line on such matters. I believe Vipz has covered this. I should say my broad line on this point is that it is absolutely clear that the party endorses both names, but prefers CPC, but I am fully open to accepting the party's position is irrelevant to this article's title.

My point is about name-neutrality. This is not the same as an attempt at reducing descrimination, which would be irrelevant to Wikipedia article title policy. My point isn't:

• The conflation causes discrimination
• Therefore we must not use the conflation, so that we do not cause discrimination.

Rather it is:

• The conflation causes discrimination, therefore the conflation is non-neutral.
• As the current title uses the conflation, the current title is non-neutral.
• As Wikipedia policy is that we should only use a non-neutral title where it is the single common name, we should only keep the title if no other common name exists.
• An alternative name has been proposed, which is both common and neutral.
• Therefore, we should accept accept the proposed name.

I would be interested to know if you find any issue with this reasoning. I also believe my formatting may have gone a little haywire while typing this out, so do forgive if it's a bit of a mess. Designated Management (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Designated Management: Hi. I've just carefully reviewed the Australian article and I quite understand the concern, I've seen this sort of thing in too many places - USA, Italy, Japan, as well as Indonesia. However, as an editor who probably speaks Chinese okay I must point out that in Chinese the two English words only correspond to one Chinese word, so I can't understand the difference that exists between the two as we have a lot of similar terms (i.e. Italian Communist Party), and if possible I hope you can explain that in detail, thanks! Regards, ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 20:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi, I am somewhat aware of the coincidence of the two terms in Mandarin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a rather brutal translation of the Mandarin term for the party would be 'China Communist Party', or something along those lines. As per my previous comments, the difference between the proposed and current title is that the proposed title signifies only 'of the country/geopolitical entity China', whereas the current title ambiguously signifies either 'of the Chinese culture/people' or 'of the country/geopolitical entity China', conflating the two. Similar to how 'French' can signify either 'of the country France' or 'of the French culture', whereas 'of France' can only signify 'of the country France'.

As per my comment on 18:34, 9 May 2023, this isn't an issue with e.g. the Italian Communist Party. I should first note that the Italian Communist Party is officially titled the 'Italian Communist Party' and not the 'Communist Party of Italy' (this would be 'Partito Comunista d'Italia', rather than 'Partito Comunista Italiano'), and that the common name is indisputably Partito Comunista Italiano. But, hypothetically speaking, even both terms were common names, the anglophone relationship with Italy and the PCI is such that opting to use 'Partito Comunista Italiano' would not cast a non-neutral judgement, as neither Italy nor its communist party are regularly framed as an enemy, a threat, etc. This is slightly rushed as I'm off to bed, but I hope this clears it up. Designated Management (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, now that I further understand the problem and what you mean, it sounds good, at least much better than the previous inexplicable accusation that not changing the name is Western chauvinism. At least that sounds self-consistent and reasonable. Thanks for the explanation as well. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DEADHORSE Loytra (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Loytra, I don't think WP:DEADHORSE particularly applies here. Several supporters of the move are new to the discussion around the articles title, and therefore cannot be engaging in a debate which they should have long backed away from, as it is new to them. I'd also note that three different cases have been made in this thread as to why WP:COMMONNAME isn't sufficient to justify the current title. Designated Management (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair, honestly. I withdraw my vote. Loytra (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons which I first stated at the July 2022 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 addition, the principle of following the clear majority of sources is not limited to matters of recognizability or other particular criteria, but is generally applicable, including determining what best satisfies neutrality, as opposed to arguing over neutrality based on the glosses that different editors put on the words. For all of these reasons, the article still should not be moved. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that comparisons to other parties are inapt, but I haven't the time to respond to this right now. That given, in response to your last point, the principle of following the clear majority is only applicable to where a common name is either singluar or neutral, see Non-neutral but common names. As such, establishing the non-neutrality of the current title is a full grounds for the page move, as CPC is a (less) common, neutral, name. I hope I'll be able to elaborate soon. Designated Management (talk) 07:43, 12 May 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.

Talk:Chinese Communist Party/FAQ perhaps?

While the latest move request is still fresh, it might be a good time to gather and address all concerns and arguments brought up to date regarding the name and abbreviation of CCP/CPC in a {{FAQ}}. Would anyone be up to the task? –Vipz (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What would an FAQ entail & how would it help us move forward? I certainly did not feel the RM gave us sufficient time to build a consensus, but that may not be its purpose. In any case, its 'no consensus' conclusion suggests there is an amount of work to be done & I'd be happy to help if you have any suggestions. Designated Maelstrom (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@Amigao: I see you reverted my edit, but your edit summary didn't explain the issue; what objection did you have to it? BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the inclusion of "the Party" in the lead is not warranted at all. "党" is a common sense abbreviation in Chinese (中国共产党 → 共产党 → 党), but it is not used in English, and the source does not claim such. Not a policy-based point, but it's like having the following sentence at Democratic Party (United States): "The American public generally refers to the Democratic Party simply as 'the Democrats'." Yes, but also, of course? Yue🌙 04:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't, but it's already in the lede; I just moved its location to reduce its wordiness and to group it with the other alternative names. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My solution is removing the highlighted text if you want to keep the lead brief and concise, without unwarranted detail:

As of 2022, the CCP has more than 96 million members, making it the second largest political party by party membership in the world after India's Bharatiya Janata Party. The Chinese public generally refers to the CCP as simply "the Party".

Yue🌙 05:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to that; I don't think we need to include "making it the second largest political party by party membership in the world", but I won't argue over it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the highlighted text for the same reasons. –Vipz (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What does it add to the article to have this mention of "The Chinese public generally refers to the CCP as simply 'the Party'" ? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

All references to marxism leninism and Maoism were removed from the rule book

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/new-rulebook-03292023124017.html https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/china-removes-references-to-marx-lenin-from-state-guidelines-leaves-only-jinping-thought20230414193530/ https://www.firstpost.com/world/china-deletes-marxism-leninism-maoism-other-ideologies-from-government-rulebook-12377642.html/amp https://www.dtnext.in/amp/world/2023/04/14/china-removes-references-to-marx-lenin-from-state-guidelines 78.189.95.243 (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You do realize this is the Chinese Communist Party talk page, right? The one about the PARTY, not the GOVERNMENT, right? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Also those aren't great sources. RFA is a notorious propaganda outlet. Firstpost and dtnext look like the sort of websites that give you a virus if you click anything. ANInews might meet Wikipedia's notability standards but it's still just a random newsmedia article about an incident that has nothing to do with the party, as DOR pointed out. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The information is definitely not relevant, even if the sources were problem-free. The sources given state that the State Council rulebook was condensed. The wording is very misleading in all the articles because they all claim that every ideological tenet of socialism with Chinese characteristics – Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, [Jiang Zemin's] Three Represents, and [Hu Jintao's] Scientific Outlook on Development – were removed so that only Xi Jinping Thought remains. However, if you reader until the end of each article, the authors acknowledge that the whole point was to get rid of ideology section to condense the rulebook; the only reason why Xi Jinping (not specifically his ideology, by the way!) is still in the rulebook is because he's the current paramount leader and is relevant to the affairs of the State Council. Yue🌙 01:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Position: Far-Left

This seems a rather odd thing to edit-war over. The CPC is a communist party within a socialist state. I think calling the party, as a body, left-wing should be a no-brainer. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And that's the problem with knowing just enough about a subject to get it wrong. The left-right labels are inappropriate for China. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide some citations to support the claim that the CPC - not China as a state nor its government but the party - is not left-wing? Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I cannot prove a negative. Can you identify some reason why the left-right descriptions are appropriate in the context of China? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems an odd assertion to suggest politics magically operates on entirely different axes in just one country. I'd say WP:SKYBLUE applies here for a party called the communist party. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The CPC perceives itself as left-wing and part of the communist movement. However, does right, centre or left make sense in a one-party state? The CPC implements policies that could be construed as far-right and far-left in the West in the very same document. For instance, stating that it supports strong social security but is against welfarism is a typical right-wing talking point that the CPC uses. Then, of course, you have the other; state control and common prosperity.

I agree that its left-wing, and I agree that its communist, but I don't want it in the infobox because someone else will argue that it is fascist (of course, their knowledge about the CPC is practically zero). TheUzbek (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @TheUzbek and @DOR (HK). The "left-right"/political compass style terminology is grounded in the Western historical experience. It is not very useful in helping readers (many of whom will have less subject matter expertise) understand the CPC and the Chinese context.

I am someone who thinks country or party infoboxes should be specific and avoid this sort of general characterization. Although I recognize the edit as an attempt to be helpful, the point of this has already been better handled by the ideology field in the infobox and the related wikilinks. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really a China-specific thing, but rather something specific to communist literature. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao etc rarely if ever use the term "left-wing" to describe their ideology. For example the word "left" appears only 94 times in all three volumes of Capital, none of which are in the Western liberal sense of the word ("there is nothing left", "We left him", "young persons and women have left" etc). KetchupSalt (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think one-party states inevitably end up having party members and sometimes leaders from all over the spectrum, because right-wingers (e.g. conservatives) who want to pursue politics have no other prospective option but to join that one party in one-party states. –Vipz (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The existence of factions in China

The existence of factions in China is noncontroversial. Edgar Snow reports senior communist leaders' views on factions in the early 1930s (pp. 169, 176, 359). William Whitson surmises that the party's military leadership recognized the existence of factions “based on historical bonds of confidence and mutual security,” (p. 514) and used that understanding in determining assignments. He thought factions were limited to the most elite levels, and did not necessarily extend down through the ranks. During the Cultural Revolution, however, factions were both vertical and widespread. Among the shared traits that might encourage the development of factional loyalty are provincial origin (language, dialect, cuisine), shared historical experience (the Long March, for example), and combat. Lucian Pye views factions as “personal, particularistic relations that ensure that one is not just a part of the common herd but that one has special ties with both superiors and inferiors" (p. N14). Lowell Dittmer, et al., note the existence of factions throughout East Asian politics. In the Chinese Communist Party, The purges of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s support the notion that Chinese leaders knew of and manipulated factions. Generals He Long and Peng Dehuai saw their followers sidelined prior to the GPCR, as did the Liu Shaoqi-led side of the party in the 1960s. Following the death of Mao Zedong (September 1976), the Gang of Four were purged by an alignment of factions led by old soldiers, political commissars, party elders, and bureaucrats. Gang of Four New Zhijiang Army Princelings Tsinghua clique Shanghai clique Tuanpai Xishan Society

An editor keeps deleting the above from the article, claiming that it is: (1st) not referenced & badly written, (2nd) its entirely unreferenced and, therefore, completely negates all WP policy on referencing....

Another editor has objected to its deletion, saying: Please do not delete large sections without discussing and building consensus on the Talk Page. Thanks.^[1]

The various page references make it clear that it is referenced, but not in the approved Wikipedia style.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a concern that the factions section may be plagiarized due to its non-standard citation method. If it's copied verbatim from a single source that's actually something that shouldn't be done on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with discussing factions and I would support the re-inclusion of this material with proper citations. But, right now, it is not there and might be a plagiarism risk. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this excerpt gives a s sense of having been cut and pasted from a university paper. Both in its tone and in its non-Wikipedia citation style.

Adding to my concern, I tried a preliminary search to see if I could find a source for the Whitson quote, and the only instances I see on Google are this page and Wiki mirror sites.

We are better off deleting until someone wants to re-write it with proper attribution. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Some scholars believe factions exist within the CPC, and others believe the opposite. This information should be on this page! However, that section is a bunch of crap and it's not even part of the general structure of the article. What does including this section do? I don't think the article becomes better with it. It is the opposite, the article seems worse, and the structure of the article looks like a mess with its inclusion.

Again, a section on factionalism should be included. Someone who has spare time should write that section. TheUzbek (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not plagiarized; I wrote this section. It looks like it is from a scholarly work because that's how I write. Please stop deleting it. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

ADD Would someone please cite any single author who "believe[s] the opposite" of what is presented here? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

ADD And, by the way, anyone who thinks factions are not a critical part of understanding the CCP has no real reason to be either editing or commenting on this section. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want to insert your text again cite it properly per Wikipedia standards. Simple as. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; the content should not be an issue if it is properly cited. It also does not matter if an editor's personal writing style is scholarly; I write differently on Wikipedia, in my scholarly papers, and in my emails. Wikipedia is not a scholarly article; WP:TONE should be followed carefully. Yue🌙 04:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Concur entirely. The issue is not the content; the issue is that the content is not referenced per Wikipedia style and is not written in a manner appropriate to the rest of the article. It is best to avoid personal idiosyncrasies of writing when writing for a collective project. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There are many scholars. One prime example is scholar Alfred Chan's book "Xi Jinping: Political Career, Governance, and Leadership, 1953-2018":

"It does not avoid academic controversies and takes issue with well-established theories on Chinese politics, such as the “one party, two coalitions” thesis and the “Chinese Communist Youth League” faction (tuanpai) solidarity argument."

"identification of faction members and their activities have often been based on static and deterministic criteria, and in the absence of hard evidence, analysts rely on intuition and “slippery speculations”6 to construct probable scenarios of factional politics."

"For one thing, because of the Party’s formal ban on factions, these groups, in order to exist, would have to operate clandestinely. Second, they pale in comparison with the factions existing within, for example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, whereby each faction can legitimately have its own formal leader, staff, fundraising machinery, and even administrative offices. Third, the political careers of many Chinese officials have crisscrossing relationships—princelings have often worked in the Communist Youth League (CYL), and conversely those who have worked in Shanghai are not necessarily Jiang Zemin loyalists. Princelings have often struggled against princelings.

"Cheng Li [factional thesis] has extended his thesis to explain policy changes from the Sixteenth through to the Nineteenth Party Congresses, although this grand thesis has become increasingly unsatisfactory in view of available evidence. [...] These alliances do not approximate the true factions within, to cite a prime example, the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party is officially divided into factions that have their own patrons, offices, budgets, and campaign machines designed to win elections. In order for the party to work as an organization, each faction is given some perks and benefits in terms of top positions and policy input, a state called habatsu kinko (factional balance). The CCP formally bans factions but Cheng Li’s groups seem to operate overtly and are permanent groupings, notwithstanding the fact that the term “coalition” often denotes temporary alliances. Overall, many of Cheng Li’s observations are only hypotheses awaiting empirical testing, particularly his whole range of views about Xi Jinping, which cannot be substantiated by what we have observed about his political career in the previous chapters."

"A few other observations are in order. First, communist leaders, including those leading the CCP, with similar family origins, ages, and backgrounds can support very different policies and are known to change their political affiliations as needed. It is unclear how and why career backgrounds and attributes would translate directly into permanent factional loyalties subscribing to particular policy preferences and priorities. People change according to circumstances and may develop widely differing mindsets even with virtually identical past experiences."

"Leaders’ affiliations derive from various situational and contextual factors and are clearly capable of evolving. Many of the so-called tuanpai leaders have worked at the CYL at the early and middle stages of their careers, either in the regions or at the center, and it is unsure why this particular experience would have left an indelible mark on their connections and policy inclinations for life. Before they were moved into the Politburo they had to work in other capacities for many years and at more senior positions than their CYL stint, and their positions elsewhere as secretaries of PPC were more critical. This is particularly the case since work experience even at the highest level of the CYL, unlike provincial-level work, has never been a springboard to the Politburo

Again, I am for re-instating this section on factionalism if its better written and is better sourced. But that section also needs to see both perspectives. Communist studies have always been conflicted on factionalism. What do factions actually mean? There is a ban on faction, so it cannot mean openly organised groupings. Do they have shared beliefs? History has proven that people in the same faction can have very different belief systems. Just look at Gorbachev and Brezhnev.

As I understand, the majority here have problems with how the section is written. No one has a problem with a section on factionalism. I only have a problem how that section was presented. TheUzbek (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@TheUzbek, let’s try to (a) edit, rather than delete; and (b) avoid comparisons to Japan. Would that be too much to ask? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): Surely the obvious first step would be to write your edit using the generally used method of doing citations, i.e. <ref></ref> and using Template:Cite book for books cited. You do have the advantage of knowing the names of the books you are citing, the editions, date of publication, etc. If people feel that changes to wording are desirable, they could "correct" it. If people feel that other sources should also be used, they could add text based on them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It took me all of three seconds to search "snow" (the author cited in the text quoted above) and be directed to the ONLY quoted source on the page. Now, if the format is not Wiki-beautiful, please feel free to edit it. But, let's not pretend that the format is the reason for deleting some 250 words. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That the citations were not in the approved format (and therefore difficult to identify) may not have been the only objection, but that was a major objection, and one that you could easily fix.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As could you, and given that I’m on a poor device for editing, have at it!DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"But, let's not pretend that the format is the reason for deleting some 250 words." You're showing WP:BADFAITH for no apparent reason. I've been honest to you from the start. TheUzbek (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

If scholars compare to Japan's Liberal Democratic Party Wikipedia should should also compare it to the Liberal Democratic Party. WP reflects what the sources say and not you're personal opinion. TheUzbek (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add new stuff to the infobox if it is not in the article

@QLDer in NSW: The lead and the infobox are meant to summarise the article. Yue was right to revert your addition to the infobox rv: 1. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: Add the context to the article body first. 2. However, you should probably consider starting a discussion on the talk page first since this addition to the infobox has been proposed and rejected before for being the opinions of commentators, not what the party actually espouses policy-wise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding CPC vs CCP

I wanted to discuss this again because the Communist Party of China should be used as the title instead of the Chinese Communist Party.

I'll keep the reasoning simple. There's good reason to believe that:

A) CCP is a political buzzword with negative connotations, while

B) CPC is the true name, and

C) Wikipedia's naming conventions support this.

The term "Chinese Communist Party" (CCP) is commonly used in English media, while the official translation is the "Communist Party of China", creating a problem; English media is incorrectly translating the name. The Chinese Communist Party and Communist Party of China are similar terms but different, and there are many explainations as to how these differ in meaning. Without getting into every argument, this is why the naming convention of communist parties across the world is standardized, such that a party is never mistaken for favoring harmful ideas like racism or imperialism. This is why the official term is CPC instead of CCP, because they don't mean the same thing.

The term "Communist Party Communist Party" is the official translation and has an accurate meaning to "中国共产党".

Wikipedia's naming conventions allow for occassional exceptions where it makes common sense, and encourages us to ignore all rules when making Wikipedia a better place.

I hope this is taken seriously as political bias on Wikipedia has been an issue in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotacal (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. We should use the correct "Communist Party of China" name and the "CPC" initials. The 5 WP:CRITERIA are: (1) recognizability, (2) naturalness, (3) precision, (4) concision, and (5) consistency. The CPC formulation meets this criteria as well or better than the incorrect CCP formulation. For example, previous discussions have also cited worldwide communist party naming conventions. I view it as a blot on Wikipedia's credibility that we cannot get this accurate and it's hard for me to understand a principled reason to continue re-producing the incorrect but frequent acronym.

In these recurring discussions, the Chinese Communist Party side places too much emphasis on "common name." First, the reason that the common name is generally recommended is because the common name will generally fit the five criteria. But Communist Party of China also readily fits the five criteria. Second, Communist Party of China (CPC) is also itself a common name in English language sources. Third, both English language sources in and outside of anglophone countries must be considered. Related, the concerns in WP:GLOBAL underscore the need to not be Western-centric in our thinking. Fourth, consider how radically different the arguments about common name are with regard to this article versus the examples in WP:commonname (for example, "Bono" not "Paul Hewson."). Finally, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO. Common name should not restrain us from using a nearly identical, also frequently used formulation, which has the added benefit of being "official." JArthur1984 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A) No, it isn't. It has been used in academia and government documents for decades.

B) No, it isn't, as anyone even minimally competent in the Chinese language will tell you.

C) No, it doesn't.

DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This didn't really refute any talking points of the OP. –Vipz (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This clearly isn't a proper response to the argument provided.

My first point mentioned that despite 'CCP' being commonly used, there is good evidence (some that I mentioned) that it is a politically motivated term.

Secondly, CPC is the official translation of the party name, not CCP. There are good reasons for this, as their meanings differ.

The last point I brought up regarding naming conventions,

"Wikipedia's naming conventions allow for occassional exceptions where it makes common sense, and encourages us to ignore all rules when making Wikipedia a better place"

This last point I made is entirely true and easily verifiable. "No, it isn't" isn't a proper argument.

CPC is the official name and it's a better title for understandable reasons and Wikipedia's naming conventions support us using common sense. Dotacal (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"There are good reasons for this, as their meanings differ." - This argument is brought up time and time again, so I assume you have sources to back it up? --1.157.30.241 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Theoretically, CPC is indeed the "true title" or at least the translation most commonly used by the authority. Of course, on another level the official translation is "Chung-kuo Kung-ch'an Tang". ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi (a) That's Wade-Giles, not Hanyu Pinyin (commonly deprecated), and (b) that's a transcription not commonly used by the CPC itself. Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly right. This entry does not even follow proper grammar and writing standards, as it contradicts itself! The TITLE is not honored anywhere within the text of the article.

It's called "consistency"... This is not rocket science. Pick one--And stick with it (i.e. "CPC")!

Whew. 2600:8806:2100:2B:C1A2:8AD8:B2F0:D405 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I won't take a position on this but I want to note two things; first of all, the terms are used very interchangeably even by president Biden (he uses both terms back-to-back), while CCP was used in multiple instances by the Russian government, and even by CGTN. Also important to note that most of the English media based on the West simply refer to it as the "Communist Party" instead of CPC or CCP. Additionally, Chinese officials and media haven't made this an issue at all; a search at Baidu yields almost no results of discussions in this topic. The Account 2 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be commonly used in English for it to be the title. It's not the official translation, the meaning of the two terms are likely not entirely the same, and Wikipedia's naming conventions would support this change. Dotacal (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, WP:CommonName. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.30.241 (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Wikipedia encourages us to use common sense. It's common sense to use CPC in this situation, CCP is a buzzword with negative connotations. Dotacal (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And you're yet to provide any proof for this. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Dotacal, you are absolutely correct on all counts..(...

(however, why are half of your entries crossed out?? :( )

Not sure why this idiot keeps arguing with you, your point, and I'd like to know who has locked the editing of the piece to keep it a completely low-quality written entry that can't even stay consistent in simple naming convention.

BTW, there are OTHER Wikipedia entries already covering the political structure in China, and several already use "CCP"throughout. We should be able to have ONE that properly addresses this ALTERNATE naming convention that many analysts who have longtime, real-world experience in Chinese politics actually use. ! Krivk (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"... why are half of [Dotacal's] entries crossed out??"

Because, like you, they were an obvious throwaway account and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They were accordingly blocked for an indefinite period. Yue🌙 01:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Without getting into every argument, this is why the naming convention of communist parties across the world is standardized, such that a party is never mistaken for favoring harmful ideas like racism or imperialism. How so? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain a little why I'm confused about this issue: on the one hand, historically many communist parties have used ethnical terms as part of their name (Shan State Communist Party, Amami Communist Party, Karenni National People's Liberation Front and Inner Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party); on the other hand, during WWII Stalin already accused left-wing parties that were not on the same page as them of being "social fascists". I don't have a preference for the use of the terms CPC and CCP per se, but it makes me wonder every time I see someone cite a bunch of strange arguments (well at least for me) to justify one of them. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not every communist party has used that same naming convention, but certainly many have, and do.

It's not a "strange argument" to say that CCP holds negative connotations, used as a political buzzword, while CPC is the official translation, and since the rules allow for such a change, it should be changed.

Not such a strange argument to myself and many others it seems. Dotacal (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I've get it. If you are talking about the principle of translation into English, this has been discussed before and it seems that most of the communist parties that were part of the Communist International should be translated as "communist party of xxx", but there are also counter-examples, like "Japanese Communist Party". If you are talking about the naming of the party in its original language, then I can clearly say that there does not seem to be such a rule (see also Revolutionary Communist Party of China). ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not my argument, I am aware that not all communist parties follow the same naming convention.

The official name is the CPC and we should that name as the Wikipedia title. Just because CCP is commonly used in English doesn't mean it should be the title, especially when there are good arguments that CCP is a politically charged term. Dotacal (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What a stupid political dig to sneak in there. I didnt know that political organizations during WWII were held to the same standards of neutrality as wikipedia FlamesThePhoenix (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Even though I'd rather use the official name for the titles and leave body texts up to preference/circumstances (repeating 'of <country>' can be tedious and not preferable in chains of ofs), I have to say that nothing here is really novel, it's been rinsed and repeated thoroughly in all the move requests to date. CCP has partisans among opposition, CPC has partisans among supporters. Some considerations as to why: 1) CCP does not coincidentally sound like CCCP. 2) Imagine if the 'common name' for People's Republic of China was 'Chinese People's Republic' - the meaning is drastically different. 'of <country>' makes it clear the entities are for all peoples of the country, while possessives can have ambigous connotations (including ethno-centricity). Hence article 17 of Twenty-one Conditions. 3) Media pro and anti camp alike tend to use CCP for being more succinct, contributing to its commonness. –Vipz (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's the time for {{FAQ}}. Moreover, I can't imagine that CCP sounding like CCCP is actually considered a derogatory thing for CCP, because I know quite a few people in mainland China who really compare the Soviet Union to the CCP. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 10:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that editor is trying to say that it is meant to conjure new Cold War associations in the minds of Western audiences by tying the former western Cold War adversary CCCP to a new Cold War adversary "CCP." Perhaps I am mistaken and I am happy to have it explained to me if I am wrong. It may also be meant to say it's ethnocentric to insist on re-naming the second largest political party in the world.

My own argument is more simple and less contentious, I think: both formulations fit the five article naming criteria, with CPC fitting as well or better than CCP, and having the advantage of being correct, or at least, "official." JArthur1984 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually think the "more official" argument is a perfect one, and one of the reasons I don't have a clear preference, but I'm surprised every time I see someone emphasize that the word CCP is racist/anti-Chinese blah blah blah, and then give some weird argument.

Also, a new cold war between Jasicoid Neoconservative China and "Cultural Marxist" Baizuo West is another thing makes me feel "based". IMO, there may indeed be a new cold war, but it's definitely not what they say it is. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: ... why did you choose to address only the weaker consideration I provided? How is what I say in '2)' weird, if it is? –Vipz (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Because 2 seems reasonable, but 1 and 3 are not. I myself mentioned above the relevant rules of the Communist International. Also, the reasonableness of 2 is largely based on COMMONNAME, because we really have the Chinese Soviet Republic (instead of Soviet Republic of China). ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a great article supporting the reasoning as to why we should use CPC in the title. Dotacal (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dotacal: Are you sure you are giving the correct link? Here it says: "CPC is used officially in China and by China's media, whereas English-language media outside of Chinese conventionally use CCP." Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, CCP would might be the correct title. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: yeah, I don't think anyone denies CCP is the common name of the party in English-language media; though I think it is futile at this point because even if WP:POVNAME (what most are generally arguing for but not citing this policy directly) is proven to be the case, we still have precedents such as 'Spanish flu' still standing under that title. –Vipz (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Capitol Attack case, but more narrow - we only have two options. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz: OK, I guess I have to say something different. To begin with, you might have seen that I am addicted in the terms used by the Chinese New Left. That's not the important part, let's move forward:

1. CCP is indeed not favored by the Party, but it is somewhat used by Chinese medias - though more likely to be used by the medias that are not tightly controlled by the Party. For example, Caixin (Peoples of China and Singapore Have Greatly Benefited From Their Ruling Parties' Ties, Lee Hsien Loong Says), Sixth Tone (The Decades-Old Move That Got the CCP Through the COVID-19 Crisis, actually the English version of The Paper), China Daily (Showcasing the history of the CCP), Shanghai Daily (Movies chronicle city's revolutionary history). Please, at least try some Utopia (萧武：共产国际与中国共产党 / Xiao Wu: Comintern and the Party).
2. I, sincerely, don't understand why adding an ethnic term is a racist action. We have Italian Socialist Party, Italian Communist Party, Spanish Communist Party, and French Communist Party, why not them? Comintern's order? Yes, that's reasonable, but its content is "The question of the name is not formal, but a highly political question of great importance. The Communist International has declared war on the whole bourgeois world and on all yellow social-democratic parties." Nothing to do with racism or imperialism. Not to mention that the Comintern dissolved itself in 1943. I don't even want to talk about that the billionaire population is higher than the U.S. now.

I'll repeat here again, I acknowledge that CPC can be the title, but I don't want to see any more people coming here with strange arguments, at least try some more medias. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 22:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: You could mention that CPC is favored by the Party or more official, you could argue that CPC is more widely used by Chinese medias, but please, make a second thought before you say that it is a racist name. If you do think it's correct, show us how. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 22:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: please don't direct that message at me because I never said anything of sort (don't group me with others). I have nothing new to say and don't really want to prolong this discussion to defend my own messages from these accusations. Thank you for taking time to consider the other side's arguments and actually debate them. –Vipz (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to reply to this suggestion, but a FAQ is definitely not out of order. Not to set "CCP" in stone, but discourage repeating same old claims and arguments in unsubstantiated or non-innovative manner. –Vipz (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't say that I've ever heard a CCP proponent explain why the five criteria for article naming are not also met by CPC, which also has the advantage of being correct (or to use a term that cannot be argued, "official").

As to a chain of ofs, it's only necessary to add the word "of" once in the article title and once in the first sentence of the article body. Otherwise the formulations are equally succinct, as they will appear as the same three letters, just in a different order, CCP or CPC, throughout. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The five criteria are not relevant here because there is a demonstrably most common term in English usage. The five criteria only matter when there is no clear common usage.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised at how many people favour changing the title to CPC instead. Seems like many of us have somewhat differing arguments, but it looks like there is a majority of people on this topic that would like the change. I wonder what the next step is. Dotacal (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing a handful of people making mostly nonsensical arguments. Most people are just tired of this silliness. For example, the idea that CCP is used so that people will connect China to the old Soviet Union (CCCP) falls apart when you remember that no one under about 40 years old is going to know CCCP in the first place. And many of the older ones didn't know what CCCP was before the collapse of the Soviet Union anyways. Besides, the word "communist" (in whichever order you put it) does a much better job of making that connection.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 06:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Khajidha: if you're going to call most of the arguments 'nonsensical', then address all of them, not just one. –Vipz (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Combined with the fact that it's not even been a week since this discussion was opened and that not actual new arguments have been presented, just the same old "CCP wants it to be CPC and that thus makes it correct and/or overturns every other policy of wikipedia or evolution of the English language because reasons", the next step is almost certainly this slowly petering out to become archived like a dozen other iterations of this exact discussion. Or someone on one side or the other gets heated enough they start slinging personal attacks and get pulled to ANI like the last discussion. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate generalization of pro-move arguments. No one inside this section argumented for moving to CPC because "CCP wants it to be CPC". You can go ahead and either counterargument actual arguments or provide proof that none of them (including mine) is novel, if you insist so. –Vipz (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to provide an actual argument, as so far they've just been the same old cases of It's common sense to use CPC in this situation, CCP is a buzzword with negative connotations. (provided with no proof of such), Secondly, CPC is the official translation of the party name, not CCP. There are good reasons for this, as their meanings differ. (provided with no sources explained the supposed differing of meaning), CCP does not coincidentally sound like CCCP (implying that CCP is intentionally used to sound like CCCP and, once again, providing no sources to back this up), or Media pro and anti camp alike tend to use CCP for being more succinct, contributing to its commonness (an argument which of all things actually ends up making more of a reason for CCP to be used given Wikipedia's policies). So, especially when every other argument in the talk page archives of the past year tends to end up falling into the CPC is the true name, The official name is the CPC and we should that name as the Wikipedia title or which also has the advantage of being correct (or to use a term that cannot be argued, "official"), it's far from an inaccurate generalisation based on the past discussions to characterise the arguments as "CCP wants it to be CPC". Because every other time these arguments are trotted out, the discussion ends up boiling down to this. Why would this time be at all different. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I see you've cited '1)' and '3)' from my post, but not '2)', why is that? I'm waiting for someone to reply to that one. –Vipz (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've ignored it because it's the most overused of these arguments and I already addressed it with the "their meanings differ" one. Aka if you want to make that argument, you need to actually provide a reliable source to back up the idea that "of China" =/= "Chinese" --1.157.30.241 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you deliberately continue to avoid addressing it? Just cite the whole thing below and explain why all parts of it are wrong. I think I provided a reasonable concern that could fall under WP:POVNAME territory, making a case why 'of China' would be the way we avoid it. –Vipz (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I quite literally just addressed it but if you want me to put it in the quote, here 2) Imagine if the 'common name' for People's Republic of China was 'Chinese People's Republic' - the meaning is drastically different. 'of <country>' makes it clear the entities are for all peoples of the country, while possessives can have ambigous connotations (including ethno-centricity). Hence article 17 of Twenty-one Conditions.. As for if you provided a reasonable concern, you haven't provided any sources to back up said concern, which is what is actually needed for the argument here. --1.157.30.241 (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a classic uphill battle, avoiding debate and discussion without having editors you disagree with spend vast amounts of time searching for (enough) sources, only to later be told off by negating and/or arguing against them under all circumstances. –Vipz (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't even have to be a controversal subject, a simple change to CPC wouldn't confuse anyone or cause any issues, and it would resolve the current issues brought up by myself and others. This isn't complicated. Dotacal (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

there is no pro CPC camp in English media FlamesThePhoenix (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For those still arguing about this, I encourage you to read this article by the China Media Project, which argues that the "CCP" vs. "CPC" debate has almost no relevance. Indeed, people might be interested to learn that the official website of the Communist Party news itself says that while the party prefers the use of "CPC", it accepts the use of both and says that whether the use of either abbreviation is positive or negative depends on the specific content. The Account 2 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose due to MOS:VAR, although I agree that CPC is the better abbreviation. JapanStar49 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Only the PlA is the armed wing of the ccp 158.223.166.39 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rusty4321 ^{talk contributions} 23:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

The PLA is the only armed wing of the communist party of china, the PAP and the milita provide support to the PLA in wartime and emergencies. 158.223.165.11 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2023

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: Not moved: There is no evidence that the standing consensus in the previous RM less than 6 months ago has changed, namely that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME. The OP is advised that adding "strong" to their comment does nothing to sway the ultimate result as consensus is based on the strength of arguments based on policies and guidelines, and also that canvassing for support is grossly inappropriate (thus the canvassed comment is discounted).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China – As per above discussion. Félix An (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support as the terns "Chinese Communist Party" and "CCP" has become a pejoritive for right wingers around the world. WakeFan1991 13:17 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor may be thinking about the September 2023 Washington Post article, The Rise of 'Chinese Communist Party' As a Pejorative. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not that is the case is irrelevant to this discussion. We title articles according to what the most common name in reliable sources is. Many National Socialists find the term "Nazi" to be offensive and pejorative, but we still title our articles Nazi Party and Nazism. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support as per opinions above in support of name change. Félix An (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support per @JArthur1984 and I oppose any speedy close attempts, neither the first nor last contentious move proposal and ''I'm tired of discussing this'' is not a constructive input. Killuminator (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, speedy close and impose moratorium for at least a year. This was discussed and rejected in May this year, and numerous times before that. And I see no new evidence that something has changed since then. It's not productive to argue the same thing multiple times per year.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support I honestly don't think there would be so many move discussions if the article was titled "Communist Party of China".. So the best way to end this @Amakuru: is to move it. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh right, so because a minority of editors have refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK and keep proposing the same move again and again, we should just abandon out naming policies and go with their wishes, should we? Our titles are governed by common usage in sources, not by how persistent people are in making the same debunked point over and over.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we adhered to "common usage in sources" by following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS, then we would be using "Communist Party of China", since in scholarly articles on JSTOR, which are generally considered more reliable than news reports in academia, the aforementioned name is more common. Searching "communist party of china" yields 98306 results, but searching "chinese communist party" yields 83778 results. Félix An (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's not how COMMONNAME works. It refers to the common name across all sources, such as books and media, as well as scholarly. This is in line with our misison of being a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a specialist academic work.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This is like saying the best way to stop terrorist attacks is to just give terrorists what they want. Threatening to repeatedly open RM discussions until you get the outcome you want is the surest sign that there needs to be a moratorium on opening RM discussions on this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note that Félix An has canvassed JArthur1984[2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Acknowledged. Félix An (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Strong support. Obviously from my discussions above and in archive I am interested in move discussions, but it's never necessary to ping me on this topic as the talk page on my watch list.

  I strongly favor using the correct Communist Party of China and CPC rendering in English. Proponents of the incorrect but also common CCP formulation place too much emphasis on a mathematical view of common name, and one that is too limited by anglophone sources. It is important to keep in mind a WP:GLOBAL view of topics, for the reason discussed in that essay.

  The fact is that both CCP/CPC renderings are common in English, with little risk of confusion and a miniscule difference in length between the full names. In this light, it makes sense that we use the correct (or for someone who doesn't want to concede its correctness, "official" or "technical") name. I view the use of the correct name as something that would improve our credibility. This is meant to be an encyclopedia building project and we should be precise where we can. This is a great opportunity to do so, because correcting the name carries no risk of confusion.

  I don't think too much should be made of the repeat efforts to move this page. Although people don't like to have repetitive discussions, we can be optimistic that editors want to fix an (in my view, simple) error. Remember also this page used to have the correct title some years ago. The fact that these discussions recur (every few months now) suggest to me that the original move was improvident and that consensus for fixing the page continues to grow over time. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument that it would improve our credibility as an encyclopedia if we moved this article is easily rebutted by the fact that Encyclopedia Britannica titles their article on this subject Chinese Communist Party. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

These same guys AGAIN? Perhaps we should wrest the stick that they refuse to drop from their hands and fashion it into a banhammer? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your comment is uncivil. Please refrain.

Your allusion to drop the stick is also inapt. I have never begun a move discussion. My recall is that each of the recent move discussions was made by a different editor, and so the allusion is also inapt on the whole.

Of course, I am happy to participate in each of these discussions because I view them as an opportunity to fix a glaring but simple error. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated in the last RM in May 2023. And before that we also had RMs in October 2022, in July 2022, in January 2021, and in July 2020. I respect that consensus can change, but few things could be more inauspicious, for the prospect that it has changed since the past discussions, than a new discussion opening with "per above". Adumbrativus (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for my terse description. I have a lot of work to do in university, so I don't have a lot of time to write an original description, and I don't think it would be good to use ChatGPT to write one either. Félix An (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per everything said in the many, many, MANY previous discussions. Amakuru's point about "drop the stick" is appropriate. As is the suggestion of a moratorium. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams are crystal clear that the current title has been the most common English name for this article's topic since the 1920s. This has been discussed repeatedly in great detail in multiple RM discussions and nothing has changed since the previous RM discussion 5 months ago. The only reason this article should be moved is if English-language usage changes, which doesn't seem likely since "Chinese Communist Party" has been the most common English name for over a century now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 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.

Move moratorium

Several editors above expressed the desire for a moratorium on requested moves to CPC. I'm opening this section to allow continuing of that discussion on such a moratorium without any prejudice towards either side. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I would indeed recommend editors interested in improving the article refrain from move discussions on this point, a moratorium is an unnecessary formal step. Proponents of fixing the name have not been availing, but have made valuable arguments. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - unless and until it can be shown that actual English usage has changed, there is no point to these move requests.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. There are no new arguments that haven't already been stated in all the previous RM discussions. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, there are solid points on both sides of this argument but the frequency isn't doing anyone any favors (least of all those who want the name to change, I know ironic...). We should take a break and re-assess at a later date. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• support. We don't want to have to keep coming back to repeat the same points when nothing changes.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Arthur's opinion. Félix An (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As above, we wouldn't have these discussions if the article was titled "Communist Party of China". --TheUzbek (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Even if this article were moved to CPC, especially if it were moved without a clear consensus to do so, then there would be RMs to move it to CCP. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would that be? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of WP:RGW going on here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per @TheUzbek. Killuminator (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Unstructured article

Hi

This article is very unstructured. It seems that, generally, WP editors on this page are more active in a power struggle over a name change than actually improving the article. There have also been some large and obvious errors. I've fixed some, but there are probably more as well. For instance, the article stated that the CCDI worked independently. All socialist states and communist parties practice unified power... Institutional independence isn't really a thing in communism.

The "History" section is also developing without a clear logic. The article "History of the Chinese Communist Party" is crap, and there is less history info on recent CPC history there than in this article. How has that happened?

Shuanggui is for no apparent reason in the "Governance" section together with ruling principles such as democratic centralism and collective leadership. How does that even make sense? Moreover, that whole section is written as a reminder to the readers that the CPC is an oppressive organisation. But the main problem is that Shuanggui is not a governing principle; it is just a work method of the CCDI (a brutal one, but still...).

To be honest, I think the title of this article is absurd! However, what is more absurd is letting this article fall into the state it is currently in! My motto here on WP is to keep away from contentious topics because, as far as I have experienced or noticed, people get cray-cray... But instead of improving this article, we're wasting a lot of energy struggling over a name when, by the end of the day, it is the content that matters.

I know WP:Ownership is a thing, but someone has actually to take care, or things like this happen!

These are my thoughts, and maybe I'm completely wrong... but I don't think I am! TheUzbek (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article and many others within the broader topic of Chinese history and politics are unevenly developed and need more edits for the substance. I do not think you should worry about 'ownership.' Many pages in these areas have multiple editors interested. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)