Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023
The only armed wing of the chinese communist party is the PLA not the PAP or milita 158.223.122.81 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  JTP (talk • contribs) 21:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The CPC Constitution reads: "The Communist Party of China shall uphold its absolute leadership over the People’s Liberation Army and other people’s armed forces". The People's Armed Police also reports directly to the CMC and is subordinate to the Central Committee. TheUzbek (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023
I request for the Category:Socialist parties in China to be added to the External Links. 95.151.245.1 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Category:Communist parties in China (which this article is in) is already a sub-category of Category:Socialist parties in China, so per WP:CATSPECIFIC, I don't think it should be separately listed in the parent category. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Please change the name of this article to 'Communist Party of China'
The terms 'Chinese Communist Party' and 'CCP' have been associated with the Republican Party's xenophobia against China as well as microaggressions against Asian-Americans. As The Washington Post's Phillip Bump pointed out in a recent news analysis. Republicans have used terms like CCP as pejoratives to blame the PRC for everything wrong with the world, especially the pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeFan1991 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the very, very extensive discussion of this topic above. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * About the only time the Republicans talk about China is to malign it, so it really wouldn't matter what they call it. If they switched to using CPC,that would be used in exactly the same way. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:WakeFan1991 If you would like the name to be changed, please add "Support" under the move discussion above. Depending on the consensus of editors, the article may or may not be moved. Félix An (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the change to CPC for Communist Party of China. It is the Communist Party and nothing to do with the race of the Chinese people. That was a malicious name calling by politicians to smear all people of the Chinese race. Bengcheng (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2023
Please, add Han supremacy and imperalism as an ideology of the CCP. Donaldtrumpisatheist (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not entertaining your request beyond this reply as, judging from your few edits today after creating your account, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Yue 🌙 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023
"change this:

As of December 2022, individuals who identify as farmers, herdsmen and fishermen make up 26 million members; members identifying as workers totalled 6.7 million.[179][2] Another group, the "Managing, professional and technical staff in enterprises and public institutions", made up 15.9 million, 11.3 million identified as working in administrative staff and 7.8 million described themselves as party cadres.[180] By 2022, CCP membership had become more educated, younger, and less blue-collar than previously, with 54.7% of party members having a college degree or above.[177] As of 2022, around 30 to 35 percent of Chinese entrepreneurs are or have been a party member.[175]: 13  At the end of 2022, the CCP stated that it has approximately 7.46 million ethnic minority members or 7.6% of the party.[2]

to:

As of December 2022, individuals who identify as farmers, herdsmen and fishermen make up 26 million members; members identifying as workers totalled 6.7 million.[179][2] Another group, the "Managing, professional and technical staff in enterprises and public institutions", made up 15.9 million, 11.3 million identified as working in administrative staff and 7.8 million described themselves as party cadres.[180] By 2022, CCP membership had become more educated, younger, and less blue-collar than previously, with 54.7% of party members having a college degree or above.[177] As of 2022, around 30 to 35 percent of Chinese entrepreneurs are or have been a party member.[175]: 13  At the end of 2022, the CCP stated that it has approximately 7.46 million ethnic minority members or 7.6% of the party.[2]

A recent study found that, between 2005 and 2018, a progressively higher number of applications to become CCP members came from those social groups identified as workers, while highly educated, white-collar workers did not apply with the same intensity. As a result, over the years, there has been an increase in the gap between individuals applying to become CCP members, belonging primarily to less economically advantaged social groups, and individuals admitted to the CCP, belonging to white-collar social groups.

" Fa.angiolillo (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Spintendo  22:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No mention of far-left?
Genuine curiosity, why is this not mentioned? Typically with a political party, its' idealogical stance is clearly stated as far-left, left, center, right, or far-right. The CCP is communism, marxist-leninism, etc. Marxism is undeniably far-left idealogically, somehow marxist-leninism isn't far-left (not sure how that works). Anyway, it'd be nice to have the political alignment along the left-right axis documented here. If disagree, please explain why. Thanks. 107.10.129.126 (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Political positions are relative. For example, what constitutes left in the United States is right-wing in many Western European countries. It's difficult to understand how the CPC - the only political organisation in China - can be deemed far-left when it controls the centre ground of politics in China. In the United States, the CPC would surely be far-left, but in China, where the communist party rules? One would have to think of them as the centre and those opposing as far-something. Liberal democrats are probably far-left in China since they want to overturn the system in some form of revolution. Far-right would probably be the nationalist corner and "the capitalists" who want to maintain party rule but replace the Marxist ideology with a capitalist one. TheUzbek (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so does the Chinese Communist Party fall under the category of "big tent"? 107.10.129.126 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous discussions on this matter in the past, and they have all ended without consensus. One argument that I found interesting was that the left-right political spectrum is a Western political construction and you cannot neatly put every political party on it, nor can you generalise parties as "big tent" because that label holds weight as well. In a nutshell though, the non-consensus consensus has been that it's too much trouble to keep it in the infobox and have constantly unfruitful debates as to why it is or isn't correct to label the party "far-left". Yue 🌙 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the "big tent" both does not fit and fits very well! We can see from the Eastern European experience that many former communists suddenly become rightists. We also know from history that many good communists were very nationalist and favoured less spending on welfare, while others were anti-nationalists and supported higher social spending. So, in a sense, a big tent categorisation could be correct. However, the CPC seeks to educate its members in Marxism-Leninism, that is, a specific political value orientation. While history has proven policy and ideological differences are accepted within the realm of this thought system, it also has obvious limits (of course, in this sense, it is no different from liberalism). Policy factions within the CPC could probably be categorised as left or right (as some scholars have indeed tried to do). However, most scholars also admit that these factions (or organised groupings, to be more exact) do not have clear policy platforms. So, while Central Committee member A can, in theory, disagree on policy issues with Xi, before its adoption, if Xi's favoured policy is adopted, Central Committee member A has to accept he lost the battle. Central Committee member A cannot form a policy faction or group with other like-minded members - that would breach democratic centralism and he could be expelled from the Party because of it. So, policy differences exist within the CPC, but there is no organised platform or group that represents them. There are specific individuals, however. If there is any truth to the rumours, there might have been policy differences between Li Keqiang and Xi that could have been divided on a left-centre-right axis. But that is on the individual level.
 * That is, the CPC is not big-tent either. It's simply put a Leninist communist party that bans factionalism. TheUzbek (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Leninist communism is universally recognized as far-left idealogy. @Yue is incorrect in stating the left-right spectrum is a Western thing as many Eastern nations have political parties that are categorized on wikipedia per reliable sources as far-left, left wing, center, right wing, or far-right. Political parties in India, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, etc.  It is worth noting that many historical communist leaders in the East studied in the West.  Point being that it is customary to have a major party's idealogical skew in the infobox, but if consensus hasn't been met then consensus hasn't been met. 107.10.129.126 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not my personal opinion and I do not subscribe to that view. I was not a participant in the previous discussions, I am simply answering your question: "[Why is there] no mention of far-left?" Yue 🌙 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @107.10.129.126 But that was in multi-party systems. China is not a multi-party system. Communism is not treated as far-left everywhere either. Portugal and France comes to mind. TheUzbek (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For wikipedia articles, does the label of political position necessarily have to be relative? Communist parties in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos are all labelled far-left for their respective articles. Are they all ideologically dogmatic enough, in party doctrine, to warrant a designated political position moreso than the CCP? RedStorm1368 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “Political compass” descriptions tend to be problematic across Wikipedia and lead to frequent edit wars and contestation. This is true even in characterizing politicians in Western democratic systems.
 * The overall problem is that “left right” are relative terms that say more about the speaker’s position, or their time and place, than they provide specific information. They are not very useful to an encyclopedia project.
 * The Democratic Party of the United States is described in American sources as a left political party. This does not make sense in a global political context, but in the American context it is indeed a fair characterization, as it is the leftmost party which can wield power.
 * Within the Chinese political context, left-right is even more imprecise. Can the CPC be far left if it criticizes “left errors”? Where does that leave further “left” political projects like Shengwulian? How does that square with changing policies of the CPC over time, or ideological contributions like the Three Represents?
 * As a relative term, left-right really tells the reader how the writer thinks they should think about the subject. All political labels and characterizations involve some amount of contestation. It is better to use more concrete labels with less disagreement in their meaning. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

China’s far left died in October 1976, when the armed forces backed a coup d’etat against the Gang of Four. The remaining leftist wing was further purged in the early 1980s (Chen Xilian! Wu De, Chen Yonggui! Et al). So, ‘in the contemporary context of Chinese politics’ it is no longer accurately described as “left” or “far left.” DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't even understand what you mean by this. Deng, Jiang and Hu were all communists. The reform debate ongoing in China which Deng & co pursued had already started twenty years earlier in the Eastern Bloc, and Yugoslavia led the way. And Deng began to lead the way. That is why Yugoslav-Chinese relations were so close in the 1980s. TheUzbek (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct: you do not understand Chinese politics. 20 years prior to the death of Mao was the first major period of collectivization, followed by communization, the Great Leap Forward, and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Compare that to Deng Xiaoping & Co and you might just find that the Left/Right structure doesn't work very well. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is completely fair to categorize the CCP as far-left idealogically. This is a hot button issue, though, so gaining consensus will likely be an uphill battle. 74.132.113.19 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed 107.10.129.126 (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2024
Change the title to Communist Party of China, which is the official name of the party.

Only the PLA is the armed wing of the party. The PAP and the militia may support the ground forces but they are not the armed wing of the PLA 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:407C:3D9E:6D54:489 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ The article will not be renamed; this has been repeatedly discussed and is explained in the FAQ above. The PAP are still under CMC command. Please gain consensus for this change first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You refuse to give any reason. So says which authority that it will not be renamed? Certainly not any real guidelines which show organizations need to have their official name and not some invented one. How about reaching the non-existed consensus before using a false name? it is obvious by the requests here that this name doesn't pass a "consensus" validation. In such cases it should revert to the real and official name. 200.127.211.12 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024
Change the title to the Communist Party of China which is the official name of the party. 158.223.122.211 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This page is locked specifically because of this request which has been made various times. There must be a consensus formed before a contentious topic can be retitled. Review WP:PCM (forming consensus before page moves) and WP:COMMONNAME (the main reason why the page hasn't been moved).
 * Yet you refuse to discuss it, thus deliberately preventing "consensus", even though there is several requests specifically and nobody giving a valid reason why it shouldn't be so. 200.127.211.12 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you don't care about site guidelines, you want to argue past them. That's not going to interest anyone, we do not care about standards imposed from the outside: we operate based on consensus, and our guidelines are essentially canned consensus. Make points based on reliable sources that reflect content policies, or no one's going to feel you're respecting our time. Remsense  诉  01:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

False name
Change the title to the Communist Party of China which is the official name of the party. Actually this current fake name is a flex of force by western hegemony; and I am not pro-CPC, but imagine that the wikipedia name of the democrat party would be "The Donkeys" because some people arbitrarily consider it so. "Communist Party of China" is not the same as "Chinese Communist Party". First off, the second name is the standard of almost all legacy communist parties, such as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and not "Soviwet Communist Party". Second off, "Chinese Communist Party" is meant to be derogatory, as it implies the party is only by and for the "Chinese" ethnic, when its actually made for the China country which is not meant as single-ethnicity but multi-ethnic. 200.127.211.12 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME. Names are arbitrary, yes. That's life. Remsense  诉  01:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your link redirects to the official name of Progressive Party (United States, 1912–1920), argument is invalid. Also, I find that the "move discussions" are completely biased and not NPOV, editors openly admitted they wanted a "pejorative name", the whole effort is led by a user known as Ronald Reagan 007 (sounds totally encyclopedic I guess). I have removed the close tags as the previous two instances are just a repeated formula and they have not been closed, whereas I present actual arguments? My note is not even a request, its a discussion. That's what talk pages are for, right. Don't be like the CPC and stifle speech just because you disagree. I am presenting reasons for open talk. 200.127.211.12 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just started a move request, and I promise the page will be moved, since "Bull Moose Party" is the common name. Local consensus of editors doing the right thing for stupid reasons doesn't matter.
 * If you're not interested in engaging with WP:COMMONNAME, then there's simply nothing left to discuss. We use common names on Wikipedia. Present some case that your preferred version is the common name in English. If you don't, this will be my final reply. Remsense  诉  01:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. For example, the page was named Chinese Communist Party since being created to 2020, for over a decade, with little controversy. Then, a few editors trashed this by like 4 votes before anyone else could react, and closing the poll prematurely against policy before there could be a true consensus, as discussed in this Wikipedia page. You can't promise something that didn't happen, furthermore. As it stands, the page you liked disproves your point about this being the standard in Wikipedia. Not only that, but several pages have been changed or regularly feature technical but non-common names, including chemicals (as to avoid brand names), medications, street drugs, and others. For example, we have Cannabis_(drug) and not "weed", even though I am rather certain than "weed" is extremely more common in "google rank" (including when excluding every page about actual unwanted "weeds"). The change of name here was obviously (and openly, as it shows in some of the rematches) politically motivated. The old name was neither controversial nor confusing, besides not only being correct but also a more accurate translation (Zhongguo is China as a country, not directly linked to "chinese" as in Han people which have different ideograms and pronunciation). In fact Zhongguo Ren 中国人 (people of China) is used for non-Han people which English speakers don't consider "ethnically" chinese (such as Tibetans, Mongolians, etc). So it "Chinese Communist Party" is not only wrong, it is wrong on several levels and axis: It is not a real name, it is not a correct translation, it is not a neutral word but is politically and ideologically charged, it was not adopted in a procedurally correct manner, it was imposed without real consensus, and it is not in the interests of Wikipedia as the issue will keep popping up. 200.127.211.12 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

armed wing
Only the PLA is the armed wing of the communist party go china. The CPC Constitution explicitly states that the Communist Party of China upholds absolute leadershipover the PLA and other people’s armed forces(but that doesn't mean those units are the armed wing of the party).

The PAP and militia provide support to the PLA during wartime and emergencies, but they are not the core armed wings of the CCP. 158.223.166.84 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Source? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was the label "Chinese Nationalism" removed?
I remember "Chinese Nationalism" was once listed as one of the party's component ideologies. It was then removed and changed to "Socialist Patriotism" and now that, too, is gone. What gives? RedStorm1368 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder why this is removed from infobox. The CCP's opposition to the Taiwanese independence movement itself doesn't matter, but the problem is that they use excessively Chinese racial/ethnic nationalistic rhetoric, and use of forceful threats to oppose Taiwanese nationalism is widely accepted not only by DPP supporters but even by KMT supporters. "Nationalism" is included in the infobox of the Communist Party of Cuba and Vietnamese Communist Party articles. Communism and nationalism are not contradictory ideologies. It is clear that the CCP is a Chinese nationalist party, with some sources even describing it as "ultranationalist". They are willing to make Taiwan a second Ukraine. Real non-nationalists like the Socialist Unity Party of Germany were not obsessed with reunification based on ethnic identity, and even saw West and East Germany as individual nations. ProKMT (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this is a heavily opinionated take, which is not befitting of an international encyclopedia for this article. Specifically, your idea that they want to “make Taiwan a second Ukraine”, is influenced by Eurocentric (Germany..) views of geopolitics, and it fails to take into account other factors at play, such as the history of the Chinese Civil War fought between the Communists— now the mainland PRC— and the Nationalists, who fled to Taiwan and remain the governing body of the ROC. Furthermore, to disparage China for “nationalism” in wanting to control Taiwan, would deleteriously shift focus away from American/allied paternalism, protectionism, and Western imperialism in Asia, and it would undermine China’s western reputation (the obvious goal).
 * I say this all as a concerned white American citizen, who is sincerely tired of death and war and global unrest, of which I see my country as the foremost contributor. Call me a wumao if you think I don’t hate China enough. I’ll show you my passport. Han75 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a forum, y'all. It would be a lot more fruitful if we stayed focused on what the article should say and why rather than pondering the Ukraine Cinematic Universe or photographing sensitive documents to prove whiteness. Remsense  诉  07:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing is clear, the CCP is a [Chinese] nationalist. It's even from the source in the article and there's no good reason to be removed from infobox alone. ProKMT (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the CCP as presently constituted is heavily committed to its evolving form of teleological nationalism. Remsense  诉  09:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not jut presently always, that was one of the interesting parts about the Chinese civil war... Both sides were Chinese Nationalists, just different flavors. It wasn't nationalists vs communists, it was right nationalists vs left nationalists. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If anyone can cite a government that is not "nationalist," please do so. Otherwise, this is all just propaganda. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not far left
Is a mix of neoliberalism and ultra nationalism Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * source? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Chinese Wikipedia, "Neoauthoritarianism" (新权威主义) is mentioned in the information box of the Chinese Communist Party article. CCP is not the usual far-left or Marxist-Leninist party. ProKMT (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The term has very descriptive value in itself, and what it does doesn't really seem mutually exclusive with the almost-as-vague "far left". Remsense  诉  07:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In Taiwan, pro-Beijing political parties or organizations are usually far-right. In Hong Kong, pro-Beijing political parties and organizations range from centre-right to far-right. According to the traditional left-right spectrum distinction, the CCP stands for social orders and hierarchy and advocates traditional values related to Confucianism, which is what the English Wikipedia defines as Right-wing politics. Chinese Wikipedia refers to the political position of the CCP as the third position (第三位置) which is also inaccurate given the PRC's de facto adoption of authoritarian capitalism. Not many sources describe the current CCP as "far-left". CCP is more of a far-right political party. ProKMT (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly because I think the left–right spectrum is pretty unhelpful beyond the broadest strokes of analysis. Remsense  诉  09:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Left-Right political descriptors are usually unhelpful as they are so time-specific and specific to national contexts. I recommend avoiding where we can, especially for non-Western contexts. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is productive for us to rehash a debate that has been had on this talk page a few times now. Bottom line is analyses and opinions are attributed to their authors in the article body and generally not placed in infoboxes unless it is proven through the citation of multiple reliable sources that it is the generally accepted point of view.
 * It is also clear to me that the original discussion starter is not here to build an encyclopedia but start fires wherever they can. Yue 🌙 20:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: The attribution of third position is quite controversial in the Chinese Wikipedia. The tag was previously added for a long time and removed for a long time, but was recently added again without proper discussion, and removed again by me. Several previous discussions have considered such attribution to be clearly an original research, and very little, if not none, of the literature refers to it as such. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 04:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

the real name is the CPC
surely this is a deliberate thing seeing as the official name is still listed, but why is the official name not the name of the article? i havent seen or even heard of anything similar to this on any other wikipedia article so why is this one different? imagine if the page on the "united states of america" was actually titled "united american states" with a note in the header that the title is in fact incorrect and that the actual name is the "united states of america" 203.214.36.148 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's ridiculous. But good luck getting it fixed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should indeed be Communist Party of China/CPC. Both this and the CCP abbreviation are common usage, but CPC has the advantage of being correct (even CCP proponents will agree that it is “official” at a minimum), is more consistent with WP:GLOBAL, and avoids confusion with “CCCP”.
 * With that being said, take a look at the archives on Talk, and you will see that it is too soon to re-start a page move discussion. It won’t be productive yet.  JArthur1984 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. It has been discussed to death, and COMMONNAME rules the result. 2. It's the "United States" for now, so not so strong a point for me. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the efforts of a certain user whom I will not name (though it should be fairly obvious who I am referring to) who has been changing every instance of "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party" and "CPC" to "CCP" on an industrial scale to legitimise the claims that the latter is more common. 142.117.70.0 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, while I disagree with the consensus and the policy it is based on, you are flat out wrong with your conspiracy mongering. "Chinese Communist Party" has been the more common name in English literature since the inception of the party. The editor you are referring to made the changes after the community established the consensus; the editor did not make the changes and then push for a community consensus in their favour. The editor was performing technical cleanup, and it would be clear to anyone who checks that editor's history for more than a few minutes that their thing is technical cleanup, not editing political articles (perhaps, unlike myself). WP:COMMONNAME is based on coverage by reliable sources, not across Wikipedia itself. Keep your conspiracies outside of Wikipedia. Yue 🌙 00:47, 19 April 2024 (

In what way is the CCP not a far-right party?
• 🇹🇼 - Nationalist China (Republican): right-wing

• 🇨🇳 - Communist China (Maoist): far-left

• 🇨🇳 - Communist China (Reformist): right-wing

• 🇨🇳 - Nationalist China (Xi): far-right

• 🇹🇼 - White Terror (Chiang Kai-shek): far-right

• 🇹🇼 - Democratic Taiwan: left-liberal

China ceased being far-leftist since 1978 (Reform and Opening Up). China became a right-wing dictatorship the moment the PLA opened fire on the students at Tiananmen Square (Shanghai Massacre 2.0). Today, China under Xi is a far-right dictatorship (White Terror 2.0).

https://www.reddit.com/r/tankiejerk/comments/1cotykq/china_wings/#lightbox

I mean, if the Worker’s Party of Korea could be described as far-right, what’s stopping the CCP from being assigned the same label?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Korea Watermizu6576 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The policy-based answer to your question is because you need to cite reliable sources for your claims; your original analyses are irrelevant because you are not an expert.
 * I also find it odd that you made your account and comment shortly after an IP changed the WPK's position to far-right again despite multiple discussions in the community on the matter. Your implicit suggestion that the WPK has been described as far-right on Wikipedia for a while is untrue. Yue 🌙 20:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Take a look at these pro-unification groups from Taiwan:
 * Chinese Unification Promotion Party
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Alliance_Association&wprov=rarw1
 * Both are far-right. In fact, the pro-Beijing camp in Hong Kong are right-wing. Watermizu6576 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you are citing Wikipedia and (presumably) yourself again despite my explanation of the relevant site policies, I am just going to assume you are not here to build an encyclopedia and will disengage from this conversation. Anybody else can feel free to close this very unproductive discussion. Yue 🌙 03:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you are the one who is afraid of having an honest discussion. You also accused me of tampering with the Wiki page of the Worker’s Party of Korea (which you have no evidence of).
 * Face it, the CCP became the very thing they claim to be against: an ultranationalist, hypercapitalist party that has no regard for worker’s rights. That sounds like a fascist party doesn’t it? Watermizu6576 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page - they are not places to hold general discussion of the article subject. MrOllie (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been a consistent POV push by a small number of editors to create or modify pages on Wikipedia so that they seem to indicate, effectively on the basis of a single source, that the CPC is a conservative party and that the opposition parties to it in various places are thus, intrinsically, left-wing. The broadly distributed nature of this POV pushing has made cleanup difficult, to say the least, which is one of many reasons why we don't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and The political positions of the CUPP and PAA in Taiwan do not immediately prove the political positions of the CCP; per WP:SYNTH. In Eastern Europe, left-wing socialist parties based on the communist legacy of the 20th century sometimes stand in solidarity with far-right populist parties. Personally, I also think the CCP is a far-right political party, but since this is controversial, it's better not to add a political position to infobox. ProKMT (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding the label of "far-right" should not be done, but not because it's "controversial", but because nobody has yet offered a single reliable source to back up this claim. The content featured on Wikipedia is not dependent on debates over editors' opinions, but debates over editors' usage and interpretation of reliable sources. This is a fundamental distinction that new editors often misunderstand because they think consensus building is based solely on arguments and votes rather than references to policy. If every source considered reliable by Wikipedia screamed that the CCP was far-right, then those opposed to that change would have a huge mountain to climb. This, however, is not the case.
 * It is incredibly frustrating to see multiple new editors gloss over and then ignore policy just to constantly rehash old discussions about fringe opinions, especially their own fringe opinions. People will often find that what they think is obvious or "the truth" about something as complex as politics is not as universally held as they might have initially thought, especially after they venture outside of whatever secluded space online or otherwise that they manifest them in. Yue 🌙 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why it's very important that sources are relevant to the content they refer to. If a source is being used in a way that is unsupported, that fails verification, then the source is being used incorrectly. @ProKMT please be more alert to this going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion is a waste of everyone's time. You come in as a new user and the first thing you do is make a suggestion by citing reddit and Wikipedia. This is not a forum, this is not the town square, this is not reddit; nobody who's serious about this WikiProject is interested in "having an honest discussion", what matters on Wikipedia is if you have reliable sources to back up your claims and if you do, what suggestions or edits are you making with those sources.
 * Outside of Wikipedia I often have these discussions and I don't even disagree with some of the analyses offered here, but this is not a discussion board and Wikipedia's content isn't determined by the opinions of its editors. Please review the basic site guidelines like WP:RS and WP:OR before making another comment or suggestion, or find another website, like reddit, to dump your commentary in. Yue 🌙 05:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

May 4 movement
This is not a controversial statement and per WP:XINHUA the source is not deprecated. Why remove it? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Here are several supporting sources:
 * UK national archives
 * Britannica
 * Columbia University Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's your article talk. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Those sources do not exactly back up the statement in question. Probably best to find academic WP:BESTSOURCES to actually back it up. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is something bordering on WP:SKYBLUE that the CPC arose out of this movement. I gave you three sources supporting Xinhua which, as I said, is not a deprecated source and can be used for uncontroversial statements you need a better reason to exclude than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No one said WP:XINHUA is deprecated. If you read the guidance, it clearly says, "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately." - Amigao (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What dispassion is needed here? It's a flat historical fact, well cited to other sources, that the CPC was one of the groups that came out of the May 4 movement. If it were claiming that the CPC founded the May 4 movement or that other groups did not then you might have a point. But that's not what you removed. And to claim that the sources I gave are insufficient too? You are literally just occluding a well accepted piece of historical information for no apparent reason beyond disliking the source that was there. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS continues to apply here and very much to the statement in question. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave you four sources including Xinhua and your response was just "nah I don't like them". Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't back up the actual statement in question. Let's find WP:BESTSOURCES which do. - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain how. Because your assertions are incredibly vague and hand-waving beyond just asking me to spend more time satisfying you that what? That the May 4 movement existed? That it included communists and anarchists? That the CPC traces its origin there? I honestly don't understand the locus of your objection beyond your obvious distaste for the source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about stating that the CCP itself traces its own origins to the May 4th movement. Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself? The question being discussed above is about whether this is true, or not, which is an entirely different issue. Moreover, the concept of "tracing origins" has no hard and fast definition; it is merely indicating that prior events had an influence on later events. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Any reliable secondary source whatsoever. As we're an encyclopedia, we generally don't prefer primary sources to support claims about a subject in any case.
 * I think it's an easily verifiable claim, and we can easily do better than Xinhua for it. Remsense  诉  05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I provided three other sources and Amigao rejected them out of hand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I provided three other sources and Amigao rejected them out of hand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the question was "did the CCP arise out of the May 4th Movement," then the issue of credibility of the source is of paramount importance. Thankfully, that is not the question here. Rather (now, pay attention here: this is important) the actual question is "Does the CCP claim that it traces its origins to the May 4th Movement?" . . . see the difference? Discuss. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a pretty good source:

"Mao Tse-Tung on Literature and Art":

“If we trace China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution back to its formative period, we see that it has passed through a number of stages in its development: the Opium War, the War of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, the Reform Movement of 1898, the Yi Ho Tuan Movement [Boxer Rebellion], the Revolution of 1911, the May 4th Movement, the Northern Expedition, and the War of the Agrarian Revolution. (p. 52)

Footnote 8 (p. 57): “The War of the Agrarian Revolution was the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people waged under the leadership of the Communist Party from 1927 to 1937 ..”

< https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.467258/page/n65/mode/1up?q=May+4th&view=theater>

More?

“It must also be noted that many of the prominent leftist intellectuals such as Ch’en Tu-hsiu and Li Ta-chao did not swing strongly in this [anti-capitalist] direction until after the middle of the May Fourth period.” (p. 216)

Chow Tse-tsung, "The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China" 

Still not convinced?

"From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolutin: Guo Moruo and the Chinese path to Communism," < https://archive.org/details/frommayfourthmov0000chen>

DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We're now at six sources supporting the statement previously cited to Xinhua. Is this enough yet? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That statement was replaced and expanded upon with a more accurate paragraph with academic WP:BESTSOURCES days ago. This is a WP:DEADHORSE situation. - Amigao (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why continue encouraging a Perjorative Label?
An encyclopedia should be based on official names throughout an article, not perjoratives. This article is about the CPC. Even if folks in the West commonly use CCP instead (a negative stereotype, possibly to associate it to Soviet communism), it should not be a base noun of this article, as it indicates bias.

Analogously, in the past, Japan was referred to as "Jap-Land", as a sign of disrespect, in some quadrants. But I would never expect to see an article on Japan to use the label "Jap-Land" further promoting it's widespread use, instead of the correct term, through out the reference article. 163.120.113.248 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article refer to the party as "CCP" and why is the title of the article "Chinese Communist Party"?
The party is known officially as "Communist Party of China" or "CPC", so it is curious why the article utilises a name more commonly associated with propaganda against it (people saying CCP often spell it that way to draw resemblance to CCCP, the Soviet Union, or to delegitimize the party in general). Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and neutral. Eduluzsci (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ming before
 * Years ago, the page used to have the correct “CPC” formulation. This is a discussion that recurs over time and is too soon to have again though. Take a look at the page archives to see how it has developed in the past. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Or, to put another spin on it, the name in Chinese is the "China/Chinese Communist Party," with the country name coming before "Communist Party." DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)